Enough pessimism -- how about the good news

[deveil]

But, hope springs eternal for our liberal "patriots" who would just love to see another Tet occur.
Marco

...
this type of dealing is as obnoxious and outrageous as i was straining to be....allow me to add the words,' obscene' and 'vulgar'.

.
an observation: a certain party to this 'conversation' employs a specific tactic over and over... 'say anything' offensiveness to keep YOU worked up and YOU defending, defending ANYTHING, including your 'momma' if need be. .......

[deveil]

But, hope springs eternal for our liberal "patriots" who would just love to see another Tet occur.
Marco

...
this type of dealing is as obnoxious and outrageous as i was straining to be....allow me to add the words,' obscene' and 'vulgar'.

.
an observation: a certain party to this 'conversation' employs a specific tactic over and over... 'say anything' offensiveness to keep YOU worked up and YOU defending, defending ANYTHING, including your 'momma' if need be. .......

[deveil]

But, hope springs eternal for our liberal "patriots" who would just love to see another Tet occur.
Marco

...
this type of dealing is as obnoxious and outrageous as i was straining to be....allow me to add the words,' obscene' and 'vulgar'.

.
an observation: a certain party to this 'conversation' employs a specific tactic over and over... 'say anything' offensiveness to keep YOU worked up and YOU defending, defending ANYTHING, including your 'momma' if need be. .......

[Joe Schad]

Marco said:
But, hope springs eternal for our liberal "patriots" who would just love to see another Tet occur.

Joe's Reply: Tell me Marco Do you honestly believe that people like me, a liberal, would "just love to see another Tet occur?" I am an American citizen who believes his current government is corrupt to the core and its policies wrong. Specifically the War in Iraq. I do not want to see any more people killed; Iraq or American. I believe I am a patriot as much as you. You seem so cavilier about what our government is doing in the world.

The comment you made is so Rush like:

There is a silver lining in your comments and rationalizations: You will never see the collapse of the Republican party coming until it crashed down on your head.

Joe

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Gary, Hugh, Christy, Marc and others,

Haven't had the time to answer to all of these interesting posts.

I'm working nights this weekend, so may have a chance to catch up later.

Briefly, no Tet offensive is happening in Iraq....there is no nationalistic uprising of the people. But, hope springs eternal for our liberal "patriots" who would just love to see another Tet occur.

Marco

[deveil]

whereas there may be a concern among some (myself among them) that i, markemX, my personal style of hyperbole, would be a detriment to participation by those of, let's say, a moderate republican viewpoint...perhaps such persons may actually be more intimidated by the idea of being associated with someone, purporting to be from their side of the tracks,... who would feign sincere, serious representation of a particular school of thought and/or philosophy and/or loyalties... yet be willing to speak in such disgusting, rabid, irresponsible fashion...unselfconsciously , unblinkingly, un(you-name-it)

hey.....it's just a thought (admittedly self serving, but not necessarily therefore illegitimate).

[deveil]

.
OH!...wait a minute...were we supposed to have just chuckled heartily there? ...did i miss the joke.....AGAIN ?.... daaahmn !

[Marco Zee]

Joe, you said:

<< Marco said:
But, hope springs eternal for our liberal "patriots" who would just love to see another Tet occur.

Joe's Reply: Tell me Marco Do you honestly believe that people like me, a liberal, would "just love to see another Tet occur?" I am an American citizen who believes his current government is corrupt to the core and its policies wrong. Specifically the War in Iraq. I do not want to see any more people killed; Iraq or American. I believe I am a patriot as much as you. You seem so cavilier about what our government is doing in the world.>>

Marco's reply:

Joe, I was at a dinner party two weeks ago with a few ultra-liberal artsy types, and a discussion came up about the Iraq war. This one guy there actually said that he was hoping for a "Tet-like offensive" to begin in Iraq so that the US casualties would escalate exponentially, and force Bush to withdraw the troops immediately, like in Vietnam. When asked for a "clarification", he repeatedly voiced his desire for MUCH HIGHER US casualties and even mentioned that it "would be worth it" just to "embarass Bush". Even the other liberal guests there were taken aback by his statements.

I wasn't going to mention it on this forum because I believe the liberals here are simply "run of the mill" liberals (misguided, misinformed, misdirected, but well-intentioned) and not traitors, actively wishing for the death and defeat of US soldiers in the field.
The only reason I mentioned Tet was because Gary (I think) mentioned it first, and it reminded me of the dinner party and that fellow.

But clearly, as I have DIRECTLY witnessed, there are "self described liberals" who are wishing for the defeat of US troops in Iraq. I would NOT presume to know of any on this forum. But certainly this chap was "pining" for another Tet to occur, as do others on some of these liberal/Dem blogs.

But the argument to "invade , or not invade" Iraq is over.....you libs lost that argument. We already invaded, and conquered Saddam. We are well beyond that.

Now we have to leave something "better" behind to fill the power void there, which is what we are doing. It is going to take time, and patience, and money, and unfortunately blood, but to defeat forces of evil, good men must sacrifice. That is the story of mankind. Good can defeat evil, but a price must be paid. Bush is doing the right thing in Iraq, and we are all paying a price for it, some more than others, but it is still the right thing to do, regardless of the polls of the moment.

It will ultimately be up to the Iraqi's to make their democracy a reality, but the U.S. should be prepared to support the Iraqi's until they are ready to stand on their own, which I hope is sooner, rather than later. But the withdrawal of US troops should not occur too soon, nor too late.

The end game should be a free, Democratic, self-sufficient Iraq. If you liberals are so smart, and are truly a "loyal opposition" then submit a plan that would accomplish this goal.....I've been waiting to hear it, but nobody has presented a "better plan" as to how best to proceed from today forward. And if you cannot come up with a better plan, then join us in the current plan, let's finish the job we started together, and get out with our heads held high after the mission has been fully completed. A UNITED America has a much greater chance of victory than a DIVIDED America. End of sermon.

Marco

PS: Hugh had a great plan for V+1 day (retrospectively), but hasn't come up with a "new" victory plan that's any better than the "current" victory plan. Immediate withdrawal does not leave a stable democratic Iraq in place, and therefore does not accomplish the stated end game.

[Flying Lobster]

Marco--this must be your twentieth trip around the merrygoround of lack of reasoning, but here we go again.

You cannot fight a war of idealism and beliefs with military hardware and death. Therein is the root of the delimma in Iraq and the unceasing debate here. You believe that if you throw enough money and lives into the meatgrinder the eventual democracy sausage will slide out the other end. Read my lips--IT JUST AIN'T GOING TO HAPPEN! And you and your upper-middle-class--ivory-tower-chicken-hawk-back-slapping-neo-con--coctailparty-circuit-goers (sorry, but I got sick and tired of you calling me a liberal leftist, which I'm not) refuse to acknoweldge this and continue to embrace a policy which only gaurantees more death and destruction (and increased levels of terrorism, BTW).

This silly little dance with different devils--the Kurds, Sunnis, and Shias--is one which the administration cannot pull off. Christ, they haven't even brought the US back to a united concensus--its still the reds versus the blues.

That's why I say pull the troops out now and spare their lives and materials for the real conflicts which will come soon enough.

Do you, Marco, honestly give a rat's ass about some Shia or Kurd or Sunni living in a world where they can vote for whomever they want and buy a Big Mac at McDonald's which was built by Haliburton with tractors fueled by Exxon?

At the core of this mess is the belief that a "homegrown democracy" will serve as an example to that region of the Mideast.

An example of what?
Who benefits in any way from this supposed democracy?

garymarcovande

PS: Was Ken Kesey at your dinner party by any chance?

[Flying Lobster]

FYI--

WE often hear about how terrible Saddam was because he was willing to commit genocide against the Kurds.

This is all true and Saddam deserves to be held accountable for this, and will ultimately roast in hell for it.

But there's a little more to this story than the Bushites would have us believe.

Not surprisingly, there were (are) two principal rival Kurd camps in northern Iraq, each competing for supremecy in the region in the establishment of a semi-autonomous region. Prior to the infamous gassing incident these two camps actually waged a bitter campaign against eachother. Finally one of the Kurd factions issued an appeal to Saddam to help settle the issue once and for all, and the poison gas attacks followed.

garyHillarymarcoClinton

[deveil]

Joe, I was at a dinner party two weeks ago... This one guy there actually said that he was hoping for a "Tet-like offensive"... so that the US casualties would escalate exponentially.

was it a theme party?
you guys went together as 'birds-of-a-feather'?
or you were you guys the 'entertainment' ?
a clown act, right?

[deveil]

The end game should be a free, Democratic, self-sufficient Iraq. If you liberals are so smart, and are truly a "loyal opposition" then submit a plan that would accomplish this goal.....I've been waiting to hear it, but nobody has presented a "better plan" as to how best to proceed from today forward. And if you cannot come up with a better plan, then join us in the current plan, let's finish the job we started together, and get out with our heads held high after the mission has been fully completed. A UNITED America has a much greater chance of victory than a DIVIDED America. End of sermon.

Marco

again, with the demands he is
on one hand, i'm heartened to see that you , also, are in to recycling.
but, really, aren't you being repetitive with this demand thing...like a hostage taker demanding a plane so as to make your escape?
paraphrasing(again) it sure don't take a weatherman to know when you're snowed under - or perhaps it's not snow but that pile of bs is so old that it's covered with a crust of white mold...? (remember, hold your head up high).
what, no realistic hope for a rescue plane to fly you out? you're trying to be reasonable and just hoping for a fly ... to land ... on that stinking, rotting, fetid pile of (FACTS) so you can jump out and gulp it down and thereby declare victory?
...or is that not really repetition but a nervous stutter developing? isn't it hard to sing those patriotic songs with a stutter? 'guess you'll just hafta wave that flag all the harder. hold your head up now...maybe no one will notice that tail between your legs.

(p.s. there is a difference between fulminating and frothing, isn't there? guess it really doesn't matter, a good time is a good time.)

[deveil]

Joe, I was at a dinner party two weeks ago with a few ultra-liberal artsy types, and a discussion came up about the Iraq war. This one guy there actually said that he was hoping for a "Tet-like offensive" to begin in Iraq so that the US casualties would escalate exponentially, and force Bush to withdraw the troops immediately, like in Vietnam. When asked for a "clarification", he repeatedly voiced his desire for MUCH HIGHER US casualties and even mentioned that it "would be worth it" just to "embarass Bush". Even the other liberal guests there were taken aback by his statements.

I wasn't going to mention it on this forum because I believe the liberals here are simply "run of the mill" liberals (misguided, misinformed, misdirected, but well-intentioned) and not traitors, actively wishing for the death and defeat of US soldiers in the field.
The only reason I mentioned Tet was because Gary (I think) mentioned it first, and it reminded me of the dinner party and that fellow.

in the 'we create our own reality' department:
it may just be...
that you found that right someone to sucker-punch ...
as seems to be your want.
and this fellow was dim enough to oblige you.

that would make you...what? one sick bastard, i guess, huh?
'takes one to know one', you say? well, yeah...perhaps you could.

'guess maybe that's why, in general, we all seem so' run of the mill'.

just a crazy thought...but one that keeps me wanting to keep kicking things around.
you take them...i'll take them. fairs fair...right?

i've got my sucker...you're still looking for yours...
frustrates the hell out of you , doesn't it?

[mcelrah]

I've said it before: if those who wish to "defend marriage" can
explain to me how letting gays marry will absolve me of the duty to
support my children - then I'll be even more in favor! - Hugh

On 10 Sep 2005, at 13:02, Christy Huddle wrote:

>
> From the LWV website re CA iniatives:
> "The Legislature may amend or repeal initiative statutes by
> another statute that becomes effective only when approved by
> voters, unless the initiative statute permits amendment or repeal
> without their approval."
>
> I don't know if this is the case with this initiative.
>
> In any case, my initial comment had to do with targeting an issue
> like gay marriage to bring out the conservative set.
>
> Another question for you, Marco: If the scientists were to find
> to your satisfaction (I'm already convinced the proof is there)
> that gay men are the result of genetic make-up (i.e., the gay men
> in question have no control over being homosexual), would this
> change your view? For me, I see it as no different from the olden
> days when the KKK would use 'your daughter might marry a black man'
> to bring out the conservative vote.
>
> Christy
>
> Marco Zee <marcoz757@aol.com> wrote:
>
> Quote:
> Christy,
> Can you help me with the CA thing. A Ballot Initiative in 2000 made
> marriage between and a man and a woman.....what legislative
> "weight" does this carry if the Legislature can overturn it 5 years
> later? Also, there is a federal Defense of Marriage Act, passed
> during the Clinton years. Can a ballot initiative be overturned by
> a simple majority of the legislature? Or would it take another
> ballot initiative to do so? Or just a single judge, or group of
> judges, to find it "unconstitutional"?
> My problem with judges is when they start writing laws , rather
> than interpreting and determining the constitutionality of laws. Do
> you think it is ok for those Mass. judges to "order' the
> legislature to write a gay marriage law, or any law for that matter?
>
> gotta run,
>
> Marco
>
> (end of quote)
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
>

[mcelrah]

Nah - I LIKE counter-punching Marco. These are nice softballs right
in the strike zone... - Hugh

On 12 Sep 2005, at 09:55, deveil wrote:

>
> .
> an observation: a certain party to this 'conversation'
> employs a specific tactic over and over. keep the other team's
> offense off the field. use whatever means to make you go 'three
> and out'. the ole 'say anything' offensiveness to keep YOU worked
> up and YOU defending, defending ANYTHING, including your 'momma' if
> need be. CONTROL THE MESSAGE.
> fool ya once, shame on him. fool ya twice........
> markemX
>

[Joe Schad]

Marco you said:

The end game should be a free, Democratic, self-sufficient Iraq. If you liberals are so smart, and are truly a "loyal opposition" then submit a plan that would accomplish this goal.....I've been waiting to hear it, but nobody has presented a "better plan" as to how best to proceed from today forward.

Joe Says:

In a perfect world where we have infinite power, money and bodies to sacrifice then the"end game could be a free, Democratic , self-sufficient Iraq". But it is no where near a perfect world and we do not have the resources, money or man power to make it happen even if the Iraqi people wanted us to.

Here is the plan you are waiting for: PULL out of IRAQ in six months and declare victory. Let the Iraq people fight it out, as they are doing now. It will be a civil war whether we are there or not since we never comitted the troops needed to prevent it in the first place. This is exactly what the BUSH administration is going to do, just watch and see. They can no longer afford the war politically and they have no quams about using the war to support their political objectives at home. Bush will try to keep the four large bases we have in Iraq for potential strikes on Iran if the Iraq governments lets us. Otherwise we are out of there next year.

Joe

Marco Said:

And if you cannot come up with a better plan, then join us in the current plan, let's finish the job we started together, and get out with our heads held high after the mission has been fully completed. A UNITED America has a much greater chance of victory than a DIVIDED America. End of sermon.

It is the Republican administrations problem that we have a divided America on the war in Iraq. If Bush and crowd had been honest with the american people and convinced people the war was the right and necessary thing to do we would not have a divided America on the war. But he deceived the people he serves.

Joe


Marco said:

Good can defeat evil, but a price must be paid. Bush is doing the right thing in Iraq, and we are all paying a price for it, some more than others, but it is still the right thing to do, regardless of the polls of the moment.

Joe says:

Good can defeat evil: There are hundreds of "evil" people in the world running countries. Is it the job of Americans to defeat them? No. Iraq just happens to have oil and we have oil men in the White house.



Marco said:

It will ultimately be up to the Iraqi's to make their democracy a reality, but the U.S. should be prepared to support the Iraqi's until they are ready to stand on their own, which I hope is sooner, rather than later. But the withdrawal of US troops should not occur too soon, nor too late.

Joe replies:

Repeat your above statement as follows:


It will ultimately be up to the Vietnamese to make their democracy a reality, but the U.S. should be prepared to support the Vietnamese until they are ready to stand on their own, which I hope is sooner, rather than later. But the withdrawal of US troops should not occur too soon, nor too late.

I have heard this before and so have you, Marco. Wake up.





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Joe, you said:

<< Marco said:
But, hope springs eternal for our liberal "patriots" who would just love to see another Tet occur.

Joe's Reply: Tell me Marco Do you honestly believe that people like me, a liberal, would "just love to see another Tet occur?" I am an American citizen who believes his current government is corrupt to the core and its policies wrong. Specifically the War in Iraq. I do not want to see any more people killed; Iraq or American. I believe I am a patriot as much as you. You seem so cavilier about what our government is doing in the world.>>

Marco's reply:

Joe, I was at a dinner party two weeks ago with a few ultra-liberal artsy types, and a discussion came up about the Iraq war. This one guy there actually said that he was hoping for a "Tet-like offensive" to begin in Iraq so that the US casualties would escalate exponentially, and force Bush to withdraw the troops immediately, like in Vietnam. When asked for a "clarification", he repeatedly voiced his desire for MUCH HIGHER US casualties and even mentioned that it "would be worth it" just to "embarass Bush". Even the other liberal guests there were taken aback by his statements.

I wasn't going to mention it on this forum because I believe the liberals here are simply "run of the mill" liberals (misguided, misinformed, misdirected, but well-intentioned) and not traitors, actively wishing for the death and defeat of US soldiers in the field.
The only reason I mentioned Tet was because Gary (I think) mentioned it first, and it reminded me of the dinner party and that fellow.

But clearly, as I have DIRECTLY witnessed, there are "self described liberals" who are wishing for the defeat of US troops in Iraq. I would NOT presume to know of any on this forum. But certainly this chap was "pining" for another Tet to occur, as do others on some of these liberal/Dem blogs.

But the argument to "invade , or not invade" Iraq is over.....you libs lost that argument. We already invaded, and conquered Saddam. We are well beyond that.

Now we have to leave something "better" behind to fill the power void there, which is what we are doing. It is going to take time, and patience, and money, and unfortunately blood, but to defeat forces of evil, good men must sacrifice. That is the story of mankind. Good can defeat evil, but a price must be paid. Bush is doing the right thing in Iraq, and we are all paying a price for it, some more than others, but it is still the right thing to do, regardless of the polls of the moment.

It will ultimately be up to the Iraqi's to make their democracy a reality, but the U.S. should be prepared to support the Iraqi's until they are ready to stand on their own, which I hope is sooner, rather than later. But the withdrawal of US troops should not occur too soon, nor too late.

The end game should be a free, Democratic, self-sufficient Iraq. If you liberals are so smart, and are truly a "loyal opposition" then submit a plan that would accomplish this goal.....I've been waiting to hear it, but nobody has presented a "better plan" as to how best to proceed from today forward. And if you cannot come up with a better plan, then join us in the current plan, Good can defeat evil, but a price must be paid. Bush is doing the right thing in Iraq, and we are all paying a price for it, some more than others, but it is still the right thing to do, regardless of the polls of the moment.
, and get out with our heads held high after the mission has been fully completed. A UNITED America has a much greater chance of victory than a DIVIDED America. End of sermon.

Marco

PS: Hugh had a great plan for V+1 day (retrospectively), but hasn't come up with a "new" victory plan that's any better than the "current" victory plan. Immediate withdrawal does not leave a stable democratic Iraq in place, and therefore does not accomplish the stated end game.

[Marco Zee]

Joe,

I cannot predict the future, so I cannot say with certainty what the final result of Iraq will be. But I am an optimist, and tend to see things with their potential for good, like in the Katrina aftermath, we can make something better of the Delta area. Likewise in Iraq, I think there is great "potential" to do good. It is NOT guaranteed, but, it is possible, although Marc disagrees with me here, thinking that it is downright impossible.

None of us know what the future holds, and if Iraq fails, it will bad for us here in the States, for sure, on many levels. Deficits and debts will seem like insignicant afterthoughts if we lose this war on terror.

But I have faith in the human spirit, that the vast majority of all peoples want to have a peaceful existence, and for their families to grow up in a safe environment. That's what we are trying to assist in providing to the Iraqi people. And if these good people of Iraq can grasp this "once in a lifetime" opportunity, the entire Middle East will be affected in a positive way.

I think that this is a NOBLE cause, and worth pursuing, because it benefits the USA as well as the Iraqi's, and potentially the whole region.

As Brian said, you may not agree on how or why we got there, but as long as we are there, we should pursue the "best" outcome, and not squander OUR "once in a lifetime" opportunity to bring democracy to this region.

Marco

[Flying Lobster]

Wrong again. The war in Iraq is not a war against terrorism. It is a war that has, by any measure, INCREASED terrorism.

It was a unilateral decision by the administration to institute regime change and nation-building.

There is only one way the war in Iraq can be viewed as a success--and that is the Bush family finally settled its score with Saddam by removing him from power.

Another lesson that is completely overlooked: you cannot force a democracy upon people that do not want it or understand it fundamentally at the root of their culture.

There is only one reason we are still in Iraq: Bush doesn't want to admit to the world he screwed up and doesn't want the military to percieve that the lives it sacrificied were wasted in vain.

The whole notion that you can invade a country and declare it democratic is perposterous. If a historian were to select a geographic area in the world that is marked with strife and tribal division, it is hard to imagine a worse candidate for democracy than Iraq.

The Bush family has historically been prone to these "thousand points of light" illusions that lead them to believe that if somebody just shows them a good example the rest of the world will embrace it--sort of a "happy cancer." Of course, GW doesn't mind making a few people unhappy--i.e. dead--in order to get this happy cancer going.

Now Marco, did it escape your attention that our president declared after Katrina that the US economy could not sustain an adequate response to another storm like Katrina or a terrorist attack like 911? What are we supposed to do about that? I wonder what Osama is thinking after he heard that.

marc

[deveil]

Nah - I LIKE counter-punching Marco. These are nice softballs right
in the strike zone... - Hugh
>

funny you should mention it...i was gonna ask if maybe yous guys would worry that i would break your toy. play through

[deveil]

.
oh...pls forgive the mixed metaphors, it's still early morning in my part of the world.

[mcelrah]

Marco speaks in such quaint terms: "victory", "evil". Yeah, we won
a military battlefield victory, but I think we lost the larger battle
the day some overenthusiastic troops put the U.S. flag up in place of
Saddam's statue. I have a lot of issues with jihadist Islam's ethic
of violence - I think there is something profoundly evil and twisted
in that vein of Islam - but I can well understand that most Iraqis
don't want us in their country and therefore tacitly support the
insurgency. As stated long ago, there comes a point where U.S.
presence causes more harm than good to prospects for a stable,
responsible government in Baghdad. Judging where that point is is
inexact, but I think we are well past it.
Hey Marco: support our troops - enlist! - Hugh

On 18 Sep 2005, at 00:26, Joe Schad wrote:

>
> Marco you said:
>
> The end game should be a free, Democratic, self-sufficient Iraq. If
> you liberals are so smart, and are truly a "loyal opposition" then
> submit a plan that would accomplish this goal.....I've been waiting
> to hear it, but nobody has presented a "better plan" as to how best
> to proceed from today forward.
>
> Joe Says:
>
> In a perfect world where we have infinite power, money and bodies
> to sacrifice then the"end game could be a free, Democratic , self-
> sufficient Iraq". But it is no where near a perfect world and we
> do not have the resources, money or man power to make it happen
> even if the Iraqi people wanted us to.
>
> Here is the plan you are waiting for: PULL out of IRAQ in six
> months and declare victory. Let the Iraq people fight it out, as
> they are doing now. It will be a civil war whether we are there or
> not since we never comitted the troops needed to prevent it in the
> first place. This is exactly what the BUSH administration is going
> to do, just watch and see. They can no longer afford the war
> politically and they have no quams about using the war to support
> their political objectives at home. Bush will try to keep the
> four large bases we have in Iraq for potential strikes on Iran if
> the Iraq governments lets us. Otherwise we are out of there next
> year.
>
> Joe
>
> Marco Said:
>
> And if you cannot come up with a better plan, then join us in the
> current plan, let's finish the job we started together, and get out
> with our heads held high after the mission has been fully
> completed. A UNITED America has a much greater chance of victory
> than a DIVIDED America. End of sermon.
>
> It is the Republican administrations problem that we have a divided
> America on the war in Iraq. If Bush and crowd had been honest with
> the american people and convinced people the war was the right and
> necessary thing to do we would not have a divided America on the
> war. But he deceived the people he serves.
>
> Joe
>
>
> Marco said:
>
> Good can defeat evil, but a price must be paid. Bush is doing the
> right thing in Iraq, and we are all paying a price for it, some
> more than others, but it is still the right thing to do, regardless
> of the polls of the moment.
>
> Joe says:
>
> Good can defeat evil: There are hundreds of "evil" people in the
> world running countries. Is it the job of Americans to defeat
> them? No. Iraq just happens to have oil and we have oil men in
> the White house.
>
>
>
> Marco said:
>
> It will ultimately be up to the Iraqi's to make their democracy a
> reality, but the U.S. should be prepared to support the Iraqi's
> until they are ready to stand on their own, which I hope is sooner,
> rather than later. But the withdrawal of US troops should not occur
> too soon, nor too late.
>
> Joe replies:
>
> Repeat your above statement as follows:
>
>
> It will ultimately be up to the Vietnamese to make their democracy
> a reality, but the U.S. should be prepared to support the
> Vietnamese until they are ready to stand on their own, which I hope
> is sooner, rather than later. But the withdrawal of US troops
> should not occur too soon, nor too late.
>
> I have heard this before and so have you, Marco. Wake up.
>
>
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------
>
> Joe, you said:
>
>
>>
>>
>
> Marco's reply:
>
> Joe, I was at a dinner party two weeks ago with a few ultra-liberal
> artsy types, and a discussion came up about the Iraq war. This one
> guy there actually said that he was hoping for a "Tet-like
> offensive" to begin in Iraq so that the US casualties would
> escalate exponentially, and force Bush to withdraw the troops
> immediately, like in Vietnam. When asked for a "clarification", he
> repeatedly voiced his desire for MUCH HIGHER US casualties and even
> mentioned that it "would be worth it" just to "embarass Bush". Even
> the other liberal guests there were taken aback by his statements.
>
> I wasn't going to mention it on this forum because I believe the
> liberals here are simply "run of the mill" liberals (misguided,
> misinformed, misdirected, but well-intentioned) and not traitors,
> actively wishing for the death and defeat of US soldiers in the field.
> The only reason I mentioned Tet was because Gary (I think)
> mentioned it first, and it reminded me of the dinner party and that
> fellow.
>
> But clearly, as I have DIRECTLY witnessed, there are "self
> described liberals" who are wishing for the defeat of US troops in
> Iraq. I would NOT presume to know of any on this forum. But
> certainly this chap was "pining" for another Tet to occur, as do
> others on some of these liberal/Dem blogs.
>
> But the argument to "invade , or not invade" Iraq is over.....you
> libs lost that argument. We already invaded, and conquered Saddam.
> We are well beyond that.
>
> Now we have to leave something "better" behind to fill the power
> void there, which is what we are doing. It is going to take time,
> and patience, and money, and unfortunately blood, but to defeat
> forces of evil, good men must sacrifice. That is the story of
> mankind. Good can defeat evil, but a price must be paid. Bush is
> doing the right thing in Iraq, and we are all paying a price for
> it, some more than others, but it is still the right thing to do,
> regardless of the polls of the moment.
>
> It will ultimately be up to the Iraqi's to make their democracy a
> reality, but the U.S. should be prepared to support the Iraqi's
> until they are ready to stand on their own, which I hope is sooner,
> rather than later. But the withdrawal of US troops should not occur
> too soon, nor too late.
>
> The end game should be a free, Democratic, self-sufficient Iraq. If
> you liberals are so smart, and are truly a "loyal opposition" then
> submit a plan that would accomplish this goal.....I've been waiting
> to hear it, but nobody has presented a "better plan" as to how best
> to proceed from today forward. And if you cannot come up with a
> better plan, then join us in the current plan, Good can defeat
> evil, but a price must be paid. Bush is doing the right thing in
> Iraq, and we are all paying a price for it, some more than others,
> but it is still the right thing to do, regardless of the polls of
> the moment.
> , and get out with our heads held high after the mission has been
> fully completed. A UNITED America has a much greater chance of
> victory than a DIVIDED America. End of sermon.
>
> Marco
>
> PS: Hugh had a great plan for V+1 day (retrospectively), but hasn't
> come up with a "new" victory plan that's any better than the
> "current" victory plan. Immediate withdrawal does not leave a
> stable democratic Iraq in place, and therefore does not accomplish
> the stated end game.
>

[mcelrah]

Osama! Wasn't he supposed to have flies on his eyeballs about three
years ago? Now, Saddam, who wouldn't give Osama the time of day, we
got him. And we sure got plenty of terrorism going in Iraq post-
Saddam. Bushie, he's doin' a hell of a job! Workin' 24/7! - Hugh
P.S. Is it really true that Bush has beaten Reagan's vacation-time
record - with 3 1/2 years to go?

On 18 Sep 2005, at 07:29, Flying Lobster wrote:

>
> Wrong again. The war in Iraq is not a war against terrorism. It is
> a war that has, by any measure, INCREASED terrorism.
>
> It was a unilateral decision by the administration to institute
> regime change and nation-building.
>
> There is only one way the war in Iraq can be viewed as a success--
> and that is the Bush family finally settled its score with Saddam
> by removing him from power.
>
> Another lesson that is completely overlooked: you cannot force a
> democracy upon people that do not want it or understand it
> fundamentally at the root of their culture.
>
> There is only one reason we are still in Iraq: Bush doesn't want to
> admit to the world he screwed up and doesn't want the military to
> percieve that the lives it sacrificied were wasted in vain.
>
> The whole notion that you can invade a country and declare it
> democratic is perposterous. If a historian were to select a
> geographic area in the world that is marked with strife and tribal
> division, it is hard to imagine a worse candidate for democracy
> than Iraq.
>
> The Bush family has historically been prone to these "thousand
> points of light" illusions that lead them to believe that if
> somebody just shows them a good example the rest of the world will
> embrace it--sort of a "happy cancer." Of course, GW doesn't mind
> making a few people unhappy--i.e. dead--in order to get this happy
> cancer going.
>
> Now Marco, did it escape your attention that our president declared
> after Katrina that the US economy could not sustain an adequate
> response to another storm like Katrina or a terrorist attack like
> 911? What are we supposed to do about that? I wonder what Osama is
> thinking after he heard that.
>
> marcgot art?
> http://www.marcfink.com/
> wanna fly?
> http://www.downeastairsports.com/
>

[Matthew]

Marco,

You sure like calling people names and playing fast and loose with the truth. I did, in fact, present a beter plan. Also, where's your answer to A or B or any of the other answers as to why you support so many policies that hurt America, hurt Americans and kill Americans?

Matthew

[Marco Zee]

Marc, you said: << You cannot fight a war of idealism and beliefs with military hardware and death.>>

Reply: We defeated Communism with our ideals and hardware.
We defeated Stalinism with our ideals and hardware.
We defeated Fascism with our ideals and hardware.
We defeated Japenese Imperialism with our ideals and hardware (including nuclear weapons).

And we will defeat Islamo-Fascism with both our better ideals (democracy, freedom, human rights,and capitalism) and our hardware.

You heard it hear first.

Marco

[mcelrah]

One problem with the hardware part: we had an aim point for the
bombs in the four cases you mention. Can't seem to find Osama's
cave. The more insurgents we kill in Iraq, the
more rise up to replace them. On the ideals part: the fight isn't
between the West and Islamic radicalism - we're just bystanders. The
fight is between the radicals and the Muslim mainstream. We can't
win the ideological battle against the radicals 'cause we're not even
in the same arena.

Fundamentalism of all religions - Muslim, Christian, Jewish, Hindu -
is a reaction against modernity, of which the U.S. is a symbol. And
all these fundamentalisms will eventually lose - cause sex, drugs and
rock-n-roll (and prosperity and gadgets) sells better than veils and
burqas and not shaving. (Iranian young people have had it with their
religious dictators.) But U.S. troops speeding in convoys through
Baghdad running private vehicles over or off the road, U.S. troops
kicking down doors and taking young men away with cable ties on their
wrists - is a hard sell, too. I think the troops are doing the best
that military troops can, but they are in a fruitless struggle at
this point: they're not winning any hearts and minds.

- Hugh

On 23 Sep 2005, at 00:23, Marco Zee wrote:

>
> Marc, you said: >
>
> Reply: We defeated Communism with our ideals and hardware.
> We defeated Stalinism with our ideals and hardware.
> We defeated Fascism with our ideals and hardware.
> We defeated Japenese Imperialism with our ideals and hardware
> (including nuclear weapons).
>
> And we will defeat Islamo-Fascism with both our better ideals
> (democracy, freedom, human rights,and capitalism) and our hardware.
>
> You heard it hear first.
>
> Marco
>

[Marco Zee]

Hugh Said : <<The more insurgents we kill in Iraq, the
more rise up to replace them. On the ideals part: the fight isn't
between the West and Islamic radicalism - we're just bystanders. The
fight is between the radicals and the Muslim mainstream. We can't
win the ideological battle against the radicals 'cause we're not even
in the same arena. >>

Hugh said: <<The more insurgents we kill in Iraq, the more rise up to replace them.>>

Reply: This is an unsubstantiated opinion, and has NO BASIS in fact. This opinion, which is widely held in liberal circles, is based on a defeatist or pessimistic perspective. Conversely, the same could be said for the USA,....we have tragically lost 2k soldiers, but there are plenty more that rise up to replace them. Your assertion implies that fighting insurgents is hopeless, as there are an infinite, replenishable number of them, which is simply a defeatist opinion, and not a demonstrable fact. And conversely, based on the same logic, shouldn't the "insurgents" give up, since we (the USA) have replenished our military, and the ability to replenish it further, as needed. We are not "tapped out" by any means.

Hugh said: <<On the ideals part: the fight isn't between the West and Islamic radicalism - we're just bystanders. The fight is between the radicals and the Muslim mainstream. We can't win the ideological battle against the radicals 'cause we're not even in the same arena. >>

Reply: There is an ongoing fight between Islamic Radicalism and the West....I hope you are not suggesting that the "Muslim Mainstream" attacked us on 9/11. Surely, this attack was from Islamic Radicals. Right? And that this fight continues to be fought. Correct?

Now, the Muslim mainstream, especially in Iraq, has to make a choice, either to join the modern world and the West, or to stay subservient to Dictators and Islamic Radicals who wish to keep them in the 15th century, by force, intimidation, and mass murder. And while I agree that we are not "directly" involved in this ideological battle, we have certainly "chosen sides" with the "democratic seeking forces" within Iraq and Afghanistan. And we are providing our hardware and military support, as well as our political and moral support, to these "west leaning" muslims, and thereby are indeed fighting, both directly and indirectly, the foreign Islamic Radicals and Saddam's indigenous henchmen. We can win, and are winning, this ideological battle, just as you mentioned about Iran, because the peoples in Iran and Iraq desire a better life and a higher standard of living, which is NOT being offered by the Radicals and Dictators.

Let's see how many Iraqi's come out to vote on Oct 15. Hopefully more than 8 million will show again. Perhaps up to 10 million. And with any luck, they will agree on their constitution. Courage.

Marco