No one with a working knowledge of the currernt Middle East situation thinks an immediate pullout of American troops from Iraq is a good thing – not for the Iraqis, not for the United States, and not for the ME. We blew that country to shit; we now have a moral obligation to help put it back together.
The notion that electing a Democrat president will get American troops out of Iraq immediately is stupid, but not half as stupid as december’s OP.
Ah, so Gaudere was lying when she said that this was moved to the Pit because the OP was “more like rabble-rousing than debate,” when really she just wanted to let everybody call december bad names? Even though she simultaneously warned one poster for employing a less-than-complimentary expression about december?
Golly, it sure would be interesting seeing the world through your eyes, grienspace. That is, if I could see past the tinfoil hat.
You’re not reading very carefully, are you? Here’s what Gaudere said when the thread was moved:
Take that how you want… I took it as addressing the OP more than the respondents.
My post on Kucinich was tongue-in-cheek, he talks to hear himself talk and makes little sense doing it. If I thought he had a chance of enacting any of his plans I might be worried. I’m not though.
It was said that december would be the very worst sort of Nazi in Nazi Germany, and you quibble over his interpretation of this statement and then question my honesty. In general this fails miserably, at the very least, as an argument against excess partisanship on message boards. If you haven’t noticed that already. I’ll leave the rest unsaid for now.
Or, what minty said. grin
rjung, I agree completely. The absolute worst thing we could have done from the beginning is blow the place to hell and then just pack up and leave.
I’ve surfed around Kucinich’s website, and found nothing about whether or not he would pull out of or stay in Iraq if elected. He would be the most likely to, IMHO. None of the six real candidates would pull out, I don’t think.
Gee, minty and Avalonian do you really take Gaudere’s word literally? Are you suggesting that Gaudere really has so much contempt for the December bashers when she refers to them as “rabble” ? I would think not!!!
As convincing as those two extra exclamation points are, allow me to roll my eyes at you and quote the relevant definition to you:
:rolleyes:
Daniel
The absolute saddest part about this whole thread is in this quote. That a human being could have lived through the experience of having opposed a war and then turn around and accuse others of aiding the enemy for doing the same thing he once did. To fail to learn from the life experience of having been on the other side of the fence that the motives of the war protestors aren’t geared towards aiding the enemy. To have lived through a situation where there were many motives and viewpoints on the issue and to have held and acted on some of them yourself and then to turn into such an us-versus-them idealogue.
How would you have reacted if someone had come up to you and demanded you go apologize to the families of those who died serving in Vietnam because your opposition to the war was giving moral support to the Viet Cong? If they had called you a Viet Cong apologist?
But today you do the same thing. Now you tar the opponents of the war as wanting to see terrorists win, or “supporting regimes that murder Jews”. I guess if we had a time machine we could go back and accuse the younger december of supporting groups that use small children to give grenades to American GIs. I wonder what the reaction would have been.
You’ve lost something, which is sad. Or you’ve intentionally thrown it away, which is worse. The ability to step away from the role of idealogue for the short time it takes to listen to the viewpoints of others. Either way, it is a shortcoming for which you are to be pitied, not pitted.
Enjoy,
Steven
Nice blinders, grienspace… ignore one part while misrepresenting the other. Try Daniel’s definition, it’s far more appropriate.
And yes, I take Gaudere at her word. Do you not?
december-
Holy Shit. The Dems better watch out. They might lose december’s vote! Wattajackass.
I’m imagining I’m a terrorist right now. I’m looking over there at my buddy Osama and I’m thinking about his demands. What were they again?
Get U.S. troops out of Saudi Arabia?*
A peace settlement for the Palestinians?
And lo and behold, less than two years after Osama’s attacks on U.S. soil, what is the fearless and intrepid American leader doing? Pulling his troops out of Saudi Arabia and pursuing a “roadmap” to peace in Israel which includes Palestinian nationhood. In the meantime, Osama himself is apparently doing just fine, and the bumbling Americans have split their objectives by knocking over one of the more annoying secular Arab nations without a real plan to rebuild it, leaving a power vacuum which my boys are sure to exploit.
You know what I’d be saying right now if I were a terrorist bent on the destruction of America?
"FOUR MORE YEARS! FOUR MORE YEARS!"
Then it occurs to me that I can actually influence the American political process. Knowing that America is populated by a large number of simple, ignorant, contrarian people who are easily led by the nose, I hit upon the solution:
"I’m not the terrorist, Bush is the terrorist."
And then I sit back and relax while the American yahoos take a position opposite to my own and reelect those incompetent boobs, ensuring me another four years of covert deal-making and power consolidation instead of running like a scared rabbit from a world unified against people of my ilk.
If only Middle Eastern politics were so simple.
Reposted from another thread for december:
Speaking of apologies- when Clinton bombed Iraq various high ranking Republicans claimed he was “wagging the dog” and we shouldn’t have bombed them or Al Queda. Seeing Bush later invaded Iraq even though nothing changed but the health of the economy, I am expecting those apologies to Clinton and the American people any day now.
Cites:
http://slate.msn.com/id/11384/
Overt Cynicism. The politician accuses Clinton of wagging the dog. Example: “It is obvious that he is doing this for political reasons” (Rep. Gerald Solomon, R-N.Y.).
Cynicism by innuendo. The accuser phrases the dog-wagging charge obliquely so that he can deny having made it. Example: “We have had either hostilities or threatened hostilities at interesting times throughout the last year” (incoming House Speaker Bob Livingston).
Backhanded cynicism. The accuser implies dog-wagging by saying either a) he can’t bring himself to believe Clinton would wag the dog; or b) the White House has assured him it’s not so. Example: “While I have been assured by administration officials that there is no connection with the impeachment process … **oth the timing and the policy are subject to question” (Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott).
http://www.conservativeusa.org/wagdog.htm
http://www.conservativeusa.org/iraq-war.htm
There are at least ten reasons why America should not now make war on Iraq, even if it were certain that such an effort would be “successful”:
President William J. Clinton lacks the moral authority to function properly as Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces of the United States.
Let’s not change the subject. The Number One business of the nation at this time should be the removal from office of William J. Clinton.
It is unconstitutional for America to go to war without a Congressional declaration of war.
Given the present set of facts, there is no Constitutional predicate on the basis of which Congress has the authority to initiate war, even with a declaration of war.
…
The strategic position of the United States in the world may be diminished, rather than enhanced, by an attack on Iraq. Many regimes friendly to the United States will be placed at severe risk if they are seen to assist, or even favor, the U.S. attack.
If we “succeed”, what have we gained? If we don’t begin a war, what have we lost?
War has consequences which are often unintended and almost always beyond comprehensive anticipation. If we and our “allies” join to attack Iraq, Iraq and its allies may combine to attack us in ways which cannot be fully foreseen. How many planes will crash? How many water supplies will be polluted? How many nuclear weapons will be detonated? How many civilian targets will be made subject to terrorist assault? Will chemical weapons be deployed?
The White House yesterday asserted that Clinton’s decision to bomb suspected terrorist installations was in no way linked to or affected by the Lewinsky controversy. At a minimum, however, the response to Clinton’s action showed how his legal and personal problems have altered the prism through which his presidential decisions are viewed.
Several Republicans yesterday raised the issue expressly. Sen. Dan Coats (R-Ind.) said: “After months of lies and deceit and manipulations and deceptions – stonewalling – it raised into doubt everything he does and everything he says,” Coats said.
Administration officials said yesterday they had anticipated criticism that Clinton was following a “Wag the Dog” strategy – so-named after the recent movie in which a president tries to draw attention away from a sexual scandal by staging a phony war – but had no choice but to ignore it.
And I wonder what a search of “wag the dog” would bring up here- hmm? Seeing Al Queda and Iraq are now deemed such critical threats, and alledge non-complance with UN resolutions are now ground for an invasion versus missle strikes and am sure all those Republicans will now apologize for their treasonous(1) political outbursts.
(1) irony fully intended
From this thread:
Lets see if december ducks this one too.
And, not just my vote. I saw a survey showing that the American public overwhelmingly doesn’t trust the Democrats to protect them from terror as much as they trust the Republicans. This issue helped the Reps to an unexpected victory in the 2002 election, and it probably will still be potent in 2004.
And, not just my vote. I saw a survey showing that the American public overwhelmingly doesn’t trust the Democrats to protect them from terror as much as they trust the Republicans. This issue helped the Reps to an unexpected victory in the 2002 election, and it probably will still be importent in 2004.
Heh. The duck just echoed. 
december you’re like some unstoppable principal dude.
Truly poetry in motion. A horse thundering through the brushes of truth. If you ever stopped posting I would feel a loss. But maybe you should keep your low-boil one track mind in the Pit. Except for your occasional “cute” threads.
[pulls up e-z boy]
I have not said that the statement made about december was very nice. I have even noted that I would have no problem with him defending himself from the charge. I do have a problem with him using lies to defend himself. Since you are supporting him in his lying, I was curious as to whether you embraced the lie or simply failed to read for comprehension. The statement that december has twice repeated was not made. Those are lies. I oppose them. Your statement to which I replied was not made about december, either.
I have made no comment regarding the partisanship on this board and have not actually made any comment regarding december’s character of the character of his opponents.
In this thread, I have indicated that I did not believe that it was appropriate to drag in observations on posters, here, from other sites and I have challenged a specific statement by december without drawing any conclusions regarding his personality. In the concurrent “Why is december still here?” thread, I have posted only to say that I did not support banning him and to correct an error of fact by another poster.
If you choose to defend falsehoods, I will respond. If you want to discuss the good and bad aspects of december, find someone else who is engaging in that activity. (I believe a couple have posted to this thread.)
Is it? Then you would call december a rabble-rouser? Ridiculous. Since when is the object of a mobs anger referred to as a demagogue? A demagogue/rabble-rouser speaks to a following. He/she incites the crowd to support his view. Collounsbury could more aptly be called a demagogue and a rabble- rouser due to his popularity and ability to incite anger favourable to his point of view. december fails miserably in that regard.
I’ll grant you this. december is a troll. His position in this OP makes him out as a jerk. I’m sure that he get’s his validation as a human being from outside sources who most likely convulse in apoplectic glee as he torments liberal minded people. He’s become a blight on this message board, and I won’t cry if he goes.
Yes, is definitely going to duck this one. If you post anything that refutes his arguments, he pretends like it doesn’t exist.
December, I DARE you to respond to elf6c. If you want to prove that you have any balls or personal integrity AT ALL and aren’t just an obtuse one sided political hack.