Posting Towards Gomorrah

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I agree that the sanctions were inflicting a toll on Iraqis. I submit that many more have died since then. I think you are exagerating the number of soldiers we kept in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, and in any event this was far less expensive than having our soldiers tied down in Iraq under the current scenario.

Depends, if one of the external costs of having soldiers in Saudi was WTC II, how do we measure the cost of that? Dollars? Lives? An integrated metric?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
wow, politics of personal destruction.

I enjoy it when you switch on the bullshit and post what you really think, but I and probably most of the other people on the board get tired of your moronic shit, no offense, and wish you would focus on the other stuff. You are not a moron. You post some moronic shit. Love the sinner, hate the sin.

Ty, do you want I post the litany of Clinton's quotes on Iraq and what the use of the military option? He supported it, he just didn't have the guts to be a true commander in chief and execute the policy.

That's horseshit, and no less ironic for your whining above about the politics of personal destruction. You're doing your level best to take an issue of substantive policy and turn into a question of personality.

I have no doubt that Clinton disagreed with what Bush was doing, and I think he showed class in keeping that to himself, just has Bush's father usually did the same when Clinton was in office.

He spent 8 years softening our defenses and national security out of his antipathy to the military and intelligence communities.

That, too, is horseshit. He left Bush the military that deployed to Iraq.

If you want to have a serious conversation about the end of the Cold War, go ahead.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Ty posts blogger's opinions as fact, and dismisses ABCNews documentaries as fiction. He ignores Clinton's words, yet defends Clinton's policies based on blogger's interpretations and assertions that Bush, as the anti-Clinton, is lying. He relies on the liberal blog community for the foundation of his positions, yet would stand up and justify their hypocrasy. I know he is better than this......perhaps too much wine?

OK. I've had enough of you and Hank here for the time being. Have fun entertaining each other.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
OK. I've had enough of you and Hank here for the time being. Have fun entertaining each other.

Cut-and-run Defeatocrat.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Once again, here are/were the problems with "containment"

1) Hussein continually violated each and every new UN sanction and IAEA decree, which (if possible) further eroded any legitimacy these organizations had.

It wasn't perfect, but what is? It was working.

And spare me your crocodile tears for the UN's legitimacy.

2) Because of the "containment" - coupled with the Oil-for-food scandal - millions of Iraqis starved while the Baathists lined their coffers. And because of this, as you recall, there were worldwide calls for the US to "stop the containment" as if it, not Saddam's greed, was the direct cause of starvation of "millions of Iraqi" children. So you here you have a damned if you do, damned if you dont.

True. Perhaps the sanctions were not well tailored to their ends.

I have seen arguments that sanctions usually don't work, and are more about making ourselves feel good than anything else. They tend to undermine those in the country whom we want to support, and to strengthen those we don't like. Cuba is another example.

3) Containment necessitated the "no-fly rule" - which Saddam routinely broke, you may recall - and led to thousands of troops being stationed in Saudi Arabia. According to Bin Laden et al, it was this "occupation" of "Arab holy land" that led to the Muslim unrest leading up to the attacks on the Cole, Khobar and WTC.

Yes.

When saying it is Bush policy that has led to terrorism, why do so many choose to conveniently forget or ignore these much earlier atrocities???

What?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Cut-and-run Defeatocrat.

You have my proxy.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
You have my proxy.

Bush lied!

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I enjoy it when you switch on the bullshit and post what you really think, but I and probably most of the other people on the board get tired of your moronic shit, no offense, and wish you would focus on the other stuff. You are not a moron. You post some moronic shit. Love the sinner, hate the sin.

The politics of personal destruction in this venue amounts to attacking the poster personally, as opposed to the message of the post. The left here (and I find irl) frequently substitute message discussion with responses such as " fuck you asshole". I deplore this type of diviseness. On the other hand, as part of a policy critique, critiquing an individual politician's personal characteristics or behaviours is fair game. Did you miss the part of the 90s where it was determined that "character counts". That was in part the message of the 2000 election.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop


That's horseshit, and no less ironic for your whining above about the politics of personal destruction. You're doing your level best to take an issue of substantive policy and turn into a question of personality.

Character counts. The Clinton co-president's dislike, distrust and disrespect of the military and intelligence communities, during his presidency, in our country is well documented.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop


I have no doubt that Clinton disagreed with what Bush was doing, and I think he showed class in keeping that to himself, just has Bush's father usually did the same when Clinton was in office.

Except there are plenty of quotes in the run up to Iraqi campaign in the GWOT where Clinton supports Bush. Did you see co-President Clinton's quote above from 10/2002. Doesnt sound like disagreement to me.....

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
OK. I've had enough of you and Hank here for the time being. Have fun entertaining each other.

We win!

eta: I blame Hank!

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
It wasn't perfect, but what is? It was working.

And spare me your crocodile tears for the UN's legitimacy.

If it was working, explain co-president Hillary's quote from 10-2002.....

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop




Yes.

Exactly, so what is the balancing test on the costs, i.e. the cost of containment included WTC II. At what point is the cost of the current battle front in Iraq less than a series of WTCs? W took action to prevent more WTCs, a well taken calculated risk. As I have said, I expected it to take 5-10 years, as I imagine any thoughtful person looking at the totality of the circumstances would (especially given that 60 years later we still have to occupy Weurope with more troops than are in Iraq to ensure stability there). When all is said and done, I think the RoI on Iraq will be good.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
The politics of personal destruction in this venue amounts to attacking the poster personally, as opposed to the message of the post. The left here (and I find irl) frequently substitute message discussion with responses such as " fuck you asshole". I deplore this type of diviseness. On the other hand, as part of a policy critique, critiquing an individual politician's personal characteristics or behaviours is fair game. Did you miss the part of the 90s where it was determined that "character counts". That was in part the message of the 2000 election.





Character counts. The Clinton co-president's dislike, distrust and disrespect of the military and intelligence communities, during his presidency, in our country is well documented.



Except there are plenty of quotes in the run up to Iraqi campaign in the GWOT where Clinton supports Bush. Did you see co-President Clinton's quote above from 10/2002. Doesnt sound like disagreement to me.....

When do honor and dignity get restored to the White House?

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
When do honour and dignity get restored to the White House?

Late January 2001. Are you posting from a time machine in the past?

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Late January 2001. Are you posting from a time machine in the past?

"As President, I will restore honor and dignity to the White House, and set a new tone of respect and bipartisanship in Washington. It's time to put the days of scandal and partisan bickering behind us and work for the American people."


Bush lied!

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
"As President, I will restore honor and dignity to the White House, and set a new tone of respect and bipartisanship in Washington. It's time to put the days of scandal and partisan bickering behind us and work for the American people."


Bush lied!

Ooops. Sorry. 9/11 changed things. My bad.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
"As President, I will restore honor and dignity to the White House, and set a new tone of respect and bipartisanship in Washington. It's time to put the days of scandal and partisan bickering behind us and work for the American people."


Bush lied!

Which part? Bush obviously has the requisite respect for the rule of law that Clinton lacked and thus the dishonour and indignity that Clinton visited upon the office of the Presidency by his campaign of perjury, obstruction of justice and sexual harassment and perversity has been ended. While Bush has attempted to bridge the divide on partisan bickering, and unite the country behind the principles of freedom and democracy on which this country is based, the Ds have so little inherent respect for the office of the presidency, the institutions of this once great nation and our national security, that from the dark undergrowth of their lair of dissatisfaction at their own failings, they continue to snipe at the President, even in wartime.

I, for one, am proud to be an American again, and hope, that once the Rs hold the Senate and House in November, the Ds will acknowledge that the People have spoken, and step aside, for the greater good, and let the adults run the country.