Fuching Democrats
 

The "honorable" Chuck Schumer is planning to snub the Iraqui governments representative when he comes to speak to the Senate by not attending. This is because they condemned Hezbollah, but not Israel in the most recent strife in that part of the world.

Pehaps it is my bias against the senior Senator from New York, but it seems to me he might consider plucking his head from his rectum and consider the possibility that perhaps the Iraquis might oppose a terrorist organization sponsored by the same crowd that is behind a great part, if not the majority of the "insurgency" tearing their country apart.

As I say, I am biased, but I don't think Mr. Schumer is even trying to be helpful in promoting the best interests of his countryhttp://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1153923852.jpg

Where are you getting your "talking points" i heard it was because Maliki e DID NOT criticize Hezbollah yesterday.

But yeah, stupid decision to boycott. The guy (Maliki) is in a position to know more than our people, let him state his opinion and consider it. This idea that all people have to think alike and in unison is scary.

Yes, it's upsetting that Schumer won't go hear a speech.

To some, that's probably much more upsetting than Americans dying every day in a pointless occupation, or 100 Iraqis a day dying in a burgeoning civil war we helped unleash.

I guess we all need to have our priorities.

Schmuckler is playing politics with the war on terror. This recent tactic of his was devised by his high paid defense lawyers, his Johnnie Cochrans...He is pandering to the Jewish vote and trying to paint the picture that Iraq is a failure...Good play, scumbag play, but good play if you are a scumbag.

What? How could he possibly pull off a ruse like that?

:rolleyes:

SO, once again the old adage:

"Be careful of what you wish for".

Creating a democracy does not imply that the created entity will agree with our position on anything. And, the question then becomes, Should we expect such agreement and if so, have we not then simply created what we hated so often in the Cold War, a puppet regime?

Applying our own laws, we have no right to censor the gentleman for his remarks. We may not agree with him, but that is as it should be in a dialogue between two sovergein countries, don't you think? The Senator has the same right to an opinion. So, what is the problem?

Or is this simply another attempt by one side to polarize an issue where such action provides no actual resolution to the situation?

Well, it was all just another lie like all those that came before it. 'Democracy is God's gift' and 'instilling democracy is our mission.'

But... Iran had democratic elections; Lebanon had democratic elections... should we be attacking democracies (or supporting or planning attacks on democracies) if the above Bush administration comments really reflect their policies?

Ignore all things good, focus on the 10% of bad...It really is that simple. If a camera crew went to a wedding and captured a woman crying and a man fighting, one could imagine the whole wedding a disaster, especially if the camera crew had a desire to paint a false picture of the entire wedding.

Or we could go to Iraq and take some pictures of soldiers handing candy to smiling Iraqi children. That would suggest that we love everyone and everyone loves us.

In the meantime, the world seems to be coming to the conclusion that ripping Iraq into at least three pieces may be inevitable no matter what anyone does. That doesn't sound like a "victory," even by Dubya's standard.

It looks as if there is a worldwide disappointment.......and then there is propaganda that works to keep neocons smiling. Those seem to be the two main perspectives. One held by a billion or two people, and the other held by perhaps ten million. Yourself included.

Re: Fuching Democrats
 

You got it precisely backwards.

Iraq is aligned with Iran and Syria, and the Iraqi PM's refusal to say anything about the Hezbollah and Hamas terrorists that started this war while condemning Israel speaks volumes about the future of IRAQ.

OUR MEN AND WOMEN ARE DYING TO CREATE AND PROTECT ANOTHER ENEMY STATE IN THE MIDDLE EAST!

When are people going to understand this and stop the flow of American blood in order to build another Iran?

Re: Re: Fuching Democrats
 

So you do not think this is an imperialist war?...You people are schizophrenic...Shuck/jive....shuck/jive...chuckschmuck/jive

Re: Re: Fuching Democrats
 

Many people do understand it. However we seem to have lost the will / ability to do anything about it.

Re: Re: Re: Fuching Democrats
 

Your question is nonsensical.

Would you spend American lives and dollars to prop up the government of Iran? If your answer is no, then you cannot support continuing to prop up the government in Iraq.

The only difference between Iran and Iraq is that the leaders of Iraq want to continue to use American resources and lives to consolidate their power. Once that is done, they are the enemy.

Rodeo, I must confess I am not surprised that neither of your responses make any sense. I got this info off the local radio news this AM while walking the dogs. If indeed he condemned Israel and said nothing about Hamas/Hezbollah, that makes a bit more sense, and would fit with the quality of news reporting to which I have become accustomed.

If your first response to my post were correct, they would condemn Israel, that is a certain way to garner support in an Arab country. Sort of like all the politicians here who are in favor of schools, free healthcare for everyone and more money for cops and firemen.

If Iraq is aligned with Iran already, why would they invest so much in destabilizing the new government, or do you believe that Iran has nothing to do with the "insurgency" in Iraq. If you think that, do you also believe that Iran has nothing to do with Hezbollah as well?

Assume that I am completely and totally misinformed regarding the Facts of the Iraqui PM's statements. Explain to me how it is helpful for Mr Schumer to not even deign to be present when the man addresses our legislature. This is a guy who has said many times we need to get out of Iraq, but he is not willing to even give the appearance that he would support the government that must become viable for this to happen, as that would give a minute amount of credit to his "opponent", who happens to be the President of the country Schumer calls home.

You have some very interesting opinions Rodeo, tough to discern how you come to them much of the time, and it makes me wonder what color the sky is in your world, but you do make for a livley discussion.

I believe that Maliki said that he wanted a cease fire prior to any discussions between the parties. He also did not condemn the Hezbollah attacks. I can't see how that is surprising given that many countries are condeming Israel for "disproportionate response" (whatever that means).

Bottom line is that for the Democrats to boycott his speech (I heard this AM that the whole party was planning on boycotting, not just Schumer, maybe the story has changed) is a stupid move. Here we have a fledgling Iraqi government whose PM is making the first trip to US soil by an Iraqi political leader in years and the Democrats don't have the decency to listen to his speech. France doesn't agree with our policies either, I don't see Schumer boycotting the French when they show up...

A little common decency would be nice.

Look, it's not in America's interests to have any duly-elected government in Iraq. It's only in our interests to have a moderate, pro-western government in Iraq.

If you'll take any government,, then go spend $400 billion, 2,600 lives and 26,000 wounded to support Hamas! Would you do that? They are "duly elected."

Of course you wouldn't.

The Iraqi government is controlled by men (and ONLY men) that are aligned with Iran, Syria, and just about every other bad player in the middle east. THAT's what we created, and now what we are now defending.

Slogans don't always work, You can't say "finish the job" if the "job" changed radically. The only "job" now is to help radical Islamists consolidate their power in Iraq. After that, they kick us out and you won't know the difference between Iraq and Iran.

Now that is an interesting question Rodeo. Do you think we should "liberate" people to vote for the governments that THEY want or the governments that WE want?

I have said from the start of this discussion (meaning the broader discussion of the war in Iraq, not just this thread) that our purpose in Iraq was not only to secure American safety but also to liberate the Iraqi people from oppression and allow them to choose their own government. They chose their government. Am I crazy about it? No. But I believe that there is a basic element in the human soul that desires peace and freedom. Left to their own devices the Iraqi people will come to a government that supports their own peace and freedom.

If we are just in the business of invading and installing governments that we like, what is different between us and the former Soviet Union or Nazi Germany?

Wow, that's the same question that we liberals were asking back in early 2003...

Ever read Frankenstein? That's what we created!

And the so called "conservatives" are screaming "finish the job!" It's not good enough that he can crawl, they want him walking and then running.

THINK about what you want to finish. That's what Schumer and the others are saying today. THINK about dying for a country whose PM won't even say terrorists crossing the Israeli border and killing and kidnapping are wrong.

Please think about that ... you want your son or daughter to die so this guy can consolidate his power?

You didn't answer the question.

I'll ask again:

Should we allow the Iraqi people to choose their own government, even if that government is not friendly to US policies?

They can do whatever the he!! they want, BUT NOT WITH OUR MEN, WOMEN AND MONEY.

Not really a difficult concept. The question is not what will we ALLOW them to do, it's what will we HELP them do.

Ok, so let me push the issue a bit further.

Should we try and prevent Iraq from being overrun by Islamic extremists and terrorists in order to allow the duly elected Iraqi government a chance to get on its feet?

Here's where the "plan" comes in ... you know, the "plan" that supposedly the Repubs have but the Dems don't.

We don't have the time or bandwidth to settle on an actual "plan" here, but suffice it to say, IT DEPENDS. If the "duly elected Iraqi government" can't condemn Hezbollah and Hamas terrorists, the answer is no. Fcuk em' That's what Schumer said today, in senator-speak.

They are playing us for suckers, dude. So is Iran. And Syria. They have us destroying the Sunni terrorists so the Shiia terrorists can take over!

We need to THINK about these things. Our idiot president may be fine with "finish the job" as a "plan," but intelligent people ought to be thinking about what exactly "the job" is, and whether it's one we WANT to finish.

FFS, if Schmuckler and the Dems hadn't jumped on this bandwagon, you'd be queuing up for it. Let's summarise the facts:

- Iraqi PM condemns Israel's disproportionate response
- but not Hizbollah's attacks.

Generally you'd be frothing at the mouth over such behaviour. Suddenly confronted with Dems taking "your" terroritory, you're dismissive of this as a ploy.

I mean, either you're for "pro-Israel anti-Hizbollah", or you're against it. :rolleyes:

yes, until the duly elected government decides they don't like us, at which time we should install a new one to replace the defective one. It's kinda like DME relays...

Funny you should mention that because, if history repeats itself, we'll have our own little version of South America right in the heart of the mid-east. Have you read "Confessions of an Economic Hitman" by chance?

That's actually pretty funny, but I personally don't think that is with the "ideals" of America.

I still say that if we do not allow the Iraqi people to form their own government because that government isn't to our liking, then we are not liberators at all.

Maybe it is naive and idealistic to think that the US is truly in Iraq to free the Iraqi people, but I think it is a noble goal.

So, what is the difference? - seriously - no Mullisms allowed.

Noble goals like that should be "sold" to the American people on their own merits. And many Americans would have supported an invasion of Iraq to 'free the Iraqi people.' And that's a fine thing, because we are an idealistic people. We enjoy our freedoms and we want everyone to have 'em.

The problem arises when 'freeing the Iraqi people' becomes the third fallback position stated after the first two turn out to be inventions.

We elect leaders and give them huge sums to plan the expenditure of American blood and treasure so that the costs are minimized against the gains. This is an instance where the leaders failed us -- both in not trusting us with their true intentions and also in failing to foresee what so many before had clearly foreseen (Bush1 included) that the vacuum of leadership in Iraq would hurt the region and cause huge loss of life.

Lets take this even one step further. If our leaders had been straight with us and said "we want to invade Iraq to free the Iraqi people," then there would have been a national discourse about that course of action.

In the context of that discourse, you think someone would have asked the question, "what will they do when we free them?" Will they form a government friendly to America and free of Iranian influence? What steps do we take to make sure the secular moderates get a fair shot? Is the risk that we will spill American blood to hand Iraq to Islamic zealots worth taking?

That discussion never took place, the American people never got to make those judgments.

With today's Democrats one would not be able to have an honest debate anyway. The reacquisition of power colors every position they take. Their sole intention, at the expense of our national security and economy, is to unseat Republicans.

What was Sandy Berger stealing from the National Archives?

Mul - all you just said was, to paraphrase:

"The Dems are worse, so what the Republicans did is fine. Sandy Berger".

You know, it's ok to think critically of Bush. You need to find your moral compass on this one. The test isn't "better than Democrats" - the test is "good".

Again, Tech and Rodeo are talking about what has happened in the past. I agree that the post-war era has been handled badly. That does not mean we should abandon the post-war effort that is currently going on.

It sounds like you guys are saying "Well, Bush handled it badly before so we think we should just forget the Iraqi people".

How about we talk about whether it is noble and good to support the Iraqis NOW instead of always resorting to the old "misled us to war" mantra?

Fine. It makes no sense to risk more American lives in a civil war in Iraq. Out now.

Its not a risk ... 18 Americans dead this week.

More Americans will die tomorrow, and the next day, and the next, until we are out of that hellhole.

I'll say it again, since you continue to ignore the basic point. We have been outmaneuvered by Iran and its allies. They have us fighting Sunni terrorists to make Iraq safe for Shiia terrorists.

Why would you want to continue doing that?

Ok, so if both of you are saying "out now", then are you saying that we should not allow the Iraqi government time to get onto its feet and fight the terrorists on its own?

You really can't have it both ways. Even according to the Iraqi Prime Minister in a speech today he doesn't want US troops "out now". You either commit to stick it out until the Iraqi government and Iraqi troops can survive or you allow Iraq to be overrun by the terrorists. No one on either side of the debate is suggesting that the Iraqis can handle this insurgency on their own right now.

Three years is enough. They won't "get on their feet" if we hang around, confusing the issue.

They will have to give birth to their government the way most everyone else has -- through armed struggle.

Three years? Which government are you referring to?

The Iraqi elections were held last winter. Al Maliki was appointed to his post a few months ago.

I am all for them giving birth through armed struggle. Let's just make sure we aren't sending a 100 pound pipsqueak into the ring with a 500 pound gorilla.

Saddam has been out of power for over three years, Rick. forming a government isn't voting. it's everything leading up to and following voting.

100 lb. pipsqueaks cant' run governments. That's why your concept is wonky.

Pull every American out. The sooner that happens, the sooner real government will happen.

Interesting. The Revolutionary War began in 1775. The Continental Congress convened in 1787 and the Constitution of the United States (which formally formed the US government) was ratified in 1789.

That's 14 years. You think 3 years is good enough for them though...