The Clintons-

[scottrobts]

a person named Osama Bin Laden, not the country of Iraq. wipe the doggie poo off your feet and stay the course.

 

[Larry Gude]

Oh...

a person named Osama Bin Laden, not the country of Iraq. wipe the doggie poo off your feet and stay the course.

...I'm sorry. He's just one, lonely soul. My bad. I guess I misunderstood.

 

[scottrobts]

Lets be honest and admit that I won't ever change your opinion and you won't change mine. That is not even the point. The great thing about this country is that two different ideals and beliefs can exist. We are allowed to argue and engage in an intellectually stimulating conversation while sharing ideas that neither one of us would ever probably come up with on our own. When that freedom to be different and think different begins to dissappear, we will have lost a lot more then can ever be replaced.

 

[vraiblonde]

a person named Osama Bin Laden

If he's so insignificant and just one person, why do you care so much about him being captured? Did HE fly planes into the WTC and Pentagon?

 

[vraiblonde]

Lets be honest and admit that I won't ever change your opinion and you won't change mine. That is not even the point. The great thing about this country is that two different ideals and beliefs can exist. We are allowed to argue and engage in an intellectually stimulating conversation while sharing ideas that neither one of us would ever probably come up with on our own. When that freedom to be different and think different begins to dissappear, we will have lost a lot more then can ever be replaced.

Is that a concession speech?

 

[SamSpade]

No, what we should have done is finished Afghanistan.

You know, if one person in the kitchen can cook a meal in 30 minutes, then 30 cooks in the kitchen can do it in ONE. Right?

Please tell me you're not one of these nitwits who thinks that we either left Afghanistan - we haven't - or that sending tens of thousands of more troops there will resolve the problem FASTER. You may have noticed that we're not alone in Afghanistan, and the rest of NATO hasn't concluded that the problem is not enough troops.

I don't buy this stupid Afghanistan crap that's becoming popular to say, now. Liberals were against us going in there, claiming that it would be impossible to rout the Taliban, and that from Alexander to the Brits to the Russians, the world's major powers have all been thwarted by the people of Afghanistan. People protested; an anti-war march happened in London that was 100,000 strong. We were told that casualties would be huge - as many as half a million to a million - and because of that, we conducted massive food drops into Afghanistan. We were told that *WE* funded the Taliban!

You know - I get sick of hearing this kind of turnaround. Liberals were AGAINST THE WAR in Afghanistan.

I don't buy the even stupider story of how we "should have finished Iraq the first time". The vote to go to war to liberate Kuwait was one of the closest votes to go to war in our history (only the War of 1812 was closer). Liberals were AGAINST going to war the first time. We amassed a HUGE coaltion of U.N. forces - but not without conditions. The Arab allies - of which we had hundreds of thousands of troops - declared they would NOT fight in a war alongside Israelis. They would NOT oust Saddam - only free Kuwait. They made this very very clear. Those were the conditions set by the U.N. Do not violate Iraq's "sovereignty".

"Finishing the job" would absolutely mean doing what liberals are angry for us doing now - going totally against the U.N. If they can call this an "illegal war" for such a reason, it's absurd to think taking Saddam out the first time would not have been - since it was openly declared as such.

 

[scottrobts]

If he's so insignificant and just one person, why do you care so much about him being captured? Did HE fly planes into the WTC and Pentagon?

I didn't say he was insignificant, I merely pointed out he was not Iraq. The subject at the time was the inability of the USA to attack Germany without a state of war existing between the two during WW2. He was, and still is, a criminal acting independent of any country.

 

[SamSpade]

Is that a concession speech?

Essentially.

Translation: I'm not changing my mind, but I really don't have an answer. You win.

 

[Larry Gude]

Hold up chief...

Lets be honest and admit that I won't ever change your opinion and you won't change mine. That is not even the point. The great thing about this country is that two different ideals and beliefs can exist. We are allowed to argue and engage in an intellectually stimulating conversation while sharing ideas that neither one of us would ever probably come up with on our own. When that freedom to be different and think different begins to dissappear, we will have lost a lot more then can ever be replaced.

...if we're gonna be honest, then we'd have to admit you are wrong about Iraq. All you have to do is read the Resolution (a similar one was passed by Bubba, BTW) then read the voting record and go from there.

Invading Iraq with the goal of ridding the world of Saddam was a good idea.

Invading Iraq and trying to foster freedom in the middle of the region that needs it more than any other was a good idea.

Eliminating Iraq as a threat to help terrorists gain WMD's was a good idea.

Eliminating the uncertainty over what they were or were not up to was a good idea.

The timing for these ideas was pretty good.

The execution of those ideas has been handled poorly by OUR President.

Clinton could have and should have dealt with both UBL and Saddam during his presidency. It would have been easier and he might have garnered more world support than W has. We'd have all been better off had he done so.

Now, go ahead and disagree with that because you can.

 

[Larry Gude]

Are you saying...

I didn't say he was insignificant, I merely pointed out he was not Iraq. The subject at the time was the inability of the USA to attack Germany without a state of war existing between the two during WW2. He was, and still is, a criminal acting independent of any country.

...that attacking and eliminating Hitler in, say August 1939 would have been a bad thing?

And Sedgwick was not shot by the same sniper he dismissed as unable to hit an elephant. There were numerous snipers and there is NO way of knowing which one hit him.

 

[scottrobts]

Essentially.

Translation: I'm not changing my mind, but I really don't have an answer. You win.

Actually, that is not it, but thanks for speaking for me. I was admitting I was enjoying myself in this discussion. When we label those who do not agree with us as traitors and collaborators then we silence debate and the exchange of ideas.

 

[Larry Gude]

Who called...

Actually, that is not it, but thanks for speaking for me. I was admitting I was enjoying myself in this discussion. When we label those who do not agree with us as traitors and collaborators then we silence debate and the exchange of ideas.

...you a traitor or collaborator?

 

[vraiblonde]

I didn't say he was insignificant, I merely pointed out he was not Iraq.

He's not in Afghanistan, either. Shall we start bombing Pakistan?

 

[scottrobts]

...if we're gonna be honest, then we'd have to admit you are wrong about Iraq. All you have to do is read the Resolution (a similar one was passed by Bubba, BTW) then read the voting record and go from there.

Invading Iraq with the goal of ridding the world of Saddam was a good idea.

Invading Iraq and trying to foster freedom in the middle of the region that needs it more than any other was a good idea.

Eliminating Iraq as a threat to help terrorists gain WMD's was a good idea.

Eliminating the uncertainty over what they were or were not up to was a good idea.

The timing for these ideas was pretty good.

The execution of those ideas has been handled poorly by OUR President.

Clinton could have and should have dealt with both UBL and Saddam during his presidency. It would have been easier and he might have garnered more world support than W has. We'd have all been better off had he done so.

Now, go ahead and disagree with that because you can.

the same ratinale for invading Iraq could be used for invading North Korea, China, numerous former members of the Soviet Union, many of the countries in Africa, Vietnam, and several other Arab countries, some of which are actually our allies.

 

[vraiblonde]

When we label those who do not agree with us as traitors and collaborators then we silence debate and the exchange of ideas.

Who did that?

Or are you just feeling defensive and that's the first thing you could think of?

 

[vraiblonde]

the same ratinale for invading Iraq could be used for invading North Korea, China, numerous former members of the Soviet Union, many of the countries in Africa, Vietnam, and several other Arab countries, some of which are actually our allies.

Well, if you could get Congress to pass a resolution, maybe we would invade all those countries and overthrow their dictators.

Write your Congressman :shrug:

 

[scottrobts]

He's not in Afghanistan, either. Shall we start bombing Pakistan?

you do realize there is a difference between saying someone "is not Iraq" and saying someone "is not IN Pakistan" right? We told the ruling political power in Afganistan that OBL was wanted in our country for the events on 9-11 and that they were harbouring a person who had attacked our country. They refused to hand him over. We had the same justification as Israel did in Lebanon. Pakistan at least says they are looking for him.

 

[scottrobts]

Who did that?

Or are you just feeling defensive and that's the first thing you could think of?

The Republican party says that anytime anyone questions their choices in Iraq.

 

[Larry Gude]

Yes!!!!!

the same ratinale for invading Iraq could be used for invading North Korea, China, numerous former members of the Soviet Union, many of the countries in Africa, Vietnam, and several other Arab countries, some of which are actually our allies.

...and if we're on the same page, then we can move on to which course of action to take! Wait! We already did that; the IRAQ War Resolution. Now, ideally, if it works, we don't have to kick everyones ass.

And where the hell is the rational for invading China or the Sovs? Iran, Iraq and NK are the big fish.

 

[Larry Gude]

Maybe he thinks...

Who did that?

Or are you just feeling defensive and that's the first thing you could think of?

...I'm Dick Cheney?