Howard Dean's Crystal Ball (1 Viewer)

[aquapub]

I wish Howard Dean would specify exactly what he thinks Democrats would have done differently that could have kept these militant fascist regimes at bay. As much as Dean may want people to think these rogue states only became fanatical, defiant and dangerous since President Bush took office, it didn't start with him. But the retreat from terrorists in Somalia, the appeasements for North Korea, and the eight years of unanswered Al Queda attacks leading up to 9/11 did start with Democrats.

 

[Gibberish]

Blah hate blah blah hate.

It seems you are simply disguising a hate rant for an opinion poll. Please direct on how one is supposed to fill out this poll correctly.

Let us say I select the first check box:

Dean: We wouldn't be where we are in the world if Democrats had been in office...Islamic fascism didn't start with Bush.

How does this make sense?

 

[tecoyah]

I think I picked the best replies:

Islamic fascism didn't start with Bush.

Democrats would have done better...list examples


We might have tried.....oh....diplomacy

 

[Deegan]

I think I picked the best replies:

Islamic fascism didn't start with Bush.

Democrats would have done better...list examples


We might have tried.....oh....diplomacy

"diplomacy" I am sorry, but that is a joke, a sick, sad joke, but a joke all the same!:roll:

 

[Ivan The Terrible]

I don't blame the Dems for 9/11 or North K. But I think it's a no brainier that Bush didn't start Islamic fascism.

 

[tecoyah]

"diplomacy" I am sorry, but that is a joke, a sick, sad joke, but a joke all the same!:roll:

Kinda Like the personality you project into DP?

Diplomacy may have allowed us to avoid countless dead folk in a war that has accomplished very little. In the next few years we will likely leave Iraq in the hands of a failing Democracy, which in its current incarnation is powerless to control the continued carnage within its borders....even with American Military Backing.Once we do leave....a true Civil War is likely, and though no one can predict the end result, I think most are concerned it will be far worse for American interests than Saddam ever was.
Had we used continued diplomacy in the face of moderately successful UN monitoring, we mayt have saved a few thousand american Lives, and untold civilian Iraqis, while maintaining a position of leverage in Middle East negotiations within nations. As it is....we have no power to manipulate policy within extremist coutries, where we once did. The inability of yourself to understand the complexities of Diplomacy does not diminish its effectiveness, and in fact the simple fact you lack thge intellect to see potential gives me more faith in its possible furture use.
Please Deegan....do not try to discuss policy with the big boys....Play with your marbles and hide in a corner....we will call you when we need comic relief.

 

[Deegan]

Kinda Like the personality you project into DP?

Diplomacy may have allowed us to avoid countless dead folk in a war that has accomplished very little. In the next few years we will likely leave Iraq in the hands of a failing Democracy, which in its current incarnation is powerless to control the continued carnage within its borders....even with American Military Backing.Once we do leave....a true Civil War is likely, and though no one can predict the end result, I think most are concerned it will be far worse for American interests than Saddam ever was.
Had we used continued diplomacy in the face of moderately successful UN monitoring, we mayt have saved a few thousand american Lives, and untold civilian Iraqis, while maintaining a position of leverage in Middle East negotiations within nations. As it is....we have no power to manipulate policy within extremist coutries, where we once did. The inability of yourself to understand the complexities of Diplomacy does not diminish its effectiveness, and in fact the simple fact you lack thge intellect to see potential gives me more faith in its possible furture use.
Please Deegan....do not try to discuss policy with the big boys....Play with your marbles and hide in a corner....we will call you when we need comic relief.

If you can't keep personal issues out of the debate, just don't engage sir, it makes you look foolish. I will expect a warning issued you immediately, as I am "not playin anymore" either!:roll:

 

[ShamMol]

I don't blame the Dems for 9/11 or North K. But I think it's a no brainier that Bush didn't start Islamic fascism.

Agreed with both points. The Americans on a whole help fuel it, from all Presidential actions, to the wars, to our culture, as does the Middle Eastern Culture which has embraced fanaticism. IT is a give-take thing, with both sides responsible and no one side being totally responsible.

A person who actually tries to fill out the poll without bais, well, cannot.

 

[::Major_Baker::]

I don't blame the Dems for 9/11 or North K. But I think it's a no brainier that Bush didn't start Islamic fascism.

he didn't start it, but he certainly exacerbated it.

 

[tecoyah]

If you can't keep personal issues out of the debate, just don't engage sir, it makes you look foolish. I will expect a warning issued you immediately, as I am "not playin anymore" either!:roll:

Admittedly....That was a relatively personal reply, and though it was accurate, I can see how you might be offended by brutal honesty. Consider the percieved insult rescinded, though a warning is likely deserved. As for the foolish aspect, I see thus as relatively unlikely.
Now....would you care to rebutt the Diplomacy content of my post?

 

[Deegan]

Admittedly....That was a relatively personal reply, and though it was accurate, I can see how you might be offended by brutal honesty. Consider the percieved insult rescinded, though a warning is likely deserved. As for the foolish aspect, I see thus as relatively unlikely.
Now....would you care to rebutt the Diplomacy content of my post?

Diplomacy only works when the other party is serious about change, there is no changing the fact that Iran, Syria, and the rest of radical Islam, have no plans to change. They want Israel gone, "wiped off the map", so I don't know what diplomacy would achieve, and we have seen what that has brought us, Nothing.

I would also like to add that there is nothing "accurate" about your statement, and I patiently await your warning.

 

[Ivan The Terrible]

::Major_Baker::,

he didn't start it, but he certainly exacerbated it.

Hrummm... How so? Not trying to be a dick. Just wanted to know what you ment by that.

 

[::Major_Baker::]

::Major_Baker::,



Hrummm... How so? Not trying to be a dick. Just wanted to know what you ment by that.

I think that the war in Iraq will, in the window of history, be seen as an excellent cause for rallying muslims against the west.

 

[Ivan The Terrible]

::Major_Baker::,

I think that the war in Iraq will, in the window of history, be seen as an excellent cause for rallying muslims against the west.

Ok thanks.

 

[Kandahar]

In some ways the world would be a safer place if there was a Democrat (or a smarter Republican) in the White House. The mess we're in in Iraq is entirely and solely the fault of George W. Bush, and it is the primary reason for the violence that has erupted throughout the entire region. Almost all of the violence is connected. Iran's belligerence over its nuclear program is due to the fact that it knows America is very militarily and politically weak following the Iraqi invasion. Hezbollah's actions against Israel are due to the fact that Iran wants to distract attention from its nuclear program at the G8.

However, not everything in the region is George Bush's fault. While Hezbollah's recent attacks can be traced to the decision to invade Iraq, I certainly don't fault Bush for not forseeing that complicated chain of events (I know I didn't). But he should've forseen Iran's belligerence.

 

[Deegan]

In some ways the world would be a safer place if there was a Democrat (or a smarter Republican) in the White House. The mess we're in in Iraq is entirely and solely the fault of George W. Bush, and it is the primary reason for the violence that has erupted throughout the entire region. Almost all of the violence is connected. Iran's belligerence over its nuclear program is due to the fact that it knows America is very militarily and politically weak following the Iraqi invasion. Hezbollah's actions against Israel are due to the fact that Iran wants to distract attention from its nuclear program at the G8.

However, not everything in the region is George Bush's fault. While Hezbollah's recent attacks can be traced to the decision to invade Iraq, I certainly don't fault Bush for not forseeing that complicated chain of events (I know I didn't).

Iraq is just one less country supporting terror, Saddam can no longer write checks to families of suicide bombers, this struggle is not for the short sighted, not at all.

 

[::Major_Baker::]

Iraq is just one less country supporting terror, Saddam can no longer write checks to families of suicide bombers, this struggle is not for the short sighted, not at all.

should a monetary gift to a family really be considered support for terror,especially when the terrorist in the family is already dead? Did he write checks to finance actual terrorist operations? that would be a big deal, but I'm afraid the point you raised here is basically irrelevant.

 

[Ivan The Terrible]

::Major_Baker::,

should a monetary gift to a family really be considered support for terror,especially when the terrorist in the family is already dead? Did he write checks to finance actual terrorist operations? that would be a big deal, but I'm afraid the point you raised here is basically irrelevant.

You can't see how this would spread terror? It's simply really. Other families might sacrifice one of there own to get some money.

 

[::Major_Baker::]

::Major_Baker::,



You can't see how this would spread terror? It's simply really. Other families might sacrifice one of there own to get some money.

yeah, perhaps.
I guess it is a form of support, as minor as it is.

 

[Deegan]

should a monetary gift to a family really be considered support for terror,especially when the terrorist in the family is already dead? Did he write checks to finance actual terrorist operations? that would be a big deal, but I'm afraid the point you raised here is basically irrelevant.

Well then you just have not been paying attention. I would simply point you to the skuds fired at Israel during the first Gulf War, to educate you on how Saddam felt about Israel.

 

[Ivan The Terrible]

::Major_Baker::,

yeah, perhaps.
I guess it is a form of support, as minor as it is.

Any support is bad. And should not be under estimated.

 

[TheNextEra]

Iraq is just one less country supporting terror, Saddam can no longer write checks to families of suicide bombers, this struggle is not for the short sighted, not at all.

Yes and while stepping out a small bag on fire, all the while throwing gas on another fire pile is not an example of stopping a fire.

Bush and this administation has done a similar thing with regards to terrorism. In Iraq and other places, we have actually created MORE terrorists because of our actions.

So while we may have curbed ONE COUNTRY'S LEADER from doing anything, we have created far more terrorists to take their place.

 

[aquapub]

1) Blah hate blah blah hate. It seems you are simply disguising a hate rant for an opinion poll.

2) Please direct on how one is supposed to fill out this poll correctly.
Let us say I select the first check box:

Dean: We wouldn't be where we are in the world if Democrats had been in office...Islamic fascism didn't start with Bush.

How does this make sense?

1) Ad hominem personal attacks, nothing to respond to.

2) Dean's claim was that, for example, we wouldn't be in this mess against Iranian Islamo-fascists if Democrats were in power. By voting for the first option, you are asserting that Islamo-fascism was around and that it was this defiant way before Bush got here, hence, it didn't come from an absence of Democrats during the last six years.

 

[aquapub]

I think I picked the best replies:

Islamic fascism didn't start with Bush.

Democrats would have done better...list examples


We might have tried.....oh....diplomacy

Republicans are using multi-lateral, U.N. diplomacy-which ACTUALLY MAKES SENSE now that we're dealing with someone who hasn't exhausted every imaginable diplomatic effort for over a decade, like Saddam.

This point you made is completely invalid.

 

[::Major_Baker::]

::Major_Baker::,



Any support is bad. And should not be under estimated.

True, but too much weight has often been placed on this support that saddam was giving to families. It's very minor when viewed in a 'global terrorism' sense.
If he wrote a check for the semtex? BIG difference...