the perpetual excuse

[Guest Guest]

I didn't say that. But by your statement above, you just did.

You stated

"Freedom isn't blasted away in one shot, but eroded little by little over time"??

  You know this HOW ?? Is there an example in history that proves it or is it

  just another Kool-aid dream??

I gave you an example YOU asked for.

78441[/snapback]

Of course there are examples of it. A few decades ago, we stuck "In God We Trust" on our money, forced our kids to pledge allegiance "under God," and now we have the dominionist movement trying to turn the country into a theocracy, and political candidates in both parties pandering to Christian theology. Most of our young people can't even remember when it wasn't that way, but I can and I'm only in my fifties.

First we had the so-called "Patriot" act - a disgusting misnomer if ever there was one. Then we had suspension of habeas corpus, a perpetual state of war, warantless wiretapping, increasingly compliant congresses and courts, an increasingly apathetic public etc.

Freedom is almost always eroded away a little at a time. If you can't see it, then either you're not paying attention or you don't know what you're looking at.

[Guest Patriot]

I don't think that the persons here believe that the Soldiers are dying in vain in the literal sense. What I think they are trying to say is that the soldiers are dying because of an ill advised foreign policy debacle that should never have occurred in the first place. No one ever wants to see one american killed or wounded and I think that you would agree with that.

With regards to your blame america first coment, no one here is blaming america for anything. However we blame the leaders who decided to abandon the threat from Bin Laden and instead went after a leader who posed no threat using cherry picked information and lies to further their personal agenda.

Whether or not we are there in Iraq is no longer the issue. The issue now is how do we get out. We can stay forever, as some poiticians want, we can leave now or five years from now. But there are two main points that you don't seem to feel important. 1. We are paying for this war with borrowed money, that will have to be paid back. And 2. Whether we stay for 5,10 or fifteen years the end result is going to be the same. And this is the part that you can't seem to grasp. Right now the surge is having the military effect we wanted. But every military person from Patreaus to Sanchez is saying that there has to be a political solution and thats where the problem is. The Iraqi government simply cannot govern effectively and won't as long as they know we are there to protect them. And since it's now apparent that our Government is working with the Sunni's to the detriment of the Shia how long is it going to be before the battles start up again?

I hope never but deep down we both know that is not realistic.

78426[/snapback]

"Ill advised foreign policy debacle" ?? And of course you are qualified to

speak authoritatively on the foreign policies of the U.S. There's a phrase to

define your post, it's "rectum talk".

[Guest Guest]

I did some checking of my own and as usual, Bryan has it wrong.

There is a difference between legal and illegal surveillance. During the Clinton years, they used two things that apparently Bush forgot.  When Clinton used surveillance, it was with a court order obtained through the FBI based on probable cause allowing these calls to be monitored.

And when necessary, they went to the FISA Court for authority. They didn't send all the calls to the NSA as is the case today. If the FBI had been paying attention to the Agent who advised them that two of the high jackers were taking flying lessons without interest in learning how to land a plane then maybe 9/11 would not have happened. When asked why they didn't take this seriously the response was they didn't think they could get a warrant from FISA.

And since the neo-cons want to blame Clinton, why won't they answer who's watch the first WTC bombing was planned on. And if i'm not mistaken, didn't they convict and imprison the person (s) who planned the attack?

Anyone who would like to check on whether Clinton, as bryan says did the same thing as Bush can go to ask.com/ warrantless surveillence programs during the Clinton years. Theres truth and then there's bryan's truth. You decide.

78433[/snapback]

Bryan operates from one fundamental principle, all the time. Whatever he believes, is correct. Everything else is secondary to that.

[Guest Patriot]

I did some checking of my own and as usual, Bryan has it wrong.

There is a difference between legal and illegal surveillance. During the Clinton years, they used two things that apparently Bush forgot.  When Clinton used surveillance, it was with a court order obtained through the FBI based on probable cause allowing these calls to be monitored.

And when necessary, they went to the FISA Court for authority. They didn't send all the calls to the NSA as is the case today. If the FBI had been paying attention to the Agent who advised them that two of the high jackers were taking flying lessons without interest in learning how to land a plane then maybe 9/11 would not have happened. When asked why they didn't take this seriously the response was they didn't think they could get a warrant from FISA.

And since the neo-cons want to blame Clinton, why won't they answer who's watch the first WTC bombing was planned on. And if i'm not mistaken, didn't they convict and imprison the person (s) who planned the attack?

Anyone who would like to check on whether Clinton, as bryan says did the same thing as Bush can go to ask.com/ warrantless surveillence programs during the Clinton years. Theres truth and then there's bryan's truth. You decide.

78433[/snapback]

The blame for today's terrorism levels lies squarely with Bubba Clinton. After

the first WTC bombing he did nothing, after the USS Cole bombing he did

nothing, after the embassy bombings he did nothing, he cut funding for the

military, he ordered the CIA not to share info with the FBI, he wouldn't allow

the NSA to tap terrorist phone calls. He led the terrorists to believe the U.S.

was a paper tiger and was afraid to retaliate against them. Now we have a

president who's fighting back, taking the fight to the terrorists and the "blame

america first" defeatocrats don't like it. They worry that a few third-world

camel jockeys around the world won't like us. They give Bubba a pass for

getting BJ's while terrorists plotted against us but condemn GWB for

protecting us from any futher danger. So now we have domestic terrorists (the

Loony Left Kool-aiders) and the foreign terrorists to worry about, which group

is more of a danger to the security of America ??

[Bryan]

Actually a thought from a far greater thinker and American than the White House has seen in the last seven years..........Ben Franklin

78259[/snapback]

All Strife did was paraphrase something commonly misattributed to Franklin, then you supplied the wrong source. Congratulations.

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Benjamin_Franklin

Look it up.

[Guest Guest]

Absolutely right.

Every terrorism expert will tell you that is the REAL point of terrorism. Its not to blow people up, its to get them scared and cause changes in policy due to their fears. The more you scare, the better it works.

The terrorists have succeeded admirably with a portion of our population. The "chicken little's" of America.  By their fears, they enabled the terrorists to project influence beyond their wildest dreams. Who would have known that this very small, sad bunch of terrorists could have scared so many and so profoundly changed the world.

78444[/snapback]

Could not agree with you more. I recently was stating how everyone uses "terrorism" as an excuse to try and get millions from Washington.

Locally, I think we should be more concerned about crime and saftey on our streets rather than some radical group trying to blow up a chemical plant. I can't get that latter thought out of my head.

[Guest Patriot]

Absolutely right.

Every terrorism expert will tell you that is the REAL point of terrorism. Its not to blow people up, its to get them scared and cause changes in policy due to their fears. The more you scare, the better it works.

The terrorists have succeeded admirably with a portion of our population. The "chicken little's" of America.  By their fears, they enabled the terrorists to project influence beyond their wildest dreams. Who would have known that this very small, sad bunch of terrorists could have scared so many and so profoundly changed the world.

78444[/snapback]

So by your logic, the families and friends of lost loved ones on 9/11 are

the "chicken little's" of America. Very nice.

[Guest Patriot]

Can't enjoy freedom if you let a dictator wannabe take it from you, can you, son?

It's better to die on your feet than live on your knees.

78440[/snapback]

"better to die on your feet than live on your knees" ?? This from a "blame

america first" cupcake who hides under his bed. I've said this before, you

are good for a laugh.

[Guest Guest]

Absolutely right.

Every terrorism expert will tell you that is the REAL point of terrorism. Its not to blow people up, its to get them scared and cause changes in policy due to their fears. The more you scare, the better it works.

The terrorists have succeeded admirably with a portion of our population. The "chicken little's" of America.  By their fears, they enabled the terrorists to project influence beyond their wildest dreams. Who would have known that this very small, sad bunch of terrorists could have scared so many and so profoundly changed the world.

78444[/snapback]

Why can’t the right wingers even address the obvious biases and motivations of the Bush administration? They just ignore all of it. Forget that Halliburton and other contractors raked in billions of dollars unjustly. Forget that the difference between Iraq and dozens of other countries with murderous leaders was that Iraq had oil under the ground. Forget that the terrorist threat from 2001-2003 was not in Iraq. Just forget all of it because it isn’t what the right wing wants to hear. Forget that Bush had no exit strategy, the proof of which is we’re still there. Forget all the lessons of Viet Nam, or the fact that Cheney never could accept why the USA couldn’t succeed there. The right wing would have us in Viet Nam to this day if they could have.

There’s no point discussing anything with these people. They’re not listening, and they’re not capable of adapting their opinions to the facts. They'll run their country into the ground before they will ever admit the obvious, which is that they're wrong.

[Guest Guest]

The soldiers have done the job they took an oath to do, there's nothing "in vain" about those who have died doing their job.  That DOES NOT validate the decisions of their nitwit CinC.

78430[/snapback]

So then we have to ask “from what perspective.” From the soldier’s perspective, unless they were unwilling participants in the war, they died to serve their country, whether it was right or wrong. From their perspective, and that of their loved ones who take their perspective, their deaths were not in vain.

However, from a national perspective, their deaths were in vain. We had no business starting this war, and all the deaths are unnecessary.

It’s a pity that even an attempt to make such distinctions is often met with contempt, especially by rigid authoritarians. If we could learn to hear and respect each other more, and not refuse to recognize that criticism can be productive, we would be a stronger country, culture and society.

[Guest Guest]

So by your logic, the families and friends of lost loved ones on 9/11 are

  the "chicken little's" of America.  Very nice.

78513[/snapback]

If you were being logical, you wouldn't be arguing for one policy or another based on whom to call names.

[Guest Guest]

"better to die on your feet than live on your knees" ??  This from a "blame

  america first" cupcake who hides under his bed. I've said this before, you

  are good for a laugh.

78514[/snapback]

You just don't like the fact that people who don't agree with you are actually taking a stronger and more sensible position than you are. You can't understand it because you can't conceive of it. And you can't conceive of it because you refuse to think.

The fact is, dictatorship does not make us free. Orwell foretold all of this, but you weren't paying attention.

[Guest Guest]

The blame for today's terrorism levels lies squarely with Bubba Clinton. After

  the first WTC bombing he did nothing, after the USS Cole bombing he did

  nothing, after the embassy bombings he did nothing, he cut funding for the

  military, he ordered the CIA not to share info with the FBI, he wouldn't allow

  the NSA to tap terrorist phone calls. He led the terrorists to believe the U.S.

  was a paper tiger and was afraid to retaliate against them.  Now we have a

  president who's fighting back, taking the fight to the terrorists and the "blame

  america first" defeatocrats don't like it. They worry that a few third-world

  camel jockeys around the world won't like us.  They give Bubba a pass for

  getting BJ's while terrorists plotted against us but condemn GWB for

  protecting us from any futher danger. So now we have domestic terrorists (the

  Loony Left Kool-aiders) and the foreign terrorists to worry about, which group

  is more of a danger to the security of America ??

78501[/snapback]

The fact is, it happened on Bush's watch, just after he had spent five or six weeks on his bony ass in Texas ignoring the intelligence reports that essentially described the attacks. How do you deal with that?

[Strife767]

I don't think that the persons here believe that the Soldiers are dying in vain in the literal sense. What I think they are trying to say is that the soldiers are dying because of an ill advised foreign policy debacle that should never have occurred in the first place.

There's that, and the fact that the soldiers obviously aren't accomplishing (very understandably, don't get me wrong) the insane task that the Bush Administration has dropped on them--to stabilize Iraq with nothing but military force.

every military person from Patreaus to Sanchez is saying that there has to be a political solution and thats where the problem is. The Iraqi government simply cannot govern effectively and won't as long as they know we are there to protect them.

78426[/snapback]

That's exactly it. Guns alone cannot solve this problem, and that was something anyone with common sense knew from the beginning. Bush himself criticized the idea of invading a nation without an exit strategy, and yet there we F**KING are.

It is no wonder that all but the most indoctrinated Bushites are pissed the hell off at this lying, doubletalking, freedom-snatching administration.

[Strife767]

So you consider our soldiers who have died as "dying in vain."

They were given an impossible task. That isn't their fault, but the fact is that because of that, nothing is being accomplished, regardless of their sacrifice. That breaks my heart, and it would affect you too, if you had any compassion whatsoever.

[Bern]

So by your logic, the families and friends of lost loved ones on 9/11 are

  the "chicken little's" of America.  Very nice.

78513[/snapback]

You're an idiot. Nowhere was that stated or implied.

Most of the 9/11 families do not support this thing we call a president. Many have spoken out publicly against his policies. They don't hide under their beds depending on George the Great for their protection.

[Bern]

"Ill advised foreign policy debacle" ?? And of course you are qualified to

  speak authoritatively on the foreign policies of the U.S.  There's a phrase to

  define your post, it's "rectum talk".

78492[/snapback]

Why should he not have the right to speak authoritatively? Or are the only "authoritative" sources the Govt and Fox news?

The people are the base of our government and our nation - by the people, for the people, of the people. They have more right to speak than these so-called "official" spokespeople.

[Guest Guest]

So by your logic, the families and friends of lost loved ones on 9/11 are

  the "chicken little's" of America.  Very nice.

78513[/snapback]

The chicken-littles of America are the wankers like you who are so paranoid you look under your bed every night before you go to bed andevry time you go to take one of your scared little leaks. Isn't it about time the gjost of Tailgunner Joe was laid to rest? Communist? Terorist? Many just seem incapable of knowing the difference, the only thing they do know is they're scared of their own shadows.

[Guest Guest]

"better to die on your feet than live on your knees" ??  This from a "blame

  america first" cupcake who hides under his bed. I've said this before, you

  are good for a laugh.

78514[/snapback]

And I'll say it again, YOU, PatRat, are good for NOTHING!

[Bern]

All Strife did was paraphrase something commonly misattributed to Franklin, then you supplied the wrong source.  Congratulations.

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Benjamin_Franklin

Look it up.

78506[/snapback]

Here's the actual quote

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

Benjamin Franklin

Letter to the Governor of Pennsylvania (11 November 1755)

The above phrasing, may have been different, but the meaning is the same. Most sources attribute the quote to Franklin.

Wikiquotes, like other Wiki articles is maintained by amateurs. Many articles have inaccuracies. That is why the academic departments told my son that he cannot use Wiki for research. I understand many colleges have that rule.

[WilliamK]

So by your logic, the families and friends of lost loved ones on 9/11 are

  the "chicken little's" of America.  Very nice.

78513[/snapback]

Guest's logic bore no resemblance to that. That stunning leap of illogic is, as usual, entirely your own.

[Bryan]

So then we have to ask “from what perspective.” From the soldier’s perspective, unless they were unwilling participants in the war, they died to serve their country, whether it was right or wrong. From their perspective, and that of their loved ones who take their perspective, their deaths were not in vain.

However, from a national perspective, their deaths were in vain. We had no business starting this war, and all the deaths are unnecessary.

It’s a pity that even an attempt to make such distinctions is often met with contempt, especially by rigid authoritarians. If we could learn to hear and respect each other more, and not refuse to recognize that criticism can be productive, we would be a stronger country, culture and society.

78516[/snapback]

Visit KOTW as a guest and learn to write like Paul LaClair.

[Bryan]

Why can’t the right wingers even address the obvious biases and motivations of the Bush administration?

Was that the topic before you just brought it up?

The Bush Administration wants global free trade under the assumption that under good leadership that arrangement will remain good for America and the rest of the world. It also takes/took (hard to tell with the State Department going wishy-washy) the view that Islamic radicalism is one of the chief threats to society globally. What other "obvious biases and motivations" did you have in mind?

They just ignore all of it.

Perhaps it is appropriate to ignore the ones you have in mind. They may be the product of BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome).

Forget that Halliburton and other contractors raked in billions of dollars unjustly.

How?

Halliburton provided valuable services at fairly standard profit margins. If Halliburton received its billions unjustly then so did our soldiers who were paid to carry out the mission in Iraq, if I'm following your argument correctly.

Forget that the difference between Iraq and dozens of other countries with murderous leaders was that Iraq had oil under the ground.

That's not "the" difference, it's "a" difference. The biggest differences between Iraq and other countries ruled by murderous tyrants were 1) the contemporary existence of a condition of war moderated by a ceasefire agreement trampled by that nation 2) strategic location in the Islamic world where a model of democracy might produce sweeping changes in global Islamic culture so that it swings solidly toward moderation instead of radicalism (and educated enough to give that aim a realistic chance of success).

Those two biggest differences are the ones customarily ignored by left-wing wackos while they're in the midst of making their stupid arguments against the Iraq War. Even if Iraq itself had absolutely no oil, it would have remained a nation of acute strategic value because of its proximity to Iran, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia.

Forget that the terrorist threat from 2001-2003 was not in Iraq.

The threat of terrorism was never monolithic. Hussein supported terrorism in Palestine as well as his own (rather inept) terrorist network. It was always reasonable to calculate a fairly high probability of cooperation between Hussein and non-aligned terrorism groups (such as al Qaida) that had overlapping aims.

Just forget all of it because it isn’t what the right wing wants to hear.

Perhaps the uninformed segment of the right wing corresponds to your segment of the left wing.

Forget that Bush had no exit strategy, the proof of which is we’re still there.

The goal in Iraq had to be long-term or else there wouldn't be any point. Conquering the country on behalf of Iran would be stupid. For that reason, the war strategy was one thing and the occupation strategy another (not that one can't be done with the other in mind). Mistakes were made, but that is perfectly normal in war.

Forget all the lessons of Viet Nam, or the fact that Cheney never could accept why the USA couldn’t succeed there. The right wing would have us in Viet Nam to this day if they could have.

The right has been able to learn the correct lessons from Vietnam. It's the left that remains predominantly in a haze over that one (perhaps a haze left over from drug use in many cases).

There’s no point discussing anything with these people. They’re not listening, and they’re not capable of adapting their opinions to the facts. They'll run their country into the ground before they will ever admit the obvious, which is that they're wrong.

78515[/snapback]

The Tet Offensive was a military disaster for the United States, right?

[Strife767]

"better to die on your feet than live on your knees" ??

Yes.

  This from a "blame

  america first" cupcake who hides under his bed. I've said this before, you

  are good for a laugh.

78514[/snapback]

More lies and confirmation of your cowardice. You're willing to give up your freedoms for the illusion of security, not me. You'll believe anything your idol tells you, and you hide from reality whenever it isn't what you want it to be.

You're spineless.

[Strife767]

"Ill advised foreign policy debacle" ?? And of course you are qualified to

  speak authoritatively on the foreign policies of the U.S.  There's a phrase to

  define your post, it's "rectum talk".

78492[/snapback]

Why do you even bother using two names, 2dim?