U.S. war ally rips Obama's election bid
-
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
-
Josh, what is the upper age limit for people with desired skills to have automatic approval for residency "down-under"?
-
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.
The WWII Bomber Harris was heavily criticised over the RAF's Bomber Commands orders to destroy Dresden and other German Towns/Cities. Untold civilians were unnecessarily killed. At the time it might have appeared to be the right thing to do but after the war finished it was clear to all that this type of action is obnoxious in the extreme. Perhaps if such occured again it might be viewed as a war crime. Would you agree that, all you do must be fully justifiable with a clear conscience knowing it to be right.
-
-
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
That disqualfies a lot of people myself included.
If you're really serious about it have a look at the sponsorship program, I've worked with a lot of people that have been out here that way
System.IO.Path.IsPathRooted() does not behave as I would expect
-
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.
Mike Gaskey wrote:
don't be silly
I'm not, but I have to wonder about you. Pretending that 55,000 dead, hundreds of thousands of wounded and disabled veterans, billions of dollars and 10 years of promises of victory unfilled had nothing to do with a disilusioned public is being silly.
Mike Gaskey wrote:
our leaving too soon caused loss of life in the millions.
Our presence there killed 3 million Vetnamese. So you think we should have killed a few million more by extending the war?
Mike Gaskey wrote:
I give classes on sarcasm recognition.
Your sarcasm went right passed me. I really can't imagine what you think he's going to do. Every descision he's made as been a complete failure. Violence is worse, disorder is worse, civil war is happening. And you think his plan to send in 21,000 troops for a few months is going to change everything? [modification] In this post[^] You say you believe the war has been prosecuted badly and say that the wholesale destruction of the country is your solution. You know that is not going to happen, so do you really believe that this surge is all it will take to win? What makes you believe that Bush can win?
Mike Gaskey wrote:
calling someone a coward isn't demonizing
You didn't call "some one" a coward - You called all Democrats cowards[^]. That is demonization. -- modified at 18:54 Monday 12th February, 2007
-
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
Stan Shannon wrote:
I wouldn't vote for him if his name was Bob Smith.
Yeah, but you wouldn't emigrate to Australia. That's a shame. Your arguments usually had merit, even if I thought they were flawed and completely wrong. Didn't think Xenophobic was one of them.
"Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it." - George Bernard Shaw Web - Blog - RSS - Math - LinkedIn - BM
-
""It's time to admit that no amount of American lives can resolve the political disagreements in the lives and heart of someone else's civil war...If he's ginned up to fight the good fight in Iraq, I would suggest that he call up another 20,000 Australians and send them to Iraq. Otherwise, it's just a bunch of empty rhetoric." Yes it is. Marc
People are just notoriously impossible. --DavidCrow
There's NO excuse for not commenting your code. -- John Simmons / outlaw programmer
People who say that they will refactor their code later to make it "good" don't understand refactoring, nor the art and craft of programming. -- Josh SmithMarc Clifton wrote:
""If he's ginned up to fight the good fight in Iraq, I would suggest that he call up another 20,000 Australians and send them to Iraq. Otherwise, it's just a bunch of empty rhetoric." Yes it is.
Exactly right. Howard is a very skilled politician in the worst sense of the word. He takes these "tough" positions on Iraq, while carefully avoiding putting Australians at much risk. Australian has had only 2 fatalities in Iraq. From memory, one was killed in a transport accident with no help from the enemy and the other managed to shoot himself while playing with his gun. And, by the way, the Australian government managed to remain "unaware" of what was going on while the Australian Wheat Board paid 300 million dollars to Saddam Hussein's regime in kickbacks as part of the oil for food scandal. This is a really cynical government.
John Carson
-
Marc Clifton wrote:
""If he's ginned up to fight the good fight in Iraq, I would suggest that he call up another 20,000 Australians and send them to Iraq. Otherwise, it's just a bunch of empty rhetoric." Yes it is.
Exactly right. Howard is a very skilled politician in the worst sense of the word. He takes these "tough" positions on Iraq, while carefully avoiding putting Australians at much risk. Australian has had only 2 fatalities in Iraq. From memory, one was killed in a transport accident with no help from the enemy and the other managed to shoot himself while playing with his gun. And, by the way, the Australian government managed to remain "unaware" of what was going on while the Australian Wheat Board paid 300 million dollars to Saddam Hussein's regime in kickbacks as part of the oil for food scandal. This is a really cynical government.
John Carson