Operation Market-Garden was envisioned and planned by Montgomery, not the U.S. In fact, Eisenhower only approved part of the plan due to a shortage of resources. It’s only in hindsight that one can see that ALL the Allies were overconfidant at this point and believed that the war could be over before the end of the year.
Just sayin’.
Brevity is the soul of wit.
I could spend hours combing the internet for examples of ridiculous arguements for varying degrees of pacifism. But you would ignore or discount them out of hand. Anyone who is advocating immediate withdrawal from Iraq is apparently not capable of seeing what a huge mistake that would be for a number of reasons. The only reason I can think of for advocating such a position would be someone who is letting ideology triumph over common sense. Or someone who is unwilling to let the facts get in the way of a good slogan that can be screamed at people who are trying to deal with the terrorism issue.
Nor have I tried. But many on the left are trying very hard to forget the connections between Saddam and the terror infrastructure, including members of AQ. Saddam probably didn’t have anything to do with 9/11 specifically. But he was diligently working against the best interest of the United States.
I certainly don’t have the market cornered there.
Really listen to what Cindy Sheehan is saying. If you can get past the new age crap without the bile rising into your throat, you will notice that she apparently has no clue about how the world works.
Here’s a real one for you.
Terror stalks our country.
Some blame Bush for this sad state.
A clue for them, please.
Do such people exist? Who are they?
Brevity is…wit.
It’s difficult to forget something that didn’t exist. The most you can point out is Hussein’s “bounty” payments to people who blew themselves up in Palestine.
That’s about it.
Or any other terrorist attack on the United States. Come on, go ahead, say it.
Probably, but there’s a hell of a long way from that to supporting terrorism against the US - which nobody has ever found he’s done.
So tell me, skippy, if Bush was so concerned about terror, how come he diverted troops away from the al-Qaeda stronghold of Afghanistan before he ever captured ObL (who actually HAD planned and carried out attacks against the US) so they could go attack Iraq (who had NEVER used terror attacks against the US)?
The answer, of course, is that Bush doesn’t give a fuck about terrorism - except incidentally. Never has, never will.
And then there are the exceptions
Unlike folks like you who see things with such clarity? I don’t agree with everything Sheehan says but I cut her some slack. I have far less tolerance for a lying president and administration.
Tell me who blames Bush for terrorism?
More horseshit!!
Funny, that is exactly what I think of your position.
Evil One: Dumber than a cartoon critter.
What connections? Did Saddams hairdressers mother in law have a friend who knew somebody that went to high school with Osama? You could, yourself, rattle off at least ten nations with “connections” to “terrorism”. Are you suggesting the invasion of Iraq was settled by a brisk round of “one-potato-two-potato…”?
An entirely fair statement, much like saying that “probably” Mother Theresa had nothing to do with the Unibomber. I think you are on very safe ground there.
I’ll go you one better, since bald statements offered as irrefutable fact are your stock in trade. If Saddam knew about 9/11 in advance, he would have dropped a dime on ObL in a New York minute. Shit like this he didn’t need. Saddam would no more have aligned himself with ObL that Stalin would have given a nuke to Rasputin.
5, 7, 5. You could look it up.
Took note of this too, but you have to remember that “terror” is actually pronounced “terr,” as in “terrist.” A wonderful result of having a master of the language as our leader.
Guys, I suppose that I could go sentence by sentence and respond to each one of you, but it would be pointless. My ideology doesn’t match yours, and that makes me a target for mockery and derision. And that’s fine. If you feel like you’ve accomplished something or changed the world in some way by faithfully sticking to the templates of your faith, then more power to you.
I don’t participate in the political threads as much as I used to because they are either an echo chamber or a snipefest if someone dares to break from the party line. And please save your “crybaby” catty comments…I’m simply pointing out things as I see them, not whining. I don’t plan to post any more or any less based on the response that I get when I do contribute.
Wow. You guys must get those victim cards in bulk or something.
-Joe
See, he was right. You’re a prick, dude.
Don’t be silly. There’s any number of intelligent, thought provoking conservative voices here that don’t get mocked or derided. It’s the assholishness that elicits the mokery and derision.
Don’t forget your ball and bat.
crybaby.
C’mon. He’s got the balls to claim connections between Hussein and 9/11, and then Hussein and al Queda, and then dismiss Cindy Sheehan as someone who doesn’t see how the world works? Then he wants to claim this is some sort of echo chamber and he’s being mistreated because his ideology doesn’t follow the party line? Yeah, my feeling at reading that is a big fucking boo hoo.
Others manage to pull off the expression of varied points of view without having to cry foul about it later. I applaud them for it.
We’ve all heard for years now about the link between Saddam and Al Queda. Nothing ever came of it (no proof that is). We’ve been told that we invaded Iran because they attacked us (holy shit! when did that happen?). We were told we would turn Afghanistan inside out and not rest until Bin Laden was captured or killed. He’s still free and laughing at us. We were told the Patriot Act would make us safer (by examining what liberry books Granny is reading). It’s all bullshit. How much longer will people keep vomiting up the same party line? It’s a pack of lies. Repeating it over and over will not make it true. To really combat terror, we haven’t done a damn thing. If anything, we made it less centralized and probably more efficient. Good job. :rolleyes
Really? Name one.
Regards,
Shodan
Errr, well there’s…
Ok, can I get back to you on that?
John Mace
I guess I should say I am not blaming wring (or you) for this. There are any number of intelligent, thought-provoking liberal voices here as well. I would even say that the number of intelligent liberals is greater than the number of intelligent conservatives on the SDMB.
But that is because the intelligent liberals don’t get snarked at and derided and Pitted and insulted and misrepresented and piled-on at anything like the rate that intelligent conservatives do. And it is usually the same group of shit heads who do the piling on, and every contempible one of them is way left of center.
They know who they are. And they make a conscious effort to prevent reasonable debate.
The notion that “good conservatives don’t get attacked on the SDMB” is bullshit. Ass holes who don’t know intelligent debate when they see it don’t respect it. They toe the party line, and they attack anyone who deviates from it. Unthinkingly, like they do everything else.
Regards,
Shodan
So long as you admit that this cuts both ways, I will agree with you.