« Turkish Timebomb | Main | Can The Reagan Legacy Be Rekindled? »

Sunday, April 29, 2007

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451c1db69e200d83514aa4369e2

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Feingold: Troop Deaths For Political Comfort?:

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

So Dan Riehl has backed off from his brief moment of lucidity where he wondered whether we can actually change the culture of Iraq (which I thought was the reason we were fighting this war) given that they have done nothing to sustain their 'democracy' and is back to macho chest thumping about 'winning'.

The number of people who want America to get the hell out has gone up from 57% to 64% in a matter of days. Why ? Precisely because the supporters of this war are reduced to the Dan Riehls. The American people have seen no real progress in four years so pointing to Anbar now (guess what ? The local Sunni clans find al-Qaeda a little domineering. Apparently they have their own reasons for fighting al-Qaeda that haven't got one damn thing to do with the WOT or 'democracy'. It's about outsiders telling them what to do.) is too little, too late. The American people are only hearing adolescent pigheaded machismo from Bush and Dan Riehl and their ilk, not any kind of an intelligent awareness of costs and benefits. It is the war supporters who want to throw American lives away in a useless endeavor to validate their dick sizes.

Ah, Mr. Warren. Didn't I meet you on Mark Cooper's blog one day when his regulars were talking about giving money to the Lt. Wannanotbe's defense fund? He's the Army officer who refused orders to go to Iraq and will soon be on trial. And a gent on that site named Balter was tolling the death knell by naming the individual Americans dead from battle wounds and other causes? So you have only recently wanted us to get out of Iraq? You favored the war previously but after four years you decided that wars shouldn't take so long? "The American people have seen no real progress in four years..." Or were you always against the war, against Iraq One, against the Viet Nam war, against all wars because you are comfortably protected by your country's military forces? I am curious, Yellow. And you think all of this effort and sacrifice has some kind of relationship to the phallus? That is psychiatrically interesting, one supposes, to a clinician. Ever talk with one about it?

Child, how long do you intend for American troops to die in Iraq ?

Until the Iraqis learn to play nice ? Until they develop another kind of political culture ? Do you think it is in our power to change their culture ? Do you see any sign they want to change at all ? Do you intend for American boys to be dying in Iraq for generations ? Because that is what cultural change takes. Generations.

You stupidly believe that hold an election and PRESTO! we have a democracy. It is not as easy as that. There are cultural preconditions for democracy and the first is religious tolerance. You can't have a democracy in a culture where people are killing each other over religion.

64% and rising of the American people want out of this war because its goals are pipedreams. We can't make the Iraqis another kind of people. Moran has the basic common sense to understand that the American people are NOT going to keep pouring blood and treasure down a rat hole.

Child? We will be fighting these kinds of wars for years and years unless we make the enemy, the Islamic terrorists, pay such a terrible price that they quit. It is people like you who are helping to ensure these wars are unending. Suppose we pull out tomorrow. Please advise what you think will happen. Will they make plows from their AK-47s? Will they happily retire into the hills where they can beat and abuse their women in bucolic contentment? Or how do you see it?

Child, Iraq will have a civil war no matter what we do. The same Sunni-Shiite war that has been going on for 1,400 years in one form or another. And we have no dog in that fight. The moment we overthrew Saddam and gave control of the country to the Shiite majority, we guaranteed that Iraq will become an Iranian client state.

Now, if al-Qaeda want to send fighters to fight alongside the Iraqi Sunnis against the Shiites, let them. Let them and Iran go at each other. Why should we be in the middle ?

Child? Child? There is ample evidence that many, if not most, of the fighters in Iraq now are foreigners. Iraq is the perfect place to engage and destroy them (that is what military forces exist to do, not have parades every Saturday and sit in garrison during the week polishing brass). Can you think of a better place where the enemy may collect? We need two things: One, patience and foresight on the part of our fellow citizens. Two, the will to unleash our military from the chains of political correctness and squeamishness now afflicting them and preventing them from dealing death and destruction, their stock and trade. The media is the prime cause of misinformation to our citizens.

Child, most of the fighters in Iraq are homegrown ethnic militiamen. Since al-Qaeda is Sunni and 65% of the Iraqi population is Shiite could you explain to me how most of the fighters are al-Qaeda ?

If they want a civil war, let them have it.

Maybe because it isn't a civil war but I don't expect you to understand that since you only get your talking points from your college profs and the MSM.

What you apparently don't understand either is that the war in Iraq isn't about changing Iraqi culture, it's about giving THEM the freedom to change their culture if they wish. Exactly why do the Democrats have such a problem with democracies? Oh yeah, that socialist thing.

You can call me child if you wish but I'll start calling you "snotrag". Doesn't bother me because I probably have GSW scars older than you and the "snotrag" thing will amuse Dan to no end.

It seems I've been too subtle. Don't call me child. I don't qualify, and I'm not going to tell you again. Personally, I really don't care if they are Sunni or Shiite. Anyone committing acts of violence is an enemy of their duly elected government and should be treated as such. But using the term fighters is unfair to fighters. Most of the casualties in Iraq are civilians attacked by terrorists, many of whom are suicide bombers, a small group with large lethality. They are not large groups of riflemen. Would that they were. But to call this a civil war is partly incorrect. The foreign terrorists have other goals in mind than taking over Iraq. All they want, I would think, is another Afghanistan to operate from.

Let's deal with both nonsenses.

So Fred, you want to fight both sides of a civil war ? You want us to pacify the entire country ? Well, isn't it the responsibility of the Maliki government to get support from its own people to bring that about ? Our fight is with al-Qaeda, not with the Iraqi people.

Buzzy, you spoke absolute nonsense. Give them the freedom to change their culture ? Who asked ? All the repression in the world cannot prevent authentic cultural change. The Roman Empire could not stop the march of Christianity. Nor could the military might of Imperial Iran and the Savak, so powerful on paper, turn Iran into a modern, secular nation. Fool, people change their own cultures when and only when they are good and ready and when they do all the guns and tanks and planes in the world won't stop them. We can neither expedite nor retard that process.

Since nowhere in the Muslim world is there a democracy, an intelligent person might conclude that maybe there is something about Islamic culture that just doesn't agree with democracy. Since nowhere in the Muslim world do Christians worship safely, an intelligent person might conclude that Islam flatly refuses to accept equality with other religions and therefore cannot give real tolerance.

When you push bushbot nonsense like this, it is hard not to call you children.

Heh heh. Buzzy, the snotrag is calling us Bushbots. What's a Bushbot? He still hasn't answered a single question. I wonder if he will answer that one.

I'm beginning to think this oaf is a sockpuppet for one of our usual suspects. He reminds me of noyyyinger. He starts off as the voice of reason and not too gradually becomes an insulting and flaming a-hole.

I guess I call people children when they can't think above the slogan level and you clearly can't.

The core problem is that two thirds of the American people see that you are talking nonsense.

Charlie boy, I don't see this civil war you are talking about, you know the north against the south, groups of "fighters". I don't see it, pal. I see small numbers of bombers, suicide and other, killing unarmed civilians. That isn't civil war in my book, my dear friend. That's good, old fashioned Palestinian-type terrorism. What do you think?

Two thirds of the American people elected you to represent them, Chucky? I don't think so? I have a higher regard for the American people than to believe they would select you. You won't even answer a reasonable question, as a rational person would. What have you got to hide, except your real identity? Oops, sorry. That was another question.

So you don't see a war of religion in the Muslim world ?

How stupid you are. What do you think a war of religions looks like, fool. It looks like terrorism. It is massacre and ethnic cleansing and torture. What do you think the St Bartholemew's Eve Massacre of the Protestantes in Paris looked like ? What do you think the ethnic cleansing of the Catholics from Ulster looked like ? What do you think when the Catholic troops ran wild in Magdeburg looked like ? What do you think what Henry VIII did to the monasteries looked like ? What do you think what Ferdinand and Isabella did to the Jews and Moors of Spain looked like. It looked like helpless, innocent people being butchered.

So saying that it isn't "civil war" in your book because you think civil war is nicer is the thinking of an idiot.

Stupid child, they selected Congress. And two thirds of the American people support withdrawal with a timetable. Bush is alone, surrounded only by sloganeering idiots. It is Bush vs the American people.

How dumb you bushbots are !

Well, turdicant, two-thirds of Congrees don't agree with you on retreating to surrender. Your side doesn't have the votes to over ride a veto, now does it? Oops sorry, another question.

Ferdinand and Isabella and Henry VIII had suicide bombers going for them? I didn't know that. What side were you on then, mutt? Oh another question. Sorry

Gosh all fishhooks Ms Science, you sure know how to bring out the gentleman in me, you harpy. I'm so ashamed. May you be impregnated by a mystic or eremite. I bid ye good day.

Fred, don't bother. Charles doesn't want to persuade, he wants to insult and instigate. You'll never win because he will never agree on terms or premises but will, like a leprechaun, hop from point to point always staying out of the reach of reality.

You're on a fool's errand in trying to use logic on him or, even to show him his errors. If you ignore him, he will go away.

OTOH, allowing a liberal buffoon like childe charlie the last word lets them tell themselves - and their lapdog media - "the other guy gave up. i won! therefore my idiotic ideas should be put in practice, since *i clearly have a mandate to do so*."

which is how we now have moronic ponzi schemes like social security; medicare; and some of the grosser 'great society' excesses siphoning off trillions of dollars from their rightful owners.

*never* surrender! *never* give up! *never* let bonebrains like childe chuckles have the last word!

I agree, Bob, but leaving him the last word or no, he will still claim victory when he talks to his clones. And if they do peruse the comments, they will see he has been duly engaged and, no matter the substance of the debate, they will still think he has won and it may seem that way because of the leprechaun-ish nature of his debating style.

If, however, the comments show he was never engaged, then it will be known he was anything but noticed. Why do you think he starts his comments with "child". To be noticed. Being ignored is like an anathema to them. It's why they scream and holler during talks they don't like and then liken it to free speech. It's why they dress up like clowns. It's why they have temper tantrums and use insults like confetti. It gives them what they crave and what they crave is having their opinions considered.

Maybe I should have phrased previous comment a little differently: If you do not engage them directly in the comments, they will go away. In saying that, I don't suggest you ignore their positions. By all means, show it to be nothing more than the twaddle it is.

Shunning is the last thing Childe Charlie wants. I agree with Dusty - ignore him.

I love to watch new trolls. They start off kind of quiet and polite. heh..... Give them an opening and they're off.

BobinStamford wouldn't have any sex at all if we quit talking to him.

It isn't possible to persuade bushbots.

At this point, to be a war supporter is to be so deep in denial nothing could prod you out. Two thirds of the American people, people who live in reality and face facts, agree with Senator Reid. That leaves just you. The same percentage who believed all through Watergate that Nixon was innocent.

All I can do is wish you to enjoy the next generation in the political wilderness.

Poor Charles. The unanswered questions hang over her head like Frisco (they hate that name out there) fog.

Say, Bloodrage, I don't give up. Just take a breather once in a while. The idiocy of our dear friends is tiring.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Donations Appreciated

Blog Ads


Syndigo

AdSense

Infolinks

Search

Wikio Top Fifty

Memeorandum

Blog Roll

February 2012

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
      1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29      

Find the best blogs at Blogs.com.

2006 Weblog Awards


Technorati


Blog powered by TypePad