The Surge
Surging profits in Iraq, that is. A 79 BILLION surplus in Iraq and we’re still paying for everything?
In one comparison, the United States has spent $23.2 billion in the critical areas of security, oil, electricity and water since the 2003 invasion, the report said. But from 2005 through April 2008, Iraq has spent just $3.9 billion on similar services.
And the Iraqi Government doesn’t seem to even appreciate the reconstruction already completed.
And in another troubling sign, the report said that from 2005 to 2007, Iraq devoted only 1 percent of the operating expenses in its budget to maintaining reconstruction projects that had been built with either American or Iraqi money. That finding raised fresh questions over whether the huge investment in some of those projects would have any long-term impact.
This war has been a disaster from the beginning, and the only ones truly paying a price are the soldiers and the American and Iraqi people. But I’d bet someone(s) is getting rich.
Come on, Bush/McCain supporters. Defend this.
Crickets.
Anthrax? No.
WMD? No.
Terrorism? No.
Profits? Yes.
Sharon and Mike W,
I’m waiting…
This war has been a disaster from the beginning, and the only ones truly paying a price are the soldiers and the American and Iraqi people.
The war wasn’t a disaster, the way that winning the war was handled was.
Come on, Bush/McCain supporters. Defend this.
I don’t like either but McCain is probably the best politician to handle what Iraq has become now.
Wow. A blast from the past. What burrow did you just climb out of, mynym?
“This war has been a disaster from the beginning, and the only ones truly paying a price are the soldiers and the American and Iraqi people. But I’d bet someone(s) is getting rich.”
And isn’t the article itself proof that your above statement is wrong? The Iraqi government has a budget surplus, and a KFC has recently opened in Baghdad, yet you’ll continue to cry about how the war has been a dismal failure and the surge hasn’t worked, when clearly the situation in Iraq has improved.
Mynym,
Please explain how McCain is better. From where I’m standing he’s changed his position on time lines for troop withdrawal and now agrees with Obama.
Bush is now talking with the Iranians – another Obama idea.
So, I’m confused on what McCain’s plan is now.
Well, Mike, if it’s worked and there’s a huge surplus let’s get out now. Mission accomplished… right?
That is the basic flaw in the conservative argument on Iraq. If the surge has worked, then we can leave. But no, we have to say for 100 years.
The KFC was a facade; it really doesn’t exist.
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/08/kfc_in_fallujah_too_fingerlick.php
Nice try though…keep on keeping on. Or what’s the old Journey song? “Don’t Stop Believing”
Can’t we just take a ‘finders fee’, say 50 billion?
OH MIKE you are a tool of FOX news now.
HAHAHAHAHAHAH
it doesn’t exist dude. At ALL. LMAO bahhhh, sheep bahhhhhh
Hey DV, I see Pandora has returned both ur balls. 🙂
I only need one to be more of a man than you!
“Come on, Bush/McCain supporters. Defend this.”
Are Obama/Carter supporters going to defend his “windfall profit taxes, his nuclear non-proliferation, or his military disarmament positions.
“OH MIKE you are a tool of FOX news now.”
That’s amazing since I don’t watch fox news.
You’ve been blinded by Mr. HopeChange.
http://anothergunblog.blogspot.com/2008/02/i-really-feel-like-this-country-is-for.html
Hey Mike if this war was such a success then would you please tell me where all the Iraqis who are Christian and lived in peace under Saddam are today??????
Oh, how sad. You thought the surge would result in a perfect country with no problems and no violence.
There’s less violence in Iraq now than there was pre-surge. I’m not really surprised though, the liberal mindset seems to be that Iraq can’t improve no matter what we do. They denied the surge would lower violence in Iraq, and then when it did just that they continued to deny that it made a positive impact.
Okay, Mike, answer this.
What is victory in Iraq and when can we leave?
Personally, I think we can slowly start reducing troop numbers now, I just think that announcing “We’re going to pull everyone out on X date” and running out regardless of what the situation on the ground happens to be is irresponsible.
I remember in an earlier debate Obama used the term “honorable surrender.” I think I threw up in my mouth a bit at such an absurd concept, and one only someone as far-left as Obama could believe in.
He said no such thing.
And his troop reduction plan is readily available, so I won’t go into it here. Do the work yourself.
I have to ask. Why is Iraq having a budget surplus “bad” but the U.S. having one “good?”
Shouldn’t an Iraqi surplus be a good thing?
Maybe… because we’re footing the bill?
Mike you continue to run your mouth but failed to address my question . A good old Troll trick.
bwwwahahahahahahahahah
Mike you continue to run your mouth but failed to address my question .
REALLY?!
Yes DBB just like McSame ask him a question on Iraq today and his answer is “DRILL OFF SHORE”
“Mike you continue to run your mouth but failed to address my question . A good old Troll trick.”
It’s a meaningless question. Where are the christians? Probably being persecuted because they’re of a different religion than most Iraqi’s.
If you really think most Iraqi’s lived in peace under Saddam you’re crazy. He was a sunni (the minority in Iraq) and didn’t exactly do great things for the Kurds or the majority Shia.
And his right hand man was a Christian.
Look it up yourself, I’m tired of doing your homework.
Care to address the FBI UCR data you claim I “Manipulated”?
(I know, you prefer to ignore facts that are inconvenient, even If I lay them out right in front of you and dumb it down.)
WTF are you talking about? Guns?
Lighten up, little boy, you used the word… I joked on it.
Now answer my question about Iraq and Saddam’s right hand man. I dare you. Hint: Christians weren’t persecuted in Iraq under Saddam. In fact, I believe they were about 8% of the population. Pretty high for an “extremist” Muslim country, wouldn’t you say?
Hey Mike i just found out that you are 22 years old and still living with Mommy and Daddy. Now i am about to see if you truly believe all the bullshit you have been supporting here. You seem to support McSame’s position on Iraq. so here is the Question and your answer and actions will reveal your true belief’s and if you are serious about them. WHY HAVEN”T YOU JOINED OUR HERO TROOPS IN IRAQ AND AFGAN ? Or are you just another Repuk troll CHICKENHAWK??? There is a recuting station in down town Wilmington I expect to see your ass down there tommorow if not go away Mommy’s boy.
I love how liberals think anyone who supports the country needs to be in the army. *rolls eyes*
SHARON
It is very easy to be a McSame and Bush supporter of their war when you are willing to let others go fight and die for you. While sitting at home and living off Mommy and Daddy and pretending to supports the troops while unwilling to put you candy ass on the line. The polite word for this is CHICKENHAWK the vulgar word is COWARD which is the best description of a person of Mikes ilk
It’s easy to oppose a war in which you blindly think you have no reason to agree with it, but don’t really want to accept the consequences of doing nothing. You might disagree with the reasons we went into Iraq, but I know very few people who honestly thought Saddam Hussein’s country was a great place for people to live, work, and enjoy freedom. For years, we knew there were atrocities there and many from the left wanted regime change because of the abuses we knew were happening.
Frankly, it is disgusting to call fellow Americans chickenhawks or cowards because they aren’t in the army but support our efforts. And it is stupid to argue that only those who have actual experience (such as military service) have a right to an opinion in this country. Who knows? There could be a war in an Obama administration (*shudder*) that you support. Is your candy ass on the line then? And even if it is, why does that give you MORE of a right to support a war than any other American?
TT – OH boy! Here come the “little boy” age comments again. Attack and belittle me because you’ve got no real argument. That seems to be the standard method for some of you.
I have cerebral palsy. I wouldn’t be accepted even if we had a draft.
“WTF are you talking about? Guns?
Lighten up, little boy, you used the word… I joked on it”
Read my responses to you in this thread and explain how my facts were wrong or “manipulated” I explained it for you in detail because you clearly didn’t get it.
http://delawareliberal.net//2008/08/04/a-new-glass-ceiling/
“And his right hand man was a Christian.
Look it up yourself, I’m tired of doing your homework.”
OK, so Saddam didn’t persecute Christians. Your point is what exactly? That he was a wonderful guy because he didn’t persecute one religious group in Iraq? I already addressed what he did to the Shia and Kurds.
” And it is stupid to argue that only those who have actual experience (such as military service) have a right to an opinion in this country.”
And Sharon, if they make that argument towards someone like me doesn’t it directly contradict their support for Obama, who has NO such experience? In his case lack of real world experience is touted as a GOOD thing here on DE liberal.
the Chickenhawks in this country and there are to many to name on Bush’s side of the argument are the ones who are willing to send your son’s and daughters off to fight and die but unwilling to put theirs in Harms way. to name one Richard Peral who pushed this war and now seeks a deal for iraqi oil. Sharon you our overlooking the fact that this was a war of choice and based on lies new facts come out every day that sh owes that the powers in Washington are nothing but a bunch of war criminals.
If Bush is a “war criminal” (he isn’t) then so is most of Congress, both Democrats and Republicans.
Mike please stop proving how stupid you are but at your age that is forgivable. You comment about Obama not having experience seems to neglect the fact that even with out it as you state remember he had the wisdom and foresight to oppose this war from the beginning.
TT – Why aren’t YOU serving in the military?
TT, it’s a volunteer military. I don’t mind anyone–including my own children who are close to being able to enlist–joining the military and going off to fight our nation’s wars. Why? Because it is a voluntary military and service in it is honorable regardless of your personal feelings about the war. It’s despicable to castigate people because they don’t serve for whatever reason.
You say the war was started on “lies.” Well, live with it. In 40 years, no one will care about the protestors of this war. There will only be stories of the bravery of our military.
b/c he is like 80 years old
BTW, TT, why doesn’t Obama’s lack of service disqualify him from POTUS? Because he didn’t back this war? Considering the amount of flip-flopping he’s done, he’ll be for it before November. But if the only people who have a right to an opinion regarding the war are people who have served in the military, why is Obama even running?
You say the war was started on “lies.” Well, live with it
right, no biggee, move on, only a few hundred thousand dead. Nothing to get upset about, happens all the time.
In 40 years, no one will care about the protestors of this war
don’t they still bash the Hippies from Vietnam?
isn’t Obama like 47? Guy has totally sailed through life with no resume man!
If Bush is a “war criminal” (he isn’t) then so is most of Congress, both Democrats and Republicans.
not Obama though…
and no most of congress wouldn’t be mike if they were given the false intelligence ginned up in the white house.
But go ahead, keep spewing that one again and again and again. It will come true eventually
“b/c he is like 80 years old”
Yeah, well he attacked me for not enlisting. Only fair that I ask the same of him. At least I asked it in a respectful manner.
“BTW, TT, why doesn’t Obama’s lack of service disqualify him from POTUS?”
Good question. The media sure made a big deal about Bush’s lack of service. Not a peep about Obama’s.
Mike you have no life experience at 22. Live at home and come to the dinner table when you are called. We are just using your standards on you. You don’t like it?
What experiences do you have? What you read a book? Oh, well so did Obama.
Did you go to college? Oh, well so did Obama.
You are hardly qualified at 22 to visit delaware liberal. Us contributors and commenters feel you don’t have the experience to do so.
sorry if you don’t like it.
DTB – For one you don’t know me. I’m damn lucky to even be alive, able to type this, and able to for the most part live a “normal” life.
I’ve gone through things that 99.9% of the population will (thankfully) never have to experience.
Also, since when are age and schooling indicative of intelligence or ability to form logical, rational arguments? (or in the case of some of you the inability)
I’m not “allowed” to bash Obama’s lack of experience because I’m too young? DTB, ive heard you say quite a bit of stupid crap, but that might take the cake.
As usual, you attempt to use my age against me when you’re unable to substantively refute my arguments.
right, no biggee, move on, only a few hundred thousand dead. Nothing to get upset about, happens all the time.
What’s no biggie is that the people who want to believe the war was started on “lies” are not ever going to believe otherwise. That’s why I say live with it.
As for hippies? Eh, my dad wouldn’t let us have peace signs on our schoolbooks, but other than that, who gives a hoot about ’em? My father fought so they could sit back here and spit on him.
As for Obama, he’s 3 years older than I am and so I feel qualified to say he doesn’t have the experience or resume to be POTUS. He has no experience in business. He has little experience as a politician. He has no experience in the military. And he changes his positions with the day because he’s trying so hard to to make himself indistinguishable from McCain. It should really make you stop and think about it that a liberal can’t get elected POTUS without masquerading as a conservative or a centrist.
Mike,
I know something about CP. My ex-husband has it, and yes, you are extremely lucky to be around and functioning. People who argue that your age is an issue in debate have no idea what they are talking about.
OHHH, THE he has no business experience litmus test? nice. working out well for you now.
THOUST IS AWARDED THE SEAL OF NO EXPERIENCE! IT HAS BEEN AWARDED FOR RECITING STUPID TALKING POINTS.
Funny DTB – you disregard me based on my age, and yet here you are acting like a immature, petulant child.
Also, since when are age and schooling indicative of intelligence or ability to form logical, rational arguments? (or in the case of some of you the inability)
i’m so confused by this arguement? How do you have the experience to question me? But obama at 47 doesn’t have the experience, judgement or ability to lead?
THOUST IS AWARDED THE SEAL OF NO EXPERIENCE THRICE TIMES!
I love it. Now pointing out that Obama has done little to qualify him for POTUS is a “talking point”? How sad.
Mike, really you are on my last nerve. First, this brilliant quote when I and TT asked about Christians is Iraq (which you OBVIOUSLY didn’t know anything about)
Mike’s uninformed answer: “It’s a meaningless question. Where are the christians? Probably being persecuted because they’re of a different religion than most Iraqi’s.”
Ummm… wrong. But… wait… Mike discovered google, and ,’lo and behold, his answer changes to : “OK, so Saddam didn’t persecute Christians. Your point is what exactly? That he was a wonderful guy because he didn’t persecute one religious group in Iraq? I already addressed what he did to the Shia and Kurds.”
Now, to bring this BS full circle… which country is predominately Shia? Hint: Be careful, you just described this sect as being persecuted by Saddam?
Could it be – gasp! – Iran!
Who’s the bad guy, Mike? Sunni? Shia? Saddam? Ahmadinejad? Do you even know?
Ummm… wrong. But… wait… Mike discovered google, and ,’lo and behold, his answer changes to : “OK, so Saddam didn’t persecute Christians. Your point is what exactly? That he was a wonderful guy because he didn’t persecute one religious group in Iraq? I already addressed what he did to the Shia and Kurds.”
Actually I didn’t google it, I simply took what you said for fact because whether he did or didn’t persecute christians was immaterial to my point. It doesn’t make him less of a genocidal, murderous tyrant because he spared some religious / ethnic groups while persecuting others.
Oh, and thanks, I KNOW Iran is predominantly Shia, as is Iraq. When Saddam was in power he and the Sunni minority in Iraq ruled over the majority Shia.
http://delawareliberal.net//2008/08/04/a-new-glass-ceiling/#comments
still waiting pandora….
Mike, your link took me nowhere. A comment # would be helpful.
And why don’t you just admit that your knowledge of Iraq is limited. Google or not, you obviously had no idea that Christians were a part of Iraq or you wouldn’t have said: “It’s a meaningless question. Where are the christians? Probably being persecuted because they’re of a different religion than most Iraqi’s.”
Sorry, Mike. You just lost this point.
Or… Man up!
What difference does the fact that her persecuted christians make when he persecuted other groups within the country as well?
Oh, and 18, 25, 31, 32, and 36.
Because you were WRONG. You had no idea that Iraq was a secular country. You had no idea that Christianity was tolerated. Just admit it!
Now… I’ll look up your comments.
Sigh… Guns. I should have known. I already admitted that I was playing with you on your use of the word “manipulated”. Honestly, Mike, you’re a little obsessed. Have your guns. Justify them anyway you want. I really don’t care. It’s not my issue.
Actually it had to do with race. And since you accused me of “playing loose & fast with the facts” I not only cited them for you, I EXPLAINED them to you since you clearly weren’t getting it.
Look at what I cited, look at my explanation, and explain how I was wrong, or how I “manipulated” the facts. Anyone with basic understanding of statistics would see what I was saying. I simply standardized the facts cited so they’d be easier for you to understand.
Are you dense??? Twice now I’ve said I was yanking your chain… as anyone with half a brain would have realized reading my “manipulated” comment. I’ll add a happy face from now on, but what I won’t do is say it AGAIN. Check comment #s 29 and 64 and now 66.
Now I’m waiting for you to admit that you had no effing clue about Iraq under Saddam – other than right wing talking points. It’s why you supported the war and now McCain.
What does the fact that christianity was tolerated under Saddam have to do with support of the war?
What I said about the Shia and Sunni is accurate.
What about “playing loose & hard with the facts” then eh? They are what they are. If I cite them, then spell it out for you and you claim ignorance and say I’m wrong then who’s being dense?
Don’t retreat from your ignorance woman. Embrace it and learn from it. Have you even clicked on the UCR link?
MIKIE
The fact that all religions were tolerated under Saddam in Iraq shows that Bush’s attempt to make him an Islamic radical was nothing but a lie.
Mikie do i understand from you blog that you have guns???
This doesn’t seem to fit with the fact that you stated that you had CP.
explaine how you can keep your aim on the target with this shaking illness.
Bush tried to make Saddam out as an Islamic radical!…. man now I’ve heard it all.
Comment #70 was way out of line, TT.
The argument wasn’t that Saddam Hussein was an Islamic radical. The argument was that he was anti-American and had demonstrated that repeatedly. It was also argued that he repressed his own people (such as gassing the Kurds) and that he was a danger to other countries in the region (having attacked his neighbors).
There were plenty of reasons to attack Saddam Hussein. We don’t need to make up new ones.
Actually, I think the original argument was that he had WMDs, and that we had to attack before the smoking gun became a mushroom cloud.
TT,
Thanks for disqualifying yourself from further intelligent discussion. Cerebral palsy is not Parkinson’s, which affects one’s ability to control movements (such as shaking). While there can be some spasming with CP, there are plenty of people with it who perform all sorts of life-enriching functions, including sport shooting.
There were a variety of reasons given for attacking Saddam Hussein. WMDs was one of those. Others included his repeated violations of U.N. resolutions, his aggressiveness in the region, and the human rights abuses known to have occurred in his regime.
minor observation, question for mike. do you type your responses? or do you have a special software you use to navigate around and recognizes your voice?
serious question by the way, just wondering
TT- there are different types of CP affecting different parts of the body in different ways. CP also varies greatly in severity. I’m an extraordinarily mild case.
There are also different types. Spastic diplegia, which is what I have, affects legs more than arms. If I had severe athetoid, which involves involuntary movements and uncontrolled spasms I most likely wouldn’t be able to shoot.
And Sharon – Funny they discuss something they know nothing about yet call me the “ignorant” one.
Oh, come on! The WMD argument was the one that set us on this path, without it we would have never gone into Iraq. Violating U.N. resolutions and “aggressiveness” was used to prop up the WMD argument.
And the human rights/free the Iraqi people meme didn’t take hold until after the WMD was debunked.
DTB – I’ve got a functioning brain capable of forming rational arguments. That’s the secret.
see, now I asked a serious question b/c I thought and didn’t want to assume that due to your disability you used something else beside a keyboard.
I alleged nothing by it and was simply curious. I realize your brain works and I know a little about CP, hence the reason I asked.
now beat it troll 🙂
If I were incapable of using a keyboard how could I possibly own and shoot guns?
And I have known people who used the software you refer to DTB. It’s incredible how good it is.
Sharon !!!
Guess who gave Saddam the gas he used on the Kurds.
None other than Ronald Reagan who also allowed him to use it on Iran. Or have you forgotten that we supported him during that war.
Yes TT, he also supported the Mujahdeen & Bin Laden. I don’t fault him for that or for arming Iraq. At the time the Soviets and Iran were greater threats.
Sometimes doing what’s in your best interest at the time ends up not being a good thing later on, but since we don’t have crystal balls to look into the future you have to act on the information in front of you at that time. We also supported the Shah before the Iranian revolution.
And let us not forget that he left 243 Marines dead in Beirut and never took any action against those who caused it.Much like Bush today ignoring Bin Laden an attacking Iraq. Where as Reagan attacked a small island in the caribbean
Do you really want to go down this road? Let’s not forget that it was Clinton who ignored Bin Laden throughout the 90’s through WTC # 1, the Embassy bombings and the USS Cole. He’s the guy who had the golden chance to take Bin Laden out, but didn’t because he was worried about political fallout if it didn’t go well.
Let’s also not forget that we went into Somalia and Kosovo because of human rights abuses (but sadly ignored Rwanda) It’s OK when Clinton does it, but not when Bush does?
Oh, and it was Clinton who ignored Saddam’s repeated violations (13!) of UN weapons resolutions, offering nothing more than strong condemnations of “You’re a bad man” and economic sanctions.
Mickie you believe that BS about Clinton just like you sucked up that Fox News report about a KFC in Iraq. Remember it was Clinton who’s boys caught the first WTC bombers. And it was Bush on Aug. 6Th 2001 who ignored the memo that Bin Laden was about to attack America using air planes . And that some of his men were already in the US. It was bush’s FBI who ignored reports that Arabs were in flight schools learning how to fly but were not interested in take offs and landings. I see you have swallowed the Repuk BS line when confronted with facts BLAME CLINTON
“I see you have swallowed the Repuk BS line when confronted with facts BLAME CLINTON”
I will blame Clinton, because the facts speak clearly. Bin Laden was testing is throughout the 90’s and Clinton’s response was pussified.
Explain to me how I’m wrong and how Clinton isn’t at fault? History is important, and what I said in comment # 86 is accurate, albeit inconvenient for your “OMG Bush is EVIL” worldview.
Pandora,
WMDs were considered a “slam dunk” as far as reasoning went, but there were multiple reasons given in the resolution which Congress overwhelmingly approved. And surely you remember that going in and taking out Saddam Hussein had been discussed over three separate administrations, including Bill Clinton’s call for regime change. The fact that WMDs of the sort acceptable to liberals were not found does not negate the fact that Saddam still had stockpiles of yellowcake in violation of U.N. mandates (they were supposed to be all gone, remember?). Also, the fact that liberals could not refute that Saddam Hussein was a ruthless dictator who attacked his neighbors and his own people is why they never want to discuss this angle. I’m willing to discuss WMDs if you are willing to admit that Hussein’s terrorism of his own people and neighbors made him a threat to the region. And this isn’t even discussing his support for suicide bombers and other events.
TT–Let me see if I have this straight. If America takes sides in a war and supplies weapons to the side it sees as “not as bad,” then we may never change policies and reject that side? I guess it’s a great position for you since you don’t have to worry about America not defending your right to slime it.
Also, regarding 9/11. Clinton approached terrorism as a police action. That got us multiple attacks over the life of his administration. Oddly, President Bush approached terrorism as a war and, unsurprisingly, we haven’t had ANY attacks on American interests since 9/11. But I’m sure you have some well-thought out explanation for that, right?
Sharon – Don’t hold your breath. 9/11 was Bush’s fault, but the smaller Terrorist attacks during Clinton’s 8 years weren’t his fault at all.
TT – Things change in the world. I’m sorry you can’t seem to grasp this. Bin Laden was our ally against the Soviet’s. Now we’re at war with Bin Laden and his ilk but not the Soviet’s.
Sharon – WMD’s or not (and you libs should remember that he always acted like he had them) we had all the authority we needed to go into Iraq on the violation of the UN weapons resolutions alone, or hell, even his human rights abuses. Clinton went into Kosovo because of “human rights” We went into Somalia for the same reason. Why is that insufficient reason for Bush going into Iraq?
Wonder if there’s a difference between attacks on American soil and attacks on American interests abroad?
Anyway, I’m sure President Al Gore would’ve handled the “Bin Laden Determined to Attack the United States” NIE (received on Aug 6, 2001) a little differently than Condi and Dear Leader.
“Wonder if there’s a difference between attacks on American soil and attacks on American interests abroad?”
What difference does it make? He ignored threats for an entire decade, finally culminating in 9/11. No matter though, in your mind there is no progression.
Public and, in some areas, world opinion toward invading Iraq changed once Colin Powell provided the “smoking gun”. You can continue to list any and all reason you believe invading Iraq was justified, but none of them would have placed us in our current situation without the WMD threat… Oh, and the bogus link to 9/11.
Saddam was a bad, evil man. No one disagrees with that. But that’s not why we went into Iraq.
“Saddam was a bad, evil man. No one disagrees with that. But that’s not why we went into Iraq.”
We’ve engaged in other conflicts based on little more than “He’s a bad, evil man doing bad, evil things.” Clinton did it.
Sharon it’s not about taking sides it’s about doing the right thing Reagan and Bush senior along with Rummy and others gave a wink and a nod to Saddam when he gassed Iranians. Now shrub and Rummy act shocked that he used our gas on Kurds and let us not forget Bush senior gave the nod to the Kurds to oppose Saddam and when they did we did nothing to help.
And Mike least we forget Clinton is the last president to win a war since WWII and yes i am talking about Bosnia. By the way General Wes Cl;ark was in charge of that operation and didn’t lose one man or woman.
“Sharon it’s not about taking sides it’s about doing the right thing ”
Well if that’s true you should wholeheartedly support the War in Iraq.
You know, Mike, for someone who whines constantly about people not addressing a point, you’re quite good at ignoring the points of others.
The “Clinton did it” argument has nothing to do with my point #94 about WMDs and Iraq.
Care to try again?
No stupid it’s the war in Afghan that we should of put our resources behind . it’s because of people like Bush and McSame that we are loosing Afghan, Iraq didn’t attack us we are the aggressors there.
Ignore this fool – he’s a liar and intellectually dishonest.
He’ll keep conflating arguments in order to keep his original premise afloat.
Now the poor Kurds attack our ally and secular friend Turkey blowing up an oil pipeline today that is even now causing oil prices to rise once again. Yep, those poor freedom loving Kurds.
Pandora – Personally I think Saddam did have WMD’s. I thought that even before we went in. All evidence pointed towards him having them, and he sure as hell acted like he had them (although with Saddam he would have postured as such even if he had no weapons at all IMO)
Hell, we KNOW he had them in the 90’s. We know he used them in GWI, and we know he routinely denied UN inspectors access for years before kicking them out entirely in 1998. Why kick them out if you have nothing to hide and no plans to acquire more weapons? Even Iran allows the IAEA access to their facilities.
“Ignore this fool – he’s a liar and intellectually dishonest.”
Awesome. You can’t refute arguments, you’ve proven it. Either quit while you’re ahead or just go away. The name calling and baseless accusations just make you look bad.
Also, don’t forget that Congress was privy to all the same intel (U.S. and foreign intel) that the Bush Administration had regarding Iraq. So spare me the “Bush Lied, People Died” BS.
“You know, Mike, for someone who whines constantly about people not addressing a point, you’re quite good at ignoring the points of others”
Funny coming from someone who still hasn’t explained how stats I cited in another thread, and my apparent “manipulation” of them makes them wrong/invalid.
And Pandora – There was no point made in #94 for me to address, but hey, since you brought up WMD’s I discussed that in #102.
Good-bye, Mike. I’m done with you. Come back when you grow up. Really all you do is keep saying the same thing again and again again.
And before you start your predictable whine… you should know by now that we have lots of different points of view on this site that enjoy the exchange of ideas. I realize you relate to Steve Newton… you can only dream of being in that league.
“Good-bye, Mike. I’m done with you. Come back when you grow up. Really all you do is keep saying the same thing again and again again. ”
Who’s whining Pandora?…..
Yes meatball the good old Kurds attacking Turkey our Allies. blowing up pipe lines. No wounder Saddam had to keep them in line. However Richard Pearl and others from Texas are attempting to cut oil deals with them and cut out the Iraqi government
Funny thing TT is I can guarantee you wouldn’t call me a “coward” to my face. I’d have to take the high road, tell you you’re wrong, and walk away.
I love how you liberals can call yourselves “progressive” “tolerant” “compassionate” “Understanding” etc. I’ve never seen such ignorant, vile, divisive, rude & condescending comments as I have from you folks.
This blog is pretty far up there as far as “intolerance” and general lack of civility are concerned. Thankfully I understand that you don’t represent all Delaware Democrats, just the violent, hoplophobic, intolerant, fringe left. You are no better than the far right religious conservatives you condemn here, despite your sense of “moral superiority” in doing so.
Actually, Mike, this blog is quite tolerant. There are far worse blogs where ridicule is much higher. Some blogs will ban you after one non-echo chamber comment. One of the reasons I like reading this blog is that there are a variety of viewpoints (usually) presented. Granted, I rarely agree with any of them, but I don’t mind that.
Anyway, I’m sure President Al Gore would’ve handled the “Bin Laden Determined to Attack the United States” NIE (received on Aug 6, 2001) a little differently than Condi and Dear Leader.
This is just partisan speculation. There is no way to prove one way or the other what Al Gore would have done, although I had liberal friends who said right after 9/11 that they were glad Gore wasn’t president.
But seriously, TT. Is “we helped Saddam in the 1980s” your idea of a valid argument? By that reasoning, no country can ever change allies or have different objectives. It’s a great plan for hamstringing the U.S., if that’s your objective.
Sharon – I’m basing that assessment on what’s been sent my way. I guess I’ve been spoiled by the civility and tolerance of the gun blogging community. It seems that “An armed society is a polite society” holds true even online and even in disagreement.
I don’t know. If I’m discussing an issue with someone through a non-personal medium I keep things high road. I don’t change the quality, tone, or general demeanor of my discussion just because I’m not talking to the person face-to-face. That just seems like common decency to me, not to mention that lack of civility only detracts from debate. Maybe that’s just an old, antiquated concept?
Trolls, or dissenters, get roughed up on any blog, including some of the conservative ones I go to. I’m sure people would be polite in face to face discussions, but the anonymity of the internet creates a more impersonal atmosphere.
I’ve been reading blogs for over 4 years now and been blogging for almost 2. You really do see a lot of obnoxious behavior out there, but–with one or 2 notable exceptions–I try to stay focused on my arguments and remain respectful on other people’s blogs (now, I may let it hang out at my own blog, but I believe that when going to someone else’s blog, I should attempt to stay polite).
Something from my own blogging experience is that it gets annoying when you feel your site is getting overrun by dissenters, or when someone just won’t shut up. Some of what you are reading is probably someone’s frustration in that regard.
I don’t know anything about gun blogs. I do read a lot of political blogs, though, and this one really does a good job of covering its subject matter and allowing for healthy debate. I wish I could find a similar blog in Texas.
I try to use Dana as my guide for Mr. Polite Blogger. I’ve never seen him descend into the muck like I am prone to do when irritated. 🙂
Thanks for the compliment, Sharon… and the insight.
Sharon – I agree on Dana – He always keeps it high road.
You’re welcome, Pandora. 🙂
Sharon – I see no reason (other than bigotry & immaturity) why healthy debate has to be uncivil and riddled with ad hominems. The quality of discourse is far better without that childish crap.
By the way TT – Thanks for the blog fodder.