Anger is a gift (Happy 3rd Anniversary!)

[Scrooge McSam]

Originally Posted by The Shadoe

I hope that no one here honestly thinks that Iraqis are better off under a dictator? I hear a lot of that.

You do, huh? From where, pray tell? From your right wing sources who continually spout what liberals are supposedly all about?

Originally Posted by The Shadoe

If you blanked out the names of the countries, you'd think the articles were about Iraq.

Only if you do no more research that what you've shown.

Originally Posted by The Shadoe

It took 14 YEARS after we gained independance from the British to get things going.

Sure did... and we didn't even have 3 major tribes trying to kill each other over religious fantasies.

Also, if I recall, our founding fathers were careful to provide us some limits on government as it applies to religion.

See? Our situations are exactly alike, aren't they?

Originally Posted by The Shadoe

I'm not going to get into a debate about whether we should've gone to war in Iraq or not, but we are there now, and it would be disastrous if we pulled out of Iraq now.

Why not have the debate? We certainly didn't have it when all this began, did we? No, all debate was shut down be calling people treasonous and Saddam lovers for daring to disagree with the President. And notice, I'm not giving the democrats a pass here for letting it happen.

Originally Posted by The Shadoe

This is a long process, and for our sake, the citizens of Iraq's sake, and the Middle East's sake, it is vitally important that this works.

Yes, it's a long process no matter how you go about it. We had begun the process by advocating regime change through education, sanctions and diplomacy. And guess what? It was working. Where are Saddam's weapons, Shadoe? Where is Saddam's connection to Al Queda, Shadoe?

Originally Posted by The Shadoe

Laura Ingraham recently went all out on the Today show, criticizing them for not telling the whole story, not talking to the soldiers, and not talking to the citizens.

Yeah, I saw her performance and it was disgusting. Perhaps Ms. Ingraham is unaware (geez what an understatement) that 80 journalists have been killed while working on the story that is Iraq. Perhaps they were all shot on their hotel balconies which Ms Ingraham claims they work from.

Originally Posted by The Shadoe

I urge everyone to read a political science textbook.

Did everyone enjoy this comment as much as I did??

Originally Posted by The Shadoe

What I described really isn't at all fundamentally different from our own situation when we were founded, Japan, or Germany

... and that one??

Originally Posted by The Shadoe

Well there must be lots, because Michelle Malkin wrote a whole book about it. I recommend you at least take a look at Unhinged.

I love love LOVE it when people pull out Malkin and the rest of the bomb throwers and start parading them around as some standard of honesty, because usually you'll get some thin shred of information maquerading as the truth, i.e. Shadoe's next comment.

Originally Posted by The Shadoe

I also remember Malkin talking about him wrestling a Dean supporter to the ground at a Kerry rally

Did Malkin also tell you the rest of the story? Did Malkin tell you the manager of the facility approached the heckler and asked him several times to tone it down, and that it was only after the heckler started throwing punches at the people around him that Franken took him down? No? I wonder why not.
And just in case you're tempted to comment on the heckler's speech rights being trampled, please remember that citizens who disagree with President Bush are generally not even allowed in the same hall Dear Leader lies from.

Originally Posted by The Shadoe

And in general, I end up leaning towards the conservatives on most issues?

I used to, as well, before conservative thought went to hell in a handbasket.

Originally Posted by The Shadoe

Why? Because in general they offer up substance. Not just rhetoric, but actual substance.

Malkin and Coulter? (And yes, I realize Malkin and Coulter are NOT republican leaders. I continue to harp on them because YOU brought them into the conversation as examples of conservative truth)

Originally Posted by The Shadoe

I find it difficult to back many of the liberal positions on issues where in the end they had egg smeared in their face because of all the foul-drawl that is put forward. It seems like their bigger agenda is to attack Republicans.

Did you just wake up? Have you completely missed the concerted effort in recent decades to stamp out liberalism completely? Sorry, my bad... you probably did.
And what of this so-called conservative substance?
Fiscal responsibility? I usually try not to laugh directly in someone's face, but that may be unavoidable in this case.
Government out of people lives? Ditto
Giving 8 cell blastocysts the same rights as a functioning human being?

Originally Posted by The Shadoe

I absolutely don't mean to come across as being offensive

I see. We'll just call that an unfortunate side effect and move on

Originally Posted by The Shadoe

Calling someone a liar is a serious accusation

More serious than accusing someone of treason? One loses you respect; the other can get you killed.

[Gemini Cricket]

Originally Posted by The Shadoe

WWKD? (What Would Kerry Do?) Think about the screw-ups he would've caused, and had he been in the presidency, I could kick back too and say "Well, I didn't vote for him." I could do that, but I wouldn't. Sitting back and watching a person make mistakes isn't my bag. No matter who is in office, I'd rather that they succeed and do some good. I might not be fond of them or voted for them, but they deserve some dignity. I think most of us learnedabout helping others in kindergarten... sitting back and being carefree is rather cruel. So much for the "compassionate, caring, accepting liberals"...

Supposing what Kerry would have screwed up is vastly different than seeing what Bush actually screwed up. The man lost a city on his watch. Am I supposed to sit here and say, 'Well, good thing Kerry's not in. He would have lost more than just one.' Huh?

I sit back and watch because that's all anyone can do. The soldiers who died in this war for no reason deserve my respect, Bush does not. The memories of innocent Iraqi citizens bombed in the middle of the night by us deserve to be thought on with dignity, not Bush.

Shooting an unarmed Iraqi family (including 3 children) is cruel. Watching an out of touch leader implode because of his own stupidity is not.

I can show you tons of pictures of smiling people, it doesn't mean a damn thing.

[SacTown Chronic]

Originally Posted by The Shadoe

That's not what Bush thought. That's what the country thought. The 'we' refers to the United States of America.

No, we didn't think that. Every person I've ever talked to about terrorism was well aware that America was an attractive target prior to 9/11 (*cough*WTC attack circa 1993*cough*).

[Ghoulish Delight]

Shadoe, if you want to talk about picking up poli-sci books and looking at history, how about looking at the fact that in the last century not one instance where the United States went into a country and initiated regime change was the end result successful.

Was it good that Iraq was ruled by a dangerous dictator? Clearly not. But unless the people themselves are strong and cohesive enough to initiated change on their own, history has shown that outside help does nothing but replace one bad situation with another, and cost lives of the liberators.

[scaeagles]

I agree with that to a point, GD, but not wholely.

I think a group of oppressed people is not nearly as able to overthrow an oppressive government as they once were. Methods and technology have changed drastically.

The US revolution was a success with only about 20% of the populace wanting to fight for independence. The British did not have huge technological (in terms of military hardware) advantages, and the colonists were well fed and armed with basically the same weapons as the Biritish.

When you look at somewhere like a Somalia, where hundreds of thousands of people are starving under oppressive warlords, why are they starving? It isn't because there is no food available. It is because the warlords who control the trucks and roads will not allow food to get to the starving people. If you are malnourished, how can you fight?

I could say the same for Rwanda or any other number of African nations.

It is possible, if military leaders under a dictator go against him, for a revolution to take hold. However, in such an example, the military leader overthrowing one dictator typical just wants all the power for himself and becomes a dictator himself.

With what would Iraqis have risen up? The fear and intimidation was clear. I know if I were an Iraqi man, knowing that even speaking ill about my government would result not in my torture, but in the torture and imprisonment of my family, my little girls, I'm keeping my mouth shut. (By the way - props to some of the founding fathers, many of whom faced just that for their families who were in England. The general populace who were fighting, though, did not face that in mass.)

[SacTown Chronic]

Originally Posted by The Shadoe

Do you honestly think that the media is unbiased?

No. Actually I think the MSM has rolled over and shown the Bush administration their belly like a frightened animal.

[SacTown Chronic]

We didn't invade Iraq in order to bend them over and force democracy on them. We went because WMD. We went because they were an "imminent threat". We went because Condi put images of mushroom clouds in our heads.

Drives me nuts when people confuse pre-invasion justifications with post-invasion spin.

[The Shadoe]

Originally Posted by Scrooge McSam

You do, huh? From where, pray tell? From your right wing sources who continually spout what liberals are supposedly all about?

General liberal opinion. I continually read it on blogs.

Only if you do no more research that what you've shown.

Please elaborate. I didn't hear anyone else providing historical context in this thread with similar situations that we've faced in the past.

Sure did... and we didn't even have 3 major tribes trying to kill each other over religious fantasies.

Again, the terrorists WANT Civil War to break out, and they are going to egg it on as much as possible. It needn't happen.

Also, if I recall, our founding fathers were careful to provide us some limits on government as it applies to religion.

If Iraqis want more religion in their government, then so be it. That's part of democracy.

See? Our situations are exactly alike, aren't they?

I beg you to find one place where I said that the situations are exactly alike. Of course they aren't exactly alike. But they share fundamental similarities.

Why not have the debate? We certainly didn't have it when all this began, did we? No, all debate was shut down be calling people treasonous and Saddam lovers for daring to disagree with the President. And notice, I'm not giving the democrats a pass here for letting it happen.

I didn't want to get into a debate IN THAT POST about why we were there. By all means there should be a debate, but we need to be focused forwards now that we are there, NOT BACKWARDS. What's done is done. Time to make lemonade out of lemons. Oh, and what debate was shut down? Are you referring to the Chill Wind or whatever nonsense it was that Sean Penn was talking about? I don't believe that for a moment. I haven't heard anyone being shut up when speaking about the war, unless they were breaking laws in the process, like Cindy Sheehan has repeatedly done.

Yes, it's a long process no matter how you go about it. We had begun the process by advocating regime change through education, sanctions and diplomacy. And guess what? It was working. Where are Saddam's weapons, Shadoe? Where is Saddam's connection to Al Queda, Shadoe?

Apparently you don't know about Saddam's secret tapes... and thousands of documents that haven't yet been declassified. Saddam's connection to Al Qaeda? Take a look. Going into war and even now, liberals have screamed "no connection between Saddam and Al Qaeda" and the more that turns up, the more we know this isn't true. Saddam allowed Al Qaeda operatives in his country. He knew they were there. He didn't do anything about it. And now these new letters show there was collaboration between Saddam and bin Ladin. Don't be so quick to write things off. Especially as new evidence comes to light.

Yeah, I saw her performance and it was disgusting. Perhaps Ms. Ingraham is unaware (geez what an understatement) that 80 journalists have been killed while working on the story that is Iraq. Perhaps they were all shot on their hotel balconies which Ms Ingraham claims they work from.

Did everyone enjoy this comment as much as I did??

Well, why not pick one up? Enjoy the comment. Do you think that you are above a refresher course? Picking up my poli sci book here, there are a few phrases about colonialism and imperialism that jump out at me.

• "For centuries, the great powers of Europe had competed for colonial hodlings, ruling, and administering over weaker and less-advanced peoples and territories located in faraway places around the world." (We aren't doing this!)
• "The Eurocentric system [...] became synonymous with foreign subjugation and exploitation." (Where's the exploitation and subjugation?)

If you were to read the book that I have in front of me, it looks more like the US is trying to fix the effects of colonialism in Iraq that were brought on by the European Empires.

... and that one??

So the comment is enjoyable, eh? No one has tried to counter that point with any evidence stating the contrary. So laugh and point all you want, but no one has provided anything that proves otherwise.

I love love LOVE it when people pull out Malkin and the rest of the bomb throwers and start parading them around as some standard of honesty, because usually you'll get some thin shred of information maquerading as the truth, i.e. Shadoe's next comment.

Bomb-throwers like Franken and Randi Rhodes? Puh-lease.

Did Malkin also tell you the rest of the story? Did Malkin tell you the manager of the facility approached the heckler and asked him several times to tone it down, and that it was only after the heckler started throwing punches at the people around him that Franken took him down? No? I wonder why not.
And just in case you're tempted to comment on the heckler's speech rights being trampled, please remember that citizens who disagree with President Bush are generally not even allowed in the same hall Dear Leader lies from.

Interesting that Franken finds himself in these situations all the time. Do you have an explanation as to why Franken went and stuck his finger in Laura Ingraham's producer's face? Or was her producer out of line? Because the picture I saw showed her producer sitting in a chair while Franken had his finger in the face with a threatening stance. It's suspicious when Franken finds himself in these situations all the time. I wouldn't be surprised at all if the pro-Dean supporter was being heckled by Franken. Granted, I think that it was stupid for the the Deankey to be at a Kerry Rally, but Franken's behavior is not justifiable.

I used to, as well, before conservative thought went to hell in a handbasket.

It really depends on who you listen to? Liberal thought as of late has been about nothing other than attacking republicans, unrealistic pie-in-the-sky idealism, etc.

Malkin and Coulter? (And yes, I realize Malkin and Coulter are NOT republican leaders. I continue to harp on them because YOU brought them into the conversation as examples of conservative truth)

I brought up Malkin. I didn't bring up Coulter. If you look back, soemone mentioned Coulter earlier and I responded to that post.

Did you just wake up? Have you completely missed the concerted effort in recent decades to stamp out liberalism completely? Sorry, my bad... you probably did.

Provide some evidence of this please. That's a ludicrious accusation, one that can't be baked up. Did Randi Rhodes tell you this? Or Sean Penn?

And what of this so-called conservative substance?

When Bush was running, I heard plans about what should be done with Iraq, domestic and foreign policies. What did I hear from Kerry? He talked about how the Democrats have better plans, but mysteriously he didn't let people in as to what those plans were. Just that they were different from the Republicans. Oh, and that they have better hair. So if you're Vidal Sassoon, the Kerry ticket is for you.

Fiscal responsibility? I usually try not to laugh directly in someone's face, but that may be unavoidable in this case.
Government out of people lives? Ditto

I can't debate you there. I think that Republicans and Democrats alike can guarantee what Ingraham had to say about this in her E-Blast this week:

Originally Posted by Laura Ingraham

Get serious about spending cuts. The complete and utter inability of the GOP to control spending is having a devastating impact on the credibility of all Republicans. After spending decades calling for smaller government, the GOP is now presiding over one of the largest explosions of government spending the country has ever seen. How can Republicans criticize Democratic plans for new government programs when they have to raise the government's debt ceiling every other week? Furthermore, how can the voters trust Republicans to keep taxes low when it is obvious that the U.S. government will have to raise taxes in order to pay for all the new spending that is taking place? Bush needs to pick a high-profile fight on spending to show that he is serious about this issue.

Giving 8 cell blastocysts the same rights as a functioning human being?

That viewpoint absolutely disgusts me. The same arguments were made to keep slavery in place! It makes me sick... the platonic chain of great being, the so-called "proof" in the Bible that blacks were inferior to whites, etc. It's sickening and disgusting. And then to hear "think about the life that child would've gone through. It's better this way." Again, what perverted thinking! Do we point out people in the street and say, "oh what a terrible life, let's kill them"? NO! So why is it ok to do it for a BABY in the womb?

I see. We'll just call that an unfortunate side effect and move on

I've been trying to be very careful what I say because politics are such a personal thing and it's hard to be tactful about it. It is my sincere attempt to not attack any person, but rather what is being said. I don't hold grudges or anything of that sort.

More serious than accusing someone of treason? One loses you respect; the other can get you killed.

Treason is worse, yes.

[Ghoulish Delight]

General liberal opinion. I continually read it on blogs.

OMG, it's in blogs?! It MUST be true.

[scaeagles]

I figured it would get to this eventually, and that's why I was planning on staying out. While I understand the sentiment of what you've said Sac, and it is indeed true to a point, there is more to it than that. There is Saddam not giving fully unfettered access as required by the cease fire agreement. There are multiple foreign intelligence sources who also said they had WMD. There were violated UN resolutions and.....

GAH! I wasn't going to get into this. I'll stop.