Dr. Hess wrote: OK, Salanis. Why don't you go ask Grandpa who he thinks put BHO where he is today. I would like to hear his answer. Edit: "...put BHO..."
Ah, that makes grammatical sense. Where the hell did that question come from though? That has even less to do with this discussion than the rant you went off on.
Forget this. I'm starting a new topic to answer this question.
Salanis wrote:Dr. Hess wrote: OK, Salanis. Why don't you go ask Grandpa who he thinks but BHO where he is today. I would like to hear his answer.^WTF grammar maybe-not? We spoke about this last week. He is voting for McCain and disagrees with Obama's political stance. Obama doesn't piss him off though, and he can see why young people like him. His statement on Obama was: He is a strong communicator on the level of Clinton and Regan. He does as good a job as anyone of espousing the Democratic boilerplate. He's not a warrior who would stand up to someone getting in his face. Edit: And what the heck does the current crop of pres candidates have to do with this argument? No. Don't answer. That's a rhetorical question.
Your Gramps and I agree.
Dr. Hess wrote:seann wrote:Yeah, seann. Before they would get fed feet first into a chipper/shredder. Today the worst you can find is that the bad neocons had a dog bark at them.Dr. Hess wrote: Well, thank Science that Hollywood and the Left went all out to help those people throw off the oppressive government they had in South Africa. They are so much better off today.Thank God that the cheneyrumbush and the neocons went all out to help those people throw off the oppressive government they had in Iraq. They are so much better off today.
*furrows brow, scratches head, and then goes on with life
I also believe that the current Iraqi government is no longer using chemical or biological weapons on their own people. So, yeah, I'd say they were better off. Now if we can just get all the shiny happy persons from the neighboring countries out of there, they'd be set.
by the way, Dr. Hess, I know you're really a liberal and just say this wacky E36 M3 for kicks. Are you upset that Colbert stole your idea?
P.S. you missed my point
Edit: Post deleted. It wasn't anything I haven't said before.
Screw it. Trying to argue with Hess is like yelling at a pundit on the radio.
Dr. Hess wrote: I also believe that the current Iraqi government is no longer using chemical or biological weapons on their own people. So, yeah, I'd say they were better off. Now if we can just get all the shiny happy persons from the neighboring countries out of there, they'd be set.
what about the fact that more Iraqi civilians have now been killed since the invasion, than in all the years of Saddams Rule?
neon4891 wrote:Dr. Hess wrote: I also believe that the current Iraqi government is no longer using chemical or biological weapons on their own people. So, yeah, I'd say they were better off. Now if we can just get all the shiny happy persons from the neighboring countries out of there, they'd be set.what about the fact that more Iraqi civilians have now been killed since the invasion, than in all the years of Saddams Rule?
I really don't want to become too much a part of this discussion, but . . .
1.) Where did you get your data? (And please, please, please - dont' say the News. I've personally seen the media take facts, destroy them, and then spit out lies as if they were fact just to sell a few papers or to capture a few more viewers. They're just not a credible source for information much of the time.)
2.) Who is killing them?
That is all.
Interseting article: http://www.buzzle.com/articles/205038.html
Salanis wrote: Edit: Post deleted. It wasn't anything I haven't said before. Screw it. Trying to argue with Hess is like yelling at a pundit on the radio.
isn't that why you made that WHOLE OTHER THREAD? now you're mad and want to take your toys and play someplace else because you can't change his mind? weak
confuZion3 wrote:neon4891 wrote:I really don't want to become too much a part of this discussion, but . . . 1.) Where did you get your data? (And please, please, please - dont' say the News. I've personally seen the media take facts, destroy them, and then spit out lies as if they were fact just to sell a few papers or to capture a few more viewers. They're just not a credible source for information much of the time.) 2.) Who is killing them? That is all.Dr. Hess wrote: I also believe that the current Iraqi government is no longer using chemical or biological weapons on their own people. So, yeah, I'd say they were better off. Now if we can just get all the shiny happy persons from the neighboring countries out of there, they'd be set.what about the fact that more Iraqi civilians have now been killed since the invasion, than in all the years of Saddams Rule?
No, no, NO. We all know the lefties are always right and the righties are always wrong.
[sarcasm] You are not permitted to ask for facts to back up anti-rightist innuendo. [/sarcasm] Never mind Saddam used WMD on the Kurds (his own people). Or the two (or was it three?) wars he started with Iran even before the Kuwait thing.
By no means am I trying to defend Saddam. But the fact is we replaced a dictator with civil war and chaos.
Jensenman wrote: [sarcasm] You are not permitted to ask for facts to back up anti-rightist innuendo. [/sarcasm]
Strizzo wrote: isn't that why you made that WHOLE OTHER THREAD? now you're mad and want to take your toys and play someplace else because you can't change his mind? weak
Nah, sometimes I'm just a slow learner.
That is an interesting comment. Obama lived by choice for a few years in a pretty rough part of Chicago. He doesn't seem that timid. Maybe he thinks there are better solutions than random hiting and biting?
Salanis wrote: He is a strong communicator on the level of Clinton and Regan. He does as good a job as anyone of espousing the Democratic boilerplate. He's not a warrior who would stand up to someone getting in his face.
Is the only reason to follow current events to find new and more elaborate ways to tell other people they're wrong. I was accusing Hess of doing this when I quoted him and presented an argument from liberals that puts forth the same position but in a different country.
So what do people do,they start arguing about the validity of the liberal argument. This is all very silly.
neon4891 wrote: By no means am I trying to defend Saddam. But the fact is we replaced a dictator with civil war and chaos.
Additional facts to consider:
Iraq has made significant progress in meeting 15 of the 18 political benchmarks set by both their and our politicians.
Iraq has announced that their government is very close to concluding negotiations with the US regarding future internal security concerns and the level of US troops needed (in Iraq) to address those concerns. The hold-up has been that Iraq wanted fewer troops in the country than the US. They (meaning both sides) are close to an agreement while US troop levels are (slowly) coming down and tour lengths are decreasing also.
Iraq has signed a five billion dollar with Boeing to purchase airliners for their (soon to be established) national airline.
Iraq has opened-up bidding (to the international business community) for the further development of its' immense oil deposits, inviting billions of dollars in foreign investments.
These are facts conveniently ignored/buried by MSM as they seem to defy the "conventional wisdom" that the entire "venture" was destined to failure.
Seems that Iraqi's (in general) have recognized that the "civil war" (that killed far too many people) was carried-out by extremists that: (1) weren't even Iraqi, (2) were following agendas meant to consolidate or increase their own personal political (re: tribal and regional) power and (3) were zealots who cannot tolerate the idea of a government separate from religion.
I'm just sayin', with no attempt to apologize for the political mistakes that interfered with and delayed a military success.
Political progress/change takes time and too many people fail to recognize that painful truth. If Obama gets elected, those same people will learn a valuable lesson.
On the occupation of Iraq, I heard a run-down of this a while back by a historian and officer in the Army. The interview was on NPR.
In short, he stated that our occupation in Iraq was pretty typical of occupation campaigns. Most occupations take about 10 years to complete. I believe it was something like 80%+ of them ended up being successful campaigns for the occupiers, if they could hold out for 10 years.
Generally, at first the occupier is viewed as an enemy force and meets strong resistance from the people of the country they're in. An insurgency and some sort of civil war generally take place. It usually comes to a head about 4-5 years into the campaign.
Around the same time as the big insurgent push, the people of the country come to see their occupiers as not actually bad guys, because generally their committing fewer atrocities than the insurgents.
After about 6 years, the insurgency is usually spent and can't muster another major offensive. The last 3-4 years are spent mopping up the last bit of resistance and stabilizing the new government.
Now, that means we're probably in this for another 4 years, but we're over the hump.
This is not an argument to say we should have gone to war in the first place or that the costs of this war are worth its benefits.
Iraq is an interesting country culturally. It's borders and everything were carved out, artificially, by the European powers after the massive colonial implosion following WW1.
No one was comfortable with that many Nomadic governments. Now no one is comfortable with the static governments that replaced them.
You'll need to log in to post.
