Proof that Bush backers don't know the enemy from a hole in the ground

[manu1959]

I think nothing of the sort. I think that we should have responded in some assertive way to the slaughter of our marines.... just like I think we should have responded in some assertive way to 9/11. For that reason, I was totally behind president bush when he invaded afghanistan as a result.

I merely point out that republicans want to make a big deal about Carter's failed rescue attempt and Clinton's response to Somalia or the embassy bombings or the USS Cole and try to suggest that it was THOSE events that gave islamic extremists the idea that we did not have the stomach for a fight, when Reagan had sent them that message loud and clear a quarter of a century ago, but yet republicans still hold up that tired old B movie actor as a fucking fearless god.

america proved in vietnam that we did not have the stomach for a fight.....carter reagan clinton only confirmed that we were either inept or uninterested.....

 

[manu1959]

again... then repeat the question, please.

as i said....i am not interested in what you have to say

 

[maineman]

america proved in vietnam that we did not have the stomach for a fight.....carter reagan clinton only confirmed that we were either inept or uninterested.....

but yet you focused on carter..... hmmmmm.

 

[manu1959]

but yet you focused on carter..... hmmmmm.

why do you think that was?......do you think it was an accident?

your response was all i hoped for...

 

[maineman]

why do you think that was?......do you think it was an accident?

your response was all i hoped for...

and sadly, your statement which prompted my response was what I had come to expect... I actually had hoped for much more.

 

[manu1959]

and sadly, your statement which prompted my response was what I had come to expect... I actually had hoped for much more.

so tell me then .... since you seem to believe you have me......

why did i mention carer's fiasco in the desert ....

it seemed the perfect set for you ..... or have you know finally figured it out and wish to retreat?

 

[maineman]

so tell me then .... since you seem to believe you have me......

why did i mention carer's fiasco in the desert ....

it seemed the perfect set for you ..... or have you know finally figured it out and wish to retreat?

what I suggest was your motivation and what you then claim it to be will undoubtedly be two different things. Should I be surprised by that, or should I feel the need to retreat in the face of it?

I would suggest that your mention of Carter was a continuation of your mentioning of Clinton and an attempt to NOT talk about the damage done by the hollywood republican demigod...

and now you will say that is all wrong and explain your real purpose as something else, something more noble entirely.

times like these, I wish they had smilies for yawning.

 

[Larkinn]

america proved in vietnam that we did not have the stomach for a fight.....carter reagan clinton only confirmed that we were either inept or uninterested.....

Didn't have the stomach for a fight.. I didn't know we pulled out of Vietnam as soon as Americans started being shipped home in bags.

 

[manu1959]

Didn't have the stomach for a fight.. I didn't know we pulled out of Vietnam as soon as Americans started being shipped home in bags.

quiting is quiting.....

 

[manu1959]

what I suggest was your motivation and what you then claim it to be will undoubtedly be two different things. Should I be surprised by that, or should I feel the need to retreat in the face of it?

I would suggest that your mention of Carter was a continuation of your mentioning of Clinton and an attempt to NOT talk about the damage done by the hollywood republican demigod...

and now you will say that is all wrong and explain your real purpose as something else, something more noble entirely.

times like these, I wish they had smilies for yawning.

if before we start .... you belive i am a liar .... is there any point in this .....

maybe i should let you argue with yourself....at least then you may win on one or two points....

 

[maineman]

if before we start .... you belive i am a liar .... is there any point in this .....

maybe i should let you argue with yourself....at least then you may win on one or two points....

I do not believe you are a liar.

 

[manu1959]

I do not believe you are a liar.

then i shall tell you....

carter tried and failed in the desert......as did clinton....as did france ....as did england.....as as every army in the history of the world.....

reagan knew that.....he sent russia

pity he is the only one that learned from history

 

[Larkinn]

quiting is quiting.....

No, its not.

Quitting after 2 Americans have died is much much much different than quitting after 50,000 or so Americans have died.

 

[manu1959]

No, its not.

Quitting after 2 Americans have died is much much much different than quitting after 50,000 or so Americans have died.

disagree.....quiting is quiting....

 

[maineman]

then i shall tell you....

carter tried and failed in the desert......as did clinton....as did france ....as did england.....as as every army in the history of the world.....

reagan knew that.....he sent russia

pity he is the only one that learned from history

do I take it from that that you did and continue to vehemently disagree with our efforts in Iraq?

 

[manu1959]

do I take it from that that you did and continue to vehemently disagree with our efforts in Iraq?

invading was unnecessary.....however, now that we are there we should fix this issue and quickly and by that i mean kill everyone with a gun pointed in the wrong direction.....

 

[Annie]

disagree.....quiting is quiting....

Not only is it, but it seems that the democratic party presidential hopefuls are beginning to realize just that, (for lack of a practical alternative). Primary link is to NY Times:

http://www.julescrittenden.com/2007/08/11/surrender-is-as-surrender-does/

Surrender Is As Surrender Does

Surrender enthusiasts may finally be surrendering. Dem candidates say getting out of Iraq may take years:

John Edwards, the former North Carolina senator, would keep troops in the region to intervene in an Iraqi genocide and be prepared for military action if violence spills into other countries. Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York would leave residual forces to fight terrorism and to stabilize the Kurdish region in the north. And Senator Barack Obama of Illinois would leave a military presence of as-yet unspecified size in Iraq to provide security for American personnel, fight terrorism and train Iraqis.​

This think piece from the NYT would appear to be part of the growing campaign to get on the right side of this war and support a Democratic congressional surrender in September. They have finally figured out they can’t pull the rug out from under the troops in the field, particularly when they are winning. Now, they need to make it look like it was their idea. They being the candidates, NYT, etc. There isn’t much time:

These positions and those of some rivals suggest that the Democratic bumper-sticker message of a quick end to the conflict — however much it appeals to primary voters — oversimplifies the problems likely to be inherited by the next commander in chief.​

No kidding! But then there’s this weird sentence:

Antiwar advocates have raised little challenge to such positions by Democrats.​

NYT, meet Cindy Sheehan. Also, these uninhibited old bats. This really is a fascinating article. Let’s keep reading:

...

 

[maineman]

invading was unnecessary.....however, now that we are there we should fix this issue and quickly and by that i mean kill everyone with a gun pointed in the wrong direction.....

and after prioritizing our threats, you think that a half a trillion dollars and 30K dead and wounded Americans is better spent in Iraq than elsewhere?

and further, you feel that once we invade a country of 28 million people - NONE of whom had anything to do with the attacks on our country - conquer it, and occupy it, all with minimal justification and certainly NO justification from the Iraqi's perspective, we should now start killing them en masse?

Ah well..... I wistfully remember a time when America was viewed as the guys wearing the white hats...the good guys.... now you want to make us nothing more than a gang of thugs.

 

[dilloduck]

and after prioritizing our threats, you think that a half a trillion dollars and 30K dead and wounded Americans is better spent in Iraq than elsewhere?

and further, you feel that once we invade a country of 28 million people - NONE of whom had anything to do with the attacks on our country - conquer it, and occupy it, all with minimal justification and certainly NO justification from the Iraqi's perspective, we should now start killing them en masse?

Ah well..... I wistfully remember a time when America was viewed as the guys wearing the white hats...the good guys.... now you want to make us nothing more than a gang of thugs.

When was America viewed as the "guys wearing the white hats"? Was there a campaign at that time to portray Americans as "good guys" or were we really just plain great folks ?

 

[Larkinn]

When was America viewed as the "guys wearing the white hats"? Was there a campaign at that time to portray Americans as "good guys" or were we really just plain great folks ?

I think WWII helped a lot with that vision of white hats, along with the aftermath and the Marshall Plan. Also values have changed...people I think used to want to go to America and so saw it as sort of this shining beacon of hope for themselves as individuals, not for their country. That is still true for some, but I think there is also a perception that people don't want to have to be forced to embrace American culture if they want a decent living. I think also as media has become more globalized the things America used to do secretly, CIA programs and all that, have become more publicized and that influences peoples thoughts as well.