[spacefreak]

Originally posted by Logic:
So not only did you not listen but you refuse to read the excerpts I posted above.......

How should he in two minutes go into more detail?

Your excerpts tell me nothing other than Kerry has taken Bush's plan, and will do better at it.

Even if Kerry had 60 minutes to describe his plan, he'd falter, because his plan is no different than Bush's. He'll just do "better".

[itai195]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Your excerpts tell me nothing other than Kerry has taken Bush's plan, and will do better at it.

And yet Bush said this: "And so I -- the plan he talks about simply won't work."

[dcolton]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Your excerpts tell me nothing other than Kerry has taken Bush's plan, and will do better at it.

Even if Kerry had 60 minutes to describe his plan, he'd falter, because his plan is no different than Bush's. He'll just do "better".

No to mention, two minutes is a long time, especially when you have time to prepare for an obvious question. He should be able to get each of his points across in 30 seconds.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by itai195:
The fact of the matter is both plans are essentially the same. So I want to know why Bush thinks Kerry's plan won't work, and I think it's also fair to ask why Kerry thinks he can do better (though in respect to getting more international assistance, it's pretty obvious why).

Bush's annoyance with Kerry's (Bush) plan is that Kerry has spent the last year calling out allies names, calling Allawi and other courageous, hardworking Iraqi officials "puppets", saying it's the wrong war in the wrong place, etc.

Bush has stated, and I believe, that constantly sending out these negative and mixed messages ultimately hurts the effectiveness of the plan. It hurts troop moral, gives the insurgents hope and motivation, and creates skepticism among the Iraqi people as to our committment and goals.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by itai195:
And yet Bush said this: "And so I -- the plan he talks about simply won't work."

Yup - not when Kerry's calling our allies names, hurting troop moral, motivating insurgents, etc. The plan will not work then.

[Logic]

Now you claim you know all about his plan?

What it comes down to(it seems) is that you simply don't agree with his plan. Not that he didn't tell people what the plan was like you originally said.

But you still haven't shown us where Bush described his plan in the debate last night.

[LoganCharles]

Originally posted by Logic:
Now you claim you know all about his plan?

What it comes down to(it seems) is that you simply don't agree with his plan. Not that he didn't tell people what the plan was like you originally said.

But you still haven't shown us where Bush described his plan in the debate last night.

So when was the last time you got some sunshine?

[Logic]

Originally posted by LoganCharles:
So when was the last time you got some sunshine?

I live on Iceland, it's summer(or was summer until recently), you do the math.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by Logic:
Now you claim you know all about his plan?

What it comes down to(it seems) is that you simply don't agree with his plan. Not that he didn't tell people what the plan was like you originally said.

But you still haven't shown us where Bush described his plan in the debate last night.

Bush's plan has been being implemented for the past 3 years. After hundreds of speeches and conferences over that time, how much more of his plan do we need to know?

As for the rest of your spiel, your grasping for something that's not there. My conclusion was that Kerry did not detail his plan, and what he did briefly gloss over are things Bush and the US is already doing (like training Iraqis, getting more $$$ for reconstruction, etc.). But Kerry would do it "better". How? What's his plan to do it better?

And, of course, he'll get our allies to give more after constantly calling them "the coerced and the bribed".

[zigzag]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Your excerpts tell me nothing other than Kerry has taken Bush's plan, and will do better at it.

Even if Kerry had 60 minutes to describe his plan, he'd falter, because his plan is no different than Bush's. He'll just do "better".

Well, which is it? Contrary to what you've been saying, he's articulated a plan. Now you're dissatisfied because it's the same plan as Bush's? Why don't you criticize Bush, then, for failing to have an adequate plan? When I asked you what Bush's plan was, all you could offer was "Keep fighting, whether it takes six months or six years." Well, that's a plan but it doesn't address any of the specific problems we're facing.

Let's face it, at this point plans for Iraq are nothing more than goals and outlines. Neither candidate knows where things are going. It comes down to who can do a more effective job of dealing with it, and on that we can legitimately disagree, even though I have trouble understanding why some people have confidence in this administration's abilities.

Edit: I would add that it looks to me as though Bush has, by necessity, done more co-opting of Kerry's ideas than the other way around. Unfortunately it may be too little, too late.

As for Kerry demoralizing the troops, I suspect that it's not as clear-cut as we might think:

"Last night about 40 minutes into the debate my son, a paratrooper with the 82nd Airborne, called from his barracks room. He let me know Kerry had just earned 5 votes from him and 4 other troops watching the debate in his room. He got back from Iraq in April. He was at a FOB just south of Fallujah when he was there."

http://www.andrewsullivan.com/

[zigzag]

dp

[Logic]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Bush's plan has been being implemented for the past 3 years. After hundreds of speeches and conferences over that time, how much more of his plan do we need to know?

As for the rest of your spiel, your grasping for something that's not there. My conclusion was that Kerry did not detail his plan, and what he did briefly gloss over are things Bush and the US is already doing (like training Iraqis, getting more $$$ for reconstruction, etc.). But Kerry would do it "better". How? What's his plan to do it better?

And, of course, he'll get our allies to give more after constantly calling them "the coerced and the bribed".

So Bush will invade two more countries(Syria and Iran?), get the US into even more dept, have another large scale terrorist attack inside the US, get another "great" coalition consisting of Iceland, Palau and Micronesia, get the US even less popular in the world and even less respected in the international community and finally hold, what three press conferences(scripted of course) in the next 4 years .

Great plan

You still haven't detailed how Kerry was supposed to detail his plan better in the two minutes he had. Care to elaborate on how he should have done that?

And if Bush didn't need to tell us(you USAmericans) what was his role in the debate last night?

[xi_hyperon]

Originally posted by Logic:
So Bush will invade two more countries(Syria and Iran?), get the US into even more dept, have another large scale terrorist attack inside the US, get another "great" coalition consisting of Iceland, Palau and Micronesia, get the US even less popular in the world and even less respected in the international community and finally hold, what three press conferences(scripted of course) in the next 4 years .

But what about Poland?

[Logic]

Originally posted by xi_hyperon:
But what about Poland?

[Jansar]

Originally posted by Solomon Grundy:
I would love to see some examples from the transcripts supporting these positions.

What transcripts? If I were to refer anyone to anything, it would be to Thomas Paine's book "Common Sense."

Originally posted by KarlG:
LOL!

Have to hand it to you, eBuddy. Not many people, especially around here, will deviate from their blind allegiance.

I don't support stupid candidates who could potentially screw up our nation and also potentially be the worst president ever to grace the Oval Office (if elected). Duh. I don't "flip-flop" like your candidate does.

[Xeo]

Originally posted by Jansar:
What transcripts? If I were to refer anyone to anything, it would be to Thomas Paine's book "Common Sense."

He wants you to provide quotes from this transcript backing up your ridiculous claims. It's really not that hard to grasp. Make accusations, provide proof to back them up. It's how yours and my legal system works. Get used to it.

[Jansar]

Originally posted by Xeo:
He wants you to provide quotes from this transcript backing up your ridiculous claims. It's really not that hard to grasp. Make accusations, provide proof to back them up. It's how yours and my legal system works. Get used to it.

Here's the only valid legal system in these forums. Get used to it.

[Mrjinglesusa]

Originally posted by Logic:
So Bush will invade two more countries(Syria and Iran?), get the US into even more dept, have another large scale terrorist attack inside the US, get another "great" coalition consisting of Iceland, Palau and Micronesia, get the US even less popular in the world and even less respected in the international community and finally hold, what three press conferences(scripted of course) in the next 4 years .

Great plan

You still haven't detailed how Kerry was supposed to detail his plan better in the two minutes he had. Care to elaborate on how he should have done that?

And if Bush didn't need to tell us(you USAmericans) what was his role in the debate last night?

That about sums it up. The fact is Bush never had a "plan". Still doesn't. I know it has been rehashed a thousand times, but Saddam was not responsible for Sept. 11. How was taking him out helping the "War on Terror?" Was he a bad man? Yes. EVERYONE agrees about that. But Bush saying that invading Iraq and taking out Saddam was about the War on Terror is ********. If Bush had a plan to begin with we wouldn't be losing American soldiers EVERYDAY since the war "ended." Kerry says he can do better. I don't think that's much of a stretch because things can't get any worse over there.

[Xeo]

Originally posted by Jansar:
Here's the only valid legal system in these forums. Get used to it.

Pathetic. You made specific claims about what happened but expect us to use "common sense" to figure out which parts of the speech you're referring to. We aren't interested in your little scavenger hunt game. So either show us the quotes that relate specifically to your accusations or shut up.

[kido]

Originally posted by Mrjinglesusa:
That about sums it up. The fact is Bush never had a "plan". Still doesn't. I know it has been rehashed a thousand times, but Saddam was not responsible for Sept. 11. How was taking him out helping the "War on Terror?" Was he a bad man? Yes. EVERYONE agrees about that. But Bush saying that invading Iraq and taking out Saddam was about the War on Terror is ********. If Bush had a plan to begin with we wouldn't be losing American soldiers EVERYDAY since the war "ended." Kerry says he can do better. I don't think that's much of a stretch because things can't get any worse over there.

I posted this in the Presidential Election thread, but it seems relevant here as well. I think people must decide for themselves what the best way to win the WOT is - attack the terrorists or attack the ideology.

Iraq is central to the WOT because President Bush's plan is to change the dynamic of life for young men in the Middle East. People understand when urban renewal knocks down burned out or abandoned buildings while also arresting criminals, drug dealers, and prostitutes in a rundown area, in order to allow for better conditions for more socially beneficial trends to take root. Iraq is the same idea done on a national scale. Is this the right thing to do? I dunno. It may very well be, but we will not know for a few years. Several people the WOT should be run like a posse, with a singular focus on getting OBL and his cohorts. But as you mentioned, even if we get him, there will be dozens wanting to take his place unless we can make the Middle East a place where people are respected for the way they live, not the way they die.

kido

[Jansar]

Originally posted by Xeo:
Pathetic. You made specific claims about what happened but expect us to use "common sense" to figure out which parts of the speech you're referring to. We aren't interested in your little scavenger hunt game. So either show us the quotes that relate specifically to your accusations or shut up.

I don't have the time and patience to look up quotes, and honestly I don't care. However, if you saw and listened to the debate, you would understand. I don't fart around on the forums all day, and I have REAL work to do otherwise, so all I can say is I know that I'm right. All you people do is deny, deny, deny, but fail to realize the truth. The truth hurts, and the only way you guys compensate for that is lashing out at the people who don't support you (in this case, your candidate). If you're the typical so-called "Kerry fanboy" even if Kerry is 100% wrong (which he almost is) you'll still support him. Even if he announces the return of Communism, you would still support him. I'm very surprised I'm actually dealing with people who are apparently much older than me.

[slimshady023]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
Quit sniveling. Quit leaning over the podium. Quit murmering; uh, uh, uh, mmmm, uh...Quit repeating yourself when the tone of the question has changed, change with it. Quit assuming people know your stance on the issues and give us INFORMATION.

I'm eating crow this morning and am man enough to admit it.

You're absolutely right. The first thing that was taught in speech class was not to use the podium as a crutch, and stand up straight. From a strictly debating point of view, you're assessments are right on target.

And for speaking up and having the balls to come out and admit it, you certainly have earned my respect.

Later on!
- Slim

[itai195]

Originally posted by kido:
I posted this in the Presidential Election thread, but it seems relevant here as well. I think people must decide for themselves what the best way to win the WOT is - attack the terrorists or attack the ideology.

kido -- my response to what you posted is basically that there are ways to do that OTHER than war. Iraq isn't the entire middle east, if we wanted to change the 'dynamic of life' we could've done it throughout other countries in the middle east using other means. Many Arabs dislike us because we haven't taken charge in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and because we support various undemocratic regimes throughout the region. They want us to take our hands OFF so that they can be free, not to put our hands into everything and force them to accept freedom on our terms.

I'm not opposed to the concept of the WoT, war was necessary in Afghanistan. But what I oppose is Bush's policy based almost only war and not goodwill, which Kerry aptly pointed out last night. We can't pursue a policy that will have us fighting wars all over the middle east for decades... The Coolidge and Hoover administrations came to the same realization in relation to Central and South America in the 20s/30s. They were faced with the prospect of impending large-scale war with our neighbors if we continued our policies, and their preemptive strategy was the Good Neighbor Policy.

[Solomon Grundy]

Originally posted by Jansar:
I don't have the time and patience to look up quotes, and honestly I don't care. However, if you saw and listened to the debate, you would understand. I don't fart around on the forums all day, and I have REAL work to do otherwise, so all I can say is I know that I'm right. All you people do is deny, deny, deny, but fail to realize the truth. The truth hurts, and the only way you guys compensate for that is lashing out at the people who don't support you (in this case, your candidate). If you're the typical so-called "Kerry fanboy" even if Kerry is 100% wrong (which he almost is) you'll still support him. Even if he announces the return of Communism, you would still support him. I'm very surprised I'm actually dealing with people who are apparently much older than me.

Nice way to evade a simple question. Support your claims with actual quotes or shut the hell up, you have nothing to contribute.

[kido]

Originally posted by itai195:
kido -- my response to what you posted is basically that there are ways to do that OTHER than war. Iraq isn't the entire middle east, if we wanted to change the 'dynamic of life' we could've done it throughout other countries in the middle east using other means. Many Arabs dislike us because we haven't taken charge in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and because we support various undemocratic regimes throughout the region. They want us to take our hands OFF so that they can be free, not to put our hands into everything and force them to accept freedom on our terms.

We are trying to support two democratic regimes in the Middle East to see how that works. My main point is that there is no manual on how to defeat terrorism or fix the problems in the Middle East. President Bush made a choice on how to proceed and his choice is not wrong any more than Senator Kerry's is right because only time will tell. But the goal of defeating the ideology set by President Bush is a good one.

I'm not opposed to the concept of the WoT, war was necessary in Afghanistan. But what I oppose is Bush's policy based almost only war and not goodwill, which Kerry aptly pointed out last night. We can't pursue a policy that will have us fighting wars all over the middle east for decades... The Coolidge and Hoover administrations came to the same realization in relation to Central and South America in the 20s/30s. They were faced with the prospect of impending large-scale war with our neighbors if we continued our policies, and their preemptive strategy was the Good Neighbor Policy.

Most of the money spent on the WOT has not been for bullets or bombs. Much has been on reconstruction and aid. Goodwill is best applied when there is no tyranny in place to intercept and profit from it. The Iraqi people "elected" Saddam Hussein as president with 100% of the vote, so whatever process they had going on over there was tightly controlled by him. Anyway, we should all hope that Senator Kerry with his new "Good Neighbor" policy will make as good a president as Hoover.

kido

[itai195]

Originally posted by kido:
Most of the money spent on the WOT has not been for bullets or bombs. Much has been on reconstruction and aid.

So we're going to earn good will by being nice enough to rebuild stuff after we blow it up? Great!

Anyway, we should all hope that Senator Kerry with his new "Good Neighbor" policy will make as good a president as Hoover.

LOL, one of the few things Hoover got right.

[OldManMac]

Originally posted by LoganCharles:
So when was the last time you got some sunshine?

So when was the last time you contributed anything to these boards, other than your typical one sentence attacks?

[LoganCharles]

Originally posted by KarlG:
So when was the last time you contributed anything to these boards, other than your typical one sentence attacks?

I've contributed plenty of good points. You've just chosen to not read them or disregard them because of your partisian views. I accept that you have nothing to offer yourself.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by itai195:
eBuddy, I think that's an honest assessment and thank you for it. I'm not sure how much sway the debate will have, and I respect people who just disagree with Kerry's policy. But he did a great job last night at defending his character and finally taking charge and putting the president on the defensive.

Ha. That reminds me of those who say the President won the debates of 2000 because of lowered expectations going in.

When he didn't 'fall on his face' it was a surprise to many who expected disaster and thus they said his performance was BRILLIANT!

(The President is no bumbling fool. BTW, he was out all day in Hurricane ravaged Florida, seeing for himself the extent of the Floridians' misery and bringing whatever comfort to them simply by being there. What's more, he ordered no photo ops and tried to discourage any press coverage of his activities. His campaign people advised him to rest before the debates but he refused.
I wonder if he was a bit tired after all that.)

Well, the Kerry camp may be delighted at the Senator's performance in the debate simply because he FINALLY looked like he had a clue.

But that still didn't keep him from flip flopping several times DURING the 90 minute debate.

Score one for the President.

[itai195]

You are from another planet, aberdeenwriter. I do believe you could probably see the silver lining on a mushroom cloud. Where did Kerry flip flop during the debate?

Anyway, I do have stronger feelings about the debate than the ones I put in that post, but I was trying to be respectful and demonstrate my appreciation for ebuddy's post.

[Xeo]

Originally posted by Jansar:
I don't have the time and patience to look up quotes, and honestly I don't care. However, if you saw and listened to the debate, you would understand. I don't fart around on the forums all day, and I have REAL work to do otherwise, so all I can say is I know that I'm right. All you people do is deny, deny, deny, but fail to realize the truth. The truth hurts, and the only way you guys compensate for that is lashing out at the people who don't support you (in this case, your candidate). If you're the typical so-called "Kerry fanboy" even if Kerry is 100% wrong (which he almost is) you'll still support him. Even if he announces the return of Communism, you would still support him. I'm very surprised I'm actually dealing with people who are apparently much older than me.

There is this nifty thing called the "Find" feature when you have web pages open. You can search for words or phrases. Really amazing!

You took the time to point out a LOT of specific wrongdoings of Kerry's in that speech. You fail to provide quotes where that happens. Tsk tsk. You don't even have to search the web. Search the transcript. It's right there! We're talking about 90 min of text and all you have to do is skip around looking for key words until your points are met. You can post over and over how you are right and we are wrong but you can't take 2 min to back yourself up.

And if you think I'm a Kerry-fanboy, you are sadly mistaken. However, you are clearly the ultimate-anti-Kerry because you believe he's "almost always wrong" and you point out mistakes without showing when he actually made those mistakes. That's perfect.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by Mrjinglesusa:
That about sums it up. The fact is Bush never had a "plan". Still doesn't. I know it has been rehashed a thousand times, but Saddam was not responsible for Sept. 11. How was taking him out helping the "War on Terror?" Was he a bad man? Yes. EVERYONE agrees about that. But Bush saying that invading Iraq and taking out Saddam was about the War on Terror is ********. If Bush had a plan to begin with we wouldn't be losing American soldiers EVERYDAY since the war "ended." Kerry says he can do better. I don't think that's much of a stretch because things can't get any worse over there.

These are re-hashes of posts on the Presidential Debates thread.

In a good book or film, often the BIG ISSUE isn't resolved until the final chapter or scene. So, maybe the time isn't right for the Administration to reveal the details behind Iraq but consider the following:

"In my day I've been involved in a fight or two. When you are engaging your opponent but he has buddies crowded around, you always have to assume they'll jump in to help their friend.

Or, another analogy I've used on these pages is that of the police going in to a drug house to serve a warrant. The bad guy who lives in the house has a guard dog.

Before the cops go in, they (wisely) take care of the guard dog FIRST.

In the ME there was no bigger badder mad dog than Saddam. He was neutralized and the actions in Afghanistan go on without greater danger from without."

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by zigzag:
Well, which is it? Contrary to what you've been saying, he's articulated a plan. Now you're dissatisfied because it's the same plan as Bush's? Why don't you criticize Bush, then, for failing to have an adequate plan?

Kerry states that he has a plan do better than Bush. That's the plan I wanted to hear... the plan on how he's going to do better. He's going to do a better job of training Iraqis. Bush is already training Iraqis. What's Kerry's plan to do it better?

[mr. natural]

Posted by spacefreak:

Bush has stated, and I believe, that constantly sending out these negative and mixed messages ultimately hurts the effectiveness of the plan. It hurts troop moral, gives the insurgents hope and motivation, and creates skepticism among the Iraqi people as to our committment and goals.

LOL!

Let's examine the specific concern of "troop moral."

If I were a grunt in Iraq whose ass was on the line everyday, I'd want my CIC to tell it like it is! It would piss me off mightily that he is painting a totally unrealistic fantasy world picture of peaches and cream in Iraq -- and all for political expediency, or rather: to save his asshole -- while me and my buddies are sweating it out in the real world (with real bullets and life and death consequences) of a FUBAR war for no good god damn reason!

And I think the results are pretty clear from the guys on the front line that this war sucks; Not just because war sucks but because our dummy CIC got us into this lunatic mess, and has no idea how to get us out, but even worse *pretends* it's going swell! (See here and here)

Frankly, spacefreak, what *you believe* about "troop moral" is just another instance of infantile fantasies of a fool who has never had to lay his ass on the line.

As Kerry knows well and said well: "It is vital for us not to confuse the war, ever, with the warriors."

Tragically, thanks to Bush and all you knee-jerk apologists about this colossal error of judgement, your inability to be truthful about the situation in Iraq hurts troop moral much more so than those of us who patriotically question the whole *How Did We Get In This Mess and How Do We Get Out* quagmire.

So check you *troop moral* response at the door because it doesn't cut it anymore.

Nor does much else of this red herring line of reasoning.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by Mrjinglesusa:
That about sums it up. The fact is Bush never had a "plan". Still doesn't. I know it has been rehashed a thousand times, but Saddam was not responsible for Sept. 11. How was taking him out helping the "War on Terror?" Was he a bad man? Yes. EVERYONE agrees about that. But Bush saying that invading Iraq and taking out Saddam was about the War on Terror is ********. If Bush had a plan to begin with we wouldn't be losing American soldiers EVERYDAY since the war "ended." Kerry says he can do better. I don't think that's much of a stretch because things can't get any worse over there.

In the 1990's, outrage over the Rodney King trial verdict resulted in civil insurrection from coast to coast. Rioting, billions of dollars in damages and destruction. Lootings, beatings, fires, injuries and deaths.

Anyone on foreign shores watching the news reports might think the whole country was ablaze, that chaos reigned supreme and that all of Black America supported the madness.

Of course it wasn't true.

But why did the responsible, peace loving (primarily) black population remain silent during those evil days of death and destruction?

They were afraid! It wasn't safe for them to leave their homes. They were afraid to oppose the lawbreakers.

When the authorities restored order, the people emerged from hiding to clean up and rebuild their neighborhoods and businesses...they returned to living their lives.

The violence in Iraq is the work of a small minority of criminals, Saddam loyalists, al Qaeda sympathizers, outsiders and etc.

The majority of Iraqis are fervently waiting for safety and order to be restored so they might do what the people of South Central L.A. as well as those in dozens of other US cities finally did after the Rodney King riots had been quelled.

To get back to living their lives.

The Iraqi rioters have an interest in our losing the will to finish the job of giving the Iraqi people their nation back. So these rioters stay committed to making life there a living hell!

They steal, intimidate, violate their Islamic rules and customs... they destroy. They kill. They terrorize.

And it's only a relatively small number of individuals who are causing all the trouble. Just like only a relatively small number of individuals were involved in the Rodney King insurrections.

The reason it's taking us so long to finish the job of restoring peace and order is precisely because we DO respect human life and we DON'T want to level a whole city block just to wipe out ten rioters. Though we certainly could.
So, with each day we get closer to securing peace and freedom for the good Iraqi people.

But there are some good, peace loving people of the United States, who are so adverse to violence and are so unaccustomed to it and who detest being at all responsible for this continued violence and killing ("in their name") that they have never taken the time to try to understand the politics and strategies of terror and violence.

These good, peace loving people are quickly losing any conviction they might originally have had to do the right thing.

The criminal rioters and al Qaeda (who were responsible for 9/11) understand this VERY well.

They count on the good, peace loving people of the US to lose the will to do the right thing and to demand we halt our actions in Iraq.

Our distaste for violence is part of the rioters' strategy to win.

They believe they can outlast us and spread their strategy of violence and hate to the good, peace loving Iraqi people who are hiding in their homes, hoping and praying to God and Allah (pbuh) that the Americans will not lose their will to do what America is supposed to stand for.

To fight for not only our own freedom, but theirs.

They have good reason to pray, because the voices of the good, peace loving Americans are getting louder. And the more recent examples of America's committment to freedom's fight is a bit tarnished.

But hopefully in November, we'll see that just like the images of violence in the streets of South Central didn't speak for Los Angeles, the voices of the good, peace loving people in America don't speak for anything else but the sounds of a Democracy hard at work.

God Bless America and God Bless President George W. Bush.

[Dakar]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
God Bless America and God Bless President George W. Bush.

Must all speeches and with this damn line?

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by Dakar:
Must all speeches and with this damn line?

Spoiled it for ya, huh?

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by mr. natural:
Frankly, spacefreak, what *you believe* about "troop moral" is just another instance of infantile fantasies of a fool who has never had to lay his ass on the line.

Nice personal attack. As if you have any idea what my military background is.

It's obvious that you can't debate ideas and issues. Instead, you need to fill your posts with rude insults and personal attacks.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Kerry states that he has a plan do better than Bush. That's the plan I wanted to hear... the plan on how he's going to do better. He's going to do a better job of training Iraqis. Bush is already training Iraqis. What's Kerry's plan to do it better?

You've been directed to the plan; it's up to you to decide whether it's better or not. I'm not trying to sell it, I've only been trying to point out the irony of people criticizing Kerry for not having a plan when Bush doesn't really have one either. As I've said before, I think the best either of them can do at this point is play it by ear.

[mr. natural]

Posted by spacefreak:

Nice personal attack.

Why, thank you. And I'll continue to nicely attack you so long as you continue to suggest that troop moral is hurting from spoken or written words of truth in comparison to the real world sticks and stones that are flying about in Iraq and a CIC who is full of bullsh!t!

Just like you!

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by mr. natural:
And I'll continue to nicely attack you so long as you continue to suggest that troop moral is hurting from spoken or written words of truth in comparison to the real world

Yeah, your post was real world alright, supported by the definitive evidence, or more accurately, hearsay, of some bathroom wall scribbles.

The liberal arguments are attempts to undermine troop moral. How else can one explain the striking similarities to the Tokyo Rose broadcasts that were aimed at our WWII forces... right down to the 3 points each Tokyo Rose broadcast always made sure to dwell on: (1) wrong war, wrong place, wrong time, (2) you are losing badly, (3) you are really fighting for corporations?

[AKcrab]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
bunch of riot analogies

The riots here stopped rather quickly. They weren't in the news for months, and months, and they didn't gradually increase in frequency.

When will the "riot" in Iraq stop?

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by mr. natural:
Why, thank you. And I'll continue to nicely attack you so long as you continue to suggest that troop moral is hurting from spoken or written words of truth in comparison to the real world sticks and stones that are flying about in Iraq and a CIC who is full of bullsh!t!

Just like you!

The Thread Starter signals you for committing a foul.

Please refrain from personal name calling and vicious attacks.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by AKcrab:
The riots here stopped rather quickly. They weren't in the news for months, and months, and they didn't gradually increase in frequency.

When will the "riot" in Iraq stop?

When it becomes advantageous in the POV of the insurgents to stop.

Some may be killed.

Some may be captured.

Some may begin seeing the effect of our work so far and believe the US efforts are indeed going to bring about more of the positive things we say they will and less of the negative things they fear.

Some may lose THEIR will to perpetuate chaos.

Some may be persuaded to stop once our efforts are successful in eliminating the moral and material support essential to their continued violence.

Some may be persuaded by friends and family to give up their actions which are detrimental to their own personal life hopes and dreams.

Some may be tire of hate and killing.

But, just like here in the US, some may never quit and that's why we have police and jails and a justice system...because raising hell? Well, that's just part of human nature, wherever you go.

[mr. natural]

Posted by spacefreak:

Yeah, your post was real world alright, supported by the definitive evidence, or more accurately, hearsay, of some bathroom wall scribbles.

The liberal arguments are attempts to undermine troop moral. How else can one explain the striking similarities to the Tokyo Rose broadcasts that were aimed at our WWII forces...

Tokyo Rose?!

BwahHahahahahahahahah!!!!

Tokyo Rose!?

ROTFLMAO!!!!!!

::mr. natural gathers himself from the floor, wiping his eyes dry::

So, this is your "definitive evidence" in support of your outlandish claim: That "troop moral" (sic) is undermined by the truth as reported on the ground; especially as reported by "liberals" who sh!t in marine latrines and write for the WSJ.

BWAaaaahAhahahahahahahahah!!!!!

Ohhhahahahahahah!!

::another natural pause::

Ok. Never mind that Toyko Rose had no effect whatsoever on the outcome of WWII, while the chimpanzee that smirks, Dubya, living in his all-is-roses-Iraq fantasy world does more to undermine troop moral than 100,000 liberal Tokyo Roses here in the USofA scribbling away on the internet or elsewhere.



It's your morale that is battered by reality. And the fault lies completely with our mis-leaders of this mess, not the folks who warned you not to, or are accurately reporting on the mess now.

Get a grip.

Tokyo Rose!

BWAAHHHHhhahahahhahahahahahha!









Why, I think I'll award myself a SMACKDOWN citation too!

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by mr. natural:
Never mind that Toyko Rose had no effect whatsoever on the outcome of WWII

It's amazing what a couple of nukes can do.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by mr. natural:
Tokyo Rose?!

Why, I think I'll award myself a SMACKDOWN citation too!

Please, be aware that an official "SMACKDOWN!!!" is awarded by a committee of neocons and never self nominated or awarded.

If I'm not mistaken Zimphire created the award, he awarded it to me and my nomination was seconded by none other than SPACEFREAK!

Any other award you might give yourself or create would have to be a different one, created by and for liberals.

My Golden Troll Award was ALSO created and presented me by the SAME group of neocons in honor of my inspired (thought to be merely insipid) posts in behalf of the LIBERAL cause.

You can well understand why I hold them both in such great esteem. It's doubtful anyone else will ever achieve BOTH.

[Lee33]

President had his hat handed to him in the debates last night

I agree.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by LoganCharles:
I've contributed plenty of good points. You've just chosen to not read them or disregard them because of your partisian views.

I'll bite.

Show me TWO.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
These are re-hashes of posts on the Presidential Debates thread.

In a good book or film, often the BIG ISSUE isn't resolved until the final chapter or scene. So, maybe the time isn't right for the Administration to reveal the details behind Iraq but consider the following:

"In my day I've been involved in a fight or two. When you are engaging your opponent but he has buddies crowded around, you always have to assume they'll jump in to help their friend.

Or, another analogy I've used on these pages is that of the police going in to a drug house to serve a warrant. The bad guy who lives in the house has a guard dog.

Before the cops go in, they (wisely) take care of the guard dog FIRST.

In the ME there was no bigger badder mad dog than Saddam. He was neutralized and the actions in Afghanistan go on without greater danger from without."

Saddam was not the "guard dog" of the Middle East. He wasn't even liked by the other Arab nations because of his secular state. He was an outsider, and that is the only reason America could get away with invading.

Why the hell Afghanistan is mentioned, I have no idea. However, Afghanistan is doing brilliantly economically - it is, once again, as under the Taliban, the world's #1 heroin source, and exports are actually up BEYOND pre-war levels!

Go War on Terror! Go War on Drugs! Go War on Whatever Next!

-s*