Top-Ten Reasons to Get Out of Iraq. Now!

[maineman]

I see. So even though the Bush admin never said it, but for some reason according to your source, 70% believed it, that makes the admin guilty for something it never said.

I have to wonder WHO exactly was polled, or which mental institution was polled, to get that 70%.

Seems to me, the only medium in existence that is capable of fooling 70% of the people is the MSM.

I will also add that where we had this discussion before, I provided the link to a statement by the Bush administration prior to invading Iraq stating that there was no evidence linking Saddam to 9/11.

so when you don't agree with public opinion polls, then obviously the polling methodology must be flawed and the pollsters all had ulterior motives?

that is a very convenient argument.

And the MSM just reports...you decide.

These weren't speeches by NYT editors.... you can't find many MSM commentators who were hawking the Saddam-9/11 connection.... read the CSM article.

 

[maineman]

You're lucky Bush decide to invade every Arab state at the same time. Can you imagine ?

that sentence is nonsensical. care to edit it?

 

[dilloduck]

that sentence is nonsensical. care to edit it?

done

 

[Gunny]

so when you don't agree with public opinion polls, then obviously the polling methodology must be flawed and the pollsters all had ulterior motives?

that is a very convenient argument.

And the MSM just reports...you decide.

These weren't speeches by NYT editors.... you can't find many MSM commentators who were hawking the Saddam-9/11 connection.... read the CSM article.

C'mon MM ... you know I don't agree with using opinion polls period, and it has nothing to do with whether or not I agree with them. Agree with them or not, opinion polls have at best questionable credibility, IMO.

The MSM manipulates what they report and I was taught for 4 years just how to manipulate the reader, so I would know.

 

[dilloduck]

C'mon MM ... you know I don't agree with using opinion polls period, and it has nothing to do with whether or not I agree with them. Agree with them or not, opinion polls have at best questionable credibility, IMO.

The MSM manipulates what they report and I was taught for 4 years just how to manipulate the reader, so I would know.

I sorta enjoyed it when the peace-niks realized the WOT wasn't going to be over in a week with no casualties. "We shoulda attacked Iran and Saudi Arabia !!! They are the REAL enemies". I wonder why we don't hear that anymore.

 

[Gunny]

I sorta enjoyed it when the peace-niks realized the WOT wasn't going to be over in a week with no casualties. "We shoulda attacked Iran and Suadi Arabia !!! They are the REAL enemies". I wonder why we don't hear that anymore.

My favorite was listening to "Bush didn't finish the job" for 13 years. Something no one will admit to saying now, and even had a few try to deny it was ever said.

 

[dilloduck]

My favorite was listening to "Bush didn't finish the job" for 13 years. Something no one will admit to saying now, and even had a few try to deny it was ever said.

It's gotta be tough trying to call somebody stupid after they "fooled" you. Can you imagine the emotional turmoil that they went through during the early days of the Iraq invasion ? I think for a few brief days there they didn't know who to cheer for.

 

[Gunny]

It's gotta be tough trying to call somebody stupid after they "fooled" you. Can you imagine the emotional turmoil that they went through during the early days of the Iraq invasion ? I think for a few brief days there they didn't know who to cheer for.

They were waiting for an overwhelming short and sweet victory so they could jump on the bandwagon and declare their support for the troops.

 

[dilloduck]

They were waiting for an overwhelming short and sweet victory so they could jump on the bandwagon and declare their support for the troops.

First they would have had to find a way to spin it as a Democrats' idea. Hillary would have been pounding her chest saying "Bill and I said all along this Saddam guy was a bad man"

 

[Ruby]

There are a couple of points.

The Bush admin weaved a good "war on terror" bit that did rope Saddam in with 9/11. Everything was "we live in a different world now AFTER 9/11". We did the whole "axis of evil" and said he was part of our "war on terror" that was started with 9/11. The speeches were crafted to not come out and DIRECTLY say Saddam did it, but everytime we talked of 9/11, Saddam would be the next sentence. We made Saddam the central key to fighting terror in this "after 9/11 world".

It was ALWAYS a jaw-drop to me that so many people FELL FOR IT.

We have found ourselves in a situation where we are the illegal aggressors staging an aggressive war and we dont have a right to be there or doing this. Not a legal one and not a moral one.

I dont see any twisted facts or incorrect facts in what the op said.

 

[maineman]

Gunny...I think you missed my reply as it fell at the last of the first page on this thread.

I disagree. The public square is the appropriate forum to inflame others. Being retired military, I still find it a bit bewildering that you of all people don't get it.

The appropriate forum is voting, addressing your elected representatives whether in person or writing. So to answer your question, the chambers of Congress are the appropriate forums, the front page of the NYT or WP are not.

Why do you need to pass notes or use sign language? Do you need to check with a committee before you decide what you think is right or wrong?

inflaming the hearts of men has been a staple of the American democratic movement since Thomas Paine. Our democracy is all about standing up in the public square and getting people to listen to you.

You would suggest, instead, that we quietly go vote, and then keep our mouths shut until the next election?

And do you not think that our enemies get the congressional record or watch C-SPAN? Did you read the comments from republicans about Clinton's actions in the Balkans?

and read this statement again:

And how, pray tell, would everyone INSIDE this nation ever ascertain that we were or ought to be "a house divided" if public debate on any and all issues surrounding foreign policy are muzzled once troops are in battle? Would you advocate the use of sign language? Would we all silently pass notes to one another?

That was in direct response to your suggestion that debate in the public square of American democracy somehow might be heard by people outside this nation. I ask, if vocal debate in the public square is somehow "off limits" in your orderly fascist fantasy, how are people supposed to ever learn anything about anything that impacts their lives? Are we reduced to sign language and passing notes so that our "enemies" can't hear us practice democracy?

You see.... I am perfectly capable of figuring out what I believe is right or wrong.... and I am so fucking happy I live in a country that was founded on my right to stand up in the public square and speak about it in as loud a voice as I can muster and hope that I attract a crowd and that I change their minds. In fact, that right has been so fucking important to me my whole life that I served my country in a profession whose primary mission was protecting that right for all Americans.

FREEDOM of speech.

Speech is NEVER inappropriate. I am standing on my soap box in the middle of the public square. If you don't like what I am saying, move on....go listen to someone else talking on their soapbox...but don't EVER try to tell me that being a good America requires that I be silent.

 

[Gunny]

Gunny...I think you missed my reply as it fell at the last of the first page on this thread.

When what you call public debate is detrimental to the overall good of the Nation, then it's time to put one's nation above one's personal politics. So far, I have seen no good and much harm come from this so-called "public debate."

If you dont protect the Nation first, and the ideals on which it was formed, you have neither ... and with it goes our freedom of speech.

I doubt we disagree much on the right of freedom of speech itself. Where we disagree is in the regulation of freedom of speech.

 

[Ruby]

When what you call public debate is detrimental to the overall good of the Nation, then it's time to put one's nation above one's personal politics. So far, I have seen no good and much harm come from this so-called "public debate."

If you dont protect the Nation first, and the ideals on which it was formed, you have neither ... and with it goes our freedom of speech.

I doubt we disagree much on the right of freedom of speech itself. Where we disagree is in the regulation of freedom of speech.

Regulating free speech is really just a way to take AWAY free speech.

You seem to advocate stifling free speech that carries an ideology that YOU personally feel is detrimental to the nation, others (like myself) feel its BENEFICIAL to the nation. Trying to regulate such a thing just means stripping away the right. I certainly dont advocate people being silenced that have completely opposing views from me and who propose things I think are VERY detrimental to the nation.....A good example are the racist groups like the KKK. If they want to demonstrate and speak up publically, they have every right to do so. I think their ideals are detrimental and even disgusting. I detest their ideology, but they have a RIGHT to speak up as much as they like.

The true test of a committment to free speech is when you support it even when you HATE everything being said.

 

[Gunny]

Regulating free speech is really just a way to take AWAY free speech.

You seem to advocate stifling free speech that carries an ideology that YOU personally feel is detrimental to the nation, others (like myself) feel its BENEFICIAL to the nation. Trying to regulate such a thing just means stripping away the right. I certainly dont advocate people being silenced that have completely opposing views from me and who propose things I think are VERY detrimental to the nation.....A good example are the racist groups like the KKK. If they want to demonstrate and speak up publically, they have every right to do so. I think their ideals are detrimental and even disgusting. I detest their ideology, but they have a RIGHT to speak up as much as they like.

The true test of a committment to free speech is when you support it even when you HATE everything being said.

Regulating free speech is justa way to keep people who obviously have no common sense from shouting "fire" in a crowded theater.

I have said nothing about taking away anyone's rights. The Constitution does not give you the right to say whatever you want, wherever you want and never has.

If you see that ensuring our enemies know exactly how to divide us and play us against one another as beneficial, then I'd say you need to have your glasses checked.

The true test of freedom of speech, or any right for that matter, is accepting the responsibility that goes with it instead of just using it in any manner you see fit without regard for the consequences of your actions.

 

[Ruby]

Regulating free speech is justa way to keep people who obviously have no common sense from shouting "fire" in a crowded theater.

I have said nothing about taking away anyone's rights. The Constitution does not give you the right to say whatever you want, wherever you want and never has.

If you see that ensuring our enemies know exactly how to divide us and play us against one another as beneficial, then I'd say you need to have your glasses checked.

The true test of freedom of speech, or any right for that matter, is accepting the responsibility that goes with it instead of just using it in any manner you see fit without regard for the consequences of your actions.

While I do agree there are limitations, such as the "fire" example you give, what you are proposing to do is to regulate speech that is about political views and ideology.

It is your view that this aids the enemy, I disagree.

Where is anyone proposing they arent responsible for what they say? I am not sure where you are going with that point.

Just because you claim what people say endangers the nation dosent make it a FACT, it remains just your OPINION.

 

[Gunny]

While I do agree there are limitations, such as the "fire" example you give, what you are proposing to do is to regulate speech that is about political views and ideology.

It is your view that this aids the enemy, I disagree.

Where is anyone proposing they arent responsible for what they say? I am not sure where you are going with that point.

Just because you claim what people say endangers the nation dosent make it a FACT, it remains just your OPINION.

Trying to play more semantics? It doesn't matter what topic you wish to call it, the public good is the public good.

It is nothing but YOUR opinion that the nation is not endangered. It's pretty much fact that providing your enemies with the wherewithall to destroy you "endangers the nation."

And the topic of "liberals and personal accountability" has a life all its own. The short version is, y'all do not hold yourselves accountable for the consequences of your actions as manifested by most of your political ideology.

 

[maineman]

Trying to play more semantics? It doesn't matter what topic you wish to call it, the public good is the public good.

It is nothing but YOUR opinion that the nation is not endangered. It's pretty much fact that providing your enemies with the wherewithall to destroy you "endangers the nation."

it is nothing more than your opinion that speech in the public square provides our enemies the wherewithall to destroy our nation...

and it is MY opinion that an America that stifled speech in the public square would be well on the way to destroying itself.

 

[maineman]

When what you call public debate is detrimental to the overall good of the Nation, then it's time to put one's nation above one's personal politics. So far, I have seen no good and much harm come from this so-called "public debate."

If you dont protect the Nation first, and the ideals on which it was formed, you have neither ... and with it goes our freedom of speech.

I doubt we disagree much on the right of freedom of speech itself. Where we disagree is in the regulation of freedom of speech.

and this determination of "detriment" is left up to ....you, I guess?

and here's a news flash: people's personal politics and the fervency of their belief in those political principles IS the lifeblood of this nation - not something apart from it.

The fact that YOU have seen no good and much harm in public debate is an opinion that I do not share.... and I must say that I pity you for even feeling that way. That is truly sad. What were you protecting all those years, if not the freedoms that make America unique?

 

[ReillyT]

Regulating free speech is justa way to keep people who obviously have no common sense from shouting "fire" in a crowded theater.

I have said nothing about taking away anyone's rights. The Constitution does not give you the right to say whatever you want, wherever you want and never has.

If you see that ensuring our enemies know exactly how to divide us and play us against one another as beneficial, then I'd say you need to have your glasses checked.

The true test of freedom of speech, or any right for that matter, is accepting the responsibility that goes with it instead of just using it in any manner you see fit without regard for the consequences of your actions.

Actually, if one is a strict constructionist, then one would believe that the Constitution does give you the right to say whatever you want, whereever and whenever you like. Of course, the judiciary, being reasonable, has placed some common-sense prohibitions on the exercise of speech by citizens (time/place restrictions, obscenity, solicitation, etc). I don't believe that it has ever been widely accepted (especially in the last century) that the Constitution provides the ability to prohibit content-specific speech, except perhaps with respect to obscenity. Certainly, political speech has always been the most respected and protected form of speech. To hold otherwise would rip the First Amendment of all of its force. If government A has the authority to prohibit speech X because it finds it dangerous, then what prevents government B from prohibiting speech X, Y and Z. Once the power to regulate a certain type of speech is granted, then who has the authority to determine that speech X is dangerous, but speech Y is not. What principled basis can they use to make this determination?

 

[Ruby]

Trying to play more semantics? It doesn't matter what topic you wish to call it, the public good is the public good.

It is nothing but YOUR opinion that the nation is not endangered. It's pretty much fact that providing your enemies with the wherewithall to destroy you "endangers the nation."

And the topic of "liberals and personal accountability" has a life all its own. The short version is, y'all do not hold yourselves accountable for the consequences of your actions as manifested by most of your political ideology.

There arent any semantics here by a long shot. You just want people you dont agree with to be silenced by the law.

Then you just moved onto a partisan "liberals are bad" routine....sorry, thats just plain weak and certainly isnt dealing with the merits of the issue.