Democracy, US style!

I am not a Buchanan Republican who wants to build a wall around the country. We are a great nation and contribute more dollars to the world than any other nation. But if we are going to put American lives at risk for war, our interests MUST be primary. That''s just the way it works, and no American President would ever disagree with me.

I think our interests are primary. We cannot ignore suffering and not expect terrorism to take root.

""The photos I showed you are Shiite Muslims which make up 60% of the population of Iraq.""

See, when you keep calling them that, it''s just not going to make you any friends!

"Ulairi" wrote:
There are two types of people I cannot agree with. Republicans who think we''re too good for the rest of the world to get involved and Liberals who think we''re too evil to get involved. Rat Boy is one of those.

Sorry, do you assume that I because I don''t bow down and kiss the feet of the president, I must hate America? Where do you get off assuming that? Tell that to the local mothers who''s sons are in Iraq that I volunteered my time to help. Then come back and see if you can accuse me of being a traitor with a straight face.

We cannot ignore suffering and not expect terrorism to take root.

Funny, the Administration seem to be doing that a lot. Even now despite 9-11. Take Venezuela for example. Or the Congo. Or Pakistan. Or Indonesia. Or the Phillipines. Or Egypt.

What do you mean Mex, when I say they are Shiite, that''s their tribe isn''t it?

Nobody should challenge anyone''s patriotism here. Republicans and Democrats wants whats best for America, we just have different opinions on how to reach that goal. It''s good to have opposing views, because it tempers both sides.

[
Sorry, do you assume that I because I don''t bow down and kiss the feet of the president, I must hate America? Where do you get off assuming that? Tell that to the local mothers who''s sons are in Iraq that I volunteered my time to help. Then come back and see if you can accuse me of being a traitor with a straight face.

I never said anything even close to that. Since you''re too dense to understand what I was saying, let me simplify it for you: You fit on the side that is filled with both Republicans and Democrats who refuse to help suffering in the world because how they feel about ""me"" and ""us."" It isn''t that you''re all about scarcity. That has nothing to do with your ""patriotism.""

"Ulairi" wrote:
You fit on the side that is filled with both Republicans and Democrats who refuse to help suffering in the world because how they feel about ""me"" and ""us.""

That is a gross mischaracterization of my position. I have had nothing but sympathy for the Iraqi people and loudly complained about the first Bush Administration''s poor handling of the end of the first war. But turning Iraq into another Lebanon is not the answer now. Where''s the electricity? Where are the fully functional hospitals? Where are all the reopened businesses? The newly formed Iraqi security force is already under fire from pro-Saddam factions. The country is turning into a quagmire in part thanks to the mishandling of Bush Administration and their appalling unwillingness to allow the international community to offer more help. To lump me in with those who seek to turn a blind eye to suffering of others, which also include members of the Bush Administration, I might add, is nothing but sick and pathetic name calling on your part. I thought you were better than that, but I guess I was wrong.

Name calling on my part? You''ve been insulting me for weeks.

Because you have no ability to put anything into context, I shouldn''t expect much from you. Go read what happened in Germany after WWII, things take years not months. How long have we been in other places of the world? Years. It takes time and some of us are willing to give it that.

I''m sorry, I don''t recall there being terrorists running around shooting Allied troops in Nuremberg. You historical comparison is greatly faulty, since it fails to take into account other nations interfering in the US rebuilding effort. Did Italy send facist terrorists into Germany? It also fails to take into account the great animosity between the Muslim world and the West. Germans weren''t taking their shoes off to beat a burned-out jeep of American troops in downtown Hamburg mere weeks after slapping a Hitler statue with their shoes. Find a better example. And you know what happens to fit the current situation better? Lebanon and Somalia, places where a lot of Americans died because of missmanagement of the situation by the White House and pig-headedness about only quitting when a lot of American troops were wiped out at once. I frankly don''t think we should wait for the big one before we reconsider our position there. And thanks to the great cluster-f*ck that was the US''s actions in the UN, other countries may not want to help in Iraq and rather watch the US fail miserably like it has before in the Muslim world. Maybe, just maybe, somebody at the top should admit we''re having a problem and could use a little more help. Oh, that''s right, if you disagree with the Administration in any way, you get fired. Just ask General Shinseki.

There are so many logical fallacies in that last post, I wouldn''t even know where to begin...

Each of those statements touches on a topic so complex that it would take days to cover. I mean, seriously, volumes have been written about each of those topics. To generalize them all, and lump them into one paragraph it a great example of how to have an argument without an argument.

To assume that you know more about any of those topics than the teams of people who are working on trying to rebuild Iraq is vanity of the highest magnitude. It sure is easy to armchair quarterback.

I, for one, will give the reconstruction efforts more than two months before I pass judgement.

"JohnnyMoJo" wrote:
I, for one, will give the reconstruction efforts more than two months before I pass judgement.

How many more people have to die before you start to wonder that the current method isn''t working?

Well, more people have died of car accidents in the US since the war started than actual soldier fatalities. So, how long until we ban cars, or at least wonder if the current method of transportation isn''t working?

Do you see the fallacy of that argument?

We have waged an unimaginably effective campaign in Iraq. Liberal protestors claimed that we would lose 10,000 troops if we invaded Iraq before the war. We have lost a little over 200 men and women of valor since the war started. Which is about 9,800 soldiers less than even the most generous liberal estimate.

I hope that we are able to proceed without further loss of life. But, looking at the Palestinian terrorists in Israel, I assume that won''t be the case. And I won''t even attempt to actually assign a numerical response to your rhetorical question.

We are attempting a fundamental reconstruction of a society''s way of looking at themselves. This has much more in common with the reconstruction of Japan than of Germany. And I think that turned out okay.

I recognize that more American soldiers will die seeing this through. And I am not convinced that other International aid would change that. But I am convinced that seeing this through is the first step in a long process of bringing lasting change to a region that desperately needs it.

"JohnnyMoJo" wrote:
Well, more people have died of car accidents in the US since the war started than actual soldier fatalities.

Wow, talk about trivializing our fighting men and women. You''re right, there is no point in talking with you. Your aggressive stance can only lead to barbs and insults since it is the only thing you seem to totally dismiss anything else said.


Wow, talk about trivializing our fighting men and women

Not at all. Simple statement of facts in an effort to show that your firebranding is simplistic and misguided is not trivialization at all. Again, you let your passion for rhetoric keep you from carrying on any sort of rational discourse.


Your aggressive stance can only lead to barbs and insults since it is the only thing you seem to totally dismiss anything else said.

How is it that you insult other people continuously, and then say that they ''brought it on themselves''? Are you so incapable of having a conversation based on fact and evidence that you feel compelled to distract the other participants with ''barbs and insults''?

I have looked back through several of the threads of the past few days, and in each case you are the one that threw the proverbial first stone. If you are so sure of your stance, abandon the liberal high ground and have a real conversation. Otherwise just admit that your arguments are dictated by the way you ''feel'' and stay out of the intellectual deep end.

I think we''re done on this one, time to move on guys.