A Good Definition of Treason

[maineman]

Name one, and if you are frustrated and wish to insult me, do so directly. Be a man about it.

well....oh fount of pointless sarcasm, let me see if I can pull a few off the top of my head:

we could really lean on Israel to reach a permanent peaceful solution with the palestinians, taking away one of the major irritants that fuel the rage of Islamic extremists.

We could really lean on Pakistan to allow us to conduct search and destroy missions against AQ targets in Western Pakistan. We could significantly ramp up satellite and photo-recon of that area.

We could really lean on Saudi Arabia to stop the funding from their country to madrassas throughout the region preaching hate against America.

just a few things, diplomatic and military, that would be infinitely more productive than continuing to dig the hole we find ourselves in in Iraq.

....

now... in reply, perhaps you would like to explain to me how attacking, conquering, and continuing to occupy a secular baathist regime in a country that had absolutely nothing to do with attacking us and had absolutely NO connection with the group that DID attack us.... explain how that is the ONLY and BEST way to proceed in the war on terror.

From my perspective, staying in Iraq is like the drunk who lost his wallet in the gutter around the middle of the block but looked for it at the corner under the streetlamp because the light was better.

 

[maineman]

The Dems are good at cutting and running only; they are not good at coming up with solutions to terrorism. Bill Clinton just avoided the problem and left it for his successor to deal with. If they get back in the White House in 2008, the WOT will be a continuation of what we had when Clinton occupied the White House: more killing of Americans abroad, more destruction of American property, and more attacks on American soil. You can count on it. It's money in the bank.

this sort of response sheds much more heat than light.... Democrats will get the white house in '08 primarily because the republican party has proven itself to be totally inept at fighting the war on terror, and seems to prove themselves only good at making more enemies, not less... that message came through loud and clear in November, and now, with the republicans in the senate refusing to even debate the strategy in place, it seems as if you all are content to rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic.

 

[manu1959]

this sort of response sheds much more heat than light.... Democrats will get the white house in '08 primarily because the republican party has proven itself to be totally inept at fighting the war on terror, and seems to prove themselves only good at making more enemies, not less... that message came through loud and clear in November, and now, with the republicans in the senate refusing to even debate the strategy in place, it seems as if you all are content to rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic.

i look forword to the dems fix all the woes of the world in 08....i belive that their posistion is that everything bush has done is exactly wrong....so i expect we will.....

withdraw our troops from iraq and afganistan and start negotiating with them
raise taxes
stop negotiating with iran and korea and attack them

 

[glockmail]

well....oh fount of pointless sarcasm, let me see if I can pull a few off the top of my head:

[1]we could really lean on Israel to reach a permanent peaceful solution with the palestinians, taking away one of the major irritants that fuel the rage of Islamic extremists.

[2]We could really lean on Pakistan to allow us to conduct search and destroy missions against AQ targets in Western Pakistan. We could significantly ramp up satellite and photo-recon of that area.

[3]We could really lean on Saudi Arabia to stop the funding from their country to madrassas throughout the region preaching hate against America.

just a few things, diplomatic and military, that would be infinitely more productive than continuing to dig the hole we find ourselves in in Iraq.

....

[4]now... in reply, perhaps you would like to explain to me how attacking, conquering, and continuing to occupy a secular baathist regime in a country that had absolutely nothing to do with attacking us and had absolutely NO connection with the group that DID attack us.... explain how that is the ONLY and BEST way to proceed in the war on terror.

From my perspective, staying in Iraq is like the drunk who lost his wallet in the gutter around the middle of the block but looked for it at the corner under the streetlamp because the light was better.

1. Dumb idea: tried numerous times and has never worked. The only way to appease the Palis is to for all Jews disappear. Is that what you are suggesting? Besides, the Arabs don’t give a damn about the palis anyway, unless its to use them for an excuse to attack Israel. Also, the major irritant to fuel the Islamic extremists is your freedom. As you willing to compromise on that?
2. Pakis are our allies and are doing just find containing problems within in their sovereign nation. If they want our help they should ask. Also, why is it you want the US to leave the Iraqis alone and not the Pakis?
3. The Saudi royals have a very delicate balancing act to appear Islamic while trading freely with the West. We have a common interest: oil, and the trade of which does not make the Islamist radical happy. The US in turn has a delicate balancing act to put pressure on the Saudis. Obviously we’re doing s good job now, as evidence of the current low oil prices and happy Saudi Princes.
4. The premise of your argument is flawed. Saddam supported bin Laden and many terrorist plots against the US. He attempted to assassinate an American President. He used chemical weapons against innocent civilians. He attacked our allies. He had the best trained, most well financed army aligned against our interests. And he had the biggest mouth of the bunch of them. When you are in a fight against several guys you go after the biggest and baddest first, as his buddies will then think twice about taking a swing at you. Obviously this simple dictum has proven correct.

 

[theHawk]

we could really lean on Israel to reach a permanent peaceful solution with the palestinians, taking away one of the major irritants that fuel the rage of Islamic extremists.

We could really lean on Pakistan to allow us to conduct search and destroy missions against AQ targets in Western Pakistan. We could significantly ramp up satellite and photo-recon of that area.

We could really lean on Saudi Arabia to stop the funding from their country to madrassas throughout the region preaching hate against America.

Easier said than done. Was it not Billy Bob President who had both Palestian and Israel on the White House Lawn signing a peace deal? What happened with that?
Of course all of these things are being done already. But when you say we should really lean on them, wow....why didn't President Bush think of that...

 

[Annie]

discussing the wisdom of this administration's foreign policy is NOT undermining the troops.

Yea, it is. It's NOT treason, but it is undermining the troops. It makes clear that the leadership of the Congress, agreed to send them for no purpose. That their injuries and deaths were not only in vain, but were given little forethought by those in power. So it undermines not only the troops, but our entire system of government.

Here is the deal: even if the congress voted to stop all funding for the Iraq war, that vote would not "undermine the troops" in any way. It might stop their current mission, but rest assured, none of them would need their folks to send them bus fare to get home from Iraq...none of them would run out of ammunition while still in the killing zone...none of them would go hungry while still in Iraq.

Agreed that the troops would have what they need.

The only thing that is "undermined" by discussions about the war in Iraq is this administration's continued inept prosecution of this stupid war.

While I'll agree somewhat about the prosecution thus far of the war, I won't agree with it being 'stupid' or that it's the only thing that would be undermined. See above.

Calling those who disagree with the administration TRAITORS has a very Nazi-esque feel to it.

I don't agree with Nazi-esque but agree it's a dumb thing to say.

“Why of course the people don’t want war. Why should some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally, the common people don’t want war: neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But after all it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship…Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger.”
Hermann Goering

So it's just the 'dumb rubes' that sign up? Hardly, but how very jon cary of you. How many Phd's?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/04/AR2007020401196.html

You might wish to take a look at the 'low lifes' serving our country and others serving in Iraq:

http://www.indcjournal.com/archives/002940.php

http://www.mudvillegazette.com/archives/007733.html

http://michaelyon.blogspot.com/2005/08/gates-of-fire.html

I know you've put in your time, that's why I don't understand how you can act like only the idiots volunteer or that those that sign up don't mean to 'be used in war'?

 

[maineman]

1. Dumb idea: tried numerous times and has never worked. The only way to appease the Palis is to for all Jews disappear. Is that what you are suggesting? Besides, the Arabs don’t give a damn about the palis anyway, unless its to use them for an excuse to attack Israel. Also, the major irritant to fuel the Islamic extremists is your freedom. As you willing to compromise on that?
wrong.... Israel has NEVER been leaned on by DC...we have NEVER done anything but wag our fingers at them and wink.... and the bullshit about MY freedoms irritating Islamic extremists is laughable. Islamic extremism could give a hit less aobut infidels living in norht america... not even on their radar screen
2. Pakis are our allies and are doing just find containing problems within in their sovereign nation. If they want our help they should ask. Also, why is it you want the US to leave the Iraqis alone and not the Pakis? there is a difference between sending special forces units into the hills of western pakistan to hunt Al Qaeda and sending 150K troops into a country to conquer and occupy it. They have made a pact with AQ and with the warlords and with allies like THAT, who needs enemies?
3. The Saudi royals have a very delicate balancing act to appear Islamic while trading freely with the West. We have a common interest: oil, and the trade of which does not make the Islamist radical happy. The US in turn has a delicate balancing act to put pressure on the Saudis. Obviously we’re doing s good job now, as evidence of the current low oil prices and happy Saudi Princes. so low oil prices are enough for you to look the other way while they fund the very people who fly planes into our buildings? How profoundly patriotic of you.
4. The premise of your argument is flawed. Saddam supported bin Laden and many terrorist plots against the US. He attempted to assassinate an American President. He used chemical weapons against innocent civilians. He attacked our allies. He had the best trained, most well financed army aligned against our interests. And he had the biggest mouth of the bunch of them. When you are in a fight against several guys you go after the biggest and baddest first, as his buddies will then think twice about taking a swing at you. Obviously this simple dictum has proven correct. Saddam did NOT suport bin Laden... it would have been suicidal to do so... are you even vaguely aware of the PRIMARY vision of Al Qaeda and radical wahabbism? Saddam was NOT a threat to us - Colin Powell said that very thing six months before 9/11. This war has made us LESS safe.... for you to think it was the best way to deal with radical islam is profoundly foolish. He was a secular baathist who had as much to fear from radical islam as we did

 

[glockmail]

1......[/b]

Learn to use the quote button, otherwise you've plagiarized. Once you’ve learned to do that you can edit your post accordingly and I’ll respond.

 

[Annie]

Learn to use the quote button, otherwise you've plagiarized. Once you’ve learned to do that you can edit your post accordingly and I’ll respond.

There is NO SUCH RULE. He made it very clear what is yours and his.

 

[maineman]

Yea, it is. It's NOT treason, but it is undermining the troops. It makes clear that the leadership of the Congress, agreed to send them for no purpose. That their injuries and deaths were not only in vain, but were given little forethought by those in power. So it undermines not only the troops, but our entire system of government.

So...if the president and the congress make a mistake in some conflict in the future... and we realize it.... are we all to remain silent and to continue to pour bodies into a venture we KNOW to be misguided ad infinitum just so we make sure that the bodies we have already poured into the gaping pit of error didn't die in vain? We just keep silent and send men to die.... for how long? And let me tell you from experience... I went and did what the suits in DC told me to do until they told me to come home. period. sometimes, what I was doing made all the sense in the world, and sometimes it seemed really lame...but that didn't change the fact that it was my job and I LOVED doing my job.... and I would do it wherever and for whatever purpose I was sent to do it. period.

So it's just the 'dumb rubes' that sign up? Hardly, but how very jon cary of you. How many Phd's? You might wish to take a look at the 'low lifes' serving our country and others serving in Iraq. I know you've put in your time, that's why I don't understand how you can act like only the idiots volunteer or that those that sign up don't mean to 'be used in war'?

No...you missed my point... I am in no way suggesting thaty only low lifes or rubes join up....I bolded this part of the quote for a reason: "All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger" THAT is how those of us who oppose this war are marginalized within our own country and called "treasonous" and "traitors" (as evidenced above) and that is how we are used to whip up the country into the fervor where everyone who isn't paying rapt attention can easily get caught up in the frenzy. I know many good men and women in Maine who serve in Iraq.... none of them are lowlifes or rubes.... and I have no problem asking men and women to die for this country...I spent a long time being perfectly willing to do exactly that myself. It breaks my heart when I sincerely believe that this war does NOTHING to advance our cause against Islamic extremism and only serves to make us fewer, and poorer, and more divided, and more despised, and much less safe.

 

[maineman]

Learn to use the quote button, otherwise you've plagiarized. Once you’ve learned to do that you can edit your post accordingly and I’ll respond.

don't hold your breath sweetie.

 

[Annie]

So...if the president and the congress make a mistake in some conflict in the future... and we realize it.... are we all to remain silent and to continue to pour bodies into a venture we KNOW to be misguided ad infinitum just so we make sure that the bodies we have already poured into the gaping pit of error didn't die in vain? We just keep silent and send men to die.... for how long? And let me tell you from experience... I went and did what the suits in DC told me to do until they told me to come home. period. sometimes, what I was doing made all the sense in the world, and sometimes it seemed really lame...but that didn't change the fact that it was my job and I LOVED doing my job.... and I would do it wherever and for whatever purpose I was sent to do it. period.

I am not saying that anyone should be remaining, 'silent', not Congress, not 'the people.' I am saying that after authorizing the action, Congress should NOT fool around with Parliamentary type 'no confidence' actions. NOW, if they want to try for a 'cut the funding,' because they truly believe it's the wrong action, that is within their purview. As for 'the people' they can carry on the marches, pro and anti, they can write whatever their ability wishes. They can write letters to their representatives and make phone calls. They can bend Aunt Tilly's ear on how she's got it all wrong.

No...you missed my point... I am in no way suggesting thaty only low lifes or rubes join up....I bolded this part of the quote for a reason: "All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger" THAT is how those of us who oppose this war are marginalized within our own country and called "treasonous" and "traitors" (as evidenced above) and that is how we are used to whip up the country into the fervor where everyone who isn't paying rapt attention can easily get caught up in the frenzy.

Ah, but the more likely result of those uninformed is to buy into the messages of the MSM that back the 'resolutions side.' You wish to argue that?

I know many good men and women in Maine who serve in Iraq.... none of them are lowlifes or rubes.... and I have no problem asking men and women to die for this country...I spent a long time being perfectly willing to do exactly that myself. It breaks my heart when I sincerely believe that this war does NOTHING to advance our cause against Islamic extremism and only serves to make us fewer, and poorer, and more divided, and more despised, and much less safe.

I can understand and respect your feelings, some of that I share myself, though as I've discussed with you before, I still believe that the mission of a free Iraq, (not necessary that it be democratic), is in our interests, nay the world's interest to prevent larger war. The prosecution of the war has been wrong, though I admit that other than the forcing of democracy I didn't recognize early on how wrong. I hope and pray that this new strategy will work, I wouldn't have minded more troops than 21+k.

 

[maineman]

Insofar as foreign policy is and will always be intertwined with politics to some degree.... this reolution DOES serve a purpose. The republicans have smartly created this perception that cutting off funding does, in fact, make the troops go without ammo or food or a way home.... that perception IS reality in the minds of many voters and, regardless of your antipathy towards the MSM, they have done little to nothing to dissuade America against that false perception. The resolution helps put more voice behind the will of the people. If republicans in congress and in the executive branch begin to get the idea that this war - which is clearly not going well AT ALL - may very well set back their party and everything they have worked for for a dozen years, it will certainly get some of them thinking...it already has....Snowe, Collins, Warner, Specter, Hagel.... all republican senators beginning to abandon the president on this war.... In Maine, Collins faces a strong opponent in '08 in the form of Tom Allen, the enormously popular, moderate democratic first district congressman....you KNOW that the war will be a huge part of the campaign.... this resolution can have the effect of forcing republicans to think about their next elections just like the use of force authorization forced some democrats in 03 to wimp out.

 

[Annie]

Wow, your writing style suddenly changes? So many ideas in one paragraph. Sheesh. Trying to give me a brain hemmorage?

Insofar as foreign policy is and will always be intertwined with politics to some degree.... this reolution DOES serve a purpose. The republicans have smartly created this perception that cutting off funding does, in fact, make the troops go without ammo or food or a way home.... that perception IS reality in the minds of many voters and, regardless of your antipathy towards the MSM, they have done little to nothing to dissuade America against that false perception.

I fail to see whee the Republicans built that picture or accept the idea that people understand such. I think you give way more credit to 'the people' even paying attention. I am as discouraged with our electorate as I am in awe of our military. The people could give two figs. They want to watch television, buy their cars and Coach purses. While I would never want a draft unless absolutely necessary, the distancing of the people from the process does give me pause.

The resolution helps put more voice behind the will of the people. If republicans in congress and in the executive branch begin to get the idea that this war - which is clearly not going well AT ALL - may very well set back their party and everything they have worked for for a dozen years, it will certainly get some of them thinking...it already has....Snowe, Collins, Warner, Specter, Hagel.... all republican senators beginning to abandon the president on this war.... In Maine, Collins faces a strong opponent in '08 in the form of Tom Allen, the enormously popular, moderate democratic first district congressman....you KNOW that the war will be a huge part of the campaign.... this resolution can have the effect of forcing republicans to think about their next elections just like the use of force authorization forced some democrats in 03 to wimp out.

Maybe I'm mischaracterising what you are saying here? From what I get, you are hoping that politics trumps success?

 

[glockmail]

1. Dumb idea: tried numerous times and has never worked. The only way to appease the Palis is to for all Jews disappear. Is that what you are suggesting? Besides, the Arabs don’t give a damn about the palis anyway, unless its to use them for an excuse to attack Israel. Also, the major irritant to fuel the Islamic extremists is your freedom. As you willing to compromise on that?
wrong.... Israel has NEVER been leaned on by DC...we have NEVER done anything but wag our fingers at them and wink.... and the bullshit about MY freedoms irritating Islamic extremists is laughable. Islamic extremism could give a hit less aobut infidels living in norht america... not even on their radar screen
2. Pakis are our allies and are doing just find containing problems within in their sovereign nation. If they want our help they should ask. Also, why is it you want the US to leave the Iraqis alone and not the Pakis? there is a difference between sending special forces units into the hills of western pakistan to hunt Al Qaeda and sending 150K troops into a country to conquer and occupy it. They have made a pact with AQ and with the warlords and with allies like THAT, who needs enemies?
3. The Saudi royals have a very delicate balancing act to appear Islamic while trading freely with the West. We have a common interest: oil, and the trade of which does not make the Islamist radical happy. The US in turn has a delicate balancing act to put pressure on the Saudis. Obviously we’re doing s good job now, as evidence of the current low oil prices and happy Saudi Princes. so low oil prices are enough for you to look the other way while they fund the very people who fly planes into our buildings? How profoundly patriotic of you.
4. The premise of your argument is flawed. Saddam supported bin Laden and many terrorist plots against the US. He attempted to assassinate an American President. He used chemical weapons against innocent civilians. He attacked our allies. He had the best trained, most well financed army aligned against our interests. And he had the biggest mouth of the bunch of them. When you are in a fight against several guys you go after the biggest and baddest first, as his buddies will then think twice about taking a swing at you. Obviously this simple dictum has proven correct. Saddam did NOT suport bin Laden... it would have been suicidal to do so... are you even vaguely aware of the PRIMARY vision of Al Qaeda and radical wahabbism? Saddam was NOT a threat to us - Colin Powell said that very thing six months before 9/11. This war has made us LESS safe.... for you to think it was the best way to deal with radical islam is profoundly foolish. He was a secular baathist who had as much to fear from radical islam as we did

1.

Vice President Al Gore suggested Tuesday that George W. Bush's father led an administration that tried ''to bully Israel,'' commenting one day after his Republican rival accused the Clinton administration of being heavy-handed with the Mideast ally….

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/e1862.htm You have forgotten already the death threats against Salmon Rushdie, cartoonists and the Pope? Freedom of speech is laughable to you?
2. There is a difference in tactics, demanded by the realities of the theater. Is that a problem for you?
3. Do you have evidence that the Saudi royals were aware of the 9/11 plot? If so I’d like to learn more.
4.

OSAMA BIN LADEN and Saddam Hussein had an operational relationship from the early 1990s to 2003 that involved training in explosives and weapons of mass destruction, logistical support for terrorist attacks, al Qaeda training camps and safe haven in Iraq, and Iraqi financial support for al Qaeda--perhaps even for Mohamed Atta--according to a top secret U.S. government memorandum obtained by THE WEEKLY STANDARD.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/378fmxyz.asp

 

[glockmail]

There is NO SUCH RULE. He made it very clear what is yours and his.

Technically it is. Where is my name attributed in his post? If its not against your rules it should be. Either way it's bad form and makes reading it and especially responding to it tedious.

 

[glockmail]

don't hold your breath sweetie.

Breathing full and deep, babe.

 

[Annie]

Technically it is. Where is my name attributed in his post? If its not against your rules it should be. Either way it's bad form and makes reading it and especially responding to it tedious.

I'll not disagree about form or making it difficult reading, but it's not a RULE, technically or any other ways.

 

[glockmail]

I'll not disagree about form or making it difficult reading, but it's not a RULE, technically or any other ways.

Awful picky lately. Testosterone problems again?

 

[Annie]

Awful picky lately. Testosterone problems again?

I don't think I could have that problem, you?