The babyjesuschristsuperstar on Board: filling the moral void of Clinton’s legacy

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Where did I do that, Hank?

SHP said he heard the predictions. Spanky says "cite". I sez, here are a few.

Its not ALL about Bush. Although the bastard did lie, and people died.



S_A_M

How many times does he have to explain this? He wasn't under oath, and so HE DID NOT LIE!! So long as he did not lie, and more people die in car accidents in California than servicemen and women die in Iraq, and Joe Lieberman, the MNF web site and the Washington Times say everything in Iraq is fine, that constitutes proof positive that Saddam Hussein's WMDs are presently being hidden in Syria and guarded by children, who would greet our soldiers with garlands of flowers if we ever invaded.

And even if he did lie, it's okay - Presidents lie about national security matters all the time. Otherwise, we'd be speaking a strange melange of Russian, Chinese, Japanese and German. So just be grateful for the freedoms you still have and stop hating America.

[Southern Patriot]

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
How many times does he have to explain this? He wasn't under oath, and so HE DID NOT LIE!! So long as he did not lie, and more people die in car accidents in California than servicemen and women die in Iraq, and Joe Lieberman, the MNF web site and the Washington Times say everything in Iraq is fine, that constitutes proof positive that Saddam Hussein's WMDs are presently being hidden in Syria and guarded by children, who would greet our soldiers with garlands of flowers if we ever invaded.

And even if he did lie, it's okay - Presidents lie about national security matters all the time. Otherwise, we'd be speaking a strange melange of Russian, Chinese, Japanese and German. So just be grateful for the freedoms you still have and stop hating America.

Good to see you coming over to our side, SHP.

Wilkomen.

[Southern Patriot]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
I liked this part. Thank God for a professional military with officers and senior enlisted generally inculcated with democratic ideals and a respect for human rights:

"At another point in their news conference, Rumsfeld and Pace [Gen. Peter Pace, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff], had an unusual exchange in which Rumsfeld corrected his senior military adviser, only to have Pace gently insist that it was the defense secretary who was wrong.

"A reporter asked Pace what U.S. commanders in Iraq are supposed to do if they find Iraqi forces abusing prisoners. Pace replied that if inhumane treatment is observed it is a service member's duty to stop it.

"'I don't think you mean they have an obligation to physically stop it — it's to report it,' Rumsfeld said, turning to Pace.

"Replied the general: 'If they are physically present when inhumane treatment is taking place, sir, they have an obligation to try to stop it.'"

S_A_M

Pansy-asses. If only the confederacy had won the War of Northern Agression, our good ole boys would be handling Iraqis like...

Oh, wait. I guess we have been.

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

http://www.forward.com/articles/6936

-- Martin van Creveld, a professor of military history at the Hebrew University, is author of "Transformation of War" (Free Press, 1991). He is the only non-American author on the U.S. Army's required reading list for officers.

[Captain]

Originally posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?
http://www.forward.com/articles/6936

-- Martin van Creveld, a professor of military history at the Hebrew University, is author of "Transformation of War" (Free Press, 1991). He is the only non-American author on the U.S. Army's required reading list for officers.

While not the best article I've read, that one is interesting. My guess is that civil war is virtually inevitable in Iraq; instead of Vietnam, I would suggest that Iraq is comparable to the old Soviet Union or Yugoslavia - countries where ethnic pressures ultimately must boil up and split up the country, and where only a strong, dictatorial government can hold the country together. Of course, Bush would prefer that this not happen on his watch.

Instead of a full withdrawl, why not try to manage the division of the country now? An announced notion that Iraq is to be governed by the Iraqis, and perhaps a bit of encouragement to some third country floating the idea of a plebiscite on unity, followed by a UN peacekeeping force to supervise the election (the fact that the first election wasn't an excuse to disengage and turn the job over to the UN was a foreign policy misstep in my mind, resulting from the devaluing of traditional diplomatic channels when the US wanted to initiate the war). Then we disengage and let the country do what it will, knowing that at least the Kurds will be sitting on a large portion of the total oil reserve, and they seem to appreciate everything we've done to strengthen their hand.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
Actually - no it wasn't.

Actually, yes it was. PM me if you need an explanation.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
Hint: 1. How many troops are in Iraq? 2. How many people live in California?

If it's so safe there, I'm surprised more Young Republicans and College Republicans aren't signing up.

Actually the reenlistment rates are pretty high. If things are going so poorly, and the troop morale is so low why are so many signing on for another tour of duty?

Actually the Young Republican leadership in the Silicon Valley has been devasted by the war. Everyone signed up or was already in the reserves. One of my old business parters and his best friend (both ex young Republican presidents) just signed up and they are both 35.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?
http://www.forward.com/articles/6936

-- Martin van Creveld, a professor of military history at the Hebrew University, is author of "Transformation of War" (Free Press, 1991). He is the only non-American author on the U.S. Army's required reading list for officers.

We can always count on you for thoughtful cites. Your reading list must be carefully and tightly honed to only the most important sources. I found this section particularly thoughtful and persuasive.

Quick question before I sign off- were you one of the ones who told Penske he is a clown?

• For misleading the American people, and launching the most foolish war since Emperor Augustus in 9 B.C sent his legions into Germany and lost them, Bush deserves to be impeached and, once he has been removed from office, put on trial along with the rest of the president's men. If convicted, they'll have plenty of time to mull over their sins.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
How many times does he have to explain this? He wasn't under oath, and so HE DID NOT LIE!!

No one on this board has ever said this. How can you expect to even participate in a discussion when something has been repeated at least thirty times and you still don't understand it. Not that you will get it is this time, but we are not saying it wasn't a lie because he was not under oath. I will say it again, for the umteenth time in the forlorn hope that you might grasp this not so difficult concept this time: WE ARE SAYING IT WAS NOT ILLEGAL BECAUSE HE WAS NOT UNDER OATH. WE ARE SAYING HE DID NOT LIE BECAUSE HE ACTUALLY BELIEVED THERE WERE WMDS IN IRAQ AND FOR A LIE TO BE A LIE IT HAS TO BE INTENTIONAL. A LIE UNDER OATH IS STILL A LIE AND NO CONSERVATIVE ON THIS BOARD HAS EVER SAID ANYTHING DIFFERENT.

[Southern Patriot]

Originally posted by Spanky
WE ARE SAYING IT WAS NOT ILLEGAL BECAUSE HE WAS NOT UNDER OATH. WE ARE SAYING HE DID NOT LIE BECAUSE HE ACTUALLY BELIEVED THERE WERE WMDS IN IRAQ AND FOR A LIE TO BE A LIE IT HAS TO BE INTENTIONAL.

I'm sorry, I was so pleased to see SHP coming over that I failed to ensure that I'd mastered the finer point.

Yes, Bush did not lie. He may be stupid, he may be blind (or choose to be blind), he may not make a reasonable investigation into his sources, he may not use his considerable resources to do anything other than confirm his own prejudices, but the man did not lie.

George W. is as honest as that good boy of the South, George W[ashington]; if he chopped down the cherry tree, boy, he's going to tell you he chopped down the cherry tree.

Now, what cherry tree was that?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Captain
While not the best article I've read, that one is interesting. My guess is that civil war is virtually inevitable in Iraq; instead of Vietnam, I would suggest that Iraq is comparable to the old Soviet Union or Yugoslavia - countries where ethnic pressures ultimately must boil up and split up the country, and where only a strong, dictatorial government can hold the country together. Of course, Bush would prefer that this not happen on his watch.

Instead of a full withdrawl, why not try to manage the division of the country now? An announced notion that Iraq is to be governed by the Iraqis, and perhaps a bit of encouragement to some third country floating the idea of a plebiscite on unity, followed by a UN peacekeeping force to supervise the election (the fact that the first election wasn't an excuse to disengage and turn the job over to the UN was a foreign policy misstep in my mind, resulting from the devaluing of traditional diplomatic channels when the US wanted to initiate the war). Then we disengage and let the country do what it will, knowing that at least the Kurds will be sitting on a large portion of the total oil reserve, and they seem to appreciate everything we've done to strengthen their hand.

Although I agree that splitting up Iraq may not be a bad idea, I don't see how anyone could possibly conclude that the split up of Iraq is inevitable. The insurgency is just not supported. How do I know? They told no one to vote and everyone did, including the Sunnis. For anyone to make any predictions about Iraq until we see the results of the December election is ridiculous.

No one knows the future and to make any firm conclusions before the elections is ludicrous. We should stay the course until the election and hope that all the negative predictions from the liberals don't become selfulfilling (like they want them to be).

In addition, that guys statement that Bush and friend should be put on trial just shows how ridiculous his thinking is. If he really is on the reading list, I doubt it will be for much longer. Or maybe he is used as an exmple of what not to do. I personally would have no problem being put "on trial" for deposing the butcher of Bagdad.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Southern Patriot
I'm sorry, I was so pleased to see SHP coming over that I failed to ensure that I'd mastered the finer point.

Yes, Bush did not lie. He may be stupid, he may be blind (or choose to be blind), he may not make a reasonable investigation into his sources, he may not use his considerable resources to do anything other than confirm his own prejudices, but the man did not lie.

George W. is as honest as that good boy of the South, George W[ashington]; if he chopped down the cherry tree, boy, he's going to tell you he chopped down the cherry tree.

Now, what cherry tree was that?

If the evidence was so overwhelming that Saddam did not have WMDs and Bush just overlooked it, why was our military so paranoid about a WMD attack during the war? The military has their own intelligence services. They get the same stuff the President gets.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Spanky
If the evidence was so overwhelming that Saddam did not have WMDs and Bush just overlooked it, why was our military so paranoid about a WMD attack during the war? The military has their own intelligence services. They get the same stuff the President gets.

the reasonable people: Bush believed Iraq had WMD.
the insane: some general told him just before his speech that we've been looking for 10 years (since 92) and haven't found any.

the reasonable people: Clinton said Sadaam had WMD.
the insane: Yes, but he blew them all up when we bombed Iraq in 1997.

in sum- Their logic--

We've not found them even though we've looked since '92= they aren't there

and

Clinton's bomb destroyed them all in '97= the general was wrong?

I just don't get how any of these guys can get paid for legal work.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Southern Patriot
I'm sorry, I was so pleased to see SHP coming over that I failed to ensure that I'd mastered the finer point.

Yes, Bush did not lie. He may be stupid, he may be blind (or choose to be blind), he may not make a reasonable investigation into his sources, he may not use his considerable resources to do anything other than confirm his own prejudices, but the man did not lie.

George W. is as honest as that good boy of the South, George W[ashington]; if he chopped down the cherry tree, boy, he's going to tell you he chopped down the cherry tree.

Now, what cherry tree was that?

I only looked at the base of the trunk of the tree, where I was applying the axe. So I really didn't know I had chopped down a cherry tree. It could have been any kind of tree. Or, a mummified elephant leg, really.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
I only looked at the base of the trunk of the tree, where I was applying the axe. So I really didn't know I had chopped down a cherry tree. It could have been any kind of tree. Or, a mummified elephant leg, really.

You did not chop down that plant.....cherry tree.