******* Democrats

[Tobra]

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 country

[hardflex]

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.

[techweenie]

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.

[Mulhollanddose]

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.

[Superman]

Originally posted by Mulhollanddose
He is..... trying to paint the picture that Iraq is a failure

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

[Moneyguy1]

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?

[techweenie]

Originally posted by Moneyguy1
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?

[Mulhollanddose]

Originally posted by Superman
What? How could he possibly pull off a ruse like that?

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.

[Superman]

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.

[Rodeo]

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

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?

[Mulhollanddose]

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

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

[Flatbutt1]

Originally posted by Rodeo

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

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

[Rodeo]

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

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.

[Tobra]

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.

[Nathans_Dad]

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.

[Rodeo]

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.

[Nathans_Dad]

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?

[widebody911]

Originally posted by Nathans_Dad
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...

[Rodeo]

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?

[Nathans_Dad]

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?