U.S. war ally rips Obama's election bid
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
I'm moving to Australia
Can't think of a better reason to vote for him!
Rob Manderson I'm working on a version for Visual Lisp++ My blog http://blogs.wdevs.com/ultramaroon/[^] My blog mirror http://robmanderson.blogspot.com[^]
-
oilFactotum wrote:
And by the way, recognizing the reality of Bush's failed war is not cowardly.
oh sure, so all the Democrats who voted to authorize the war were completely taken in by Bush. Horse shit. The cowards, starting with Kerry and running through Clinton, were all on board until the going got tough. Then, like the turncoat cowards they are, all of a sudden Bush became the evil bad guy. let me repeat, what a load of horse shit.
Mike The NYT - my leftist brochure. dennisd45: My view of the world is slightly more nuanced dennisd45 (the NAMBLA supporter) wrote: I know exactly what it means. So shut up you mother killing baby raper.
Mike Gaskey wrote:
so all the Democrats who voted to authorize the war were completely taken in by Bush.
So you are saying that Bush lied about the WMD's and links to Al-Queda and the Democrats knew this when they voted for the war. I'll agree that Bush lied, but I don't think that everyone knew it, but I will concede that very few Dems were willing to stand up to Bush and maybe that can be called cowardice. But, of course, if the Dems knew, then so did the R's, so they are equally cowardly.
Mike Gaskey wrote:
were all on board
Perhaps.
Mike Gaskey wrote:
until the going got tough
No, rather until it was clear that Bush was incapable of victory. He lost the war, so why would anyone stick to a losing policy? It's way past time to change the policy, the Dems recognize this as do many R's. -- modified at 15:32 Monday 12th February, 2007
-
All I know is that if this country puts someone named Ofuckingbama in the oval office, I'm moving to Australia.
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
I'm moving to Australia
Can't think of a better reason to vote for him!
Rob Manderson I'm working on a version for Visual Lisp++ My blog http://blogs.wdevs.com/ultramaroon/[^] My blog mirror http://robmanderson.blogspot.com[^]
Australians might disagree:)
-
Australians might disagree:)
Heh - I'm still an Australian :)
Rob Manderson I'm working on a version for Visual Lisp++ My blog http://blogs.wdevs.com/ultramaroon/[^] My blog mirror http://robmanderson.blogspot.com[^]
-
Mike Gaskey wrote:
so all the Democrats who voted to authorize the war were completely taken in by Bush.
So you are saying that Bush lied about the WMD's and links to Al-Queda and the Democrats knew this when they voted for the war. I'll agree that Bush lied, but I don't think that everyone knew it, but I will concede that very few Dems were willing to stand up to Bush and maybe that can be called cowardice. But, of course, if the Dems knew, then so did the R's, so they are equally cowardly.
Mike Gaskey wrote:
were all on board
Perhaps.
Mike Gaskey wrote:
until the going got tough
No, rather until it was clear that Bush was incapable of victory. He lost the war, so why would anyone stick to a losing policy? It's way past time to change the policy, the Dems recognize this as do many R's. -- modified at 15:32 Monday 12th February, 2007
oilFactotum wrote:
So you are saying that Bush lied about the WMD's
no I'm not. I'm saying that congress, Democrats included, plus other nations including the UK / Australia / most of Europe - all believed Iraq had WMD. If you believe different, I suggest you contact your congress person and present a petition that presses for impeachment.
oilFactotum wrote:
No, rather until it was clear that Bush was incapable of victory. He lost the war
So, is the war over? You only lose (read up on Vietnam)if you quit too soon. Right no Bush has the enemy to fight and that enemy is aided and abetted by the press, who have drummed every misstep into American living rooms, the Democrats, who I'll repeat are natural cowards, plus everyother armchair quarterback.
oilFactotum wrote:
the Dems recognize
only recognize a chance to capitalize on a circumstance that can leverage them back into power. nothing more.
Mike The NYT - my leftist brochure. dennisd45: My view of the world is slightly more nuanced dennisd45 (the NAMBLA supporter) wrote: I know exactly what it means. So shut up you mother killing baby raper.
-
All I know is that if this country puts someone named Ofuckingbama in the oval office, I'm moving to Australia.
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
Gotta love democracy.
This statement was never false.
-
oilFactotum wrote:
So you are saying that Bush lied about the WMD's
no I'm not. I'm saying that congress, Democrats included, plus other nations including the UK / Australia / most of Europe - all believed Iraq had WMD. If you believe different, I suggest you contact your congress person and present a petition that presses for impeachment.
oilFactotum wrote:
No, rather until it was clear that Bush was incapable of victory. He lost the war
So, is the war over? You only lose (read up on Vietnam)if you quit too soon. Right no Bush has the enemy to fight and that enemy is aided and abetted by the press, who have drummed every misstep into American living rooms, the Democrats, who I'll repeat are natural cowards, plus everyother armchair quarterback.
oilFactotum wrote:
the Dems recognize
only recognize a chance to capitalize on a circumstance that can leverage them back into power. nothing more.
Mike The NYT - my leftist brochure. dennisd45: My view of the world is slightly more nuanced dennisd45 (the NAMBLA supporter) wrote: I know exactly what it means. So shut up you mother killing baby raper.
Mike Gaskey wrote:
I'm saying that congress, Democrats included, plus other nations including the UK / Australia / most of Europe - all believed Iraq had WMD.
Well, you just answered your own question with "yes".
Mike Gaskey wrote:
so all the Democrats who voted to authorize the war were completely taken in by Bush.
Mike Gaskey wrote:
So, is the war over?
No, but any opportunity to win it has been squandered by Bush. I've read numerous pieces by people who believe that an increase in troops could make a difference, but the number of troops required was always between 30,000 and 100,000 for at least 18 months. Bush's surge is 21,000 for less than a year. There may be some theoretical possiblity of victory, but not with Bush.
Mike Gaskey wrote:
You only lose (read up on Vietnam)if you quit too soon.
Sorry to rain on your parade - we weren't "stabbed in the back" in Vietnam. And we're not being "stabbed in the back" now.
Mike Gaskey wrote:
Democrats, who I'll repeat are natural cowards,
You can repeat it all you like, it won't make it true.
Mike Gaskey wrote:
only recognize a chance to capitalize on a circumstance that can leverage them back into power. nothing more.
Whatever:rolleyes: Perhaps you actually believe this. Perhaps you believe that it is only true for Democrats and not Republicans. If so, too bad for you. And if you believe it is true of all politicians, why do you even bother with politics? It would be completely meaningless.
-
I wouldn't vote for him if his name was Bob Smith. But, no, Barak Hussien Obama is just too much for my xenophobic blood even if he were the political reincarnation of Ronald Reagan..
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
-
Mike Gaskey wrote:
I'm saying that congress, Democrats included, plus other nations including the UK / Australia / most of Europe - all believed Iraq had WMD.
Well, you just answered your own question with "yes".
Mike Gaskey wrote:
so all the Democrats who voted to authorize the war were completely taken in by Bush.
Mike Gaskey wrote:
So, is the war over?
No, but any opportunity to win it has been squandered by Bush. I've read numerous pieces by people who believe that an increase in troops could make a difference, but the number of troops required was always between 30,000 and 100,000 for at least 18 months. Bush's surge is 21,000 for less than a year. There may be some theoretical possiblity of victory, but not with Bush.
Mike Gaskey wrote:
You only lose (read up on Vietnam)if you quit too soon.
Sorry to rain on your parade - we weren't "stabbed in the back" in Vietnam. And we're not being "stabbed in the back" now.
Mike Gaskey wrote:
Democrats, who I'll repeat are natural cowards,
You can repeat it all you like, it won't make it true.
Mike Gaskey wrote:
only recognize a chance to capitalize on a circumstance that can leverage them back into power. nothing more.
Whatever:rolleyes: Perhaps you actually believe this. Perhaps you believe that it is only true for Democrats and not Republicans. If so, too bad for you. And if you believe it is true of all politicians, why do you even bother with politics? It would be completely meaningless.
oilFactotum wrote:
There may be some theoretical possiblity of victory, but not with Bush.
you bet, I'm with you - no way we can win a war with Bush at the helm.
oilFactotum wrote:
we weren't "stabbed in the back" in Vietnam.
that is delusional. modified to add: Kerry's lies and Waler Cronkite's constant drum beating turned the American public and forced us to leave Vietnam, causing the deaths of millions.
oilFactotum wrote:
ou can repeat it all you like, it won't make it true.
the last Democrat with balls got kicked out of the party, Liebermann, or is an outcast, Zell Miller. -- modified at 16:12 Monday 12th February, 2007 -- modified at 16:20 Monday 12th February, 2007
Mike The NYT - my leftist brochure. dennisd45: My view of the world is slightly more nuanced dennisd45 (the NAMBLA supporter) wrote: I know exactly what it means. So shut up you mother killing baby raper.
-
oilFactotum wrote:
There may be some theoretical possiblity of victory, but not with Bush.
you bet, I'm with you - no way we can win a war with Bush at the helm.
oilFactotum wrote:
we weren't "stabbed in the back" in Vietnam.
that is delusional. modified to add: Kerry's lies and Waler Cronkite's constant drum beating turned the American public and forced us to leave Vietnam, causing the deaths of millions.
oilFactotum wrote:
ou can repeat it all you like, it won't make it true.
the last Democrat with balls got kicked out of the party, Liebermann, or is an outcast, Zell Miller. -- modified at 16:12 Monday 12th February, 2007 -- modified at 16:20 Monday 12th February, 2007
Mike The NYT - my leftist brochure. dennisd45: My view of the world is slightly more nuanced dennisd45 (the NAMBLA supporter) wrote: I know exactly what it means. So shut up you mother killing baby raper.
Mike Gaskey wrote:
oilFactotum wrote: we weren't "stabbed in the back" in Vietnam. that is delusional.
Have to disagree with you on this. Delusional is believing we were "stabbed in the back". [modified]
Mike Gaskey wrote:
Kerry's lies and Waler Cronkite's constant drum beating turned the American public and forced us to leave Vietnam, causing the deaths of millions.
Get real! I'm sure the viet cong were glued to their TV's watching Kerry's testimony and listening to Walter Cronkite and becoming filled with a desire to fight for a year or two more until the Americans left:rolleyes:. I know better. They had been fighting for their country for over 30 years at that point. They would be fighting to this day if we had not left.
Mike Gaskey wrote:
the last Democrat with ball got kicked out of the party, Liebermann
You agree that we can't win in Iraq with Bush at the helm, but you think someone who, to this day, defends his failed policy has "balls"? And he deserves to be elected to represent the party that opposes these failed policies? Sorry, that just doesn't make sense. Zell Miller? He's just an R in Dem clothing without the "balls" to actually become a Republican. You really think that if Edward Kennedy had been elected as an R, that he would not be an outcast in that party if he were to espouse his beliefs? I don't think so and neither do you. It's not that these two men have more "balls" than other Democrats, it's just that you like at least some of what they say. This is just an extension of what you have been doing all along - demonizing the opposition.
-
Surely there is some protocol (written or not) that forbids a foreign politician commenting on the internal political posturing during electioneering campaigns. As such, IMO, the Australian Prime Minister should be told to keep his nose out of USA internal politics.
-
All I know is that if this country puts someone named Ofuckingbama in the oval office, I'm moving to Australia.
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
-
Mike Gaskey wrote:
oilFactotum wrote: we weren't "stabbed in the back" in Vietnam. that is delusional.
Have to disagree with you on this. Delusional is believing we were "stabbed in the back". [modified]
Mike Gaskey wrote:
Kerry's lies and Waler Cronkite's constant drum beating turned the American public and forced us to leave Vietnam, causing the deaths of millions.
Get real! I'm sure the viet cong were glued to their TV's watching Kerry's testimony and listening to Walter Cronkite and becoming filled with a desire to fight for a year or two more until the Americans left:rolleyes:. I know better. They had been fighting for their country for over 30 years at that point. They would be fighting to this day if we had not left.
Mike Gaskey wrote:
the last Democrat with ball got kicked out of the party, Liebermann
You agree that we can't win in Iraq with Bush at the helm, but you think someone who, to this day, defends his failed policy has "balls"? And he deserves to be elected to represent the party that opposes these failed policies? Sorry, that just doesn't make sense. Zell Miller? He's just an R in Dem clothing without the "balls" to actually become a Republican. You really think that if Edward Kennedy had been elected as an R, that he would not be an outcast in that party if he were to espouse his beliefs? I don't think so and neither do you. It's not that these two men have more "balls" than other Democrats, it's just that you like at least some of what they say. This is just an extension of what you have been doing all along - demonizing the opposition.
oilFactotum wrote:
I'm sure the viet cong were glued to their TV's watching Kerry's testimony and listening to Walter Cronkite and becoming filled with a desire to fight for a year or two more until the Americans left
don't be silly. the Cong didn't beat us our own public opinion did, talk to a 'Nam vet and he'll tell you we were winning but were forced to leave early because of public opinion genned up by the likes of Kerry and Cronkite. and again, our leaving too soon caused loss of life in the millions.
oilFactotum wrote:
You agree that we can't win in Iraq with Bush at the helm
I give classes on sarcasm recognition.
oilFactotum wrote:
demonizing the opposition.
calling someone a coward isn't demonizing. a coward is a coward whether he/she is labeled such or not.
Mike The NYT - my leftist brochure. dennisd45: My view of the world is slightly more nuanced dennisd45 (the NAMBLA supporter) wrote: I know exactly what it means. So shut up you mother killing baby raper.
-
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
the Australian Prime Minister should be told to keep his nose out of USA internal politics.
I wish he'd keep his nose out of ours
System.IO.Path.IsPathRooted() does not behave as I would expect
-
oilFactotum wrote:
So you are saying that Bush lied about the WMD's
no I'm not. I'm saying that congress, Democrats included, plus other nations including the UK / Australia / most of Europe - all believed Iraq had WMD. If you believe different, I suggest you contact your congress person and present a petition that presses for impeachment.
oilFactotum wrote:
No, rather until it was clear that Bush was incapable of victory. He lost the war
So, is the war over? You only lose (read up on Vietnam)if you quit too soon. Right no Bush has the enemy to fight and that enemy is aided and abetted by the press, who have drummed every misstep into American living rooms, the Democrats, who I'll repeat are natural cowards, plus everyother armchair quarterback.
oilFactotum wrote:
the Dems recognize
only recognize a chance to capitalize on a circumstance that can leverage them back into power. nothing more.
Mike The NYT - my leftist brochure. dennisd45: My view of the world is slightly more nuanced dennisd45 (the NAMBLA supporter) wrote: I know exactly what it means. So shut up you mother killing baby raper.
Mike Gaskey wrote:
all believed Iraq had WMD
Only those who were fooled by the intelligence services. As I recall, a high percentage of ordinary people distrusted what they were told. But the government is elected to govern so govern they did although with hindsight, they took the country to war on a false reason. That in itself should have been sufficient reason for the Blair Labour party to be turfed out of office but the main opposition were in disarray.
-
To me, on BBCtv he always seems to comes across as authoritative perhaps even arrogant. But then, is that the Aussie in him or do you have other views?
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
But then, is that the Aussie in him or do you have other views?
Im not a fan. He's been in office a long time and up until now has had very little real competition. The opposition (Labor party) have had a string of poor leaders particularly in the last election. Their new leader Kevin Rudd seems quite popular. Johnny loves to put his foot down. We've seen this with the war, industrial relations, the republican movement, his dealings with Aboriginal issues, the 'children overboard" scandal and many many others.
System.IO.Path.IsPathRooted() does not behave as I would expect
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
I'm moving to Australia.
Somehow Stan I think you'd be disapointed
System.IO.Path.IsPathRooted() does not behave as I would expect
-
Mike Gaskey wrote:
all believed Iraq had WMD
Only those who were fooled by the intelligence services. As I recall, a high percentage of ordinary people distrusted what they were told. But the government is elected to govern so govern they did although with hindsight, they took the country to war on a false reason. That in itself should have been sufficient reason for the Blair Labour party to be turfed out of office but the main opposition were in disarray.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
Only those who were fooled by the intelligence services.
I agree. but. or should I say, BUT - WMDs were not the only reason, just one of them. I also agree that the Iraq War has been prosecuted poorly. I would have much preferred a WWII approach, carpet bombing and the hell with trying to avoid the loss of civilian life - that is why we're having the problems we are having now. With that said, can you imagine the howling had the war been prosecuted ala WWII?
Mike The NYT - my leftist brochure. dennisd45: My view of the world is slightly more nuanced dennisd45 (the NAMBLA supporter) wrote: I know exactly what it means. So shut up you mother killing baby raper.
-
It saves thinking.
NSFW: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/2740007.stm[^] OK I AM moving to Australia :-D
Farhan Noor Qureshi