NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm sure we all remember Kerry's botched joke, seeming to insinuate that American troops were stupid.

Now many who made fun of Kerry insisted that this wasn't a partisan attack, but that kerry's words demonstrated how he "really felt", and some went so far as to say it reflected the view of his entire party.

But it wasn't simply republican spin. Oh no, they'd say the same about ANYONE who did that. Surely all those right wing folks who condemned Kerry would do the same to one of their own who so insulted the troops.

Except...they didn't. Last night McCain made a similar slip up, stating that the soldiers lives had been "wasted" in Iraq. Today he backtracked saying he meant to say "sacrificied" not wasted.

source (http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/01/mccain/index.html)

So when democrat Kerry, a decorated war hero, makes a slip and seems to insult the troops, we have half a dozen threads here, calling him a coward, a traitor, a democrat elite, showing his true colors, we have pictures of soldiers from Iraq mocking the statement.

Republican McCain, a decorated war here, makes a slip and seems to call the lives of the troops wasted, and we have....nothing.

Where's your outrage republicans? Where's your moral indignation? Where is the fury you so heaped on Kerry? Where is your anger now, when it's one of your own?

Suprise, you're all fucking hypocrites.

Good opening post. Fix 'furry' and you'll have it nailed (There's only the one 'r' in 'fury').

I meant furry...you know....like a rabbit.....

Not buying it huh? Alright...

Of course when a Republican slips, it's a real slip, and not some mistake. Oh no. :rolleyes:

I am exactly as enraged by this as I was by Kerry's.
*Yawn*

Why can't politics just be about the issues, not the rhetoric?

You're really surprised? The wingnuts (on both sides) have remarkable blinders. They see the mistakes of their enemies but are imediately blind to the faults of those they like. Kinda like Ford's sunglasses in HHGTTG.

And I'm willing to bet you buttons to dollars that the resulting thread will prove me right, multiple times.

That's what I'm sayin'

Time warp.

Sure you haven't got your sound bites mixed up? Obama's the one who actually and recently said that the American lives were wasted. The most recent thing Kerry has said about the troops is a lack of education was what led us into Iraq- and people thought he meant the soldiers instead of bush. If anything you should compare McCain to Obama.

Welcome to the world of partisan politics. Don't tell me you're surprised.

And by the way, the Democrats are at least equally guilty of protecting their own, so don't go thinking that it's just us Republicans.

Of course when a Republican slips, it's a real slip, and not some mistake. Oh no. :rolleyes:

It could easily be a mistake. It's still hypocrisy to not point it out and be outraged about it.

I for one have more or less deadened myself to this shit by now. I know who I'm going to vote for on both sides of the party line, and that's all I really care about.

Well, criticizing their own can't happen. Republicans are amazingly virtuous after all.

*ignores Foley & DeLay*

You're really surprised? The wingnuts (on both sides) have remarkable blinders. They see the mistakes of their enemies but are imediately blind to the faults of those they like. Kinda like Ford's sunglasses in HHGTTG.

And I'm willing to bet you buttons to dollars that the resulting thread will prove me right, multiple times.

Zaphod's sunglasses.

Sorry but a wasted life by being killed in Iraq is not the same as being called too stupid to avoid going into the military. A wasted life by being killed can mean that they didn't live up to their potential. Being called too stupid doesn't reflect on their potential. It states that that's all their good for. I see a difference. I can think that my friend killed in Iraq had the rest of his life wasted by the insurgents who blew him up and be greatful for his sacrifice to our country.

Well, criticizing their own can't happen. Republicans are amazingly virtuous after all.

*ignores Foley & DeLay*
Don't hate, DeLay was awesome in ways most politicians can only have wetdreams about.

Sorry but a wasted life by being killed in Iraq is not the same as being called too stupid to avoid going into the military. A wasted life by being killed can mean that they didn't live up to their potential. Being called too stupid doesn't reflect on their potential. It states that that's all their good for. I see a difference. I can think that my friend killed in Iraq had the rest of his life wasted by the insurgents who blew him up and be greatful for his sacrifice to our country.

*Consoles Poagea over the loss of his (her?) friend*

:fluffle:

Zaphod's sunglasses.
Ford wore a pair when getting into the HHGTTG's headquarters in MH.

Well, criticizing their own can't happen. Republicans are amazingly virtuous after all.

Yep :cool:

Don't hate, DeLay was awesome in ways most politicians can only have wetdreams about.

*raises eyebrow*

I can think that my friend killed in Iraq had the rest of his life wasted by the insurgents who blew him up and be greatful for his sacrifice to our country.

Your friend sacrificed his life for a foreign country, not yours. Well, he sacrificed it for part of a country, I suppose. A city, certainly. He sacrificed himself that Baghdad might once again be... erm, that it might ahh...finally be free. Yeah, free. Somewhat free, at any rate. A free city... well, he helped free part of a city, anyway. Hmmm, y'know, maybe it's not actually the city per se so much as the people in the city. Follow? Your friend sacrificed his life so that the citizens of Iraq's capital could be free. Most of them, anyway. Well, some of them really. For the time being.

Your friend sacrificed his one and only life so that some of the people in one part of one city in Iraq could remain free for at least as long as US forces continue to remain in Iraq.

Your friend sacrificed his life for a foreign country, not yours. Well, he sacrificed it for part of a country, I suppose. A city, certainly. He sacrificed himself that Baghdad might once again be... erm, that it might ahh...finally be free. Yeah, free. Somewhat free, at any rate. A free city... well, he helped free part of a city, anyway. Hmmm, y'know, maybe it's not actually the city per se so much as the people in the city. Follow? Your friend sacrificed his life so that the citizens of Iraq's capital could be free. Most of them, anyway. Well, some of them really. For the time being.

Your friend sacrificed his one and only life so that some of the people in one part of one city in Iraq could remain free for at least as long as US forces continue to remain in Iraq.

Hey, let's not mock the sacrifices of the dead.

Your friend sacrificed his life for a foreign country, not yours. Well, he sacrificed it for part of a country, I suppose. A city, certainly. He sacrificed himself that Baghdad might once again be... erm, that it might ahh...finally be free. Yeah, free. Somewhat free, at any rate. A free city... well, he helped free part of a city, anyway. Hmmm, y'know, maybe it's not actually the city per se so much as the people in the city. Follow? Your friend sacrificed his life so that the citizens of Iraq's capital could be free. Most of them, anyway. Well, some of them really. For the time being.

Your friend sacrificed his one and only life so that some of the people in one part of one city in Iraq could remain free for at least as long as US forces continue to remain in Iraq.

That's pretty low, Dobbs.

I'm a traditional Republican/Libertarian and believe in having the right to say what you want and not having to apologize for it no matter how offensive a person may find it. Other people can voice their opinion about not agreeing or liking what a person says but they cannot stop said person from saying future things like that.

I don't care for Kerry or McCain. The majority of Democrats and Republicans in the government right now are equally awful and love taking away basic freedoms.

That's pretty low, Dobbs.

Really?

One pack of animals gnawing at the limbs of another equally stupid pack of animals... :rolleyes:

Really?

Yup (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=484802).

Hey, let's not mock the sacrifices of the dead.

Well the question is what they sacrificed their lives FOR. And what might this be? The freedom of Iraqis? Ha. They have the freedom to die from bombs. To live in hellhole of U.S. creation. What about the fight against terrorists? Ha. More terrorists are created every day from our presence there.

So our soldiers died and what benefit was gained exactly?

Hey, let's not mock the sacrifices of the dead.

there is a sharp difference between mocking the dead, which he did not do, and mocking the reason for which they died, which he was.

Calling Kerry a "war hero" is the height of absurdity.

As for McCain, a real asshole (like Kerry), he won't receive any criticism from Republicans, thanks to his tireless endeavors to fellate Bush no matter how unpopular that might make him.

*raises eyebrow*
They didn't call him "The Hammer" for his wide-set eyes, mon ami. He ran the House like a pro, managed to impeach the President (something that has only happened twice in US History), and still managed to let his peons make enough superficial gestures to appear viable to the electorate.
If Pelosi had even 1/4th the chops that DeLay did, she'd already have had Bush's testicles served to her on a plate.

Well the question is what they sacrificed their lives FOR. And what might this be? The freedom of Iraqis? Ha. They have the freedom to die from bombs. To live in hellhole of U.S. creation. What about the fight against terrorists? Ha. More terrorists are created every day from our presence there.

So our soldiers died and what benefit was gained exactly?

I don't care what your views on the war are or his, but his friend died. Can you not find it in yourself to show even a little respect for the fallen?





Off-subject, but I can't figure out how to get my signature to show up. Anybody know how?

I am outraged. Happy?

Not that I cared what Kerry said.

Calling Kerry a "war hero" is the height of absurdity.

As for McCain, a real asshole (like Kerry), he won't receive any criticism from Republicans, thanks to his tireless endeavors to fellate Bush no matter how unpopular that might make him.

Let's not forget the routine oral he gives to the Christian Right.
Didn't he give a commencement speech at Jerry Fallwel's college?

Senator McCain wasn't saying soldiers were wasting their lives. He said "soldiers's lives are being wasted". It's not like the soldiers want to be in Iraq. But because of missinterpretation of information, and President Bush's complete lack of independence from his advisors, we ended up there. McCain was just stating a painfully obvious fact: the war in Iraq is pointless. Although stopping Saddam Hussein from conquering Kuwait, and toppling an inhumane dictator's regieme was beneficial, we were unprepared for the follow-up. We did not know how to stop the Sunni-Shi'ite conflicts that were boiling under the surface ( ironic that the only thing stopping the religious civil war going on was Mr. Hussein's brutal means of keeping his power ), and we were unprepared to set up a new government. What Kerry said was also missinterpreted; he was just calling President Bush stupid. ( Which is a very common thing to do these days ). So please, stop trying to make a point by cleverly turning words around on people. That goes to Democrats and Republicans. ( I'm neither.)
-CPTC

I'm sure we all remember Kerry's botched joke, seeming to insinuate that American troops were stupid.

Now many who made fun of Kerry insisted that this wasn't a partisan attack, but that kerry's words demonstrated how he "really felt", and some went so far as to say it reflected the view of his entire party.

But it wasn't simply republican spin. Oh no, they'd say the same about ANYONE who did that. Surely all those right wing folks who condemned Kerry would do the same to one of their own who so insulted the troops.

Except...they didn't. Last night McCain made a similar slip up, stating that the soldiers lives had been "wasted" in Iraq. Today he backtracked saying he meant to say "sacrificied" not wasted.

source (http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/01/mccain/index.html)

So when democrat Kerry, a decorated war hero, makes a slip and seems to insult the troops, we have half a dozen threads here, calling him a coward, a traitor, a democrat elite, showing his true colors, we have pictures of soldiers from Iraq mocking the statement.

Republican McCain, a decorated war here, makes a slip and seems to call the lives of the troops wasted, and we have....nothing.

Where's your outrage republicans? Where's your moral indignation? Where is the fury you so heaped on Kerry? Where is your anger now, when it's one of your own?

Suprise, you're all fucking hypocrites.

No shit, Sherlock.

I'm sure we all remember Kerry's botched joke, seeming to insinuate that American troops were stupid.

Now many who made fun of Kerry insisted that this wasn't a partisan attack, but that kerry's words demonstrated how he "really felt", and some went so far as to say it reflected the view of his entire party.

But it wasn't simply republican spin. Oh no, they'd say the same about ANYONE who did that. Surely all those right wing folks who condemned Kerry would do the same to one of their own who so insulted the troops.

Except...they didn't. Last night McCain made a similar slip up, stating that the soldiers lives had been "wasted" in Iraq. Today he backtracked saying he meant to say "sacrificied" not wasted.

source (http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/01/mccain/index.html)

So when democrat Kerry, a decorated war hero, makes a slip and seems to insult the troops, we have half a dozen threads here, calling him a coward, a traitor, a democrat elite, showing his true colors, we have pictures of soldiers from Iraq mocking the statement.

Republican McCain, a decorated war here, makes a slip and seems to call the lives of the troops wasted, and we have....nothing.

Where's your outrage republicans? Where's your moral indignation? Where is the fury you so heaped on Kerry? Where is your anger now, when it's one of your own?

Suprise, you're all fucking hypocrites.

He's a communist traitor.Sos RINO McCain.What is this hypocrisy?

Let's not forget the routine oral he gives to the Christian Right.
Didn't he give a commencement speech at Jerry Fallwel's college?

He did indeed.

I don't care what your views on the war are or his, but his friend died. Can you not find it in yourself to show even a little respect for the fallen?





Off-subject, but I can't figure out how to get my signature to show up. Anybody know how?

I will show sympathy but I can still be pissed off that the man died for nothing. I see nothing wrong with this.


As to your question, go to the "User CP" and then go to "Edit Options". Scroll down a bit and there will be a box to check to "Show signatures".

Guess what so are the dems.
http://www.noagenda.org/democrats/nancy_pelosi/

Sleaze. Corruption. Breaking the law. And no agenda for the American people. The ethical hypocrisy of today's Democrats knows no bounds. While a discredited partisan hack pushes trumped-up charges against Tom DeLay, the Pelosi/Dean Democrats have become a Caucus of Corruption -- name an ethics violation, and they're guilty of it. NoAgenda.org exposes the wrongdoings of more than 70 Democrats who are under an ethical cloud. Learn more about who's doing it and what they're doing.


Hahaha great site. :D It's so getting bookmarked.

Hahaha great site. :D It's so getting bookmarked.

Oh god do I love baseless propaganda and emotionally charged rhetoric.

I will show sympathy but I can still be pissed off that the man died for nothing. I see nothing wrong with this.


As to your question, go to the "User CP" and then go to "Edit Options". Scroll down a bit and there will be a box to check to "Show signatures".

I see a purpose for his death and honor him for it even if you can't (or do you simply refuse to?). *Salutes fallen soldier over the internet*

Oh, and thank you.

Where's your outrage republicans? Where's your moral indignation? Where is the fury you so heaped on Kerry? Where is your anger now, when it's one of your own?

Suprise, you're all fucking hypocrites.

You seem outraged!

Oh god do I love baseless propaganda and emotionally charged rhetoric.
Me too. Like I said earlier, one pack of stupid animals gnawing at the limbs of another pack's animals...

I see a purpose for his death and honor him for it even if you can't (or do you simply refuse to?). *Salutes fallen soldier over the internet*

Oh, and thank you.

I see his death as yet another pointless death in a stupid unjust war. Everyone who dies in Iraq shouldn't have to. You can admire their bravery but at the same time wish they didn't have to show it there.

And you're welcome.

I see his death as yet another pointless death in a stupid unjust war. Everyone who dies in Iraq shouldn't have to. You can admire their bravery but at the same time wish they didn't have to show it there.

And you're welcome.

Of course, we could hand Iraq over to another despotic dictator, but I don't think that will help our stabilization efforts.

I don't like to see our fellow American young men and women killed over there either, but the costs have to be weighed with the benefits and a stable ME is good not only for the US, but for the rest of the world, as well. (So, essentially, all those European nations are upset at us for helping them. :rolleyes: I'll never understand some people...)

(So, essentially, all those European nations are upset at us for helping them. :rolleyes: I'll never understand some people...)
The problem being that getting rid of wasp nests is a GOOD thing, but going about doing so by hitting each nest with a stick to get the wasps rilled up and vengful is a very STUPID thing. We decided to use a stick and get ourselves, and a lot of other people, stung.

Of course, we could hand Iraq over to another despotic dictator, but I don't think that will help our stabilization efforts.

I don't like to see our fellow American young men and women killed over there either, but the costs have to be weighed with the benefits and a stable ME is good not only for the US, but for the rest of the world, as well. (So, essentially, all those European nations are upset at us for helping them. :rolleyes: I'll never understand some people...)

No, those european nations are, rightfully, upset that an administration caused numerous deaths without a prayer in hell about bringing about a stable Iraq.

Well, we're all better off being stung one nest at a time than being stung by all of them at once, methinks.

and what, exactly, was Iraq doing to "sting" us?

The problem being that getting rid of wasp nests is a GOOD thing, but going about doing so by hitting each nest with a stick to get the wasps rilled up and vengful is a very STUPID thing. We decided to use a stick and get ourselves, and a lot of other people, stung.

tactical nukes leave no trees standing.

editn ot that i'm suggesting we should have nuked iraq. just sayin'

The problem being that getting rid of wasp nests is a GOOD thing, but going about doing so by hitting each nest with a stick to get the wasps rilled up and vengful is a very STUPID thing. We decided to use a stick and get ourselves, and a lot of other people, stung.

Well, we're all better off being stung one nest at a time than being stung by all of them at once, methinks.

Of course, we could hand Iraq over to another despotic dictator, but I don't think that will help our stabilization efforts.

I don't like to see our fellow American young men and women killed over there either, but the costs have to be weighed with the benefits and a stable ME is good not only for the US, but for the rest of the world, as well. (So, essentially, all those European nations are upset at us for helping them. :rolleyes: I'll never understand some people...)

Uh-huh, and what Iraqis are experiencing now is SO much better than their time under Saddam. I bet they are really happy that the U.S. came in and made their lives SO much better.

And the U.S. has made its mission to overthrow despots, eh? I mean there are dozens of dictators out there and we are taking them all out. Wait. We aren't are we? No, we have more of a history of installing dictators, we have no right to suddenly claim some moral high ground in this matter.

And it certainly seems to me that the world is no more stable post-invasion. In fact it seems there are even more extremists who get training in Iraq and are pissed at our occupation and take it out on those European powers who should be "thanking" us. It seems more people hate us than ever before doesn't it?

Uh-huh, and what Iraqis are experiencing now is SO much better than their time under Saddam. I bet they are really happy that the U.S. came in and made their lives SO much better.

Matter of fact, lots of them are happy about us being there.

And the U.S. has made its mission to overthrow despots, eh? I mean there are dozens of dictators out there and we are taking them all out. Wait. We aren't are we? No, we have more of a history of installing dictators, we have no right to suddenly claim some moral high ground in this matter.

No, but that doesn't mean we can't dispose of them at our discretion

And it certainly seems to me that the world is no more stable post-invasion. In fact it seems there are even more extremists who get training in Iraq and are pissed at our occupation and take it out on those European powers who should be "thanking" us. It seems more people hate us than ever before doesn't it?

Most of the violence in Iraq now is Shi'ite vs. Sunni with relatively little insurgent vs. American servicemen.

Matter of fact, lots of them are happy about us being there.

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/pdf/sep06/Iraq_Sep06_rpt.pdf

As of the end of Sept 2006. Unless you think opinion has radically shifted it seems Iraqis don't really see the U.S. as a positive factor in Iraq. Page 6, 7 and 10 are especially telling.

No, but that doesn't mean we can't dispose of them at our discretion

But we can install and support them when they support our interests as well.

Most of the violence in Iraq now is Shi'ite vs. Sunni with relatively little insurgent vs. American servicemen.

Sure, Iraqis are spending more time killing each other than killing U.S. troops. So they need to make their own decisions on how they want their country to move forward, us being there just makes us and other Iraqis targets for extremists.

Well, we're all better off being stung one nest at a time than being stung by all of them at once, methinks.
Far better to use smarter methods and not get stung at all, espcially as what we're doing is making damned sure all the wasps are after us.

tactical nukes leave no trees standing.

editn ot that i'm suggesting we should have nuked iraq. just sayin'
Ah yes, because it's far better to burn down your house trying to get rid of wasps.

Ah yes, because it's far better to burn down your house trying to get rid of wasps.
Heh, at least you can claim insurance then. :p

Ah yes, because it's far better to burn down your house trying to get rid of wasps.

Well in the case of Iraq, we wouldn't be burning down OUR house but THEIR house. So maybe we would feel less restraint when it comes to any, ah, overreactions. ;)

and what, exactly, was Iraq doing to "sting" us?

Killing people? That's quite a sting

Killing people? That's quite a sting

Iraq stung us somehow that required us to go in and clean out the wasp's nest? :confused:

The actual effect of the Iraq war/occupation/desert storm 2.0 is that it showed Iran that it needed a nuclear deterrant.

This was further shown when a group lumped under the 'axis of terror', North Korea, detonated a nuclear device. What was the response? Minor restrictions on the amount of toys imported and an almost instant deflating of the U.S political aggression toward it.

This gave further verification that a country with nuclear weapon capabilities do not get attacked and in fact gain a large amount of clout (such as the increased sweeteners for N.K to give up its weapons).

The rhetoric and actions (such as funding M.E.K) made by the U.S also helped to push those in power towards a more conservative sideline and helped to push the reformist clerics away from their goal, setting their cause back years.

I wonder what will happen when Castro dies and the U.S decides to 'liberate' Cuba?

And the U.S. has made its mission to overthrow despots, eh? I mean there are dozens of dictators out there and we are taking them all out. Wait. We aren't are we? No, we have more of a history of installing dictators, we have no right to suddenly claim some moral high ground in this matter.


. . .This is hardly a good reason to be opposed to the war. In point of fact, it's a good reason to be for the war: what better way to fix our past indiscretions than by using our own blood to fight for the freedom of others and rectify past mistakes?

Don't get me wrong, I'm hardly in favor of continuing to let thousands die in our continuing Iraqi victory, but saying that in the past, we've supported dictators is not a very good reason to continue doing so. It's consistency that comes in spite of doing what is right; consistency is hardly a right in and of itself.

. . .This is hardly a good reason to be opposed to the war. In point of fact, it's a good reason to be for the war: what better way to fix our past indiscretions than by using our own blood to fight for the freedom of others and rectify past mistakes?

Don't get me wrong, I'm hardly in favor of continuing to let thousands die in our continuing Iraqi victory, but saying that in the past, we've supported dictators is not a very good reason to continue doing so. It's consistency that comes in spite of doing what is right; consistency is hardly a right in and of itself.

Well the best we could say is that we chose this particular dictator ruled country for... reasons that had nothing to do with the fact that he was a dictator but hey, a side benefit! Anyway, there are rulers I'd say could be considered dictators who we are calling "friends" because they are supposed allies with our war on terror. I suppose we have to make sacrifices on who we work with. So you are right. Consistency is hard to achieve...

Sorry but a wasted life by being killed in Iraq is not the same as being called too stupid to avoid going into the military. A wasted life by being killed can mean that they didn't live up to their potential. Being called too stupid doesn't reflect on their potential. It states that that's all their good for. I see a difference. I can think that my friend killed in Iraq had the rest of his life wasted by the insurgents who blew him up and be greatful for his sacrifice to our country.

Well said.

I have a solution: let's hate both McCain and Kerry. Everyone's happy that way.

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/pdf/sep06/Iraq_Sep06_rpt.pdf

As of the end of Sept 2006. Unless you think opinion has radically shifted it seems Iraqis don't really see the U.S. as a positive factor in Iraq. Page 6, 7 and 10 are especially telling.

I am unwilling to take that report as gospel, while I am sure many do not see a need for us there, I worked with a lot of Iraqis while I was stationed there Sunni, Shia, and Kurds. While all of them may not have loved us the majority of those I worked with or even interacted seemed to be very grateful and I was thanked by a great many of them for being there and for helping them.

The question is who paid for that report and what view did the people paying for it take. Usually most studies lean towards the view of those who are paying for it.

. . .This is hardly a good reason to be opposed to the war.

Yes, it is.

It's not a matter of consistency; it's simply that when the US declares that its mission is to overthrow despots and support democracy, it's not exactly trustworthy.

. . .This is hardly a good reason to be opposed to the war.

one would think that it would be the job of the proponents of war, war being such a terrible thing, to provide very good reasons to be in favor of it, not the job of the opposition to give reasons to oppose it.

We should need VERY good reasons to go to war, not very good reasons not to.

I'm sure we all remember Kerry's botched joke, seeming to insinuate that American troops were stupid.

Now many who made fun of Kerry insisted that this wasn't a partisan attack, but that kerry's words demonstrated how he "really felt", and some went so far as to say it reflected the view of his entire party.

But it wasn't simply republican spin. Oh no, they'd say the same about ANYONE who did that. Surely all those right wing folks who condemned Kerry would do the same to one of their own who so insulted the troops.

Except...they didn't. Last night McCain made a similar slip up, stating that the soldiers lives had been "wasted" in Iraq. Today he backtracked saying he meant to say "sacrificied" not wasted.

source (http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/01/mccain/index.html)

So when democrat Kerry, a decorated war hero, makes a slip and seems to insult the troops, we have half a dozen threads here, calling him a coward, a traitor, a democrat elite, showing his true colors, we have pictures of soldiers from Iraq mocking the statement.

Republican McCain, a decorated war here, makes a slip and seems to call the lives of the troops wasted, and we have....nothing.

Where's your outrage republicans? Where's your moral indignation? Where is the fury you so heaped on Kerry? Where is your anger now, when it's one of your own?

Suprise, you're all fucking hypocrites.
The better comparison is between Obamasama and McClown. Both of them used the word wasted to describe the loss of life in Iraq. Both claim to mean sacrifice, but do they really? Waste and sacrifice are opposites. To sacrifice is to give up something of value to oneself for the sake of something more valuable that transcends the self. To waste is to give up something of value for the sake of something of lesser or no value. A sacrifice is an unselfish act; a waste is an act of misdirected selfishness.

From the Chicago Sun-Times:

During his first press conference as a presidential candidate at Iowa State University, Obama, discussing his opposition to the Iraq war, said the war "should have never been authorized, and should have never been waged, and on which we've now spent $400 billion, and have seen over 3,000 lives of the bravest young Americans wasted.''

Here is how he explained it:

"What I meant to say was those sacrifices have not been honored by the same attention to strategy, diplomacy and honesty on the part of civilian leadership that would give them a clear mission."

Obama's initial statement was crystal clear; his "explanation" was a cloud of smoke. Obviously he meant what he said in the first place.

Now McCain may have exhibited a reckless streak that makes one think twice about his becoming President. But here is the difference between the two: McCain's statement tells us something worrying about his personal character; Obama's tells us something terrifying about his ideological character.

Where's your outrage republicans? Where's your moral indignation? Where is the fury you so heaped on Kerry? Where is your anger now, when it's one of your own?

Suprise, you're all fucking hypocrites.

It's pretty clear you don't read too many conservative blogs... :rolleyes:

Why should there be any outrage? 3,164 US soldiers has died for nothing in Iraq - their lives were indeed wasted.

Here's what I wrote earlier today on this subject at another site:
Calling their [the soldiers] lives wasted in no way denigrates the sacrifice they made, and to argue that it does is simple dishonesty. But let's look at what the men actually said, because their construction of the sentences matters.

Obama's statement, generally shortened to some version of "soldiers deaths = wasted lives" was actually this: "we've seen over three thousand lives... wasted." The question, then, is by whom, and the obvious answer is the Bush administration. Looking at the entire quote as opposed to the paraphrase makes it clearer what Obama was saying, though the passive voice doesn't help matters. At any rate, what's obvious is that Obama was not using the equation mentioned above.

And neither was McCain, though he didn't make the same point that Obama did. McCain said "We've wasted a lot of our most precious treasure, which is American lives." No passive construction there, but again, the soldiers' sacrifices are not being called wasted--their lives have been wasted in that sentence, and what's more, McCain says that he bears some of the responsibility for that, as he's been a supporter of this fiasco from the beginning. He's right, too--those lives have been wasted, because they were sacrificed needlessly, and for a goal which, ill-defined as it was, will never be reached.

Let's not forget the routine oral he gives to the Christian Right.
Didn't he give a commencement speech at Jerry Fallwel's college?

Yeah. He spoke to one of the most liberal colleges in the US the next day or so after the Falwell engagement. You’re right, point proved.

Also, “Quasitopia”
Senator McCain wasn't saying soldiers were wasting their lives. He said "soldiers's lives are being wasted". It's not like the soldiers want to be in Iraq. But because of missinterpretation of information, and President Bush's complete lack of independence from his advisors, we ended up there. McCain was just stating a painfully obvious fact: the war in Iraq is pointless. Although stopping Saddam Hussein from conquering Kuwait, and toppling an inhumane dictator's regieme was beneficial, we were unprepared for the follow-up. We did not know how to stop the Sunni-Shi'ite conflicts that were boiling under the surface ( ironic that the only thing stopping the religious civil war going on was Mr. Hussein's brutal means of keeping his power ), and we were unprepared to set up a new government. What Kerry said was also missinterpreted; he was just calling President Bush stupid.

Good post.

Also, also “Soleichunn”
The actual effect of the Iraq war/occupation/desert storm 2.0 is that it showed Iran that it needed a nuclear deterrant.

This was further shown when a group lumped under the 'axis of terror', North Korea, detonated a nuclear device. What was the response? Minor restrictions on the amount of toys imported and an almost instant deflating of the U.S political aggression toward it.

This gave further verification that a country with nuclear weapon capabilities do not get attacked and in fact gain a large amount of clout (such as the increased sweeteners for N.K to give up its weapons).

The rhetoric and actions (such as funding M.E.K) made by the U.S also helped to push those in power towards a more conservative sideline and helped to push the reformist clerics away from their goal, setting their cause back years.

Scary. I wish that wasn’t the reality at the moment, but I would agree that we pushed an animal towards a cliff. Next we’ll be surprised when the animal doesn’t like to be pushed.

One fundamental difference. Kerry was insulting the troops. McCain wasn't. McCain was disagreeing with the strategy and execution of the war, hence his belief in the wasted lives.

You may call the Marines who were killed on Tarawa in 1943 (a questionable objective at best) wasted. That doesn't mean you think they were stupid.

You're really surprised? The wingnuts (on both sides) have remarkable blinders. They see the mistakes of their enemies but are imediately blind to the faults of those they like. Kinda like Ford's sunglasses in HHGTTG.

And I'm willing to bet you buttons to dollars that the resulting thread will prove me right, multiple times.

Ah, the Joo-Janta 2000 Peril Sensitive Sunglasses. Classic.

Suprise, you're all fucking hypocrites.

Ayup.
Strangely enough, nary a one of them may ever see with the consistency and integrity required to dignify that fact. :(

I have a solution: let's hate both McCain and Kerry. Everyone's happy that way.

Works for me.

McCain is a war hero, Kerry is a puzzy. Simple math.

Sorry but a wasted life by being killed in Iraq is not the same as being called too stupid to avoid going into the military. A wasted life by being killed can mean that they didn't live up to their potential. Being called too stupid doesn't reflect on their potential. It states that that's all their good for. I see a difference. I can think that my friend killed in Iraq had the rest of his life wasted by the insurgents who blew him up and be greatful for his sacrifice to our country.

See that's the thing. He said their lives were wasted, which is NOT what you tell your troops if you want them to keep fighting for you and win the war. Of course, that probably won't happen, but I guess seeing as though the war is a republican agenda, hearing that come from a republican would indeed be disheartening and contrary to republican interests.

As for what Kerry said, while it sounded foolish, the fact of the matter is that the military provides much more benefits that most jobs do if you don't have a college degree. That's what Kerry was saying, that a lot of people joined up so they could make a decent living, and that's the truth. Hell, because of how things are nowadays, most of us can't NOT go to college and expect to stay out of debt and still live well. To be honest, a college degree often doesn't mean much anymore, so if you don't have one you're pretty much doomed to shitty jobs or the military. It sucks if you don't like either of those things. During the previous generation, it was possible to get a decent job right out of high school, and that's just not true now. For college graduates I heard there are about 4 graduates for every 1 job available.

McCain is a war hero, Kerry is a puzzy. Simple math.

I don't care what McCain did or how long he was imprisoned if he's going to be just like every other politician and say whatever's necessary to get elected. That's garbage. And he's more of a flip flopper (to use an idiotic Republican word) than Kerry ever was.

people capable of changing their minds are among the wisest of all imo

McCain is a war hero, Kerry is a puzzy. Simple math.Your math is a bit off. Perhaps you're crossing your base eights with your base tens.

I'm sure we all remember Kerry's botched joke, seeming to insinuate that American troops were stupid.

Now many who made fun of Kerry insisted that this wasn't a partisan attack, but that kerry's words demonstrated how he "really felt", and some went so far as to say it reflected the view of his entire party.

But it wasn't simply republican spin. Oh no, they'd say the same about ANYONE who did that. Surely all those right wing folks who condemned Kerry would do the same to one of their own who so insulted the troops.

Except...they didn't. Last night McCain made a similar slip up, stating that the soldiers lives had been "wasted" in Iraq. Today he backtracked saying he meant to say "sacrificied" not wasted.

source (http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/01/mccain/index.html)

So when democrat Kerry, a decorated war hero, makes a slip and seems to insult the troops, we have half a dozen threads here, calling him a coward, a traitor, a democrat elite, showing his true colors, we have pictures of soldiers from Iraq mocking the statement.

Republican McCain, a decorated war here, makes a slip and seems to call the lives of the troops wasted, and we have....nothing.

Where's your outrage republicans? Where's your moral indignation? Where is the fury you so heaped on Kerry? Where is your anger now, when it's one of your own?

Suprise, you're all fucking hypocrites.

Its nice to know that NS general will never be short of people like you.
It warms my heart to see broadscale, overgeneralized verbal(/written, if you like) assaults on an entire spectrum of people on the basis that EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM was deeply offended on the basis of something a politician said.
Discounting varied opinions of Kerry's charecter, some of us really could care less what politicians say. In fact, some of us are of the opinion that most politicians words are worth significantly less per sylable than, say, a middle schoolers.
Seriously though, TRA was cooler than you.

I'm sure we all remember Kerry's botched joke, seeming to insinuate that American troops were stupid.

Now many who made fun of Kerry insisted that this wasn't a partisan attack, but that kerry's words demonstrated how he "really felt", and some went so far as to say it reflected the view of his entire party.

But it wasn't simply republican spin. Oh no, they'd say the same about ANYONE who did that. Surely all those right wing folks who condemned Kerry would do the same to one of their own who so insulted the troops.

Except...they didn't. Last night McCain made a similar slip up, stating that the soldiers lives had been "wasted" in Iraq. Today he backtracked saying he meant to say "sacrificied" not wasted.

source (http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/01/mccain/index.html)

So when democrat Kerry, a decorated war hero, makes a slip and seems to insult the troops, we have half a dozen threads here, calling him a coward, a traitor, a democrat elite, showing his true colors, we have pictures of soldiers from Iraq mocking the statement.

Republican McCain, a decorated war here, makes a slip and seems to call the lives of the troops wasted, and we have....nothing.

Where's your outrage republicans? Where's your moral indignation? Where is the fury you so heaped on Kerry? Where is your anger now, when it's one of your own?

Suprise, you're all fucking hypocrites.

I'll defend McCain as I did Kerry. Both comments have been taken out of context.


Well, criticizing their own can't happen. Republicans are amazingly virtuous after all.

*ignores Foley & DeLay*

DeLay - that SOB is one of the few major pols I've met face to face, and he was and is an utter ass. And Foley? Surely you don't mean good old Tom "Stand and Deliver" Foley the Democratic speaker of the house was a virtuous eElephant?!?!?!

Don't hate, DeLay was awesome in ways most politicians can only have wetdreams about.

Awsome only in his sliminess.

Let's not forget the routine oral he gives to the Christian Right.
Didn't he give a commencement speech at Jerry Fallwel's college?

Indeed he did. And only a scant 6 years after he called Falwell an agent of intolerance.

He's a communist traitor.Sos RINO McCain.What is this hypocrisy?

Nope. He's drifted into GWB's RINO territory. Ike and Goldwater were real Republicans. Bushy and co are the true RINOs.

The problem being that getting rid of wasp nests is a GOOD thing, but going about doing so by hitting each nest with a stick to get the wasps rilled up and vengful is a very STUPID thing. We decided to use a stick and get ourselves, and a lot of other people, stung.
Well, we're all better off being stung one nest at a time than being stung by all of them at once, methinks.

Re that whole anaolgy - what we've done at the moment is stuck our arm in the middle of the wasps nest, refused to pull it out whilst being stung repeatedly, and started repeating the idiot mantra "the wasps will quit stinging us if we dig deeper, the wasps will quit stinging us if we dig deeper, the wasps will quit stinging us if we dig deeper..." ad nausium. It's exahusting us and building up to an allergic reaction... And worst of all, we've done so over a wasps nest that merely looked big and wasn't at all as threatening as several others.

And Foley? Surely you don't mean good old Tom "Stand and Deliver" Foley the Democratic speaker of the house was a virtuous eElephant?!?!?!Mark Foley.

DeLay - that SOB is one of the few major pols I've met face to face, and he was and is an utter ass.
And you expect your politicans to be good men, I take it? That's not the way the system is designed.
Awsome only in his sliminess.
Allow me to repeat (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12383835&postcount=28): he impeached a standing President. What's more, he impeached the President on his first try, and over lies and sexual allegations; Congress took two attempts to come after Andrew Johnson, and even then they had to wait for him to act in direct contradiction to a law they had passed.
If that isn't an achievment worthy of awe, I'm really at a loss for what you expect.

And you expect your politicans to be good men, I take it? That's not the way the system is designed.

Allow me to repeat (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12383835&postcount=28): he impeached a standing President. What's more, he impeached the President on his first try, and over lies and sexual allegations; Congress took two attempts to come after Andrew Johnson, and even then they had to wait for him to act in direct contradiction to a law they had passed.
If that isn't an achievment worthy of awe, I'm really at a loss for what you expect.

Finessing the legalities seems to be the Republican forte. Impeachment, going to war, torture, detention policy, warrantless searches, you know.

Failure to keep your dick in your pants and failure to keep your foot out of your mouth seems to be the Democratic forte (although Republicans are pretty good at the latter as well).

And you expect your politicans to be good men, I take it? That's not the way the system is designed.

Allow me to repeat (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12383835&postcount=28): he impeached a standing President. What's more, he impeached the President on his first try, and over lies and sexual allegations; Congress took two attempts to come after Andrew Johnson, and even then they had to wait for him to act in direct contradiction to a law they had passed.
If that isn't an achievment worthy of awe, I'm really at a loss for what you expect.

No, they impeached him on perjury. Which was the only thing they could impeach him on in that given situation, the circumstances of the case itself aside. "I did not have sexual relations with that woman," on the stand of a court room, IS illegal, and DeLay WAS right in impeaching him.

Regardless of your particular opinions about Democrats, Republicans, and Clinton in particular, this is fact.

Mark Foley.

Aha. That should have been specified.

And you expect your politicans to be good men, I take it? That's not the way the system is designed.

I'll compare him against the other major pol I've met face to face - Dr. Ron Paul. Dr. Paul is actually a very intelligent and rather upstanding man. DeLay is scum.

Allow me to repeat (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12383835&postcount=28): he impeached a standing President. What's more, he impeached the President on his first try, and over lies and sexual allegations; Congress took two attempts to come after Andrew Johnson, and even then they had to wait for him to act in direct contradiction to a law they had passed.
If that isn't an achievment worthy of awe, I'm really at a loss for what you expect.

Oh it's awesome - in the modern sense of awful. However, Deus Malum is correct - the grounds for impeachment were solid and it was only the partisanship of the Dems that allowed a now disbarred criminal to continue serveing as president.

And as far as the whole idea that "all pols are scum" that you refered to above, the good ones that become known as statesmen are either decent people to start with or rise above their scumminess. Scum like DeLayt always end up going down bad.

Nope. He's drifted into GWB's RINO territory. Ike and Goldwater were real Republicans. Bushy and co are the true RINOs.
Heh, even the name Goldwater sounds Republican. :) In what sense was he a real Republican though? A paleocon?

I'll compare him against the other major pol I've met face to face - Dr. Ron Paul. Dr. Paul is actually a very intelligent and rather upstanding man. DeLay is scum.
And that is why Ron Paul will not be elected. :) I recall reading an article about Angela Merkel recently - it mentioned how she waged a fair and square battle, and was honest in all her dealings. It then went on to say that in other words, she did everything wrong. :p

Heh, even the name Goldwater sounds Republican. :) In what sense was he a real Republican though? A paleocon?

He was the face of the GOP, along with the moderate Eisenhower/Rockefeller faction, before the GOP made their "deal" with the satanic christofacists in the late 70s and 80s, and allowed them and the neocons to hijack the party. That the new participants in the GOP dare to call those of the Goldwater Libertarian stripe and the Eisenhower/Rockefeller stripe "Republicans in Name Only" (RINO) is extraordinarily gauling to me. :upyours: (I will now point out that I have used that "smilie" only twice before.)

And that is why Ron Paul will not be elected. :) I recall reading an article about Angela Merkel recently - it mentioned how she waged a fair and square battle, and was honest in all her dealings. It then went on to say that in other words, she did everything wrong. :p

Err... Dr. Paul has been elected - several times, in fact.

I don't care what McCain did or how long he was imprisoned if he's going to be just like every other politician and say whatever's necessary to get elected. That's garbage. And he's more of a flip flopper (to use an idiotic Republican word) than Kerry ever was.

And unlike Kerry, who was just defamed by idiots which were believed by even bigger idiots, McCain actually flip flops - stating one position one day then taking the completely opposite position within an unbelievably short span of time, and then going back to the first position.

Err... Dr. Paul has been elected - several times, in fact.
I mean as President. Although I'd more than welcome such a prospect, it seems dim at this point in time.

McCain is a war hero, Kerry is a puzzy. Simple math.

What is a puzzy? It makes me think of a vagina puzzle...

Aha. That should have been specified.

Well the comment was about Republicans so... it should have been clear.

I am exactly as enraged by this as I was by Kerry's.
*Yawn*

Why can't politics just be about the issues, not the rhetoric?

Because people who don't understand issues still get to vote. And in larger numbers.

McCain is a war hero, Kerry is a puzzy. Simple math.

There is of course the matter of John Kerry also being a decorated war hero. And he was decorated for deliberately placing himself in the line of enemy fire in real combat. Not for getting his nice safe plane shot down.

There is of course the matter of John Kerry also being a decorated war hero. And he was decorated for deliberately placing himself in the line of enemy fire in real combat. Not for getting his nice safe plane shot down.

Is a plane still safe when it's been shot down?

One fundamental difference. Kerry was insulting the troops. McCain wasn't. McCain was disagreeing with the strategy and execution of the war, hence his belief in the wasted lives.

You may call the Marines who were killed on Tarawa in 1943 (a questionable objective at best) wasted. That doesn't mean you think they were stupid.

But to say that their lives are wasted means that they aren't doing anything worthwhile. Now I agree with that, but McCain doesn't. He supports the war. He supports what he sees as wasting American lives.

Personally I'd rather someone thought I was stupid than thought I deserved to die for nothing (or at least thought that his political career was worth more than thousands of lives he was helping to sacrifice for it).

And Kerry wasn't even insulting the troops. He make a joke about the president that was phrased ambiguously. Morons say that it was an insult at the troops, but it was always an insult directed at the president.

Is a plane still safe when it's been shot down?

Not after. But he didn't get his plane shot down after it had been shot down. Up until that point they're usually safer than a swift boat sailing into a known ambush point.

Not after. But he didn't get his plane shot down after it had been shot down. Up until that point they're usually safer than a swift boat sailing into a known ambush point.

Well, it gets shot. That means it's like....falling, right?

Not after. But he didn't get his plane shot down after it had been shot down. Up until that point they're usually safer than a swift boat sailing into a known ambush point.

Oh the ignorance. An airplane is exposed to so many threats that the pilot can't even see. Typically, the threats are around the target that they are supposed to attack. Most military targets will defend themselves when attacked, so when you think about it, an attack aircraft like the Skyhawk, has a nearly 100% chance of being shot at during a mission.

Oh the ignorance. An airplane is exposed to so many threats that the pilot can't even see. Typically, the threats are around the target that they are supposed to attack. Most military targets will defend themselves when attacked, so when you think about it, an attack aircraft like the Skyhawk, has a nearly 100% chance of being shot at during a mission.
I find it utterly hilarious that someone who has never probably even flown a fighter aircraft before would even utter such nonsense! Oh yes, being shot down is simply like having a picnic! Can you imagine? :confused:

When a republican slips it's because he's a poor public speaker and/or not the sharpest tool in the shed. When a democrat slips like that it's because he hates everyone in the military and eats babies. With chocolate.

When a republican slips it's because he's a poor public speaker and/or not the sharpest tool in the shed. When a democrat slips like that it's because he hates everyone in the military and eats babies. With chocolate.

Hey! Screw you! That's actually pretty tasty, thank you very much. *Chomp*

But honestly, all these years on, what can you say those 3000+ US troops plus the tens of thousands of Iraqis have died for? Iraqi is no more stable than under Saddam, more people are dying than under Saddam, Iraqi in terms of the attacks on the US it will attract is now more dangerous than under Saddam. What has the US accomplished in Iraqi, other than creating ethnic cleansing on a Balkan scale? Nothing, absolutely nothing.

But honestly, all these years on, what can you say those 3000+ US troops plus the tens of thousands of Iraqis have died for? Iraqi is no more stable than under Saddam, more people are dying than under Saddam, Iraqi in terms of the attacks on the US it will attract is now more dangerous than under Saddam. What has the US accomplished in Iraqi, other than creating ethnic cleansing on a Balkan scale? Nothing, absolutely nothing.

Iraq is less stable than it was under Hussein, for what it's worth, and the really fucked up thing is that women are probably going to wind up in a far worse situation under whatever government comes out of that chaos than they were under Hussein. Think about that for a second--women were better off under Saddam fucking Hussein than they will be under whatever Islamic government comes out of this mess.

And then let's talk about the extended costs. Al Qaeda and the Taliban are nice and cozy in Waziristan and Afghanistan and making inroads toward Kabul. We can't do shit about the genocide in Darfur because we don't have the troops or resources. North Korea has nuclear weapons. Iran's racing the clock to get them.

There's no other way to put it than to say that those lives were wasted by the Bush administration.

Regardless of your particular opinions about Democrats, Republicans, and Clinton in particular, this is fact.
And you think that Nixon, Clinton and Johnson are the only Presidents to have broken the law during their terms? The main barrier between the President and impeachment is not his shiney exterior or honest record, but the fact that there is so little chance anyone would have the balls and political muscle to try.
I'll compare him against the other major pol I've met face to face - Dr. Ron Paul. Dr. Paul is actually a very intelligent and rather upstanding man. DeLay is scum.
DeLay is obviously rather intelligent, though hardly upstanding.
And I think I shall compare him against the average, rather than some idealised concept of statesmanship.
Oh it's awesome - in the modern sense of awful. However, Deus Malum is correct - the grounds for impeachment were solid and it was only the partisanship of the Dems that allowed a now disbarred criminal to continue serveing as president.
And I was correct in my response to Deus Malum: If Congress dumped a President everytime he broke the law or shat on the Constitution, William Henry Harrison would probably go down in history as the only President not to have been impeached.
And as far as the whole idea that "all pols are scum" that you refered to above, the good ones that become known as statesmen are either decent people to start with or rise above their scumminess. Scum like DeLayt always end up going down bad.
Statesmen are either quiant little bits of "decency" that float around the shark tank a little while before being consumed by their own anonymity, or they're the inventions of idealistic historians.

And I was correct in my response to Deus Malum: If Congress dumped a President everytime he broke the law or shat on the Constitution, William Henry Harrison would probably go down in history as the only President not to have been impeached.
Garfield too, and maybe Zachary Taylor, but in the basics I pretty much agree with you. Impeachment is an exercise in congressional power, and guilt or innocence usually has little to do with it. Nixon was the exception in that he was so dirty that his own party was turning on him by the time he quit. It's the primary reason that I constantly laugh at my brethren over at Daily Kos who berate the Democrats for not impeaching Bush already--I cannot conceive of the scenario that would get 17 Republican Senators (not including Lieberman) to cross the aisle and remove Bush, no matter what could be proved about his actions, unless it threatened to cost them their seats, and really, what would it take for someone like Thad Cochran of Mississippi to lose to a Democrat, any Democrat, in 2008?

But to say that their lives are wasted means that they aren't doing anything worthwhile. Now I agree with that, but McCain doesn't. He supports the war. He supports what he sees as wasting American lives.

Personally I'd rather someone thought I was stupid than thought I deserved to die for nothing (or at least thought that his political career was worth more than thousands of lives he was helping to sacrifice for it).

And Kerry wasn't even insulting the troops. He make a joke about the president that was phrased ambiguously. Morons say that it was an insult at the troops, but it was always an insult directed at the president.

McCain said the lives were wasted because of the incorrect strategy pursued by the administration in Iraq. You could say that thousands of Americans were wasted at D-Day because intelligence failures didn't tell them what they were up against, but that doesn't mean you would be against emerging victorious.

Here's what Kerry said: "You know, education, if you do well, if you study hard, do your homework, you do well. If you don't, you get stuck in Iraq." http://www.spikedhumor.com/articles/63232/John_Kerry_Soldiers_are_Stupid.html

Do you see the words "president" or "Bush" anywhere there? And that was quite explicit too. Kerry thinks US armed forces are stoopid. No ambiguity there.

Iraq is less stable than it was under Hussein, for what it's worth, and the really fucked up thing is that women are probably going to wind up in a far worse situation under whatever government comes out of that chaos than they were under Hussein. Think about that for a second--women were better off under Saddam fucking Hussein than they will be under whatever Islamic government comes out of this mess.

And then let's talk about the extended costs. Al Qaeda and the Taliban are nice and cozy in Waziristan and Afghanistan and making inroads toward Kabul. We can't do shit about the genocide in Darfur because we don't have the troops or resources. North Korea has nuclear weapons. Iran's racing the clock to get them.

There's no other way to put it than to say that those lives were wasted by the Bush administration.

Exactly, aside from the international law issues of invading a sovereign countries and the faults leading up to the invasion by Bush, he can't even claim that the war made the US and the world safer, it made it worst. The events you have listed I believe show the gradual decline of the US's influence the world over, Iran is becoming more powerful in the ME. And most of the deals with NK were done because of Chinese influence, not the US.

But honestly, all these years on, what can you say those 3000+ US troops plus the tens of thousands of Iraqis have died for?
Tens of thousands of Iraqis compared to the million plus that died under Saddam (a Bin Laden, sorry I just had to throw that in there)...Hmm, 100,000...carry the 2...times - divided...duh yep, definately greater than a million. And Saddam was a siant, made Jesus look like a canabal rapist and the son of a leper whore. And before the US led invasion Iraq was a peaceful place with chocolate rivers, endless grassy fields and all the children had gum drop smiles.

Tens of thousands of Iraqis compared to the million plus that died under Saddam (a Bin Laden, sorry I just had to throw that in there)...Hmm, 100,000...carry the 2...times - divided...duh yep, definately greater than a million. And Saddam was a siant, made Jesus look like a canabal rapist and the son of a leper whore. And before the US led invasion Iraq was a peaceful place with chocolate rivers, endless grassy fields and all the children had gum drop smiles.

We'll never know how many people have died under the US occupation until it's over, and more moderate estimations are already in the hundreds of thousands, maybe more, and who knows how many more will die before it's over, and that's all on the US's head. And not so much the deaths, moreover before the US invasion Iraq was stable and ordered, this was through tyranny, but it's alot better than the US made lawless anarchy and rampant murder by ethnic gangs. And Saddam did not even kill near one million people, not even close by a long shot, barely that many died in the Iran/Iraq war, and that wasn't genocide or anything.

Oh, I guess the hivemind doesn't exist...

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/04/us/politics/04coulter.html?ei=5090&en=a9da398f95d639ef&ex=1330664400&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=print

*blink* I know nothing about Romney, and McCain from what I've heard flips back and forth at a rate commonly only seen in active pulars, but Giuliani I can totally see denouncing Coulter.

Then again, I also didn't believer there was a hivemind to begin with.

Ask Gauthier, Gravlen, and The Nazz about the right wing hivemind.

Oh, I guess the hivemind doesn't exist...

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/04/us/politics/04coulter.html?ei=5090&en=a9da398f95d639ef&ex=1330664400&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=print

*blink* I know nothing about Romney, and McCain from what I've heard flips back and forth at a rate commonly only seen in active pulars, but Giuliani I can totally see denouncing Coulter.

Then again, I also didn't believer there was a hivemind to begin with.

Oh the ignorance. An airplane is exposed to so many threats that the pilot can't even see. Typically, the threats are around the target that they are supposed to attack. Most military targets will defend themselves when attacked, so when you think about it, an attack aircraft like the Skyhawk, has a nearly 100% chance of being shot at during a mission.

Well I guess anything can be the case if you think about it long enough.

Global warming can be considered an unresolved scientific debate. OJ can be considered innocent. And yes, planes which return in large numbers from their missions can be shot down nearly a hundred percent of the time.

When a republican slips it's because he's a poor public speaker and/or not the sharpest tool in the shed. When a democrat slips like that it's because he hates everyone in the military and eats babies. With chocolate.

Democrats aren't evil because they eat babies with chocolate. It's because when they do, they aren't patriotic enough to use Hershey's.

But honestly, all these years on, what can you say those 3000+ US troops plus the tens of thousands of Iraqis have died for? Iraqi is no more stable than under Saddam, more people are dying than under Saddam, Iraqi in terms of the attacks on the US it will attract is now more dangerous than under Saddam. What has the US accomplished in Iraqi, other than creating ethnic cleansing on a Balkan scale? Nothing, absolutely nothing.

Well there was the implicit promise that Dubya wanted to undo the policies that Clinton enacted. I guess if you want to have a president that won't get blown in the White House, you also have to take one that will create ethnic cleansing and reduce the power of the legislative branch to near irrelevance. You can't make an omelette without breaking some eggs. And don't complain about how you like your omelettes without human blood. If you want a pussy omellette, go to France.

What if McCain was speaking the truth, making a statement about the administration's conduct of the war. Conduct which has led to nothing but disaster and death, wasting the lives of thousands of young Americans, and countless, countless Iraqis.

Democrats aren't evil because they eat babies with chocolate. It's because when they do, they aren't patriotic enough to use Hershey's.

Belgian chocolate is better than Hershey's anyway. :D

McCain said the lives were wasted because of the incorrect strategy pursued by the administration in Iraq. You could say that thousands of Americans were wasted at D-Day because intelligence failures didn't tell them what they were up against, but that doesn't mean you would be against emerging victorious.

Here's what Kerry said: "You know, education, if you do well, if you study hard, do your homework, you do well. If you don't, you get stuck in Iraq." http://www.spikedhumor.com/articles/63232/John_Kerry_Soldiers_are_Stupid.html

Do you see the words "president" or "Bush" anywhere there? And that was quite explicit too. Kerry thinks US armed forces are stoopid. No ambiguity there.

Let me try to put this in words that you can understand.

U am an moron. He no callin' trups stoopid. He implyin that lack of information lead one to create failed national policy that create war that president unable to extricate the country from.

What if McCain was speaking the truth, making a statement about the administration's conduct of the war. Conduct which has led to nothing but disaster and death, wasting the lives of thousands of young Americans, and countless, countless Iraqis.

He was, and a number of us have said as much. The real shame is that he felt the need to backtrack on the words, just as Obama did. Reminds me of something Howard Dean said back in 2004--"A gaffe is when you tell the truth and other people believe you ought not have."

*blink* I know nothing about Romney, and McCain from what I've heard flips back and forth at a rate commonly only seen in active pulars, but Giuliani I can totally see denouncing Coulter.

Then again, I also didn't believer there was a hivemind to begin with.

Well, Giuliani had the balls to denounce the troops, so I guess he could denounce coulter.

Belgian chocolate is better than Hershey's anyway. :D

Most chocolate is better than Hershey's, but Hershey's is still chocolate, and as such, I will never complain when offered Hershey's.

He was, and a number of us have said as much. The real shame is that he felt the need to backtrack on the words, just as Obama did. Reminds me of something Howard Dean said back in 2004--"A gaffe is when you tell the truth and other people believe you ought not have."

It's a shame that politicians have to keep the people who vote for them happy, even though the people who vote for them are downright wrong.

I think that's a pretty damn good quote from Mr. Dean. He's more astute than I'm normally willing to give him credit for being.

It's a shame that politicians have to keep the people who vote for them happy, even though the people who vote for them are downright wrong.

I think that's a pretty damn good quote from Mr. Dean. He's more astute than I'm normally willing to give him credit for being.

The system runs on manufactured outrage most of the time. Helps keep talking heads in business.

The system runs on manufactured outrage most of the time. Helps keep talking heads in business.

The Weirdness that is modern democracy :D

Hey, everybody, I found the outrage.
http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a36/Fiddlebottoms/t_20392.jpg
Apparently, those renegade Canadians had it all along. Bastards.

Hey, everybody, I found the outrage.
http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a36/Fiddlebottoms/t_20392.jpg
Apparently, those renegade Canadians had it all along. Bastards.
Curse those evil Canadians!
*Launches into a rousing rendition of Blame Canada*

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/04/us/politics/04coulter.html?ei=5090&en=a9da398f95d639ef&ex=1330664400&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=print

I'm sure we all remember Kerry's botched joke, seeming to insinuate that American troops were stupid.

Now many who made fun of Kerry insisted that this wasn't a partisan attack, but that kerry's words demonstrated how he "really felt", and some went so far as to say it reflected the view of his entire party.

But it wasn't simply republican spin. Oh no, they'd say the same about ANYONE who did that. Surely all those right wing folks who condemned Kerry would do the same to one of their own who so insulted the troops.

Except...they didn't. Last night McCain made a similar slip up, stating that the soldiers lives had been "wasted" in Iraq. Today he backtracked saying he meant to say "sacrificied" not wasted.

source (http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/01/mccain/index.html)

So when democrat Kerry, a decorated war hero, makes a slip and seems to insult the troops, we have half a dozen threads here, calling him a coward, a traitor, a democrat elite, showing his true colors, we have pictures of soldiers from Iraq mocking the statement.

Republican McCain, a decorated war here, makes a slip and seems to call the lives of the troops wasted, and we have....nothing.

Where's your outrage republicans? Where's your moral indignation? Where is the fury you so heaped on Kerry? Where is your anger now, when it's one of your own?

Suprise, you're all fucking hypocrites.

Where's the beef?

What is a puzzy? It makes me think of a vagina puzzle...

Erm, winner of thread nomination?

Mark Foley.
Axel Foley?

You're not gonna fall for the banana in the tailpipe?

Axel Foley?

...Mick Foley?

...Mick Foley?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mick_Foley
?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mick_Foley
?

I was just going with the general trend of listing famous Foleys.

...Mick Foley?
Folic acid? (http://www.eshirtlabs.com/images/articles/20060925191242120_1.jpg)

I was just going with the general trend of listing famous Foleys.

Oh, oh. I'm dry.
Not too many i can think of. :(