A disgusting vat of filth that no self-respecting intelligent person would wade into.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
On another note, good to see that as part of her eulogisation of the late President Ford, Cindy Sheehan has held him responsible for the deaths of 3000 American troops in Iraq. The liberal inteligentsia must be proud to have her as its moral leader....right up there with its other shining lights....a rapist, a murderer and a racist.

Just for kicks, I'm interested to see how your implicit defense of Ford squares with his rejection of Bush administration policy in Iraq, as reported in today's WaPo.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
I generally refrain from responding to the same post twice, but this one deserved special notice.

Didn't you question someone's emotional state because they responded twice to the same post?

This country barely stirred after 9-11? Which country are you referring to? Were you living somewhere else in 2001?

Originally posted by Sidd Finch I remember the US lining up to support their President, giving him a staggering approval rating and level of support.

People in this country were upset but were they willing to make any sacrifices? We barely have gotten a nose bleed in Iraq and yet everyone is clamoring for us to get out.

Originally posted by Sidd Finch I remember the country expressing overwhelming support for war in Afghanistan. And I remember the country expressing strong support for war in Iraq, too, after Bush fraudulently tied Iraq to 9-11.

Sadly, Bush and the R leadership used this historic moment to tell Americans to go shopping, to lead us into a foolish war on Iraq,

Bush saw the momentum from 9-11 as a chance to straighten up Iraq. His father assumed Saddam would fall on his own. There is an old saying that if you are going to knock an enemy down you better makes sure he never gets ups. Bush I had knocked Saddam down but left him standing. Now we had a psychopathic, narcissistic, sociopath dictator who had been humiliated by the US, running one the largest countries in the Middle East. He was so angry at the US; he tried to assassinate our former president. What foreign head of state has ever tried that before?

Clinton didn't fix the problem, mainly because he couldn’t (sorry Penske and Hank, but I just don’t think he had the political capital to invade Iraq and take Saddam out even though Saddam did try and kill Bush I. I believe if Clinton had the political capital he would have used it. And that is why his wife supported the war).

Bush saw the opportunity to finish Saddam off and he seized it.

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
and to solidify their power and brand anyone who opposed them a terrorist.

This is going to sound really arrogant, but I have opposed the Bush administration openly in the newspapers, in pubic and party elections and behind the scenes. I have tried very hard to undercut them many times after being a significant player in his campaign in 2000. In fact when I have criticized the administration in the papers they always love to point out my role in the 2000 campaign. I have been told through various channels that they would really like to see me neutralized. Yet I have never been branded a terrorist nor have my civil rights ever been infringed upon.

[notcasesensitive]

Originally posted by Spanky
...I have opposed the Bush administration ... in pubic ...

I was not aware that you had that sort of relationship with President Bush.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Just for kicks, I'm interested to see how your implicit defense of Ford squares with his rejection of Bush administration policy in Iraq, as reported in today's WaPo.

1. It was not an implicit defense of Ford, but whether I like Ford or not is irrelevant to Sheehan's (and her followers in liberal left and Demo party) idiotic attempt to lay blame for anything, good or bad, on Ford and his administration. She is a lunatical loser and its sad and embarassing that she is one of the shining lights of the new Democratic party.

2. I think its a chickenshit gutless move on Ford's part and if he wasn't dead I would wish it upon him for his violation of the 11th commandment and assorted lesserknown double secret codicils of the Republican honour code that I can't divulge to the enemies here, although, without having read WaPo today, it wouldn't surprise me if he asked them to hold it for 5 years after his death and they published it now anyway, as part of the ongoing MSM conspiracy to wrongly discredit Bush. After the Janet Cooke thing, no lack of ethics or honestly on WaPo's part would surprise me.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Spanky



This is going to sound really arrogant, but I have opposed the Bush administration openly in the newspapers, in pubic and party elections and behind the scenes. I have tried very hard to undercut them many times after being a significant player in his campaign in 2000. In fact when I have criticized the administration in the papers they always love to point out my role in the 2000 campaign. I have been told through various channels that they would really like to see me neutralized. Yet I have never been branded a terrorist nor have my civil rights ever been infringed upon.

the left is sick with hate. they assume bad motives and actions on republicans because this is how they act. Look at the communist party purges in the Soviet Union back in the day. When the left has unfettered power they abuse it, commit crimes openly (rather than in secret) and eat their own. They don't understand the UMC or concepts of Freedom, property rights and capitalism that motivate the rightminded folk of the red states (and purple areas of blue states) of this nation.

Sad, although it speaks loudly to the failure of the education system in this country due to the Dems and their friends in the teachers' unions.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by notcasesensitive
I was not aware that you had that sort of relationship with President Bush.

Are the Twins part of the administration? I posted a pic of Jenna's coochie once on the Adult Board. I wouldn't mind applying some oppositional force there, iykwimaittyd.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
I think its a chickenshit gutless move on Ford's part.

Maybe he was thinking he'd live longer.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
So the Admin should call it a war but no one else should? Interesting view.

This war is hardly cheap, in terms of either lives or money. In terms of money, the cost is approaching $400 billion -- more, in present dollars, than the Vietnam war (we can call that one a "war", right?)

First off all cite you source for the cost of the Vietnam war in present dollar terms. Second - Did you see my prior post? The money has to be viewed in context . It only makes sense if you look at Governmental income at the time of the war. Training one pilot (two million dollars) looks incredibly expensive when compared to how much money we spent on the war of 1812.

Our annual defense budget before the war was like 380 billion dollars. So we have only spent one year’s peace time annual outlay on this war. In order to fight this war we only had to slightly increase military spending. To fight Vietnam (whose cost has also been greatly exaggerated) we had to increase our governmental spending significantly.

As I said, today our government spends 7 billion dollars a day. This war has cost less than two months allowance. And considering how important the outcome is to the future of our nation that is a trifle.

Originally posted by Sidd Finch Nor is the war cheap in terms of lives. To begin with, the suggestion that 3000 dead US soldiers (and 22,000 wounded) is "cheap" is offensive.

Offensive? There is a rational argument coming from a lawyer. You respond twice to my post and you use the word offended but you have the temerity to accuse other posters of become overly dramatic or emotional. If you are so easily offended you have no business posting to this board, nor even being a lawyer. Tell my why my reasoning is faulty but save your "being offended" for the next time you have tea with the old ladies and are discussing hem lines. You may find it offensive but it is the truth. If you are so offended by those deaths why aren't you offended by all the traffic deaths that occur every year in the US. Or all the murders? Where is your outrage and demand that something should be done about all that senseless and preventable killings? If you were a parent or relative of a casulty your irrational position might be forgiveable, but as an armchair spectator your claiming to be offended is offensive.

Originally posted by Sidd Finch But the relatively low casualty toll is due largely to the nature of the warfare. "Asymmetric" warfare always involves relatively low casualties on the side of the technologically advanced army. And the US power and manner of fighting limits casualties even more.

So I refer to the deaths as low, that is offensive, but you refer to them as low it is OK. Spare me your mock outrage.

Originally posted by Sidd Finch The Soviet Union fought a war in Afghanistan (we call that one a "war", right?) that left the nation mortally (and thankfully) wounded. How many soldiers do you think died there -- 100,000? It was only 15,000, about .1% of what the USSR lost in World War II. By your analysis, that wasn't just a minor skirmish, it was a Sunday drive with a flat tire.

The death rate in Afghanistan left the Soviet Union mortally wounded? They lose that many youth to alcohol abuse probably every month. Are you sure you weren’t trying to say the cost and the damage to their image left them weakened? Since 15,000 Soviets died and only three thousand US soldiers have died that would make the war in Afghanistan a minor skirmish and the war in Iraq a Sunday drive with a flat tire.

Originally posted by Sidd Finch Finally, the notion that a war that ties down 1/3 of the US Army is merely a "minor skirmish" ... well, let's just say that if anyone discussing this issue has an IQ of less than six, it's the person who made that claim.


The article Less cited was silly. Hank's response to that -- saying that comparing the deaths on 9/11 to the deaths in Iraq is silly -- was a sensible response. Your efforts to minimize the catastrophe in Iraq by pointing to traffic deaths, etc. is just continuing the silliness.

No - I pointed out facts to put the "war" in perspective. And then drew conclusions. Maybe you can question my conclusions from the facts (although they were pretty self evident), but to question the relevance of the facts is beyond silly.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Spanky
I don't think they can or should. They need to call it a war to insure that we get money and troops for the operation. In addition, no one wants to hear that their son or daughter has died in a "minor military skirmish" in the Middle East.

But anyone with an IQ above six who comments on the war in the media or as a pundit (And especially those that like to see themselves as cutting through the spin and the political B.S.) should see that what is happening is a minor military skirmish and refer to it as such. We should hear over and over again from the pundits that the administration calls this a war, but for a war there are practically no deaths, and for a war this operation is incredibly cheap.

Instead the concept that this is a war is accepted yet everyone focuses on how expensive this war is and how many US military personnel have been lost. However, if you understand that the media is full of liberal morons who don’t understand how important it is that we prevail, and that staying the course is relatively inexpensive in terms of blood and treasure, you get what we have to day. Plus there is the added bonus if they mischaracterize what is happening that will encourage the US population to want to pull out, which they want, and although that will be disastrous for US foreign policy, it will make the Bush administration look bad, which is something they want so badly they are willing to sacrifice the interests of this country.

How many Iraqis need to die for it to graduate beyond a skirmish?

Our participation has certainly been half-hearted from a military perspective. Bush was unwilling in the early days, when it would have been effective, to take the risks necessary to execute on his proclaimed objectives, knowing that the level of American casualties would be unacceptable. That was a Catch-22 of his own making, and the problem with waging war with lukewarm support.

But what we have today is probably best described more in the nature of near-anarchy, or possibly insurrection or civil war. But when we have committed essentially all available military personel to the theatre, it's hard not to call it a war - even if we're being cautious about the use of force while they are committed. This is aside from the fact that the only remaining justification for being there that Bush can use with a straight face is that it is part of the "war on terror".

And, yes, given that Bush has trouble explaining why the hell we're there (he certainly never came up with a reason Ford would buy), it is not surprising that those "liberal morons" don't understand how important it is to stay the course. Was Ford a liberal moron?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Suppose that there were two types of people in the media advocating withdrawal from Iraq:

(1) the liberal morons who are ignorant (they don't understand how important it is that we prevail, or how cheap it would be in blood and treasure), deceitful (they mischaracterize what's happening there to fool the public), unpatriotic (willing to sacrifice the interests of the country), and partisan (they just want to make Bush look bad); and

(2) another crowd who are well-informed about the Middle East and Iraq, who have come to the sincere conclusion that our continued presence there is making things worse, and that only by withdrawing will national reconciliation and an end to the 1insurgency be possible, who think this is in the best interests of the country, and who have said this even when they worry that it's not in the best of interests of their political party, be it Republican or Democrat.

If that were the case, how would you try to tell the different between the two groups?

The sarcasm in your post seems to indicate that most of the people, or at least many people that are opposed to the war, take the view of option two.

In order for someone to fit into option two they would have to:

1) think that even a somewhat stable somewhat democratic government in Iraq would be an almost invaluable benefit and asset for the Iraqi people, the people of the Middle East and the United States.

2) They would have to truly believe that pulling out our troops now would make that scenario more likely than if we kept them there. In other words keeping our presence there, increasing our presence there, or some other option would make achieving that goal less likely than if we pulled out now.

Unless they complied with those two factors it seems to me that they fall into option one. I don't know many people who have opposed the war or who are for an immediate or gradual but fast pullout that fall into the latter category . I think it is pretty easy to tell if they do by the way they complain about the war.

How many people have you heard say; "it is extremely important that we succeed in Iraq, and the best strategy for achieving success is pulling out."? Can you name more than three?

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Spanky
First off all cite you source for the cost of the Vietnam war in present dollar terms. Second - Did you see my prior post? The money has to be viewed in context . It only makes sense if you look at Governmental income at the time of the war. Training one pilot (two million dollars) looks incredibly expensive when compared to how much money we spent on the war of 1812.

Our annual defense budget before the war was like 380 billion dollars. So we have only spent one year’s peace time annual outlay on this war. In order to fight this war we only had to slightly increase military spending. To fight Vietnam (whose cost has also been greatly exaggerated) we had to increase our governmental spending significantly.

As I said, today our government spends 7 billion dollars a day. This war has cost less than two months allowance. And considering how important the outcome is to the future of our nation that is a trifle.

Vietnam war cost $111 billion from 1964-72. Here's a random cite pulled from Google. http://www.cwc.lsu.edu/other/stats/warcost.htm

By 1972, our government was spending about .75 billion per day. So, Vietnam cost what we were spending in about 5 months. Do you really think that the difference between 5 months' spending in Vietnam and 2 months' (and counting) spending in Iraq is so enormous that one is a "war" and the other is a "minor skirmish"?

Here's another cite discussing present value. The numbers on this vary wildly, but the conclusion is pretty uniform.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...042601601.html

Offensive? There is a rational argument coming from a lawyer. You respond twice to my post and you use the word offended but you have the temerity to accuse other posters of become overly dramatic or emotional. If you are so easily offended you have no business posting to this board, nor even being a lawyer. Tell my why my reasoning is faulty but save your "being offended" for the next time you have tea with the old ladies and are discussing hem lines. You may find it offensive but it is the truth. If you are so offended by those deaths why aren't you offended by all the traffic deaths that occur every year in the US. Or all the murders? Where is your outrage and demand that something should be done about all that senseless and preventable killings? If you were a parent or relative of a casulty your irrational position might be forgiveable, but as an armchair spectator your claiming to be offended is offensive.

Who says I am not offended by murders, traffic deaths, etc? If the government adopted policies that increased murders or traffic deaths by 3000 people, I would oppose those policies.

Tell ya' what: Let's go to a meeting of families of soldiers who died in Iraq. You tell 10 people your "it's just a minor skirmish" theory, I'll tell 10 people my "it's a war, and should be called a war, and the cost is very high" theory. Let's see which of us offends more people.

And please -- when you volunteer for the military, you and your neo-con friends can call me an armchair spectator.

So I refer to the deaths as low, that is offensive, but you refer to them as low it is OK. Spare me your mock outrage.

"relatively low," not "low." As in, relative to other wars, to which you were making comparisons. Not as in "so low that this is just a walk in the park," as you seem to think.

The death rate in Afghanistan left the Soviet Union mortally wounded? They lose that many youth to alcohol abuse probably every month. Are you sure you weren’t trying to say the cost and the damage to their image left them weakened? Since 15,000 Soviets died and only three thousand US soldiers have died that would make the war in Afghanistan a minor skirmish and the war in Iraq a Sunday drive with a flat tire.

No, the war in Afghanistan itself did that to the Soviets, not the number of dead. The body count idiocy is your own invention.

No - I pointed out facts to put the "war" in perspective. And then drew conclusions. Maybe you can question my conclusions from the facts (although they were pretty self evident), but to question the relevance of the facts is beyond silly.

If your conclusions are so self-evident, then others should have reached them. Please identify some publications that refer to the Iraq war as a "minor skirmish." Surely your neo-con buddies have reached the same conclusion as you.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
The sarcasm in your post seems to indicate that most of the people, or at least many people that are opposed to the war, take the view of option two.

In order for someone to fit into option two they would have to:

1) think that even a somewhat stable somewhat Democractic government in Iraq would be an almost invaluable benefit and asset for the Iraqi people, the people of the Middle East and the United States.

2) They would have to truly believe that pulling out our troops now would make that scenario more likely than if we kept them there. In other words keeping our presense there, increasing our presnence there, or someother option would make achieving that goal less likely than if we pulled out now.

Unless they complied with those two factors it seems to me that they fall into option one. I don't know many people who have opposed the war or who are for an immediate or gradual but fast pullout that fall into the latter catagory . I think this is pretty easy to tell if they do by the way they complain about the war.

How many people have you heard say, "it is extremely important that we succeed in Iraq, and the best strategy for achieving success is pulling out." Can you name more than three?

Of course, you didn't answer my question, which went to how you can tell that pundits who want us to pull out are acting for the wrong reasons (dishonesty, stupidity, partisanship, etc.) rather than the right reasons. And, as Sidd suggested, the answer is that you can't. You just ascribe the worst of motives to those who disagree with you.

As for your 1), I disagree. Iran is somewhat stable and somewhat democratic, and it is not an asset for us. A somewhat stable, somewhat democratic Iraq that allied with Iran would hardly be invaluable for us.

I guess our disagreement makes me a lying, moronic, partisan traitor, right?

As for your 2), there are plenty of people out there saying these things, but I guess you just haven't been paying attention. It's simpler just to accuse them of wanting to cut and run.

As for your last question, I am aware of no one who thinks that our Iraq policy is unimportant, but many who think that there are no longer many good options. Which is to say that there are plenty of people who believe -- for the right reasons -- that the best course for America is to pull out.

As I've said before, I'm actually not sure which side I come down on, which is another way of saying that there are no longer many good options.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
...if he [President Ford] wasn't dead I would wish it upon him...

Uh-oh. Now you've done it.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Maybe he was thinking he'd live longer.

The Lourd moves in mysterioso ways....he should have had more respect for that invisible higher power......

Eitherwhichway, let's face it, Ford is a footnote in histoury. His only real accomplishment was standing in the way of Reagan being the nominee in 76, which was probably an election that was unwinnable for him in context, and losing to Peanutfarmerboy, thus setting the stage for the dawn of the Reagan Era, a time of which we still bask in the glow despite the liberals best attempts to undo, pee on and diminish his great legacy. For the foregoing, as applicable, I am thankful to Ford, although in all likelihood he was the agent of the invisible higher power who certainly was a big Reagan fan.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by taxwonk
Uh-oh. Now you've done it.

Cite ishere

Assuming I am absorbing your implication, please define how my comment, even if made today about Peanutfarmerboy violates the statute that you previously violated.


Hank, what's the SoL here?