Politics: Where we struggle to kneel in the muck.

[SlaveNoMore]

Adder
I do love how people manage to conclude that because something didn't work, it shouldn't have been tried.

Nice summary of Kerry's new Iraq stance.

[Adder]

Originally posted by sgtclub
The quote was taken out of context. He essentially said that this is a different type of war, one we will not "win" in the sense that we did when Germany and Japan surrendered or the Wall came tumbling down, because we are not at war with nation states capable of surrender.

Wait!! You mean he was saying that maybe it isn't really a "war" in the classical sense??? Why does that sound familiar??

[bilmore]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield When i have a son, I plan to listen to Cats in the Cradle while I rock him to bed. Then I'll coolly step out onto the patio and shoot myself for the betterment of humanity.

I'll raise him for you. Betterment is a good thing.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Was he really talented, or just a one-hit wonder? I won't pretend to know.

Another fucking philistine.

[Adder]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore


Russia? Ha. Besides, look how their help in WW II turned out.

Winning sucks, doesn't it?

[SlaveNoMore]

Adder
Winning [wars] sucks, doesn't it?

Are you asking me personally, or are you looking for Noam Chomsky Hate America-type answer?

[Adder]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
We got some Arab troops last time, and a lot more money. Plus, a truly international coalition (i.e., one not perceived as a front for us) would surely have caused less of a backlash against us there.

eta: What Gatti said.

Shit. All they had to do was not say, "Fuck you, we are doing this if you like it or not so you better sign up" and they would have had a far more credible coalition.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Here is wisdom... This country will fall on its fucking ass if someone doesn't remind people that everything is a bargain and you get what you pay for.

Major premise: you get what you pay for.

Minor premise: teachers and government workers are lazy, ineffectual, and useless.

Aren't you the guy who makes fun of people who shop at Joseph Bank? You're buying from Joseph Bank and then complaining about the quality, assjack.

I propose that to improve the quality of our government, we should immediately raise all government salaries to a level that could support Sebby's lifestyle, so we'll have quality people like him competing to teach third grade.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Things must be grim indeed if I'm looking to Arnaud de Borchgrave:

Thanks, Ty. The Spanish commentary has been sorely absent for some time. I feel positively refreshed catching up. What color white do they really favor for flags, anyway?

[Adder]

These are probably not worth responding to, but what the hell.

Originally posted by sgtclub
From Newsmax:
[list]Among the more egregious of the tragicomic whoppers noted:


Kerry now claims the "most important task" is to win the "war on terrorism." Yet Kerry, speaking to his pets at the New York Times in March, refused to call the war on terror a war, RNC recalled.
Kerry then: "The final victory in the war on terror depends on a victory in the war of ideas, much more than the war on the battlefield. And the war - not the war, I don’t want to use that terminology."

Outside of Afghanistan, it isn't a war in any sense other than that it will take a prolonged, concerted effort. It is an intelligence/law enforcement action. "War on terrorism" is nothing more than shorthand, which is how Kerry used it in the first quote above.

Kerry now claims Iraq was a "diversion from" the war on terror. On Dec. 15 he said: "Iraq may not be the war on terror itself, but it is critical to the outcome of the war on terror."

You mean that at one point, he believed that the Administration wasn't lying to him, and therefore over estimated the risk that Saddam posed? Yeah, well. So did a lot of people.

Kerry now claims Saddam Hussein's evil was not enough to justify war. Here's what he said in a speech July 29, 2002:
"I agree completely with this administration’s goal of a regime change in Iraq – Saddam Hussein is a renegade and outlaw who turned his back on the tough conditions of his surrender put in place by the United Nations in 1991."

This statement in no way implies that Saddam's "evil" was not enough to justify war. Great reporting they have over there are Newsmax.

Kerry now claims Saddam’s "downfall ... has left America less secure."

It quite obviously has.

Oopsy: Here's his anti-Dean, anti-Saddam stand in December 2003, according to Newsday:
"Those who doubted whether Iraq or the world would be better off without Saddam Hussein, and those who believe we are not safer with his capture, don’t have the judgment to be president or the credibility to be elected president."

These two statement are not inconsistent. Iraq and the world are clearly better off. And we are arguably safer with a captured rather than free Sadam. Neither of these means that an unstable Iraq and even more pissed off Arabs don't make us less secure.

Kerry now claims the decision to go into Iraq was a "colossal" failure. Yet on Aug. 9, Kerry said that had he known then what he knew now, he would still have voted for the use-of-force resolution, according to CNN:
"Yes, I would have voted for the authority. I believe it's the right authority for a president to have. But I would have used that authority, as I have said throughout this campaign, effectively."

Leaving aside how a decision could be a collosal failure (quality journalism, to be sure), again, these are not inconsistent. Our execution in Iraq has been poor to say the least. That is not to say that it could not have been done effectively (i.e. not unilaterally).

Kerry now claims Saddam was not a "threat to our security." Here's what he said in January 2003, according to the L.A. Times: "If you don't believe ... Saddam Hussein is a threat with nuclear weapons, then you shouldn't vote for me."

Again, not inconsistent. Notice the major qualifier on the second statement (hint: no "nucular" weapons)

Kerry now claims Saddam's "capability to acquire weapons" was not reason enough for war. Yet according to the Congressional Record of Oct. 9, 2002, he called those who would leave the Iraqi dictator alone "naive to the point of grave danger."
And so on and so forth.

Again, there is the little intervening matter of the quality of our intelligence/veractity of the administration.

[SlaveNoMore]

Adder
It quite obviously has.

Really? It isn't that obvious to me. Or millions of other Americans who haven't seen a successful terrorist mission over here in the last 3 years.

As a matter of fact, I love it every time Kerry or one of his "puppets" says something like "Iraq is now a magnet for terrorists", as if this is a bad thing.

Far, far better for our military to kill them over there than to deal with them over here.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Adder
Outside of Afghanistan, it isn't a war in any sense other than that it will take a prolonged, concerted effort. It is an intelligence/law enforcement action. "War on terrorism" is nothing more than shorthand, which is how Kerry used it in the first quote above.

You are a naive little asshole. It is a war. It is WWIV. Pay attention, or slowly concede your life. Those people at Pearl Harbor could have been polite, too, but what woud it have gained for them?

[Adder]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Really? It isn't that obvious to me. Or millions of other Americans who haven't seen a successful terrorist mission over here in the last 3 years.

Invading Iraq prevented terrorist attacks even before we invaded? Interesting.

And really, honestly, you think invading Iraq has prevented terrorist attacks? Exactly how?

And you do know that during that period, there have been numerous successful terrorist attacks against other nations, right?

And that in the last fifteen years (at least), there have been exactly two successful attacks by foriegn terrorists in the U.S.? What possible reason is there to conclude that three years without an attack says anything at all about our ability to prevent attacks? (btw.. we are both obviously leaving the anthrax attacks out of this discussion)

Far, far better for our military to kill them over there than to deal with them over here.

I think that this is naive, and short sighted, as hell.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by bilmore
You are a naive little asshole. It is a war. It is WWIV. Pay attention, or slowly concede your life. Those people at Pearl Harbor could have been polite, too, but what woud it have gained for them?

I must not have been paying attention. What happened to WWIII?

[Adder]

Originally posted by bilmore
You are a naive little asshole. It is a war. It is WWIV. Pay attention, or slowly concede your life. Those people at Pearl Harbor could have been polite, too, but what woud it have gained for them?

Um... i am assuming you are being facetious.

If you want to argue that it is a "war" of ideas, cultures, idealogies, values, etc., I wouldn't necessarily disagree. But a shootin' war it ain't. And shooting doesn't help much on the idea/cultute/idealogy/values front.