Author Topic: The Imbeciles have spoken. (Read 2065 times)

oboe · « **Reply #75 on:** February 18, 2007, 11:57:22 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Bodhi
Nice personal attack. Not that I would expect different from a person of your caliber. Maybe someday you will actually participate in a conversation instead of spewing insults and hate.

Bodhi, you titled a thread "The Imbeciles Have Spoken", call the Democratic Party "Al Quaida in America", and then accuse and complain about a poster "spewing insults and hate".

You honestly don't see anything wrong with that, do you?

To tell the truth, I'm surprised this thread wasn't locked.

Hap · « **Reply #76 on:** February 18, 2007, 11:58:21 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by WhiteHawk
Good grief man, put the bong down. Can you back up any of this with common sense or you just spew whatever youre spinal chord is misfiring at the moment?

Thank-you White Hawk.

I was going to say something earlier, but it's all so bizarre that I really didn't know what to say.

Something about some people should never learn to type.

WTG

hap

Dago · « **Reply #77 on:** February 18, 2007, 12:07:23 PM »

I see some of you are catching on to Thrawn, he is all about personal attacks, and very short on anything intelligent to say.

Bodhi · « **Reply #78 on:** February 18, 2007, 12:13:48 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by oboe
Bodhi, you titled a thread "The Imbeciles Have Spoken", call the Democratic Party "Al Quaida in America", and then accuse and complain about a poster "spewing insults and hate".

You honestly don't see anything wrong with that, do you?

To tell the truth, I'm surprised this thread wasn't locked.

Oboe,

Common Sense ought to tell you that the Democratic Party is full of imbeciles when they try and pull off something like they did in the House, and almost did in the Senate. That type of activity served no other purpose than to help them in the polls, and (hopefully) inadvertently helped the terrorists that are fighting us.

As for AlQuaida America being the Democratic Party, I honestly feel they have something in common as they both seem hell bent on seeing us fail in Iraq.

So, they are not insults, just observations of something that really is happening, and definitely not personal attacks on people here.

Bodhi · « **Reply #79 on:** February 18, 2007, 12:15:03 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Hap
Thank-you White Hawk.

I was going to say something earlier, but it's all so bizarre that I really didn't know what to say.

Something about some people should never learn to type.

WTG

hap

Maybe you should come up with a plan to win in Iraq. You people are all the same. When you have nothing better to say, you launch into personal attacks.

Talking about people learning to type...

oboe · « **Reply #80 on:** February 18, 2007, 12:31:02 PM »

Bodhi,

Common sense fails me in trying to understand why the Democrats would put energy into a vote over a non-binding resolution. I really don't see what their strategy is, or how they think this might accomplish anything.

Agreed you weren't resorting to personal attacks, but if you go back and read your posts in this thread, there is no doubt you are spewing your own hate and insults.

Honestly, what is so hard about admitting it?

Maverick · « **Reply #81 on:** February 18, 2007, 12:36:48 PM »

Oboe,

Look at it from a politicians point of view. The demos need to make an impact but are still unsure exactly how far they can push their agenda. They are feeling out who will vote how on the subject of iraq.

If they put all their eggs in a basket and try to shut down the war with a funding resolution they know they will look inefective and weak if they can't push it through smoothly in one shot. As a result they take a non binding resolution and run it up the flag pole to see what their real support base is. If it flies they know they can look powerfull and will have a far better chance at succeeding in a real binding resolution. If they fail, they have lost nothing, not even prestige as it was a "do nothing" situation any how. It saved them from failing at doing something of substance which would weaken their power base. Better to fail at nothing than at something.

If they succeed it tends to push more who are waffling in support to their side for a real vote.

Donzo · « **Reply #82 on:** February 18, 2007, 12:54:16 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Maverick
Oboe,

Look at it from a politicians point of view. The demos need to make an impact but are still unsure exactly how far they can push their agenda. They are feeling out who will vote how on the subject of iraq.

If they put all their eggs in a basket and try to shut down the war with a funding resolution they know they will look inefective and weak if they can't push it through smoothly in one shot. As a result they take a non binding resolution and run it up the flag pole to see what their real support base is. If it flies they know they can look powerfull and will have a far better chance at succeeding in a real binding resolution. If they fail, they have lost nothing, not even prestige as it was a "do nothing" situation any how. It saved them from failing at doing something of substance which would weaken their power base. Better to fail at nothing than at something.

If they succeed it tends to push more who are waffling in support to their side for a real vote.

Spot on.

oboe · « **Reply #83 on:** February 18, 2007, 01:36:11 PM »

You're probably right Mav. I guess I disagree with the philosophy that it is better to fail at nothing than something.

I view it as weak and ineffectual *****footing. 'Course I don't think I'd make a very good political consultant.

Maverick · « **Reply #84 on:** February 18, 2007, 02:13:43 PM »

There are strategies and tactics to politics just like any conflict or battlefield. We have tons of armchair generals who like to say they have a solution but when it comes down to actually doing something they lack the moral conscience to put it on the line and do it. It's far far easier to stand behind somebody else doing the job and simply complain. It's another thing to step up and take responsibility for the situation.

Kieran · « **Reply #85 on:** February 18, 2007, 02:31:54 PM »

There's not really much to add here.

Ad hominem attacks are attacks however that's spun. The thread originates as an ad hominem attack on Democrats. Is it surprising that anyone that identifies as Democrat might take umbrage? And really, isn't that part of the point of posting with an inflammatory header? To get a response you can argue against?

Thrawn is a good guy in my book, not that it means anything. I do believe he is honest in his beliefs whether I agree with him or not.

The trouble here is the division between people that believe we must blindly follow the president vs. those that think we shouldn't do anything he says. Unfortunately I believe there are many of us in the middle that aren't on either extreme viewpoint. We get stuck pigeon-holed by those on both sides who need to label those that oppose their viewpoints.

Sparks · « **Reply #86 on:** February 18, 2007, 04:42:09 PM »

Quote

Your very first portion of your response was wrong. We are, and have been daily fighting the terrorist group Al Quaida in Iraq. It was prominent two days ago on all major news networks that the Iraqi's had killed the #2 man, and thought to have wounded the #1 man.

Yes there are Al Queda elements in Iraq - along with tens of other Islamic factions hell bent on gaining the power hold on the country. Here is a link to the type of factional fighting we are caught up in-
Soldiers of Heaven
Here .Bahgdad Divisions more about the target of the "surge" - Sadr City - actually a Shia enclave but a stronghold of the Mahdi Army militia loyal to radical *****e cleric Muqtada al-Sadr. Supposedly a political sopporter of the elected government but who is rumoured to be in Iran talking to the Iranians - not something the US government is happy with. The US needs the Shia power base on side but not those cosy with Iran - the US needs west friendly Shia and so needs challenges to the government smacked down.

Quote

As for the war being about oil, well, I think it is more about stability and safety. As long as religous extremist nut bags are in power in the middle east, they will use their money (gained through oil) to support the terrorist groups that are hell bent on attacking western civilizations that they believe are wrong and need to destroy.

I would agree with that so why the reluctance to act on Iran ? The insurgents in Iraq have no real capability to lanch a mass destruction attack on the west - Iran however does and, by your own argument, it has the oil to pay for it. so how does pouring resource in to Iraq improve our immediate safety and security ?

Actually If things were to kick off in Iran we definitely need the Iraq government on side to base operations in Iraq - hence the support to consolidate a friendly power base in Iraq.

Quote

We are right to have gone into Iraq. I do not believe we are in a "civil war" that the liberal newsies and left wing nut jobs claim we are. I believe that terrorist elements sponsored by Al Quaida, Iran, and Syria are hell bent on creating the illusion of a civil war though.

Hell of an illusion ....... 63 killed in market bomb

Quote

The latest push to eradicate the terrorists in Bagdad has been very succesful with a massive drop in civilian casualties as a result. This is because the terrorists are being pushed back, and captured or killed. If we continue this, we will see a dramatic drop in the violence while a country gets back on it's feet!

This is temporary .... and as far as the country getting back on its feet ?? We won't see that in our lifetime.

We support the monarchy in Saudia Arabia from which the original terrorists came from; we support the military dictatorship in Pakistan because they came on side. At the same time we turned our back on Rwanda; we largely turned our back on Yugoslavia and we turn our backs today on Sudan. This is no great philanthropic cause - this is about strategic postion and power over resource.

The Al Queda link - yes there is a faction of Al Queda but it isn't The Al Queda operating under orders from Bin Laden. Look to Pakistan and Afghanistan for the real deal.

And as far as the Reps and Dems ?? The Reps bungle the original mission and then the Dems concentrate on point scoring at home while leaving their young men and women die on the streets of Iraq for an unknown cause - Sketch's words not mine ....... Quality Government.

Oh and the UK government is no better.

Oh and no bold caps this time ................

Thrawn · « **Reply #87 on:** February 18, 2007, 08:45:59 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Bodhi
Nice personal attack. Not that I would expect different from a person of your caliber. Maybe someday you will actually participate in a conversation instead of spewing insults and hate.

I have participated in numerous threads on this bbs, and attended them with utmost seriousness and honesty. But the absolute hypocrisy of starting a thread whose sole purpose is to hate-spew, and then to cry about personal attacks deserves neither. It deserves derision.

Quote

Originally posted by mentalguy
Nice. Personal attacks and then cut and run, without explaning yourself. makes me wonder if all dems are the same?

You are the reason this country is turning to ****.

Thrawn
Senior Member

Registered: Dec 2000
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Posts: 6699

Sorry I don't think your automatic pigeon-hole for anyone that you disagree with isn't quite going to work in this case.

Quote

Do not post something if here if you dont have anything to say. Intsead of being a worthless peice of **** and insulting someone you dont even know, try and find a way to stop the war without it coming to bite us on the bellybutton later.

...he said, having nothing to say but instead insulting someone he didn't even know.

Bluedog · « **Reply #88 on:** February 18, 2007, 08:59:51 PM »

Just out of curiosity.

1) What do you guys feel would be an acceptable set of conditions for the US to leave Iraq and go home?

2) Is that even a possability or realistically achievable goal, or is the US going to be occupiing Iraq for the forseeable future?

3) Conversely, how untenable does the situation have to be before the US Govt. and people say "enough" and leave the area?

4) Is anything short of outright victory acceptable, or is that the only goal worth shooting for regardless of the time and cost?

Pretty much....
1) Define victory in Iraq

2) Is that definition of victory achievable?

3) Define defeat in Iraq

4) If the conditions of Q3 became a reality, would the US leave, or just escalate the conflict untill it was at a level where they had a far greater chance of victory. ie large middle eastern glass parking lot.

I mean to make no great political statement here, nor to upset or offend anyone, I am genuinely interested in the answers I may get to those questions.

john9001 · « **Reply #89 on:** February 18, 2007, 09:39:00 PM »

Pretty much....
1) Define victory in Iraq

2) Is that definition of victory achievable?

3) Define defeat in Iraq

4) If the conditions of Q3 became a reality, would the US leave, or just escalate the conflict untill it was at a level where they had a far greater chance of victory. ie large middle eastern glass parking lot

answers

1) when the terrorists are dead, captured, or have run away.

2) only if the americans have the will to fight.

3) defeat is a democratic victory in 2008.

4) Walter Cronkite would proclaim the tet offensive a victory for the vietcong and the media would show film clips of helicopters evacuating people off of roof tops.