How To Lose A War

[Nie Trink Wasser]

this is a necessary perspective to consider, please read.


I hesitate to raise it to the level of a serious argument by offering a rebuttal, but as luck would have it, we have two models for how to occupy a country after a war. Getting "the allies" involved is not the winning model.

After World War II, the United States ran the Japanese occupation unilaterally. Without the meddling of other nations, the Japanese occupation went off without a hitch. Within five years, Gen. Douglas MacArthur had imposed a constitutional democracy on Japan with a bicameral legislature, a bill of rights and an independent judiciary. Now the only trouble Japan causes is its insistence on selling good products to Americans at cheap prices.

By contrast, the German occupation was run as liberals would like to run postwar Iraq – a joint affair among "the Allies," the United States, Britain, France and the Soviet Union. It took 45 years to clean up the mess that created.

The Soviets bickered with the French, refusing to treat them as "allies" (on the admittedly sensible grounds that they didn't fight). While plundering their zone, the Soviets refused to relinquish any territory to France. Trying to be gallant, the U.S. and British carved a French zone out of their own sectors. The Soviets then blockaded Berlin, built the Berlin Wall, and Germany was split for the next 45 years.

The British made Germany's war-torn economy worse by trying to impose socialism in their zone (as well as in their country). Predictably, economic disaster ensued. Over the next five years, the U.S. was required to spend the equivalent of about $200 billion annually in today's dollars to bail out Western Europe under the Marshall Plan. I note that there was no need for a Marshall Plan in Japan.

And the disastrous German occupation is the best-case scenario for "international peacekeeping." The less rosy picture involves the defaced corpses of American servicemen being dragged through the streets by dancing, cheering savages, as happened under "international peacekeeping" forces in Somalia in 1993. Showing that America is not a country to be toyed with, our draft-dodging, pot-smoking commander in chief responded by withdrawing our troops.

So naturally the Democrats are rooting for an international force in Iraq. The Democratic logic on national defense is: As soon as anyone in the military gets his hair mussed, we must pull out and bring "international peace-keeping" forces in. Our boys are in harm's way! People are dying! Bush lied when he said major combat operations were over! Let's run. That'll show 'em.

It was not lost on Osama bin Laden that it only took 18 dead in Somalia for the Great Satan to pull out. It should not be lost on Americans that this is what the Democrats are again demanding we do in Iraq.

how to lose a war (http://www.anncoulter.org/)

[Tmy]

So what hes saying is..............we should nuke Iraq???


I wonder what the authors thoughs on Somolia were back when the troops went in. Proabably somthing like "what are are troops doing their. boo hoo hoo." This is just a biopartician article that takes another cheap shot at Clinton while excusing the methods of our current awol ,war dodgeing , coke snorting president.

[Nie Trink Wasser]

Originally posted by Tmy
[B]So what hes saying is..............we should nuke Iraq???


wrong...try again.

[a_unique_person]

It was not lost on Osama bin Laden that it only took 18 dead in Somalia for the Great Satan to pull out. It should not be lost on Americans that this is what the Democrats are again demanding we do in Iraq.



I thought it was Clinton's fear of the Republicans that made him pull out of Somalia.

[Dancing David]

Silly editorial, I agree with the sentiment but to say that it is the liberals that want the allies invoved in the Iraq occupation is silly, us liberals just want to see Rumsfeld back off his stupid and triple the number of troops in Iraq.

Also the reason that there was an Alleid occupation of Germany, was a political threat to the Soviets, a move that all except the peace-niks supported. So the US letting Mengele across the lines was the fault of the allies?

Funnier than usual Nie, I give you five stars, for enetertainment purposes.

[a_unique_person]

Ha, ha, ha. It is Dubya who is begging for others, including the UN, to help him out. He knows the US can't do it all alone. They are the ones who don't want to be there. She is good for a laugh, though.

[Crossbow]

NTW do you actually believe that Anne Coulter nonsense? If so, then I have a few facts for both of you.

Japan occupation vs. Germany Occupation -

The war effort against Germany was very much an Allied operation with the Soviets moving in from the east and the rest of the allies (notably the USA and England) moving in from the west. As a result, Germany was divided into four zones (France, England, USA, and USSR) after the war which were supposed to be dissolved in order to let Germany reestablish itself after a post-war government could be formed that was amenable to the four powers. However, the USSR did not care for the government the other three powers wanted to form and the other three powers did not like the government the USSR wanted to form.

Ergo, the east/west split. The Democrats did not cause this split, it was really the fault of Joseph Stalin who was terrified of the future threat of a new Germany and who was anxious to extend his power by any way that he could get away with.

As far as the Japanese occupation goes, true it was essentially done by one country, the USA. The British and some of the other allies could have made a good case for sharing in the occupation, however the British had some other very pressing issues to deal with, such as India, their other Asian colonies, and the rebuilding of their own country, so these other countries never seriously tried to get involved with the costly occupation and reconstruction of Japan.

By the way, the USSR did not declare war on Japan until after the bomb was dropped and if an invasion of Japan was needed (and it was not, since Japan surrendered), it would have been likely that country would have been split as well since the plan was to have the USSR invade from the north, and the USA invade from the south.

Iraq occupation -

As far as internationalizing the occupation of Iraq goes, true there have been several Democrats pressing for more international forces and resources. However, even George W. of late has been pressing for more international forces and resources (you recently said as much so I do not what your problem is with this issue either).

[Nie Trink Wasser]

Originally posted by Crossbow
NTW do you actually believe that Anne Coulter nonsense? If so, then I have a few facts for both of you.

Crossbows "facts". :D




Iraq occupation -

As far as internationalizing the occupation of Iraq goes, true there have been several Democrats pressing for more international forces and resources. However, even George W. of late has been pressing for more international forces and resources (you recently said as much so I do not what your problem is with this issue either). [/B]

maybe you're missing the point. Coulter thinks Bush is making a wrong move by getting these people involved who would more than likely screw things up as they have done in the past.

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by Nie Trink Wasser

...

maybe you're missing the point. Coulter thinks Bush is making a wrong move by getting these people involved who would more than likely screw things up as they have done in the past.

Great! I am all for sending you and Coulter to Iraq to set the world to rights.

Let us start a donation fund, I will kick in $100.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Nie Trink Wasser


Crossbows "facts". :D




maybe you're missing the point. Coulter thinks Bush is making a wrong move by getting these people involved who would more than likely screw things up as they have done in the past.

The fact that bush is asking for help means that he thinks it is totally screwed as it is and will just get worse without help.

[Upchurch]

After World War II, the United States ran the Japanese occupation unilaterally. Without the meddling of other nations, the Japanese occupation went off without a hitch. Within five years, Gen. Douglas MacArthur had imposed a constitutional democracy on Japan with a bicameral legislature, a bill of rights and an independent judiciary. Now the only trouble Japan causes is its insistence on selling good products to Americans at cheap prices.
This is a false analogy, btw.

I had a grandfather who was in Japan when the emperor surrendered. He said that when the emperor announced to his people, in my grandfather's words, "by God, the war was over and that was it." The Japanese people absolutely dropped all hostilities to the Allied forces. period.

A few days after, my grandfather went into a barbershop and as he was getting shaved (straight razor, of course) he remembered thinking that, a few days before, his barber probably would have used the razor to cut his throat rather than shave it.

He also told the story about how the local Japanese people, after the surrender, were so polite that a local family invited my grandfather to their home for dinner. The family's son had been in training to be a kamakazi (sp?) pilot, but wouldn't have to "serve" now that the war was over. They gave my grandfather the son's kamakazi head band. Which my father now has framed.

The difference between the Japanese and Iraqi occupations is that Japanese people accepted the defeat and the Iraqi people haven't. That's why rebuilding Japan went off without a hitch.

Coulter is comparing apples to oranges (again).

edited to fix grammer.

[Nie Trink Wasser]

Originally posted by Upchurch

This is a false analogy, btw.

I had a grandfather who was in Japan when the emperor surrendered. He said that when the emperor announced to his people, in my grandfather's words, "by God, the war was over and that was it." The Japanese people absolutely dropped all hostilities to the Allied forces. period.

A few days after, my grandfather went into a barbershop and as he was getting shaved (straight razor, of course) he remembered thinking that, a few days before, his barber probably would have used the razor to cut his throat rather than shave it.

He also told the story about how the local Japanese people, after the surrender, were so polite that a local family invited my grandfather to their home for dinner. The family's son had been in training to be a kamakazi (sp?) pilot, but wouldn't have to "serve" now that the war was over. They gave my grandfather the son's kamakazi head band. Which my father now has framed.

The difference between the Japanese and Iraqi occupations is that Japanese people accepted the defeat and the Iraqi people don't. That's why rebuilding Japan went off without a hitch. Coulter is comparing apples to oranges.


I was expecting some sort of debunc or revision to a mistake in Coulter's article, but there wasnt one. Strange.

thanks for the interesting story, but it really doesnt prove Coulter wrong...


:confused:

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Nie Trink Wasser
thanks for the interesting story, but it really doesnt prove Coulter wrong...What? you didn't see the whole last paragraph? Or are you just selectively ignoring it?

[KelvinG]

You may want to forward this article to George Bush and his boys NTW since they are the ones pleading for UN assistance, not the Democrats.

[Nie Trink Wasser]

Originally posted by Upchurch

The difference between the Japanese and Iraqi occupations is that Japanese people accepted the defeat and the Iraqi people haven't. That's why rebuilding Japan went off without a hitch.

edited to fix grammer. [/B]


The Iraqi people are welcoming the change....the Baathists and terror groups and extremists dont want peace. That's why they are pouring in from the surrounding areas to keep everything chaotic.

even after your great story about gramps, you're still failing to grasp whats happening because you want to see it fail.

[LW]

Originally posted by Crossbow

By the way, the USSR did not declare war on Japan until after the bomb was dropped

This is true, but not the complete picture. Stalin had promised to the Western Allies that he would declare war on Japan three months after the war in the Europe ends. And this is precisely what he did. He used the three months to gather a massive army on the borders of Manchuria. The Soviet attack that followed the declaration (or to tell the truth, I'm not certain whether they bothered to officially declare the war) was perhaps the most succesfull Blitzkrieg operation of the whole WWII.

[wollery]

NTW are you really that stupid? Do you honestly believe everything that that woman says?

The difference between the occupations of Japan and Germany wasn't in the number of occupying forces. There were two principal differences;
1. The forces occupying Germany had Diametrically opposed political philosophies, Russia was allied with the US, Britain and France for reasons of expediency (ie winning the war), and once the war was over they used the remains of Germany to further their political ends (as did the other sides!).
2. The Japanese were still essentially a feudal society and the mindset of the people was "obey the leader without question". When the Emperor declared the surrender the US instantly became the voice of authority and the Japanese people instantly deferred to their leadership. No resistance, no question.

Neither of these situations applies to Iraq.
The occupying forces, even if they were to include troops from several different countries would be under a UN mandate and all agreed on one outcome - a self governing democracy with the same borders that were in place before the conflict. Meanwhile the Iraqi people are split between those that wanted the invasion and the toppling of the Baath party, and those who supported it and prospered under its' power. The latter will be opposed to any occupying force, whether it be composed of American and Brits, French and German or even troops from other arab states. This is where the problem lies, and the only solution is to capture those responsible for the attacks on US and British troops, which requires lots of troops to be there to police the situation, and the cooperation of the general populace.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by wollery
2. The Japanese were still essentially a feudal society and the mindset of the people was "obey the leader without question". When the Emperor declared the surrender the US instantly became the voice of authority and the Japanese people instantly deferred to their leadership. No resistance, no question.

Neither of these situations applies to Iraq. Wollery is right. Coulter has oversimplified the situation so that the comparison could be drawn. Like describing both apples and oranges as round fruit, but then saying that oranges have a thick rine so apples, also being a round fruit, must have a thick rine also. It's a false analogy.

Yes, there are outside forces at work in the resistance in Iraq, but those forces wouldn't be able to function unless they had support from within Iraq. The Iraqi people have not just rolled over like the Japanese did after WWII.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by Upchurch

The difference between the Japanese and Iraqi occupations is that Japanese people accepted the defeat and the Iraqi people haven't. That's why rebuilding Japan went off without a hitch.

Coulter is comparing apples to oranges (again).


I agree that the comparison is not very useful, but your description of Iraq is not quite correct. Most Iraqis have accepted defeat, and never really saw themselves as fighting against us in the first place. The problems come from the fact that a few haven't, outside forces are trying to stir up trouble, and (unlike Japan) we needed to totally cleanse the Baathist leadership, leaving little of the previous political power structure intact. There are also internal conflicts that were not present in Japan. So yeah, it's a harder task to rebuild Iraq than it was to rebuild Japan. But I think we can do it. And I think we need to do it. Much as I hate Coulter, and much as she hyperbolizes the point (particularly with where she lays the blame), the terrorists did learn a lesson from Somalia, which is that we can be chased away by the deaths of a small number of American soldiers. We cannot let that happen in Iraq, too much is at stake.

[DrChinese]

Wow, that Coulter sure is clever! A little more time and she may be able to catch up to the other master of redirected thought - Rush!

Imagine going back in the history books and using a superficially parallel example to make a minor point! That really is amazing thinking. Hmmm. I wonder if Iraq will be like Vietnam and it will be a quagmire with a Republican president ending up defeated...

And what a point Ann is making, too. Basically: we are good and competant, while everyone else is incompetant and indecisive. So if allies get involved, we will lose the war. It's all so clear now.

Well said, Ann! You're a heavy hitter.

[Nie Trink Wasser]

are you guys really this stupid or is it another act ? Missing the point simply to pamper your political diaper rash support group ?

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by Nie Trink Wasser
are you guys really this stupid or is it another act ? Missing the point simply to support your political diaper rash support group ?

That's a little like the pot calling the kettle black, isn't it?

[Nie Trink Wasser]

Originally posted by DrChinese


That's a little like the pot calling the kettle black, isn't it?


no it's not.

you consistently miss the point because you've been trained to response in the typical textbook fashion.

"the pot calling the kettle black" is just another cliche you can use in here when its not appropriate to use. Sort of like calling "strawman" anytime something comes up that you dont agree with.

[Tony]

Coulter needs to go back to where she belongs, on her knees.

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by Nie Trink Wasser



no it's not.

you consistently miss the point because you've been trained to response in the typical textbook fashion.

"the pot calling the kettle black" is just another cliche you can use in here when its not appropriate to use. Sort of like calling "strawman" anytime something comes up that you dont agree with.

You started this thread by saying "this is a necessary perspective to consider, please read." You offer no additional analysis whatsoever giving your independent ideas.

I relied that the article is a superficial parallel, and provided an example of another (admittedly) superficial parallel which is a lot more useful for discussion purposes: the quagmire of Vietnam.

I then summarized Coulter's point as being essentially a circular argument: we are good because we are us.

If you have any further substantive comment, go ahead... make my day.

[Nie Trink Wasser]

Originally posted by Tony
Coulter needs to go back to where she belongs, on her knees.

you can't shut her up with "bimbo" insults and what she says is more effective and solid than a thousand hillarankens.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Nie Trink Wasser


you can't shut her up with "bimbo" insults and what she says is more effective and solid than a thousand hillarankens.

whats hillarankens?

[Nie Trink Wasser]

Originally posted by DrChinese

the quagmire of Vietnam.



:roll: you just used quagmire and Vietnam in the same sentence, that's a rank cliche. Vietnam cannot be compared with Iraq because it is absurd and it was a liberal war with a conservative caught in the middle of it.


I then summarized Coulter's point as being essentially a circular argument: we are good because we are us.


and you're wrong, because of your diaper rash you fail to see the point that she trying to make about mistake we've made in the past that very well could repeat and how we can avoid them now.


If you have any further substantive comment, go ahead... make my day. [/B]

nothing I say can satisfy you, because you are simply here to filibuster and fill up space with text.

[Nie Trink Wasser]

Originally posted by Tony


whats hillarankens?


hillary franken, their dupes, and their soap opera scripted actions and words.

[Crossbow]

By Ann C. logic we should have won the Vietnam War since we did not have to mess around with any of those pesky WW II Allies.

[Nie Trink Wasser]

Originally posted by Crossbow
By Ann C. logic we should have won the Vietnam War since we did not have to mess around with any of those pesky WW II Allies.


you of all people shouldn't start professing to know very much about logic, Crossdress.

just keep typing.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Nie Trink Wasser


:roll: you just used quagmire and Vietnam in the same sentence, that's a rank cliche. Vietnam cannot be compared with Iraq because it is absurd and it was a liberal war with a conservative caught in the middle of it.


Oh right NTW! What are you the King of Irony today? care to explain , this little gem. JFK, the warmonger a Liberal? Or LBJ, the great Dixiecrat, was he a Liberal, or Nixon the great Stonewall was he a liberal?

You know NTW, your jokes would be funnier if they weren't so stupid.

Did they brainwash you into thinking JFH was a liberal, or that LBJ was a liberal, Nixon for all his 'conservative' values is the man that took the great society of LBJ and shoved it down the state's throats.

maybe you should get more history dude. Is truman a liberal?

Whahahahahah


[/B]

So is that panty rash on your face NTW and do the initail AC appear on your forehead under UV light?

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by Nie Trink Wasser



you of all people shouldn't start professing to know very much about logic, Crossdress.

just keep typing.

Hey man it is not my logic, it is hers and yours.

[Nie Trink Wasser]

Oh right NTW! What are you the King of Irony today? care to explain , this little gem. JFK, the warmonger a Liberal? Or LBJ, the great Dixiecrat, was he a Liberal, or Nixon the great Stonewall was he a liberal?


the liberal mission at home for the war was for it to be a failure regardless of what was actually happening.

please explain how you think JFK and LBJ were not liberal democrats. It would be mildly entertaining.



Whahahahahah

:rolleyes: take your meds.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by DrChinese
Wow, that Coulter sure is clever! A little more time and she may be able to catch up to the other master of redirected thought - Rush!

Imagine going back in the history books and using a superficially parallel example to make a minor point! That really is amazing thinking. Hmmm. I wonder if Iraq will be like Vietnam and it will be a quagmire with a Republican president ending up defeated...

And what a point Ann is making, too. Basically: we are good and competant, while everyone else is incompetant and indecisive. So if allies get involved, we will lose the war. It's all so clear now.

Well said, Ann! You're a heavy hitter.

That explains why Vietnam was lost, there were some Australians and Koreans there.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Nie Trink Wasser



hillary franken, their dupes, and their soap opera scripted actions and words.

I agree with you there, Hillary Clinton is a c**t and Al Franken is a skinnier Michael moore with thicker glasses.

[Sundog]

Originally posted by Tony

(edited for taste)
I agree with you there, Hillary Clinton is a **** and Al Franken is a skinnier Michael moore with thicker glasses.

You trying to be the next one out the door, or what? Come on, we need all the Texans here we can get.

I've never understood the I-hate-Hillary thing. Explain it to me.

[Zep]

...which is interesting, AUP, because at the end of WW2, the USA was NOT the only occupying force in Japan. There were also Australian and British occupation troops, and they were in place in numbers until long after the Korean War finished nearly ten years later. Hmmm... Maybe the Japanese repatriation "succeeded" BECAUSE of this?

And for that matter, there are already troops from other countries in Iraq - British troops in force occupy the south of the country, for example. Yet there are still uprisings and major disruptions. Hmmm... Maybe the composition of the occupying forces has nothing to do with this?

Of course, people like Anne Coulter and NTW somehow conveniently forget that there ARE other countries in the world besides the USA, and they DO get involved in these issues. And they never let the pesky facts get in the way of a good generalisation!

So, NTW, your original proposition is basically BULLS**T!!!

[Sundog]

Gentlemen. Language. There are children and moderators present.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Sundog


I've never understood the I-hate-Hillary thing. Explain it to me.

I've never understood the I-hate-Bush thing either. Both figures want to infringe on certain rights.

[jj]

Originally posted by Nie Trink Wasser



I was expecting some sort of debunc or revision to a mistake in Coulter's article, but there wasnt one. Strange.

thanks for the interesting story, but it really doesnt prove Coulter wrong...


:confused:

The story shows, absolutely, that the article's relating of Japan to Iraq is completely illicit, illogical, and incorrect.

What is more, ascribing the partition of Germany to "liberal" causes is another outright misrepresentation.

The author of the article has misrepresented the situation, used inappropriate analogies, and attempted to extract a logically incorrect political statement from the inaccurate facts presented.

In short, the whole article is deceptive from the word go, and the person who wrote it is either hideously, horridly deluded, or downright dishonest, or both.

[jj]

Originally posted by Nie Trink Wasser



no it's not.

you consistently miss the point because you've been trained to response in the typical textbook fashion.



Oh, my ED! We've learned how to be skeptical, examine arguments, and look beyond the surface.

Well, Nie Haben zie nein Biere, first of all, few textbooks teach that. Second of all, your obvious repugnance for learning and knowledge shows trivially in your use of the idea that a textbook is somehow a bad thing.

You are a pandering, malicious philistine, opposed to knowledge. You remind me so much of a YEC it's almost tragic.

[Tony]

What is a Nie Trink Wasser?

[Sundog]

Originally posted by Tony


I've never understood the I-hate-Bush thing either. Both figures want to infringe on certain rights.

No, I'm serious, I really want to understand. Bush-haters at least have evidence they can point to; I want to know if the Hillary haters actually have reasons, or if it's just a case of hating her because she's a strong woman and Bill's wife. I suspect the latter, but you could convince me otherwise if you have reasons. Why hate her any more than any other liberal senator? Seems to me she's kept a fairly low profile.

[Zep]

Originally posted by Sundog
Gentlemen. Language. There are children and moderators present. Apologies all. Hal has seen to me personally, and I promise to do better next time. :)

[KelvinG]

NTW, since you keep informing everyone that they are missing the point of the article you posted, when are you going to enlighten us all as to its true meaning and relevance.
So far you have offered nothing in terms of your own opinion or interpretation of what Coulter is saying.
Since no one is "getting it", don't you think you should help us out?
Thanks.

[Pyrrho]

Originally posted by Tony
What is a Nie Trink Wasser?
It's either Never Drink Water or Only Drink Water. My German isn't good enough for me to know for certain.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Tony
I've never understood the I-hate-Bush thing either. Both figures want to infringe on certain rights.
Bush has done serious damage to our country's international reputation, the economy, the environment and personal freedoms. In spite of this, I don't hate him. I just think he's bad for the country I love.

Hillary tried (unsuccessfully) to get a health plan developed and passed. She also forgave Bill for being a cheating husband. Can you tell me what she has done that inspires you to use such a vulgar word to describe her? What has she done to damage the country? Or do you call all female liberals by that epithet?

[Tony]

Originally posted by Tricky

Bush has done serious damage to our country's international reputation,

Its not his job to make the people of the world happy. He is president, not PR manager.

the economy,

Specious

the environment

Evidence?

and personal freedoms.

Agreed.

But do you really care about personal freedoms? I distinctly remember you arguing for gun control and against tax cuts.

I just think he's bad for the country I love.

I'm begining to think most politicains are.

Hillary tried (unsuccessfully) to get a health plan developed and passed.

Good. We don’t need any more politicians seeking to turn the citizens of this country into slaves so they can fund their pet projects and buy votes.

She also forgave Bill for being a cheating husband.

It was necessary for her political career.

Can you tell me what she has done that inspires you to use such a vulgar word to describe her?

Besides the fact that she has publicly shown an unfavorable attitude towards individual rights?

"We must stop thinking of the individual and start thinking about what is best for society."
-- Hillary Clinton

What has she done to damage the country?

This is moot. Fortunately, she has never had enough power to damage the country.

Or do you call all female liberals by that epithet?

Hillary Clinton, by definition, is not liberal. I thought you would be smart enough not to buy into that lie.

[Some Friggin Guy]

I believe that NTW is trying to use German to say "Don't drink the water".

[Tricky]

(Tricky's original comments in Bold
Tricky's replies to Tony in Red )

Originally posted by Tony
Its not his job to make the people of the world happy. He is president, not PR manager.

It is his job to take care of America. In my opinion, he has done very poorly at his job.

the economy,

Specious
Hardly. The tax cut, coupled with the budget increases and the war costs have sent the deficit through the roof. I call that bad for the economy. What do you call it?
the environment
Evidence?
Allowing polluting plants to bypass environmental controls. Reneging on his campaign pledge to cut carbon dioxide emissions. Cutting funds for wildfire prevention. Withdrawal from the Kyoto accords. Censoring any mention of global warming from an EPA report.

Oh I could go on and on...


and personal freedoms.

Agreed.

But do you really care about personal freedoms? I distinctly remember you arguing for gun control and against tax cuts.
I think that holding people without trial and without charges is a bit more important. I could also make a case that we should be free from the threat of guns, but that battle is for another thread.

I just think he's bad for the country I love.

I'm begining to think most politicains are.
They are the result of the way our country works. Yeah, I wish they were better, but I'm not willing to tear down the system unless I have something better to replace it.

Hillary tried (unsuccessfully) to get a health plan developed and passed.
Good. We don’t need any more politicians seeking to turn the citizens of this country into slaves so they can fund their pet projects and buy votes.
Nice rhetoric. Totally without substance.

She also forgave Bill for being a cheating husband.

It was necessary for her political career.
Ridiculous. I think most people were cheering for her to divorce Bill. Certainly no one would blame her for it. If anything, it hurt her career by making it look as if she approved of his behavior.

Can you tell me what she has done that inspires you to use such a vulgar word to describe her?

Besides the fact that she has publicly shown an unfavorable attitude towards individual rights?
By your own admission, so do all politicians. Why do you choose Hillary to be the target of your filth?

"We must stop thinking of the individual and start thinking about what is best for society."
-- Hillary Clinton
A noble, if unacheivable goal. I know you Ayn Rand lovers think that everyone should be totally self-centered. I don't agree.

Do you honestly not give a damn what happens to the US and it's people, so long as you are comfortable?

What has she done to damage the country?

This is moot. Fortunately, she has never had enough power to damage the country.
So I ask again. Why do you have such an intense hatred for her?

Or do you call all female liberals by that epithet?

Hillary Clinton, by definition, is not liberal. I thought you would be smart enough not to buy into that lie.

Like all of us (including you), she is liberal in some ways and conservative in others. Certainly the health care plan got her branded as a socialist. What issues do you think she is conservative on?