The Only Thing to Use is Fear Itself - Page 6

lendaddy · 11-03-2006, 10:02 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Rodeo
It all comes down to one thin reed for daddy: al Sadr does not control Maliki.

What a joke.

Kingmaker?

Rodeo · 11-03-2006, 10:03 AM

Forgive me for not laughing while Americans die.

hardflex · 10:09 AM

so is this last call, then?

Rodeo, take your passion to another bar, a local one, and sway a couple of dozen people there who are in the "undecided" category. Len surely is not.....

It is, after all, the last weekend before an important election.

lendaddy · 11-03-2006, 10:17 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by hardflex
so is this last call, then?

Rodeo, take your passion to another bar, a local one, and sway a couple of dozen people there who are in the "undecided" category. Len surely is not.....

It is, after all, the last weekend before an important election.

Now that's a plan, set me up Jim!

Jim Richards · 11-03-2006, 10:18 AM

Get'cha covered, len.

Jeff Higgins · 11-03-2006, 10:41 AM

It's pathetic that you are outraged about Eugene Robinson as though he were the end of the world, and sit silently by as our president continues his failed polices in Iraq. It's shameful, actually.

Just YESTERDAY, the Iraqi PM ceased the US Military's checkpoints in Sadr City. Yes, you heard me correctly. The Iraqi PM is controlling U.S. military strategy and operations.

al Sadr whispers in his ear, he tells OUR military what he (and Sadr) want done, and we do it.

And you idiots are arguing about a football player?

Shameless.

Jim Richards · 11-03-2006, 10:43 AM

I always liked Eugene Robinson. Go Packers!

jluetjen · jluetjen's Garage

Quote:

Originally posted by Rodeo
U.S. Obeys Order to Abandon Checkpoints

By SINAN SALAHEDDIN
The Associated Press

Tuesday, October 31, 2006; 11:35 AM

BAGHDAD, Iraq -- U.S. troops on Tuesday abandoned checkpoints around the Shiite militia stronghold of Sadr City on orders from Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, the latest in a series of moves by the Iraqi leader to assert his authority with the U.S. administration.

You know Rodeo, I don't get you. I understand that there is nothing that you would like more then to have the US out of Iraq. You honestly believe that the US should never have even been there. I hear you.

So now that the US has made the first small step to initiating what will ultimately be it's pull-out strategy, namely to gradually yield authority and control to the elected government of Iraq -- you're all over Bush and the administration for doing that!

Maliki was elected by the Iraqis. He represents the closest thing that Iraq has had to a fully democratic government in at least decades. He was far more democratically elected then almost any other Arab leader. Sure he has his "special interests", some of whom we don't like, but the same can be said for every American President regardless of their party.

Maliki has chosen to adopt a strategy which includes pulling back from the confrontation at Sadr city. If you think that he sent a proclamation to the US Generals and they jumped -- get real. This was discussed at different levels prior to the actual announcement. Would any US General ever respond to a foreign order that was not approved within the US chain of command? Never -- which is why US troops do not serve under UN control, and most likely never will.

I'm sure that the US adminstration had the same concerns about Maliki's strategy as you have voiced. But at the end of the day, it's going to be the Iraqi's who are going to be living and potentially dieing with the consiquences. Remember that the Iraqi deaths from "enemy" actions dwarf the number of US casualties. Part of disengaging is -- letting go. This means letting the Iraqi government make the hard decisions.

You maybe haven't noticed, but the US is starting -- ever so subtely -- to initiate disengament from Iraq. I suspect that you will have a hard time with that thought since it will be contrary to your view of the US as an oil-grabbing, imperialist oppresser. I'm not waiting for you to have an epipheny though, so don't knock yourself out.

Tim Hancock · 11-03-2006, 10:55 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by jluetjen
You know Rodeo, I don't get you. I understand that there is nothing that you would like more then to have the US out of Iraq. You honestly believe that the US should never have even been there. I hear you.

So now that the US has made the first small step to initiating what will ultimately be it's pull-out strategy, namely to gradually yield authority and control to the elected government of Iraq -- you're all over Bush and the administration for doing that!

Maliki was elected by the Iraqis. He represents the closest thing that Iraq has had to a fully democratic government in at least decades. He was far more democratically elected then almost any other Arab leader. Sure he has his "special interests", some of whom we don't like, but the same can be said for every American President regardless of their party.

Maliki has chosen to adopt a strategy which includes pulling back from the confrontation at Sadr city. If you think that he sent a proclamation to the US Generals and they jumped -- get real. This was discussed at different levels prior to the actual announcement. Would any US General ever respond to a foreign order that was not approved within the US chain of command? Never -- which is why US troops do not serve under UN control, and most likely never will.

I'm sure that the US adminstration had the same concerns about Maliki's strategy as you have voiced. But at the end of the day, it's going to be the Iraqi's who are going to be living and potentially dieing with the consiquences. Remember that the Iraqi deaths from "enemy" actions dwarf the number of US casualties. Part of disengaging is -- letting go. This means letting the Iraqi government make the hard decisions.

You maybe haven't noticed, but the US is starting -- ever so subtely -- to initiate disengament from Iraq. I suspect that you will have a hard time with that thought since it will be contrary to your view of the US as an oil-grabbing, imperialist oppresser. I'm not waiting for you to have an epipheny though, so don't knock yourself out.

Well put, not that Rodeo will understand.

Rodeo · 11-03-2006, 11:01 AM

I disagree with almost all of your conclusions, but appreciate that reasonable minds can differ on many of them. At least you take this seriously enough to understand what is going on and make reasoned arguments.

I'm just going to pick one of your points to demonstrate the fallacy of that one:

Would any US General ever respond to a foreign order that was not approved within the US chain of command? Never

When Rumsfeld was first questioned abot this, he didn't even know about it. Yes, you heard me correctly. He mumbled something about wanting to confirm the story before he commented, and went on to other things.

This war has been waged incompetently from day one. That is not going to change with the same people running it today.

Sadr controls Maliki. Sadr has killed American soldiers, and continues to do so.

We are fighting FOR the terrorists, not against them. No amount of rationalization can change that simple fact.

lendaddy · 11-03-2006, 11:03 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by jluetjen
You know Rodeo, I don't get you. I understand that there is nothing that you would like more then to have the US out of Iraq. You honestly believe that the US should never have even been there. I hear you.

So now that the US has made the first small step to initiating what will ultimately be it's pull-out strategy, namely to gradually yield authority and control to the elected government of Iraq -- you're all over Bush and the administration for doing that!

Maliki was elected by the Iraqis. He represents the closest thing that Iraq has had to a fully democratic government in at least decades. He was far more democratically elected then almost any other Arab leader. Sure he has his "special interests", some of whom we don't like, but the same can be said for every American President regardless of their party.

Maliki has chosen to adopt a strategy which includes pulling back from the confrontation at Sadr city. If you think that he sent a proclamation to the US Generals and they jumped -- get real. This was discussed at different levels prior to the actual announcement. Would any US General ever respond to a foreign order that was not approved within the US chain of command? Never -- which is why US troops do not serve under UN control, and most likely never will.

I'm sure that the US adminstration had the same concerns about Maliki's strategy as you have voiced. But at the end of the day, it's going to be the Iraqi's who are going to be living and potentially dieing with the consiquences. Remember that the Iraqi deaths from "enemy" actions dwarf the number of US casualties. Part of disengaging is -- letting go. This means letting the Iraqi government make the hard decisions.

You maybe haven't noticed, but the US is starting -- ever so subtely -- to initiate disengament from Iraq. I suspect that you will have a hard time with that thought since it will be contrary to your view of the US as an oil-grabbing, imperialist oppresser. I'm not waiting for you to have an epipheny though, so don't knock yourself out.

Pearls before swine.

Tim Hancock · 11-03-2006, 11:22 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Moneyguy1
So Tim...

PRECISELY What is the Republican platform?

I have yet to be able to formulate a comprehensive picture, and God knows I have tried. If you claim that Republican = Conservative, I would have to respectfully disagree. Having been a Goldwater Conservative (probably the last national Conservative the country has had), I believe in conservatism, even though there are a few items upon which I lean a bit to the left.

So, what is the Republican platform? fiscal conservatism? social issues? Can't find 'em anywhere. They range all over the map, depending on which district you are in. Some Reps seem to be for this, others against the same thing. Some move lockstep with the prez, others want to distance themselves. So, how do the Reps differ form the Dems, who are accused of being disorganized?

Tis a puzzlement. I cannot, for the life of me, understand anyone stating that one party is in all respects superior to the other.

Enlighten me.

My reasons for voting republican (just off the top of my head)

-reduced taxes including the rich who pay more than their fair share
-legal reform
-personal responsibility
-right to bear arms
-strong military
-support for business
-anti union
-reduction as opposed to increasing of social programs
-family values as opposed to gay rights
-tough on crime
-against further affirmative action which is now becoming reverse discrimination

Now I know some will claim that this administration has not stuck to all of these core ideals, but having to deal with terrorism post 9/11 has temporarily muddied the Republican agenda.

Even after Rodeo challenges many of my reasons above for voting republican (and he will surely be able to come up with a few legitimate discrepancies out of the present administration), it does not change the fact that the dems have the complete opposite view on the above. The republicans will typically fight for at least most of the above. The dems will typically fight for the exact opposite.

Moneyguy1 · 11-03-2006, 03:27 PM

TIm:

Thank you for the list. Interestingly, mine would not be that different, but with a few modifications:

First; a tax system that is fair to all and does not result in increasing national (which is owed by all of us) debt.

I am not totally against unions; they have their purpose and if they have too much power, it is because management has caved in a few times too often. I also believe that corporations should be more accountable to the public they serve, insofar as environmental issues, and sufficient funding for employee retirement fans (Enron and Global Crossings as poster children)

Controls on social welfare programs to make them available to the truly needy; the children, aged, those injured. No welfare to those who do not deserve it. It is necessary to provide for those who truly cannot provide for themselves. (reference study by Jeffery D. Scahs of Columbia University www.sciam.com/ontheweb )

I am for family rights as well, but the definition of families is changing; married households are no longer the majority.

Affirmative action should not factor into decisions as much as capabilities. But, certain safeguards should be in place. I have seen in the public sector instances where a minority without, for example, the proper education was chosen for a position just to meet some kind of "goal".

Legal reform, a strong military and "tough on crime"(needs definition) without doubt.

The rest are fluff, such as personal responsibility, and I have absolutely no problem with them; they are noble.

Altogether a very good first attempt.

Jeff Higgins · 11-03-2006, 03:42 PM

Great list, Tim. While those represent conservative core values, no one can argue that this administration has stuck with all of them. As you point out, however, there was that one bad day that kind of derailed the whole program, forcing a deviation from the norm. At least they are starting with these values as a baseline from which some arguably necessary (and hopefully temporary) changes were made. I simply cannot imagine where we would be today if the Democratic Party was at the helm, and making its version of these changes. They would certainly be starting from a far different baseline.

Their core values have always included a great deal more control over society. Even the liberals are squealing over the actions of this administration with regards to infringement on our rights as individuals. With that being one of the very lynchpins of Democratic policy, I find that somewhat ironic. Anyway, I can't help but think that these squealing liberals would somehow find solace in these increasingly invasive policies and laws, if only they were their ideas. These, and much, much more.

Tim Hancock · 11-04-2006, 08:39 AM

I can't believe Rodeo did not attack my basic reasons for why I vote republican. Is it because he would have to admit that I have legitmate reasons why I choose the republicans? I actually have reasons that do not stem from watching Fox news or listening to Rush. Wow what a revelation.

Jim Richards · 11-04-2006, 08:49 AM

So, whassup with the political moratorium, guys?

Do we need to reopen the bar for you early birds? College games will be on right about now.

Rodeo · 11-04-2006, 11:10 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tim Hancock
I can't believe Rodeo did not attack my basic reasons for why I vote republican. Is it because he would have to admit that I have legitmate reasons why I choose the republicans? I actually have reasons that do not stem from watching Fox news or listening to Rush. Wow what a revelation.

I'll "attack" only the first, since my time is limited and I finally realize that it's useless chasing the remaining 27% or so that still believe this country is heading in the right direction. I'm slow, but I catch on eventually

I'm choosing this one because it's first, and for me represents the moral bankruptcy of both the administration and the Congress.

reduced taxes including the rich who pay more than their fair share

NOBODY has paid "their fair share of taxes for 6 years running. The only people paying for our outrageous spending are our kids, and our kids' kids.

If you demand lower taxes, you are doing nothing more than forcing my children to pay for your current lifestyle. I find that more than irresponsible, it pisses me off royally. I think it is theft. You are stealing from my children.

So buy into the last remaining argument of this incompetent and dishonest administration. They say "we will lower your taxes," and I hear "we will steal from your children."

Tim Hancock · 11-04-2006, 11:59 AM

Well I was asked why I vote republican and you answer with some 27% which I assume is referring to how many polled think Iraq is just peachy.

I did not say I vote republican solely based on the war in Iraq.

As far as taxes go.... well most folks who make megabucks even if they find loopholes, pay a considerable amount more in taxes than you or I do. I actually wish there was a flat tax rate for all. Low income earners only pay a small percent vs the filthy rich who pay a much larger percent. How any one can not see this as unfair baffles me. Social program recipients get a free ride bankrolled by the rich yet the left tries to villify them and demand more. This "pisses ME off royally". I am quite confident that I am paying for MY and my kids lifestyle and I really don't give a **** about you or yours.

Rodeo · 11-04-2006, 12:03 PM

You are one mean drunk.

And as ignorant as they come.

You and your kind are sucking the life out of this country, one bond sale to the Chinese at a time.

Tim Hancock · 11-04-2006, 12:11 PM

Do unto others as they do to you. Ignorant as they come? Now that is funny coming from you. Now go hump someone elses leg or play a game of darts if that is your thing, as I have some work to get done on my daughter's car (that I paid for with my hard earned money).