Cognitive dissonace rears its ugly head yet again:
Meanwhile in the real Iraq, events continue to spiral out of control:
Iraq’s Destruction and Security
At what point do patriotism and partisanship morph into blind fanatism? I daresay, Bush supporters are getting mighty close – the ones that are not already there that is.
Considering the source of your cite, blind fanatacism occurs in humans, not political parties.
Cognitive dissonance? Moi? I don’t think so. Not only does the quote you provide appear to include enemy deaths among the body count that is the result of our action, it also includes deaths caused by insurgents fighting (or rather, murdering innocent civilians) in order to keep Iraq from freedom and democracy. I don’t think you can blame such deaths on the U.S. anymore than you can blame the death of an informant on the cops. You also conveniently omit, in posting your quote of my words, the part of my quote relating to the next decade. Or is it your contention that things will always be as they are now? If so, it is you with whom the cognitive dissonance lies, mon frere, not me.
Holy shit, RedFury! You found someone from a foreign government to tell a US Senator that he was wrong? That he was wrong for voting for the war? That he was a Republican that voted along with Democrats for the war? A man that doesn’t have to worry about any repercussions in American politics?
Well, I guess you won the argument.
I assume I can feel free to wish Hussein was still in power as that would make the Iraqis safe? Good to know. I didn’t realize the love they had for the man. I thought it was just repression and intimidation that kept those you feel unworthy of freedom from becoming too demonstrative.
Of course, since you know best I’d suggest forming your election committee soon, there is precious little time to begin your campaign of dominance over us heathens. 
This American citizen here, that checked the evidence, tells you that yes: he won the argument.
No you willful ignorant, this is what Galloway said:
OK, take his dick out of your mouth so you understand this. I was saying I’m a supporter of Hussein. I’m with you in wishing he were still in power. The Iraqi’s were much better off.
Galloway sold me on the evil of this war. I now realize Saddam was a great leader and all of Iraq (well, the majority) loved him dearly and wanted him to remain in power. That is evident with the absolute bloodshed and decimation of a nation taking place now. It saddens me that such a peaceful nation has been thrown in such upheaval by us evil Americans.
I now understand that the US gov’t is out for not only our own soldier’s blood, but the blood of innocents of those in the M.E. I see now that nothing will placate world opinion short of complete and total defeat of the US military. This is fine with me, as it will make the rest of the world happy in seeing a smack-down of the US. Then they will all love us again.
I have to go now…I’m due for my next valium drip. :rolleyes:
I can see why you need that, because you then remember that you voted for the crew that is not seeing anything wrong and still equivocates Iraq to 9/11.
Any cites in the last few months other than blogs? I’m curious if this is still pervasive considering the Dems were so easily duped into voting to authorizing an illegal war. If this was such a slam-dunk-Bush-is-evil-war-is-illegal case, I wonder why you trust the Dems that voted for use of force. What caused them to vote for that?
This was not unilateral in the US and you know it. If you hate Republicans, fine. There is a lot of unreasoned hate in the world*. The Dems that voted for war have just as much blood on their hands. Take a moment and think about whether you hate Republicans, or if you hate the war. There is a difference and the Congressional votes may help you form an opinion on the war. We already know your opinion of Republicans.
I just found out I have to hate myself. Being a conservative I have to kick my own ass for being gay. I’m very confused right now. Please understand this.
After the Terry Shiavo herding action, I can say without doubt that it was a poisoned well.
And they have my bile too, but less so since the well of information was poisoned and continues to be so.
The only difference is that that poisoned well was likely made so by the buddies of the current administration, it is the leadership that has the biggest responsibility. And since the leadership currently is Republican, well…
I am trying, but I only see a willful ignorant still.
Well, your mind is made up. There’s really no reson to continue this. I’ll let it return to those debating the issue. I’ll look up my Dem representatives (Sens Conrad and Dorgan as well as Rep Pomeroy) to see how they voted. I trust that will show me that the GOP is responsible for death, destruction and the imminent extermination of baby seals.
Did you miss the part about agreeing with you? Saddam should immediately be reinstalled as President of Iraq. Under his leadership we never heard of death nor oppression of innocent Iraqi’s.
Ah, I get it now, you want to bitch and damn all who may be swayed by your argument. You seem to think it’s impossible, yet continue the argument. Pick one. Are you looking to present an argument? Or just argue?
You know what scares me about all this? I just realised that, out of the prolific political posters on these boards, there are probably more that I like and respect on the opposite political side than on my own. It used to be that when I met an intelligent conservative I’d make a mental note and think “Fancy that, I guess some of them aren’t idiots after all”. No more.
Ah, wonderous words from duffer. Well, nature abhors a vaccuum.
As I mentioned, only an idiot would asume that that fake agreement said in sarcasm is valid. And only an obtuse needs to be reminded that from my side we are glad Saddam is gone, but right now a bunch of vipers is moving in (Chalavi).
What I am saying here is that people like me are seeing the now and the future, you are still stuck in a “straw man’s” past that has Saddam in power, that war is done, if democracy is the “current” reason for the war in Iraq, then having kleptocrats in power will not be a good legacy once the US leaves Iraq.
Just to show what an idiot “argument” you posted against **Redfury ** is good enough.
From an opinion piece supporting your position and Weirddave’s: In the 1990s, Saddam’s regime continued to commit individual political murder. Victims included people suspected of anti-Saddam activity, others who were friends and relatives of the suspected subversives, as well as people caught up in the mafia-like violence of Uday Hussein and other regime figures. Throughout these years, Amnesty International catalogued credible reports of hundreds of killings every year, and quite possibly thousands in several years.
Note that throughout the article the author commits the same error of which I accuse Weirddave. While posting numbers showing that Hussein killed hundreds of thousands of people between the late 1970s and 1993, he then “averages” those deaths out to pretend that Hussein’s killing rate continued high despite noting in his own words that there were “hundreds” (not thousands) of killings each year.
I make no defense of Hussein. I have expressed doubt on this board regarding the “100,000+” figure for this war published in The Lancet last year. I am not claiming that all the current deaths are the result of U.S. actions. However, in response to a statement that so many people were currently dying (from whatever cause), Weirddave speculated that more people would be dead today because Hussein “was killing people at a much faster clip that the casualties that have resulted from the war in Iraq” and that claim is without foundation. Hussein’s large, tragically successful massacres ended 10 years before the invasion.
If my greatest crime today is pissing off some lefties because they don’t like my opinion, I’ll consider it a victory. As a member of responsible society, I expect some animosity. It really, no shit, I’m not kidding, soesn’t matter what your opinion of me personally is. I help the economy plug along, I pay the bills, that’s good enough for me. If you have enough time to hammer a few points into the substrate of the intellectual void, more power to you.
I’ve seen little content in many threads that didn’t amount to cheap shots, one-offs and childish lashing out that had nothing to do with what I said, let alone waht the OP was about int he forst place.
Go ahead and hijack all that you see. I see that the SDMB is legit in any forum other than this.
How did this thread turn into debate #5,463,247 on Iraq?
That’s a good question, and Exhibit A on why mentioning the name of George W. Bush, or even hinting towards anything that he may or may not have done, in a thread that has nothing to do with the man should be considered a hijack. All Bush threads lead to Iraq, and I for one am tired of banging my head against that particular wall.
[quote=duffer]
I just found out I have to hate myself. Being a conservative I have to kick my own ass for being gay. I’m very confused right now. Please understand this.
Holy shit you are gay? Not that there is anything with that. I just find gay conservatives kind of funny. Not the gay part. I mean why would anyone want to be part of a group that hates them. The typical conservative attitude towards homosexuality is not exactly one of tolerance and undersatanding.
Disclaimer: All this is “provided I’m not being whooshed”.
First of all, duffer is joking, both about being gay and about having to hate himself for being gay. Second of all, are you saying that a gay conservative should stop being a conservative because many other conservatives are intolerant of gays? Should a man change his opinions on, for example, taxation, abortion and gun control simply because he finds out he likes to have sex with men?
Well, at least this will get us away from Iraq.
Gays are not a monolithic thought bloc anymore than blacks or hispanic or whites are. Ever heard of the Log Cabin Republicans? duffer appears to believe in 98% of what the Republican Party stands for; why should he not be one?