Rumsfeld Sorry for 'Axis of Weasels' Remark

Hmm Singlebarrel arguing for the hell of it....
No sir I dont see it

The Duck raises an excellent point. Even when you don''t want to question the moral justifiability of going to war without UN support there are still issues with for example military safety that can argue against a war.

*sp

"Koesj" wrote:

The Duck raises an excellent point. Even when you don''t want to question the moral justifiability of going to war without UN support there are still issues with for example military safety that can argue against a war.

*sp

Military Safety? What do you mean? They are in the military it''s their job to go fight and die. That''s what they do. (Not trying to sound mean) I do think we need ot make sure troops are well equiped for everything possible but I don''t think we can maintain safety for every soldier.

"Ulairi" wrote:
"Koesj" wrote:

The Duck raises an excellent point. Even when you don''t want to question the moral justifiability of going to war without UN support there are still issues with for example military safety that can argue against a war.

*sp

Military Safety? What do you mean? They are in the military it''s their job to go fight and die. That''s what they do. (Not trying to sound mean) I do think we need ot make sure troops are well equiped for everything possible but I don''t think we can maintain safety for every soldier.

Yes, but those lives should not be just thrown away because they are in the military. Personal morality aside (you know, the fact that you shouldn''t throw their lives away thing) you''re dealing with a volunteer military that is HIGHLY trained and therefore quite valuable as individual assets. For example: Putting soldiers in a position to incur damage from WMD just to prove said weapons existance would NOT be an intelligent thing to do. The modern soldiers duty is to fight his countries battles KNOWING that his country will not just throw his life away.

Yes, but those lives should not be just thrown away because they are in the military. Personal morality aside (you know, the fact that you shouldn''t throw their lives away thing) you''re dealing with a volunteer military that is HIGHLY trained and therefore quite valuable as individual assets. For example: Putting soldiers in a position to incur damage from WMD just to prove said weapons existance would NOT be an intelligent thing to do. The modern soldiers duty is to fight his countries battles KNOWING that his country will not just throw his life away.

I agree. I think that''s the reason Bush wants to go in sooner rather than later. THey can''t wear all their protective gear in the summer.

We need to do anything and everything possible to protect our troops. When joining the military you need to know that you might die.

Putting the weather ahead of all the other questions concerning the war is a tad bit silly, wouldn''t you say? When we decide we can''t wait to justify the war anymore because it''s going to be too damn hot, that''s not a high point in American history.

I hope the war starts soon.

I hope the war doesnt start soon.

"SingleBarrel" wrote:

Putting the weather ahead of all the other questions concerning the war is a tad bit silly, wouldn''t you say? When we decide we can''t wait to justify the war anymore because it''s going to be too damn hot, that''s not a high point in American history.

Actually, it''s a perfectly logical and historically accurate position to take. As the weather heats up over there it hampers our ability to move forces in, our transports planes actually lose some lifting ability (to haul more cargo and troops) when the temps go up. Sand storms also increase in number and intensity and cause havoc with helicopters, etc.

As for historic references, one need not look any further than campaigns carried out against Russia in the dead of winter to know that weather IS vitally important.

I''m not saying weather isn''t a factor in warfare. I''m saying it shouldn''t be the deciding factor.

Keep in mind that the nations involved in the Russian campaigns cited were already in a state of war. We aren''t yet (at least with Iraq; techinically we''re still at war with N. Korea).

You''ve fallen victim to one of the classic blunders! The most famous is ""Never get involved in a land war in Asia"", but only slightly less well known is this - ""Never go in against a Sicilian, when death is on the line!"" Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha h-!

Fezzik: You never said anything about killing anyone!
Vizzini: I''ve hired you to help me start a war! It''s a prestigious line of work, with a long and glorious tradition.

LOL

Hi Ulairi

::::heads for the door::::

ok... .02 cents....
I wouldn''t be for this war if there was a Dem in office.

I reserve all judgement until I see the evidence.

"SolomonGrundy" wrote:

Hi Ulairi

::::heads for the door::::

ok... .02 cents....
I wouldn''t be for this war if there was a Dem in office.

I reserve all judgement until I see the evidence.

My arch-nemesis has arrived.

Were you for Clinton bombing Serbia? Which was way less of a threat than Saddam. I was for it because I hate fascists and I don't think the "War on terror" will be one on until every terrorists sponsoring nation has a new democratic government. We can't allow these islamo-fascists to continue to hurt their own people and the world. It's going to just blow up if we don't do it know, oil is it on it's way out and these countries will have nothing then.

Here's a question to bait the socialist: Can you name one "right wing" Dictator? I bet you can't.

*Not that I''m saying all Socialists are evil, it''s just easier for a Socialist to ruin a country than a Libertarian*

Actually, Germany was not in a state of war with Russia when they invaded in WWII. In fact, they had a non-aggression treaty with them. There was no reason they couldn''t have waited to invade. Hitler figured the campaign would be fairly short, so he didn''t think the russian winter would be a factor. Obviously, he was very wrong. Now, with modern technology, weather isn''t as important a factor anymore, but any good commander will try to time his attack for the optimal conditions, including the weather.

Oh, and Ulairi is right about Madison WI. It''s very much a liberal town. Damn dirty hippies.

I am reading through Kershaw''s biography right now and the things he says on Barbarossa are quite interesting. Seems like uncle Adolf wasn''t properly informed on the risks and that the inherent problems with nazism were more to blame, constant revolution demands constant turmoil.

"Ulairi" wrote:

every terrorists sponsoring nation

There has yet to be any conclusive links between the regime in Iraq and any terrorist organizations. Instead Bush keeps going up on stage and saying we have it but he refuses to show it. If he has the damn evidence he should show because it will calm many of the storms. Right now some 86% of the country thinks that at least some Iraqis flew into the WTC. In reality there were none.

"Ulairi" wrote:

new democratic government

This is optimism at its best. The numerous factions within Iraq hate each other, and are not concerned with a government by the people. Instituting a Democracy overnight in Iraq is not a trivial task.

"Ulairi" wrote:

oil is it on it's way out and these countries will have nothing then.

It would be fantastic if we could replace our reliance on petroleum. 1.2B for fuel cell research however is a joke, especailly when the President is simulataneoulsy refusing to increase fuel economy standards. It''s interesting to compare Kennedy''s declarations ""We choose to go to the moon in this decade"" vs. Bush''s ""the first car driven by a child born today could be powered by hydrogen"". Bringing Fuel Cells mainstream will revolutionalize the world economy, and we shouldn''t take half measures.

"Ulairi" wrote:

Here's a question to bait the socialist: Can you name one "right wing" Dictator? I bet you can't.

You''re kidding right? Fascism is the far right. Therefore all fascist dictators are right wing, just as all communists are left wing.

""There has yet to be any conclusive links between the regime in Iraq and any terrorist organizations. Instead Bush keeps going up on stage and saying we have it but he refuses to show it. If he has the damn evidence he should show because it will calm many of the storms. Right now some 86% of the country thinks that at least some Iraqis flew into the WTC. In reality there were none.""

Iraq supports Terrorst groups such as Hammas, Hesbula, and other PLO terrorist groups. This is proven fact. Al Queda isn''t the only terrorist group we must worry about.""

""
This is optimism at its best. The numerous factions within Iraq hate each other, and are not concerned with a government by the people. Instituting a Democracy overnight in Iraq is not a trivial task.""

Who said it was going to be?

""It would be fantastic if we could replace our reliance on petroleum. 1.2B for fuel cell research however is a joke, especailly when the President is simulataneoulsy refusing to increase fuel economy standards. It''s interesting to compare Kennedy''s declarations ""We choose to go to the moon in this decade"" vs. Bush''s ""the first car driven by a child born today could be powered by hydrogen"". Bringing Fuel Cells mainstream will revolutionalize the world economy, and we shouldn''t take half measures.""

I agree withyou 100%.

"Ulairi" wrote:

Here's a question to bait the socialist: Can you name one "right wing" Dictator? I bet you can't.

You''re kidding right? Fascism is the far right. Therefore all fascist dictators are right wing, just as all communists are left wing.[/quote]

Fascism isn't a form of government it's an ideology. The conservative ideology believes in private property, personal rights, the individual. Fascism wants to take away all of those things.

First off, this is entertaining Ulari. Thanks.

"Ulairi" wrote:

Iraq supports Terrorst groups such as Hammas, Hesbula, and other PLO terrorist groups. This is proven fact. Al Queda isn''t the only terrorist group we must worry about.

15 of the 19 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia has traditionally been a source of terrorist funding. Why aren''t we bombing them? The 9/11 Hijacker didn''t need WMD to kill 3,000 Americans.

"Ulairi" wrote:

Who said it was going to be?

The dumbsh*ts on AM radio here do all the time. Sorry if I infered that you felt that way as well.

"Ulairi" wrote:

The conservative ideology believes in private property, personal rights, the individual. Fascism wants to take away all of those things.

U.S.A. Patriot Act.
Abortion Rights.
Continual efforts to censor ""offensive"" material.

Yes, in theory the conservative ideology is one of personal rights. But unfortunatley the ideology has been bastardized over time. Now the conservative movement is only interested in Personal Freedoms as long as they''re freedoms that they agree with.

Moreover the Republican party seems to be catering to the wealthy. Unfortunately the Democrats aren''t any better. And I''ll give the Republicans this: they at least have a plan, while the Demos run around like a rudderless ship.

Yeah thanks, now I''m totally disgusted with the government. Hope you''re happy.

U.S.A. Patriot Act.
Abortion Rights.
Continual efforts to censor ""offensive"" material.

The Patriot Act was passed by almost everyone in the congress so we need to blame both sides of it. Some of it goes way too far and parts are good. I''m pro-Abortion (except for late term/unless it''s the mothers life) so I don''t fit in the Republican Party.

""Yes, in theory the conservative ideology is one of personal rights. But unfortunatley the ideology has been bastardized over time. Now the conservative movement is only interested in Personal Freedoms as long as they''re freedoms that they agree with.""

The Democratic party is that way too. I was a Democrat throughout Highschool and my first year of college, when I told people I was for private social security I got ""run out.""

""Moreover the Republican party seems to be catering to the wealthy. Unfortunately the Democrats aren''t any better. And I''ll give the Republicans this: they at least have a plan, while the Demos run around like a rudderless ship.""

The Republican Party caters to the wealthy which is a good thing in America. Half of America thinks they are in the top 1% or will be there in 5 years. I don''t think we should penalize people for doing well. Also, many people in the top tax brackets are small business onwers.

The problem with the Democrats is that their plan is to disagree with Bush. During the past election they thought they got in trouble for agreeing with him too much. Everything Bush does isn''t horrible (or great) the Democrats need to build a better mouse trap.

Bush will spank the Democrats in 2004 if Iraq goes well. I don''t see the Democrats coming up with any new ideas. They haven''t had a new idea for 30 years.

Like it or not at least the Republicans have new ideas.

Yeah thanks, now I''m totally disgusted with the government. Hope you''re happy.

Amen. Right now the Democrats are about the most pathetic excuse for a political party imaginable. I mean, what the the hell is their economic platform?

And they have not hopes of winning 2004 with the crap they''re getting ready to field (unless the war goes poorly, then the American public will turn sour very quickly.)

And on that note,
Im announcing my official plan to run for the democratic nomination this next election.

Unlike the current democrats, I have a plan.
Serve myself first.
If unable to serve self, seek out best friend, serve his intersts.
If unable to serve best friends interests, seek out his best friend, serve his interests..............

Well it works for bush.
(I will start accepting applications to be my new best friend next month, stay tuned)

"phragged" wrote:

And on that note,
Im announcing my official plan to run for the democratic nomination this next election.

Unlike the current democrats, I have a plan.
Serve myself first.
If unable to serve self, seek out best friend, serve his intersts.
If unable to serve best friends interests, seek out his best friend, serve his interests..............

Well it works for bush.
(I will start accepting applications to be my new best friend next month, stay tuned)

Putz.

If nothing else, you always impress me with your well thought and well reasoned responses Ulairi

"phragged" wrote:

If nothing else, you always impress me with your well thought and well reasoned responses Ulairi

You want a real response to your post. It is a farce and I do not make farcical arguments.

Sorry I thought it was a ''real'' response. Maybe if it didnt sound as inane as the rest of your posts I might have been able to pick that up.

"phragged" wrote:

Sorry I thought it was a ''real'' response. Maybe if it didnt sound as inane as the rest of your posts I might have been able to pick that up.

I take it as a good thing when you find my posts inane. Unlike you I make a post that is logical and fits with my political beliefs. You just spout what you heard your mom and dad say at the dinner table last night.

I''m going to politely suggest that everything productive that can be said in this thread, might have already been said. I don''t mind 2 and 3 person debates, but please ... no pissing contests. Now return to your corners.

- Elysium

"Elysium" wrote:

but please ... no pissing contests.

Then what am I supposed to do with all this Pepsi and Mountain Dew I just drank?

You know elysium its the beard that compels me to obey.......
its just so bushy and authoritarian like.

And since we''re on the subject of presidents(maybe) and facial hair, was TR the last president with facial hair or am i crazy?