Is this the Democrat's fantasy result?

Discussion in 'Politics and Religion' started by oddfellow4870, Mar 3, 2006.

Draft saved Draft deleted
  1. Ozzy

    Ozzy

    Messages:
    15,725
    If I want to hear political commentary I listen to unbiased political strategists, reporters, correspondents, politicans..... Not a bunch of biased comedians, actors and song writers.
    Last edited: Apr 13, 2006
  2. thezoos

    thezoos

    Messages:
    461
    exactly :D

    jon stewart hosts the daily show and helped launch the colbert report. sad but true, 2 of the best political tv shows are on comedy central. if you've never seen them check'm out. you can also google the famous clip of stewart dragging the hosts of crossfire over the hot coals and making them look like an idiot :)

    tz
  3. Ozzy

    Ozzy

    Messages:
    15,725
    Jon Stewart... The MTV VJ? What the hell has he done politically... Why not Katie Couric?


    I like Barack Abama but he hasn't exactly done anything to distinguish himself yet. Hasn't done anything to convict him on either so I guess thats a good thing when it comes to a politician.
    Last edited: Apr 6, 2006
  4. thezoos

    thezoos

    Messages:
    461
    If I had to pick...

    (from the present) Ralph Nader, Barack Abama, from the media Jon Stewart

    (From the past) TR for establishing the nat'l parks (not for the imperialism thing), MLK if you consider him "political".

    (from the way past) Max Weber, Hobbes for having a fairly good grasp on huiman nature, John Milton (referring to his political tracts including the divorce papers)

    Honorable mention to FDR, McCain (for the campaign finince bill) and Marx.

    TZ
  5. oddfellow4870

    oddfellow4870

    Messages:
    3,094
    thezoos,

    Anybody out there your political hero?
    Last edited: Apr 6, 2006
  6. thezoos

    thezoos

    Messages:
    461
    my agenda, somewhere between the dems' agenda and the green party's, would be

    1. nationalize healthcare
    2. start appointing non- archconservative supreme court judges LIKE IT WAS GOING OUT OF STYLE
    3. leave iraq and the rest of the mideast as quickly and in as dignified position as possible
    4. repeal the clean skies act (which allows coal companies to manage their air pollution themselves) and the no child left behind act (which among many bad things, attempts to take money away from public schools and give it to parochial schools)

    that should cover 4-8 years.

    if there is time left over,maybe we could pass a law making it legal to punt ann coulter

    TZ
  7. oddfellow4870

    oddfellow4870

    Messages:
    3,094
    Are you sure it's idiocy? Maybe I have mutliple personalities.
    Last edited: Mar 20, 2006
  8. justbill_redux

    justbill_redux King Missile

    Messages:
    3,923
    You're an idiot in denial.
  9. oddfellow4870

    oddfellow4870

    Messages:
    3,094
    Wow Bill. You worked so hard. I am honored. I thought you didn't read my posts. Quite a lot of work. But you are laboring under a delusion. I don't really care about coming up with ONE reason. In fact, the reasons are many and in each and every case, the reasons are NOT the ones promoted by the democrats so loudly and widely.

    One reason was in the brain of Bush.... He probably did want to deal with Sadaam from day one. Call this reason #1. I did see Powell come out of an session with Bush before 911 and state that "we are going to deal with Sadaam....." Since the congress had passed a resolution under Clinton that regime change in Iraq was US policy, this should not be such a shocking development.

    Another was the diplomatic reason, getting into the UN's kitchen and very carefully confronting them with their own, complete hypocrisy. Much easier to invade when there is some legal precedent...... If Sadaam had proven he did not have WMDs, we would not have invaded.

    And after 911, there was the anti-terror reason, where Iraq was named as a member of the axis of evil well before any substantive discussion of wmds.

    Oil stability is a side benefit, if it happens, certainly not a central or the only reason...

    Then, there is the reason the dems are hung up on when the administration ran into the outcry of the press that the reasons given were not good enough and at that point, they juiced up the wmd claims, based on accepted but not proven wisdom. This reason is pursued with such vigor because it provides the best political attack point.......

    Truth is manifested in complexity.... Sorry if it's too much for you.
    Last edited: Mar 19, 2006
  10. justbill_redux

    justbill_redux King Missile

    Messages:
    3,923
    Part 2

    http://utopiaguide.com/forums/showpost.php?p=461522&postcount=161

    A speech I'd like to hear:

    "My fellow Americans. I thought it was time to tell you the truth of why we are in Iraq. Not that I haven't told you before, but perhaps it's time for a review.This messy business of politics demands that any sane politican add things to their purpose to make it more saleable, so we've been adding a healthy portion of "democracy in the middle east" and "liberating the people of Iraq" and "finding WMDs" all of which have been good selling points both then and now.

    But the real reason is this. When we were attacked on 911, my top priority became to kill terrorists and keep them away from our soil where they could kill us and damage our economy.

    The real reason for Iraq is that every terrorist worth his jihad is flocking to Iraq where we can kill them and in great numbers. They are not here in the US. They are coming out of their hiding places and they are coming to us. This way, they are much easier to find and kill.

    If this cold reality offends you, vote for someone who has a better plan. I'm not running again.

    http://utopiaguide.com/forums/showpost.php?p=465413&postcount=223

    Tesla,

    I believe that Bush and Powell had decided early in the administration (well before 911) that they were going to deal with Sadaam. Shortly after Powell was nominated to be Secretary of State, he mentioned to a television reporter (I saw this clip) that one of the things they were going to do was to "deal with Sadaam."

    The place where I differ with you is that I see politics as an impossible challenge. If you want to get things done, there must nearly always be a certain amount of bullshitting. The opposition can always construct a seemingly logical opposition. And if you can't come up with a logical and COMPELLING response, nothing gets done.

    http://utopiaguide.com/forums/showpost.php?p=485336&postcount=17

    I'm glad we have oil men in control. We need the oil. I'm glad we're in Iraq to stabilize our oil supplies. And lower prices just keep oil wells capped and delay the inevitable.

    It's so obvious. Why don't they understand it?

    http://utopiaguide.com/forums/showpost.php?p=495781&postcount=27

    I don't give a damn about why we got involved in the first place and I don't really care all that much about Iraq, but we must try to deal with terrorism and Iraq is now the front lines.

    http://utopiaguide.com/forums/showpost.php?p=504099&postcount=28

    Let me clear things up. We are in Iraq for some self serving reasons, including oil, but we are also there because the terror that hit our shores came from the middle east, not the korean peninsula.
  11. justbill_redux

    justbill_redux King Missile

    Messages:
    3,923
    Part 1


    The words of dumbfellow4870. One mouth, many sides. Was it the WMDS? Or oil? Or fighting them over there so we don’t fight them over here? Bringing democracy to the Middle East? Pick one from column a one from column b or all of the above, who really knows because this guy cant make up his mind, you decide. Quotes taken directly from actual posts, sniped to highlight


    From http://utopiaguide.com/forums/showpost.php?p=359109&postcount=94

    This is probably the same reason we invaded Iraq, protecting our Oil Supply. Unlike Popeye and others, I don't care what the openly promoted reason was for invading. I think we need to be in the Middle East. I also think we are attracting the terrrosists like fly paper and wiping a lot of them out. Thta's a basic rule of War. Destroy your enemy. Hopefully, over time, some in the Middle East will see that we are offering an alternative to despotism and extremism and will support a real change.

    Iraq is THE logical place to start this process because it has been a more secular nation than most and we had the cover of the UN resolutions as an excuse to go in.

    http://utopiaguide.com/forums/showpost.php?p=360724&postcount=175

    When you drop all the insane anti bush rhetoric and boil this down to its simplest form, we need mideast oil. The rise of radical islam threatens our supply. We need to be involved and in a position to protect our interests.

    http://utopiaguide.com/forums/showpost.php?p=369591&postcount=332

    I was not expounding on motives. I was clarifying the legal reason for invasion.

    I personally believe that GW had decided to deal with Sadaam before 911. If the left wants ammo, dig up all of Powell's press appearences after he became Sec of State. He said early that they were going to deal with Sadaam.

    Since I accept GW's world view and I think he is much more of a leader than Clinton ever could be, I accept the fact that he chose the UN's own resolutions as the entry point for US action. The frat boy played the UN like a Harp.

    http://utopiaguide.com/forums/showpost.php?p=374236&postcount=22

    The expectation of WMDs was not the only reason or even the primary or first mentioned reason for dealing with Iraq.


    http://utopiaguide.com/forums/showpost.php?p=374379&postcount=35

    I see the reason for invading Iraq, as plain as day. I see no references to WMDs. This was the first and primary justification for invading Iraq.

    http://utopiaguide.com/forums/showpost.php?p=374405&postcount=39

    But I am proving that he never built his case for action on going after AQ exclusively and that the agenda included Iraq long before WMDs were ever mentioned.

    http://utopiaguide.com/forums/showpost.php?p=376356&postcount=11

    WMDs were not the first or primary justification for invasion. This is a dem/media invention. I am not saying that the administration did not make that arguement, but it was not first or primary.

    Iraq was on GW's axis of evil list way before WMDs were even a main topic of debate. If you would like the proof, I can re-post the Bush presentations.


    http://utopiaguide.com/forums/showpost.php?p=390782&postcount=49

    The original reasons for dealing with Iraq were related to the war on terror (see Bush speech of 9/20/2001). Clinton was much hotter on the dangers of WMDs and Sadaam (though he did nothing about it of any substance).

    I do think that the Bush admin had their sights set on Iraq before 911, but the reason had more to do with peace in the region and trying to remove a perceived threat.

    http://utopiaguide.com/forums/showpost.php?p=397659&postcount=24

    Iraq was a target of opportunity. We needed to be in the Middle East. Afghanistan is too poor to help fund the effort.


    http://utopiaguide.com/forums/showpost.php?p=398085&postcount=39

    For example, in the 9/20/2001 speech, Bush made clear that he would go after terrorists of international reach everywhere. He said it started with Al Queda, but would not be limited to them. The speech did not mention WMDs. The whole WMD riff got started much later when the press demanded a more concrete reason for dealing with Iraq. That riff was partly an invention because the original reason for dealing with Iraq had lost its popular ooomph. And politics is all about getting popular support.
  12. justbill_redux

    justbill_redux King Missile

    Messages:
    3,923
    You're an idiot in denial.
  13. oddfellow4870

    oddfellow4870

    Messages:
    3,094
    JB,

    Now if you read the entire document I just quoted from, it's clear that Blix wanted to continue inspections. But as with most things UN, they only want more process, more reports and never any action.

    GW provided the consequences. Sadaam did NOT meet the UN standard. So GW provided what was needed: consequences. GW did what Sadaam refused to do, prove there were no WMDs in Iraq.

    "It required this cooperation to be immediate, unconditional and active"

    So what is the meaning of the words "required".

    What is the meaning of the word "unconditional"?

    If these words do not have consequences, they have NO meaning.

    So my statement is not a lie. It is the truth. We invaded Iraq because Sadaam did not prove there were no WMDs in Iraq.
  14. oddfellow4870

    oddfellow4870

    Messages:
    3,094
    JB, I'll take my very clear memory against your snips any day of the week. I followed the UN events carefully and when the "report" came back from Iraq that was supposed to detail what happened to all the illegal materials, Hans Blix declared them insufficient. He was the chief UN inspector and no friend of GW. I'm sure there has been tons of revisionism since then.

    http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/Bx27.htm

    THE SECURITY COUNCIL, 27 JANUARY 2003:
    AN UPDATE ON INSPECTION
    Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC, Dr. Hans Blix

    snip

    Resolution 1441 (2002) was adopted on 8 November last year and emphatically reaffirmed the demand on Iraq to cooperate. It required this cooperation to be immediate, unconditional and active.

    snip

    On 7 December 2002, Iraq submitted a declaration of some 12,000 pages in response to paragraph 3 of resolution 1441 (2002)

    snip

    One might have expected that in preparing the Declaration, Iraq would have tried to respond to, clarify and submit supporting evidence regarding the many open disarmament issues.

    snip

    While UNMOVIC has been preparing its own list of current “unresolved disarmament issues” and “key remaining disarmament tasks” in response to requirements in resolution 1284 (1999), we find the issues listed in the two reports as unresolved

    snip

    They point to lack of evidence and inconsistencies, which raise question marks, which must be straightened out, if weapons dossiers are to be closed and confidence is to arise.

    They deserve to be taken seriously by Iraq rather than being brushed aside as evil machinations of UNSCOM. Regrettably, the 12,000 page declaration, most of which is a reprint of earlier documents, does not seem to contain any new evidence that would eliminate the questions or reduce their number. Even Iraq’s letter sent in response to our recent discussions in Baghdad to the President of the Security Council on 24 January does not lead us to the resolution of these issues.

    end of quotations
  15. justbill_redux

    justbill_redux King Missile

    Messages:
    3,923
    For all the malfeasance you could possibly want try http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/

    When I grow up I want to be like BMM.
    Last edited: Mar 19, 2006
  16. justbill_redux

    justbill_redux King Missile

    Messages:
    3,923
    The passing of time doesn't change what they did and yes Begin did assume responsibility.
  17. justbill_redux

    justbill_redux King Missile

    Messages:
    3,923
    History according to Ozzy, wrong again, unless of course there’s a declaration in some ancient Hebrew language that us goyum don’t have access to that backs up this bullshit. Everyone has their own opinion, but not their own facts.

    From Knesset

    The main events during the term of the 13th Knesset were the signing of the agreements with the Palestinians and of the peace treaty with Jordan, and the assassination of Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin. Following the elections, a government headed by the Labor Party was formed. Under the new government the course of the peace process, which the previous government had embarked upon following the Madrid Conference, change
    After the expulsion of 415 Hamas and Islamic Jihad activists in December 1992, and the standstill in the Washington talks, Israel began secret negotiations with the PLO in Norway. On September 13, 1993, the Declaration of Principles was signed (Oslo I) regarding mutual recognition between Israel and the PLO,
    Israel's withdrawal from Gaza and Jericho and the establishment of a Palestinian authority. The agreement raised a good deal of controversy in the general public and the Knesset, but in a vote on a motion of no-confidence in the Knesset, brought against the background of the Declaration on 23 September, 1993, 61 MKs voted against the motion and 50 in favor, with eight members abstaining and one being absent.

    [snip]

    And from PLO

    After the signing of the Oslo agreements, the PNC conveyed in Gaza in April 1996 to void parts of the Palestinian National Convenant that denied Israel's right to exist. This was done by 504 votes in favour and 54 against.
    At the insistance of the then Prime Minister of Israel, Netanyahu, who raised it as a condition to continue the Peace process, the PNC gather again in Gaza in December 1998, in presence of the US President Clinton, to reaffirm again the deletion of the parts of the Charter which denied Israel's right to exist
  18. justbill_redux

    justbill_redux King Missile

    Messages:
    3,923
    Menachem Begin, killer and terrorist until he achieved his goals that is, you cant rewrite history with what he did while he led the Irgun.

    Oh yeah I see the connection between them.

    Arafat, an Arab nationalist whose aim was to establish a state for the Palestinian people and used various murderous tactics as a mean to his end.

    Bin- Laden, an Islamic fundamentalist calling for the destruction of the West and the creation of a fundamentalist pan-Islamic caliphate and who uses various murderous tactics as a mean to his end

    Clear as rain, nationalism vs ideological.
  19. Ozzy

    Ozzy

    Messages:
    15,725
    You're talking about a group that existed for the most part almost 60 years ago and short of one incident (Deir Yassin village, assuming they did it, I don't think they ever claimed responsibilty) mostly targeted the British military. But regardless if you want to compare a group thats been extinct for 40 years or so with another that still blows up innocents on school busses and markets for the last 40 or so years, has killed a hundred fold the number the Irgun and the Stern Gangs did.... and put them on even ground go right ahead.
    Last edited: Mar 18, 2006
  20. justbill_redux

    justbill_redux King Missile

    Messages:
    3,923
    Part 2

    What are we to make of these activities? One can hardly avoid the impression that, after a period of somewhat reluctant cooperation, there has been an acceleration of initiatives from the Iraqi side since the end of January.
    This is welcome, but the value of these measures must be soberly judged by how many question marks they actually succeed in straightening out. This is not yet clear.
    Against this background, the question is now asked whether Iraq has cooperated “immediately, unconditionally and actively” with UNMOVIC, as required under paragraph 9 of resolution 1441 (2002). The answers can be seen from the factual descriptions I have provided. However, if more direct answers are desired, I would say the following:
    The Iraqi side has tried on occasion to attach conditions, as it did regarding helicopters and U-2 planes. Iraq has not, however, so far persisted in these or other conditions for the exercise of any of our inspection rights. If it did, we would report it.
    It is obvious that, while the numerous initiatives, which are now taken by the Iraqi side with a view to resolving some long-standing open disarmament issues, can be seen as “active”, or even “proactive”, these initiatives 3-4 months into the new resolution cannot be said to constitute “immediate” cooperation. Nor do they necessarily cover all areas of relevance. They are nevertheless welcome and UNMOVIC is responding to them in the hope of solving presently unresolved disarmament issues.

    [snip]

    How much time would it take to resolve the key remaining disarmament tasks? While cooperation can and is to be immediate, disarmament and at any rate the verification of it cannot be instant. Even with a proactive Iraqi attitude, induced by continued outside pressure, it would still take some time to verify sites and items, analyse documents, interview relevant persons, and draw conclusions. It would not take years, nor weeks, but months. Neither governments nor inspectors would want disarmament inspection to go on forever. However, it must be remembered that in accordance with the governing resolutions, a sustained inspection and monitoring system is to remain in place after verified disarmament to give confidence and to strike an alarm, if signs were seen of the revival of any proscribed weapons programmes.