U.S. war ally rips Obama's election bid
-
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
-
Marc Clifton wrote:
It's time to admit that no.......
Obama and the majority of Democrats are out and out fools. Regardless of what opinion you may have on why we are where we are, the fact of the matter is that we've pulled a scab off of Iraq and it is the height of irresponsibility to believe we should walk away.
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:
Regardless of what opinion you may have on why we are where we are, the fact of the matter is that we've pulled a scab off of Iraq and it is the height of irresponsibility to believe we should walk away.
On this particular point, I am inclined to agree with you --- except that I don't believe Bush has the skills to make any real progress. At this stage, the person who impresses me most is Wesley Clark, currently contemplating a bid for the Democratic nomination. He is a long shot, but that is the only sort of shot available in Iraq at the moment.
John Carson
-
John Carson wrote:
This is a really cynical government.
What do you think about Rudd? Reakon he's got a better chance than Besley?
System.IO.Path.IsPathRooted() does not behave as I would expect
Josh Gray wrote:
What do you think about Rudd? Reakon he's got a better chance than Besley?
I've wanted Rudd since the time Latham first got the job. The numbers weren't there so Rudd declined to run. I think he is really Labor's answer to Howard; smart enough to keep himself out of trouble, not likely to scare people much, with enough spine to differentiate himself from Howard, and with the energy and intellligence to come up with enough policy initiatives to give people a reason to vote for him. I have seen too many Labor party leads in opinion polls evaporate at election time to be confident, but things are looking more hopeful than they have in a long time.
John Carson
-
Josh Gray wrote:
What do you think about Rudd? Reakon he's got a better chance than Besley?
I've wanted Rudd since the time Latham first got the job. The numbers weren't there so Rudd declined to run. I think he is really Labor's answer to Howard; smart enough to keep himself out of trouble, not likely to scare people much, with enough spine to differentiate himself from Howard, and with the energy and intellligence to come up with enough policy initiatives to give people a reason to vote for him. I have seen too many Labor party leads in opinion polls evaporate at election time to be confident, but things are looking more hopeful than they have in a long time.
John Carson
John Carson wrote:
I think he is really Labor's answer to Howard; smart enough to keep himself out of trouble, not likely to scare people much, with enough spine to differentiate himself from Howard, and with the energy and intellligence to come up with enough policy initiatives to give people a reason to vote for him.
I hope Rudd can beat Howard at the next election. I think Howard and Bush want this war to go on for as long as possible. Howard has learnt a lot from Bush, keep your population in a constant state of ignorance and fear, (The Americans call it freedom), and they will vote for you craving a feeling of comfort and protection. Howards first experiment was the Tampa, that went quite well for him and he has just rolled on from there. I have read so much crap about the justification for the invasion of Iraq in this forum. I think Rusian President Putin (sp?) has it right. Or do you think George W just wants to pretend he has a bigger dick than Daddy?
-
John Carson wrote:
I think he is really Labor's answer to Howard; smart enough to keep himself out of trouble, not likely to scare people much, with enough spine to differentiate himself from Howard, and with the energy and intellligence to come up with enough policy initiatives to give people a reason to vote for him.
I hope Rudd can beat Howard at the next election. I think Howard and Bush want this war to go on for as long as possible. Howard has learnt a lot from Bush, keep your population in a constant state of ignorance and fear, (The Americans call it freedom), and they will vote for you craving a feeling of comfort and protection. Howards first experiment was the Tampa, that went quite well for him and he has just rolled on from there. I have read so much crap about the justification for the invasion of Iraq in this forum. I think Rusian President Putin (sp?) has it right. Or do you think George W just wants to pretend he has a bigger dick than Daddy?
TimK wrote:
Howard has learnt a lot from Bush, keep your population in a constant state of ignorance and fear, (The Americans call it freedom), and they will vote for you craving a feeling of comfort and protection. Howards first experiment was the Tampa, that went quite well for him and he has just rolled on from there.
I think it is a tactic that has been around for a very long time. There was a famous exchange with Nazi figure Hermann Goering at the time of the Nuremberg trials after the war
We got around to the subject of war again and I said that, contrary to his attitude, I did not think that the common people are very thankful for leaders who bring them war and destruction. "Why, of course, the people don't want war," Goering shrugged. "Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship." "There is one difference," I pointed out. "In a democracy the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars." "Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."
John Carson
-
Mike Gaskey wrote:
Regardless of what opinion you may have on why we are where we are, the fact of the matter is that we've pulled a scab off of Iraq and it is the height of irresponsibility to believe we should walk away.
On this particular point, I am inclined to agree with you --- except that I don't believe Bush has the skills to make any real progress. At this stage, the person who impresses me most is Wesley Clark, currently contemplating a bid for the Democratic nomination. He is a long shot, but that is the only sort of shot available in Iraq at the moment.
John Carson
John Carson wrote:
the only sort of shot available in Iraq at the moment.
on the other hand, if we continue with the medical analogy it may be cured by time and exposure to fresh air. by that I mean at some point the Iraq population may just say, "enough". "Enough" may mean they all turn in unison and say, "get out" or it may mean they work together to put their country on track and leverage the largess that could be had.
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.
-
John Carson wrote:
the only sort of shot available in Iraq at the moment.
on the other hand, if we continue with the medical analogy it may be cured by time and exposure to fresh air. by that I mean at some point the Iraq population may just say, "enough". "Enough" may mean they all turn in unison and say, "get out" or it may mean they work together to put their country on track and leverage the largess that could be had.
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:
on the other hand, if we continue with the medical analogy it may be cured by time and exposure to fresh air. by that I mean at some point the Iraq population may just say, "enough". "Enough" may mean they all turn in unison and say, "get out" or it may mean they work together to put their country on track and leverage the largess that could be had.
The "get out" version seems not far off if we consider the Iraqi populace. Opinion poll[^] The Iraqi government isn't there yet, however. As to the second version, a lot of conflicts get resolved when people are just tired of all the killing and don't see that it is getting them anywhere. However, it can take a very long time for that point to be reached.
John Carson
-
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
oilFactotum wrote:
promises of victory unfilled had nothing to do with a disilusioned public is being silly.
This disillusioned public continues to enlist in a volunteer Army, Navy, Marine Corp, Air Force - knowing full well they'll be sent to Iraq. My grandson enlisted in the Marines a few months back, you think he's part of the disillusioned public?
oilFactotum wrote:
So you think we should have killed a few million more by extending the war?
you really are incapable of reading history - millions of lives were lost because we left too soon.
oilFactotum wrote:
say that the wholesale destruction of the country is your solution.
that is not what I said. What I said was we should have gone in with A WWII attitude and carpet bombed the fucking place. going in with a politically correct approach, to satisfy the whiners, us what allows the current situation.
oilFactotum wrote:
ou didn't call "some one" a coward - You called all Democrats cowards[^]. That is demonization.
that is a recognition of fact.
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:
promises of victory unfilled had nothing to do with a disilusioned public is being silly.
This disillusioned public continues to enlist in a volunteer Army, Navy, Marine Corp, Air Force - knowing full well they'll be sent to Iraq. My grandson enlisted in the Marines a few months back, you think he's part of the disillusioned public?
oilFactotum wrote:
So you think we should have killed a few million more by extending the war?
you really are incapable of reading history - millions of lives were lost because we left too soon.
oilFactotum wrote:
say that the wholesale destruction of the country is your solution.
that is not what I said. What I said was we should have gone in with A WWII attitude and carpet bombed the fucking place. going in with a politically correct approach, to satisfy the whiners, us what allows the current situation.
oilFactotum wrote:
ou didn't call "some one" a coward - You called all Democrats cowards[^]. That is demonization.
that is a recognition of fact.
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.
What does your grandson's enlistment today have to do with a public disillusioned with Vietnam in the 1970's?
Mike Gaskey wrote:
you really are incapable of reading history
You are apparently being an ass like red.:rolleyes:
Mike Gaskey wrote:
millions of lives were lost because we left too soon.
Maybe, maybe not. Depends on what you are talking about - What are you talking about? Vietnam? Cambodia? The domino theory? What? I haven't read that the Vietnamese killed millions of their own after the war. Like I said before, we killed 3 million Vietnamese while we were there. You wanted the war extended and kill a few million more? Kill a million to save a million?
Mike Gaskey wrote:
that is not what I said. What I said was we should have gone in with A WWII attitude and carpet bombed the f****ing place
And how, exactly, is that not the wholesale destruction of the country? You haven't answered my question of how you believe that Bush is going to win in Iraq.
Mike Gaskey wrote:
that is a recognition of fact.
No, that is you demonizing the opposition. -- modified at 11:59 Tuesday 13th February, 2007
-
What does your grandson's enlistment today have to do with a public disillusioned with Vietnam in the 1970's?
Mike Gaskey wrote:
you really are incapable of reading history
You are apparently being an ass like red.:rolleyes:
Mike Gaskey wrote:
millions of lives were lost because we left too soon.
Maybe, maybe not. Depends on what you are talking about - What are you talking about? Vietnam? Cambodia? The domino theory? What? I haven't read that the Vietnamese killed millions of their own after the war. Like I said before, we killed 3 million Vietnamese while we were there. You wanted the war extended and kill a few million more? Kill a million to save a million?
Mike Gaskey wrote:
that is not what I said. What I said was we should have gone in with A WWII attitude and carpet bombed the f****ing place
And how, exactly, is that not the wholesale destruction of the country? You haven't answered my question of how you believe that Bush is going to win in Iraq.
Mike Gaskey wrote:
that is a recognition of fact.
No, that is you demonizing the opposition. -- modified at 11:59 Tuesday 13th February, 2007
oilFactotum wrote:
You are apparently being an ass like red.
no, actually he's a rookie. When I put my mind to it I can do much better.
oilFactotum wrote:
What are you talking about? Vietnam? Cambodia?
both, actually.
oilFactotum wrote:
The domino theory?
which, fyi, was a valid concept.
oilFactotum wrote:
Like I said before, we killed 3 million Vietnamese while we were there. You wanted the war extended and kill a few million more? Kill a million to save a million?
we could have ended it very efficiently if we had: 1) taken out the dams north of Hanoi, 2) followed with carpet bomb and invasion of the north. the yammering left in our own country, read that as Kerry, Hanoi Jane, Cronkite and compatriots, kept that from happening. and you don't "extend" a war if you stay in it until you've won. How'd you play high school sports? quit when you got hurt or the field got muddy?
oilFactotum wrote:
nd how, exactly, is that not the wholesale destruction of the country? You haven't answered my question of how you believe that Bush is going to win in Iraq.
It would have been as wholesale as Dresden or Japan, it took the fire bombing of Dresden to shake up the Germans and it took the atom bomb to stop the Japanese - both morally and ethically justified.
oilFactotum wrote:
You haven't answered my question of how you believe that Bush is going to win in Iraq.
by showing the enemy we will not quit - Democrats, coupled with a few additional cowards from the other side of the aisle are giving the enemy all the moral support they need to stick it out. If that bunch, cowards from both sides of the aisle, would have stayed behind the decision to go in and not take every opportunity to diminish Bush, we'd be in a damn sight better position today than we are. Thank God Bush sticks to his principles.
oilFactotum wrote:
No, that is you demonizing the opposition.
so you say. how about we call them, girly men.
oilFactotum wrote:
What does your grandson's enlistment today have to do with a public disillusioned with Vietnam in the 1970's?
-
oilFactotum wrote:
You are apparently being an ass like red.
no, actually he's a rookie. When I put my mind to it I can do much better.
oilFactotum wrote:
What are you talking about? Vietnam? Cambodia?
both, actually.
oilFactotum wrote:
The domino theory?
which, fyi, was a valid concept.
oilFactotum wrote:
Like I said before, we killed 3 million Vietnamese while we were there. You wanted the war extended and kill a few million more? Kill a million to save a million?
we could have ended it very efficiently if we had: 1) taken out the dams north of Hanoi, 2) followed with carpet bomb and invasion of the north. the yammering left in our own country, read that as Kerry, Hanoi Jane, Cronkite and compatriots, kept that from happening. and you don't "extend" a war if you stay in it until you've won. How'd you play high school sports? quit when you got hurt or the field got muddy?
oilFactotum wrote:
nd how, exactly, is that not the wholesale destruction of the country? You haven't answered my question of how you believe that Bush is going to win in Iraq.
It would have been as wholesale as Dresden or Japan, it took the fire bombing of Dresden to shake up the Germans and it took the atom bomb to stop the Japanese - both morally and ethically justified.
oilFactotum wrote:
You haven't answered my question of how you believe that Bush is going to win in Iraq.
by showing the enemy we will not quit - Democrats, coupled with a few additional cowards from the other side of the aisle are giving the enemy all the moral support they need to stick it out. If that bunch, cowards from both sides of the aisle, would have stayed behind the decision to go in and not take every opportunity to diminish Bush, we'd be in a damn sight better position today than we are. Thank God Bush sticks to his principles.
oilFactotum wrote:
No, that is you demonizing the opposition.
so you say. how about we call them, girly men.
oilFactotum wrote:
What does your grandson's enlistment today have to do with a public disillusioned with Vietnam in the 1970's?
No doubt you can be a bigger ass than red, but that remark was on his pathetic level.
Mike Gaskey wrote:
oilFactotum wrote: What are you talking about? Vietnam? Cambodia? both, actually.
Don't see how you think that staying in Vietnam would have changed things for the better in Cambodia. Pol Pot came to power while we were still there. And clearly the unrest that occurred in Cambodia at that time is a direct result of our war in Vietnam. You know - Ho Chi Minh trail, our invasion of Cambodia(remember the Parrot's Beak?), secret bombing, so on, we aren't responsible for all those deaths because we left, we are responsible because we came in the first place. And Vietnam, you say millions died after we left, perhaps but I am unaware of mass killings after the fall of Saigon. Perhaps you are thinking of the boat people and the like. Well we failed them not by leaving, but by leaving them behind.
Mike Gaskey wrote:
oilFactotum wrote: The domino theory? which, fyi, was a valid concept
I don't know how valid it is since it didn't actually happen.
Mike Gaskey wrote:
It would have been as wholesale as Dresden or Japan
Seeing as we laid waste to both countries, I would call that wholesale. And since doing so to Iraq was not required to defeat the military, massacre of the civilian population would not be moral or ethical. It would probably amount to genocide and that never was an option - thank God.
Mike Gaskey wrote:
it took the fire bombing of Dresden to shake up the Germans
Didn't shake them up too much, since they fought to the bitter end. Berlin fell and Hitler committed suicide before they surrendered. In hindsight the bombing had no strategic value.
Mike Gaskey wrote:
by showing the enemy we will not quit
Whatever. Your "stabbed in the back" theory for Iraq just won't fly. This has been Bush's war from the very beginning. He has made it very clear that he is the commander-in-chief and the descisions in this war have been his. From the beginning by assuming that this was going to be as easy occupation (early plans had the troop levels down to 30,000 or so in just a few months). Even though some Generals argued that we needed to go in with more troops. Refusing to change strategies even in the f