the perpetual excuse

[Guest Paul]

We've been treated to yet another topic designed solely to needle those of us who disagree with a certain right-winger's political views. (He sullies the name of "Patriot.") The latest premise is that "the surge is working" because there's less violence in Iraq than there was before the "surge."

Of course, that doesn't mean there's no violence, that Iraq is stable (if it was, we could leave) or that stability will ever be established. It's like going ten million dollars into debt, and then devising a strategy to lop $100,000 off the debt. The venture was still a disastrous loss, and you're never going to come out ahead.

For radical right wing authoritarians like the person who calls himself "Patriot," all war is justified. After all, if it wasn't justified we wouldn't have gone in --- unless, of course, a president he doesn't like is in office when it happens. Truth is not a function of fact, but a function of what they wish to believe. That is how the authoritarian, right-wing mind thinks.

For pseudo-Patriot, no war he likes is ever a loss. If we can't win it, it's because some Americans disagree with it, as though some Americans haven't disagreed with every war we've ever been in, including both world wars.

"It's the fault of the dissenters" is the perpetual excuse. If we can't win the current war, blame it on those citizens who had the good sense to recognize that we should never have started it. (It boggles the mind that the USA is now STARTING wars. Didn't anyone notice?) After all, there will always be people who dissent against a war. So it's the perfect excuse. Their favorite president can do any mindless thing he wants to do and when it fails (miserably in the present case), it's the dissenters' fault, even if it really isn't. As the church lady would say, "How conveeeeeeenient!"

[Guest Keith-Marshall.Mo]

We've been treated to yet another topic designed solely to needle those of us who disagree with a certain right-winger's political views. (He sullies the name of "Patriot.") The latest premise is that "the surge is working" because there's less violence in Iraq than there was before the "surge."

Of course, that doesn't mean there's no violence, that Iraq is stable (if it was, we could leave) or that stability will ever be established. It's like going ten million dollars into debt, and then devising a strategy to lop $100,000 off the debt. The venture was still a disastrous loss, and you're never going to come out ahead.

For radical right wing authoritarians like the person who calls himself "Patriot," all war is justified. After all, if it wasn't justified we wouldn't have gone in --- unless, of course, a president he doesn't like is in office when it happens. Truth is not a function of fact, but a function of what they wish to believe. That is how the authoritarian, right-wing mind thinks.

For pseudo-Patriot, no war he likes is ever a loss. If we can't win it, it's because some Americans disagree with it, as though some Americans haven't disagreed with every war we've ever been in, including both world wars.

"It's the fault of the dissenters" is the perpetual excuse. If we can't win the current war, blame it on those citizens who had the good sense to recognize that we should never have started it. (It boggles the mind that the USA is now STARTING wars. Didn't anyone notice?) After all, there will always be people who dissent against a war. So it's the perfect excuse. Their favorite president can do any mindless thing he wants to do and when it fails (miserably in the present case), it's the dissenters' fault, even if it really isn't. As the church lady would say, "How conveeeeeeenient!"

74323[/snapback]

If indeed it were the dissenters fault, then as a dissenter I will admit my guilt which is far more than this president has done.

[Guest Mynameisletter]

It may be time for a flat household tax, For according to Wikepedia there are some 15,000 plus households here in Kearny and yet only some five or six thousand homeowners / houses are taxed.

RUANDODYDIARY

[Guest a proud american]

We've been treated to yet another topic designed solely to needle those of us who disagree with a certain right-winger's political views. (He sullies the name of "Patriot.") The latest premise is that "the surge is working" because there's less violence in Iraq than there was before the "surge."

Of course, that doesn't mean there's no violence, that Iraq is stable (if it was, we could leave) or that stability will ever be established. It's like going ten million dollars into debt, and then devising a strategy to lop $100,000 off the debt. The venture was still a disastrous loss, and you're never going to come out ahead.

For radical right wing authoritarians like the person who calls himself "Patriot," all war is justified. After all, if it wasn't justified we wouldn't have gone in --- unless, of course, a president he doesn't like is in office when it happens. Truth is not a function of fact, but a function of what they wish to believe. That is how the authoritarian, right-wing mind thinks.

For pseudo-Patriot, no war he likes is ever a loss. If we can't win it, it's because some Americans disagree with it, as though some Americans haven't disagreed with every war we've ever been in, including both world wars.

"It's the fault of the dissenters" is the perpetual excuse. If we can't win the current war, blame it on those citizens who had the good sense to recognize that we should never have started it. (It boggles the mind that the USA is now STARTING wars. Didn't anyone notice?) After all, there will always be people who dissent against a war. So it's the perfect excuse. Their favorite president can do any mindless thing he wants to do and when it fails (miserably in the present case), it's the dissenters' fault, even if it really isn't. As the church lady would say, "How conveeeeeeenient!"

74323[/snapback]

What else can they do? They can't see the truth and aren't interested in finding it. They would rather live in a dream world where, in the absence of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, evidence that proves them wrong they simply criticize or change the subject.

And look at the mess this fool has put us in. That should be proof enough of their stupidity. This is the guy that's supposed to be an economic genius?

And your right. Nothing is ever their fault when things are bad. Well things have been bad for a long time and are only going to get worse before they get better so it's time for them to have a reality check.

But we know that's not going to happen.

And with regards to the surge working. If it's working so well than isn't it about time to bring the troops home and let the Iraqi Army do the fighting?

how much more time do they need. They've been in training now for four years. We can take a kid off of the streets of Kearny and have him in combat in four months. And if Patriot is using US body counts to make his arguement, then where does he get the information from? No doubt those who agreee with him.

And what did the report say. Depending on where in the head a person is shot defines if they were a victim of a crime or shot in combat. So let him keep dreaming that all is ok. The rest of us know the truth.

But it's better to criticize those of us who want our troops home then to face reality.

[Guest Paul]

What else can they do? They can't see the truth and aren't interested in finding it. They would rather live in a dream world where, in the absence of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, evidence that proves them wrong they simply criticize or change the subject.

And look at the mess this fool has put us in. That should be proof enough of their stupidity. This is the guy that's supposed to be an economic genius?

And your right. Nothing is ever their fault when things are bad. Well things have been bad for a long time and are only going to get worse before they get better so it's time for them to have a reality check.

But we know that's not going to happen.

And with regards to the surge working. If it's working so well than isn't it about time to bring the troops home and let the Iraqi Army do the fighting?

how much more time do they need. They've been in training now for four years. We can take a kid off of the streets of Kearny and have him in combat in four months. And if Patriot is using US body counts to make his arguement, then where does he get the information from? No doubt those who agreee with him.

And what did the report say. Depending on where in the head a person is shot defines if they were a victim of a crime or shot in combat. So let him keep dreaming that all is ok. The rest of us know the truth.

But it's better to criticize those of us who want our troops home then to face reality.

74385[/snapback]

You're being far too kind to the radical right. Overwhelming evidence doesn't mean one single thing to them if it's not what they want to hear.

[Bryan]

We've been treated to yet another topic designed solely to needle those of us who disagree with a certain right-winger's political views. (He sullies the name of "Patriot.") The latest premise is that "the surge is working" because there's less violence in Iraq than there was before the "surge."

The difference is not small, and given that the surge was specifically intended to pacify the violence in Iraq it makes little sense to claim that a decrease in violence means the surge isn't working.

Amazingly, that's exactly what we heard from Democratic presidential hopefuls in Las Vegas last week.

Of course, that doesn't mean there's no violence, that Iraq is stable (if it was, we could leave) or that stability will ever be established.

The goal of the surge was never to produce "no violence" but to stabilize Iraq until the national government could sustain the stability. That goal is within reach, but Democrats in Congress inexplicably seem eager to chance losing it.

It's like going ten million dollars into debt, and then devising a strategy to lop $100,000 off the debt. The venture was still a disastrous loss, and you're never going to come out ahead.

... says the guy who never apologized for pimping that stupid targeted boycott of a U.S. oil company. The boycott wouldn't work because the economics don't support the idea. Same in this case. The expense in Iraq is hardly "disastrous" and we come out ahead bigtime if we end up with a democratic Arab ally in the Middle East.

Again, that's in reach but Democrats seem perfectly willing to jeopardize it in order to S**K up to their political base.

For radical right wing authoritarians like the person who calls himself "Patriot," all war is justified. After all, if it wasn't justified we wouldn't have gone in --- unless, of course, a president he doesn't like is in office when it happens. Truth is not a function of fact, but a function of what they wish to believe. That is how the authoritarian, right-wing mind thinks.

I'm not familiar with Patriot ever making that type of argument for war. Shall I hold my breath while Paul compiles the evidence or shall I conclude that Mr. LaClair has decided to embroider the truth yet again?

For pseudo-Patriot, no war he likes is ever a loss. If we can't win it, it's because some Americans disagree with it, as though some Americans haven't disagreed with every war we've ever been in, including both world wars.

Don't expect Paul to provide an example of a war the U.S. could not have won.

"It's the fault of the dissenters" is the perpetual excuse.

Perpetual? The U.S. has only lost one war. That's Vietnam, and it is well-documented that the Viet Cong and North Vietnamese were broken by the Tet Offensive--yet our media (Cronkite) presented it as a catastrophic loss. The media coverage made people think we were losing a war we were winning (despite the use of poor use of air power). Yet it remains a canard of the left that Vietnam was some kind of huge mistake. The big mistake happened when Congressional Democrats cut off promised aid to South Vietnam over President Ford's strident objection. That move opened the way for North Vietnam to break a ceasefire and invade South Vietnam. Untold thousands died in re-education camps (city folk forced to the countryside to work on farms and absorb communist ideology) while thousands more died at sea (Boat People). The peace movement twisted all that into something good in their minds, somehow. Leave your ally's side during a fight, then break your promise to continue helping in other ways.

That is the kind of foreign policy that damages the United States but for many on the left it was a great political victory that still gives them warm fuzzies.

If we can't win the current war, blame it on those citizens who had the good sense to recognize that we should never have started it. (It boggles the mind that the USA is now STARTING wars. Didn't anyone notice?)

Apparently Paul didn't learn much about American history (Mexican-American War, Spanish-American War, Revolutionary War, War of 1812).

Just to get Paul up to speed, the U.S. observed a UN ceasefire deal with Iraq contingent on Iraq meeting the terms of the agreement. Iraq repeatedly failed to meet those terms. The Iraq War was a continuation of a move against Hussein's regime that started with the liberation of Kuwait.

After all, there will always be people who dissent against a war. So it's the perfect excuse. Their favorite president can do any mindless thing he wants to do and when it fails (miserably in the present case), it's the dissenters' fault, even if it really isn't. As the church lady would say, "How conveeeeeeenient!"

74323[/snapback]

Even if you're a liberal, try to think about the facts for a moment. The U.S. has stemmed a trend toward sectarian warfare in Iraq that might have led to a genocide to match Darfur. Taking troops away too soon could allow that genocide to continue, but some Americans are in favor of it.

Why?

I do appreciate Paul's willingness to demonstrate the vacuity of liberal political views. Those who have already gone on record agreeing with Paul ... what are you thinking? Seriously?

[Guest Patriot]

What else can they do? They can't see the truth and aren't interested in finding it. They would rather live in a dream world where, in the absence of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, evidence that proves them wrong they simply criticize or change the subject.

And look at the mess this fool has put us in. That should be proof enough of their stupidity. This is the guy that's supposed to be an economic genius?

And your right. Nothing is ever their fault when things are bad. Well things have been bad for a long time and are only going to get worse before they get better so it's time for them to have a reality check.

But we know that's not going to happen.

And with regards to the surge working. If it's working so well than isn't it about time to bring the troops home and let the Iraqi Army do the fighting?

how much more time do they need. They've been in training now for four years. We can take a kid off of the streets of Kearny and have him in combat in four months. And if Patriot is using US body counts to make his arguement, then where does he get the information from? No doubt those who agreee with him.

And what did the report say. Depending on where in the head a person is shot defines if they were a victim of a crime or shot in combat. So let him keep dreaming that all is ok. The rest of us know the truth.

But it's better to criticize those of us who want our troops home then to face reality.

74385[/snapback]

Did you have a 12 year old write this post for you ?

[Guest Patriot]

We've been treated to yet another topic designed solely to needle those of us who disagree with a certain right-winger's political views. (He sullies the name of "Patriot.") The latest premise is that "the surge is working" because there's less violence in Iraq than there was before the "surge."

Of course, that doesn't mean there's no violence, that Iraq is stable (if it was, we could leave) or that stability will ever be established. It's like going ten million dollars into debt, and then devising a strategy to lop $100,000 off the debt. The venture was still a disastrous loss, and you're never going to come out ahead.

For radical right wing authoritarians like the person who calls himself "Patriot," all war is justified. After all, if it wasn't justified we wouldn't have gone in --- unless, of course, a president he doesn't like is in office when it happens. Truth is not a function of fact, but a function of what they wish to believe. That is how the authoritarian, right-wing mind thinks.

For pseudo-Patriot, no war he likes is ever a loss. If we can't win it, it's because some Americans disagree with it, as though some Americans haven't disagreed with every war we've ever been in, including both world wars.

"It's the fault of the dissenters" is the perpetual excuse. If we can't win the current war, blame it on those citizens who had the good sense to recognize that we should never have started it. (It boggles the mind that the USA is now STARTING wars. Didn't anyone notice?) After all, there will always be people who dissent against a war. So it's the perfect excuse. Their favorite president can do any mindless thing he wants to do and when it fails (miserably in the present case), it's the dissenters' fault, even if it really isn't. As the church lady would say, "How conveeeeeeenient!"

74323[/snapback]

"It boggles the mind that the USA is now starting wars". I wonder what

someone reading your post that lost a loved one on 9/11 would think of

that statement. You're disgusting.

[Guest Guest]

Nitwits like PatRat will happily tell you we haven't been attacked since we invaded Iraq as a justification for this debacle while conveniently ignoring the FACT that we were NEVER attacked by Iraq before the invasion.

[Strife767]

Did you have a 12 year old write this post for you ?

74480[/snapback]

Considering he's the only one out of the two of you that knows that there is no space between the end of a question and a question mark, I think you ought to look at the board in your own eye.

[Strife767]

"It boggles the mind that the USA is now starting wars".  I wonder what

  someone reading your post that lost a loved one on 9/11 would think of

  that statement.

(alright, that's it)

They'd be pissed off because WE ATTACKED THE WRONG COUNTRY, you F**KING idiot!

You're disgusting.

74482[/snapback]

F**K you.

[Guest Guest]

The difference is not small, and given that the surge was specifically intended to pacify the violence in Iraq it makes little sense to claim that a decrease in violence means the surge isn't working.

Amazingly, that's exactly what we heard from Democratic presidential hopefuls in Las Vegas last week.

The goal of the surge was never to produce "no violence" but to stabilize Iraq until the national government could sustain the stability.  That goal is within reach, but Democrats in Congress inexplicably seem eager to chance losing it. 

... says the guy who never apologized for pimping that stupid targeted boycott of a U.S. oil company.  The boycott wouldn't work because the economics don't support the idea.  Same in this case.  The expense in Iraq is hardly "disastrous" and we come out ahead bigtime if we end up with a democratic Arab ally in the Middle East.

Again, that's in reach but Democrats seem perfectly willing to jeopardize it in order to S**K up to their political base.

I'm not familiar with Patriot ever making that type of argument for war.  Shall I hold my breath while Paul compiles the evidence or shall I conclude that Mr. LaClair has decided to embroider the truth yet again?

Don't expect Paul to provide an example of a war the U.S. could not have won.

Perpetual?  The U.S. has only lost one war.  That's Vietnam, and it is well-documented that the Viet Cong and North Vietnamese were broken by the Tet Offensive--yet our media (Cronkite) presented it as a catastrophic loss.  The media coverage made people think we were losing a war we were winning (despite the use of poor use of air power).  Yet it remains a canard of the left that Vietnam was some kind of huge mistake.  The big mistake happened when Congressional Democrats cut off promised aid to South Vietnam over President Ford's strident objection.  That move opened the way for North Vietnam to break a ceasefire and invade South Vietnam.  Untold thousands died in re-education camps (city folk forced to the countryside to work on farms and absorb communist ideology) while thousands more died at sea (Boat People).  The peace movement twisted all that into something good in their minds, somehow.  Leave your ally's side during a fight, then break your promise to continue helping in other ways.

That is the kind of foreign policy that damages the United States but for many on the left it was a great political victory that still gives them warm fuzzies.

Apparently Paul didn't learn much about American history (Mexican-American War, Spanish-American War, Revolutionary War, War of 1812).

Just to get Paul up to speed, the U.S. observed a UN ceasefire deal with Iraq contingent on Iraq meeting the terms of the agreement.  Iraq repeatedly failed to meet those terms.  The Iraq War was a continuation of a move against Hussein's regime that started with the liberation of Kuwait.

Even if you're a liberal, try to think about the facts for a moment.  The U.S. has stemmed a trend toward sectarian warfare in Iraq that might have led to a genocide to match Darfur.  Taking troops away too soon could allow that genocide to continue, but some Americans are in favor of it.

Why?

I do appreciate Paul's willingness to demonstrate the vacuity of liberal political views.  Those who have already gone on record agreeing with Paul ... what are you thinking?  Seriously?

74437[/snapback]

You can't bring about cultural change with warfare, unless you're willing to return to the ways things were done in the dark ages. That would defeat the purpose, unless your real agenda is to make the Middle East safe for American oil profiteers, in which case you're only going to make the problem worse by increasing anti-American hatred all over the world. It was a horrible idea from day one, still is and always will be.

[Guest Guest]

"It boggles the mind that the USA is now starting wars".  I wonder what

  someone reading your post that lost a loved one on 9/11 would think of

  that statement. You're disgusting.

74482[/snapback]

And you're stupid. The people we went to war against are not the ones who attacked us on 9/11. But then all those A-rabs look the same to you, don't they.

[Guest Guest]

"It boggles the mind that the USA is now starting wars".  I wonder what

  someone reading your post that lost a loved one on 9/11 would think of

  that statement. You're disgusting.

74482[/snapback]

Any intelligent person (which certainly precludes you) who lost a loved one on 9/11 would think that Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11 and would wonder why our alleged leader wasn't going after those responsible for 9/11. Try looking past the end of you nose for a change. Or is your butt blocking the view?

[WilliamK]

"It boggles the mind that the USA is now starting wars".  I wonder what

  someone reading your post that lost a loved one on 9/11 would think of

  that statement. You're disgusting.

74482[/snapback]

In case you haven't noticed, no one here is criticizing our invasion of Afghanistan, our deposing of the Taliban, or going after Bin Laden and friends. Those things are a genuine response to 9/11. Those things have some hope of actually addressing that problem, and doing some good. Those things were not unprovoked, unjustified, or misdirected. Those things do not bring shame upon our country.

But the war in Iraq is something else entirely. Its causes are not related to 9/11, though its peddlers have abused that fear and anger to gain support. It is you, liar and false patriot, who demeans the memory of those lost on 9/11 by trying to use their loss to support the unjustified and disastrous mess in Iraq. It is you who is disgusting.

[Guest Guest]

We are in need of people to enlist into the Armed Forces to help with the current war. Bryan and Patriot - Why won't you enlist and do you have and family members currently enlisted?

If you support the war but won't enlist then you my friend are a coward!

[Guest Patriot]

(alright, that's it)

They'd be pissed off because WE ATTACKED THE WRONG COUNTRY, you F**KING idiot!

F**K you.

74506[/snapback]

Spoken like a true LoonyLeft Kool-aider.

[Guest Guest]

We are in need of people to enlist into the Armed Forces to help with the current war.  Bryan and Patriot - Why won't you enlist and do you have and family members currently enlisted?

If you support the war but won't enlist then you my friend are a coward!

74539[/snapback]

See the comments by "Keith-Marshall,Mo" in "Deafeatocrats Outraged" page 4- you will see just what Bryan's stance on that subject is.

[Guest Guest]

We are in need of people to enlist into the Armed Forces to help with the current war.  Bryan and Patriot - Why won't you enlist and do you have and family members currently enlisted?

If you support the war but won't enlist then you my friend are a coward!

74539[/snapback]

And a hypocrite! Gee, a right-wing hypocrite. What a surprise.

[Strife767]

Spoken like a true LoonyLeft Kool-aider.

74570[/snapback]

Call me all the infantile shit you want, but the fact is that your spineless self can do nothing but sit at a computer and insist everything's just fine while your countrymen and women continue to DIE in a country that never attacked us.

You are a craven wretch, and I'm ashamed to share a species with you.

[Bryan]

You can't bring about cultural change with warfare, unless you're willing to return to the ways things were done in the dark ages.

So Japan and Germany happened only in our imagination?

That would defeat the purpose, unless your real agenda is to make the Middle East safe for American oil profiteers, in which case you're only going to make the problem worse by increasing anti-American hatred all over the world. It was a horrible idea from day one, still is and always will be.

74511[/snapback]

Another Guest with mind shut tight.

[Bryan]

We are in need of people to enlist into the Armed Forces to help with the current war.  Bryan and Patriot - Why won't you enlist and do you have and family members currently enlisted?

If you support the war but won't enlist then you my friend are a coward!

And a hypocrite! Gee, a right-wing hypocrite. What a surprise.

74583[/snapback]

Guest lies and Guest eats it up.

WASHINGTON, Nov. 13, 2007 – The first month of fiscal 2008 was a success for all active and reserve military components.

In a meeting with Pentagon reporters today, Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said all components met or exceeded their recruiting goals for October.

http://www.smallgovtimes.com/story/07nov14...ary.recruiting/

All active services met numerical recruiting goals for fiscal 2007. Only the Army missed a key quality benchmark: Twenty-one percent of its recruits in fiscal 2007 hadn't graduated from high school.

http://www.dailypress.com/news/local/hampt...0,5718037.story

Will the second Guest ever question the first about the supposed "need" for people to enlist in the armed forces despite the fact that enlistment goals are met?

Stay tuned ...

[Guest Patriot]

And a hypocrite! Gee, a right-wing hypocrite. What a surprise.

74583[/snapback]

Guest lies and Guest eats it up.

WASHINGTON, Nov. 13, 2007 – The first month of fiscal 2008 was a success for all active and reserve military components.

In a meeting with Pentagon reporters today, Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said all components met or exceeded their recruiting goals for October.

http://www.smallgovtimes.com/story/07nov14...ary.recruiting/

All active services met numerical recruiting goals for fiscal 2007. Only the Army missed a key quality benchmark: Twenty-one percent of its recruits in fiscal 2007 hadn't graduated from high school.

http://www.dailypress.com/news/local/hampt...0,5718037.story

Will the second Guest ever question the first about the supposed "need" for people to enlist in the armed forces despite the fact that enlistment goals are met?

Stay tuned ...

74698[/snapback]

[Guest Patriot]

And a hypocrite! Gee, a right-wing hypocrite. What a surprise.

74583[/snapback]

Guest lies and Guest eats it up.

WASHINGTON, Nov. 13, 2007 – The first month of fiscal 2008 was a success for all active and reserve military components.

In a meeting with Pentagon reporters today, Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said all components met or exceeded their recruiting goals for October.

http://www.smallgovtimes.com/story/07nov14...ary.recruiting/

All active services met numerical recruiting goals for fiscal 2007. Only the Army missed a key quality benchmark: Twenty-one percent of its recruits in fiscal 2007 hadn't graduated from high school.

http://www.dailypress.com/news/local/hampt...0,5718037.story

Will the second Guest ever question the first about the supposed "need" for people to enlist in the armed forces despite the fact that enlistment goals are met?

Stay tuned ...

74698[/snapback]

FYI ....... I served 4 years in the military, I have every right to call myself

a patriot ( unlike you LoonyLeft Kool-aid drinking white flag waving defeatocrats).

[Guest Patriot]

Nitwits like PatRat will happily tell you we haven't been attacked since we invaded Iraq as a justification for this debacle while conveniently ignoring the FACT that we were NEVER attacked by Iraq before the invasion.

74498[/snapback]

Irrelevant. We were attacked repeatedly (WTC twice, Cole, marine barracks,

night clubs, etc.). Iraq was the first stop in a global war on terrorism. Sadam

was thought to have WMD's (just ask John Kerry or Hilliary) so Iraq was a

prudent first choice. We haven't been attacked since 9/11 because we're taking

the fight to the bad guys. I thank God that Bush was president during 9/11 and

not Clinton.