Laugh at Liberals

59 Responses to “DEMOCRATS AND DODO BIRDS: A STUDY IN SIMILARITIES”

1. K. Marx Says: January 26th, 2005 at 10:21 pm

   Some of your statements would be just as cogent by replacing the word “Democrat” with “Republican”. Regardless, it is an interesting comparison considering it depends on evolution being factual; something major members of the Republican and Democratic parties hold to be false. I’m not sure what the value of this comparison is, as the Dodo was a species and Democratic party is an organization.

2. buck Says: January 26th, 2005 at 10:48 pm

   Karl,
   There is definately a “narrowing of the gap” between the two major parties in the United States. This was intended to be a humorous comparison between teh DoDo as a species of bird and the Democrat as a species of politician. Smile LAL

3. K. Marx Says: January 27th, 2005 at 5:15 pm

   I’m new to the site and have yet to read all the articles. Given the name of the site, I was curious: What ties do you feel either political party in the U.S. have with being conservative and liberal? That is, do you feel either party stays relatively true to either ideology (conservative or liberal)?
   It fascinates me to see people who proclaim to be either conservative or liberal supporting, with nationalistic fervor, either party. Perhaps someone should write an article comparing the U.S. political parties with cola soft drinks. They’re basically the same, just different commercials on Super Bowl Sunday.

4. Emory Says: January 28th, 2005 at 3:19 am

   Interesting question, K. Marx. Most democrats seem to be either liberal, or extremely liberal. I see the Democratic party as being wholly committed to the liberal philosophy. I wonder if the party could exist without it. On the other hand, the Republican party seems to be drifting away from it’s Goldwater, Reagan, Gingrich ideals of cutting down the size of government and making it more efficient. I’d be curious to hear what some of the other conservative LAL visitors think about your question.

5. Bildo Says: January 28th, 2005 at 3:48 am

   I was raised as a democrat. Jimmy Carter killed that for me. When I started to read each party’s history I learned that the Democrats have historically voted against civil right’s initatives while claiming to be their champions. I don’t put a lot of faith into what a freakin’ politician says anymore. I tend to watch what they do. I guess it’ll always be Coke for the GOP and Pepsi at the DNC.

6. K. Marx Says: January 28th, 2005 at 5:31 am

   Specifically, what are the liberal and conservative philosophies? I would agree that the present administration has been committed to centralization; which is something I understand to be paramount to the conservative democratic philosophy. It must be noted, although, the present administration has been committed to shaping and governing the morals of its people (another tenet of democratic conservatism). Therefore, I believe anyone would have a difficult task in arguing the present administration has abandoned the conservative doctrines.
   I only wonder, with so many terms being said without definition, what each person believes to be the liberal or conservative philosophies in the United States (as much of the population outside the U.S., i.e. 95% of the world’s population, has much different definitions for what the terms liberal and conservative means).

7. K. Marx Says: January 28th, 2005 at 6:35 am

   The previous comment contained an error. The second sentence should have read, “I would agree that the present administration has been committed to centralization; which is the opposite ofng I understand to be paramount to the conservative democratic philosophy.” My apologies for the confusion.

8. Sean Says: January 30th, 2005 at 5:21 am

   Karl,
   I really don’t care about what the definitions of Liberal or Conservative are in OTHER COUNTRIES. I don’t look to OTHER COUNTRIES when I think about, vote, or partake in politics in this country. I don’t think about other countries and their policies when I vote for policy or candidates in this country. This was actually debated by Anthony Scalia and another Supreme Court justice (I forget his name) not too long ago about the incorrect and false implementation of citing international law and imposing it in America.
   International law and policy (including political definitions) have no bearing or clout in this country.
   Now you say that the current administration has been committed to centralization, and that this is paramount to Conservative belief. Ahhh Hem…NO..and…NO. You obviously have no clue what Conservative means, in this country anyway.

9. Sean Says: January 30th, 2005 at 9:36 pm

   VICTORY!…..VICTORY! THE IRAQI ELECTION WAS A HUGE SUCCESS. EARLY, PRELIMINARY REPORTS SAY THAT THERE WAS OVER A 60% TURNOUT! (I’M GOING TO BE WRITING THIS ALL IN CAPS TO EMPHASIZE THE IMPORTANCE OF IT, AND BECAUSE I’M EXCITED SO FORGIVE ME)
   ON THE DOWN SIDE THERE WERE ABOUT 50 SPIRATIC AND INEFFECTIVE FIGHTS BY INSURGENTS (ALSO KNOWN AS THE TERRORISTS). THERE WERE 8 SUICIDE BOMBERS WHICH WERE ALSO INEFFECTIVE. THERE WERE A FEW ATTACKS AT POLLING STATIONS; HOWEVER, ACCORDING TO NEWS CASTERS ON THE GROUND IN IRAQ AND REPORTS AROUND THE COUNTRY AND I QUOTE, “THE IRAQI FORCES HELD THEIR GROUND AT ALL 7000 POLLING STATIONS.”
   ON THE UPSIDE, AS I SAID EARLIER THERE WAS HUGE VOTER TURNOUT, EVEN IN THE SUNNI TRIANGLE. PEOPLE CAME IN DROVES NOT MORE THAN A HALF AN HOUR AFTER POLLING STATIONS OPENED. PEOPLE WERE DANCING IN THE STREET AFTERWARDS, BECAUSE THEY WERE SO HAPPY. TURNOUT WAS BIGGER THAN EVERYBODY EXPECTED, AND VIOLENCE WAS MUCH LESS THAN EVERYBODY EXPECTED.
   THIS IS HISTORIC PEOPLE. WE ARE WATCHING A TURNING POINT IN HISTORY; I HOPE YOU ARE ALL AWARE OF THAT. WE SUCCEDED IN AFGHANISTAN, DESPITE WHAT ALL THE NAY-SAYERS SAID. WE SUCCEDED IN IRAQ DESPITE WHAT JOHN KERRY, TED KENNEDY, BARBARA BOXER, AND THE REST SAID. WE SUCCEDED BESIDES TED KENNEDY’S AL JAZZERA TAPE THAT HE RELEASED THREE DAYS AGO.
   CURRENT SCORE:

   US: 2 ISLAMIC MILITANTS: 0

   (NOT COUNTING 9/11 OF COURSE)

10. Julian Says: January 30th, 2005 at 10:55 pm

    Karl, I think your question was a good one. Does anyone think that the standard dictionary definitions are still valid?

    conservative

    adj 1: resistant to change [ant: liberal] 2: opposed to liberal reforms 3: avoiding excess; “a conservative estimate” [syn: cautious] 4: unimaginatively conventional; “a colorful character in the buttoned-down, dull-gray world of business”- Newsweek [syn: button-down, buttoned-down] 5: conforming to the standards and conventions of the middle class; “a bourgeois mentality” [syn: bourgeois, materialistic] n : a person who has conservative ideas or opinions [syn: conservativist] [ant: liberal]
    Source: WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University

    Liberal

    adj 1: showing or characterized by broad-mindedness; “a broad political stance”; “generous and broad sympathies”; “a liberal newspaper”; “tolerant of his opponent’s opinions” [syn: broad, large-minded, tolerant] 2: having political or social views favoring reform and progress 3: tolerant of change; not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or tradition [ant: conservative] 4: given or giving freely; “was a big tipper”; “the bounteous goodness of God”; “bountiful compliments”; “a freehanded host”; “a handsome allowance”; “Saturday’s child is loving and giving”; “a liberal backer of the arts”; “a munificent gift”; “her fond and openhanded grandfather” [syn: big, bighearted, bounteous, bountiful, freehanded, handsome, giving, openhanded] 5: not literal; “a loose interpretation of what she had been told”; “a free translation of the poem” [syn: free, loose] n 1: a person who favors a political philosophy of progress and reform and the protection of civil liberties [syn: progressive] [ant: conservative] 2: a person who favors an economic theory of laissez-faire and self-regulating markets
    Source: WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University

11. Sean Says: January 31st, 2005 at 4:18 pm

    Julian, let me ask you and the rest of the people like you a serious question? WHY CAN’T YOU JUST BE HAPPY FOR THE IRAQI PEOPLE WHO JUST HAD THEIR FIRST EVER DEMOCRATIC ELECTION, AND WHO ARE FREE TO GOVERN THEMSELVES? WHY CAN’T YOU JUST BE HAPPY FOR THEM?

    This question is also directed toward Rob, Jeff, Chris, Zoot potatoe etc.

12. K. Marx Says: January 31st, 2005 at 5:24 pm

    Sean: If you could note the correction I made in post #7, I think you will understand the point I was making. Further, if you would re-read post #6, you would notice that I, in fact, was not stating that international definitions mattered, I was only asking a question (specifically; “I only wonder, with so many terms being said without definition, what each person believes to be the liberal or conservative philosophies in the United States?”). The rest of it was only a statement of observation about the world, which you may disregard, but it is nonetheless true (although it doesn’t affect our present discussion). I only mentioned it to clarify my reasons for seeking the wisdom of the message board. That is, I only know of clear definitions from other points of view, so I seek the view of the U.S. conservative.
    I would also like to note, you in no way addressed what your definition of conservatism is. You only made a statement that I “have no clue” about what U.S. conservatism is. Undoubtedly, I have no idea what U.S. conservatism is. I do not claim to be wise in the ways of U.S. conservatism, that is why I come here: To seek the wisdom of people who call themselves conservatives. Surely, if someone calls themself a conservative, they understand the true meaning of conservativism. I only hope they will be kind enough to enlighten me.
    Also, I was hoping someone would address the issue of centralization. I understand U.S. conservatism holds decentralization to be paramount, and the Bush administration has made it a point to centralize the government more so than any administration in half a century (or, most would argue, more than half a century, but let us, for our purposes, side with the former because it puts the present administration in a more positive light). Assuming that the USA Patriot Act (and acts following after it) and the Dept. of Homeland Security are acts of centralization, and I find it hard to argue otherwise, what light does that put our current adminstration in? A conservative one, or a more liberal one (as a liberal administration, by my present understanding of the meaning, would seek to centralize government)? Or does it matter? Are the centralization measures taken by the current administration, although liberal, understandable due to the present state of the world? Given that, if centralization is justifiable in order to protect the nation, why has every conservative come out against centralization in dear times? E.g., Nicaragua in 1985. It would seem to me that a conservative would be outraged at the actions taken to centralize the nation, as the conservative doctrine has always been that centralization weakens a nation. Why then, if we are under attack, would an administration, want to “weaken the nation”? Or does centralization strengthen the nation, and we should support the Democrat agenda in centralization the nation? I’m confused, because there seems to be many contradictions in the matter. Hopefully someone can clear this matter with me, as I am not well versed in the way of U.S. politics.
    Thank you, and I again apologize for the confusion regarding post #6. It was corrected in post #7.

13. K. Marx Says: January 31st, 2005 at 5:37 pm

    Sean: Re post #11: There are many reasons as to why people oppose imperialistic tactics in promoting global democracy. Surely, it is not a matter of, “[...]being happy for the Iraqi people[...]” I believe it is a more complex matter than that.
    Similarly, I believe the people who advocate imperalistic tactics in promoting global democracy do not think of it as a matter of simply being happy for new democratic nations. Indeed, there were many other reasons (for those who advocate the war), including but not limited to: Removal of Saddam Hussein, the spread of capitalism, the expansion of global markets, increased support for military spending, gaining a sphere of influence in the emerging Arab world, and, ultimately, taking down one of the many anti-U.S. leaders of the world.
    Clearly, one should not just be pleased with the outcome of the democratic elections in Iraq. There are many other issues surrounding the topic, and that is precisely where people differ in point of view: The implications and consequences of the war, not the immediate outcome. It is just not that simple; for either those that oppose or advocate the war in Iraq.

14. Julian Says: January 31st, 2005 at 6:22 pm

    Honestly, I am so happy that things went as well as they did in the election. If you are honest, and educated about the history of the middle east, and not an amnesiac, then you will have to agree that it is ashamed that our policies have contributed so much to the madness and hell endured by people in the middle east for so so long. I have high hopes for the future. For one, I hope that we can do good works and also do less harm to innocent people. Much more self examination is needed by all americans.

15. Rob Says: January 31st, 2005 at 7:25 pm

    I too, am quite happy that the election worked as well as it did, and I give the Coalition credit that is due for pulling it off. I do, however, have two reservations: the first is in support of Marx’s comment in #13, that saying “just be happy for them” is disingenuous, because there is much more at stake here than just the election.

    Second, one election does not a democracy make! I would say – as many reasonable world leaders are saying – that the election is a “step in the right direction”, but it is not the destination yet. You can’t measure democracy by the simple count of turnout; if that were the case, no one would have said anything about the first attempt of the recent Ukrainian election (Sean, I didn’t hear you saying: “why can’t we just be happy for the Ukrainians, they voted in great numbers and are now democratic; what is all this crap about needing new elections”). Equally, if turnouts are all that matter, then elections under Saddam were smash hits – and Saddam’s Iraq would have been the real beacon of democracy – since turnouts were usually above 95%.

    Now, don’t get me wrong, because I am not suggesting that in Iraq on the weekend, there was the electoral fraud like in Ukraine – or the pure farce that Saddam’s elections represented – but think about it for a second: most candidates were nominated (or at least approved) by the occupation authorities; their names were not made public until a few days before the election, and even then, some were not made public at all; there was no real campaigning; the ballots had dozens and dozens of unknown names on them; and even some of the politicians involved needed coaching on how to fill them out, etc. etc, etc. So to say that this election reflects the will of the Iraqi people is pure fantasy. Even more problematic from my perspective is that one of the primary objectives of this new “elected” interim government will be to ratify a US-drafted constitution that will be binding on the permanent government to be elected next year. I would accept the Bush administrations prostrations about democracy in the Iraq if I thought for a second that it truly wanted “democracy” for the Iraqis. The fact remains that the “democracy” sought by the administration (legitimacy of a US vision for Iraq) is not the same as the one most pro-democracy activists of the left would imagine. That is why the left still criticizes the “election”.

    Yes, this is victory of the Iraqi people, that they came out in such force to demonstrate their “desire” to choose their leaders. Do I think they actually choose their leaders? The answer is a resounding NO. If the US elections had been held under the same conditions as those held in Iraq, there would have been a civil war. Let’s be happy that this first step has been taken with such success. And let’s hope that for the remaining steps the US keeps its hands (and ideology) out of the cookie jar long enough to actually let the Iraqis decide their own future. That would be real democracy for me.

16. Bonniem Says: January 31st, 2005 at 9:54 pm

    Never the less, they are further along than they were a year ago, and I don’t think anyone believes that this is the end of the problems. It is a process and there will be more terrorists strikes and there is still a lot to be done before we can bring our troops home, but —– this is one more step and a giant step. For all those who wanted to postpone it, I think it is good that we didn’t. (Of course now , I can say that).

17. K. Marx Says: January 31st, 2005 at 11:45 pm

    An interesting point you make, Bonniem. What threats did Iraq pose to the world, let alone the U.S., that many other countries didn’t pose? What makes Iraq unique in the war on terror? I do not understand the issues in their entirety, so perhaps someone can lend some knowledge to an ignorant and naive observer.
    The war in Iraq seemed to be an urgent matter. I wonder why the rest of the world sat on their hands amid such an ordeal? It seems that an overwhelming majority of the rest of the world chose to argue that Iraq did not pose a threat. Yet, I am told they did pose an eminent threat. Indeed, the rest of the world is as ignorant as I am on the matter. Although, I must wonder what the root of such ignorance is. Is it pure ignorance, such as mine, or was there an agenda behind it? Or, perhaps we should also consider, only for the sake of dicussion, that Iraq did not pose a unique threat. That is, did Iraq pose more of a threat to the U.S. way of life than Los Angeles street gangs? To be sure, all options must be examined in a truth seeking dicussion.
    In respect to China, Iran, and North Korea, Iraq is most definitely the lame calf ready to picked off by the wolf. I am hopeful that the people of other countries, like China, can some day enjoy freedom of speech much like I do. The president has proclaimed much interest in making China a democratic state, as noted in his speech last week. Is China, like Iraq, a lame calf? It seems to be a difficult task, as China has an enormous military that is well funded, unlike Iraq’s army that would fail to rival Kuwait’s after the failed invasion in 1991. Further, China does not suffer from the financial sanctions that Iraq did.
    In fact, is China a worthy adversary? Was Iraq a worthy adversary? I trust not, for they fell quickly and horribly. One could argue the Iraqi citizens seeking to conserve their way of life–rather, the insurgents–put up a greater fight than their military. Will China fall in a similar fashion? I am interested in this matter, for it will be quite an occasion for China to fall.

18. Bonniem Says: February 1st, 2005 at 3:40 am

    K.Marx, I do not believe that you are an ignorant or niave observer. You can read in some of the other posts how I feel about us going into Iraq, and as for “some” in the rest of the world, sitting on their hands, could it be because they were making big bucks off of Sadamm. I don’t much think China and North Korea will be falling anytime soon if ever! Neither do I believe that our President in his inaugration speech was speaking in specifics any more than any other president has in his inaugaral addresses.

19. Sean Says: February 1st, 2005 at 6:15 am

    Karl Marx,

    You’re going to have to forgive the brevity of my responses; I’m ill right now so I have little tolerance for this right now. IRAQ WAS NEVER SAID BY ANYONE IN THE U.S., MUCH LESS G.W. BUSH, THAT IT WAS AN IMMENANT THREAT. IT WAS A PRE-EMPTIVE STRIKE! THE WHOLE POINT TO THE WAR ON TERROR IS TO FIND, ROUTE OUT, AND STOP THE TERRORIST BEFORE THEY STRIKE NOT AFTER ANOTHER 9/11. THE OTHER POINT TO THE WAR ON TERROR IS TO SPREAD FREEDOM AND DEMOCRACY SO AS TO FORM PEACEFUL NATIONS WITH ALLIES IN THE LEADERSHIP THAT DO NOT COLLUDE WITH TERRORISTS, FUND SUICIDE BOMBERS, OR HARBOR TERRORISTS ALL OF WHICH SADDAM DID.

20. Sean Says: February 1st, 2005 at 6:41 am

    Rob,

    You’re going to have to excuse the brevity in my responses; I’m ill, and I have little tolerance for this right now. First off, I DID SAY THAT THE FIRST ELECTION IN THE UKRAINE WAS B.S.; I MERELY DIDN’T SAY IT ON THIS SIGHT. SORRY, I DON’T POST MY EVERY THOUGHT HERE.
    Second of all, once again you’ve run yourself right into another blaring contradiction of yourself. I THOUGHT WE WERE GOING THIS ALONE. I THOUGHT WE DIDN’T HAVE A COALITION. I THOUGHT THIS WAS ONLY THE U.S.’S UNILATERAL IMPERIALISM. IF THAT’S THE CASE THEN ONLY THE U.S. GETS ANY CREDIT FOR THE SUCESS IN IRAQ NOW.
    What reasonable “World Leaders” (quote, un-quote) would you be referring too, John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi, the French, the Germans…..They don’t LEAD anything!!! I agree that the work for a free, peaceful Iraq isn’t over; however, you are seriously downplaying and mis-representing everything that this election means and stands for.
    Even our people need coaching on how to fill out those complicated ballots, remember Florida 2000??? Our first election in the U.S. had widespread dissent and apprehension. There were also many people who were dead set against it. Many didn’t support the new Constitution they thought we needed a more powerful central government like a monarchy.
    The only reason at this point any of you do not truly believe that we are fighting for a Free, democratic Iraq is that you have got a seething hatred for Bush and his administration himself which is not rooted in fact, except for the fact that your party is no longer in power and you will not be in power for a long time.

21. Sean Says: February 1st, 2005 at 6:43 am

    Karl,

    Your post number 13, I didn’t see one negative point there.

22. Sean Says: February 1st, 2005 at 7:08 am

    Julian,
    In response to number 14, I’m not an amnesiac; I’m an elephant (Republican)….I never forget!! I have high hopes for the future as well, but I’m surprised at your reversal on this issue. I was hearing not too long ago from you that Iraq was lost in violence, that we were the cause of the problem….that it was a quagmire….etc. etc. I believe that these elections are a turning point not only in the short term history, but in the long term history of the country as well. I also see, unfortunately, that there are many politicians that are downplaying and misrepresenting the importance of this election.

23. Sean Says: February 1st, 2005 at 7:10 am

    Karl,
    When I have more time, and less sick, I will collect my thoughts and give you an explanation of what defines liberal and conservative.

24. K. Marx Says: February 1st, 2005 at 8:18 am

    Bonniem; re: post #18.
    I wonder how many countries were making such a fortune off Saddam Hussein, and how much they were making? I have not seen sufficient evidence supporting or denying the financial connections between Hussein and any other country (other than the connection I will make later in the post). That is not to say the evidence for or against it is not there, I only wish to find it. I shall withhold my judgement on the matter until I have sufficient evidence to believe either.
    The only hard proof I have seen of Hussein’s financial connections (post Iran-Iraq war, where the U.S., USSR, France, Germany, etc. all gave aid to Iraq) was to Kuwait, which is then the reason he invaded them. They wanted their loans repaid, Saddam refused; he invaded them so as to not repay the loans. I wonder how many other countries he simply was borrowing money/military aid from and not repaying? This, of course, is not sufficient to rationally imply that France and Germany were in similar positions with Iraq. It is, of course, a possibility, though. Please forgive me if I am only reiterating other posts you’ve made, or asking questions you’ve already answered, as I have not had time to research all the comments made on this wonderful web site.
    Regarding the president’s comments on spreading freedom of speech to China: I have key word searched a great number of speeches made by the last three U.S. presidents and I have come across no such aspirations of granting free speech and democracy in China. Sadly, my researching skills are awful and the LexisNexis database is difficult to navigate. I would be much obliged if someone could link me to similar claims made by U.S. presidents.
    I appreciate your comments Bonniem. Further, I am fully convinced that through the users of this web site I will become a more informed person.

25. K. Marx Says: February 1st, 2005 at 8:50 am

    Sean; Thank you for answering my questions in a timely fashion, especially considering your current condition. I wish you a speedy recovery.
    re: post #19:
    No one in the U.S. government stated Iraq posed an eminent threat? Or just Bush didn’t state? I would like to be clear on the matter before I research it because I am easily prone to errors if I start off on the wrong path.
    re: post #20:
    To be sure, the French and Germans lead in some things. They lead their own people. Further, Germany makes excellent firearms and fine automobiles. France, well…they make good food? And art? I’m not certain they lead anyone other than themselves. Kidding aside, I wonder why there is so much dissent in the French and Germany population in the war against Iraq? And many other European nations. I wonder if they feel secure and safe from Iraq, or rather they are only dissenting because they enjoy being disagreeable with the U.S.? Perhaps it is a financial situation and they feel they either have something to gain, or possibly lose, in a war. Or are the French and Germany governments in fear of causing dissent among its citizens? It has been made clear by many European citizens that they oppose the war in Iraq. Are some European countries simply unable to take actions without the will of their people? At the very least, in the U.S., the government is a system by the people, for the people. Therefore, public opinion should often times be considered when making decisions, especially ones with possibly heavy consequences. That is, if it is in the hopes of keeping a democratic state free from absolute ruling. Or maybe people simply do not know what is best for them?

26. Julian Says: February 1st, 2005 at 12:08 pm

    Sean, Sorry that you are not feeling well. Best wishes for a speedy recovery. I said I was happy that the elections went as well as they did. I still don’t think that Smirky should start counting his oil wells in Iraq yet.

27. Julian Says: February 1st, 2005 at 12:38 pm

    Sean, since you brought up the quadmire thing (I never used the term myself), here’s a blast from the past.

    “WASHINGTON, September 4, 1967. 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 …registered voters cast their ballots yesterday. Many of them risked reprisals threatened by the Vietcong

    A successful election has long been seen as the keystone in President Johnson’s policy in South Vietnam. The purpose of the voting was to give legitimacy to the Saigon Government, which had been founded on coups and power plays since November, 1963, when President Ngo Dinh Diem [a US imposed dictator] was overthrown by a military junta” The fact that the backing of the electorate has gone to the generals who have been ruling South Vietnam for two years does not, in the Administration’s view, diminish the significance of the constitutional step that has been taken.
    In a statement cleared by President Johnson and by Secretary of State Dean Rusk said that ‘the people of South Vietnam had expressed their choice and deserve our support’. [A] “State department spokesman, drew attention to the fact that the balloting had been conducted ‘remarkably smoothly and fairly despite Vietcong efforts to disrupt the voting’.”

    Again, I am thrilled that Iraqis had the opportunity to vote last week. Unfortunately, as we learned from the painful lesson of Vietnam, elections are not an antidote for quagmire.

28. Bonniem Says: February 1st, 2005 at 2:35 pm

    Sean, hope you are well soon. This site needs you.

29. Bonniem Says: February 1st, 2005 at 4:17 pm

    K. Marx, I have not seen with my eyes, but before this whole thing even started I was reading and hearing how Germany had built this very secure bunker below ground for him just within the last year or so. Weapons and other items manufactured by Russia was found. But then again, those are things I read and heard by the news media. So maybe none of it is true. So how will you get the proof one way or another. Are you in government? Or will you have to rely on some media form for your judgement. You sound like a teenager on our block who said in all sincerity ” I have not seen any evidence that Michael Jackson is guilty of the charges against him.” I said I haven’t either and he is innocent until proven guilty, but then I don’t think we will see any evidence either way. Just have to go by the media.

30. Bonniem Says: February 1st, 2005 at 4:28 pm

    K. Marx, Now see, maybe I am the ignorant and niave, because it was my understanding that Iraq invaded Kuwait, because they considered the land belonged to them. I understood it to be a turf thing. As far as the Iraq war goes. I have said in past post that I hated to see, didn’t want to see, us go into Iraq. But we did. Sadamm was paying suicide bombers families $25,000 when they bombed and Killed in Israel. But then I haven’t seen the actual checks, so possible I am wrong. Then point number 2, If he did that do you think he would hesitate to do the same for suicide bombers in the U. S.? Next, There is a saying that goes something like my enemys enemy is my friend. Sadamm was not a good person. As I told Julian, I am not a debater! I have given you my opinion and have Come to my conclusions over a period of time. So, I am not trying to change your mind. Just telling you my point of view.

31. Sean Says: February 1st, 2005 at 10:16 pm

    Julian,
    Iraq IS NOT VIETNAM!!! No matter how much you’d like it to be. More to come on this later.
    Furthermore, if you think this Battle in Iraq is only about Oil, just like all the other left wing kooks, that’s even worse than thinking that Iraq is Vietnam. Reason is this, there are dozens of other countries that we could’ve invaded that would have been EVEN EASIER to take over and claim their OIL for ourselves. On top of that let me pose this question…..What’s the price of oil per barrel right now? And I answer….$49/barrel. NOT CHEAP!!

32. zoot Says: February 1st, 2005 at 10:27 pm

    “admin”, don’t be so quick about judgements. I know you feel better insulting the party you don’t agree with, but you’re showing how blind you are to history.

    There have been multiple times durring the course of America that Democrats took Republicans for dead. Watergate, for example, was a terrible time for republicans, and if you were to tell them that in 6 years, 1980, a republican would be elected president that would strenghten the party for years to come, they’d figure it impossible.

    Do you think republicans felt like a dominant party when FDR was elected for a fourth time? come on, of course they didn’t. Ike, the next republican, chose to run on that party since the last 16 years were democrat. Had he ran as a democrat, it would have been 24 years straight with a democrat leader.

    Bush won the election by the smallest margin as an incumbent in US election history. Either party has seen themselves down more men in the senate/house.

    I will not argue against the fact that the democrats are at a downtime right now, its dead obvious, but you’ll never know what will come about in the next four years, maybe a democrat will run and be the next reagan, putting the republicans on the defensive, and changing the government for 20 years after the end of his second term.

    just give things time

    I feel that this is a better arguement then to point out how terribly hypocritical admin was when he compared democrats to dodo birds

    its like you don’t think republicans are a group of special interests, you put such an ugly spin on tax increases (while i bet youre defense on tax cuts would be terribly biased, as well…)

    QUICK QUIZ!

    1. Name the party that has put more millionares in the higher offices? HINT: (Cheney, Rumsfeld) REPUBLICANS
    don’t get me started on the ethnic make-up of both parties… its like bush blasting Kerry on the environment

    2. Name the party that is putting millionares above the rest of america (tax cuts, privatizing social secuirty)? REPUBLICANS
    I know that there will be SOMEONE that hates me marking the social security reforms as a bad thing, but I refuse to defend my side unless admin tells how privatizing SS really helps african americans.

    3. what party defends isreal in what they do, that ultimatly drove Bin Laden to hate America? REPUBLICANS
    I understand that many support Isreal, I think it’s great they have a home land, but our interventions with Isreali affairs is what has turned the arab world to hate us.

    4. Name the party whos senior senator is a former Klan member and recruiter? DEMOCRAT (Robert Byrd)
    note I didn’t twist this in a twistedly liberal way… it is true, he is a klansman, but I’m not going to be stupid and make it sound that there are no racist republicans… and if the people elect a klansman republican, is it the party’s fault, or the doings of the people that elected him?

    5. Name the party that has more millionaires in congress? DEMOCRATS
    Bah, dont be afraid and admit it, both parties are terribly influenced by millionaires. most women in congress are women, and black people as well (well, as of before the 2004 election, i dont know exaclty how its changed) Bush’s closest advisors make up the largest group of millionaires in a cabinent.

    6. Name the party that collected and spent the most in corporate political donations in 2004? DEMOCRAT
    yeah, yeah… this is true. but don’t be afraid to admit that republicans aren’t exactly corporation free, they are endorsed more by corporations then democrats are.

    7. Name the party that had the most donations from private individuals? REPUBLICANS
    name the party that has the most support by millionaires that benefit from conservative ways. coincidence?

    8. Name the party that helped it’s president enact the policy of telling gay people they could not talk about being gay if they wanted to be in the military? DEMOCRATS
    LOL! name the party that pushed for a ban on gay marriage!

    9. Name the party who’s senior senator has been accused of murdering a woman and who’s president was accused of rape? DEMOCRATS.
    again, its the people that elected these officials, though I’m not going to defend these guys actions.

    10. If you are black, Jewish, gay or a woman, What has the Democratic party done for you lately?
    what have the DEMOCRATS done for gays lately? Other then drive a stop to an admendment banning gay marriage in the constitution? Nothing, of course, stands out for the other three groups, but, hey, i’m curious, what have the republicans done for these groups?

    I’m not going to deny that I sound like a blind democratic follower, but I shouldn’t hear about it from you guys, anyway. Almost everyone above has exhibited their closed mindedness in one way or another in their above posts, and I get in a tough situation. I hate blind republicans and democrats, yet I understand i’m a blind democrat as well

    oh well

    and in response to post 11: you’d probably be surprised that I am! estimates say a higher % of the national population voted in Iraq then USA is impressive, especially while facing the threat of terrorism.

33. Julian Says: February 2nd, 2005 at 1:44 am

    Sean,
    Re post #31, you should note that I did not say that Iraq IS Vietnam. My point is that after the much celebrated democratic-seeming elections in Vietnam in 1967, the shit really hit the fan. So history teaches us that when a country in turmoil holds democratic-seeming elections, one should not be overly optimistic and just assume that the worst is behind us, right? Regarding Smirky’s oil ambitions in Iraq, did you say that we could have invaded other oil-producing countries even “more easily.” You think that the occupation of Iraq has been easy? What sort of cold medicine are you taking man? It seems to me that Iraq appeared to be a convenient target since Saddam’s army was weak and defenseless and known to be so (Damn those UN sanctions, they work every time – although, regretably, many innocent Iraqis starved and suffered under them). If you think that Smirky’s desire to control the energy resources in Iraq was NOT a principle aim of the invasion, you are irretreivably naive. Many other countries present much greater dangers to our security than Saddam’s Iraq did and many other countries suffer under tyrants who are just a brutal as Saddam was. Those countries don’t even get a mention by Smirky, because they don’t have what he really wants – SUV juice, lots and lots of SUV juice.

34. Bonniem Says: February 2nd, 2005 at 2:25 am

    Julian, who are you calling smirky? And I agree with Sean. Oil was not the primary reason.

35. K. Marx Says: February 2nd, 2005 at 2:31 am

    Is Iraq just Vietnam revisited? Perhaps there are some gross differences between the two situations. First, did the Vietnam conflict see the worldwide dissent Iraq has? Vietnam was a relatively quiet event in comparison to Iraq. Further, was Iraq in favor of communism? Is the occupation of Iraq a strike against communism much like the Vietnam war was?
    sean;
    I only wonder how sound the following argument is: “Reason is this, there are dozens of other countries that we could?ve invaded that would have been EVEN EASIER to take over and claim their OIL for ourselves.”
    Does that mean that simply because Iraq was not as easy a target as other oil wealthy countries that the war was not about oil? I do not suggest that the war in Iraq was about oil, I only point out the logical fallacy of this argument. To be sure, there may be convincing arguments to be made about the topic, but I do not feel this is one of them.
    Further, I have little understanding of the price of oil and global economics. Perhaps you could help me sort out your comment about the price of oil. Is the price of oil in correlation to whether the war in Iraq was about oil? They are seemingly unconnected, but, perhaps you could help me understand the correlation.

36. K. Marx Says: February 2nd, 2005 at 3:05 am

    Bonniem; re: post # 29 & 30.
    We of course must evaluate every source for validity. If you could link me to your sources for the information, it would greatly reduce my research time. Were these stories in the NY Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, maybe CNN or Fox News?
    To be sure, if a source is a good one, then it is probable they are rational to believe. Not necessarily ration to believe, but probable. I believe the government, atleast in the U.S., to also be a media source. So, then, also they must be evaluated for validity.
    You flatter me with your comments. Your teenage neighbor is wise beyond his/her years. Surely, it would be difficult to evaluate the guilt of someone unless one were present at court for every minute of the trial. Your neighbor is assuming someone is innocent until proven guilty, a tenet of the U.S. justice system.
    You raise an interesting question: When is a source rational to believe? I will offer my criteria.
    Is the source a primary or secondary source? If not primary, how many sources separate it and the primary source?
    Does the source possibly have reason to be misleading? Was the source possibly misled?
    Further, was the source subject to peer review? Or was only it only subject to an editor?
    I am glad you offer your opinion. Everyone should offer their opinion, if not for speaking’s sake, but for their own sake. If you exercise your opinion, you are more likely to see flaws or excellence in your reasoning.
    In regards to your turf war comment, it is indeed a fact that Hussein attempted to gather support through pro-Arab propaganda. He argued that by taking Kuwait, he would unify the Arab world against Israel and the U.S. That may be taken as the major reason for invasion, or it could be taken as nothing more than a tactic to garner support through emotive arguments. That is, perhaps the fact is that Hussein was using emotive arguments to suppress the fact that he owed Kuwait $14 Billion and didn’t want to pay it. Although, Kuwait could provide valuable ports for Iraq, I do not believe Hussein’s motives in occupying Kuwait were purely geographic.

37. Bonniem Says: February 2nd, 2005 at 6:30 am

    I try to read and listen to various media and areas. I do consider the mainstream media to be liberal as polls of various reporters and commentators have admitted. I don’t know that I get my info from any one source and trying to keep my eyes and ears open and form my own opinions. Often times I look at the source to see to see what they have to gain. Such as the Political parties. As I have said in previous post, I really get sick and tired of either party getting a hold on a bit of information to use against the other party and just Not letting it go. I have said previously that if one party trips over a stone, the other party will swear they were drunk. So I am assuming you get your information from the media in some form and make you opinions from there. So maybe you have come to your conclusions from what you have read or heard in the news, just as I have and we each have different slant on it because of the way we are. I tend to support our President even tho I do not agree with everything he says or does, but then he gets his information from an entirely different source than I do. And as I said before I think we have a President that can make the tough decisions where I would tend to not want to make those dicisions. Obviously the majority of the voters in November agreed. It is certainly better than not caring what the person is, says or does but just votes for the party. I know people that would vote for their party no matter who was running on the ticket even if it was Bin Laden himself.

38. Sean Says: February 2nd, 2005 at 6:31 pm

    Karl,
    What planet are you living on? My argument had direct correlation to refute the fact that this war IS NOT FOR OIL. Go back and re-read it. Let me explain about the price of oil per barrel. If this War was really about Oil then why is the price still so HIGH!!!! HELLO? If the War was really about OIL then we already would’ve “stolen” all of the countries oil and taken over their refineries and the price per barrel would be $20 a barrel right now!
    Furthermore!! If you are going to attack a country purely for a resource, like oil, then you attack the country that has the resource you want and also is the weakest! Try to follow this. If country A has oil and has 1 million troops, and country B has oil and has 50,000 troops, you obviously attack country B!!! Does common sense even come into your analysis….EVER?

39. Sean Says: February 2nd, 2005 at 6:31 pm

    No Karl, Iraq is NOT Vietnam revisited.

40. Sean Says: February 2nd, 2005 at 6:41 pm

    Julian,
    Our Troops ARE NOT OCCUPIERS THEY ARE LIBERATORS. VIETNAM could have been one, by the communists own admission if there had not been dissent from people like Kerry and other hippies tearing our country apart. This was something that was clearly brought out after the war as a post-analysis and as I said by admission of the communist leaders of ‘Nam.
    Furthermore, you are completely WRONG on the analysis of Saddam’s military’s force before the war. Many respected military analysts evaluated them to be much more capable. In fact one of the reasons they weren’t is, because many SURRENDERED (remember that amnesiac) and because many weren’t fully loyal to Saddam. His force was not evaluated to be feable at ALL before the war you are an IDIOT.
    After your comment 33 I realize you are truly a left-wing fringe kook who is completely lost, and I refuse to entertain ANYMORE of your comments.

41. Rob Says: February 2nd, 2005 at 8:52 pm

    Re: the role of oil in the Iraq war, I disagree (surprise, surprise) with everything Sean has said and agree with what Karl and said, including that Sean’s arguments are not very convincing.

    Oil, and perhaps more importantly, strategic control over oil resources from that region, were the main purposes for the war and occupation (with perhaps support of Israel through the elimination of a local enemy taking second place). WMD in the first instance, and later bringing democracy to the ME, were only pretexts for the war and only a few delusional bloggers still blindly refuse to accept that these were more than simply pretexts. (Sean, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, “pretext” is noun, meaning “an ostensible or false reason used to justify an action”).

    The fact that oil prices are now HIGHER does not undermine the claim that oil drove the war; it simply confirms that the war has failed to achieve even its more illegitimate ends. Remember, Smirky – I like that nickname – and his crew predicted a cake walk with celebrating Iraqs lining the streets in joy. According to that scenario, Iraq oil production could have been safely ramped up shortly after the war (with the help of the records of the Oil Ministry safely protected – while the rest of Iraq was looted). American oil companies (i.e. Smirky’s friends) would have new contracts and new control over the oil under a new Iraqi constitution – still being drafted. A puppet regime in Iraq would not only ensure lower world oil prices – through higher production – and guarantee supply to the west, it would also generate considerable profits for these companies (i.e. Smirky’s friends) than would otherwise be available to them under a nationalized Iraqi oil industry (note that privatization of Iraq resources is a key demand of the US in the new constitution).

    As for strategic influence, sure the US could have simply “taken” the oil of many different countries at less cost militarily, but the aggregate bounty would not have been as great. In a secular, US-backed Iraq, the US could establish ground military bases (more effective than a fleet of carriers off the Arabian Peninsula) to influence the entire region in particular, Iran and Syria, all while remaining to ensure that the US-backed Iraq regime – and its control over the oil and oil contracts to US oil companies (i.e. Smirky’s friends) – remained favourable to the US. Harder to achieve this in places like Saudi Arabia because of that country’s dislike of foreign troops on its soil; more importantly Saudi Arabia already cooperated with the US and had good ties with US oil companies (i.e. Smirky’s friends).

    But most importantly – and pay close attention here Sean because this is the key part – Iraq had a bit of a reputation – built up meticulously for a decade by the US administration – for wanting WMD and for hurting its own people. That is, the reputation of the Iraq regime provided a perfect pretext for the invasion, because the administration knew it could convince people to support its cause more if it was about the safety of Americans and the freedom of Iraqi than if it was just about OIL and influence. That Iraq never posed a threat to the US was of little consequence; the US only needed to make Americans believe (through lies and fabrications) that it did. 911 was the perfect thread to tie all these points together – and for that reason was a godsend to the administration looking for the ways to package its oil desires in a more saleable good.

    The rest, as they say, is history (in the making at least). I know it is complicated Sean, but together we can work this through.

    As for your comment (#20) on my comment (#15) about the election – which seems so long ago now, I will reply shortly.

42. Sean Says: February 3rd, 2005 at 2:59 am

    Rob,
    And once again you are wrong. As I’ve already said, I will no longer entertain anymore comments on this subject that Iraq was for oil, or is the same a Vietnam. I don’t really care what you think. I’ve already refuted you, and many others like you. I don’t need to make you believe what I KNOW for what I KNOW to be true. It is not a matter of perception, as much as you might like it to be the facts are the facts.
    As I’ve said I’m not entertaining this discussion anymore. If you two would like to talk it over by yourselves….be my guest, but I’m not interested. This subject is beyond ridiculous. I need not waste my time.

43. Sean Says: February 3rd, 2005 at 3:10 am

    Rob,
    Unfortunately Rob, as usual, your comment 41 is all based on theories, suppositions, and what you left-wing kooks like the best conspiracy theories. There is not a single piece of fact or evidence in anything that you said in comment 41. But then again, I wouldn’t expect any.
    Rob, HERE’S ONE THING I WANT YOU TO PAY DAMN CLOSE ATTENTION TOO. YOU ARE MERELY FLATTERING YOURSELF IF YOU THINK THAT YOU COULD HELP ME THROUGH ANYTHING. MY I.Q. IS FAR OUT OF YOUR REACH, AND SINCE I’VE HAD IT TESTED SEVERAL TIMES I CAN SAY THAT WITH ALL CONFIDENCE.

44. Julian Says: February 3rd, 2005 at 5:21 am

    Rob’s comment (#41) was a rational and coherent account of why Smirky et al. selected Iraq as a target. A clear pattern has emerged on this site, however. When a comment is posted that presents a rational challenge to the neocons’ interpretation of any issue, Sean (aka “the Real Sean”, “Elephant Man”) responds by spewing obscenities and arguing, essentially, that anyone who does not echo the neocon propaganda talking points is a kook, stupid, etc. In truth, I don’t sense a daunting intellectual spewing those obscenities, just an angry guy with significant frontal lobe, and perhaps limbic system, impairment.

    In anticipation of the angry guy’s response, I will just curse at myself for the next five minutes (and maybe even threaten myself, for kicks) to save him the trouble. Better yet, I may write some computer code to simulate his reaction. I bet I could capture his entire behavioral repitoire with a couple of dozen lines of code.

45. Rob Says: February 3rd, 2005 at 5:30 am

    Another example of Sean’s faulty logic: you may know what your IQ is, Sean, through repeated testing (what, the first test was disappointing?), but since you don’t know what my IQ is then you can’t really say for certain that yours is out of my reach, now can you.

    But then the absence of facts never stood in the way of good republican story, did they? (Can you say WMD?)

46. Julian Says: February 3rd, 2005 at 5:56 am

    For those readers who are interested in another perspective, that of General Joseph Hoar, US Marines (Ret), on some of the issues we have been discussing, I recommend the following article published by military.com.

    Can’t wait to hear your views on the General’s article.

47. Sean Says: February 3rd, 2005 at 3:53 pm

    Rob,
    If you’d like to see absense of facts just look at your comment 41.

48. Sean Says: February 3rd, 2005 at 3:55 pm

    No Rob, your wrong again. Just from your comments. I can venture a pretty good estimate at what your IQ is.

49. Sean Says: February 3rd, 2005 at 4:04 pm

    No Julian, Once again you are wrong too (in response to your childish comment 44). You are the insulters and your comment 44 proves it. The reason I’m not responding is, because as I’ve already stated I’m not entertaining this conspiracy theory, wacko conversation anymore. If you two want to talk about it together go ahead.
    Better yet why don’t you just exchange phone numbers and you can burn up the phone lines together.

50. Julian Says: February 3rd, 2005 at 5:23 pm

    Seanie, what about Gen Joseph Hoar’s comment at military.com? You think the general is a kooky right wing liberal?

51. Bonniem Says: February 3rd, 2005 at 6:38 pm

    Sean, you can’t get thru to those guys. They come up with all these theories as tho they know this administration and what they are thinking. They will take anyone’s word before they would believe anything good about them. They have listened to Kennedy and “whats his name?” Oh yeah, and Kerry too long.

52. Ryan Says: February 4th, 2005 at 12:30 am

    I came across this website while doing a search for something on the web. I don’t get involved with websites like this because I really don’t have the time. But, I feel I needed to comment on some of the things said here. To say that the Iraq war is all about oil is purely ludicris. Take a trip to Shaksville, PA and see the crash site and memorial of flight 93, and go to NYC and see ground zero, that is what this war is about. The fact that Zarqawi has been in Iraq for 10 years, and the fact that he has had association with Osama Bin Hidden, is what this war is about. And to you Rob, to say that all of your theories in post 41 were relished by the Bush administration on Sept. 11th is insane. I really can’t believe people like you can possibly think that is true. Saddamm Insane had plans for the U.S. whether you want to believe it or not. And the fact that he harboured terrorists and supported terrorism makes this war justified. If we didn’t do something about Iraq and we don’t do anything about future threats to our nation, terrorism will thrive. If you aid and abed terrorism, you are an enemy of freedom, that plan and simple. As far as WMD, thats just the democats excuse for opposing the war. If you think Sadamm Insane did’t have them, then you are as insane as he is. Lets just pretend for a minute that this war in Iraq isn’t going on right now, and there is another terrorist attack on U.S. soil, this time funded and compiled by Zarqawi. Rob and Jullian, you would be the first, along with all your conspirisy theory friends, knocking on the White House door, asking why the Bush administration didn’t do anything to stop it from happening. The simple fact is, Sept 11th might have been prevented if your President (Clinton-Hillary that is) would have done something about it in “93 after the first attempt to bring down the towers. Oh, I forgot, he was to busy getting a hummer from his interns. Your pissed off that you lost the election, because so many Americans voted for freedom instead off treason. And as far as this war having the makings of Vietnam, you couldn’t be farter from the truth. Vietnam wasn’t lost, we won almost every major battle in Nam. Vietnam was considered a failure because people like you and John Kerry fueled the enemy with your Anti-American rhetoric. The enemy knew all they had to do was wait it out and they would prevail. Osama Bin Hidden is reduced to making threats with a video tape now, instead of an airplane. The fact that America voted for freedom, instead of Kerry (who I remind you was endorsed by Bin Hidden) lets terrorist know that we aren’t going to stand for the murder of over 3000 CIVILIANS. You think freedom is granted to you and thats it. I remind you that “FREEDOM ISN’T FREE”. My brother and his fellow Marines left for Iraq this morning. The unit he is with is on their second tour. My brother could have stayed at his MOS in Maryland where he was testing new Marine Corps helicopters, and not have to woory about getting shot at. But he didn’t want that, he volunteered to go over, because he wanted to make a difference in this world. He is my hero and I couldn’t be more proud of him. He is fighting terrorism thousands of miles away, instead of on our home soil. That is what this war is all about, unfortunately some Americans can’t see that. Support our troops and our president and that will win the war on terrorism. GOD BLESS OUR TROOPS AND THE USA.

53. Julian Says: February 4th, 2005 at 4:17 am

    Ryan,
    First, I hope for the best for your brother and I really mean it! And I join you in saying GOD BLESS OUR TROOPS AND THE USA (and all of our brothers and sisters in humanity around the globe too). You won’t be surprised to find out that I disagree with your conclusions about why and how we ended up invading Iraq. I think that it is obvious that the invasion of Afghanistan was in direct response to the attacks on 9/11. You will never hear a peep of objection from me about the US going after OBL or the Taliban. So, you see, I am not just some mindless peacenic. And before the US invaded Iraq I admit that I was actually buying into the Bush administration’s rhetoric about Iraq being an immediate danger and that we didn’t have time to carefully evaluate the evidence (and all of the counter evidence that actually contradicted the administration’s position). Ironically, my wife, who works for the DOD, was the skeptic in my family. Now I have to assume that you have done your research and know that even though Saddam was a terrible villan that the intelligence community is unanimous in their belief that Saddam was not part of the picture of terrorism (bin Laden and Saddam were arch enemies). Saddam had no control of the NE part of the country were al Zarqawi was residing (the US was protecting that part of Iraq, you will recall). As for your comments about Clinton, I couldn’t care less about Clinton (although your comments do underestimate his response to the 93 WTC attacks – Rob left an interesting post several weeks ago addressing that point). Freedom Isn’t Free. I believe that Bush is a serial liar. I don’t say this because I am just rooting for his opponents. I say this because the facts prove it to me. We are told that we have sent our kids over to Iraq to fight terrorism there so we don’t have to face it hear (by now a well rehearsed slogan). Unfortunately, according to intelligence assessments, our invasion of Iraq seems to have stimulated a massive increase in recruiting for militant Islamic organizations. It was 8 years between the first WTC attack and 9/11. It is far from clear that we won’t be fighting this battle on our home soil regardless of how things turn out in Iraq. I love my country and I sincerely believe that our leaders must be honest with us and must be held accountable when they screw up. Our duty is to scrutinize and challenge our leaders (that’s what freedom is for and that’s what preserves it!). Blind obedience is the antithesis of freedom.

54. Julian Says: February 4th, 2005 at 4:36 am

    Ryan, I would also be interested in your opinion of General Joseph Hoar’s (USMC) commentary published at military.com which I cited in comment #46 (link available at comment 46). Do you think that a USMC General has a credible perspective on the Iraq war?

55. Ryan Says: February 4th, 2005 at 11:01 pm

    I will try to comment in the future, but right now I’m to busy. I appreciate your concern for my brother and I thank you for that. I’m not here to try and make enemies, just expressing my views. We’ll talk in the futute, take care.

56. Julian Says: February 5th, 2005 at 4:54 am

    I suppose everyone is following the results of the Iraq election. In case you aren’t, thus far it appears that Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani’s shiite party is winning decisively. We will be in quite an awkward situation with 150,000 troops protecting and training soldiers for an Islamic government that mirrors Iran and with strong philosophical and religious ties to Iran. Yikes! Talk about your unintended consequences. Allawi, Bush’s guy, is getting trounced.

    On a lighter note, Bush promoted Elliott Abrams to be his deputy national security adviser. Abrams played a key role in the Iran-Contra scandal and pleaded guilty in 1991 to withholding information from Congress. Cool to have a convict as deputy national security adviser.

57. Mr. Jack Says: May 16th, 2005 at 1:53 am

    sean, I noticed that you claimed the war on terror was to spread freedom and democracy to the world, but I must ask you this, at what cost?

    there was another comment about China, who is an active Nucular power, and I belive the 3rd most powerfull nation in the world. They have the healthies economy in the world, war with them would shove this economy into full grear, while our economy would crumble. China may be supressed, but they are still a nationalist country, meaning that you have over a billion people ready to resist your every move.

    and besides, how is it our job to force our Ideas on other people. we are a nation that’s been around little over 200 years, who are we to force our ideas apon civilizations that have been around for thousands of years?

58. Anonymous Says: June 1st, 2005 at 10:55 pm

    You’re forgetting one thing…Which party actually has people with military or intelligence experience on the SSCI? Republicans

59. jdhughes Says: May 25th, 2006 at 11:39 pm

    Thanks for the list. I found some fun in there and some serious stuff.

Leave a Reply