"Quagmire" morphs into "A Very Sucessful Effort"

[rikzilla]

President Carter munches humble pie...says: "Mmmmm". (http://washingtontimes.com/national/20050211-123325-7245r.htm) Is American leftist defeatism finally defeated??

Former President Jimmy Carter, who predicted that elections in Iraq would fail and in the past year described the Bush administration's policy there as a quagmire, this week ended 10 days of silence to declare the historic Iraqi vote "a very successful effort."
"I hope that we'll have every success in Iraq," Mr. Carter said in a CNN interview. "And that election, I think, was a surprisingly good step forward."
The Nobel Peace Prize winner's comments on Wednesday contradicted his September assertion that the Iraq elections could not be held by January and ended a period during which the Georgia Democrat's failure to comment prompted one critic to gloat about the election success "shaming him into silence."
Last year, in venues ranging from CNN to National Public Radio, Mr. Carter predicted that Iraq would not be ready for a January election, compared the situation there to the Vietnam War and implied that "the control of oil" was a major reason for the U.S. military presence in Iraq.
"I personally do not believe we will be ready for an election in January," Mr. Carter told Katie Couric Sept. 30 on NBC's "Today" show.
The United States, he said, should "go through the election and then withdraw American troops as rapidly as possible. ... Get us out of there."
As recently as three weeks ago, Mr. Carter predicted low turnout and an unrepresentative result for the Iraq election.
"Whether it's 30 percent turnout or 50 percent turnout, almost entirely Shi'ites and Kurds and just a very few Sunnis, I think, the White House will claim it's a success," Mr. Carter told Matt Lauer on the "Today" show on Jan. 19.

Even the Sunnis of Tikrit are turning out! (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/14/international/middleeast/14tikrit.html?ei=5090&en=d43d9532f8c0eee2&ex=1292216400&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=print)
The Sunni Arabs know, too, that Thursday's vote is for a full, four-year government, one whose reach will be far greater than that of the current transitional one.

"The Sunnis have suffered enough from this government," said Dhiab al-Ibrahim, a campaign manager for Mishaan al-Jubouri, a tough-talking Sunni Arab candidate who is popular in Tikrit. "They governed us for one year, and look what they've done to us. What will happen if they rule us for four years?"

This town of 110,000, situated along the west bank of the Tigris River, has become the epicenter of an intense get-out-the-vote campaign by Sunni Arabs, rivaling the flurry of political activity in the Shiite south and Kurdish north.

The Sunni participation puts the last of the building blocks in place for the establishment of a truly representative democratic republic. They are conforming as they must to the real and overarching power of democracy; self-interest.

With even such leftist critics as Carter recognising the success of this election perhaps we've finally turned the corner on Deanesque liberal defeatism?? I sure hope so!

-z

[MWare]

I think it still is a bit early for chicken counting.

[Charlie Monoxide]

You've got to admire and respect someone who is willing to admit when they were wrong ......

Charlie (it's called humility, spread it around) Monoxide

[hammegk]

Especially easy for Carter; has he ever been right?

[Morrison's Lament]

Giggetty-Giggetty!



Sorry, couldn't help it ;)

[Major Billy]

url=http://washingtontimes.com (http://washingtontimes.com/national/20050211-123325-7245r.htm) Is American leftist defeatism finally defeated??

Only in the pages of the Washington Times.

[Ziggurat]

Giggetty-Giggetty!

Getting that was a weird multi-stage process for me. It sounded familiar, took a few moments to place the character, a few more to recall the name, then the connection to the thread dawned on me a little slower than it should have (I was originally trying to figure out his relationship to Carter, and didn't get far).

[rikzilla]

Only in the pages of the Washington Times.

"Poison Well"?? Shouldn't you be disputing the validity of the claim rather than the media reporting it? Actually it's rather telling that the more liberal papers are ignoring it.

But did you look at the report about Tikrit and the Sunni vote? See; in the interest of being both "fair and balanced" I purposely found an NYT article.

Poison well is a logical fallacy...you shouldn't argue from fallacy on a skeptic's forum.

-z

[Jocko]

I think it still is a bit early for chicken counting.

Not as early as when Carter (and dozens of other Dems) projected failure.

[rikzilla]

Not as early as when Carter (and dozens of other Dems) projected failure.

Failure is the ultimate self-fulfilling prophecy. It's easier than making a meaningful effort, or offering better ideas for victory. The fact remains that the democratic party has hitched it's political fortunes to failure and death for our soldiers in Iraq. They've backed the wrong horse...the terrorists...they should be deeply ashamed.

-z

[LW]

I'm not certain if I have posted this before (I intended to post it immediately after the capture of Bagdad but I don't remember if I did) but I'm waiting for five years until I finally decide whether I count the Iraq war a success or not.

So, ask me in April 2008 what my opinion is.

[Nyarlathotep]

Failure is the ultimate self-fulfilling prophecy. It's easier than making a meaningful effort. The fact remains that the democratic party has hitched it's political fortunes to failure and death for our soldiers in Iraq. They've backed the wrong horse...the terrorists...they should be deeply ashamed.

-z


Yeah. I am sure they are cheering every American death over there and secretly hoping that Osama will nuke D.C.:rolleyes:

[Major Billy]

But did you look at the report (NYT article) about Tikrit and the Sunni vote?

Yes. It contained no evidence whatsoever to support the "Washington Times" slander of President Carter.

Now, if you could site some supporting evidence from Fox News, perhaps you'd have more of a case.

[rikzilla]

Yeah. I am sure they are cheering every American death over there and secretly hoping that Osama will nuke D.C.:rolleyes:

Straw man.

Why not refute the idea I expressed? That the democratic party leadership has bet it's political future on failure in Iraq instead of offering better ideas for victory as a "loyal opposition" should in time of war.

Explain to me how the dems have eschewed using troop deaths against GWB. Explain how the dems have supported the war effort in word and deed. Explain how the democratic party itself suffers along with America if Iraq becomes quagmire and defeat.

-z

[rikzilla]

Yes. It contained no evidence whatsoever to support the "Washington Times" slander of President Carter.

Now, if you could site some supporting evidence from Fox News, perhaps you'd have more of a case.

Still with the poison well eh? I guess you have nothing much to offer then...
I suppose I could dig up those past Carter quotes for you; but I believe everyone should do their own research.

-z

[Nyarlathotep]

Straw man.

Why not refute the idea I expressed? That the democratic party leadership has bet it's political future on failure in Iraq instead of offering better ideas for victory as a "loyal opposition" should in time of war.

Explain to me how the dems have eschewed using troop deaths against GWB. Explain how the dems have supported the war effort in word and deed. Explain how the democratic party itself suffers along with America if Iraq becomes quagmire and defeat.

-z

First explain to me how the Dems are 'Backing the terrorists'. That's a very, very, very serious allegation.

[Melendwyr]

Is it defeatism for a doctor to correctly diagnose a disease?

[Manny]

Is it defeatism for a doctor to correctly diagnose a disease?Ha! Idiots like Dean have been running around for months and months saying "Pull the plug! Pull the plug! The patient's dying!" So actually, yeah, he's looking pretty dumb right now with the patient complaining about the food and asking where's the gym.

[rikzilla]

First explain to me how the Dems are 'Backing the terrorists'. That's a very, very, very serious allegation.

Quote me.

If you know that I said "backing the terrorists" then why won't you quote me?

Deliberate misquotation is a lie and has caused moderators to intervene in past cases. I'll not report you; but you do need to either quote me directly or retract your mis-quotation.

-z

[Nyarlathotep]

Okey Dokey.

They've backed the wrong horse...the terrorists...they should be deeply ashamed.

-z

[Grammatron]

I don't think Dem's are backing terrorists, but I am very dissapointed with their description of the war as a failure and unwinable at every chance they get.

[rikzilla]

Okey Dokey.
Out of context.

Look, be honest. Can't we have an honest debate? Must you attempt to warp my meaning when I've been quite clear? How does that help your side of the argument?

Failure is the ultimate self-fulfilling prophecy. It's easier than making a meaningful effort, or offering better ideas for victory. The fact remains that the democratic party has hitched it's political fortunes to failure and death for our soldiers in Iraq. They've backed the wrong horse...the terrorists...they should be deeply ashamed.[

In purposefully ignoring context you have proven yourself intellectually dishonest. Is that the kind of thing you wish to be known for?

-z

[Nyarlathotep]

Out of context.

Look, be honest. Can't we have an honest debate? Must you attempt to warp my meaning when I've been quite clear? How does that help your side of the argument?



In purposefully ignoring context you have proven yourself intellectually dishonest. Is that the kind of thing you wish to be known for?

-z

Ah the old 'I was taken out of context' card.

Look, if you say that the 'democratic party has hitched it's political fortunes to failure and death for our soldiers in Iraq', and that they 'Backed the wrong horse...the terrorists', how many ways can that be taken?

[rikzilla]

Ah the old 'I was taken out of context' card.

You did; do you deny it? If so you are a liar. But then again you are already a liar. Deliberately taking something out of context is itself a form of lie.

Look, if you say that the 'democratic party has hitched it's political fortunes to failure and death for our soldiers in Iraq', and that they 'Backed the wrong horse...the terrorists', how many ways can that be taken?

Why don't you simply look at my real argument; that the democrats have placed themselves to profit politically from defeat in Iraq; and then refute it? Is is so hard to do that you would rather play the dishonest pedant?

If so we have nothing further to talk about. The paucity of your defense of the democratic leadership's vile political manuevering is noted.

-z

[LW]

Look, if you say that the 'democratic party has hitched it's political fortunes to failure and death for our soldiers in Iraq', and that they 'Backed the wrong horse...the terrorists', how many ways can that be taken?

Two.

The first one is to read "backed" as "supported". I think this is the reading that you use.

I found the second one by looking through a phrase dictionary:

back the wrong horse make a wrong or inappropriate choice

This seems to be Rik's intended meaning.

[shecky]

I don't think Dem's are backing terrorists, but I am very dissapointed with their description of the war as a failure and unwinable at every chance they get.

By reasonable measures, it has been a failure. It's still a sh|thole, just different. And we own that failure.

This doesn't mean the situation can't be rectified. But i have a feeling the US will never rectify it to my satisfaction. Why? Because my criteria for US nationbuilding is that the resulting nation has to, at the very least, be a place where I wouldn't mind living with my family. I don't see that happening any time soon.

Uwinnable? Perhaps. The US could have reasonably declared victory any time after Saddam was caught. But it's effort so far has been poor and self sabatoging. Unless the US cleans up it's act and starts acting like a moral authority, it certainly risks being in a unwinnable situation.

[Nyarlathotep]

You did; do you deny it? If so you are a liar. But then again you are already a liar. Deliberately taking something out of context is itself a form of lie.


Why don't you simply look at my real argument; that the democrats have placed themselves to profit politically from defeat in Iraq; and then refute it? Is is so hard to do that you would rather play the dishonest pedant?

If so we have nothing further to talk about. The paucity of your defense of the democratic leadership's vile political manuevering is noted.

-z

Yes I do deny it. Had you said something like 'People say the Democrats are backing the terrorists, but I don't think so' and I purposefuly cut out the words 'The Democrats are backing the terrorists' and quoted only that part, THEN I would be taking your words out of context. As it stands, if you meant something other than the way it came out, then it is a mistake on your part, not dishonesty on mine. And if you mean it in some way other than the way it came out, then you really should explain what you originally meant.

Would the Democrats profit politically from a US loss in Iraq. Very likely. Did they put themselves in that position intentionally (as opposed to merely profiting from not being the party that is perceived to have put us there in the first place) then it is up to the person making that claim (i.e. you) to prove, not for me or anyone else to disprove.

[Melendwyr]

Hey, it's a sign of great maturity and intelligence to change one's position, right? Just like Bush moving from "we aren't interested in nation-building" to "we will establish a democracy that will revolutionize the entire Middle East". Just look how well that turned out.

How glorious it is that Pres. Carter will join such luminaries as George W. Bush!

[rikzilla]

By reasonable measures, it has been a failure. It's still a sh|thole, just different. And we own that failure.

Well I don't believe anyone promised to turn Baghdad into Rome. If we did I swear I must have missed it.

Actually if one were to use "reasonable measures" the entire military operation was a success with the destruction of Saddam's army. Nation building is an entirely different thing.

This doesn't mean the situation can't be rectified. But i have a feeling the US will never rectify it to my satisfaction. Why?

Because you have re-set your goalposts to a ridiculous and unreasonable height. Another form of intellectual dishonesty. Gee, is this what you guys are down to? How sad.

Because my criteria for US nationbuilding is that the resulting nation has to, at the very least, be a place where I wouldn't mind living with my family. I don't see that happening any time soon.

Your "criteria" seems a bit unquantifiable, subjective, and ambiguous. Care to expand on it?

Uwinnable? Perhaps. The US could have reasonably declared victory any time after Saddam was caught. But it's effort so far has been poor and self sabatoging. Unless the US cleans up it's act and starts acting like a moral authority, it certainly risks being in a unwinnable situation.

The "self sabotage" is just what I created this thread to highlight. Political sabotage during time of war. We should expect more from our political "loyal opposition" than crass self interest.

-z

[toddjh]

I have to agree that the Democrats are taking the wrong approach.

During the debates last year, I kept hoping and hoping that Kerry would just come out and say something clear and sensible, like, "President Bush took us to war for poorly-thought-out and misleading reasons, but we're there now, and we can't cut the Iraqi people loose. We have a responsibility to them, as our future allies and free people, and, for the sake of all our futures, we need to try to make the best of this situation and make lemonade. The first step is to get rid of the people who keep handing out lemons."

Saying the war is unwinnable or a quagmire is not constructive. Saying "we can get out of this, but first let's dump the people who got us into it" is much better.

Jeremy

[rikzilla]

Yes I do deny it. Had you said something like 'People say the Democrats are backing the terrorists, but I don't think so' and I purposefuly cut out the words 'The Democrats are backing the terrorists' and quoted only that part, THEN I would be taking your words out of context. As it stands, if you meant something other than the way it came out, then it is a mistake on your part, not dishonesty on mine. And if you mean it in some way other than the way it came out, then you really should explain what you originally meant.

Would the Democrats profit politically from a US loss in Iraq. Very likely. Did they put themselves in that position intentionally (as opposed to merely profiting from not being the party that is perceived to have put us there in the first place) then it is up to the person making that claim (i.e. you) to prove, not for me or anyone else to disprove.

No one here but you seems to be having trouble understanding my meaning. Perhaps you are from a country where english is not regularly spoken? If so then I shall strive to parse my words more carefully; if not then you are simply playing dumb. (yet another form of game-playing and dishonesty)

JREF is not the right place to play dumb Nyarlathotep. It is generally frowned upon and often ridiculed. You need to stop.

-z

[Tony]

"Poison Well"?? Shouldn't you be disputing the validity of the claim rather than the media reporting it?


Not when the media in question acts as a mouth peice for a cult.

[Melendwyr]

The "self sabotage" is just what I created this thread to highlight. Political sabotage during time of war. We should expect more from our political "loyal opposition" than crass self interest. So Democrats and honest Republicans should say and do nothing that goes against the interests of the people currently in charge, as we're at war.

Sweet merciful Buddha on a pogo stick, you're a few ballots short of an election.

[Grammatron]

By reasonable measures, it has been a failure. It's still a sh|thole, just different. And we own that failure.

Which reasonable measures?

This doesn't mean the situation can't be rectified. But i have a feeling the US will never rectify it to my satisfaction. Why? Because my criteria for US nationbuilding is that the resulting nation has to, at the very least, be a place where I wouldn't mind living with my family. I don't see that happening any time soon.

So it's based stricktly on your opinion.

Uwinnable? Perhaps. The US could have reasonably declared victory any time after Saddam was caught. But it's effort so far has been poor and self sabatoging. Unless the US cleans up it's act and starts acting like a moral authority, it certainly risks being in a unwinnable situation.

I'm not saying it was a flawless operations and we didn't mess up in some areas. But a failure it is not, and certainly it's not unwinnable as some have called.

[rikzilla]

So Democrats and honest Republicans should say and do nothing that goes against the interests of the people currently in charge, as we're at war.

Sweet merciful Buddha on a pogo stick, you're a few ballots short of an election.

How much straw is left? There can't be much (hopefully)

-z

[jj]

Is American leftist defeatism finally defeated??


Yet another false portrayal of someone who dares to disagree with the 'Might makes right' crowd.

It's a lie. "leftist defeatism" is no more a fair statement than "right wing naziism". (Well, we'll leave Buchanan, Duke, and that bunch out for now.)

So, why is the "might makes right" crowd using it? Could it be that they simply wish to force people to their position? Could it be another attempt to falsely tar their opponents with FUD? News at 11!

[Melendwyr]

No one here but you seems to be having trouble understanding my meaning. On the contrary, we know precisely what you're attempting to convey. Perhaps you are from a country where english is not regularly spoken? Texas?

JREF is not the right place to play dumb Nyarlathotep. It is generally frowned upon and often ridiculed. That explains a great deal about your history on these forums, doesn't it?

[rikzilla]

Not when the media in question acts as a mouth peice for a cult.

Is the Guardian more to your liking? (http://observer.guardian.co.uk/focus/story/0,6903,1646666,00.html)
President Carter Nov 20, 2005
Another disturbing realisation is that, unlike during other times of national crisis, the burden of conflict is now concentrated exclusively on the heroic men and women sent back repeatedly to fight in the quagmire of Iraq.

Next time remember to argue the evidence...not the outlet you recieved it from... :rolleyes:

-z

[rikzilla]

Yet another false portrayal of someone who dares to disagree with the 'Might makes right' crowd.

It's a lie. "leftist defeatism" is no more a fair statement than "right wing naziism". (Well, we'll leave Buchanan, Duke, and that bunch out for now.)

So, why is the "might makes right" crowd using it? Could it be that they simply wish to force people to their position? Could it be another attempt to falsely tar their opponents with FUD? News at 11!


It's just my attempt to help you pull your head out and appreciate reality...not to mention fresh air... Feel free to resume your unnatural position...

You know...I didn't tell the head of the US Democratic party to say what he did, nor am I in a position to place words into Murtha's mouth. They have done it...I'm just recognising obvious fact....
-z

[Tony]

That explains a great deal about your history on these forums, doesn't it?

Remember, we're talking to the guy who didn't know what "deist" meant. And who claimed US law is based on the 10 commandments.

[Tony]

Is the Guardian more to your liking? (http://observer.guardian.co.uk/focus/story/0,6903,1646666,00.html)


Next time remember to argue the evidence...not the outlet you recieved it from... :rolleyes:

-z

Huh? The guardian article does nothing to support your position. It merely highlights the fact that Carter correctly described Iraq as a quagmire (among other things wrong with you fundamentalists).

On second look, I realize that the whole point of this thread is an invention of your delusional imagination. Carter didn't eat "humble pie", he merely applied his dislike for fundamentalists (like you) to the situation in Iraq.

[rikzilla]

On the contrary, we know precisely what you're attempting to convey. Texas?

That explains a great deal about your history on these forums, doesn't it?

Let's see how the left leaning posters have defended the overtly defeatist Democratic leadership's political posturing during time of shooting war:
Argue from the poison well.
Beat up the strawman.
Muddy the waters by removing context.
Lie.
Play dumb.
Goal-post remodelling.
more straw....
...and now ad-hom.


Isn't there anyone out there that can explain the Democratic party leadership's "positive" and "well meaning" motives for crying defeat when our troops are at war?

-z

[rikzilla]

Huh? The guardian article does nothing to support your position. It merely highlights the fact that Carter correctly described Iraq as a quagmire (among other things wrong with you fundamentalists).

On second look, I realize that the whole point of this thread is an invention of your delusional imagination. Carter didn't eat "humble pie", he merely applied his dislike for fundamentalists (like you) to the situation in Iraq.

Oh...the list grows longer I see.
Denial of reality
more ad-hom


What a sad lot you guys are.

-z

[Tony]

Oh...the list grows longer I see.
Denial of reality
more ad-hom


What a sad lot you guys are.

-z

Keep digging.

[Major Billy]

Is the Guardian more to your liking? (http://observer.guardian.co.uk/focus/story/0,6903,1646666,00.html) Next time remember to argue the evidence.It's hard, since until now you hadn't provided any.

BTW, excellent article rik. I recommend everyone read it:

In recent years, I have become increasingly concerned by a host of radical government policies that now threaten many basic principles espoused by all previous administrations, Democratic and Republican.
At the same time, our political leaders have declared independence from the restraints of international organisations and have disavowed long-standing global agreements, including agreements on nuclear arms, control of biological weapons and the international system of justice.
Instead of cherishing our role as the great champion of human rights, we now find civil liberties and personal privacy grossly violated under some extreme provisions of the Patriot Act.


I am extremely concerned by a fundamentalist shift in many houses of worship and in government, as church and state have become increasingly intertwined in ways previously thought unimaginable.
Very convincing writing by a great man.

[Nyarlathotep]

Let's see how the left leaning posters have defended the overtly defeatist Democratic leadership's political posturing during time of shooting war:
Argue from the poison well.
Beat up the strawman.
Muddy the waters by removing context.
Lie.
Play dumb.
Goal-post remodelling.
more straw....
...and now ad-hom.


On the other hand, starting off with deliberately inflammatory language is a well respected debate tactic.

Oh wait.....


Isn't there anyone out there that can explain the Democratic party leadership's "positive" and "well meaning" motives for crying defeat when our troops are at war?

-z

Sure. Realism. Have we won? Does victory look imminent? Them having an election doesn't mean we have won. When car bombs and kidnappings stop being a routine occurance, THEN we might be able to claim victory, but I don't see that happening any time soon.

[rikzilla]

It's hard, since until now you hadn't provided any.

BTW, excellent article rik. I recommend everyone read it:





Very convincing writing by a great man.

I agree...'cept for all that pesky business about him being dead wrong and pessimistic to the point where depression sets in. Gee; no wonder Reagan beat the guy. What a self-righteous downer he is!

Show me a truly up-beat Dem...oh wait I forgot;

"YEE-AWWWWW!"

yeah; now I remember. :rolleyes:

-z

[ImaginalDisc]

"leftist defeatism" is no more a fair statement than "right wing naziism". (Well, we'll leave Buchanan, Duke, and that bunch out for now.)

So, why is the "might makes right" crowd using it? Could it be that they simply wish to force people to their position? Could it be another attempt to falsely tar their opponents with FUD? News at 11!

I can't agree with JJ more here. Also, saying that the Democratic party is the "left" in this country is as false as saying that the fundamentalists christians are the "majority". The Democrats have been shooting themselves in the foot by saying that we need to pull out of Iraw immeadietly, and Carter's been proven wrong by the elections. Still, considering that it's Iraqi police and civilans who are taking the brunt of the danger over there, and its the Iraqi government who is doing all the organizing work, the republican administration can hardly take credit for this election. Neither the Republicans nor the Democrats should take credit for the progress towards democracy in Iraq, because most of that work has been done by the Iraqis themselves. Both sides are full of hubris if they think they're in control.

As for the "leftist" thing, looking at the field from over here on the left, we don't have any representation in the federal government. The Republicans have total control over everything, and the Democrats agree with the Republicans on all the important issues. It's disorganized, kook filled and aimless over here. Don't blame us for the bickering, we don't have a voice.

[Nyarlathotep]

I agree...'cept for all that pesky business about him being dead wrong and pessimistic to the point where depression sets in. Gee; no wonder Reagan beat the guy. What a self-righteous downer he is!

Show me a truly up-beat Dem...oh wait I forgot;

"YEE-AWWWWW!"

yeah; now I remember. :rolleyes:

-z

Pessimistic does not necessarily equate to wrong.

[fishbob]

The fact remains that the democratic party has hitched it's political fortunes to failure and death for our soldiers in Iraq. They've backed the wrong horse...the terrorists...they should be deeply ashamed.

-z
Bull$$$$.
Partisan Bull$$$$.
You should be deeply ashamed.

[rikzilla]

On the other hand, starting off with deliberately inflammatory language is a well respected debate tactic.

Oh wait.....




Sure. Realism. Have we won? Does victory look imminent? Them having an election doesn't mean we have won. When car bombs and kidnappings stop being a routine occurance, THEN we might be able to claim victory, but I don't see that happening any time soon.

...scrape...scrape...scrape...
Damn! Those goalposts of yours are as fickle as the staircases at Hogwart's.
scrape...scrape...scrape...
-z

[ImaginalDisc]

...scrape...scrape...scrape...
Damn! Those goalposts of yours are as fickle as the staircases at Hogwart's.
scrape...scrape...scrape...
-z

rikzilla, I've watched you be quite inflamtory in this thread, but these constant accusations of goal post moving are simply untrue. It's *further* criticism, not *changed* criticism. There's no shortage of things to criticize about the U.S. conduct of this war.

[rikzilla]

Bull$$$$.
Partisan Bull$$$$.
You should be deeply ashamed.

Temper, temper...

Tell me why my stance on this issue is shameful since I've already explained why yours is....

C'mon Bob...you can do it. Show us some substance...or must I go call HS4, Mephisto, or Tricky and ask them to give you guys a hand?

-z

[mumblethrax]

You're wrong that anyone was poisoning the well. The Washington Times' credibility is germane.

But, more to the point, you are putting forth a pernicious Machiavellian argument, namely that the Democrats must act duplicitously in order to avoid benefitting from critical policy failures in Iraq. Do you really not see why some people might consider that highly unreasonable?

I can explain the Democratic party's motives: if we actually have failed (with regard to our original goals) in Iraq, it behooves us to recognize that fact and adjust expectations, rather than pretend that everything is just going to get better if we keep on throwing money and lives at the problem. This sort of post hoc error is pretty common in the corporate world, too; the problem isn't that the plan was critically flawed, it's that some people were critical of the plan. Why couldn't they just adopt the plan? The plan was going to work!

You are arguing (equivocally, that you might cry about straw men when called on it) that Democrats are commiting sedition by daring to criticize the war effort. Hell, if they succeed in ending the war, they're even profiteering on the subsequent deaths! Isn't it awful how people who are correct tend to benefit politically in democracies? We really must prevent that from happening.

[fishbob]

Why don't you simply look at my real argument; that the democrats have placed themselves to profit politically from defeat in Iraq;
-z
More Bull$$$$.
Partisan backpeddling Bull$$$$.

[Tony]

It's clear that rik is trolling and masturbating his political ego in this thread.

[Nyarlathotep]

...scrape...scrape...scrape...
Damn! Those goalposts of yours are as fickle as the staircases at Hogwart's.
scrape...scrape...scrape...
-z

Actually, the contention that Iraq would become a quagmire that would keep us fighting for years and years was a contention of opponents of the war before the war even started, and now even proponents of the war agree that we will have to be there for a long time to come. This is moving the goalpoasts......how? How many times from Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc, that the situation in Iraq was getting better, that the insurgency was 'in it's death throes', blah blah blah blah. It sounds more like you guys have moved the goal posts forward and we're just setting them back.

[rikzilla]

rikzilla, I've watched you be quite inflamtory in this thread, but these constant accusations of goal post moving are simply untrue. It's *further* criticism, not *changed* criticism. There's no shortage of things to criticize about the U.S. conduct of this war.

Nope...there are many instances of goal-postery in this thread. Please re-read and you'll see it. To many here there is simply nothing that GWB, "neocons", or the Repubs can do that would please them aside from mass resignations, "re-defeat", or a friendly pretzel in the throat. I'm merely pointing out what the democrats have done to sabotage victory in Iraq...hence I'm being attacked.

-z

[fishbob]

Temper, temper...

Tell me why my stance on this issue is shameful since I've already explained why yours is....

C'mon Bob...you can do it. Show us some substance...or must I go call HS4, Mephisto, or Tricky and ask them to give you guys a hand?

-z
1 - You have explained nothing about my stance. I know you often try, but this not physically possible since this was my first post in this thread. I have to conclude that your temper has gotten out of hand.

You said: "The fact remains that the democratic party has hitched it's political fortunes to failure and death for our soldiers in Iraq. They've backed the wrong horse...the terrorists...they should be deeply ashamed."
I called your statement what it is.

The fact is that the democrats are critical of the Bush venture in Iraq. This is an idea that could be discussed. What you posted was partisan, frothing at the mouth, extremist bovine excrement.

2 - Then you said, as if backpeddling would improve the smell of your previous statement: "Why don't you simply look at my real argument; that the democrats have placed themselves to profit politically from defeat in Iraq". This is closer to something that can be discussed, but is still chocky jam full of steaming brown hate-mongering.

Politics is about power. Both parties play the game. On a skeptic board, you ought to at least try to not blindly support one side while at the same time making stuff up about the other. There are enough facts to consider without slobbering all over the discussion.

[Major Billy]

Show me a truly up-beat Dem.http://hillpac.com/graphics/thumb_main.jpg

[Nyarlathotep]

I'm merely pointing out what the democrats have done to sabotage victory in Iraq...hence I'm being attacked.

-z


Yeah, uh, sure, that's precisely why you are being attacked. Things like, oh.......saying that Democrats support terrorists and are sabotaging victory in Iraq have absolutely squat to do with it.:rolleyes:

[rikzilla]

You're wrong that anyone was poisoning the well. The Washington Times' credibility is germane.
Perhaps...but not when the quotes of Carter are so well documented. I posted the article because I felt it was well written and to the point...not because it was written with the help of Moonie-money.

Since I went ahead and posted a further "credible" source this is really no longer an issue and the people who made it an issue in the first place look like they were leaning on the poison well fallacy...as indeed they were.

But, more to the point, you are putting forth a pernicious Machiavellian argument, namely that the Democrats must act duplicitously in order to avoid benefitting from critical policy failures in Iraq. Do you really not see why some people might consider that highly unreasonable?

Not really when it's so obvious that the political coin they were well placed to spend was to be minted in the "quagmire" of Iraq. Since victory and political stability in Iraq is a hard national interest of the US...the leadership of the Dem party...namely Dr. Dean...has acted against said national interest. In past years this would have indeed been called by a harsher name than I have invoked in this thread.

I can explain the Democratic party's motives: if we actually have failed (with regard to our original goals) in Iraq, it behooves us to recognize that fact and adjust expectations, rather than pretend that everything is just going to get better if we keep on throwing money and lives at the problem. This sort of post hoc error is pretty common in the corporate world, too; the problem isn't that the plan was critically flawed, it's that some people were critical of the plan. Why couldn't they just adopt the plan? The plan was going to work!

In the corporate world upper management does not watch the company slip toward bankruptcy in the hope that they can make the CEO look bad. What they do is offer alternative strategies for corporate success. I have seen no alternative better ideas from the Dem party. If there aren't any better ideas then they should support the current plan. I haven't seen many of them do that either. Joe Lieberman...Hillary Clinton...I can't honestly name any others although I'm sure there must be some...

You are arguing (equivocally, that you might cry about straw men when called on it) that Democrats are commiting sedition by daring to criticize the war effort. Hell, if they succeed in ending the war, they're even profiteering on the subsequent deaths! Isn't it awful how people who are correct tend to benefit politically in democracies? We really must prevent that from happening.

Well, I merely said that the dem leadership has purposefully placed itself in the precarious company of America's various enemies in that it would directly profit politically from an Iraqi disaster...and then re-enforced their bet by making public statements designed to demoralize the nation. I guess politics makes strange bedfellows eh?

You're right that folks who are right should benefit politically...but that would be Bush et al...(at least as it appears right now). So; what does Bush have to do in order to get an attaboy from the "loyal opposition" anyway??

-z

Oh BTW: Thanks for being the first thoughtful reply to my OP.

[rikzilla]

1 - You have explained nothing about my stance. I know you often try, but this not physically possible since this was my first post in this thread. I have to conclude that your temper has gotten out of hand.

Oh, I feel fine...really. :)

You said: "The fact remains that the democratic party has hitched it's political fortunes to failure and death for our soldiers in Iraq. They've backed the wrong horse...the terrorists...they should be deeply ashamed."
I called your statement what it is.

"Factual?" No you called it BS without explaining why.

The fact is that the democrats are critical of the Bush venture in Iraq. This is an idea that could be discussed. What you posted was partisan, frothing at the mouth, extremist bovine excrement.

I assure you there is no frothing going on here. I just call 'em as I see 'em.

2 - Then you said, as if backpeddling would improve the smell of your previous statement: "Why don't you simply look at my real argument; that the democrats have placed themselves to profit politically from defeat in Iraq". This is closer to something that can be discussed, but is still chocky jam full of steaming brown hate-mongering.

"hate-mongering" :D Big funny! You forgot to mention that I'm a racist and forgot to shave this morning too. Ad-hom away...my point stands well on it's own.

Politics is about power. Both parties play the game. On a skeptic board, you ought to at least try to not blindly support one side while at the same time making stuff up about the other. There are enough facts to consider without slobbering all over the discussion.

Why don't you just point out how the leader of the Dem party has supported the effort to win in Iraq. That would be a good start.

-z

[rikzilla]

http://hillpac.com/graphics/thumb_main.jpg

I agree. Hillary is one of the Democratic party's bright spots. However I'm not sure if I trust her move to the center. But my mind is very open to supporting her.

-z

[hammegk]

There's no shortage of things to criticize about the U.S. conduct of this war.
Especially when the US lacks a good Alien & Sedition Act and the cojones to enforce it ...

[fishbob]

Why don't you just point out how the leader of the Dem party has supported the effort to win in Iraq. That would be a good start.

-z
You made the claim. You know the drill.

[ImaginalDisc]

Especially when the US lacks a good Alien & Sedition Act and the cojones to enforce it ...

What are you insinuating?

[Nyarlathotep]

Especially when the US lacks a good Alien & Sedition Act and the cojones to enforce it ...


Because nothing says 'freedom & liberty' like imprisoning people for criticizing the government.

[Tony]

What are you insinuating?

He is saying that he wants the republicans to commit political suicide. People like hammegk are why the 2nd amendment exists.

[hammegk]

What are you insinuating?
I think my meaning is plain enough. When you have people in the US military, overseas, fighting, let me know and I'll do my best to alert them that what they are doing is meaningless.

There are methods to fault government actions that would be appropriate in times of war, and others that to me are less so. I see damn few appropriate comments from the Bush-haters in this thread.

[ImaginalDisc]

I think my meaning is plain enough. When you have people in the US military, overseas, fighting, let me know and I'll do my best to alert them that what they are doing is meaningless.

There are methods to fault government actions that would be appropriate in times of war, and others that to me are less so. I see damn few appropriate comments from the Bush-haters in this thread.

Considering we who opposed the war before it started were shouted down with the following accusations:

Being unpatriotic

Dishonoring the memories of those who died in the 9/11 attacks

Supporting terrorists

Being sore over "losing" the 2000 election

I don't see where exactly a public debate over the war was allowed in the first place. What exactly would you prefer to tell the people who are fighting over there, would you continue to send them propaganda, continue to ignore all of those are dying by refusing to show images of their coffins arriving, continuing to pretend that offical hostilites ended?

When we speak out against such aggregious lies, do you expect to muzzle us with threats of imprisonment? Truely, King George III would have approved.

[Tony]

When we speak out against such aggregious lies, do you expect to muzzle us with threats of imprisonment? Truely, King George III would have approved.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Conservatives hate this country more than anyone.

[hammegk]

Considering we who opposed the war before it started were shouted down with the following accusations:

Being unpatriotic

Dishonoring the memories of those who died in the 9/11 attacks

Supporting terrorists

Being sore over "losing" the 2000 election

I don't see where exactly a public debate over the war was allowed in the first place.
And -- sorry to tell you this -- you and yours lost that debate. And perhaps for better reasons than your carping above would indicate, at least both the legislative & executive branches both agreed.


What exactly would you prefer to tell the people who are fighting over there, would you continue to send them propaganda, continue to ignore all of those are dying by refusing to show images of their coffins arriving, continuing to pretend that offical hostilites ended?
Thanks for putting their lives on the line whether or not they and their specific mission doesn't meet 100% support on the homefront.

Display your dissatisfaction via voting the next time you can; impeachment is also a process if you and enough others feel that strongly about it


When we speak out against such aggregious lies, do you expect to muzzle us with threats of imprisonment?
Liars abound in politics and elsewhere. I consider your statement a lie.



Tony; yew have a purty mouth, boy.

[rikzilla]

You made the claim. You know the drill.

Gee Bob...is it that bloody hard to do? You're not even going to make an attempt? Yeah, I know the drill:
Argue from the poison well.
Beat up the strawman.
Muddy the waters by removing context.
Lie.
Play dumb.
Goal-post remodelling.
more straw....
ad-hom
denial of reality
more ad-hom
...and now;
evasion of the direct question.


You; Bob, have steered an unremarkable course towards mediocrity. I've seen one honest attempt to support Dr. Dean et al in their stewardship of that great American institution; The Democratic Party; with facts. One honest Democrat who seems dismayed at the direction his party has gone...and then for the rest of you there is the list of shame.

I had thought in starting this thread that there would be some fight left in the left. Some area that could be defended...and I actually looked forward to being shown it. It's horrifying really...the depths to which the dems have sunk...and I am from a long, long line of southern democrats.That party is gone. What is left is simply a lump of unrecognizable weakness and distortion.

Well let me just say this about the modern Democratic Party in words which will be imminently understandable: "I voted for the Dems befoe I voted against them"....but voting against them has become ever more satisfying.

-z

[rikzilla]

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Conservatives hate this country more than anyone.

Usualy one must attend a bowling alley to meet someone of your intelligence.

[Libertarian]

The morphing that I find fascinating is the morphing of the justification for war from "protect the u.s." into one of establishing democracy in another country. What support would there have been for this war in the beginning if it had been proposed to spill American blood in order to guarantee democracy IN ANOTHER COUNTRY!?

The celebrating by the neocons today (12/15) over this latest Iraqi election makes me sick. Don't the decades of violence since WWII in the Mid-East and eastern Europe provide ample evidence about the West's ability for nation building? Do we need to rename the Dept of Defense to Dept of Global Wars to Spread Freedom and Democracy?

Where are all the paleoconservatives when you need them?

[Nyarlathotep]

I had thought in starting this thread that there would be some fight left in the left. Some area that could be defended...and I actually looked forward to being shown it. It's horrifying really...the depths to which the dems have sunk...and I am from a long, long line of southern democrats.That party is gone. What is left is simply a lump of unrecognizable weakness and distortion.



Translastion from Rik-speak to English

"I started a thread full full of inflammatory accusations and charcater assasinations, but then the evil liberals began objecting to my slanders. Only right-wingers are allowed to throw out straw men and ad-homs. Lefties are supposed to just sit there and take it. Everyone knows that."

By the way, you make quite a leap in assuming that everyone who disagrees with your characterizations is a Democrat.

[rikzilla]

The morphing that I find fascinating is the morphing of the justification for war from "protect the u.s." into one of establishing democracy in another country. What support would there have been for this war in the beginning if it had been proposed to spill American blood in order to guarantee democracy IN ANOTHER COUNTRY!?

That was never a one legged stool in the first place. I can easily find justification in the form of 26,000,000 persons freed from tyranny and now voting in the first real election in the long, long history of the country. What once was a tyrant's property is now a free nation. That's worth celebrating...isn't it?

The celebrating by the neocons today (12/15) over this latest Iraqi election makes me sick.

People celebrating the spectacle of 26 MILLION people joining the "free" world makes you sick?? You must have felt awfully well watching the Tiannenmen Square massacre on tv then....

Don't the decades of violence since WWII in the Mid-East and eastern Europe provide ample evidence about the West's ability for nation building? Do we need to rename the Dept of Defense to Dept of Global Wars to Spread Freedom and Democracy?

Where are all the paleoconservatives when you need them?

??? Pillory...is that you? :D

-z

[jj]

Translastion from Rik-speak to English

"I started a thread full full of inflammatory accusations and charcater assasinations, but then the evil liberals began objecting to my slanders. Only right-wingers are allowed to throw out straw men and ad-homs. Lefties are supposed to just sit there and take it. Everyone knows that."

By the way, you make quite a leap in assuming that everyone who disagrees with your characterizations is a Democrat.

Well, I'm a bit to the right side of moderate, and he treats me like a leftie, i.e. he treats me as though I'm not even human...

I think he goes quite a bit farther than lefties, Ny. If you're not with him or to the right of him, it's "love it or leave it".

I wonder what he thinks about Hammy's "alien and sedition" comment. Does he also think that it's proper to jail people for not accepting the lies made by the present administration?

As to Hammy, well, he seems to be unable to stop conflating opposition to the start of the war with support for troops. I want the war over because I support the troops, duh, not because I dont' support the troops.

Now, of course, we're in deep and we have an ethical obligation to get things back on track. I sure hope that works.

[Libertarian]

[QUOTE

By the way, you make quite a leap in assuming that everyone who disagrees with your characterizations is a Democrat.[/QUOTE]



Or the Left.

It's the Republican Party that has disappeared. It's painfully obvious now that the neocons are not Conservatives as much as they are the other side of the Statist coin shared with the Liberals. The neocons aren't against big government -- they merely disagree with the Left on what the purpose of big government should be.

[Tony]

Usualy one must attend a bowling alley to meet someone of your intelligence.

Thanks for proving my point.

[rikzilla]

Translastion from Rik-speak to English

"I started a thread full full of inflammatory accusations and charcater assasinations, but then the evil liberals began objecting to my slanders. Only right-wingers are allowed to throw out straw men and ad-homs. Lefties are supposed to just sit there and take it. Everyone knows that."

Must I add another bullet-point to the list? There is already way too much straw you know...it's becoming a fire hazard. Besides, you have already added so much to that list that I think you should sit down and let others participate.

By the way, you make quite a leap in assuming that everyone who disagrees with your characterizations is a Democrat.
Oh I forgot to mention the jihadis and communists...I'm sure we have a few of those here as well. I did not mention them because I was attempting to cast you all as "loyal oppositon" ...I guess I'll have to ammend that kind assumption.
-z

[Tony]

By the way, you make quite a leap in assuming that everyone who disagrees with your characterizations is a Democrat.

What can you expect from someone who thinks ignorance and military worship is a virtue?

[Nyarlathotep]

Or the Left.

It's the Republican Party that has disappeared. It's painfully obvious now that the neocons are not Conservatives as much as they are the other side of the Statist coin shared with the Liberals. The neocons aren't against big government -- they merely disagree with the Left on what the purpose of big government should be.

That too.

I consider myself an almost but not quite libertarian and I belong to no party whatsoever. Nonetheless, I agree with your comment 100% Both sides want to bend you over. To say that one side is more benevolent about their intentions is either mistaken or a lie.

[Nyarlathotep]

Oh I forgot to mention the jihadis and communists...I'm sure we have a few of those here as well. I did not mention them because I was attempting to cast you all as "loyal oppositon" ...I guess I'll have to ammend that kind assumption.
-z

Ah so everyone who disagrees with you is either a Democrat, a Jihadi or a Communist. Hmmmmm.

Talk about well-poisoning......

[Libertarian]

That was never a one legged stool in the first place. I can easily find justification in the form of 26,000,000 persons freed from tyranny and now voting in the first real election in the long, long history of the country. What once was a tyrant's property is now a free nation. That's worth celebrating...isn't it?


People celebrating the spectacle of 26 MILLION people joining the "free" world makes you sick?? You must have felt awfully well watching the Tiannenmen Square massacre on tv then....


??? Pillory...is that you? :D

-z

I'd be a little more optimistic about Iraq's future if this revolution had come from within. A miniumum of 30,000 Iraqis are dead along with our 2000 plus Americans in order to establish a...... tiny green zone?

But you have answered my question regarding what we've learned about nation building in the last half century: NOTHING.

[Tony]

Ah so everyone who disagrees with you is either a Democrat, a Jihadi or a Communist. Hmmmmm.

Talk about well-poisoning......

And what the hell is "loyal opposition"? What, I'm suppose to stay loyal to a dumb-a$$ president because...? Why?

I'm suppose to remain loyal to a corrupt government because...? Why?

I'm loyal to the Bill of Right the American ideas of freedom, human rights, and accountable government. If the government wants my loyalty it has to earn it. The morons screeming about "loyal opposition" in reality constitute disloyal support.

[rikzilla]

Well, I'm a bit to the right side of moderate, and he treats me like a leftie, i.e. he treats me as though I'm not even human...
Eh?? Look if I see you at TAM I'l buy you a beer. See? I never buy non-humans beers. (Of course it will have to be a cheap domestic...I'm saving the good stuff for Mephisto)

I think he goes quite a bit farther than lefties, Ny. If you're not with him or to the right of him, it's "love it or leave it".

Demonization by way of calmuny!! (sounds better than liar, liar eh?) A new bullet point! Cool!

I wonder what he thinks about Hammy's "alien and sedition" comment. Does he also think that it's proper to jail people for not accepting the lies made by the present administration? Hammy gets a bit carried away sometimes but he means well. Now, point me in the direction of Bush's "Lewinsky moment" and I will be in agreement with you jj. See; you won't because you can't. And anything less is really just baseless assumption, wouldn't you agree?

As to Hammy, well, he seems to be unable to stop conflating opposition to the start of the war with support for troops. I want the war over because I support the troops, duh, not because I dont' support the troops.
That's because you have no idea what the troops want, nor do you seem to care. If you cared to know their minds you could read MilBlogs till your eyes crossed. You might even be able to cherry-pick your faves...but sooner or later it might sink in to your brain that the troops actually approve of the job they are doing so very well over there. Maybe.

Now, of course, we're in deep and we have an ethical obligation to get things back on track. I sure hope that works.

Well there's a nice sentiment. Just the kind of thing I was hoping to see. Thanks jj for your display of kindness, humanity, and common sense. Just for that I'll buy you a Henninger export after all!

I do hope others here can find it in their hearts to do the same. It's so sad to see a JREF poster actualy say they were sickened by the American celebration of Iraq's new democracy.

-z

[rikzilla]

And what the hell is "loyal opposition"? What, I'm suppose to stay loyal to a dumb-a$$ president because...? Why?

I'm suppose to remain loyal to a corrupt government because...? Why?

I'm loyal to the Bill of Right the American ideas of freedom, human rights, and accountable government. If the government wants my loyalty it has to earn it. The morons screeming about "loyal opposition" in reality constitute disloyal support.

What color is the sky in your world?

[Tony]

What color is the sky in your world?

Your fundamentalism is showing.

[rikzilla]

Your fundamentalism is showing.
I'm ignoring you now Tony. I'm doing it for the same reason I ignore American and Demon.

Debate is a duel of intelligence and on moral grounds I refuse to do battle with an unarmed man.

-Ta

[Tony]

I'm ignoring you now Tony.

Does that mean I no longer have to tolerate your ignorance? I wish my fellow posters were as lucky as me.

Debate is a duel of intelligence and on moral grounds I refuse to do battle with an unarmed man.

Translation: When challenged and derided for my ignorance and hypocrisy, I retreat in a fit of panic. Fundamentalists are like that rik, you fit the stereotype well.

[hammegk]

Well, I'm a bit to the right side of moderate
Another lie.

I wonder what he thinks about Hammy's "alien and sedition" comment.
And?


Does he also think that it's proper to jail people for not accepting the lies made by the present administration?
A lie again.


As to Hammy, well, he seems to be unable to stop conflating opposition to the start of the war with support for troops. I want the war over because I support the troops, duh, not because I dont' support the troops.
Then support them. Refighting battles you lost at home isn't doing it, and naming others as liars doesn't make that so either.

Now, of course, we're in deep and we have an ethical obligation to get things back on track. I sure hope that works.
And others suggest we're reasonably on-track, and it would be better if you pretend you are citizen of the US -- with troops at war -- rather than continuing words and actions that support the enemy rather than your own sorry @ss.

[jj]

And others suggest we're reasonably on-track, and it would be better if you pretend you are citizen of the US -- with troops at war -- rather than continuing words and actions that support the enemy rather than your own sorry @ss.


In other words, political discussion is out, just follow the masters and salute when they tell you to.

Sheeesh! You really are out there, fella.

[Melendwyr]

Does that mean I no longer have to tolerate your ignorance? I wish my fellow posters were as lucky as me. You now have an excuse to expose the flaws in rikilla's arguments without being subject to his inane defenses. The rest of us have to respond to his idiocy to appear fair and reasonable.

You don't know how good you've got it.

[rikzilla]

You now have an excuse to expose the flaws in rikilla's arguments without being subject to his inane defenses. The rest of us have to respond to his idiocy to appear fair and reasonable.

You don't know how good you've got it.

"The rest of us" (you) have responded with fallacy, accusation, and evasion. With two notable exceptions the OP has not been reasonably addressed. The responses generated by this thread make my point even better than the OP does.

The Democratic party under it's current leadership is not only bereft of better ideas on Iraq and the WOT...it's betting it's political future on American defeat in Iraq. "The idea that we are going to win this war is an idea that unfortunately is just plain wrong."

This is the head of the DNC not some renegade from the left coast. He keeps this up and Hillary's going to have to run as an independent.

-z

[fishbob]

I had thought in starting this thread that there would be some fight left in the left. Some area that could be defended...and I actually looked forward to being shown it. It's horrifying really...the depths to which the dems have sunk...and I am from a long, long line of southern democrats.That party is gone. What is left is simply a lump of unrecognizable weakness and distortion. -z
Bull$$$$.

The real lumps of unrecognizable stuff are your rants in lieu of content.

Failure to respond to post 66 noted.

[rikzilla]

Bull$$$$.

The real lumps of unrecognizable stuff are your rants in lieu of content.

Failure to respond to post 66 noted.

The OP was a positive assertion and included evidence in support of it. Post #66 was merely you telling me to support my contention that the Dems had hitched their political fortunes to failure and defeat in Iraq. Since I did that with my OP your #66 post was just more evasion of the issue.

Look, if you don't think you can successfully debate me on this why don't you just stop posting in this thread. It's not as if I'm following you from thread to thread and rubbing your face in this. Just go...I'm sure that with time people will forget how lame your defense of the moonbat-in-charge of the DNC was.

-z

[ImaginalDisc]

And others suggest we're reasonably on-track, and it would be better if you pretend you are citizen of the US -- with troops at war -- rather than continuing words and actions that support the enemy rather than your own sorry @ss.

Dissent is not treason, it is often the position of the lonely patriot.


Look, if you don't think you can successfully debate me on this why don't you just stop posting in this thread. It's not as if I'm following you from thread to thread and rubbing your face in this. Just go...I'm sure that with time people will forget how lame your defense of the moonbat-in-charge of the DNC was.

-z

Firstly, reasonable politcal debate is not a game of king-of-the-hill. Being the last man standing doesn't make you right.

Secondly, being a critic of the war, and the U.S. conduct in this war do not, in either case, mean that the critic is a Democrat. I think you'd be surprised how many Republicans aren't so sure about the offical party line.

Edit: Quoted from rikzilla's sig "CENSORSHIP IS ANTI-AMERICAN!". I agree.

Edited again, for spelling.

[Nyarlathotep]

Secondly, being a critic of the war, and the U.S. conduct in this war do not, in either case, mean that the critic is a Democrat.

No according to Rik, a critic of the war could also be a Communist or a Jihadi.

[rikzilla]

No according to Rik, a critic of the war could also be a Communist or a Jihadi.

That's the smartest thing you've said in this thread. It's not much bit it's a start...

-z

[Nyarlathotep]

That's the smartest thing you've said in this thread. It's not much bit it's a start...

-z

So to recap:

If you oppose the war you are either a Democrat (who supports the terrorists, BTW), a Communist or a Jihadi.

And insults to my intelligence from someone who takes a position like that are supposed to be meaningful? :confused:

[ImaginalDisc]

That's the smartest thing you've said in this thread. It's not much bit it's a start...

-z

So to recap:

If you oppose the war you are either a Democrat (who supports the terrorists, BTW), a Communist or a Jihadi.

And insults to my intelligence from someone who takes a position like that are supposed to be meaningful? :confused:

I'm sorry Nyarlathotep, but I think rikzilla meant to imply that being war critic makes one a Democrat, Communist and Jihadi.

[rikzilla]

Dissent is not treason, it is often the position of the lonely patriot.

Dissent is not treason this is true, nor is it always patriotism...but it is invariably treason's precursor.


Firstly, reasonable politcal debate is not a game of king-of-the-hill. Being the last man standing doesn't make you right.

Correct...being the only one debating from fact and substance usually is the hallmark of one who is right though.

Secondly, being a critic of the war, and the U.S. conduct in this war do not, in either case, mean that the critic is a Democrat. I think you'd be surprised how many Republicans aren't so sure about the offical party line.

Not really...Repubs may support the party line since this is expected of them and there is political pressure on them to get "on message"...but believe it? Naw I don't think any party is majority "true-believer".

Edit: Quoted from rikzilla's sig "CENSORSHIP IS ANTI-AMERICAN!". I agree.

Edited again, for spelling.

Thanks...it's a shame though that JREF mods seem to think it dandy.
(OKAY, okay Darat I know; not in this forum...I'm not starting again...I'll shut back up now....)

-z

[ImaginalDisc]

I general avoid being this direct and blunt, but here goes:

Dissent is not treason this is true, nor is it always patriotism...but it is invariably treason's precursor.


Invariably? Read Julius Ceasar, just so can entertain the idea that you might be wrong.


Correct...being the only one debating from fact and substance usually is the hallmark of one who is right though.


I agree. However, that person is not you.



Thanks...it's a shame though that JREF mods seem to think it dandy.
(OKAY, okay Darat I know; not in this forum...I'm not starting again...I'll shut back up now....)

-z

Maybe I was too obscure. rikzilla, you cannot on the one had denounce censorship, and on the other, shout down critics of the government.

[/regretable ad homimen]

[Nyarlathotep]

I'm sorry Nyarlathotep, but I think rikzilla meant to imply that being war critic makes one a Democrat, Communist and Jihadi.
What he means to imply is crystal clear.

But what do I know? I'm just a terrorist supporting Democrat Communist Jihadi. Of course I am neither a member of the Democratic party, nor well-disposed toward commuist nor even a muslim. But in Rik-world that doesn't matter, I oppose the war so I am eeeeeevvvvvvviiiiiiiilllllllll.

[rikzilla]

So to recap:

If you oppose the war you are either a Democrat (who supports the terrorists, BTW), a Communist or a Jihadi.

And insults to my intelligence from someone who takes a position like that are supposed to be meaningful? :confused:

There's also Anarchists, Libertarians, Socialists, and assorted fellow travellers...so what?

If you think I'm wrong then it should be easy for you to show me a Communist or Jihadi that supports the WOT then.

Look; the Democrats haven't all drunk the Kool-Aid yet...there's still Hillary Clinton and Joe Lieberman. But one must ask why the Dems are letting the loonies direct the parade....and I am BTW a former longtime dem.

-z

[Nyarlathotep]

There's also Anarchists, Libertarians, Socialists, and assorted fellow travellers...so what?

If you think I'm wrong then it should be easy for you to show me a Communist or Jihadi that supports the WOT then.

Look; the Democrats haven't all drunk the Kool-Aid yet...there's still Hillary Clinton and Joe Lieberman. But one must ask why the Dems are letting the loonies direct the parade....and I am BTW a former longtime dem.

-z

And that means what? Even if I accept your premise that all communists and jihadis oppose the war that does not mean all who oppose the war are Comunists or Jihadis. Remember junior high school math? If all A's belong to set B it does not necessarily follow that all of set B consists entirely of A's.

But again. I am just a terrorist supporting Democrat Communist Jihadi (obviously, since I oppose the war) so what do I know?

[Hutch]

I'm not certain if I have posted this before (I intended to post it immediately after the capture of Bagdad but I don't remember if I did) but I'm waiting for five years until I finally decide whether I count the Iraq war a success or not.

So, ask me in April 2008 what my opinion is.

I post LW's comments again since they were the most intelligible thing in this thread and I thought they bore repeating.

Indeed, Zilla and Nyar will both be at TAM4--A couple of newspapers could make for some interesting conversation at Lunch...:boxedin:

Press on

[fishbob]

Dissent is not treason this is true, nor is it always patriotism...but it is invariably treason's precursor.
-z
Hmmm. No fact or substance here - just more assertion.
The 'slippery slope' argument is next.

Greed is treason's more common precursor.

[monoman]

Failure is the ultimate self-fulfilling prophecy. It's easier than making a meaningful effort, or offering better ideas for victory. The fact remains that the democratic party has hitched it's political fortunes to failure and death for our soldiers in Iraq. They've backed the wrong horse...the terrorists...they should be deeply ashamed.
-z
First off, a round of applause for the elections in Iraq (fingers crossed).

I think this quote is very unfair rik. Maybe, just maybe, a lot of democrats took that view because they sincerely thought is was the wrong thing to do.
And talking about backing the wrong horses (you brought it up!), what about the current administration and Iraq? Shouldn't they be concentrating on catching terrorists. Remember this was about 9/11. And, further, in backing the wrong horse, they backed the wrong horse for the reason - WMDs, and it was only recently Bush admitted defeat on that one.
Finally, It would be interesting to hear private conversations between Bush, Cheney etc a year ago and their thoughts on the election.

Still, great news about the election.

[jj]

And others suggest we're reasonably on-track, and it would be better if you pretend you are citizen of the US -- with troops at war -- rather than continuing words and actions that support the enemy rather than your own sorry @ss.

I see, this is in fact a legitimate argument?

You call people names, and laugh when somebody else gets called on it.

Gosh, my surprise.

[jj]

Maybe I was too obscure. rikzilla, you cannot on the one had denounce censorship, and on the other, shout down critics of the government.



You mean "should not". He certainly can, and does all the time. He believes in censorship by brute force. It's part of the "might makes right" policy he so obviously believes in.

[jj]

There's also Anarchists, Libertarians, Socialists, and assorted fellow travellers...so what?

(Off-color song about red-baiting removed)

Well, let me 'splain science to you, Ricky. I'm registered Republican. I have dropped my support of the national party completely, and have argued against it, but I am in fact still officially a republican.

Ergo, I am a counterexample to your claim. I'm a Republican myself. Kapish?

Your red-baiting is, therefore, refuted absolutely and in its entirety, from stem to stern, from port to starboard, and from crows-nest to keel.

Ooops. Don Pardo, tell him about the fondue forks!

[ImaginalDisc]

You mean "should not". He certainly can, and does all the time. He believes in censorship by brute force. It's part of the "might makes right" policy he so obviously believes in.

I mean "cannot", in the sense that it is logically impossible to do so, or at best, that it is extremely inconsistent. I can say that colorless green idea sleep furiously, but that doesn't mean colorless green ideas can do that, it's not logically possible.

[jj]

I mean "cannot", in the sense that it is logically impossible to do so, or at best, that it is extremely inconsistent. I can say that colorless green idea sleep furiously, but that doesn't mean colorless green ideas can do that, it's not logically possible.


Why do you imagine that logic is involved?

[Melendwyr]

I mean "cannot", in the sense that it is logically impossible to do so, or at best, that it is extremely inconsistent. I can say that colorless green idea sleep furiously, but that doesn't mean colorless green ideas can do that, it's not logically possible. Well, it is technically possible. It's just extremely inconsistent. He claims to be against censorship because 'censorship' is a thing reasonable people are supposed to be against. He doesn't actually have a problem with it, though, and will eagerly accept any and all forms of censorship - just as long as that word isn't used, or society begins connecting that word with what's going on.

Don't confuse the initial apperance of reason with the thing itself. We're dealing with a form of mimicry, subtle but superficial.

[Skeptic]

Is it defeatism for a doctor to correctly diagnose a disease?

The question is whether the diagnosis is correct. I think we don't know yet if the patient will live, but with some democrats, the "you'll be stone dead in a minute!" diagnosis (a la the "bring out your dead" scene in Monty Python's "Holy Grail") started with the war.

[jj]

The question is whether the diagnosis is correct. I think we don't know yet if the patient will live, but with some democrats, the "you'll be stone dead in a minute!" diagnosis (a la the "bring out your dead" scene in Monty Python's "Holy Grail") started with the war.

And if three, yes, three people, walk in, hum a bar, and walk back out ...

[Melendwyr]

The question is whether the diagnosis is correct. I think we don't know yet if the patient will live, but with some democrats, the "you'll be stone dead in a minute!" diagnosis (a la the "bring out your dead" scene in Monty Python's "Holy Grail") started with the war. And we've had smooth sailing in the three years since the War began, right?

We had an invasion without any solid pretext, ridiculous ideas that the Iraqi people would welcome us and instantly restructure their political system, a complete lack of plans for holding Iraq (which lead to the disapperance of countless records of weapons production, which would have been vital if there were actually WMDs), and ever-increasing terrorist attacks.

Clearly, one side in this debate is seeking arguments to support the conclusions they're already decided are correct. Based on my rational analysis of the situation, I don't think it's the anti-war people.

[ImaginalDisc]

Look; the Democrats haven't all drunk the Kool-Aid yet...there's still Hillary Clinton and Joe Lieberman. But one must ask why the Dems are letting the loonies direct the parade....and I am BTW a former longtime dem.

-z

The Democrats have no parade. The executive branch, the Senate and the House are all held in the tight control of the Republican party, and that grip is so strong that party leaders, such as DeLay and Lott have been using that in order to push more and more right-wing policy. Moderate Republicans who don't fall in line find the party supporting a more conservative candidate in congressional primaries. Bush has yet to veto a single peice of legistlation. The McCain ammendment would have been the first, assuming that threat was serious. Let's examine a list of presidents who have also vetoed 0 bills.

William Henry Harrison: Died in office after 30 days from complications of a cold her caught during his inagural address.

James Garfield: President for seven months, assasinated.

Those who managed to get through a whole term of office ithout any vetoes: Thomas Jefferson, Zachery Taylor, Millard Fillmore and John Quincy Adams, the last son of a president to be president. These presidents held the office at a time when the presidency was less less powerful politcally than it is now. Lincoln changed much of that. That's why after his term, presidents used their veto power to oppose policies more often. The only president since Loncoln who never vetoed legistlation are Garfield and Harrison, who died very quickly after taking office, and W, who's been in that Oval Office one and half terms.

Incidentally, before anyone says that a lack of vetoes indicates a strong President, I'd like to point out that FDR vetoed 635 bills, and that no preisdent since has voted fewer than 21 (JFK), roughly 1 every three months. Even Washington, the president with the strongest majority in popular vote in history vetoed 2 bills. Isn't a president who narrowly won his office having an easier time governing than our first president, hero to millions just a little odd? How is W so lucky? How can W take so many vacations, confident that no legislation will ever come to his desk that isn't perfectly in line with Republican goals?

Because the Republican party has no opposition which can make the slightest difference. Welcome to a one party nation.

To reiterate, the Democrats have no parade.

[hammegk]

Yeah, the problem is parades need a route and a destination.

[Orwell]

Especially easy for Carter; has he ever been right?

Hey Hammegk, have you ever been right about anything?

[hammegk]

I identify you as irrelevant. Does that count?

[Orwell]

I identify you as irrelevant. Does that count?
:rolleys: It was an ***** rhetorical question, you dummy!

Gees Louise! :D

Oh, and been called "irrelevant" by you is like being called "incompetent" by George Dubya.

[ImaginalDisc]

Yeah, the problem is parades need a route and a destination.

Would you prefer to address the point that the Republicans have deliberatly shut the Democrats out of the political process, our would you prefer to belittle the Democrats more?

Remember, you could do both, but ignoring the point I made does not make it go away.

[hammegk]

:rolleys: It was an ***** rhetorical question, you dummy!

Gees Louise! :D

Sorry if I took it other than as intended ... :)


Oh, and been called "irrelevant" by you is like being called "incompetent" by George Dubya.
Well, let's see. He is POTUS. What are you? ;)


Would you prefer to address the point that the Republicans have deliberatly shut the Democrats out of the political process,
I see. What do the winners of the vote do in your world? Concede & go home?


our would you prefer to belittle the Democrats more?
They are doing a fine job of that with no need for outside help.

[ImaginalDisc]

I see. What do the winners of the vote do in your world? Concede & go home?


The United States has a tradition, in government, of persuing the interests of the majority party while not excluding the participation of the minorty. The current situation is such that the minorty is rendered entirely irrlevant. That goes against the fundamental purpose of a democratic republic.

[hammegk]

You are correct that that tradition seems dead. Let's see -- the Warren Court, The Great Society, traitors-against-Vietnam, 40 more years of left- wing libby socialist one-worlder baby-killing, rapist-freeing, surrender-monkey crap. So sorry you can't seem to find electable candidates anymore, and the ones you have in office are spineless thieves, thugs, and demogogues.

Just my 2cts .... ;)

[jj]

I identify you as irrelevant. Does that count?


Might makes right.

Didn't we fight a couple of wars with the Brits, way back when, about that?

[Orwell]

Well, let's see. He is POTUS. What are you? ;)



Not the POTUS, thank Vishnu!

[ImaginalDisc]

You are correct that that tradition seems dead. Let's see -- the Warren Court, The Great Society, traitors-against-Vietnam, 40 more years of left- wing libby socialist one-worlder baby-killing, rapist-freeing, surrender-monkey crap. So sorry you can't seem to find electable candidates anymore, and the ones you have in office are spineless thieves, thugs, and demogogues.

Just my 2cts .... ;)

Please elaborate at length on your slander. I would not wish to call it baseless before providing you ample oppurtunity to defend it.

[hammegk]

Slander? Wow, you are blind and have a talking 'puter! Did you name it HAL?

BTW, I forget to mention your candidates' stances on spirituality and sexual mores.

[ImaginalDisc]

Slander? Wow, you are blind and have a talking 'puter! Did you name it HAL?

BTW, I forget to mention your candidates' stances on spirituality and sexual mores.

Again, they are not *my* candidates. The rest of your tirade does not merit a response.

[hammegk]

Again, they are not *my* candidates.
Ah. A Nadarite? Libertarian? Who cares....


The rest of your tirade does not merit a response.
Truth usually doesn't.

[ImaginalDisc]

Ah. A Nadarite? Libertarian? Who cares....


Truth usually doesn't.

You made claims. Back them up with more than insulting rhetoric.

[hammegk]

I deem them "opinions". Now what?

[ImaginalDisc]

I deem them "opinions". Now what?

Well, if you chose to utilize opinions in a reasonable, logical debate conducted in good faith, in order to expect them to be discussed with the merit they deserve, it is coustomary to use statements of fact to support them.

Merely stating an opinion makes it neither true nor relevant.

[Manny]

ImaginalDisc: Yesterday you asked, "hammegk, what on the bloody blue Earth are you talking about?" My bad for not getting back to you then. The answer, as best I can tell, is that no one knows what on the bloody blue earth hammegk is talking about, including hammegk. You'll live longer and post happier in possession of that little tidbit of knowledge.

Cheers! :)

[hammegk]

Actually, I do know, at least much more often than not. Do I deem it important to explain what to me is obvious to you because you don't understand it? Very very seldom.

Thanks for playing, though. Happy now?

[ImaginalDisc]

Actually, I do know, at least much more often than not. Do I deem it important to explain what to me is obvious to you because you don't understand it? Very very seldom.

Thanks for playing, though. Happy now?

Oh great and powerful hammegk, shine you light down on us. We beseech you to enlighten us with your clearly superior understanding. We are aware that our limited understanding ill equips us to imbibe the wisdom of your remarks.

Translation: Cards on the table now, hammegk.

[Orwell]

ImaginalDisc: Yesterday you asked, "hammegk, what on the bloody blue Earth are you talking about?" My bad for not getting back to you then. The answer, as best I can tell, is that no one knows what on the bloody blue earth hammegk is talking about, including hammegk. You'll live longer and post happier in possession of that little tidbit of knowledge.

Cheers! :)

Manny, we finally found something we can agree upon.



Woah!

[Melendwyr]

Oh great and powerful hammegk, shine you light down on us. We beseech you to enlighten us with your clearly superior understanding. We are aware that our limited understanding ill equips us to imbibe the wisdom of your remarks.

Translation: Cards on the table now, hammegk. Feed not ye trolls. If thou worry that hammegk will go unchalleneged and listened to by the credulous, fear not: even newbies soon learn to put him on Ignore. Ye.

[hammegk]

Feed not ye trolls. If thou worry that hammegk will go unchalleneged and listened to by the credulous, fear not: even newbies soon learn to put him on Ignore. Ye.
After having read some of the bs you post, the wise should conclude to accord you the same treatment.

[hgc]

Yet another thread diverted from original topic to a look what an idiot hammy is thread. hammy you have amazing powers of persuasion.

[hammegk]

Nah, still no Ignore for you ... :)

[Skeptic]

Would you prefer to address the point that the Republicans have deliberatly shut the Democrats out of the political process, our would you prefer to belittle the Democrats more?

Well, to be "part of the political process", you need to win elections.

[shuize]

No, Skeptic. You see, it's important to reach out even to those who cannot win elections. It doesn't matter if they cannot generate support among their fellow citizens. That is not the point! The point is to always know better than the people who cast votes. Only then can you be considered truly "democratic."

But here's the really important part: If, by some chance, your party manages to retake the majority, none of this matters.

[ImaginalDisc]

Would you prefer to address the point that the Republicans have deliberatly shut the Democrats out of the political process, our would you prefer to belittle the Democrats more?

Well, to be "part of the political process", you need to win elections.

There are 55 Republican Senators. There are 45 Non-Republican Senators;44 Dem, I Indie.

There are 231 Republican Congresspeople, and 203 Non-Reps; 202 Dems, 1 Indie.

44 Seats in the Senate and 202 Seats in the House is evidence that Democrats are being elected, unless you'd like to suggest that they spring into office fully formed from Dean's brow.

It is an aberation in American history that such a narrow majority has entirely locked out such a large minority.