Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditAs the midterm election approached, polls showed Iraq as the number one issue on voters' minds and the number one issue they expect the new Congress to quickly address.
"Despite all the attempts to spin Tuesday's election results as something else," John Nichols wrote in The Online Beat, "the single most important message to take away from the voting is this: The American people cast their ballots against the Bush administration's approach to the war in Iraq."
In response, national peace groups have launched a "Mandate for Peace" campaign to immediately follow the election. Organized by United for Peace and Justice, Iraq Veterans Against War, True Majority, Progressive Democrats of America, Peace Action, Goldstar Families for Peace, Network of Spiritual Progressives, CODEPINK, Iraqi Voices for Peace, Global Exchange, Pax Christi USA and others, the coalition intends to ramp up grassroots pressure on the new Congress to enact a speedy end to the occupation of Iraq.
The Mandate reads in part: "We urge you to represent the will of the peace-loving people of the United States by immediately passing legislation requiring the prompt removal of all US troops from Iraq and discontinuing funding for military purposes in Iraq except the safe withdrawal of all US forces."
Check out the group's new website, sign and circulate the petition, click here to tell your rep you expect him/her to work for peace, and see how else you can help hold Congress responsible to the majority of Americans who are saying the Iraq war needs to end.
Share this article
Peter Rothberg
Your guide to expressing informed dissent to war, racism, sexism, environmental degradation and market-based solutions to social problems.
- Atrios
- Arts and Letters Daily
- The Caucus
- Campus Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- The Daily Gotham
- Daily Kos
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Ezra Klein
- FAIR
- Feministe
- Feministing
- Firedoglake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Gothamist
- In these Times
- Hendrik Hertzberg
- Huffington Post
- Hullabaloo
- Matthew Yglesias
- Media Matters
- Mother Jones
- My DD
- New York Review of Books
- Openleft
- Pam's House Blend
- Pandagon
- Political Wire
- The Progressive
- RaceWire
- Real Clear Politics
- Roberto Lovato
- Romenesko
- Swing State Project
- Talking Points Memo
- Ta-Nehisi Coates
- Tapped
- Tech President
- Tompaine
- The Washington Note
- Utne Reader
- Wonkette
- ZNet
RSS
PETER
"Despite all the attempts to spin Tuesday's election results as something else," John Nichols wrote in The Online Beat, "the single most important message to take away from the voting is this: The American people cast their ballots against the Bush administration's approach to the war in Iraq."
BLOG | Posted 11/08/2006 @ 08:13am A New Morality---Katrina vanden Heuvel
"It is clear – as I suggested in a recent post – that the economy has emerged along with the war in Iraq as the defining moral issues of our time."
Now it seems as if Ms vanden Heuvel is trying "to spin Tuesday's election results as something else"...doesn't it?!?!?
Posted by Mask at 11/08/2006 @ 2:03pm
ZERO -- I think you know the answer to your questions. It's great to kick the GOP out of Congress but I'd hesitate to call this a great day for leftists. As I don't need to tell you, the Dem leadership has not exactly been calling for peace and sanity in the Middle East so, to me, the best thing to do is try to ramp up grassroots pressure on whoever happens to be occupying the various branches of govt. The petition is just an organzing tool--and likely a fairly inconsequential one at that.
MASK -- I'd agree that the economy played a big role in the Dems win. But the economy, even under Bush, is in much better shape than Iraq, so I do think the war played a major, if not at all exclusive, role.
RIO -- You're being silly again.
FREI -- I suspect (and hope) that you're wrong. I think most familes with soldiers in Iraq feel the same way.
Posted by Peter Rothberg at 11/08/2006 @ 3:04pm
MASK -- I'd agree that the economy played a big role in the Dems win. But the economy, even under Bush, is in much better shape than Iraq, so I do think the war played a major, if not at all exclusive, role.
Posted by PETER ROTHBERG 11/08/2006 @ 3:04pm
Great....then Ms vanden Heuvel's belief that it means some vast "New New Deal" is semi-baseless.
Posted by Mask at 11/08/2006 @ 3:07pm
MASK -- I don't think I said that! I think pppeople def. want more economic populism, whatever they call it. I agree with Katrina hat most Americans would absolutely both benefit from and support govt. entitlement programs aimed at things like education, healthcare and job training. Pedrsonally, I don't know that Pelosi and Reid want a new, New Deal but if their constituients push hard enough, they might be open to it.
Posted by Peter Rothberg at 11/08/2006 @ 3:18pm
MASK, thanks for the gnat's-weight contributions. For you, it's better than thinking about LOSING. As in, getting-your-clock-cleaned LOSING.
Posted by fromredbird at 11/08/2006 @ 3:49pm
Why, all of a sudden, with the great Democratic Party saviours poised to take control of both houses of Congress, are liberals out on the streets having to petition the Democrats? Didn't the Democrats already make some sort of promise to us in order to get all our votes?
Posted by ZERO 11/08/2006 @ 2:02pm
Good question, but I know you know that we're much closer to the beginning than the end. Make the Republicans irrelevant, hold the Democrats to account, find ways to work around the roadblocks in the Democratic Party, and, eventually, win.
Posted by fromredbird at 11/08/2006 @ 3:55pm
is anyone else having problems posting? cant post on nichols' blog. sour grape pub hackers?
Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/08/2006 @ 3:56pm
rummy's out! ding dong the witch is dead!
chimpy remains...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/08/2006 @ 3:59pm
(after reading Pete's response to Mask) Peter - Turn on spell check!
My question is how will this peace mandate bring about peace? If we leave Iraq, will there be peace? Will "terrorists" turn to peace? How do you define peace? Seems to me that this isn't like any war before in that when the fighting stops you go home and live safely ever after (ww1/ww2/Korea/Vietnam); not this time. Thanks!
Posted by woodyee at 11/08/2006 @ 4:01pm
Posted by PETER ROTHBERG 11/08/2006 @ 3:18pm
Again, PETER...is it "Iraq and just Iraq"...or 18 million other items on yours and Ms vanden Heuvel's agenda.
This is the trap the Dems fell into in 1992-1994. Clinton comes in on a wave of "Reaganism is dead. The GOP had their chance at the White House for 12 years, but Clinton won on the economy primarily....oh and gays in the military...and universal health care...and Lani Guinier-type Attorney Generals...and massive tax hikes to pay for it".
And what happened? The "over-reach" began and it blew up in their faces. If Speaker Nancy goes after a Iraq plan FIRST (in alignment with Mr Nichols' (and your original) idea that it was an "anti-war" vote....they win.
If they think it's a mandate for "economic populism"...when you yourself admitted that problems with the economy were NOTHING in comparison to the failures in Iraq...and try to re-create the New Deal or even "Great Society"....they lose.
"borrow and spend" Republicans may not have been popular....but NOBODY has yet shown that "tax and spend" Democrats are ...back in vogue after 25 years.
Posted by Mask at 11/08/2006 @ 4:10pm
Posted by FROMREDBIRD 11/08/2006 @ 3:49pm
Simple question, FRB.....given your "victory"....
what are Speaker Nancy and ML Harry going to give you...as far as your ideas on "Mid-Eastern foreign policy"?
Posted by Mask at 11/08/2006 @ 4:11pm
In a prepared statement dent to the AP, Hamas wrote: "America is offering political, financial and logistic cover for the Zionist occupation crimes, and it is responsible for the Beit Hanoun massacre. Therefore, the people and the nation all over the globe are required to teach the American enemy tough lessons."
Posted by RIO BRAVO 11/08/2006 @ 4:11pm
Check AP again, RIO....are they sure it wasn't some American blogger named "FROMREDBIRD"...and not Hamas??!?!?
Posted by Mask at 11/08/2006 @ 4:12pm
Why, all of a sudden, with the great Democratic Party saviours poised to take control of both houses of Congress, are liberals out on the streets having to petition the Democrats? Didn't the Democrats already make some sort of promise to us in order to get all our votes?
Posted by ZERO 11/08/2006 @ 2:02pm
Zero - the vote yesterday was mostly about disapproval of the way Iraq is handled - it was not approval of promises made by democrats.
Posted by urmygyro at 11/08/2006 @ 4:16pm
My question is how will this peace mandate bring about peace? If we leave Iraq, will there be peace? Will "terrorists" turn to peace? How do you define peace? Seems to me that this isn't like any war before in that when the fighting stops you go home and live safely ever after (ww1/ww2/Korea/Vietnam); not this time. Thanks!
Posted by WOODYEE 11/08/2006 @ 4:01pm
Woodye - ever heard of the cold war? You know, that thing that made Reagan so popular.
Posted by urmygyro at 11/08/2006 @ 4:20pm
This is hell'a funny . . a compilation of all the right-wingnut bloggers saying the Republicans lost because they weren't right-wing enough. Gee whiz- I wonder why they haven't been able to figure out why Iraq wasn't the cakewalk they expected? Because they're f'n stupid, maybe?
http://tinyurl.com/ycdtwp
Posted by FROMREDBIRD 11/08/2006 @ 4:18pm
Posted by fromredbird at 11/08/2006 @ 4:22pm
Posted by URMYGYRO 11/08/2006 @ 4:20pm
Analogy flaw, URMY....unless the Soviets blew up some buildings in New York and we missed it.
Posted by Mask at 11/08/2006 @ 4:28pm
it was not approval of promises made by democrats.
Posted by URMYGYRO 11/08/2006 @ 4:16pm |
You REALLY think the Democrats or liberal pundits/bloggers are going to stick with that, URMY? That means "no mandate" for all the other non-Iraq issues!
Posted by Mask at 11/08/2006 @ 4:29pm
Mask - wrong. The threat that looms, according to Bush, is the use of nuclear weapons against us if we "cut and run" because Iraq will become a fertile ground for terrorists.
That threat of nuclear weapons loomed with the Soviets.
Posted by urmygyro at 11/08/2006 @ 4:30pm
You REALLY think the Democrats or liberal pundits/bloggers are going to stick with that, URMY? That means "no mandate" for all the other non-Iraq issues!
Posted by MASK 11/08/2006 @ 4:29pm
If the dems over-play their hand the american public will push back just like they did to dems in '94 and to repubs yesterday.
But don't think the dems won't get some things they want Mask. If they were smart though, they'd go at it in a slower, steadier pace than rushing in full speed ahead.
Posted by urmygyro at 11/08/2006 @ 4:33pm
LoveLiberty's absence is glaring.
Perhaps he's been "raptured"
Posted by urmygyro at 11/08/2006 @ 4:35pm
Mask wrote: "You REALLY think the Democrats or liberal pundits/bloggers are going to stick with that, URMY? That means "no mandate" for all the other non-Iraq issues!"
I know Mask - it would give you so little to write about if they did. You'd be stuck writing your 60th post about the lack of stories about diebold machines if (well, no longer "if") if the dems win.
Posted by urmygyro at 11/08/2006 @ 4:40pm
Physicians for Human Rights is soon publishing a new study. It reveals that between June 27 and October 28 israeli military forces killed 57 unarmed Palestinain minors and severely wounded 337 unarmed Palestinian children.
Too bad you weren't around in the early 1940's, MASK. You could have cheered on the nazi destruction of the Jews in the Warsaw ghetto.
Posted by fromredbird at 11/08/2006 @ 4:42pm
In a prepared statement dent to the AP, Hamas wrote: "America is offering political, financial and logistic cover for the Zionist occupation crimes, and it is responsible for the Beit Hanoun massacre. Therefore, the people and the nation all over the globe are required to teach the American enemy tough lessons."
Posted by RIO BRAVO 11/08/2006 @ 4:11pm
Why don't you immigrate to israel, RIO BLOTTO? It sounds like their human rights abusing, Geneva Convention violating methods are more suitable to you than American democracy. Then we wouldn't have to listen to your LOSER whining anymore.
Posted by fromredbird at 11/08/2006 @ 4:49pm
MASK, you are just a bandwidth-wasting, right-wing idiot.
Posted by fromredbird at 11/08/2006 @ 4:50pm
Will the study include how many Israelis were killed by Palestinians?
Posted by woodyee at 11/08/2006 @ 4:53pm
after the war's over, let's get those subpoenas rolling......it's PAYBACK time.
Posted by darladoon at 11/08/2006 @ 5:28pm
frankly, i think peace in the middle east is a pipe dream.
abandoning american military bases in middle east + total withdrawal of support for israel =
even more war
unfortunate, but true. ask the british, ask the french. ask the russians.
Posted by darladoon at 11/08/2006 @ 5:59pm
frankly, i think peace in the middle east is a pipe dream.
abandoning american military bases in middle east + total withdrawal of support for israel =
even more war
unfortunate, but true. ask the british, ask the french. ask the russians.
Posted by DARLADOON 11/08/2006 @ 5:59pm
Or, instead of "abandoning american military bases in middle east + total withdrawal of support for israel" how about not militarily occupying Arab and Muslim countries and making it clear to israel that it has to negotiate a peace settlement with the Palestinians that most of them find acceptable? That's all the Palestinians ever wanted and the one thing that we've never considered offering.
Or, would that be a "problem" because israel considers them untermenschen and doesn't want a settlement, it just wants more land? If so, why should we pay for the required human rights abuses and daily slaughter?
Posted by fromredbird at 11/08/2006 @ 6:23pm
Posted by URMYGYRO 11/08/2006 @ 4:30pm
No...your analogy is flawed.
First, the Soviets were NOT suicidal religious extremists who felt by destroying their enemies they were assured a place in Heaven. If they HAD been they would have vaporized us and themselves in a nuclear holocaust as soon as they could.
They also didn't say "cut military support of West Germany or we'll set off bombs in your major cities from our hiding places in the civilian areas of Franco's Spain, where you cant retaliate against us"....insert "Israel" for "Germany" and the constant calls from the terrorists (and FROMRED) that we abandon them or face continueing attacks....and "Saudi Arabia" or "Iran" for Spain.
How EXACTLY do you have a "cold war" with people who will kill you and THEMSELVES by any means necessary?
Posted by Mask at 11/08/2006 @ 6:26pm
Posted by FROMREDBIRD 11/08/2006 @ 6:23pm
Still waiting, FRB....what are Speaker Nancy and ML Reid going to do for you on Israel?
Posted by Mask at 11/08/2006 @ 6:27pm
how about not militarily occupying Arab and Muslim countries
how about it? i'm all for it, but watch the ensuing bloodshed and chaos--talk about human rights abuses....? the costs of that exceed the benefits of just letting go.
israel considers them untermenschen and doesn't want a settlement, it just wants more land
israel wants more land, but it won't necessarily happen, and when they wanted more land in the past it hasn't necessarily happened in the past either.
it's becoming more and more evident, with each passing day, that iraq is developing into a balkanized, chaotic environment. people are killing each other vis a vis their religious and political affiliation, in spite of american presence. sure, we are exacerbating the chaos--but at the same time we are standing by and trying to keep at least some level of peace and civility. some of us here may laugh, and say, "americans? trying to keep the peace? preposterous."
well, if it were so preposterous, then why would anyone support the troops if they're not there to keep at least some level of peace and civility? shouldn't we all call for a mutiny within the ranks of soldiers? shouldn't we call for an immediate abandonment, by every single soldier, of his arms, equipment and clothing?
if we really are anti-war, then we should all not support the troops, because guns kill, and guns are enemies of peace. no?
Posted by darladoon at 11/08/2006 @ 6:40pm
How EXACTLY do you have a "cold war" with people who will kill you and THEMSELVES by any means necessary?
Posted by MASK 11/08/2006 @ 6:26pm
Hey, great MASK. You're reverting to your Republican infantilism of early 2003. This Republican electoral black hole is sucking out whatever was left of your brains. Do you think maybe we should invade Iraq to prevent that madman Maliki form developing a nuclear weapon in the future which, everyone knows, he will give to terrorists? Uh . . duh, MASK . . has anything significant happened in the last three f'n years that was able to sink into your braincase?
What do we get to listen to from you for the next two years- babbling about the Islamic caliphate that is going to conquer us and force us to worship THEIR God rather than our OWN God? About the "war of Islam against the civilized West"?
LOL. The nurse will be by later to feed you.
Posted by fromredbird at 11/08/2006 @ 6:59pm
Posted by DARLADOON 11/08/2006 @ 6:40pm
Are you trying to say that we should continue to occupy Iraq now that the Democrats won? That the desire of 85% of Iraqis shouldn't be considered?
Posted by fromredbird at 11/08/2006 @ 7:02pm
Anyone for starting a MASK rest home fund? Someplace where he can be taken care of and where there is no internet access. Too bad he's lost his mind but no one ever said that politics wasn't dangerous.
Posted by fromredbird at 11/08/2006 @ 7:05pm
How about the LOSER LA LA LAND HOME FOR ERUDITE POLITICAL COMMENTATORS in Burbank, California?
Posted by fromredbird at 11/08/2006 @ 7:07pm
In a prepared statement dent to the AP, Hamas wrote: "America is offering political, financial and logistic cover for the Zionist occupation crimes, and it is responsible for the Beit Hanoun massacre. Therefore, the people and the nation all over the globe are required to teach the American enemy tough lessons."
Posted by RIO BRAVO 11/08/2006 @ 4:11pm
An outrageous statement, isn't it RIO BLOTTO? Far, far more outrageous than this:
Gaza - Israeli artillery shelled houses in northern Gaza early Wednesday, killing at least 19 Palestinians, including five women and seven children, the youngest a one-year-old baby girl, hospital officials said.
Guns stationed along the Israel-Gaza border targeted the eastern outskirts of the town of Beit Hanoun after militants had launched locally-made Qassam rockets at Israel from the area, but the militants had long gone and the shells slammed into houses instead, witnesses said.
Thirteen of the dead were members of the same extended al-Atamna family, doctors said, adding some 40 people were wounded, nine of whom were in critical or serious condition in the intensive care.
An army spokesman said militants had launched four rockets from the targeted area at the southern Israeli coastal city of Ashkelon Tuesday. He said the strike a day later was a preventive one aimed at deterring militants from returning to that spot to launch more rockets.
http://tinyurl.com/ybnoh4
Makes you proud to be an American supplying the artillery rounds, doesn't it RIO GENOCIDE?
Posted by fromredbird at 11/08/2006 @ 7:25pm
Posted by FROMREDBIRD 11/08/2006 @ 7:05pm
Third time....
What are Speaker Nancy and Maj. Leader Reid going to do to Israel, FROMRED?
(or is "loser" more than just Republicans, but wacko hard-left Israel-haters like you...as well?)
Posted by Mask at 11/08/2006 @ 7:30pm
MASK, you're a LOSER, big time, and no amount of attempting to start a chase after other issues is going to get anyone to stop laughing at your brittle, impotent fury. LOL to the 10th power.
Posted by fromredbird at 11/08/2006 @ 7:35pm
no, i'm saying peace in the middle east is a pipe dream....
but, as for my own opinion, i think the united states should begin an immediate phased withdrawal, completion in 12 months......and then i think we should keep military bases only in areas where we are tolerated (jordan or kuwait). and also in far-off places like diego garcia (near india). and indonesia or malaysia. but, all in all, i think the military bases are making some people pretty fucking angry.....and we should consider how that anger leads to attacks on us.
but i simply cannot accept any idea of peace prevailing in the middle east in my lifetime, or my nephew's lifetime, or my nephew's children's lifetime...
Posted by darladoon at 11/08/2006 @ 7:39pm
MASK, the Republicans got bodyslammed yesterday and you want to talk about israel today. Why don't you repress your rage and just slink away like JOHN MAASCH and LVLIBERTY1?
Maybe all you Republicans that hang around here should get together and start a commune in Guyana or something. If there are more than ten of you you might be able to get a discount on your KOOL-AID supplies.
Posted by fromredbird at 11/08/2006 @ 7:40pm
How EXACTLY do you have a "cold war" with people who will kill you and THEMSELVES by any means necessary?
Posted by MASK 11/08/2006 @ 6:26pm
"MINNEAPOLIS: Democrat Keith Ellison was elected as the nation's first Muslim member of Congress on Tuesday . . .
Mahdi Bray, executive director of the Muslim American Society, compared an Ellison victory to Edward Brooke's election in 1966 as the first black senator since the 1870s.
He said Muslims followed the campaign closely, and that they are more excited about seeing a Muslim in Congress than they are concerned about Ellison's strong liberal views.
"We are monotheistic, but we are not monolithic. There are things within our own community that we disagree about," he said. Ellison's views "might be a concern but I think the overall factor of having a Muslim voice in Congress overrides those types of concerns."
Ellison's campaign had to deal with reports of overdue parking tickets, late campaign finance reports and unpaid taxes. He also faced questions about anti-Semitism because of past ties with the Nation of Islam, a black Muslim group led by the confrontational Louis Farrakhan.
Ellison, a criminal defense attorney who converted to Islam as a college student, denounced Farrakhan, and he won the endorsement of a Minneapolis Jewish newspaper."
http://tinyurl.com/y9yjlt
MASK . . WTF? They're electing people to Congress . . does this mean they aren't going to use the nuclear weapons? Bwa-ha-ha-ha-ha!
Catapult the fear and bigotry, MASK. Anything to get your Republicans back in the saddle . . . some distant time in a galaxy far, far away.
Posted by fromredbird at 11/08/2006 @ 8:18pm
Posted by FROMREDBIRD 11/08/2006 @ 8:18pm
Seems like YOU are the bigot, FRB....are all Muslims terrorists to YOU?!?!?!
4th time---What are Speaker Nancy and ML Reid going to "do" to Israel for you?!??!?
Posted by Mask at 11/08/2006 @ 8:22pm
To the rest...he'll never answer it.
He can't. He knows Reid and Pelosi will NEVER fall into the "Hate Israel" agenda that FRB embraces.
Though he's "won"...a Dem Congress. He knows they will ignore idiots like him and their embrace of the Hezbollah/Hamas view of how "peace with Israel" is to be achieved.
He thinks he's invited to the party...but he's outside looking in the window!
Posted by Mask at 11/08/2006 @ 8:24pm
He knows they will ignore idiots like him and their embrace of the Hezbollah/Hamas view of how "peace with Israel" is to be achieved.
Posted by MASK 11/08/2006 @ 8:24pm
Bwa-ha-ha-ha! Clinical dissociative response. MASK, take three bottles of PANAX and then take a dirt nap. A lot of us will feel better when your misery is over. And, don't watch the news before you go to sleep. It isn't getting any better.
Posted by fromredbird at 11/08/2006 @ 8:33pm
To the rest...
Posted by MASK 11/08/2006 @ 8:24pm
No one's reading it MASK . . they're out celebrating the Republicans thorough, complete, utter, merciless asskicking. I'm going out for more beer right now. Why don't you go over to redstate.org and have a communal boo, hoo, hoo over all the states that are turning pink? LOL.
Posted by fromredbird at 11/08/2006 @ 8:41pm
Posted by RIO BRAVO 11/08/2006 @ 4:11pm
Rio,
Not too sure that the Dems, once Dubya seduces the useful ones with lunches at the Whitehouse, won't prove to be more useful to him and his Iraq venture than some of the present House Repubs.
Whilst the Dems were in opposition, Iraq, for public consumption, was a "mess". In the new year don't be surprised if the Dems also begin to tell the world about the great strides being made in Iraq under The New Direction policies, for which policies the President is eternally grateful. (That's what he tells them).
The anti-Bush public, having put its electoral trust, into the hands of the Dems will applaud the democratic Iraq their cunning use of the ballot box has produced. (Most voters don't like to admit they've been fooled).
We Bushites, who knew all along that Iraq was a winner for Iraqis and the free world will feel vindicated and happy. That leaves the journos on The Nation to be the only ones feeling dudded. They also have not been forgotten, for what would they do if there was nothing to complain about?
Makes it easy to believe in God doesn't it?
Posted by lrjones4 at 11/08/2006 @ 8:54pm
DARLADOON, on your comments,
i think we should keep military bases only in areas where we are tolerated (jordan or kuwait). and also in far-off places like diego garcia (near india), and indonesia or malaysia.
We can't put a base on Diego Gracia because it's a British base (we were there because Turkey wouldn't let us use their base to launch an attack) and we only have 2 bases in the Middle East, which by the way, the Pentagon is considering closing.
Posted by ACook at 11/08/2006 @ 9:04pm
Oh, and Indonesia and Malaysia is having "Royality' troubles.
Posted by ACook at 11/08/2006 @ 9:05pm
BTW, Peter, thanks for reading/replying to comments on your blog. I for one appreciate it.
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 11/08/2006 @ 9:17pm
after the war's over, let's get those subpoenas rolling......it's PAYBACK time.
Posted by DARLADOON 11/08/2006 @ 5:28pm
No, it isn't, according to Nancy Pelosi on the News Hour tonight.
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 11/08/2006 @ 9:20pm
"You have been given a choice between war and dishonor. You have chosen dishonor, and in due course, you shall have war" something like that, was said by the immortal Winston Churchill in response to the appeasement of Hitler at Munich. Will history repeat itself?
The elation of the left certainly reminds me of the look on Neville Chamberlain's face as he waved the peace agreement he had signed with der fuhrer. You all remember his statement, "Peace in our time"?
Well, maybe it's not as bad as all that, but when I read the rantings of some on this blog, I have my doubts...FRB...don't ignore me....(sob)
Posted by davebarlett at 11/08/2006 @ 10:13pm
chamberlian was a conservative.
I have no doubt you have the look on his face etched in our mind
Posted by Will C. at 11/08/2006 @ 10:25pm
Will C, Chamberlain may have been a conservative, but the more important point is that his desire for peace blinded him as to the reality of Hitler's intentions, despite every indication that the Sudetenland would only be the first of Hitler's territorial demands, not the last...which reminds me of another famous quote, " those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it" Or, I might add, those who never learned history to begin with....RED? WHERE ARE YOU??????????
Posted by davebarlett at 11/08/2006 @ 10:49pm
Zero, I do believe you're a fan of Ol' uncle adolf....Or are you an islamist....Hey,whatever, be who you are...hit me beat me, make me feel cheap...just don't coddle me, I can't stand to be coddled...RED, YOU"RE IGNORING ME.....
Posted by davebarlett at 11/08/2006 @ 11:24pm
Wood:Seems to me that this isn't like any war before in that when the fighting stops you go home and live safely ever after (ww1/ww2/Korea/Vietnam);
whatthefuckareyoutalkingabout? Vietnam? first the US pulled out of ground fighting, but the air war went on for years. then the US pulled out completely, and the war went on for a year. until the stronger side prevailed. so it will be in Iraq. when, and certainly not if, the US withdraws, the civil war will continue, but not the war to eject the occupier america. that war will cease. when the US withdraws, the stronger side in Iraq will win. I believe it will be the "anti-Iraqis", remember them?
OR Iraq will break up into pieces, which then will de stabilize the region leading to a wider war. Staying the course is not an option for the US, as this is a war of choice for the US, and they have the choice to split.
Posted by johannesrolf at 11/09/2006 @ 12:04am
The US will not cut and run.
Posted by FREIHEIT 11/08/2006 @ 2:10pm | ignore this person
certainly not. they didn't cut and run in Vietnam did they? Pfffft.
Posted by johannesrolf at 11/09/2006 @ 12:06am
Chamberlain may have been a conservative, but the more important point is that his desire for peace blinded him as to the reality of Hitler's intentions, despite every indication that the Sudetenland would only be the first of Hitler's territorial demands . . .
. . Or, I might add, those who never learned history to begin with....RED? WHERE ARE YOU??????????
Posted by DAVEBARLETT 11/08/2006 @ 10:49pm
Thanks genius. It never occurred to me that the United States of America was only the first of Saddam Hussein's territorial demands. I wonder, though, how realistic it was considering that we wouldn't even let him fly airplanes in his own airspace.
Or, maybe you were referring to Osama Bin Laden. Hell, I could have figured out that flying a couple of airplanes into some buildings was just a prelude to occupying the whole of New York State, and then all the United States, and then the whole world. I just never thought about it. That's why geniuses like you are so important to have around.
Since you're so up on current events maybe you could confirm a rumor for me. I heard somewhere that the US invaded a foreign country and has been occupying it for the last three and a half years. That's bullshit, right? We don't have any territorial ambitions.
Posted by fromredbird at 11/09/2006 @ 12:54am
RED, YOU"RE IGNORING ME.....
Posted by DAVEBARLETT 11/08/2006 @ 11:24pm
Sorry, I was somewhere celebrating the fall of the Fourth Reich. But, what the hell . . I am putting you on the ignore list. Let me know if you can find two brain cells to rub together and I'll consider taking you off.
And, don't go away mad.
Posted by fromredbird at 11/09/2006 @ 12:57am
Posted by ZERO 11/08/2006 @ 10:59pm
I know exactly where Pelosi's loyalties are. I was on to her years ago. People like her will not ever get my vote. There were several state Democratic candidates who I did not vote for because their first allegiance is to israel.
Posted by fromredbird at 11/09/2006 @ 01:13am
In case anyone is mistaking my enthusiasm for taunting MASK and other gnats with some misapprehension on my part about most of the Democratic Party- I am well aware that the election was not a victory for progressives. But it was a crashingly resounding defeat for the goosesteppers who inhabit this blog. And that's a laugh.
Posted by fromredbird at 11/09/2006 @ 01:20am
Everyone knows that the mephitic Republicans have now lost the Senate, too, don't they?
Posted by fromredbird at 11/09/2006 @ 01:22am
The Brownshirt Party may be thinking about another coronation by the Supreme Court but I think they realize that it won't be so easy this time.
Posted by fromredbird at 11/09/2006 @ 01:25am
You broke it, you own it. And now the Democrats own it. So go ahead, cut and run from Iraq, not your problem. Poor you.
On the plus side, if you DO cut and run, I guess that frees you up to go and meddle in other parts of the world.
Posted by the outsider at 11/09/2006 @ 02:28am
So go ahead, cut and run from Iraq . .
Posted by THE OUTSIDER 11/09/2006 @ 02:28am
As if Bush and the Republicans had a clue about what they were going to do next. Like deers in the headlights who have absolutely convinced themselves that they are the better decisionmakers. What a joke. OUTSIDER or OUTHOUSE?
Posted by fromredbird at 11/09/2006 @ 02:55am
Ahhhh fromredbird.
OUTSIDER or OUTHOUSE? Shit hey, what a considered, articulate response.
And how funny! You think I am a Republican! Perhaps I was just referring to US foreign policy in general. I think it is great that the Dems look like having both Houses. I just think that some kind of approach other than just baling out of Iraq needs consideration. A mandate for peace maybe, but what kind of peace is it? Obviously only one that concerns Americans.
And foreign policy meddling... well it doesn't just take a Republican to do that now, does it?
Posted by the outsider at 11/09/2006 @ 03:28am
Dems to the rescue, millions of lives are about to be saved but you'll never read about it in the MSM because they won't see what didn't happen:
Year __Vietnam US dead ___Year__Iraq US dead
1961-65____1864________2003-06____2965
1966_______6053_________2007____14,829
1967______11,058________2008____27,731
1968______16,511________2009____42,983
1969______11,527________2010____30,088
1970________6065________2011____15,645
1971________2348________2012_____5476
1972_________561________2013_____1314
TOTALS
KIA_____58,191________________141,031
WIA___153,303________________375,142
MIA_____2338___________________5641
South Vietnamese ________________Iraqis
KIA____230,000________________611,800
WIA___300,000________________798,000
North Vietnamese ______Iraqi/regional Insurgency
KIA__1,100,000______________2.926,000
WIA__600,000_______________1,596,000
Total Civilians Killed
2-4,000,000_______________5-10,000,000
Definitely something to celebrate, even if not completely understood, or realized; history has changed-- for the beeter.
Posted by hsuBfools at 11/09/2006 @ 09:18am
Posted by HSUBFOOLS 11/09/2006 @ 09:18am
HSUB, been watching the interviews with Speaker-elect Nancy...including yesterday's with Wolf Blitzer....
what IS the plan she's promoting to end the war in Iraq?
Posted by Mask at 11/09/2006 @ 09:24am
Ahhhh fromredbird. OUTSIDER or OUTHOUSE? Shit hey, what a considered, articulate response.
Posted by THE OUTSIDER 11/09/2006 @ 03:28am
It was equally articulate as your original comment. It's not my job to correctly guess the meaning of every piece of incoherent dribble.
Posted by fromredbird at 11/09/2006 @ 11:02am
HSUB, been watching the interviews with Speaker-elect Nancy...including yesterday's with Wolf Blitzer....
what IS the plan she's promoting to end the war in Iraq?
Posted by MASK 11/09/2006 @ 09:24am
MASK, you LOST. Accept it and move on. Are we going to have to listen to expressions of your bitter, loser resentment for the next two years? We don't have to bore ourselves reading the deadender criticisms of someone who supported the Republican Iraq invasion policy from day one. The ignore feature still works. That's the one thing the election didn't change.
Posted by fromredbird at 11/09/2006 @ 11:09am
and whatever idiot it is that considers it a good idea to put troops in indonesia needs to comprehend that the muslim people will regard this as an invasion.
abandoning all military bases on muslim lands is a very tenuous decision, zero. are you endorsing this?
and, btw, to acook, nancy pelosi doesn't control the democratic party.
Posted by darladoon at 11/09/2006 @ 11:24am
zero finds it most effective to insult anyone who doesn't agree with him, and in the process, does not provide alternative arguments or scenarios.....he just lives in complete denial.
yes, the israel lobby is evil: but what is the alternative? let's hear it from the almighty zero!
Posted by darladoon at 11/09/2006 @ 11:25am
ok, let's play RISK:
let's abandon the middle east entirely AND withdraw all support for israel.
anyone wanna take a crack at what the middle east will look like in 6 months?
Posted by darladoon at 11/09/2006 @ 11:27am
The ignore feature still works.
Posted by FROMREDBIRD 11/09/2006 @ 11:09am
Yet you seem INCAPBLE of using it against me....LOL!
153,599th time----What did YOU win, FRB? Pelosi and Reid going to stand up against the "forces of Zionist oppression"?
Posted by Mask at 11/09/2006 @ 1:03pm
anyone wanna take a crack at what the middle east will look like in 6 months?
Posted by DARLADOON 11/09/2006 @ 11:27am
If they did...how would you know? You've got everybody on "Ignore"?!?!
Posted by Mask at 11/09/2006 @ 1:04pm
Wow frb, another cutting reply.
It's true that it's not your job to guess the meaning of every piece of "incoherent dribble" (well, I'll take your word for it- who knows WHAT you do for a living). But really it wasn't that hard. I expected more intelligence on this site.
Maybe you were just blinded by vitriol. You could use that as your twinkies defense for missing the meaning.
Posted by the outsider at 11/09/2006 @ 3:38pm
The ignore feature still works.
Posted by FROMREDBIRD 11/09/2006 @ 11:09am
Yet you seem INCAPBLE of using it against me....LOL!
Posted by MASK 11/09/2006 @ 1:03pm
Not yet baby, not yet! This is too good to pass up and life is too short to miss an opportunity to interact with the LOSERS while the glow is still there!
Bwa-ha-ha-ha!
Posted by fromredbird at 11/09/2006 @ 3:51pm
let's abandon the middle east entirely AND withdraw all support for israel.
anyone wanna take a crack at what the middle east will look like in 6 months?
Posted by DARLADOON 11/09/2006 @ 11:27am
There is another alternative to forcing military bases on Arab/Muslim countries and supporting intransigence in israel. A reasonable Middle East policy. You are framing it in an unrealistic manner.
Posted by fromredbird at 11/09/2006 @ 3:55pm
and whatever idiot it is that considers it a good idea to put troops in indonesia needs to comprehend that the muslim people will regard this as an invasion.
abandoning all military bases on muslim lands is a very tenuous decision, zero. are you endorsing this?
Posted by DARLADOON 11/09/2006 @ 11:24am
There are lots of countries that have no foreign military bases and they get along quite well and have for years.
Are you really of the personal opinion that the best policy is to militarily repress the human rights of Arabs/Muslims or are you just foreshadowing an apologia for the expected policy of the Democratic Party elite that's now in control?
Posted by fromredbird at 11/09/2006 @ 4:01pm
Outsider, do not, I repeat, do not take the measure of everyone on this blog by redbird.
Posted by johannesrolf at 11/09/2006 @ 4:14pm
Outsider, do not, I repeat, do not take the measure of everyone on this blog by redbird.
Posted by JOHANNESROLF 11/09/2006 @ 4:14pm
You're no match, that's for sure. :)
Posted by fromredbird at 11/09/2006 @ 4:46pm
This was your post OUTSIDER:
You broke it, you own it. And now the Democrats own it. So go ahead, cut and run from Iraq, not your problem. Poor you.
On the plus side, if you DO cut and run, I guess that frees you up to go and meddle in other parts of the world.
Posted by THE OUTSIDER 11/09/2006 @ 02:28am
OK. I should have been intelligent enough to recognize from that post that you weren't a Republican. Is that good enough for you?
Posted by fromredbird at 11/09/2006 @ 4:53pm
who knows WHAT redbird does for a living?
I am announcing a contest. winner, most creative, will receive a virtual palm d'or.
Posted by johannesrolf at 11/09/2006 @ 5:31pm
who knows WHAT redbird does for a living?
I am announcing a contest. winner, most creative, will receive a virtual palm d'or.
Posted by JOHANNESROLF 11/09/2006 @ 5:31pm
There's always time to try to scapegoat someone who doesn't support israel, isn't there J? You're a sap.
Posted by fromredbird at 11/09/2006 @ 5:40pm
I'll start things off. he used to have a job emptying Arafat's bedpan. since that individual is dead, I imagine he performs the same service for his wife, who isn't.
Posted by johannesrolf at 11/09/2006 @ 5:41pm
Obviously red is a professional wanker, I mean blogger...really, I shouldn't get personal, but since he insinuated that I don't have two brain cells to rub together, I'll insinuate that he doesn't have 2 inches to wank, so he must be a professional blogger...He certainly has a lot of time on his hands...but he does keep this blog amusing......Red, thanks for answering, finally..no need to refute your drivel about US territorial ambitions in Iraq, even the libs on this blog know better than that....But no need to ignore me, I'm cutting back on my blogging, since I have a real job to do, and a son to raise...farewell 'til 2008, when the south (and the republicans) will rise again...unless the dems actually try to put the country first, for a change, in which case they just might maintain their majority, and have a shot at the white house...but cutting and running in Iraq ain't gonna help that cause...
Posted by davebarlett at 11/09/2006 @ 8:59pm
dave:I have a real job to do, and a son to raise...
as do I. good luck. I wouldn't bet on the repubs rising again too soon, though. the stink coming from them will continue for some time.
Posted by johannesrolf at 11/09/2006 @ 9:14pm
Good job, J. Waving the israeli flag with the American ultra-right.
Posted by fromredbird at 11/09/2006 @ 11:15pm
what IS the plan she's promoting to end the war in Iraq?
Posted by MASK 11/09/2006 @ 09:24am
Well, she said this a year ago and hasn't changed it-- so you've had the answer for a long time. I can't help it if you're always in denial... And that is a state of constent denial-- a repub delema, can't believe your lying eyes.
XXXXXXXX
Pelosi Hails Democrats' Diverse War Stances
By Dan Balz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, December 16, 2005; Page A23
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said yesterday that Democrats should not seek a unified position on an exit strategy in Iraq, calling the war a matter of individual conscience and saying differing positions within the caucus are a source of strength for the party.
Pelosi said Democrats will produce an issue agenda for the 2006 elections but it will not include a position on Iraq. There is consensus within the party that President Bush has mismanaged the war and that a new course is needed, but House Democrats should be free to take individual positions, she said.
"There is no one Democratic voice . . . and there is no one Democratic position," Pelosi said in an interview with Washington Post reporters and editors.
Pelosi recently endorsed the proposal by Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.) for a swift redeployment of U.S. forces from Iraq over a period of six months, but no other party leader followed, and House Minority Whip Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.) publicly opposed her.
She said her support for Murtha was not intended to forge a Democratic position on the war, adding that she blocked an effort by some of her colleagues to put the Democrats on record backing Murtha.
Her comments ruling out a caucus position appeared to put Pelosi at odds with some other party officials. Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean recently said Democrats were beginning to coalesce around a strategy that would pull out all troops over the next two years. Rep. Rahm Emanuel (Ill.), chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, said on the day Murtha offered his plan, "As for Iraq policy, at the right time, we'll have a position."
Pelosi, one of the most liberal Democrats in the House, opposed the war and, as the senior Democrat on the intelligence committee before the invasion, argued that Saddam Hussein posed no imminent threat to the United States. She served as Democratic whip when Congress authorized Bush to go to war, and she rallied 126 Democratic votes against the measure when then-Rep. Richard A. Gephardt (Mo.), the Democratic leader, supported the White House.
Pelosi said she had not consulted with Dean or Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) before taking her position. Her action angered some Democrats, who believed it left the party vulnerable to criticism from the Republicans, but cheered the party's antiwar activists who want party leaders to challenge Bush more vigorously on the war.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Marc Sandalow, Washington Bureau Chief, SFC
Friday, November 10, 2006
(11-10) 04:00 PST Washington -- On a snowy morning last December when the talk in Washington was that Rep. Nancy Pelosi's support for pulling troops from Iraq might cost Democrats the 2006 election, a reporter asked Pelosi whether she needed to gain seats in the coming election to return as Democratic leader.
"I fully intend to be standing here as speaker of the House next year. Any other questions?" Pelosi responded.
Nearly a year later, Pelosi has exceeded even her own expectations. Not only will she be speaker, but her party will govern with a comfortable majority after picking up at least 28 seats. The Senate will be in Democratic hands. Her picture is expected next week on the covers of Time and Newsweek, and there is already talk that she should run for president in 2008.
VVVVVVVVVV
Pelosi's rhetoric grew sharper after the 2004 election. She called then-Republican Majority Leader Tom DeLay "not only unethical, but delusional.'' She called Bush "oblivious, in denial, dangerous.''
Later in the fall, Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., a 37-year-Marine vet, a former war supporter and a close ally of Pelosi, announced that the Iraq war was a failure and called on Bush to begin an early withdrawal.
Pelosi stood aside for the first days but soon embraced the plan and stepped into a noisy public debate over the Democratic position on the war.
"Democrats Fear Backlash at Polls for Anti-War Remarks'' read a front-page Washington Post story quoting sources claiming that Emanuel and Rep. Steny Hoyer of Maryland, the Democratic whip, were concerned that Pelosi had played into Bush's hands by suggesting Democrats were the party of a quick pullout in Iraq.
Pelosi showed no sign of retreat, and 11 months later the notion of a phased withdrawal is widely accepted by voters and elected officials.Later in the fall, Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., a 37-year-Marine vet, a former war supporter and a close ally of Pelosi, announced that the Iraq war was a failure and called on Bush to begin an early withdrawal.
VVVVVVVVVVVV
Pelosi's efforts have made her a lock to be named speaker-designee when the new Democratic Caucus gathers in Washington next week. The entire House will vote on the new speaker as its first order of business when it convenes Jan. 3.
Pelosi will be the first woman, first Californian and first Italian American to become speaker, an accomplishment she often mentions on the stump. Even Bush honored her election Thursday as "historic.''
After spending the past four years trying to attain the majority, Pelosi now has the daunting task of keeping the majority together.
Asked last week if she is afraid of the pitfalls of keeping the Democratic Caucus united, Pelosi responded: "Afraid is not a word that is in my vocabulary or my mentality.''
Page A - 1
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/ 2006/11/10/PELOSI.TMP&type=politics
XXXXXXXXXXXXX
It's called debate and oversight. A job of the Congress and aparently only dems are willing to do it.
Posted by hsuBfools at 11/10/2006 @ 01:27am
er, dilemma
Posted by hsuBfools at 11/10/2006 @ 01:33am
There are lots of countries that have no foreign military bases and they get along quite well and have for years.
this comment makes no sense WHATSOEVER. "get along quite well".....sounds so cheery doesn't it.
and yet still doesn't address the reality of the united states pulling out ALL bases from the middle east
why don't you tell me what the middle east would like, frb? come on, don't be shy, just be honest.
or, are you another zero? who can't be honest if his life depended on it.
Posted by darladoon at 11/10/2006 @ 02:41am
"Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said yesterday that Democrats should not seek a unified position on an exit strategy in Iraq.."
"saying differing positions within the caucus"
Posted by HSUBFOOLS 11/10/2006 @ 01:27am
So there IS no "single plan"?
So...I asked...
"what IS the plan she's promoting to end the war in Iraq?"
Posted by MASK 11/09/2006 @ 09:24am
Posted by Mask at 11/10/2006 @ 07:17am
Red, still wanking, I see....So. what's the plan, man? Damn, this blog is addictive........
Posted by davebarlett at 11/10/2006 @ 08:46am
There are lots of countries that have no foreign military bases and they get along quite well and have for years.
this comment makes no sense WHATSOEVER. "get along quite well".....sounds so cheery doesn't it.
*** It may not make sense to you but it's quite true, I assure you, regardless of whether or not you can see it.
and yet still doesn't address the reality of the united states pulling out ALL bases from the middle east
why don't you tell me what the middle east would like, frb? come on, don't be shy, just be honest.
*** It would look like a Middle East with no foreign military occupiers. This seems to be difficult for you to envision, also. Do you consuder Arabs and Muslims untermenschen that we, the "enlightened West", must rule over with an iron rod to ensure that they are permanently subservient to us? Why are you automatically writing off the idea of relations based on mutual respect and mutual benefit?
or, are you another zero? who can't be honest if his life depended on it.
Posted by DARLADOON 11/10/2006 @ 02:41am
*** If you want to insult another poster, suit yourself- but don't try to draw me into it. It sounds to me, honestly, that your apparent attitudes toward Arabs and Muslims could make you quite comfortable in the Republican Party.
Posted by fromredbird at 11/10/2006 @ 08:52am
It sounds to me, honestly, that your apparent attitudes toward Arabs and Muslims could make you quite comfortable in the Republican Party.
Posted by FROMREDBIRD 11/10/2006 @ 08:52am
FRB so fringey ....he thinks DARLA should be a Republican?!?!?
(Let's see that "bold text" "Loser" again, FRB...and tell me how somebody like YOU, who's so out-of-the-mainstream he thinks liberals like DD are "conservative"...isn't one!...ROFLMAO!)
Posted by Mask at 11/10/2006 @ 09:49am
Damn, this blog is addictive........
Posted by DAVEBARLETT 11/10/2006 @ 08:46am | ignore this person
tell me about it. wait 'till they start saying nice things about you, mainline.
Posted by johannesrolf at 11/10/2006 @ 10:27am
It would look like a Middle East with no foreign military occupiers. This seems to be difficult for you to envision, also. Do you consuder Arabs and Muslims untermenschen that we, the "enlightened West", must rule over with an iron rod to ensure that they are permanently subservient to us? Why are you automatically writing off the idea of relations based on mutual respect and mutual benefit?
as i expected, you feel the need to the do the Right thing, but can't stomach the unintended consequences of a complete abandonment of the entire region. in fact, there is nothing (not a single word) in your post about what might happen if we did both of these two things:
1. withdraw all support for israel (which singularly provokes arab and muslim peoples).
2. abandon every single military base on muslim or arab lands.
so, again, i ask FRB and Zero what the middle east would look like should we accomplish these two goals immediately. and again----BE HONEST.
and if you think for a minute that the british or french wouldn't be HORRIFIED if we accomplished these two goals, then i have some oceanfront property in nebraska i'd like to sell you....
Posted by darladoon at 11/10/2006 @ 11:36am
Sorry, DARLA....you've been outed as an "evil Zionist oppressor and candidate for Republican Party membership"...you LOST!
"It sounds to me, honestly, that your apparent attitudes toward Arabs and Muslims could make you quite comfortable in the Republican Party."
Posted by FROMREDBIRD 11/10/2006 @ 08:52am to DARLADOON
Posted by Mask at 11/10/2006 @ 1:09pm
Posted by CPT at 11/10/2006 @ 2:53pm
frb: sounds like whoever you are arguing with ...
Posted by ZERO 11/10/2006 @ 2:39pm
This idiot doesn't realize that "who FRB is arguing with"...is DARLADOON (ZERO's companion in "Ignore Them All Land")
"It sounds to me, honestly, that your apparent attitudes toward Arabs and Muslims could make you quite comfortable in the Republican Party."
Posted by FROMREDBIRD 11/10/2006 @ 08:52am----To DARLADOON, ZERO
Posted by Mask at 11/10/2006 @ 2:56pm
FRB: It would look like a Middle East with no foreign military occupiers. This seems to be difficult for you to envision, also. Do you consuder Arabs and Muslims untermenschen that we, the "enlightened West", must rule over with an iron rod to ensure that they are permanently subservient to us? Why are you automatically writing off the idea of relations based on mutual respect and mutual benefit?
as i expected, you feel the need to the do the Right thing, but can't stomach the unintended consequences of a complete abandonment of the entire region. in fact, there is nothing (not a single word) in your post about what might happen if we did both of these two things:
1. withdraw all support for israel (which singularly provokes arab and muslim peoples).
2. abandon every single military base on muslim or arab lands.
so, again, i ask FRB and Zero what the middle east would look like should we accomplish these two goals immediately. and again----BE HONEST.
and if you think for a minute that the british or french wouldn't be HORRIFIED if we accomplished these two goals, then i have some oceanfront property in nebraska i'd like to sell you....
Posted by DARLADOON 11/10/2006 @ 11:36am
I'll crosspost from another thread earlier today. I've said the same on this blog many times before and it's not quite the version you give after applying your hammer and tongs:
I think the US should make it clear to Israel that they have to negotiate a reasonable peace settlement with the Palestinians if they want continued American financing. It should also be made clear that continual gross violations of human rights jeopardizes the billions of dollars in financing that we provide.
Posted by FROMREDBIRD 11/10/2006 @ 10:01am
WOW....FRB....you "getting soft" on Israel?!?!?!
What happened to forcing them into a referendum in "historic Palestine"??!?!?!?
Posted by MASK 11/10/2006 @ 10:06am
You mean the part that if Israel refuses to accept a reasonable two-state solution then the Palestinians are justified in demanding the right to vote for a single-state government just as South African blacks demanded?
Thanks for bringing it up.
Posted by FROMREDBIRD 11/10/2006 @ 10:12am
Posted by fromredbird at 11/10/2006 @ 3:11pm
Posted by CPT 11/10/2006 @ 2:53pm
This is the best comment I've seen from you in a long time, CPT.
Posted by fromredbird at 11/10/2006 @ 3:12pm
In fact the number three reason people voted was Iraq. Number was that they were tired of liars and corruption in Washington.
The Dems are no different. Watch as they very closely do nothing about much of anything. Perhaps the greatest test of the publics desires will be whether or not America could support another solution to red and blue. We need leaders, not colors.
Posted by jbcarrel at 11/10/2006 @ 3:38pm
How long will it be before we won't want to go to the mall for fear of suicide bombers?
Posted by jbcarrel at 11/10/2006 @ 3:40pm
Posted by MASK 11/10/2006 @ 07:17am
You seem to be either rather dense or have a problem with answers you do not like to hear, which are answers just the same. However not being able to put something a box does not preclude it from being a solution nor a process which dems and repubs of intelligence can utilize to reach a compromised strategy that will unify our divided nation. (And might I add with no help from dividers such as yourself and the hsuB admin, what's left of it anyway.)
Try thinking outside the box you want to put everything in and realize that in order for complex and destructive relationships to evolve towards a mutually justified solution, a lot of confidence must be placed towards open debate as it often secures a more transparent knowledge-based process and stronger acceptance per the insight gained. Otherwise one is left with the weak-kneed secretive hsuB fabricated and failed policies-- just what we're trying to fix.
Posted by hsuBfools at 11/10/2006 @ 3:50pm
How long will it be before we won't want to go to the mall for fear of suicide bombers?
Posted by JBCARREL 11/10/2006 @ 3:40pm
The Republicans did a lot to discourage that, didn't they?
Posted by fromredbird at 11/10/2006 @ 4:05pm
Posted by HSUBFOOLS 11/10/2006 @ 3:50pm
Translation-- "Not having a plan, doesn't mean they don't have a plan"
that about it?
See, here's the way things work....Bush has a "plan" ("staying the course, but not calling it stay the course").....Pelosi and the Democrats won on an anti-Iraq War vote...
ergo they need to come up with an OPPOSING plan to Bush's or else they got elected on false pretenses, because they're not really an "opposition" party, just a "default" party.
Posted by Mask at 11/10/2006 @ 4:20pm
Translation-- "Not having a plan, doesn't mean they don't have a plan"
that about it?
Posted by MASK 11/10/2006 @ 4:20pm |
Translation: Dems plan is one Mask can't comprehend. Still can't think outside the box aye, 'Ksam'. Didn't Gomer Pile say that whenever he was stuck too?
Mask says, "K'sam", to the dem Iraq occupation stance!
Who would've thought! Hahahahhaheheheee. What a funny guy.
Posted by hsuBfools at 11/10/2006 @ 4:29pm
MSNBC Live Vote: Should hsuB be impeached?
Do you believe President Bush's actions justify impeachment? * 327773 responses
Yes, between the secret spying, the deceptions leading to war and more, there is plenty to justify putting him on trial.
______________87%_____________
No, like any president, he has made a few missteps, but nothing approaching "high crimes and misdemeanors."
_______________4.4%_______________
No, the man has done absolutely nothing wrong. Impeachment would just be a political lynching."
________________7%________________
I don't know.
_______________1.8%_______________
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10562904/
Posted by hsuBfools at 11/10/2006 @ 4:38pm
frb: sounds like whoever you are arguing with can't function without assuming further military occupations, invasive wars of aggression, etc. basically you're trying to talk about a peace agenda with a person who wants the US waging unending war on the world, killing men, women, and children, destroying cities and nations, etc.
clearly, zero can only envision one of two scenarios: complete abandonment or "invasive wars of aggression." under clinton, we were doing neither.
Posted by darladoon at 11/10/2006 @ 5:11pm
where military expenditures and pure war expenditures are made at the expense of health care, schools, and the basic economic security of those who are not rich
if only it were this simple......but everything in zero's mind is simple.
Posted by darladoon at 11/10/2006 @ 5:12pm
anyone, and i mean anyone, who disagrees with zero is a "corporate rightist".....never mind whether one has legitimate concerns about "total abandonment from the middle east".....they're just a "rightist". never mind reasonable, informed points that a "rightist" might make, they're just a "rightist" and we'll leave it at that.....zero sounds pretty much like bush.
Posted by darladoon at 11/10/2006 @ 5:14pm
Try thinking outside the box you want to put everything in and realize that in order for complex and destructive relationships to evolve towards a mutually justified solution, a lot of confidence must be placed towards open debate as it often secures a more transparent knowledge-based process and stronger acceptance per the insight gained. Otherwise one is left with the weak-kneed secretive hsuB fabricated and failed policies-- just what we're trying to fix.
Posted by HSUBFOOLS 11/10/2006 @ 3:50pm
He's having none of that. Either you hold hands with him and sing the Israeli National Anthem or you're Hassan Nasrallah.
And, I think Gomer Pyle used to say, "shazaam". Which is probably what everyone said when MASK was born.
Posted by fromredbird at 11/10/2006 @ 5:36pm
clearly, zero can only envision one of two scenarios: complete abandonment or "invasive wars of aggression." under clinton, we were doing neither.
Posted by DARLADOON 11/10/2006 @ 5:11pm
Under Clinton what we were doing is steadily and relentlessly committing homicide against Palestinians and Iraqis. Which is exactly what we're doing now under the Republicans.
Posted by fromredbird at 11/10/2006 @ 5:38pm
clearly, zero can only envision one of two scenarios: complete abandonment or "invasive wars of aggression." under clinton, we were doing neither.
Posted by DARLADOON 11/10/2006 @ 5:11pm
Anyway, you're the one who has already twice in this thread presented the only choice as complete abandonment (of israel), as if there were no other. You're not presenting yourself consistently.
Posted by fromredbird at 11/10/2006 @ 5:43pm
And, I think Gomer Pyle used to say, "shazaam". Which is probably what everyone said when MASK was born.
Posted by FROMREDBIRD 11/10/2006 @ 5:36pm
You sure it wasn't-- "Well, Gaa-aw-leeh. Surprise! Surprise! Surprise!"
Posted by hsuBfools at 11/10/2006 @ 6:07pm
And, I think Gomer Pyle used to say, "shazaam". Which is probably what everyone said when MASK was born.
Posted by FROMREDBIRD 11/10/2006 @ 5:36pm
You sure it wasn't-- "Well, Gaa-aw-leeh. Surprise! Surprise! Surprise!"
Posted by HSUBFOOLS 11/10/2006 @ 6:07pm
Well, I'm confused now. That's what I said when MASK admitted that he LOST.
Posted by fromredbird at 11/10/2006 @ 6:20pm
Posted by FROMREDBIRD 11/10/2006 @ 6:20pm
Perhaps he was born again and he raptured?
Posted by hsuBfools at 11/10/2006 @ 6:30pm
er, ruptured...
Posted by hsuBfools at 11/10/2006 @ 6:30pm
This is interesting:
http://www.reversespeech.com/sou2006.htm
Wonder what he'll be saying at the 2007?
Posted by hsuBfools at 11/10/2006 @ 6:35pm
On Veteran's Day let us remember people such as Marine Corporal Jason Dunam, KIA after falling on a grenade during hand-to-hand combat, in order to save fellow marines:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/11/10/medal.honor/index.html
He will receive the CMH, our nation's highest military honor.
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 11/10/2006 @ 6:36pm
Posted by CPT 11/10/2006 @ 2:53pm
There is no text, so evidently CPT is speechless!
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 11/10/2006 @ 6:39pm
anyone, and i mean anyone, who disagrees with zero is a "corporate rightist".....never mind whether one has legitimate concerns about "total abandonment from the middle east"
Posted by DARLADOON 11/10/2006 @ 5:14pm
Not to mention, an apologist for Israel! Which I was labeled, for not supporting rocket attacks on civilians.
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 11/10/2006 @ 6:41pm
Under Clinton what we were doing is steadily and relentlessly committing homicide against Palestinians and Iraqis. Which is exactly what we're doing now under the Republicans.
this is easily the most outrageous statement on this thread. are you suggesting that sanctions against post-gulf war iraq were "homicide"? and you can you tell me how the americans are commiting "relentless homicide" against the palestinians? what, for supplying arms to israel?
and besides, my point still stands. neither the sanctions against iraq nor the supply of arms to israel constitute a "war of aggression"......hardly.
we all know the united states has done some atrocious things, for like 250 straight years, but given the volatile context of the middle east, and a total and immediate withdrawal of the united states AND the withdrawal of support of israel.....i think i can honestly tell you that the outcome would be, at a minimum, potentially anarchic, and at a maximum, potentially dangerous to many peoples. war, no matter who is waging it (keep in mind that the lancet study not only suggested that americans are the cause of so many civilian deaths, but that sectarian violence is as well. some 150,000, an iraqi official says) is destructive to innocent people. in zero's mind, there are no guilty parties other than the united states in this whole matter.....and that is flat out nonsense on its face. do you think americans are using power drills on innocent people??
dude, i mean, you both need to get at least some perspective.
Posted by darladoon at 11/10/2006 @ 7:13pm
Posted by FROMREDBIRD 11/10/2006 @ 6:20pm
Perhaps he was born again and he raptured?
Posted by HSUBFOOLS 11/10/2006 @ 6:30pm | ignore this person
er, ruptured...
Posted by HSUBFOOLS 11/10/2006 @ 6:30pm
As in a balloon that goes p-s-s-s-f-f-t-ttt?
Posted by fromredbird at 11/10/2006 @ 7:16pm
Posted by DARLADOON 11/10/2006 @ 7:13pm
I'll tell you one thing. Within 12 hours of the Democrats getting control of the House you adopted all the foreign policy arguments of the ultra-rightists here as your own. At least the ones relating to the Middle East.
Posted by fromredbird at 11/10/2006 @ 7:27pm
Not to mention, an apologist for Israel! Which I was labeled, for not supporting rocket attacks on civilians.
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS 11/10/2006 @ 6:41pm
By "not supporting rocket attacks on civilians" do you mean israeli civilians (let's ignore the fact, for now, that so many of them carry machine guns and use them) or both israeli civilians AND Lebanese civilians?
Posted by fromredbird at 11/10/2006 @ 7:33pm
I'll tell you one thing. Within 12 hours of the Democrats getting control of the House you adopted all the foreign policy arguments of the ultra-rightists here as your own. At least the ones relating to the Middle East.
questions are, inherently, not arguments. and even if they were "ultra rightist" arguments, they aren't de facto irrelevant. they may be shockingly stupid, but if that were the case, then it shouldn't be very difficult for you to tell me why they're shockingly stupid.
i'll repeat the question: what would the middle east look like if the united states removed itself entirely, and withdrew 100% support for israel?
Posted by darladoon at 11/10/2006 @ 7:43pm
few liberals are truly practical, and for those who are practical, it should come as no surprise that many of us (who happen to also call ourselves liberal) want to know what would happen if we achieved those two goals i stated.
Posted by darladoon at 11/10/2006 @ 7:44pm
zero is obviously unhinged: is there anything wrong with asking these questions?
"what would happen if the united states abandoned the middle east entirely? including support for israel?"
and on california women: i don't give a shit about anything else? right. i'm obsessed with it. i think about nothing but california women in power (actually i do, but not in the way you're thinking). zero.....precisely that. zero.
Posted by darladoon at 11/10/2006 @ 7:52pm
and, of course, to zero, i'm suddenly a supporter of the state of israel.
Posted by darladoon at 11/10/2006 @ 7:53pm
Posted by DARLADOON 11/10/2006 @ 7:43pm
Posted by DARLADOON 11/10/2006 @ 7:44pm
"Immediate, 100% withdrawal of support for israel" is called a straw man argument, DARLADOON. It's your formulation and no one else's. Not mine, or ZERO's, or anyone else here that I have noticed. I'm guessing that's why ZERO is ignoring you. Repeating it over and over doesn't make it any more relevant.
I crossposted my own comments on the subject, from another thread, above. They are not even remotely related to the manner in which you continue reformulating them, if that's what you're doing. I'm not sure if that's what you're doing or if you're just talking to yourself and trying to get me involved in the discussion.
Posted by fromredbird at 11/10/2006 @ 7:56pm
FRB: amazing, isn't it? the only that matters to that fool is a "California woman" got elected. She doesn't give a shit about anything else. If the California woman turns out to be a wholly owned asset of the Israel lobby, and likely to let the Iraq war continue on, then the idiot morphs into a neoconservative, same bullshit arguments, same bullshit outlook, in order to support the California woman. the goal is not, in the "mind" of that fool, good government and sane policy. the goal is to have women from California elected at all costs, because that is the pathway to global salvation, we know this as an a prior unassailable truth.
Posted by ZERO 11/10/2006 @ 7:49pm
Is that what hit the microswitch on midnight Tuesday? Nancy Pelosi? Jesus. The taffy-twisted arguments she's presenting, at least about the Middle East, are a duplicate of all those of the ultra-rightists here for the last year.
Posted by fromredbird at 11/10/2006 @ 8:00pm
DARLADOON, are you advocating a continuation of the same Palestine/israel policy that we've had in the past under both Democrats and Republicans? You'll notice I'm not formulating your opinions for you, I'm asking you what they are.
Posted by fromredbird at 11/10/2006 @ 8:04pm
it's not a straw man argument, FRB, until zero actually presents an alternative to 'complete withdrawal'. i mean, on another related issue, HE IS calling for 'complete and total withdrawal'. had you not noticed?
and frb, zero is the one who is in a tizzy about pelosi, not me. i made ONE comment (that's it!) about her....and he went haywire.
last, i honestly do not know what i would do about palestine and israel, except increase humanitarian aid to the former, and decrease military assistance to the latter.
Posted by darladoon at 11/10/2006 @ 8:11pm
it's not a straw man argument, FRB, until zero actually presents an alternative to 'complete withdrawal'. i mean, on another related issue, HE IS calling for 'complete and total withdrawal'. had you not noticed?
So, if you're talking about what he said why do you keep directing the question at me? And, if he's talking about 'complete and total withdrawal' on a related issue, why change the issue to Palstine/israel and start calling him insulting names? I don't get it.
and frb, zero is the one who is in a tizzy about pelosi, not me. i made ONE comment (that's it!) about her....and he went haywire.
OK.
last, i honestly do not know what i would do about palestine and israel, except increase humanitarian aid to the former, and decrease military assistance to the latter.
Posted by DARLADOON 11/10/2006 @ 8:11pm
I don't see how that's extraordinarily different from anything I've said. There is not going to be a permanent peace settlement as long as we continue to underwrite israeli intransigence, as both Democrats and Republicans have done. We can give the israelis a choice to conclude a reasonable settlemant or continue with their intransigent behavior and lose our support. If they refuse the former then that's their problem. What is so bad about wanting that situation resolved and the brutality ended? And why aren't the Democrats willing to contribute to that resolution rather than a continuation of the brutality?
Posted by fromredbird at 11/10/2006 @ 8:29pm
ZERO - right on! Israel cannot survive by continueing to be South Africa, surrounded by angry enemies. They need peace. But peace means giving up their Zionist aggression. Peace means returning to the 1967 borders. Nothing else will do.
Posted by philbq at 11/11/2006 @ 12:10am
"Israel will be safe if it just does what the Arabs want".
Well...what do they want? What has Hamas said it WANTS to happen to Israel? What has Hezbollah said it WANTS to happens to Israel? What did Ahmadinejad say HE wants to happen to Israel?
Oh and as FROMRED has said, if Israel DOESN'T do what they want...we're supposed to cut them off from all military and economic aid....
so that what those persons and groups want....happens.
Posted by Mask at 11/11/2006 @ 07:34am
"Israel will be safe if it just does what the Arabs want".
Well...what do they want? What has Hamas said it WANTS to happen to Israel? What has Hezbollah said it WANTS to happens to Israel? What did Ahmadinejad say HE wants to happen to Israel?
Oh and as FROMRED has said, if Israel DOESN'T do what they want...we're supposed to cut them off from all military and economic aid.... so that what those persons and groups want....happens.
Posted by MASK 11/11/2006 @ 07:34am
"Israel will be safe if it just does what the Arabs want". It's peculiar that you place your own personal statements in quotes as if they were someone else's.
Someone who doesn't see the world through a reflexively zionist, anti-Arab, anti-Muslim lense could reflect on the fact that even after the zionists murdered, raped, and ethnically-cleansed over 700,000 Palestinians from their homeland it took a further forty years or so of similar sadistic depredations to produce an organization as determined as Hamas. A more accurate adjective might be desperate.
Or, they could reflect on the fact that Hezbollah was born explicitly from the necessity to drive out the 1982 israeli invasion of Lebanon and the waterfall of brutality that was it's handmaiden.
Ahmadinejad was elected President of Iran, more than anything else, for internal political reasons related to social dissatisfaction with the privileged stratum that had developed among the clerics who had been predominant in Iran since 1979. He wasn't elected for his attitude toward israel, although I doubt that it could have hurt him any given israel's behavior.
It's also notable that the Iranian President is subordinate to the Guardian Council and the Implementation Council which are both still controlled by the same people that Ahmadinejad was elected in opposition to. This Iranian establishment has not been comfortable with many of Ahmadinejad's public comments, including those related to israel.
Ahmadinejad was elected to a glorified soapbox which is limited in it's actual powers. His reformist predecessor, Khamenei, can attest to that. It's speculative to assume that Ahmadinejad's statements accurately predict actual Iranian state behavior. It's also noteworthy that Ahmadinejad's statements regarding israel have been tendentiously translated and interpreted by the Western, especially US, news media.
Lastly, a negotiated settlement between the Palestinians and israel wouldn't leave much of anything for anyone in Iran to squawk about. They have a lot more, right now, to squawk about regarding the interests of their own Shia brethern right next door in Iraq and they've been very circumspect there. The US has achieved that by simply not going out of it's way to antagonize them although the length of the occupation can be expected to eventually bring that to an end.
The average Palestinian is more than willing to accept a reasonable peace settlement. Opinion polls and the Palestinian public's acquiescence with Arafat recognizing israel absent a comprehensive peace settlement is proof of that. The subsequent success of Hamas can be specifically attributed to the fact that no such thing has ever been offered and no indication has ever been given that such a thing will ever be offered. Which is exactly how reflexively zionist, anti-Arab, anti-Muslim characters like you want to keep it.
Posted by fromredbird at 11/11/2006 @ 10:32am
it's fairly straightforward, frb, the israeli people must understand that their future lies with the arab world, not with the americans -
Posted by ZERO 11/10/2006 @ 10:27pm
You're right and it's ironic, isn't it, how the apologists and myth promoters for zionism like to portray the zionist settlers as aboriginal to Palestine yet the zionist settlers have never regarded those who have been there for a thousand years as anything other than alien?
Posted by fromredbird at 11/11/2006 @ 10:42am
Posted by FRANKGRITS 11/11/2006 @ 07:53am
Most of the Republicans here didn't just STFU, they disappeared. How funny is that? They can't relate to others in any way other than as the dominant voice with an imprimatur of superiority. That need is based in their own narrowminded bigotry which is also the explanation for why they didn't have a clue about the illegitimacy of their assumed dominance until the afternoon of November 8th.
Ding, dong, the witch is dead.
Posted by fromredbird at 11/11/2006 @ 10:50am
To go even further off-topic, it's shameful that under Saddam Hussein there was extensive intermarriage between Sunni and Shia and now, under the spreading American enlightenment, great numbers of those marriages are resorting to divorce because the spouse who is other than the prevailing sect where they reside fears for his or her life.
Posted by fromredbird at 11/11/2006 @ 10:58am
Peter's post: sign and circulate the petition, click here to tell your rep you expect him/her to work for peace, and see how else you can help hold Congress responsible to the majority of Americans who are saying the Iraq war needs to end.
To get back on topic, I did both, and thanks for posting it, Peter.
Posted by fromredbird at 11/11/2006 @ 11:22am
FRB: nice of you to indulge her by continuing to talk to her. she doesn't rate it. the excerpts of her stuff that I've seen in your comments to her are enough to tell me that she still wallows in made-up horse puckey drivel, the same drivel that led me to ignore list her as, when called on her drivel, an ugly argument always ensues. I suppose the only "100% total withdrawl of support" that I personally favor would be withdrawl of support for my continuing to listen to her. if i want a sexist, bigoted take on how women should dominate the government and heterosexual men are the root of all that is wrong in the world, i can get that from any random coffee-shop college girl cooling her heels with her "womens' studies" homework.
and i'm the one calling names? i'm the one addressing key arguments, moving the debate forward, and what not. whereas zero is simply unhinged, not listening, and calling names on top of it.
i have never said a thing about "heterosexual men", though i have addressed the issue of power.....
here is a prime example of a "straight shooting" white male pundit in action. this sort of sexism is rampant in washington. but nobody seems to care, except media matters:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200611090002
Posted by darladoon at 11/11/2006 @ 11:23am
and to simply brush aside "women's studies", as if it were less important than the israeli/palestinian situation.....preposterous.
how about this for an insult: zero is probably one of those white boys who likes to pretend he's part of the palestinian intifada at globalization protests in seattle....
Posted by darladoon at 11/11/2006 @ 11:26am
hey zero, why don't you do the jean genet thing, become a gay street urchin, thief and prostitute, bounce from prison to prison writing your never to be published anti-semitic rants, move to gaza, buy a shoulder rocket, and join the resistance, you lazy, foul mouthed buffoon, you'll never fight the real fight brother.
Posted by darladoon at 11/11/2006 @ 11:29am
FRB - It really is quite amazing...the rightwingers just vanished after the Demo tidal wave. You are so right: they can only talk from a position of dominance. Their ideas are a bag of lies and distortions, but they would always resort to just saying that we can't win an election. Without that cheap retort, they have nothing. They are NOT true conservatives. If they were, they would not tolerate huge budget deficits, or silly expensive foreign wars. Traditional conservatives are isolationists. The Libertarians are real small-government conservatives. The rightwing creeps ("LoveLiberty",Mask, et all) who infest this site are just fascist propagandists. And so they just slither away...
Posted by philbq at 11/11/2006 @ 11:37am
On a serious note, the Bush appearence at Arlington National Cemetary (I have the sound muted- I can't stand the sound of his lying voice) reminds me of all the war dead who died for nothing. Korea - a pointless civil war that the U.S. had no reason to be in; Vietnam - Same thing, and ironically now Vietnam is the darling of the global transnational corporations hungry for cheap labor. 58,000 American lives and millions of Vietnamese wasted; and now Iraq/Afghanistan. How many more? As I look at the cynical phony face of Bush talking to the vets, I know he doesn't give a damn about the war dead - he is creating more every day.
Posted by philbq at 11/11/2006 @ 11:50am
I forgot to include illegal domestic spying on Americans (phone,internet, etc.). Real conservatives oppose unlimited government interference in people's lives. Those Republicans who support these gestapo tactics are not conservatives - they are fascists.
Posted by philbq at 11/11/2006 @ 12:06pm
Let me include RioBravo in my list of rightwing loonies. He parrots the slimy line that those who oppose Bush's wars are helping the terrorists. Predictable and absurd. But at least he has the balls to show up.
Posted by philbq at 11/11/2006 @ 12:11pm
There is the blind ignorance of the leftwing extremist, even when the enemys of America REPEAT exactly what the rightwing has been telling them for years they are still too dumb to understand it"!
Posted by RIO BRAVO 11/11/2006 @ 12:41am
Rio, unbelievable, you're saying that the rightwing in America ESPOUSE THE ENEMIES OF AMERICA IDEALS!!!! And the leftwing are just too dumb to get it?
Luckily the American public get it and thus overwhelmingly voted dem-- to get the enemy voices out of our nation's gov. Next is the enemy voice in our exec office...
Posted by hsuBfools at 11/11/2006 @ 1:54pm
The average Palestinian is more than willing to accept a reasonable peace settlement.
Posted by FROMREDBIRD 11/11/2006 @ 10:32am
The "average Palestinian"...isn't in the Palestinian Authority Government. Self-servers, modelled after the Original Self-Server, Mr Arafat, are there.
And as long as the aid money keeps flowing in from Europe and "soft-hearted" (i.e. soft-headed) Americans....and it flows into Swiss bank accounts....they don't want a peace treaty which would mean the "average Palestinian" might start wondering if they should worry more about THEIR OWN leaders, than the "Zionist oppressors".
Posted by Mask at 11/11/2006 @ 2:38pm
Middle East Nov 11, 2006
Iran the key in US change on Iraq By Trita Parsi
WASHINGTON - With the Democrats taking control of the US Congress and Donald Rumsfeld being replaced as defense secretary by Robert Gates, Washington has new avenues to resolve its many problems with Iran.
The key to the elections - and to Iran - is Iraq. In light of the soon-to-be published Iraq Study Group (ISG) report, it is increasingly clear that headway can be made neither on Iraq nor on the nuclear standoff with Iran unless the two are linked.
The victory of the Democrats by taking both the House of Representatives and the Senate and the firing of Rumsfeld have shifted the balance between the pragmatists and the neo-conservatives in the administration of President George W Bush. Rumsfeld was closely allied with Vice President Dick Cheney in opposing every effort to open up diplomatic channels to Tehran.
According to Lawrence Wilkerson, former secretary of state Colin Powell's chief of staff, it was Cheney and Rumsfeld who made sure that Washington dismissed Iran's May 2003 offer to open up its nuclear program, rein in Hezbollah and cooperate against al-Qaeda. Rumsfeld was also a driving force behind using the Mujahideen-e Khalq, an Iranian terrorist organization opposed to the ruling clerics, to weaken Tehran.
Gates, however, belongs to a different school of Republican foreign-policy thinking. Gates' entrance and the Republican leadership's exit have created a precious opportunity to change the course on Iraq - and on Iran. For years, the Bush administration has pursued a maximalist policy based on rejecting any links between the Iranian nuclear program and the many other areas where the US and Iran clash. By refusing any linkages, the Bush White House has aimed to gain maximum concessions from Iran in all areas without ever having to reciprocate or offer any concessions in return.
This was clearly seen in Afghanistan, where Bush's envoy opened up talks with Iran to coordinate efforts to dispose the Taliban regime. Bush's intentions were purely tactical - accept Iranian help in Afghanistan without permitting the cooperation to lead to a shift in attitude toward Iran. The Iranians, on the other hand, were hoping that their assistance in Afghanistan would have strategic implications with an entire new relationship between Tehran and Washington as the ultimate outcome.
Once Iran's help in Afghanistan was no longer deemed necessary, Washington's approach to Tehran cooled significantly, much thanks to the influence of Rumsfeld. Only weeks after the Bonn Conference in December 2001 where Tehran's assistance was crucial in finding a compromise among Afghanistan's many warlords, Bush put Iran into the "axis of evil", along with Iraq and North Korea. Tehran's goodwill gestures were for naught.
Posted by hsuBfools at 11/11/2006 @ 2:55pm
Posted by FROMREDBIRD 11/11/2006 @ 10:32am
Posted by MASK 11/11/2006 @ 2:38pm
How typical of you MASK, to respond with nothing other than stupid slogans. I think it's very clear that between yourself and me, you are the advocate of continued violence. You will of course, in the future, be the first to attribute that violence to those who are it's primary victims while you blithely affect innocence.
It's also 36 hours since the elections and time to put all the modern American fascist LOSERS, like you, back in the ignore bin.
Posted by fromredbird at 11/11/2006 @ 3:50pm
Once Iran's help in Afghanistan was no longer deemed necessary, Washington's approach to Tehran cooled significantly, much thanks to the influence of Rumsfeld. Only weeks after the Bonn Conference in December 2001 where Tehran's assistance was crucial in finding a compromise among Afghanistan's many warlords, Bush put Iran into the "axis of evil", along with Iraq and North Korea. Tehran's goodwill gestures were for naught.
Posted by HSUBFOOLS 11/11/2006 @ 2:55pm
It isn't exceedingly difficult to figure out why there are so many who have so little faith in America's, and even less, israel's, professions of a desire for non-violent solutions.
Witness right now Syria's numerous pleadings for negotiations which are being studiously ignored by both our government and israel's. israel's response recently was to announce that they were getting ready for an expected attack from Syria in 2007 which means that they're planning to attack Syria, probably later though, than 2007. My guess is that they're being aggressive on the timing simply because they are incapable of passing up a chance to thump their chests like an 800 lb. gorilla, a role they crave in the Middle East.
Posted by fromredbird at 11/11/2006 @ 3:59pm
Frankgrits......shut the f*** up. You talk too damn much. Zero and Red are really slapping Darla around, sounds like the left and the loony left are fighting for the soul of the democratic party....art imitates life. Assuming Zero and Red live in the US, they're awfully confident of the ability of the US to survive and prosper in a world where our interests are threatened with increasing impunity by the leaders of Iran, Venezuela, and North Korea, to name but a few. Even China and Russia, while not outright enemies, are watching with keen interest at how the US reacts to such threats. That's what is referred to as the big picture. Zero and Red seem to believe that the palestineans are worthy of sympathy because they've been abused by the Isrealis. But then, what the hell have the rest of the arab world governments done for them, except use the conflict as a lightning rod to keep their own fanatics so busy hating the jews that they'll ignore the repression and incompetance of their own governments? Now that thousands of these fanatics have fought the great satan, where will the next Jihad be after Iraq? In the Middle East? Europe? Stay tuned............
Posted by davebarlett at 11/11/2006 @ 4:14pm
Sorry, Frank. Tell Bob Cesca to shut the f*** up for me, will you?
As for George Bush being irrelevant, that remains to be seen, now doesn't it? He's still president, and his veto pen is ready, willing and able to stop any truly stupid Dem proposals.
In the senate, the 51st vote is Joe Lieberman, a fine example of why Dems need to watch out for the toes they step on today, because they might be connected to the ass they're going to have to kiss tomorrow..... Nancy Pelosi's passing her lipstick over to Harry Reid, even as I type.....
Posted by davebarlett at 11/11/2006 @ 6:32pm
Assuming Zero and Red live in the US, they're awfully confident of the ability of the US to survive and prosper in a world where our interests are threatened with increasing impunity by the leaders of Iran, Venezuela, and North Korea, to name but a few.
Posted by DAVEBARLETT 11/11/2006 @ 4:14pm
Hahahahahaha, LOL. You think Venezuela and North Korea are a threat to the USA? That is hilarious!
Are you also afraid of ladybugs and chihuahuas???
you are right about Iran, but not anything else. Your fear is pathetic.
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 11/11/2006 @ 10:07pm
WOW, wow, wow-- like the dems haven't even started cutting hsuB's 'powers' down to a safe size for one as incompetent as he to use to do the least damage and already his poll numbers are getting down to Nixon's impeachment numbers! I did see them hit 29 by the end of the month. At that rate maybe hsuB will manage to impeach himself and save the tax payers a few bucks considering how much he and his buds already stole from us, I think it's the least he can do.
PRESIDENT BUSH – Overall Job Rating in recent national polls
Survey__________Dates__Approve__Disapprove__Unsure__minus
Newsweek_____11/9-10/06___31_______63________6_____-32
FOX/Opin Dyn__11/4-5/06____38_______54________8_____-16
CNN__________11/3-5/06____35_______61________4_____-26
USA Today/Gal_11/2-5/06____38_______56________6_____-18
Oh and when did Cheney say he was stepping done? At the end of next month, is that it? Something about in order to have a pleasant Thanksgiving killing something, er, turkey hunt or to get a good Christmas present..., since it wasn't just Rumy that lost the wager. Yeah, promises promises promises, some can keep 'em, some just need a little push. (Too bad Rove has too much dirt on hsuB to leave. For sure the thrill is gone, nobody listens to him.)
Posted by hsuBfools at 11/11/2006 @ 10:35pm
done/down what's the dif...ha.
Posted by hsuBfools at 11/11/2006 @ 10:37pm
look, even the NYT is calling for more troops. does zero still think i'm a lunatic now, even though our most prominent journalists are further to the "right" than me?
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/111206D.shtml
Posted by darladoon at 11/12/2006 @ 3:01pm
Will C, Chamberlain may have been a conservative, but the more important point is that his desire for peace blinded him as to the reality of Hitler's intentions,
Posted by DAVEBARLETT 11/08/2006 @ 10:49pm
I think the most important point that has become apparent durung the last six years is that hamster conservatives are so afraid to repeat the mistake of chamberlin, that they will wage war on anyone or anything that appears threatening..
and then tell us that one or thing is Adolph Hitler
Posted by Will C. at 11/12/2006 @ 9:25pm
and that anyone not supporting them is an appeaser
Posted by Will C. at 11/12/2006 @ 9:25pm
provocation... the opposite of appeasement
and thats what waging war against anyone or anything that appears threatening (called preemptive war)
is
Posted by Will C. at 11/12/2006 @ 9:28pm
we have to pull you boys and girls back in from the extreame fringes
Posted by Will C. at 11/12/2006 @ 9:29pm
Has peace ever come from anything other than war? You first have to fight for peace then maintain it by strength. No one has ever kept peace in the history of the world by not maintaining strength. No nation has ever known peace for any length of time. Why does this site always look to condemn America? Why not condemn the evil that Iran or Sudan aspires to spread? We are a good nation and do great things in the world. We did not start this war in Iraq. Iraq has been at war for over 20 years with Iran and this phase of their suffering started when they rolled into Kuwait and slaughtered men women and children everyday till Americans came in to save that small nation.
www.civilwarnow.
Posted by likeitornot at 11/12/2006 @ 10:44pm
look, even the NYT is calling for more troops. does zero still think i'm a lunatic now, even though our most prominent journalists are further to the "right" than me?
Posted by DARLADOON 11/12/2006 @ 3:01pm
Christ! Who the FUCK cares what the NY Times says? They're the ones more responsible than anyone else for selling the damned debacle in the first place.
Posted by fromredbird at 11/13/2006 @ 12:21am
Christ! Who the FUCK cares what the NY Times says? They're the ones more responsible than anyone else for selling the damned debacle in the first place.
another totally outrageous statement! "more responsible" than anyone else? more responsible than rove, cheney, bush, perle, kristol, hitchens, fox news, et al?
and simply because NYT was cheering in early 2003, does not mean they're cheering now. and even IF they were cheering now for a different proposal than your own, does not make THEIR proposal less valid. and herein lies the problem of many on the left wing: if they don't agree with something, it's automatically "fringe" or "incompetent" or "wrong" or "right wing" or "stupid".....and this is coming from someone who is, for the most part, left wing...
Posted by darladoon at 11/13/2006 @ 12:32am
fromredbird, the new york times has done solid reporting on a number of different matters for some time now.....and always critical of the president. they are no fans of the iraq war. you should know this.
did you even READ the op-ed?
Posted by darladoon at 11/13/2006 @ 12:33am
and for those critical of pelosi, she trashed the VP on CNN today....AND is behind murtha:
"Speaker-in-waiting Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) threw her support behind Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.) for majority leader Sunday, giving a significant boost to Murtha in his race against Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) "Your strong voice for national security, the war on terror and Iraq provides genuine leadership for our party, and I count on you to continue to lead on these vital issues," Pelosi wrote Murtha Sunday in a letter obtained by The Hill. "For this and for all you have done for Democrats in the past and especially this last year, I am pleased to support your candidacy for majority leader for the 110th Congress."
i applaud pelosi for starting on the right track.
Posted by darladoon at 11/13/2006 @ 12:36am
Has peace ever come from anything other than war? You first have to fight for peace then maintain it by strength.
Posted by LIKEITORNOT 11/12/2006 @ 10:44pm
Is that why school administrators encourage children to fight in school? Because it creates a better learning environment?
WTF? Does someone have an online ad that says, "Most ridiculous opinion contest at The Nation, win two week, all expenses paid trip to Hawaii?"
Posted by fromredbird at 11/13/2006 @ 12:36am
did you even READ the op-ed?
Posted by DARLADOON 11/13/2006 @ 12:33am
No, I didn't, but I did read the dozens of articles that said there was an advanced nuclear weapons program in Iraq and the article that said we finally found the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. All five of them. LOL.
Posted by fromredbird at 11/13/2006 @ 12:43am
as i suspected, you didn't read the article simply because.....it's the NYT. in effect, you are arguing that, since it is the NYT, there is nothing at all valid within their pages. you have proven, to yourself and to the world, that you are certifiably moronic.
the NYT makes this valid criticism: a phased withdrawal would prove extraordinarily dangerous for the last brigades of troops to leave. it would put even more pressure on them. with a total and compete withdrawal, which is what you and zero apparently want, the situation would be even more disastrous for the most vulnerable of iraqis.
care to comment on this? or are you just going to continue to make evasive and inane comments?
Posted by darladoon at 11/13/2006 @ 12:46am
and simply because NYT was cheering in early 2003, does not mean they're cheering now.
Posted by DARLADOON 11/13/2006 @ 12:32am
Well, why don't you ask the California State Prison system to let Charles Manson spend Thanksgiving with you? He's only interested in carving turkeys now.
Posted by fromredbird at 11/13/2006 @ 12:54am
the NYT makes this valid criticism: a phased withdrawal would prove extraordinarily dangerous for the last brigades of troops to leave. it would put even more pressure on them. with a total and compete withdrawal, which is what you and zero apparently want, the situation would be even more disastrous for the most vulnerable of iraqis.
care to comment on this? or are you just going to continue to make evasive and inane comments?
Posted by DARLADOON 11/13/2006 @ 12:46am
Given your opinions on the Iraq occupation I'm assuming that you voted a straight Republican ticket. But why don't you try considering the wishes of the 85% of Iraqis that want us out of their country? Why don't you try bolstering your arguments with namecalling, too. It can't hurt them any.
Posted by fromredbird at 11/13/2006 @ 12:58am
Democrats, who won control of the U.S. Congress, said on Sunday they will push for a phased withdrawal of American troops from Iraq to begin in four to six months, but the White House cautioned against fixing timetables.
"First order of business is to change the direction of Iraq policy," said Sen. Carl Levin, a Michigan Democrat who is expected to be chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee in the new Congress.
Darladoon, it looks like your Hillarycare Proposal For Iraq is a day late and a dollar short. In case you haven't been paying attention your Republicans and their war went down early last week.
Posted by fromredbird at 11/13/2006 @ 01:02am
and for those critical of pelosi, she trashed the VP on CNN today....
Posted by DARLADOON 11/13/2006 @ 12:36am
A scientific expedition last week captured videotape of a duck swimming on water.
Posted by fromredbird at 11/13/2006 @ 01:07am
And, DARLADOON, if you think more troopers should be sent to Iraq I can give you information about how to enlist in the Buddy Program with Hillary.
Posted by fromredbird at 11/13/2006 @ 01:12am
The Washington Post reports today on two more surveys of Iraqi opinion. First, State Department polling found that "In Baghdad... nearly three-quarters of residents polled said they would feel safer if U.S. and other foreign forces left Iraq, with 65 percent of those asked favoring an immediate pullout." Second, PIPA has released the results of its latest round of polling today, which will show that "71 percent of Iraqis questioned want the Iraqi government to ask foreign forces to depart within a year. By large margins, though, Iraqis believed that the U.S. government would refuse the request, with 77 percent of those polled saying the United States intends keep permanent military bases in the country." Third, the Post mentions that "The director of another Iraqi polling firm, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he feared being killed, said public opinion surveys he conducted last month showed that 80 percent of Iraqis who were questioned favored an immediate withdrawal."
http://tinyurl.com/yl9s9c
Posted by fromredbird at 11/13/2006 @ 01:20am
FROMRED still showing how ISOLATED he is amongst the WINNERS?
He said DARLADOON!!!! was "ready to be a Republican".
I guess he and ZERO and the other 1% of the Democratic Party are discussing how their "Israel Does What Hamas Says Or Else We Cut Them Off" policy initiative will be taken up by Speaker Nancy and House Leader Murtha?
Posted by Mask at 11/13/2006 @ 09:43am
he never said that mask
and to clarify you could always ask him yourself... but you're a pussy
Posted by Will C. at 11/13/2006 @ 09:53am
Given your opinions on the Iraq occupation I'm assuming that you voted a straight Republican ticket. But why don't you try considering the wishes of the 85% of Iraqis that want us out of their country?
me? a straight republican ticket?! not until hell freezes over, FRB. i vote progressive ticket every election. i am a lesbian, feminist, jewish and black herbalist from the most liberal city in the country. care to re-assess my political leanings?
and as for your 85% figure: yeah, i know. that's old news. i want us outta there, too. but just because we want something, doesn't make it the best decision.
do you dispute the fact that a total and immediate withdrawal will put the most vulnerable of iraqis at very serious risk of death, disease, famine, rape, abduction and what not?
and do you dispute that a phased withdrawal will put the last american troops at much greater risk of death?
and do you dispute that adding more troops will only exacerbate the situation?
there are NO good options here, and it's important that all progressives understand this.
Posted by darladoon at 11/13/2006 @ 10:15am
it's so amusing listening to a so-called "liberal" (FRB) debate with me (an independent/progressive).....he accuses me of voting republican, supporting the war, adding more troops, etc.
i have never voted for a republican, i have never supported the iraq war, and i have never stated that i think we should send in more troops.
for some reasons, liberals can be very very stupid: the minute you question withdrawal, they think you're suddenly a........can i say it? suddenly a.........traitor?? gee, that sounds a lot like bush's "either you're with us or you're against us".
dude, FRB, you're just as unhinged as zero: you want immediate withdrawal, but you're not prepared to take responsibility for those for whom you have shown the most compassion: troops and iraqis. better grow up, brother.
Posted by darladoon at 11/13/2006 @ 10:20am
and pelosi also backs murtha, FRB.
also, regarding iraq: how do progressives feel about reconstruction (should we pull out)? won't that put contractors at serious risk of death as well? should we just abandon our reconstruction?
is there any reasonable liberal here? prepared to admit consequences?
Posted by darladoon at 11/13/2006 @ 10:24am
WILL, you're right...he said THIS to DARLA...
"It sounds to me, honestly, that your apparent attitudes toward Arabs and Muslims could make you quite comfortable in the Republican Party."
Posted by FROMREDBIRD 11/10/2006 @ 08:52am
and so it's TOTALLY different saying "You'd be quite comfortable in the Republican Party" and "you're ready to be a Republican".
Thanks for the clarification.
Posted by Mask at 11/13/2006 @ 10:50am
he accuses me of voting republican
Posted by DARLADOON 11/13/2006 @ 10:20am
He never said that DARLA, as I'm sure WILL will "soon" rebuke you for posting and then demand that you ask FRB yourself or be a "pussy"!
Posted by Mask at 11/13/2006 @ 10:52am
look, even the NYT is calling for more troops. does zero still think i'm a lunatic now, even though our most prominent journalists are further to the "right" than me?
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/111206D.shtml
Posted by DARLADOON 11/12/2006 @ 3:01pm
"Opposition to the Iraq war was the dominant factor in this week's election. NBC's Meet the Press invited Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) and Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) to discuss the issue. Both McCain and Lieberman expressed support for sending more troops to Iraq."
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/11/12/mccain-iraq-troops/
Democrats, who won control of the U.S. Congress, said on Sunday they will push for a phased withdrawal of American troops from Iraq to begin in four to six months, but the White House cautioned against fixing timetables.
"First order of business is to change the direction of Iraq policy," said Sen. Carl Levin, a Michigan Democrat who is expected to be chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee in the new Congress.
DARLADOON, if you and MASK are trying to portray ME as the one out of the mainstream on this then you're both completely out of the loop. If you had any consistency you would have to apply all the names you've called me to the new Congressional majority, also. Additionally, don't expect to continue calling me names like that without eventually getting some back.
If you speak so approvingly of the idea of sending more troops to Iraq you're the one that needs to explain it's reasoning because you're the one far out of the mainstream. And what the hell is the logic of arguing that we can't withdraw because the last troopers would be in more danger? By that bizarre reasoning we could never withdraw. That would make it difficult to figure out why we aren't still at war in Vietnam. It would make it difficult to figure out why every war in history isn't still being fought. Is your reasoning perhaps that the Iraq occupation can't end until the entire US collapses economically and militarily? Please elaborate.
Posted by fromredbird at 11/13/2006 @ 11:53am
do you dispute the fact that a total and immediate withdrawal will put the most vulnerable of iraqis at very serious risk of death, disease, famine, rape, abduction and what not?
As if that isn't exactly what they're suffering now? This is another of your talking points that are straight from Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh.
I see you also blithely ignore the wishes of the overwhelming majority of Iraqis themselves. Do you regard them as moronic, evasive, inane, stupid, unhinged, in need of growing up, etc., just as you do me? How do you think you look with arguments like that?
Posted by fromredbird at 11/13/2006 @ 12:02pm
fromredbird, the new york times has done solid reporting on a number of different matters for some time now.....they are no fans of the iraq war. you should know this.
Posted by DARLADOON 11/13/2006 @ 12:33am
So they weren't fans after they were fans? This is the statement that unquestionably takes the cake home.
Posted by fromredbird at 11/13/2006 @ 12:05pm
for the record: I'M NOT CALLING FOR MORE TROOPS. i want a 12 month phased withdrawal, effective pronto. and i admit it will be hell in iraq after we leave, but there are not better choices.
And what the hell is the logic of arguing that we can't withdraw because the last troopers would be in more danger? By that bizarre reasoning we could never withdraw.
why is this bizarre reasoning? if we implement a phased withdrawal, which i think we will, the last combat brigades will clearly be put in more danger. now we have 152,000 troops. if we pull out 10,000 per month, would you want to be part of the last 10,000?
i don't see how this line of reasoning leads you to conclude that we will remain in iraq forever.
Posted by darladoon at 11/13/2006 @ 12:07pm
i am a lesbian, feminist, jewish and black herbalist from the most liberal city in the country. care to re-assess my political leanings?
Posted by DARLADOON 11/13/2006 @ 10:15am
If you're talking about what you're saying about sending more troops to Iraq that doesn't, for some reason, cause me to feel a need to reassess what I've already said. But I will remember the format and regard it with caution in the future.
Posted by fromredbird at 11/13/2006 @ 12:09pm
As if that isn't exactly what they're suffering now? This is another of your talking points that are straight from Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh.
I see you also blithely ignore the wishes of the overwhelming majority of Iraqis themselves. Do you regard them as moronic, evasive, inane, stupid, unhinged, in need of growing up, etc., just as you do me? How do you think you look with arguments like that?
another 100% outrageous statement! are you suggesting that anyone who calls for a complete and immediate withdrawal should not be critiqued? that we should just say, "ok, let's do it!" no questions asked? no back up plan in case things go completely bananas? i'm sorry FRB, but you are living in a fantasy land.
and, as per your "majority of iraqis" comment: 85% want us out, but a far lower % want us to leave immediately.
Posted by darladoon at 11/13/2006 @ 12:09pm
So they weren't fans after they were fans? This is the statement that unquestionably takes the cake home.
FRB, they are a mainstream newspaper who has made many, many mistakes. but this does not mean that when they are correct about something, we should ignore them.
Posted by darladoon at 11/13/2006 @ 12:11pm
FRB, you need to learn to take more responsibility for your political positions. if you want a complete and immediate withdrawal, then you need to face the consequences (read: admit that your political positions have serious and grave limitations). otherwise, you are living in the same state of denial that bush is living in.
Posted by darladoon at 11/13/2006 @ 12:13pm
for the record: I'M NOT CALLING FOR MORE TROOPS. i want a 12 month phased withdrawal, effective pronto.
Posted by DARLADOON 11/13/2006 @ 12:07am
And you think the best way to promote that is to speak approvingly of the New York Times call for more troops to Iraq?
Maybe I'm just having a little trouble making sense of what you're typing and getting a little irritated with your method of immediately lacing your responses with derogatory insults.
Posted by fromredbird at 11/13/2006 @ 12:16pm
and, here's another problem with your manner or reasoning:
you say things like this:
This is another of your talking points that are straight from Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh
i don't own a television, i don't watch television. i don't own a radio, i don't listen to the radio. i have no idea what these men are saying, nor would i adopt their talking points for my own benefit. but this is beside the real point i want to make: just because bill o'reilly makes a point, doesn't mean that it's automatically invalid. he could say, "iraq is a disaster" (and he has, and so has limbaugh). was he wrong about that? sure, most of the time they say stupid shit, but not every time.
Posted by darladoon at 11/13/2006 @ 12:18pm
and, as per your "majority of iraqis" comment: 85% want us out, but a far lower % want us to leave immediately.
Posted by DARLADOON 11/13/2006 @ 12:09am
False. Everyone else can read what I posted. The percent who want us to leave immediately was 80% in one poll.
You must regard Iraqis as your untermenschen who shouldn't be allowed to make decisions for themselves. You are permeated with the attitudes that come from America's imperialist culture.
Posted by fromredbird at 11/13/2006 @ 12:20pm
And you think the best way to promote that is to speak approvingly of the New York Times call for more troops to Iraq?
Maybe I'm just having a little trouble making sense of what you're typing and getting a little irritated with your method of immediately lacing your responses with derogatory insults.
i'll stop insulting you if you stop comparing me to limbaugh and o'reilly. ok?
and as for your point: the NYT spoke about a number of different proposals, while not endorsing one or the other.
my position is clear: phased 12 month withdrawal, effective now. what will the effect be? disastrous, and disastrous mainly for the most vulnerable of iraqis, and the last combat brigades...
Posted by darladoon at 11/13/2006 @ 12:20pm
fini with that.
Posted by fromredbird at 11/13/2006 @ 12:21pm
False. Everyone else can read what I posted. The percent who want us to leave immediately was 80% in one poll.
You must regard Iraqis as your untermenschen who shouldn't be allowed to make decisions for themselves. You are permeated with the attitudes that come from America's imperialist culture.
another 100% totally outrageous statement. here is the poll in question. got you brother!
http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/home_page/250.php?nid=&i d=&pnt=250&lb=hmpg1
plus this:
http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/home_page/165.php?nid=&i d=&pnt=165&lb=hmpg2
only 35% want us out immediately.
got ya!!!
Posted by darladoon at 11/13/2006 @ 12:25pm
85% want us out, but far less numbers immediately or 6 month or 12 month....
Posted by darladoon at 11/13/2006 @ 12:26pm
the most intelligent statement made yet by a high end military official on iraq:
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/11/13/pace-terrorism/
watch
Posted by darladoon at 11/13/2006 @ 12:35pm
Posted by FROMREDBIRD 11/13/2006 @ 11:53am
Gee...did I miss the part where Carl Levin called on an Israel-Palestinian policy based on "Israel signs a treaty going back to the '67 borders, with no security guarentees...or we gut their funding and impose a military aid embargo of them"?
YOU ARE out of the mainstream. From the conservative Dems (include me in that if you like) to liberal Dems like DARLA...to MORE IMPORTANTLY, the Democrats in power in Congress.
A year from now, you will be (as none of YOUR ideas on the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict are enacted)....and TWO years from now, you'll have to suck it up, play "loyal soldier", and support a Democrat for President that will be just as much a "Zionist appeaser" as you think Joe Lieberman is.
You're the Fringe...maybe the Fringe OF the Fringe (given you've now ousted DARLA from your sub-set of the sub-set).....deal with it.
Posted by Mask at 11/13/2006 @ 12:39pm
Posted by FROMREDBIRD 11/13/2006 @ 12:20am
another 100% totally outrageous statement. here is the poll in question. got you brother! Posted by DARLADOON 11/13/2006 @ 12:25am
Here's what I posted:
The Washington Post reports today on two more surveys of Iraqi opinion. First, State Department polling found that "In Baghdad... nearly three-quarters of residents polled said they would feel safer if U.S. and other foreign forces left Iraq, with 65 percent of those asked favoring an immediate pullout." Second, PIPA has released the results of its latest round of polling today, which will show that "71 percent of Iraqis questioned want the Iraqi government to ask foreign forces to depart within a year. By large margins, though, Iraqis believed that the U.S. government would refuse the request, with 77 percent of those polled saying the United States intends keep permanent military bases in the country." Third, the Post mentions that "The director of another Iraqi polling firm, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he feared being killed, said public opinion surveys he conducted last month showed that 80 percent of Iraqis who were questioned favored an immediate withdrawal."
http://tinyurl.com/yl9s9c
Here is the Washington Post article discussing the State Department poll:
BAGHDAD, Sept. 26 -- A strong majority of Iraqis want U.S.-led military forces to immediately withdraw from the country, saying their swift departure would make Iraq more secure and decrease sectarian violence, according to new polls by the State Department and independent researchers.
In Baghdad, for example, nearly three-quarters of residents polled said they would feel safer if U.S. and other foreign forces left Iraq, with 65 percent of those asked favoring an immediate pullout, according to State Department polling results obtained by The Washington Post.
http://tinyurl.com/mz5zg
Here is the PIPA poll:
A large majority of Iraqis--71%--say they would like the Iraqi government to ask for U.S.-led forces to be withdrawn from Iraq within a year or less. Given four options, 37 percent take the position that they would like U.S.-led forces withdrawn "within six months," while another 34 percent opt for "gradually withdraw[ing] U.S.-led forces according to a one-year timeline." Twenty percent favor a two-year timeline and just 9 percent favor "only reduc[ing] U.S.-led forces as the security situation improves in Iraq."
So you pick the one out of three polls that shows less Iraqis want an immediate pullout than the other two and say, "I got you"? There is nothing inconsistent between these polls and what I said. Your elation over your unsupported claim that you "got me" on "immediate pullout" is also a little funny given that this conversation started because you were speaking approvingly of the New York Times saying we needed to send more troops to Iraq, not because I said we should withdraw troops so very quickly that it would create a greater risk to our troops than was necessary in the inevitable pullout. Remember? So please stop putting words in my mouth. That seems to be a standard operating procedure for you.
Anyway, what makes you think that you or the New York Times have ANY RIGHT to make a decision to further extend the military occupation of Iraq? Do you consider yourself some kind of God?
Posted by fromredbird at 11/13/2006 @ 6:47pm
Posted by MASK 11/13/2006 @ 12:39am
Gee, I really must be your Master of the Universe, musn't I MASK, given the amount of time you spend trying to get others to attack and hate me. Every life needs a purpose and you've found yours. I can see I've been just a little too mean to you, haven't I? LOL!
Posted by fromredbird at 11/13/2006 @ 6:52pm
i'll stop insulting you if you stop comparing me to limbaugh and o'reilly. ok?
Posted by DARLADOON 11/13/2006 @ 12:20am
It's a little difficult to do that when you so exactly duplicate their talking points on the Middle East. Is that Middle East policy overlap with America's ultra-right a standard symptom of a particular faction in the Democratic Party?
Posted by fromredbird at 11/13/2006 @ 7:00pm
i exactly duplicate o'reilly and limbaugh?
yet again, a 100% totally outrageous statement.
and, FRB, notice that your poll says baghdad residents only. mine is country-wide, hence more reliable......obviously.
Posted by darladoon at 11/13/2006 @ 11:27pm
so limbaugh and o'reilly favor a 12 month phased withdrawal (like me)?
and o'reilly and limbaugh favor the democrats to take over control of middle east policy (like me)?
and o'reilly and limbaugh favor relaxing aid to israel? and increasing aid to palestine and lebanon?
FRB, you follow one outrageous statement with another.....and another....and another....
Posted by darladoon at 11/13/2006 @ 11:28pm
so limbaugh and o'reilly favor a 12 month phased withdrawal (like me)?
and o'reilly and limbaugh favor the democrats to take over control of middle east policy (like me)?
and o'reilly and limbaugh favor relaxing aid to israel? and increasing aid to palestine and lebanon?
FRB, you follow one outrageous statement with another.....and another....and another....
Posted by DARLADOON 11/13/2006 @ 11:28pm
The conversation started with you speaking approvingly of the New York Times call to send more troops to Iraq (according to you), progressed through your assertions why that was a good idea, then eventually, maybe after you figured you had a loser, you switched to the above. So what am I supposed to do? Read your mind and address your future statements which contradict your original statements?
Posted by fromredbird at 11/14/2006 @ 11:42am
i NEVER said sending more troops was a good idea. the NYT said that.
i am REFERRING to the "bastion of common sense" to make the point that NOT EVERY INTELLIGENT PERSON WANTS A COMPLETE AND IMMEDIATE WITHDRAWAL.
Posted by darladoon at 11/14/2006 @ 4:22pm
Thanks for the clarification.
Posted by MASK 11/13/2006 @ 10:50am
your welcome.... glad I could help
Posted by Will C. at 11/15/2006 @ 10:29pm