• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

The "left" wants NO success in Iraq..

Stu Ghatze

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 30, 2005
Messages
531
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
And neither does the media who "often" attempt to categorize the war in Iraq as another Viet-Nam.

That is why we get our daily body bag counts by the major news media, ...all in hope of establishing hate for the war in Iraq, & hate for Bush & his administration.

The liberal media, & democratic party charges are so transparent: First Bush fixed the 04' election, then he masterfully lied about Iraq not having WMD's; even though Sadaam DID at one time, & had even had a nuclear facility built by France for Iraq that Israel wisely destroyed in 1981.

But no, ...what message has the media, & their wacko leftists in the democratic party been giving the American people??

Why Bush is not a legitimite president, Bush lied about WMD's, Bush is having the terrorists caught,.. tortured & Its all about exploiting Iraqi oil etc etc.

The monday morning quarterbacking democratic pundits & their media friends; "Bush doesn't have enough troops in Iraq, & then later; "Bush has too many troops in Iraq??

And on the home front Bush is portrayed as incompetent in the aftermath of Katrina, even though first line of responsibility for local citizens is the g-damn mayor, & governor.

The last thing the democrats & liberals ever want to see is success in Iraq, whether it becomes a free nation soon, or in years to come, cause' they do not ever want to see Bush have any credibility, & surely do not ever want Bush to have any legacy whatsoever unless of course it is much less than the infamous "blue stained dress" Bill Clinton has left for himself!

It was the same crapola for Reagan; ...why the liberal whacko's & their democratic party underlings even called Reagan a "warmonger" because Reagan had the unmitigated gall to refer to the soviet union as "an evil empower".

Why sure, & according to liberals,.. Reagan was trying to get America in a nuclear war by telling it like it really was in regards to the Soviet union. Liberals prefer living with bolshevism, & forced capitulation....rather than by defending, & being strong oneself!

It got so bad that liberal instigators from america even travelled to Europe to help protest against American missiles that were sent to western Europe to PROTECT the europeans from soviet aggression.

Before it was all over, & the American liberal whackos, & their media friends finished their work....the europeans preferred having Soviet missiles pointed at them, ...rather than having american missiles "there" to DEFEND them!!

And the cats as.s was the "liberal" establishments celebration AFTER the Soviet Union's collapse, ..as though by "their" help the sovietizing of the world had finally come to an end! :rofl

Yep, ...& like most so called journalists who call themselves independents, & only out looking for the truth "bullshyte",.. in almost every liberal magazine Bush IS being portrayed as a liar, a racist, a warmonger, a hater...& even a terrorist himself.

And on domestic issues, "Why Bush is trying to take away everybody's rights now, & we must be told that Bush is in cahoots with big oil, & all the evil corporations who must be out to steal, & plunder from all the poor!

Yep again, ..the SAME exact "liberal" horshyte, same strategy, same old "caught in the 60's responses to everything because the democratic party, & their love for liberalism is not, & has never been accepted by the majority except "WHEN" liberals had a monopoly on all the news.

Same old shyte, ..but with different faces now, & the fact that the majority NO LONGER trusts the mainstream media any longer, ...or the democratic party much these days whom are owned, financed & controlled by liberal whackos! :smile:
 

Stu Ghatze

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 30, 2005
Messages
531
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
galenrox said:
Dude, why do you keep claiming what the left thinks? You've been wrong every single time. There is no one on the left who wants us to fail in Iraq. There is no one on the left who wanted things to go as smoothly as possible. Many didn't want it to happen in the first place, but no one on the left wanted anything to go wrong for our soldiers because of our government's mistake.



I KNOW what the left thinks, & EXACTLY how they operate, & know EXACTLY what they will say BEFORE they say it in regardas to almost any g-damn issue, be it be foreign affairs, or on domestic issues.

Your misunderstanding of "liberalism" & the political "LEFT" is being born during it heyday, & glory years.
 

Kandahar

Enemy Combatant
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
20,688
Reaction score
7,319
Location
Washington, DC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
For what it's worth, I hope Iraq becomes a perfect liberal democracy with free-market capitalism and separation of church and state. And while we're at it, I hope that we'll cure world hunger tomorrow and AIDS will suddenly disappear.

It's not going to happen. "The left" that you refer to simply recognizes this, whereas you have your head so far in the clouds that you are blind to the reality of the situation.
 

Stu Ghatze

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 30, 2005
Messages
531
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Kandahar said:
For what it's worth, I hope Iraq becomes a perfect liberal democracy with free-market capitalism and separation of church and state. And while we're at it, I hope that we'll cure world hunger tomorrow and AIDS will suddenly disappear.

It's not going to happen. "The left" that you refer to simply recognizes this, whereas you have your head so far in the clouds that you are blind to the reality of the situation.



World hunger COULD be cured IF it was NOT for the marxist, islamic corrupt leaders (Somalia) who have no intention of ever allowing real freedom, & honest elections in their countries, & in fact....use hunger to control the massess & to stay in power.

As far as HIV/AIDS is concerned you cannot exclude that disease as being something apart from decent moral behavior! The liberal social engineers ARE WRONG to think that morality concerns have no place in government.

People who smoke are concidered WRONG, & injuring their health, & the health of others, & laws have been legislated to almost wipe its practice out; yet..."homosexuality" which is ALSO very health risky is ADVOCATED by the liberal intelligencia as a personal right, if not outright glorified by the whacko liberals who have no moral equivalency whatsoever!

I am sorry but it is time to recognize the evil behavior of homosexuality, & immoral promiscuity behavior for what it is.

You are quite correct, "it will not happen" as you say.....because YOU liberals are too concerned confusing sexual preferences as civil rights issues, ..& the glorifying of socialism, & refering to dictators as "freedom fighters", & those willing to confront dictators, & terrorists as the "oppressors"!
 

Kandahar

Enemy Combatant
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
20,688
Reaction score
7,319
Location
Washington, DC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Stu Ghatze said:
World hunger COULD be cured IF it was NOT for the marxist, islamic corrupt leaders (Somalia) who have no intention of ever allowing real freedom, & honest elections in their countries, & in fact....use hunger to control the massess & to stay in power.

As far as HIV/AIDS is concerned you cannot exclude that disease as being something apart from decent moral behavior! The liberal social engineers ARE WRONG to think that morality concerns have no place in government.

People who smoke are concidered WRONG, & injuring their health, & the health of others, & laws have been legislated to almost wipe its practice out; yet..."homosexuality" which is ALSO very health risky is ADVOCATED by the liberal intelligencia as a personal right, if not outright glorified by the whacko liberals who have no moral equivalency whatsoever!

I am sorry but it is time to recognize the evil behavior of homosexuality, & immoral promiscuity behavior for what it is.

You are quite correct, "it will not happen" as you say.....because YOU liberals are too concerned confusing sexual preferences as civil rights issues, ..& the glorifying of socialism,
Stop changing the subject. You aren't going to bait me. Those were just examples in my previous post, and you know it. Why don't you respond to the overall point that I was making instead of the snide offhand comment.

ANYWAY...
Back to the subject at hand...

Stu Ghatze said:
& refering to dictators as "freedom fighters", & those willing to confront dictators, & terrorists as the "oppressors"!
I've never claimed that we were oppressing anyone (at least not intentionally). It's ridiculous to believe that our troops are having a positive impact on Iraq though.
 

Billo_Really

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 6, 2005
Messages
18,930
Reaction score
1,040
Location
HBCA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Originally Posted by Stu Ghatze
& refering to dictators as "freedom fighters", & those willing to confront dictators, & terrorists as the "oppressors"!
Hey Stu, I'm just curious. How do you teach your children to be responsible for their own actions? You don't tell them to blame liberals if mom grounded them for not cleaning their room, do you?

I would like to see one post from you discussing conservative mistakes and problems in todays body politic. Are you up for the challenge? Or is liberal bashing to much fun? Or convenient?

Stu on that for a while!
 

Kandahar

Enemy Combatant
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
20,688
Reaction score
7,319
Location
Washington, DC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Billo_Really said:
Hey Stu, I'm just curious. How do you teach your children to be responsible for their own actions? You don't tell them to blame liberals if mom grounded them for not cleaning their room, do you?

I would like to see one post from you discussing conservative mistakes and problems in todays body politic. Are you up for the challenge? Or is liberal bashing to much fun? Or convenient?

Stu on that for a while!

Looking back over Stu's previous 157 posts, almost none of them offer any political opinion or insight, and when they do it is ALWAYS caked with references to how liberals are destroying the country.

Stu, why don't you just get a bot to respond to every thread with a random slur at liberals? It'd accomplish the same thing and probably save you a lot of time posting.
 
Joined
Jul 26, 2005
Messages
1,011
Reaction score
306
Location
Geelong, Australia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
I think the war in Iraq is a failure, because ultimately American soldiers are going to die so that a Secular dictator, can be replaced by a Shia Theocracy. Which is not democracy, and is NOT MISSION ACCOMPLISHED, IS NOT JOB DONE, AND IN NO WAY STRENGHTHENS THE WAR AGAINST TERROR.

Maybe if more people understood that the Middle East has never had the same secular movements, or speration of religion and state in the same manner that the West has had.... Then maybe just maybe people will understand why a Western Style democracy in Iraq is extremely remote, and cannot be simply cut and pasted on Iraq. Democracy can only be born if the people themselves are willing to fight for it!

Ironically the sanctions against Iraq, made the Iraqi people economically and socially weaker. Therefore strengthening Saddam's power. But I suppose all those Democrats and Republicans, could pat themselves on the back for being tough on Saddam, when in reality the sanctions were hurting the very Iraqi people that the sanctions were meant to protect.

What is so funny is that just like the marxists, the neo-conservatives, think the world can instantly be changed, by direct millitary intervention. 'Liberating' the masses from evil dictators.

What ever happened to American pragmatism?
 

cnredd

Major General Big Lug
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 5, 2005
Messages
8,682
Reaction score
262
Location
Philadelphia,PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Australianlibertarian said:
I think the war in Iraq is a failure, because ultimately American soldiers are going to die so that a Secular dictator, can be replaced by a Shia Theocracy. Which is not democracy, and is NOT MISSION ACCOMPLISHED, IS NOT JOB DONE, AND IN NO WAY STRENGHTHENS THE WAR AGAINST TERROR.

Maybe if more people understood that the Middle East has never had the same secular movements, or speration of religion and state in the same manner that the West has had.... Then maybe just maybe people will understand why a Western Style democracy in Iraq is extremely remote, and cannot be simply cut and pasted on Iraq. Democracy can only be born if the people themselves are willing to fight for it!

Ironically the sanctions against Iraq, made the Iraqi people economically and socially weaker. Therefore strengthening Saddam's power. But I suppose all those Democrats and Republicans, could pat themselves on the back for being tough on Saddam, when in reality the sanctions were hurting the very Iraqi people that the sanctions were meant to protect.

What is so funny is that just like the marxists, the neo-conservatives, think the world can instantly be changed, by direct millitary intervention. 'Liberating' the masses from evil dictators.

What ever happened to American pragmatism?
I notice that you are more than happy to accuse Democrats and Republicans when it comes to sanctions, but the guilt of the United Nations happily gets ignored...

What America did was a DIRECT RESULT of the UN's inability to accomplish anything but bloated beauracracy...They have been exposed...UN does its job=no war in Iraq...

As to your assumption that Iraq will turn into a theocracy and will never become a democracy IS debatable...But that leaves the question....

Then what?

Do we TRY to coexist with people willing to do others harm in the sake of "Allah"?...Or do we just poof them out of existence to protect ourselves from future damage?

What is being done right now IS an attempt to answer that question...If nothing was done, the security threat would be much too great to sit on the sidelines, cross our fingers and "hope for the best"...that is called "appeasement", which is and has been the UN's greatest ally...much to the chagrin of reality...
 
Joined
Jul 26, 2005
Messages
1,011
Reaction score
306
Location
Geelong, Australia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
I stand corrected.... And other nations of the UN security council that backed the sanctions. I.e France, Germany, etc.

As for appeasment. Who were we appeasing. This suggests that Saddam was an immediate threat to the U.S and it's allies.

The relatively swift millitary campaign of the Second Gulf War, suggests otherwise.

As for the UN. In the case of the weapons inspectors. As I recall they were doing their job. Hans Blix requested more time, as his team had found found no evidenence of the weapons claimed by the Bush Administration.

So the question is; were the CIA and Bush Administration doing their job correctly, or were the UN weapons inspectors doing their job correctly?

Lastly. This point about the UN being ineffective is partly true. I credit that analysis by some people. (As we have seen in Rowanda, Somalia, Bosnia etc.) But in terms of the weapons inspections, just before the invasion of Iraq, I'd say that the UN was effective in that role. And if anything, the inability of the Bush administration to find more up to date, and conclusive (instead of PROBABLE) evidence of Saddam's regieme, shows just how ineffective and corrupt intelligence services and US administrations can be!

P.S if the administration was so sure about Ansar-al-Islam, being connected to Saddam, why didn't the Bush administration just bomb the hell out of their bases?
 

TimmyBoy

Banned
Joined
Sep 23, 2005
Messages
1,466
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The United States supported Saddam while he was oppressing his own people. If we are in Iraq to bring "freedom and democracy" then why did we support Saddam while he oppressed his own people? Not only that, but in the 1980s Rumsfeld met Saddam and they cut a deal to build an oil pipeline that ran from the Euphrates to the Gulf of Aqaba. They planned to siphon off some of the profits to pay bribes to Shimon Peres Labor Party as "protection money" so that Israel wouldn't attack the oil pipeline. Why do Americans buy into this "freedom and democracy" BS when it is nothing more than a smoke screen to hide the criminal actions of US government officials. We are in Iraq for money and oil. Not to rid the Iraqi people of a dictator we had crooked business dealings with in the past and armed and supported.
 

TimmyBoy

Banned
Joined
Sep 23, 2005
Messages
1,466
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Australianlibertarian said:
I stand corrected.... And other nations of the UN security council that backed the sanctions. I.e France, Germany, etc.

As for appeasment. Who were we appeasing. This suggests that Saddam was an immediate threat to the U.S and it's allies.

The relatively swift millitary campaign of the Second Gulf War, suggests otherwise.

As for the UN. In the case of the weapons inspectors. As I recall they were doing their job. Hans Blix requested more time, as his team had found found no evidenence of the weapons claimed by the Bush Administration.

So the question is; were the CIA and Bush Administration doing their job correctly, or were the UN weapons inspectors doing their job correctly?

Lastly. This point about the UN being ineffective is partly true. I credit that analysis by some people. (As we have seen in Rowanda, Somalia, Bosnia etc.) But in terms of the weapons inspections, just before the invasion of Iraq, I'd say that the UN was effective in that role. And if anything, the inability of the Bush administration to find more up to date, and conclusive (instead of PROBABLE) evidence of Saddam's regieme, shows just how ineffective and corrupt intelligence services and US administrations can be!

P.S if the administration was so sure about Ansar-al-Islam, being connected to Saddam, why didn't the Bush administration just bomb the hell out of their bases?
The truth of the matter, is that the UN was ineffective in Bosnia and Rwanda because they were essientially controlled by the big powers. If the US wanted the UN to be effective in Bosnia, it could have been effective. Blaming the UN is an effective political scapegoat but it is mainly controlled by the major powers. Their was no interests, no resources, no oil in these nations, so the US and other major powers had no interest in stopping the genocides in these countries. Lastly, I would like to comment that many people in the CIA were doing an excellent job, it's just that Bush did not want the truth to come out so he lied his way into this war. Bush knew full well their was no WMD in Iraq, he wanted this war, so he knowingly and intentionally lied, claiming that Iraq had WMD even though members of the CIA knew he did not.
 

TimmyBoy

Banned
Joined
Sep 23, 2005
Messages
1,466
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
galenrox said:
To the last part, I have to disagree slightly. Although all evidence points to the fact that intelligence was fixed, I don't think that Bush knew that there weren't WMDs, I think he honestly believed that they were there, and that intelligence didn't show them because they just hadn't found them yet. This doesn't make it ok by any means, since he still lied to the American people, but I don't think that he did it to deliberately mislead us about WMDs, he just misled us into believing what he believed my claiming fact in the absense of fact.
Bush knew full well their was no WMD in Iraq. He had to have that intelligence fixed so that he could wipe his hands clean of any wrong doing. That's how things work in Washington. They find ways to escape responsibility and blame. Bush knowingly and intentionally lied his way into Iraq because he has powerful oil corporate friends that put him into office.
 

aquapub

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 16, 2005
Messages
7,317
Reaction score
344
Location
America (A.K.A., a red state)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
"For what it's worth, I hope Iraq becomes a perfect liberal democracy with free-market capitalism and separation of church and state. And while we're at it, I hope that we'll cure world hunger tomorrow and AIDS will suddenly disappear.

It's not going to happen. "The left" that you refer to simply recognizes this, whereas you have your head so far in the clouds that you are blind to the reality of the situation."

-Kandahar.


Separation of church and state was never intended. The part you are misinterpreting of the 1st Amendment about "no law respecting the establishment of religion" is protecting the states from a federal religion.

Additionally, there were people like you who called themselves realists (who, like you, were really just compromised, biased, pessimistic partisans), and nay-sayed the rebuilding of Germany and Japan-with the exact same rationales you are using.

History files people like you under the same heading as those who said the phone would never be anything more than a kid's toy-Visionless.
 

Kandahar

Enemy Combatant
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
20,688
Reaction score
7,319
Location
Washington, DC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
aquapub said:
Separation of church and state was never intended. The part you are misinterpreting of the 1st Amendment about "no law respecting the establishment of religion" is protecting the states from a federal religion.
Don't change the subject. You know exactly what I'm talking about regarding separation of church and state in Iraq.

aquapub said:
Additionally, there were people like you who called themselves realists (who, like you, were really just compromised, biased, pessimistic partisans), and nay-sayed the rebuilding of Germany and Japan-with the exact same rationales you are using.
Standard formula for the pro-administration crowd: "You nay-sayers of our policy on (insert policy here) simply don't have any vision, just like the people many decades ago under a completely different set of circumstances who opposed (insert policy here)."

It has nothing to do about being pessimistic or partisan or whatever other nonsense you think it entails. Simply put, our occupation of Iraq has been an unmitigated disaster in every possible way. It wouldn't matter if the war had been launched by a Democrat or Republican or Whig or whoever else. The facts are obvious to anyone who isn't blinded with adoration for the president.

aquapub said:
History files people like you under the same heading as those who said the phone would never be anything more than a kid's toy-Visionless.
I have plenty of vision for the future; it's just that none of my visions involve spending hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of American lives, to occupy a random country where we aren't wanted.
 

oldreliable67

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Messages
4,641
Reaction score
1,102
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
since he still lied to the American people, but I don't think that he did it to deliberately mislead us about WMDs, he just misled us into believing what he believed my claiming fact in the absense of fact.
Huh? Apologies for my denseness, but sorry, I don't get what you mean there. Clarify, please?

Are you saying,
If you believe something to be true and so state that you believe something to be true, and it later turns out to not be true, that you lied?
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
240,542
Reaction score
72,382
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
TimmyBoy said:
Bush knew full well their was no WMD in Iraq. He had to have that intelligence fixed so that he could wipe his hands clean of any wrong doing. That's how things work in Washington. They find ways to escape responsibility and blame. Bush knowingly and intentionally lied his way into Iraq because he has powerful oil corporate friends that put him into office.

psychobabble. moonbat speculation based on your twisted hatred for the country.
 

Technocratic_Utilitarian

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Messages
670
Reaction score
0
Location
New Jersey
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Nonsense jingoistic "america is great" psycho-moonbat babble!

Weee, Appeals to Ridicule to distract with no substantiation are fun!

Stop watching Faux news, pry your mouth of Bush's c.ock, and then tune in to a real news network, and you will learn why Boy George either knew or was a fraking imbecile.
 

Donkey1499

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 5, 2005
Messages
3,945
Reaction score
56
Location
Under The Northern Star, Alaska
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Technocratic_Utilitarian said:
Nonsense jingoistic "america is great" psycho-moonbat babble!

Weee, Appeals to Ridicule to distract with no substantiation are fun!

Stop watching Faux news, pry your mouth of Bush's c.ock, and then tune in to a real news network, and you will learn why Boy George either knew or was a fraking imbecile.
What network would you suggest then? CNN? They're a bunch of liberals. I'll just stick with Fox and NBC.
 

OdgenTugbyGlub

Active member
Joined
Sep 29, 2005
Messages
292
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Dont watch the news, its infotainment, not imfomation. Read a newspaper (not the editorials) or subscribe to a newswire. Theres not really a middle ground in TV anymore, everyone wants a market niche.
 

Donkey1499

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 5, 2005
Messages
3,945
Reaction score
56
Location
Under The Northern Star, Alaska
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Read the paper? The only paper I get is the St. Pete Times (The most LIBERAL paper in the US). There is also the Tampa Tribune, but then I don't get the Pinellas County news. I took Journalism in HS and it said that opinions and editorials belong on the editorial/perspective page(s) only. But the St. Pete Times breaks that rule of Journalism and puts opinions in everything they write. So when it comes to a newspaper, I'm out of luck. I'll stick with Fox, NBC, and Bay News 9 (a local 24/7 news station that does local news mostly. And they got Weather on the Nines [weather report every 10 minutes]).
 

Grendel

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 19, 2005
Messages
704
Reaction score
298
Location
Northern Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Stu Ghatze said:
I KNOW what the left thinks, & EXACTLY how they operate, & know EXACTLY what they will say BEFORE they say it in regardas to almost any g-damn issue, be it be foreign affairs, or on domestic issues.

Your misunderstanding of "liberalism" & the political "LEFT" is being born during it heyday, & glory years.
That should read: I KNOW what Ann Coulter says the left thinks, & EXACTLY how Rush Limbaugh says they operate, & know EXACTLY what O'Reilly is going to claim they will say BEFORE he says it in regardas to almost any g-damn issue, be it be foreign affairs, or on domestic issues.


"Your misunderstanding of "liberalism" & the political "LEFT" is being born during it heyday, & glory years."

You probably say that to "liberals" and the "left", not realizing the insane irony of it.
 

Red_Dave

Libertarian socialist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 23, 2005
Messages
6,879
Reaction score
1,715
Location
Staffs, England
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
TurtleDude said:
psychobabble. moonbat speculation based on your twisted hatred for the country.
Is everything that disagree's with you psychobabble?
 
Top Bottom