cum wrote:i love how you are all ignoring my posts because youc ant respond to them with logical arguments. you must know your liberal mind set is flawed and arguments outside of the minor squabbles among like minded liberals is too difficult. i win.

Nobody is ignoring your posts. Maybe, if you want a response beyond other people telling you to "SHUT THE FUCK UP!", you should present something original, logical and well thought out. Not a cut and paste of some old Sean Hannity monologue.

-jeremy

bumble wrote:I disagree with the Iraq war. I have always thought it was a terrible idea. Am I just completely manipulated by media, though? Because today as I was looking at the pictures of the polling stations, I was really moved.

God damn it.

Even if things do turn out relatively well, I will not change my mind that the invasion was a terrible idea, but DAMN IT those pictures of Iraqis at the polls were something else.

My sentiments exactly. I want so badly for this to be a new chapter for the Iraqi people, but deep down I have to concede that we have played this one by the book.

Sorry to mix metaphors there. That would be the regret talking.

cum wrote:

R.F.F. wrote:I think it is asinine to believe that we liberated a people by killing them (some estimates are at 100,000 civilians dead) and destroying their culture and their homes. Just like George Bush doesn't run every waking minute of our lives, neither did Saddam Hussein run the lives of ordinary Iraqis. How much does bush really affect our lives? So how much do you think Saddam really affected the lives of Iraqis? Did Saddam kill some people? Yes. Did (does) the U.S. military kill some people? Yes- probably more people. Did Saddam torture innocent people? Yes. Did (does) the U.S. military torture innocent people? Yes. Did Saddam curtail individual freedoms? Yes. Does the U.S. Military? Yes. So on and so on. Are the Iraqis better off now? Are they going to better off in the near future? No to both. We've created a giant mess.

this post was really naive, sorry.

Oh Jesus. "Really naive"? Not compared to what follows:

did sadam really kill some people? yes. the us military did too. hahahaha, the US military never gassed 100,000 of a group of people it didnt like. oh, and yes, that AFFECTED PEOPLE.

It's kind of beside the point, but the US military has used conventional weapons as well as WMDs (biological and nuclear) to kill large groups of people it didn't like. What's more to the point, Saddam gassed those people back in the '80s, and all the "Michael Moore types" said WTF?, and Saint Ronnie said, "Never you mind."

did sadam torture people? yes. the US military does too. hahahahaha, yeah we line them up in pyramids while they are naked and sometimes dont let them sleep. boo hoo, saddam actually TORTURED people. horrible torture, not just frat stuff.

I wish people didn't consider Rush Limbaugh a reliable news source. Reality check, stupid:

Major General Antonio M. Taguba wrote:Breaking chemical lights and pouring the phosphoric liquid on detainees; pouring cold water on naked detainees; beating detainees with a broom handle and a chair; threatening male detainees with rape; allowing a military police guard to stitch the wound of a detainee who was injured after being slammed against the wall in his cell; sodomizing a detainee with a chemical light and perhaps a broom stick, and using military working dogs to frighten and intimidate detainees with threats of attack, and in one instance actually biting a detainee.

That's your tax dollars at work, asshole. In addition, Taguba's report tells of prisoners being killed because of this kind of shit. Also, it's generally known that a majority of Abu Ghraib prisoners were not guilty of anything. Of course, that doesn't bother you, because to you, they're probably all guilty of being the same ethnicity and religion as Osama bin Laden.

did saddam curtail individual freedoms? yes. so does the US. hahaha, the US doesnt condone raping women and force them into wearing burkas.

Iraq didn't force women to wear burqas.

its apples and oranges, you have to be fucking joking me man.

Iraqi women make up half the population of Iraq, and yes, there lives were a livign hell. they arent anymore. be proud.

As proud as you are of your ignorance? Pass. I know you probably won't read this because it doesn't have Sean Hannity's stamp of approval, but I'll give you the summary at least:

"Since the war, life has badly deteriorated for women in Iraq and girls are being forced to wear the veil again."

Saddam treated women like shit? Yes. He also treated men like shit. The fact is, he was an enemy of Taliban-style Islamic fundamentalists, and now that he's out, the burqa may be coming back.

OK. All these points may seem like nitpicking. I mean, so what if nearly everything you said was wrong? I haven't really addressed your larger point. Your larger point is this:

cum the 13-year-old may as well have wrote:It really doesn't matter what our country or our military does, as long as it isn't as bad as Saddam. I'm proud of our country, even if it's the second worst regime in the world.

Fuck that. I love my country and I want to be proud of it, and I can only be proud of it if it is great. America has the potential to be the greatest nation in the world, and I want it to be that nation. I'm not willing to settle for not as bad as Saddam Hussein's Iraq, as you are.

You lose. Go away.

Here is nice little post on the Salon War Room page. It says alot:

Democracy taking root?

First things first: It is possible to hope for democracy to succeed in Iraq -- to wish for the best possible outcome for the Iraqis themselves, and for the rest of the world -- while still being fully critical of the Bush administration's numerous disastrous war policies. Setting aside all debate about the war's inception, it is possible to criticize Bush's policies precisely because one wishes for the best possible outcome in Iraq.



The high voter turnout across Iraq on Sunday, in defiance of terrorist violence, is a victory in its own right; President Bush is currently making that case to the Europeans, who, as Tom Friedman argued recently, have at least as big of a stake as the U.S. does in seeing Iraqi democracy succeed.


Still, many on the political right are quick to argue that skepticism amounts to betrayal of the cause -- that any talk of a quagmire or any comparison of Iraq with Vietnam is not only defeatist, but is no different than rooting for the terrorists themselves.


Perhaps they've forgotten the adage: He who ignores history is doomed to repeat it. A blogger over at Daily Kos posted this article today from the New York Times archive, which makes for some interesting reading at the moment.


"U.S. Encouraged by Vietnam Vote:
"Officials Cite 83% Turnout Despite Vietcong Terror


"by Peter Grose, Special to the New York Times -- Sept. 4, 1967


"WASHINGTON, Sept. 3-- United States officials were surprised and heartened today at the size of turnout in South Vietnam's presidential election despite a Vietcong terrorist campaign to disrupt the voting.


"According to reports from Saigon, 83 per cent of the 5.85 million registered voters cast their ballots yesterday. Many of them risked reprisals threatened by the Vietcong.


"The size of the popular vote and the inability of the Vietcong to destroy the election machinery were the two salient facts in a preliminary assessment of the nation election based on the incomplete returns reaching here.


"A successful election has long been seen as the keystone in President Johnson's policy of encouraging the growth of constitutional processes in South Vietnam.


"The purpose of the voting was to give legitimacy to the Saigon Government."


As we know, the last U.S. helicopter took off from Saigon more than seven years later, on April 30, 1975, and the nascent government fell shortly thereafter.

6-4-3 on Wed Jan 26, 2005 wrote:"...this shit." ?????

WTF back at you.

Shit is now 26 months higher.

6-4-3 on Wed Jan 26, 2005 wrote:I'm sure there are hundreds, thousands of soldiers over there that would love nothing more than to pull your insides out through your asshole for characterizing what they are doing as "Shit."

Most of them want out. They think that there is no victory to be had, and they're tired of getting blown up. They know they're in shit, and they know that doesn't mean that they're shit because they're in shit.

6-4-3 on Wed Jan 26, 2005 wrote:Soldiers from around the globe are serving honorably (despite your opinion) for the eventual freedom of a country mired in misery for decades upon decades.

Pretty much everyone has left the shit by now except the US. And the decades upon decades of misery might be related to the CIA installing and arming a dictator in Iraq because the CIA needed a counterbalance when the dictator they installed and armed in Iran was overthrown.

6-4-3 on Wed Jan 26, 2005 wrote: Say what you want about the collective motive, but don't broad-stroke your bias and assert it towards what brave men and women are doing in Iraq - doing what you would seemingly never consider doing yourself, by the way.

Like dying for a lying nut and his preposterous terror vendetta to disguise his garden variety empire building? I'm very glad I would never consider 'doing' anything in service to this shitty illegal war, except try and end it.

6-4-3 on Wed Jan 26, 2005 wrote:Rather, use your uninformed eyes to look over those liberal-shaded spectacles for a moment and try acknowledging what a difference these soldiers are making.

26 months later, are you still predicting that the corner is about to be turned?

6-4-3 on Wed Jan 26, 2005 wrote: Making for the OVERWHELMING majority of people who welcome just the faintest glimpse at freedom, democracy and a life that doesn't include the possibility of having themselves and their family members dropped into a shredder because they took a dump at the wrong time of day.

Iraqis were better off under Saddam.

6-4-3 on Wed Jan 26, 2005 wrote:There's a whole wide world of information out there beyond CNN, Michael Moore and Dan Rather, friend.

CNN and CBS are anti-war?

6-4-3 on Wed Jan 26, 2005 wrote: Tap into it. Then maybe you'll see what the mainstream isn't feeding you. That people in Iraq can't wait to be free.

That is assumed about all humans. What is accomplished for the freedom of the Iraqi people when a greater power deposes a weaker power and then provokes a civil war to cleanse the country of military age males ( or sends anyone who can fleeing over the border )? And then turns over the only thing of value to the Iraqi people, their oil, to the Giant Western Oil companies? What freedom are they getting? They're being converted to plantation capitalism by force.

6-4-3 on Wed Jan 26, 2005 wrote:Big pictures are so often easy to see, but hard to understand - for some.

Yup, we're all liberal zombies here. Thanks for your accurate prediction of Iraq 2007 in January 2005.

Cranius wrote:During the Vietnam conflict as many as 3,000 american soldiers could die on one day, and that conflict took many years to peter out.

Maybe you meant to type 300 in one day? In the worst year, 1968, the US lost under 15,000 men.

Walter Cronkite did a special report from Vietnam soon after the Tet offensive in 1968 and spoke these words to the American people. Hard to imagine a network anchor today pulling this off in Iraq. Cronkite sounds like Jack Murtha here:

WALTER CRONKITE'S "WE ARE MIRED IN STALEMATE" BROADCAST, FEBRUARY 27, 1968

We have been too often disappointed by the optimism of the American leaders, both in Vietnam and Washington, to have faith any longer in the silver linings they find in the darkest clouds. They may be right, that Hanoi's winter-spring offensive has been forced by the Communist realization that they could not win the longer war of attrition, and that the Communists hope that any success in the offensive will improve their position for eventual negotiations. It would improve their position, and it would also require our realization, that we should have had all along, that any negotiations must be that -- negotiations, not the dictation of peace terms. For it seems now more certain than ever that the bloody experience of Vietnam is to end in a stalemate. This summer's almost certain standoff will either end in real give-and-take negotiations or terrible escalation; and for every means we have to escalate, the enemy can match us, and that applies to invasion of the North, the use of nuclear weapons, or the mere commitment of one hundred, or two hundred, or three hundred thousand more American troops to the battle. And with each escalation, the world comes closer to the brink of cosmic disaster.

To say that we are closer to victory today is to believe, in the face of the evidence, the optimists who have been wrong in the past. To suggest we are on the edge of defeat is to yield to unreasonable pessimism. To say that we are mired in stalemate seems the only realistic, yet unsatisfactory, conclusion. On the off chance that military and political analysts are right, in the next few months we must test the enemy's intentions, in case this is indeed his last big gasp before negotiations. But it is increasingly clear to this reporter that the only rational way out then will be to negotiate, not as victors, but as an honorable people who lived up to their pledge to defend democracy, and did the best they could.

This is Walter Cronkite. Good night.

That bucket of nonsense arranged to feed the MIC lasted five more years after that.

Has there ever been a time in history where , while a war rages on we watch movies about it at home. WHILE IT'S GOING ON??? I mean, I saw Cloverfield last night. Redacted, etc........ how many films have I watched in the last few years?? Sometimes I stop and think, how can that be? We've been dumbed, man.

hebjam wrote:Has there ever been a time in history where , while a war rages on we watch movies about it at home. WHILE IT'S GOING ON??? I mean, I saw Cloverfield last night. Redacted, etc........ how many films have I watched in the last few years?? Sometimes I stop and think, how can that be? We've been dumbed, man.

I don't understand what you're trying to say here.

I'm not sure what you mean with the question?
War is used for entertainment... It's certainly been done before, but we've reached new heights of cynicism to have the war and the entertainment derived from it go on simultanously for so long.
I'm not bashing film makers, they do what they gotta do. It's us who consume it.

I meant that I'm not able to make sense of what you'd written. I don't understand what you mean about watching movies about the war while the war is raging. And I don't understand what seeing Cloverfield has to do with the war in Iraq, and I can't figure out why you threw 'redacted' into the middle there for no reason. I don't understand why you ask rhetorically how many movies you've seen, and why that can't be.

If English isn't your first language, I apologize, but I just couldn't make sense of what you'd written.