Clinton Vows To End U.s. 'arrogance' As President

[stephanie]

Can anyone here interpreters pig Latin??? I think that's what she was speaking here??????:eek:
By IAN BISHOP
February 21, 2007 -- MIAMI - Hillary Rodham Clinton vowed yesterday to change the United States so it's no longer an "arrogant power" that alienates the world.

"When I'm president, I'm going to send a message to the world that America is back - we're not the arrogant power that we've been acting like for the last six years," Sen. Clinton said during her first campaign stop in the Sunshine State.

"We want to be an admired country again in the world. There is a lot of work to be done," Clinton said to applause from a predominantly black audience gathered for her town-hall-style chat in the Liberty City section of Miami.

Clinton blamed the Bush administration for squandering worldwide goodwill in the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

"It's very sad to me," she added. "We have to rebuild it because a lot of the problems we have, we can't solve on our own. It can't be solved just because we have the strongest military in the world."

In a sharp shot at President Bush's policy against bargaining with the terrorist-supporting nations Iran and Syria, she quipped: "I don't think you get very far in life if you just point fingers at somebody and say, 'We think you're bad. We're never going to talk to you.' "

"I don't think that's the way the world works," she said, later adding, "you don't make peace with your friends."(huh??)

http://www.nypost.com/seven/02212007/news/nationalnews/clinton_vows_to_end_u_s__arrogance_as_president_na tionalnews_ian_bishop.htm

ian.bishop@nypost.com

[Dilloduck]

Can anyone here interpreters pig Latin??? I think that's what she was speaking here??????:eek:
By IAN BISHOP
February 21, 2007 -- MIAMI - Hillary Rodham Clinton vowed yesterday to change the United States so it's no longer an "arrogant power" that alienates the world.

"When I'm president, I'm going to send a message to the world that America is back - we're not the arrogant power that we've been acting like for the last six years," Sen. Clinton said during her first campaign stop in the Sunshine State.

"We want to be an admired country again in the world. There is a lot of work to be done," Clinton said to applause from a predominantly black audience gathered for her town-hall-style chat in the Liberty City section of Miami.

Clinton blamed the Bush administration for squandering worldwide goodwill in the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

"It's very sad to me," she added. "We have to rebuild it because a lot of the problems we have, we can't solve on our own. It can't be solved just because we have the strongest military in the world."

In a sharp shot at President Bush's policy against bargaining with the terrorist-supporting nations Iran and Syria, she quipped: "I don't think you get very far in life if you just point fingers at somebody and say, 'We think you're bad. We're never going to talk to you.' "

"I don't think that's the way the world works," she said, later adding, "you don't make peace with your friends."(huh??)

http://www.nypost.com/seven/02212007/news/nationalnews/clinton_vows_to_end_u_s__arrogance_as_president_na tionalnews_ian_bishop.htm

ian.bishop@nypost.com

She'll play well to many Americans who think America is guilty of thinking that it's lifestyle is preferrable to other lifestyles. I'd like to hear her speak on how she intends to make America a more humble country.

[CSM]

Isn't it ironic that we had so much good will prior to 9/11 that terrorists continually were trying to blow us up? And she wants us to go back to that!

[CockySOB]

Rabid dogs... scent of fear... right. Real winner there Hillary.

[Nienna]

What is WRONG with people like her? Brilliant minds, blinded by their own ideology. All people are biased by their ideology, but it's like these people are living in a fantasy. Islam wants us DEAD. They do not want to play nicely. They do not want to reason or compromise. With her level of intelligence and her abhorrence of religious fundamentalism, I cannot believe she is incapable of understanding that.

Makes me really consider Jason's Noahide theories.

[theHawk]

Of course the rest of the world is going to love us when we start ignoring terrorists again.
But I guess since the majority of world says so, its all A-OK.

[stephanie]

A most dangerous person to me is....

One who has two faces....They talk out of both sides....

One could be good, one could be bad....

That's the problem, they can try and fool you...........
you can't figure out one for the other????

With Hitlery Clinton.............

Both sides of her face is ................ Evil....

[avatar4321]

Why do we have to make peace with our friends? I dont think our friends have any problems with us. It's our enemies, you know the people who want to kill us, that we have to deal with. and often we can only deal with those people with the use of force.

Also, is it arrogance to say something is right and doing what you can to do it regardless how hard it is? I dont think thats arrogance. I think its humbling actually.

[darin]

(sigh)....if Only I had a pillow, 30 minutes, and a world without consquence....

[GW in Ohio]

So...................

Am I hearing that Hillary is not going to be able to count on your support as she attempts to rebuild our image in the world?

[5stringJeff]

I'd rather be respected than liked.

[manu1959]

So...................

Am I hearing that Hillary is not going to be able to count on your support as she attempts to rebuild our image in the world?

sure.....to what era will it be rebuilt to?

[CSM]

sure.....to what era will it be rebuilt to?

Early 13th century....particularly with a Moslem slant.

[manu1959]

Early 13th century....particularly with a Moslem slant.

no i am serious....i get tired of this crap....we have a better plan...but we never hear it....we want to rebuild america...to what?....we can do better....ok how?....great cath phrases....they reminde me of the consultants on TV that are pitching ideas to a CEo....and the CEO finally says "ok do it" and the two consultants say...."we don't actually "do" anything."

[Hagbard Celine]

http://www.hillarystore.com/index.htm

Clinton/Edwards '08!

[Insein]

So does toning down arrogance mean she wont try and demand China change their culture to adapt ours?

[Mr. P]

She'll play well to many Americans who think America is guilty of thinking that it's lifestyle is preferrable to other lifestyles. I'd like to hear her speak on how she intends to make America a more humble country.

Easy. Watch your tax $$ go overseas in mass never seen before. Problem is 'payoffs' are temporary. But they'll all smile while they get em.

[manu1959]

http://www.hillarystore.com/index.htm

Clinton/Edwards '08!

yea ...like the two of them won't be arrogant......

[Hagbard Celine]

Easy. Watch your tax $$ go overseas in mass never seen before. Problem is 'payoffs' are temporary. But they'll all smile while they get em.

Hey, I'm watching it go over in the form of the Iraq War in "mass never seen before" so cut the bull. Hillary is qualified, way more qualified than W. was, to be president. She's been an attorney, she's been first lady, she's even been a Senator. She knows politics and I have no doubt foreign relations will run more smoothly under her than they have for the last seven years.

[manu1959]

Hey, I'm watching it go over in the form of the Iraq War in "mass never seen before" so cut the bull. Hillary is qualified, way more qualified than W. was, to be president. She's been an attorney, she's been first lady, she's even been a Senator. She knows politics and I have no doubt foreign relations will run more smoothly under her than they have for the last seven years.

really.....how?....what exactly will she do different?

[Hagbard Celine]

really.....how?....what exactly will she do different?

She'll TALK to Iran--the most powerful country in the region. :duh:

[manu1959]

She'll TALK to Iran.

what will she say ?

[Mr. P]

what will she say ?

We'll pay you BIG $$$$ to stop.

[Insein]

She'll TALK to Iran--the most powerful country in the region. :duh:

So Iran, who's leaders believe that women are inferior creatures and should be seen as property, will listen to her and bow down to all her demands suddenly? :alcoholic:

[Hagbard Celine]

So Iran, who's leaders believe that women are inferior creatures and should be seen as property, will listen to her and bow down to all her demands suddenly? :alcoholic:

Yeah, exactly. That's exactly what I implied in my posts. :rolleyes:

[manu1959]

Yeah, exactly. That's exactly what I implied in my posts. :rolleyes:

so what will she say?

[Grumplestillskin]

I'd rather be respected than liked.

What about being neither?

[Grumplestillskin]

(sigh)....if Only I had a pillow, 30 minutes, and a world without consquence....

That's what I love about you fundies - you're so Christian....:laugh2:

[Grumplestillskin]

no i am serious....i get tired of this crap....we have a better plan...but we never hear it....we want to rebuild america...to what?....we can do better....ok how?....great cath phrases....they reminde me of the consultants on TV that are pitching ideas to a CEo....and the CEO finally says "ok do it" and the two consultants say...."we don't actually "do" anything."

Well, what has Bush done? Also, I read on one of the other threads the plan put out by Dems. You need to read more!

[5stringJeff]

What about being neither?

I think that's obviously the least desirable.

[Grumplestillskin]

so what will she say?

Can't be any worse than "you are part of the axis of evil". After all, that is just soooo helpful...

[manu1959]

Well, what has Bush done? Also, I read on one of the other threads the plan put out by Dems. You need to read more!

bush has done what he has done .... don't be insulting....i read plenty....tell me what will hillary do..... exactly: to end the perception that the US is arrogant....

[manu1959]

Can't be any worse than "you are part of the axis of evil". After all, that is just soooo helpful...


no tell me...we know what bush has done...what will she say....

[manu1959]

What about being neither?

i prefer feared over respected or liked

[Hagbard Celine]

no tell me...we know what bush has done...what will she say....

She will say, "anyone who expects people to predict accurately what another person will say has a penis for a brain."

[manu1959]

She will say, "anyone who expects people to predict accurately what another person will say has a penis for a brain."

but you said "I have no doubt foreign relations will run more smoothly under her than they have for the last seven years."

since you have no doubt....i figured you would share with us what she will say to Iran that will cause things to run more smoothly that they have for the past seven years.....will it be as smooth as the 8 years prior to the last seven?.....tell me which era in our history will we be "returning to"?

[Mr. P]

She will say, "anyone who expects people to predict accurately what another person will say has a penis for a brain."

So this means you don't have a FUCKING clue but you think she'll have the answers anyway!...Geeeezzzzzzz. The blind ignorant masses promoting...nothing? Cept a solcialist.

[Grumplestillskin]

no tell me...we know what bush has done...what will she say....

Actually I don't know what Bush has done. Tell me?
As for Hillary, she has yet to set an exact agenda. But it'll make interesting reading. If it is anything like Bill's foreign policy, she'll at least attempt to make peace between the Israelis and Pals. What efforts has Bush made so far other than make the region 10 times more unstable than it was before he came to office? Outsiders don't like Bush. They see him as a religious neocon that is not even remotely interested in building bridges - oh, and an idiot. Clinton was well respected as an international diplomat. I see Hillary in the same vein.

[CSM]

Clinton was well respected as an international diplomat. I see Hillary in the same vein.

Of course he was. Clinton sold out US secrets to any nation that asked including China and North Korea. I am sure Hillary will do the same.

[Grumplestillskin]

i prefer feared over respected or liked

Again, what about when you are not feared, respected or liked?

[Grumplestillskin]

Of course he was. Clinton sold out US secrets to any nation that asked including China and North Korea. I am sure Hillary will do the same.

Hey, if you want to be silly....:lame2:

[CSM]

Hey, if you want to be silly....:lame2:

What is lame about that??? Clinton did sell secrets to both those countries. That little factoid made him very popular as a diplomat (at least with the Chinese and North Koreans). The fact that he did as much as he dared to pull the teeth from the US military made him very popular with Europeans as did the fact that he seriously considered putting US troops under UN commnaders. All of those things and more made him popular amongst the other nations and all of those I consider to be selling the US down the tubes....


Yeah, I know, jingoistic patriotism and ethnocentric. My only possible retort will eventually end up as European hypocricy and arrogance..... There I just saved us both a bunch of typing.

[CSM]

Again, what about when you are not feared, respected or liked?

Then you are France!

[Hagbard Celine]

but you said "I have no doubt foreign relations will run more smoothly under her than they have for the last seven years."

since you have no doubt....i figured you would share with us what she will say to Iran that will cause things to run more smoothly that they have for the past seven years.....will it be as smooth as the 8 years prior to the last seven?.....tell me which era in our history will we be "returning to"?

Manu, anything she says to Iran will be better than saying nothing at all and parking aircraft carriers off their coast. We need open communication with Iran instead of backhanded insults and knuckle-dragging threats. And I have no doubt, as I said, that Clinton's administration would open that line of communication--extend the olive branch if you will.

As of today, Iran has violated the UN resolution calling for them to cease Uranium enrichment. We'll see if they make good on their threats to slap them with sanctions. In the mean time, the US needs to open a dialogue. Iran actually tried to do this but Bush thumbed his nose at them. That's not good diplomacy. You have to talk to people.

You're so full of sh*t Manu. Clinton's policies were sound. You cannot say that about the Bush administration, which has been racked with ethical malfeasance and incompetence from the very beginning. And don't bring up the blowjob incident that the Republicans crucified Clinton for. He was aquitted of all charges except lying about getting a blowjob! And you can't blame him for that. Bush on the other hand, has been shown to have doctored the intelligence that sent us to WAR! Resulting in the deaths of over 3000 US troops. Not to mention the incompetence shown during the Katrina distaster as well as the ineptitude with which he handles foreign policy.

At the end of the Clinton administration, polls showed that the US ranked high in world opinion. After seven years of W. and Co. we rank low and we have nothing to show for it except for a bloated foreign debt, a middle east in shambles and a low worldwide opinion of us. That's all I'm saying.

[Grumplestillskin]

Then you are France!

LOL! No, no, no, not the Cheese-eating Surrender Monkeys!

[Hagbard Celine]

So this means you don't have a FUCKING clue but you think she'll have the answers anyway!...Geeeezzzzzzz. The blind ignorant masses promoting...nothing? Cept a solcialist.

You didn't say anything in this post except that you think I don't have a clue. Well, opinions are like assholes. Discussion boards are full of them both! :finger3:

[CSM]

LOL! No, no, no, not the Cheese-eating Surrender Monkeys!

Hey, if you don't want to know the answer, don't ask the question!

[Grumplestillskin]

What is lame about that??? Clinton did sell secrets to both those countries. That little factoid made him very popular as a diplomat (at least with the Chinese and North Koreans). The fact that he did as much as he dared to pull the teeth from the US military made him very popular with Europeans as did the fact that he seriously considered putting US troops under UN commnaders. All of those things and more made him popular amongst the other nations and all of those I consider to be selling the US down the tubes....


Yeah, I know, jingoistic patriotism and ethnocentric. My only possible retort will eventually end up as European hypocricy and arrogance..... There I just saved us both a bunch of typing.

He did no such thing. His officials an diplomats did those things (although from memory the Chinese thing involved spying?? Harldy his fault). I don't see anything wrong with him putting US troops under the auspices of the UN. Neither did your commanders. Just ask Mike New...

[CSM]

He did no such thing. His officials an diplomats did those things (although from memory the Chinese thing involved spying?? Harldy his fault). I don't see anything wrong with him putting US troops under the auspices of the UN. Neither did your commanders. Just ask Mike New...

Of course we disagree. HIS officials and diplomats under HIS direction did those things...and the Clinton administration most certainly did sell software to China that allowed them to make their subs quieter (an application that allowed for closer tolerances in machining the sub's props). Up until that time, the software was barred from sale to the Chinese. Clinton released the software for sale to them in a Presidential memo.

Putting US troops under the auspices of the UN IMO violates their oath and their contract. Plenty of MY commanders had a problem with it and many retired because of it....

[CSM]

Oh yeah, about Mike New; the kid got railroaded in 1996. It isn't over yet either:

http://www.mikenew.com/

It will be interesting to see how it turns out. I will say this: if you think the US military has trouble recruiting now, just wait until the Dems start sending US forces to places like Dafur!

[Grumplestillskin]

Oh yeah, about Mike New; the kid got railroaded in 1996. It isn't over yet either:

http://www.mikenew.com/

It will be interesting to see how it turns out. I will say this: if you think the US military has trouble recruiting now, just wait until the Dems start sending US forces to places like Dafur!

I know re New...court systems!

Why shouldn't US troops go to Dafur to peacekeep? You think US troops should only be used for war and not trying to keep regions stable?

[CSM]

I know re New...court systems!

Why shouldn't US troops go to Dafur to peacekeep? You think US troops should only be used for war and not trying to keep regions stable?

Should I use the Liberal talking points? Lets start with "Dafur is no direct threat to the US"! How's that?

Try this one: "Unless the US Congress declares war it would be an illegal war"!

Not enough,? How about this one: "Soldiers would die for nothing and entangle us in a civil war that the US could not win".

Hmmm....lets go for this one: "Such an effort only serves the military industrial complex....its all about money".

Any of this sound familiar yet? I got lots more!

[Mr. P]

You didn't say anything in this post except that I don't have a clue. Well, opinions are like assholes. Discussion boards are full of them both! :finger3:

That's all I had to say, the rest I could have left out I guess.:wink2:

[avatar4321]

Hey, I'm watching it go over in the form of the Iraq War in "mass never seen before" so cut the bull. Hillary is qualified, way more qualified than W. was, to be president. She's been an attorney, she's been first lady, she's even been a Senator. She knows politics and I have no doubt foreign relations will run more smoothly under her than they have for the last seven years.

So since I am practically an attorney does that qualify me to be President? Cause i could probably do better than anything she does.

And if she knows her politics so well, why does everyone dislike her?

[avatar4321]

She'll TALK to Iran--the most powerful country in the region. :duh:

I thought Israel was the most powerful country in the region. Iran is just the most oppressive country in the region.

[avatar4321]

Can't be any worse than "you are part of the axis of evil". After all, that is just soooo helpful...

The truth is the truth. If you wont see evil as it is, you can't defeat it.

[theHawk]

At the end of the Clinton administration, polls showed that the US ranked high in world opinion. After seven years of W. and Co. we rank low and we have nothing to show for it except for a bloated foreign debt, a middle east in shambles and a low worldwide opinion of us. That's all I'm saying.

And thats what's really important isn't it? What the world polls say.

Like a good little stereotypical liberal, you care more about appearance than substance. God forbid we have a President that does what's right for America, instead of fucking his own country over for the sake of foreign countries. Every other country out there has their own agenda and their own interests at heart, and rarely do those interests include spreading freedom and democracy around the world. But liberals would much rather cater to these thugs like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Saddam Hussein, Kim Jong Il, or Osama bin Laden than do what is necessary - recognize these corrupt and brutal regimes/leaders for what they are and take a stand against them. We have policies in place, such as the U.S. is not going to negotiate with terrorists. Because if we do we send a message that violence works and that the use of brute force over the weak and innocent can get you what you want. I don't know what it is in a liberal's mind that would make you believe otherwise. Perhaps deep down in your warped mind these thugs have some sort of legitimacy, and deserve to be heard, whether it be in diplomatic talks or their day in court. Now, maybe liberals just prefer to use the carrot over the stick, and there isn't anything wrong with that. But when history shows that such tactics do not work against brutal dictators, it makes one wonder how or why one would seek to continue to pursue such a course of action. The only logical answer is that you either want failure or you're just ignorant of such historical record. Which answer it is is actually irrelavant, since the consequences would be the same.

[avatar4321]

And thats what's really important isn't it? What the world polls say.

Like a good little stereotypical liberal, you care more about appearance than substance. God forbid we have a President that does what's right for America, instead of fucking his own country over for the sake of foreign countries. Every other country out there has their own agenda and their own interests at heart, and rarely do those interests include spreading freedom and democracy around the world. But liberals would much rather cater to these thugs like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Saddam Hussein, Kim Jong Il, or Osama bin Laden than do what is necessary - recognize these corrupt and brutal regimes/leaders for what they are and take a stand against them. We have policies in place, such as the U.S. is not going to negotiate with terrorists. Because if we do we send a message that violence works and that the use of brute force over the weak and innocent can get you what you want. I don't know what it is in a liberal's mind that would make you believe otherwise. Perhaps deep down in your warped mind these thugs have some sort of legitimacy, and deserve to be heard, whether it be in diplomatic talks or their day in court. Now, maybe liberals just prefer to use the carrot over the stick, and there isn't anything wrong with that. But when history shows that such tactics do not work against brutal dictators, it makes one wonder how or why one would seek to continue to pursue such a course of action. The only logical answer is that you either want failure or you're just ignorant of such historical record. Which answer it is is actually irrelavant, since the consequences would be the same.

Thats the major difference between conservatives and liberals. Conservatives focus on doing what is right and what works. And Liberals focus on what looks good. We want to get to the root of the problem, they want to make gestures that look like they are addressing the problem when all they are addressing are the symptoms.

[Hagbard Celine]

I thought Israel was the most powerful country in the region. Iran is just the most oppressive country in the region.
Israel doesn't have much power in the Arab world Avi. In fact, I'd wager that 99 out of 100 Arabs hate Israel. Israel definately has the most military strength, but there are other types of power.


So since I am practically an attorney does that qualify me to be President? Cause i could probably do better than anything she does.

And if she knows her politics so well, why does everyone dislike her?
No, being an attorney doesn't qualify you for the presidency. Living in and being as active as she was in the White House for eight years and being a US senator for one of the most powerful states in the union does though.

As far as your opinion that no one "likes" her, I don't know where that comes from. I think you're projecting your own opinions onto those in D.C.

[Hagbard Celine]

And thats what's really important isn't it? What the world polls say.

Like a good little stereotypical liberal, you care more about appearance than substance. God forbid we have a President that does what's right for America, instead of fucking his own country over for the sake of foreign countries. Every other country out there has their own agenda and their own interests at heart, and rarely do those interests include spreading freedom and democracy around the world. But liberals would much rather cater to these thugs like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Saddam Hussein, Kim Jong Il, or Osama bin Laden than do what is necessary - recognize these corrupt and brutal regimes/leaders for what they are and take a stand against them. We have policies in place, such as the U.S. is not going to negotiate with terrorists. Because if we do we send a message that violence works and that the use of brute force over the weak and innocent can get you what you want. I don't know what it is in a liberal's mind that would make you believe otherwise. Perhaps deep down in your warped mind these thugs have some sort of legitimacy, and deserve to be heard, whether it be in diplomatic talks or their day in court. Now, maybe liberals just prefer to use the carrot over the stick, and there isn't anything wrong with that. But when history shows that such tactics do not work against brutal dictators, it makes one wonder how or why one would seek to continue to pursue such a course of action. The only logical answer is that you either want failure or you're just ignorant of such historical record. Which answer it is is actually irrelavant, since the consequences would be the same.

Blah, blah, blah. I'd like for you to explain to me and the rest of the posters just how fucking "free" Iraq is right now. Opinion polls give a gauge of the opinions of the populace. If you don't think that's important in a so-called "republic" where our representatives are supposed to reflect the public's viewpoints then you're a retard and I can't help you.

[avatar4321]

I know re New...court systems!

Why shouldn't US troops go to Dafur to peacekeep? You think US troops should only be used for war and not trying to keep regions stable?

How can the troops goin on peacekeeping missions when there is no peace to begin with?

And yes I think the US troops should only be used for war. Thats the entire point of the Military: WAR.

[manu1959]

Manu, anything she says to Iran will be better than saying nothing at all and parking aircraft carriers off their coast. We need open communication with Iran instead of backhanded insults and knuckle-dragging threats. And I have no doubt, as I said, that Clinton's administration would open that line of communication--extend the olive branch if you will.

As of today, Iran has violated the UN resolution calling for them to cease Uranium enrichment. We'll see if they make good on their threats to slap them with sanctions. In the mean time, the US needs to open a dialogue. Iran actually tried to do this but Bush thumbed his nose at them. That's not good diplomacy. You have to talk to people.

You're so full of sh*t Manu. Clinton's policies were sound. You cannot say that about the Bush administration, which has been racked with ethical malfeasance and incompetence from the very beginning. And don't bring up the blowjob incident that the Republicans crucified Clinton for. He was aquitted of all charges except lying about getting a blowjob! And you can't blame him for that. Bush on the other hand, has been shown to have doctored the intelligence that sent us to WAR! Resulting in the deaths of over 3000 US troops. Not to mention the incompetence shown during the Katrina distaster as well as the ineptitude with which he handles foreign policy.

At the end of the Clinton administration, polls showed that the US ranked high in world opinion. After seven years of W. and Co. we rank low and we have nothing to show for it except for a bloated foreign debt, a middle east in shambles and a low worldwide opinion of us. That's all I'm saying.

good answer....insults aside....i now i understand....you believe hillary would negotiate with iran and that by talking to them and saying all the right things as her husband did they will change their behavior back to the way it was under bill and she will do for america what bill did and a return to that era would be a good thing ... got it.... as for bills policies....during his years in office america and her allies and interest were attacked several dozen times not sure his policies were as sound as you think nor were we as loved as you think.....the us has been hated for a long time.....

[avatar4321]

good answer....insults aside....i now i understand....you believe hillary would negotiate with iran and that by talking to them and saying all the right things as her husband did they will change their behavior back to the way it was under bill and she will do for america what bill did and a return to that era would be a good thing ... got it....

So basically Iran would promise not to use the nuclear technology we give them as weapons against us and then break that promise at the most convenient time for them.

[glockmail]

...:
By IAN BISHOP
February 21, 2007 -- MIAMI - Hillary Rodham Clinton vowed yesterday to change the United States so it's no longer an "arrogant power" that alienates the world. [/QUOTE]

How ironic!

[Gaffer]

Manu, anything she says to Iran will be better than saying nothing at all and parking aircraft carriers off their coast. We need open communication with Iran instead of backhanded insults and knuckle-dragging threats. And I have no doubt, as I said, that Clinton's administration would open that line of communication--extend the olive branch if you will.

You know NOTHING about islam. iran is run by a fundimentalist theocracy. Not rational people like other countries. They want to destroy the US. They have no respect for women and anything said to hellery will be to placate her until they are ready to move. Carrier groups in the gulf are a form of diplomacy. They simply say, don't mess in the gulf cause we will take action. Bush has repeatedly stated he wants to deal with iran diplomatically. If you want to extend an olive branch I suggest you try petting a rabid dog and see what that gets you.

As of today, Iran has violated the UN resolution calling for them to cease Uranium enrichment. We'll see if they make good on their threats to slap them with sanctions. In the mean time, the US needs to open a dialogue. Iran actually tried to do this but Bush thumbed his nose at them. That's not good diplomacy. You have to talk to people.

They will not cease uranium enrichment. And the sanctions won't do shit. Even if they were strong sanctions russia and china would continue to do business with them. iran tried to get the US to backdown, they have never tried to negociate anything. They have a goal and they intend to reach that goal. Try talking to that rabid dog when you try to pet it.

You're so full of sh*t Manu. Clinton's policies were sound. You cannot say that about the Bush administration, which has been racked with ethical malfeasance and incompetence from the very beginning. And don't bring up the blowjob incident that the Republicans crucified Clinton for. He was aquitted of all charges except lying about getting a blowjob! And you can't blame him for that. Bush on the other hand, has been shown to have doctored the intelligence that sent us to WAR! Resulting in the deaths of over 3000 US troops. Not to mention the incompetence shown during the Katrina distaster as well as the ineptitude with which he handles foreign policy.

Clinton sold out the country by giving nuclear support to north korea and allowing china to steal sensative rocket components. How do you think they managed that little trick of knocking out their old weather satelite. Thank clinton for that. Bush doctored nothing. Prove he doctored intelligence. Show me a legitimate site that proves this is a fact. You can't because its a liberal talking point that is thrown out everytime Bush's name is mentioned.

At the end of the Clinton administration, polls showed that the US ranked high in world opinion. After seven years of W. and Co. we rank low and we have nothing to show for it except for a bloated foreign debt, a middle east in shambles and a low worldwide opinion of us. That's all I'm saying.

As mentioned above, clinton was popular because he was selling out the country. All the lefties loved clinton. Bush won't do that, so they hate him. I suggest after you get done petting the rabid dog, you go read up on islam, your going to need it if your people get into power. Praying five times a day and all.

[SassyLady]

So...................

Am I hearing that Hillary is not going to be able to count on your support as she attempts to rebuild our image in the world?

Not if she's trying to rebuild the image of "appeasment".

I think people who compromise their principles in order to conform to "group think" should suffer the consequences of ignominy.

It frustrates the hell out me that liberals want everyone and everything to be equal without having put forth the effort to deserve it.

Liberals and their ideals of a one-world order remind me of baby food - bland and tasteless.:eek:

[Grumplestillskin]

Should I use the Liberal talking points? Lets start with "Dafur is no direct threat to the US"! How's that?

Try this one: "Unless the US Congress declares war it would be an illegal war"!

Not enough,? How about this one: "Soldiers would die for nothing and entangle us in a civil war that the US could not win".

Hmmm....lets go for this one: "Such an effort only serves the military industrial complex....its all about money".

Any of this sound familiar yet? I got lots more!

Peacekeeping and going to war are two different things. So you are comparing apples and oranges...

[SassyLady]

Hey, I'm watching it go over in the form of the Iraq War in "mass never seen before" so cut the bull. Hillary is qualified, way more qualified than W. was, to be president. She's been an attorney, she's been first lady, she's even been a Senator. She knows politics and I have no doubt foreign relations will run more smoothly under her than they have for the last seven years.

If she's got all this, why do so many despise her? And, what makes you think being an attorney qualfies one for president?

Saying she knows politics and that she's good at it means she must be more corrupt than all the others.

I will say that of the current crop of Dems, she knows how to play the political assassination game better than the rest. She's definitely had more practice at it than the others.

The CLINTON MACHINE is already at work - fortunately they are eating their own at the moment.

[SassyLady]

What about being neither?

Being disrepected and disliked is still better than compromising one's principles.

[SassyLady]

Actually I don't know what Bush has done. Tell me?
As for Hillary, she has yet to set an exact agenda. But it'll make interesting reading. If it is anything like Bill's foreign policy, she'll at least attempt to make peace between the Israelis and Pals. What efforts has Bush made so far other than make the region 10 times more unstable than it was before he came to office? Outsiders don't like Bush. They see him as a religious neocon that is not even remotely interested in building bridges - oh, and an idiot. Clinton was well respected as an international diplomat. I see Hillary in the same vein.

GAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG.:rolleyes :

[SassyLady]

You're so full of sh*t Manu. Clinton's policies were sound. You cannot say that about the Bush administration, which has been racked with ethical malfeasance and incompetence from the very beginning. And don't bring up the blowjob incident that the Republicans crucified Clinton for. He was aquitted of all charges except lying about getting a blowjob! And you can't blame him for that. Bush on the other hand, has been shown to have doctored the intelligence that sent us to WAR! Resulting in the deaths of over 3000 US troops. Not to mention the incompetence shown during the Katrina distaster as well as the ineptitude with which he handles foreign policy.

At the end of the Clinton administration, polls showed that the US ranked high in world opinion. After seven years of W. and Co. we rank low and we have nothing to show for it except for a bloated foreign debt, a middle east in shambles and a low worldwide opinion of us. That's all I'm saying.

Yeah............I'm sick and tired of the blowjob references too! It's gotten blown so totally out of proportion that people forget all the other screwups he precipitated.

I think people have just gotten tired of rehashing all his screwups and boiled it down to a blowjob to show just how disgusted they are with the whole Clinton bunch.

I would prefer to keep using Somalia, or the Cole as focal points for what a total weeny he is.

[SassyLady]

Should I use the Liberal talking points? Lets start with "Dafur is no direct threat to the US"! How's that?

Try this one: "Unless the US Congress declares war it would be an illegal war"!

Not enough,? How about this one: "Soldiers would die for nothing and entangle us in a civil war that the US could not win".

Hmmm....lets go for this one: "Such an effort only serves the military industrial complex....its all about money".

Any of this sound familiar yet? I got lots more!

I love the civil war one..........telling us we must get out of Iraq - don't want to be involved in a civil war........and yet we must stop the civil war in Darfur.

Go figure.........I'm tired of trying to make sense of liberal logic.

[SassyLady]

Peacekeeping and going to war are two different things. So you are comparing apples and oranges...

What peace would we be keeping in Darfur?

[Sitarro]

Manu, anything she says to Iran will be better than saying nothing at all and parking aircraft carriers off their coast. We need open communication with Iran instead of backhanded insults and knuckle-dragging threats. And I have no doubt, as I said, that Clinton's administration would open that line of communication--extend the olive branch if you will.


Hey Hagbard, are you volunteering to go to Iran and have a heart to heart with those oh so civilized mongrels that dull their knives before they saw off your head with them? These aren't people that can be reasoned with, don't you get that? Force is all they understand, anything less and they think you're a pussy. You think Christians are silly? How about a guy that keeps an empty chair next to him, wherever he goes, for the return of the 12th Imam? You are going to have a dialogue with that? Olive branch????


As of today, Iran has violated the UN resolution calling for them to cease Uranium enrichment. We'll see if they make good on their threats to slap them with sanctions. In the mean time, the US needs to open a dialogue. Iran actually tried to do this but Bush thumbed his nose at them. That's not good diplomacy. You have to talk to people.

The UN slapped sanctions on Saddam's Iraq, where did that go? The UN themselves were payed off by Saddam along with France, Germany and our good buddies... the Russians.


You're so full of sh*t Manu. Clinton's policies were sound. You cannot say that about the Bush administration, which has been racked with ethical malfeasance and incompetence from the very beginning. And don't bring up the blowjob incident that the Republicans crucified Clinton for. He was aquitted of all charges except lying about getting a blowjob! And you can't blame him for that. Bush on the other hand, has been shown to have doctored the intelligence that sent us to WAR! Resulting in the deaths of over 3000 US troops. Not to mention the incompetence shown during the Katrina distaster as well as the ineptitude with which he handles foreign policy.

You can't possibly be this stupid, are we on Candid Camera. This sounds like the kind of crap that a bunch of little anarchist wannabes discuss over Frappachinos at Starbucks, weak and silly.


At the end of the Clinton administration, polls showed that the US ranked high in world opinion. After seven years of W. and Co. we rank low and we have nothing to show for it except for a bloated foreign debt, a middle east in shambles and a low worldwide opinion of us. That's all I'm saying.

Our foreign debt is from Americans using their freedom of choice and choosing cheaper products from overseas manufacturers. We control that. We could say no to products from China but we don't and now everything is made there and we have very little choice. What brand of car do you drive? If it isn't American made, you really can't say much about foreign debt.

Check the unemployment figures lately, how about the amount of tax revenue the government has taken in since President Bush inacted the tax cuts? How about the record breaking stock market? Could it be that the rest of the world looks at our poor and sees that they would be considered middle class in their countries and are just a bit jealous? Could it be that the rest of the world is too chicken shit to take out two bit dictators and they envy that we have the power to do it?

Go back to smoking cigarettes and and drinking Frappochinos with your little friends and leave the discussions to adults.

[KarlMarx]

Some things I'd like to see happen during a Hillary Clinton Presidency:

10. Returning of the White House china and silverware
9. So, how about those 200,000 jobs for Upstate New York you promised us when you were campaigning for NY Senator, Madame President?
8. Let's see how long you can go without bad mouthing America, the religious, pro-lifers, Republicans, the military and just about anyone else that doesn't fit into your world view.
7. So what actually DID happen to Vince Foster?
6. Rescinding all those presidential pardons your husband handed out
5. Bake us all some chocolate chip cookies
4. Just admit it, you're a man hating lesbian, a crypto-communist, a two faced liar and an arrogant bitch who doesn't have any respect for anyone or anything decent. You're so full of ambition and you'll do anything to get what you want... there, that wasn't so bad was it?
3. Tell us EXACTLY who will pay for Hillary's medical plan and where that trillion dollars is coming from.
2. Besides serving hors d’oeuvres at your White House parties, what are your plans for the military?
1. Tell the truth for a change

[glockmail]

.....

I will say that of the current crop of Dems, she knows how to play the political assassination game better than the rest. She's definitely had more practice at it than the others.

.....

I'd say she plays the physical assassination game just as well. Just ask poor old Vince Foster.

[CSM]

Peacekeeping and going to war are two different things. So you are comparing apples and oranges...

Let me ask you this...if they are at peace already, what would be the point of deploying troops? If they aren't at peace, then you aren't "peace keeping" you are "intervening". If you are intervening, that means someone is going to shoot at you sooner or later and you would have to shoot back...unless you are UN and then you can't /wont shoot back. Of course both parties know this, so don't bother to shoot at the UN troops and just keep shooting at each other. When they are shooting at each other the UN troops aren't keeping the peace then either. Get it?

[glockmail]

Let me ask you this...if they are at peace already, what would be the point of deploying troops? If they aren't at peace, then you aren't "peace keeping" you are "intervening". If you are intervening, that means someone is going to shoot at you sooner or later and you would have to shoot back...unless you are UN and then you can't /wont shoot back. Of course both parties know this, so don't bother to shoot at the UN troops and just keep shooting at each other. When they are shooting at each other the UN troops aren't keeping the peace then either. Get it?

When the UN gets involved and the shit hits the fan they leave, leaving the weaker side to be slaughtered. :mad:

[Hagbard Celine]

good answer....insults aside....i now i understand....you believe hillary would negotiate with iran and that by talking to them and saying all the right things as her husband did they will change their behavior back to the way it was under bill and she will do for america what bill did and a return to that era would be a good thing ... got it.... as for bills policies....during his years in office america and her allies and interest were attacked several dozen times not sure his policies were as sound as you think nor were we as loved as you think.....the us has been hated for a long time.....

Yeah, but never in Europe. That's what we're seeing now after we gave the Bush administration the reigns for seven years. I just don't think it's wise to ignore the global community and go it alone. That never works for anyone.

[darin]

Yeah, but never in Europe. That's what we're seeing now after we gave the Bush administration the reigns for seven years. I just don't think it's wise to ignore the global community and go it alone. That never works for anyone.

It works for US. Nobody will protect Freedom like the USofA. The USofA is simply THE best country on the planet in terms of opportunity and the ability to kick ass if we so desire.

:)

[Hagbard Celine]

You know NOTHING about islam. iran is run by a fundimentalist theocracy. Not rational people like other countries. They want to destroy the US. They have no respect for women and anything said to hellery will be to placate her until they are ready to move. Carrier groups in the gulf are a form of diplomacy. They simply say, don't mess in the gulf cause we will take action. Bush has repeatedly stated he wants to deal with iran diplomatically. If you want to extend an olive branch I suggest you try petting a rabid dog and see what that gets you. Your "rabid dog" remark is cute, but I'd suggest looking in the mirror mr. red font. You're right, carrier groups in the gulf are the kind of aggressive, cowboy dipolomacy that we've seen out of Bush since the beginning. Earth to gaffey: IT DOESN'T WORK! If it worked, we'd see results, but we haven't during Bush's entire presidency. He acts militantly toward N. Korea, Iran, Iraq, etc. and they do nothing but defy him. You get further with people when you open a dialogue with them than you do when you punch them in the back of the head and treat them like children. Bush has no respect for foreign nations and that is why he has been and continues to be a failure at diplomacy.


They will not cease uranium enrichment. And the sanctions won't do shit. Even if they were strong sanctions russia and china would continue to do business with them. iran tried to get the US to backdown, they have never tried to negociate anything. They have a goal and they intend to reach that goal. Try talking to that rabid dog when you try to pet it.Maybe they won't, but I think parking an armada off their coast is a reason FOR them to make a nuclear weapon rather than a deterrent. Put yourself in their shoes for one moment. What would you do if the US parked its military on your back door stoop?


Clinton sold out the country by giving nuclear support to north korea and allowing china to steal sensative rocket components. How do you think they managed that little trick of knocking out their old weather satelite. Thank clinton for that. Bush doctored nothing. Prove he doctored intelligence. Show me a legitimate site that proves this is a fact. You can't because its a liberal talking point that is thrown out everytime Bush's name is mentioned..You're insane. If the Downing Street Memo was too far in the past for you to remember, here's the latest: Most of the major key judgments in the Intelligence Community’s October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), Iraq’s Continuing Programs for Weapons of Mass Destruction, either overstated, or were not supported by, the underlying intelligence reporting. A series of failures, particularly in analytic trade craft, led to the mischaracterization of the intelligence.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senate_Report_of_Pre-war_Intelligence_on_Iraq
Also: Report: Pre-War Intelligence 'Manipulated' http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=politics&id=5020327


As mentioned above, clinton was popular because he was selling out the country. All the lefties loved clinton. Bush won't do that, so they hate him. I suggest after you get done petting the rabid dog, you go read up on islam, your going to need it if your people get into power. Praying five times a day and all.
Clinton did not sell state secrets. He sold weapons systems to China. So what? You make stuff up and spin it to support your own POV nothing more. Stick with the "rabid dog" metaphor. It's fittingly hypocritical for someone who curses and posts in red font. And you're a moron if you really believe that anyone buys the "we're all going to be turned Muslim if the Democrats get the WhiteHouse" scare tactics. Your kind said the same thing back in the 80s when communism was the big ol' bogeyman that we were all supposed to be fearful of. With you there is no progression, just new talking points. Pfftt. :rolleyes:

[glockmail]

Yeah, but never in Europe. That's what we're seeing now after we gave the Bush administration the reigns for seven years. I just don't think it's wise to ignore the global community and go it alone. That never works for anyone. I don't think we meant to go it alone, dooya think? I mean, we worked with the UN for a long time with something like, what, 27?, resolutions, starting way before Bushco was in office. When push came to shove the UN weenied out, right?

[Hagbard Celine]

I don't think we meant to go it alone, dooya think? I mean, we worked with the UN for a long time with something like, what, 27?, resolutions, starting way before Bushco was in office. When push came to shove the UN weenied out, right?

The UN tried to avoid violent confrontation, which the Bush/admin seemed damned and determined to create. Regardless of what you think of the UN, when you take into account what a clusterf*ck Iraq is due to Bush's use of force, the UN seemed pretty wise in retrospect. If we had listened to the global community and pursued legal and other means of punishing Saddam, the middle east probably would not be such a mess today and considering the findings from every study made on the subject concluding that the Iraq war has actually created more terrorists than it has deterred terrorism, terrorism would be less of a problem and we would not have had more terrorist attacks worldwide since 2001 than we had before.

[glockmail]

The UN tried to avoid violent confrontation, which the Bush/admin seemed damned and determined to create. Regardless of what you think of the UN, when you take into account what a clusterf*ck Iraq is due to Bush's use of force, the UN seemed pretty wise in retrospect. If we had listened to the global community and pursued legal and other means of punishing Saddam, the middle east probably would not be such a mess today and considering the findings from every study made on the subject concluding that the Iraq war has actually created more terrorists than it has deterred terrorism, terrorism would be less of a problem and we would not have had more terrorist attacks worldwide since 2001 than we had before.

OK I'll bite. What "legal and other means", not simply to punish, but to stop the guy from supporting terrorists, attempting to assassinate US presidents, and from building and using WMD's?

[avatar4321]

Doing what is right is a lonely activity sometimes. Trust me, I know.

[Hagbard Celine]

OK I'll bite. What "legal and other means", not simply to punish, but to stop the guy from supporting terrorists, attempting to assassinate US presidents, and from building and using WMD's?

Well, we've found out since the invasion that Saddam was bluffing about everything. Evidence shows that he did not interact with al-Qaeda and that he did not have any on-going WMD programs. Sure, he gave terrorists passage throught his country, but so does Iran, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, etc. Beginning to see a trend? If we had pursued sanctions and other diplomatic types of punitive measures we would not be in the mess we are in right now in Iraq. We just wouldn't be. It's that simple. And it's not like he came over here and tried to assassinate our president. H.W.Bush was in Iraq when that happened.

[avatar4321]

Well, we've found out since the invasion that Saddam was bluffing about everything. Evidence shows that he did not interact with al-Qaeda and that he did not have any on-going WMD programs. Sure, he gave terrorists passage throught his country, but so does Iran, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, etc. Beginning to see a trend? If we had pursued sanctions and other diplomatic types of punitive measures we would not be in the mess we are in right now in Iraq. We just wouldn't be. It's that simple. And it's not like he came over here and tried to assassinate our president. H.W.Bush was in Iraq when that happened.

What exactly do you think Saddam was bluffing about?

[glockmail]

Well, we've found out since the invasion that Saddam was bluffing about everything. Evidence shows that he did not interact with al-Qaeda and that he did not have any on-going WMD programs. Sure, he gave terrorists passage throught his country, but so does Iran, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, etc. Beginning to see a trend? If we had pursued sanctions and other diplomatic types of punitive measures we would not be in the mess we are in right now in Iraq. We just wouldn't be. It's that simple. And it's not like he came over here and tried to assassinate our president. H.W.Bush was in Iraq when that happened.

Evidence also shows that Saddam did have WMDs, and was making more. Evidence also shows that he was not simply allowing passage with terrorists, but harboring and training them as well. We obviously disagree with the relative weight of the evidence, but it is obvious that the President belived Saddam was a grave and present danger to the US and our allies.

There is also the matter of Saddam's attempt to assassinate an ex-US President, which would have been the first time in history that another country was able to hurt us in that way. Politically we don't know whatbthe fallout of that could have been if Saddam had been sucessful.

So assume for a moment that the President was correct on his assumptions. Im asking you again to humor me: What "legal and other means" would have been available, not simply to punish Saddam, but to stop him from supporting terrorists, attempting to assassinate US presidents, and from building and using WMD's?

[Gaffer]

Well, we've found out since the invasion that Saddam was bluffing about everything. Evidence shows that he did not interact with al-Qaeda and that he did not have any on-going WMD programs. Sure, he gave terrorists passage throught his country, but so does Iran, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, etc. Beginning to see a trend? If we had pursued sanctions and other diplomatic types of punitive measures we would not be in the mess we are in right now in Iraq. We just wouldn't be. It's that simple. And it's not like he came over here and tried to assassinate our president. H.W.Bush was in Iraq when that happened.

Evidence from who? The MSM? There is now a lot more evidence that saddam WAS pursuing the weapons. That what he had was convoyed across the syria border. That he harbored and trained al queda and other terrorist groups, not just safe passage. Sanctions and punitive measures would have just continued to enrich the french, germans, and russians. Would have allowed terror operations to be launched from iraq and an even bigger war would have had to be fought.

[theHawk]

Blah, blah, blah. I'd like for you to explain to me and the rest of the posters just how fucking "free" Iraq is right now. Opinion polls give a gauge of the opinions of the populace. If you don't think that's important in a so-called "republic" where our representatives are supposed to reflect the public's viewpoints then you're a retard and I can't help you.

Iraq is very free, to the point where its too free and there is much lawlessness. The only polls that matter are election ones. But oh yea I forgot, if Republicans get elected it was a fraud, if Dems get elected it was the will of the people. I can't help you if you're a retard and believe every election you lose is rigged. You also seem to have forgotten that the polls in April through May 2003 showed Americans by and far supported the war....anywhere form 60% to 80%.

You wouldn't be picking and choosing which polls to ignore and which to use to fit your political agenda would you?

[Hagbard Celine]

Iraq is very free, to the point where its too free and there is much lawlessness. The only polls that matter are election ones. But oh yea I forgot, if Republicans get elected it was a fraud, if Dems get elected it was the will of the people. I can't help you if you're a retard and believe every election you lose is rigged. You also seem to have forgotten that the polls in April through May 2003 showed Americans by and far supported the war....anywhere form 60% to 80%.

You wouldn't be picking and choosing which polls to ignore and which to use to fit your political agenda would you?

I never said anything about poll numbers on Iraq. You're linking two things together and spinning it to make me look bad. Typical. If you read the original posts, you'll see that I was explaining why polls are important since you seem to think that they mean nothing and should be ignored once your "king" is elected :rolleyes: You wouldn't be picking and choosing which words of mine to ignore and which ones to use to fit your political agenda would you? Nah. You wouldn't do that. :rolleyes:

You're such a batsh*t crazy rightwing extremist that if I wrote "The president's jokes killed at the party the other night," you'd probably spin it to make it sound like I said "I wanted to kill the president at the party the other night." You're like a rabid animal. Anytime any left-thinking poster posts anything on this board "the sky is blue" "grass is green" you pounce on it and rip them to shreds (or think you're ripping them to shreds). You're lame and you're no fun to post with. Every one of your posts has a nasty, condescending hateful tone to it. Do everybody a favor and chill out.

And you're right, most Americans did support going to Iraq. But that support was based on faulty intelligence that Colin Powell, Condoleeza, Dick and W. paraded around on television for three months convincing us all that Saddam was on the verge of launching a nuke at us. What a joke. Remember the "mobile chemical weapons factories on the backs of trucks?" or the ever insightful comment from Rice about the "mushroom cloud?" What a bunch of liars they were! It's a damn travesty that these people were put into power.

And now we know, contrary to what the pundits on Fox News maybe feeding you, that Saddam never had WMDs. He had shut down his chemical and bio-weapons programs. The only weapons he had were some WWII weapons like mustard gas and mortars that every country has stockpiled and a couple of 1970s mig jets that somehow survived the first gulf war. Nothing you say is true. It's all spun and re-spun bullsh*t you gleamed from Rush Limbaugh and the like. Read a real newspaper every now and then instead of exclusively rightwing blogs and you'll notice a discrepancy. We know conclusively from things like the Downing St. Memo, the Baker Hamilton Report, the 9/11 Commission's findings that Iraq had no connection to Al-Qaeda pre 9/11, the Iraq Commission on Intelligence that concluded that the intelligence community was "dead wrong" on the intel that lead to the Iraq adventure, Joseph Wilson's original report before the war, which proved false the president's claims that Iraq was continuing with a nuclear program and was subsequently ignored, etc. We KNOW that Saddam posed no threat so why does your side so fervently insist that we stay in the conflict and continue to allege that it was not a mistake to enter Iraq? It's f*cking stupid to make such allegations given the overwhelming body of evidence to the contrary.

[Hagbard Celine]

Iraq is very free, to the point where its too free and there is much lawlessness.
Oh, and I almost forgot to comment on this little gem. This IS a joke right? If it's not you need to see a psychologist.

[theHawk]

I never said anything about poll numbers on Iraq. You're linking two things together and spinning it to make me look bad.

Well lets see, you were the one that brought up opinions of the populace after mentioning Iraq.

Opinion polls give a gauge of the opinions of the populace.



Typical. If you read the original posts, you'll see that I was explaining why polls are important since you seem to think that they mean nothing and should be ignored once your "king" is elected :rolleyes:
I did read your posts, thus my post on how liberals like yourself are more concerned with popularity rather than doing what is right.





You're such a batsh*t crazy rightwing extremist that if I wrote "The president's jokes killed at the party the other night," you'd probably spin it to make it sound like I said "I wanted to kill the president at the party the other night." You're like a rabid animal. Anytime any left-thinking poster posts anything on this board "the sky is blue" "grass is green" you pounce on it and rip them to shreds (or think you're ripping them to shreds). You're lame and you're no fun to post with. Every one of your posts has a nasty, condescending hateful tone to it. Do everybody a favor and chill out.

And yours don't?




And you're right, most Americans did support going to Iraq. But that support was based on faulty intelligence that Colin Powell, Condoleeza, Dick and W. paraded around on television for three months convincing us all that Saddam was on the verge of launching a nuke at us. What a joke. Remember the "mobile chemical weapons factories on the backs of trucks?" or the ever insightful comment from Rice about the "mushroom cloud?" What a bunch of liars they were! It's a damn travesty that these people were put into power.

Funny, I recall the war being about alot more than WMDs. But go ahead, keep making excuses for your wishes that Saddam still be in power.



Joseph Wilson's original report before the war, which proved false the president's claims that Iraq was continuing with a nuclear program and was subsequently ignored, etc. We KNOW that Saddam posed no threat so why does your side so fervently insist that we stay in the conflict and continue to allege that it was not a mistake to enter Iraq? It's f*cking stupid to make such allegations given the overwhelming body of evidence to the contrary.
Oh, so you are one of the idiots that believes Joe Wilson.
Say Haggy, do you think you could show us a copy of this "report" that PROVED FALSE the President's claim? Joe Wilson didn't prove anything, he wasn't even being payed by the government at the time, much less tasked with investigating possible Uranium purchases by Iraq in Niger (even if they didn't seek Uranium from Niger, how does that prove or disprove anything about Iraq's intentions?). But of course libs like you never bother to stop and ask who Joe Wilson is, if he was really officially investigating anything, or where this report is. You just hear someone attack the President, and your right there supporting them. Nice job, you politcal hack :clap:

Saddam posed no threat eh? Try telling that to Kuwaiti or Kurdish folks. Not to mention our Air Force pilots that had to patrol the No Fly Zone for a decade with Saddam violating it all the time.

[theHawk]

Oh, and I almost forgot to comment on this little gem. This IS a joke right? If it's not you need to see a psychologist.
Take a chill pill dude. The point is people would rather be fighting for their own freedom than oppressed without any hope at all. You're the one that implies people would be better off under totalitarian regimes than not. Me thinks its you that needs to see a psychologist, sir. :poke:

[glockmail]

Oh, and I almost forgot ..... Still waiting for you to respond to post 88.

[theHawk]

Still waiting for you to respond to post 88.

He probably won't answer it, at least not truthfully. Short answer is there is no justification for going to war if "we" weren't attacked. Although it was OK for Clinton to go to war in Bosnia even though we weren't attacked, and it was OK in April 2003 when the Democrats voted for the war even though we weren't attacked. It was OK to go to war in Bosnia because it helped people, but its not OK to go to war in order to help free people now. Clear now? :lol:
You're asking a liberal to bone up and state what are the conditions in which war is just. Good luck.