john kerry loses chance of 2008 candidacy in one sentence

[gtluke]

one sentence, yesterday.
"You know, education, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don't, you get stuck in Iraq."

he forgot the other option.
be born rich and marry the ungodly wealthy

fucking mercedes marxist, fuck that silver spoon democrat right in his ketchup stained asshole.

what an ignorant pompous disrespectful thing to say.

oh well, the 06 election is in the bag for the republicans now. his party must love him now for totally botching a hand-me election 2 years prior, and now ruining them for next week.

adios asshole

[Nate Crisman]

oh well, the 06 election is in the bag for the republicans now. his party must love him now for totally botching a hand-me election 2 years prior, and now ruining them for next week.


Dont' worry, the incumbents stillhave a week to keep preaching about Iraq and national security (aka the same crap we have had to hear about for the last 2 years that less and less people actually buy)

I belive out of the 57 incumbent house and senate seats that are up for reelection, only 45 of them (all republican held) are getting more than 40% at the preview polls.

Most of the country's voters didn't like kerry last year,proboboly even a high majority of the people that did vote for him. I highly doubt what he says has that much push on local states vote on thier Dem house/senate seat choice. Do you really think that Kerry saying something dumb has even as much affect as the dumb shit the presedent says all the time?

Kerry shot himself in the foot for any possible 2008 campain with that statement, but I doubt he would get the nommination anyway. What affect he has over senate and house seats....probobly negligable.

[rsk_wannabe]

I belive out of the 57 incumbent house and senate seats that are up for reelection, only 45 of them (all republican held) are getting more than 40% at the preview polls.

So if Republicans win those seats based on Kerry's comments would they be known as "Heinz 57"?

[Nate Crisman]

[quote="Nate@DSMotorsport":n57n3s03]I belive out of the 57 incumbent house and senate seats that are up for reelection, only 45 of them (all republican held) are getting more than 40% at the preview polls.

So if Republicans win those seats based on Kerry's comments would they be known as "Heinz 57"?[/quote:n57n3s03]

Nice. It would certainly be egg on the face of the Left. Is there egg in ketsup? Does heinz make mayo?

[Utah Joe]

Depending on how much the media harps on this in the next week, it might have a small effect on turnout. But no polls from now until then would be able to track it anyway. However, looks like kerry "dean'd" himself with that stupid ass remark.

[gtluke]

nate don't forge that early polls are almost always incorrect. they favor the democratic side. maybe because of media bias but more than likely because democrats are more likely to answer a pollster than to actually leave their house and go and vote.
and the exact opposite is probably true for republicans, they don't answer polls but are more likely to actually show up on election day than democratic voters.
see the 2000 and 2004 election for proof. the democrats were "supposed" to win both times but didn't.

[Nate Crisman]

Depending on how much the media harps on this in the next week, it might have a small effect on turnout. But no polls from now until then would be able to track it anyway. However, looks like kerry "dean'd" himself with that stupid ass remark.

I was actually thinking about the Dean Scream when I saw the Kerry stuff on TV this morning. HAHAHAH

I would hope most people that are smart enough to figure out how to opperate a pencil and actaully vote can make the mental leap of knowing that one persons's view does not represent the entire political party.

[gtluke]

but nate, their party is who elected him to be the candidate. he represents them, they represent him.

[Nate Crisman]

nate don't forge that early polls are almost always incorrect. they favor the democratic side. maybe because of media bias but more than likely because democrats are more likely to answer a pollster than to actually leave their house and go and vote.
and the exact opposite is probably true for republicans, they don't answer polls but are more likely to actually show up on election day than democratic voters.
see the 2000 and 2004 election for proof. the democrats were "supposed" to win both times but didn't.

I have no idea where you come up with your cause/effect relationships and how you come to some of the conclusions you do. :lol: you sure can make some broad generalizations with little data behind it. How can you tell from 2004 election data how many R vs D took pre election polls vs who actually voted? I gotta see this. :!:

[gtluke]

because the pre election polls showed the democrats ahead, and the actual vote didn't
you can only conclude that either the polling is fucked, the media is fucked, or a whole shit load of democrats forgot to vote or a whole shitload of republicans lied in their early poll.

[Nate Crisman]

but nate, their party is who elected him to be the candidate. he represents them, they represent him.

I simply don't see it that way. He's one guy. I don't think every single republican stands behind the pres and has the exact same stance on every issue. And I don't take every stupid thing Bush says and say "wow, every repubilcan in this country is a dumbass". Do I think every republican is a lier and backtracker? no.

Do I think every democrat is like kerry no, of course not.

If both parties were 100% aligned with Kerry or Bush...holy shit...we would have a country of all assholes.

[twizzle]

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/Oc ... msfeld.htm (http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/October2006/301006Rumsfeld.htm)

wtf mate?

[Nate Crisman]

because the pre election polls showed the democrats ahead, and the actual vote didn't
you can only conclude that either the polling is fucked, the media is fucked, or a whole shit load of democrats forgot to vote or a whole shitload of republicans lied in their early poll.

Or the 10% of "undecided" in the early poll finally made up thier mind as they went to the booth that day (like I did). That would mean it has nothing to do with democrats being lazy, or republicans lying to early polls or being more likely to actually vote. you pulled that out of your ass! Why don't you just make everyting up in your head and try to find the info to prove it later? Sounds like you would have made a great Iraq invader.

There is an undecided option on early polls. There is no "I don't know yet" on the actaul ballot. :wink: That makes all the differance.

If the early poll was 100% accurate...it would BE THE VOTE! it's a guestimate at best.

But when 40 guestimates all point the same way, along with approval ratings in general being pretty shitty, Id say it means something. maybe not alot, but something.

[gtluke]

here, exactly 2 years ago today, Nov. 1st 2004
Electoral Vote Predictor 2004: Kerry 298 Bush 231

this is from www.electoral-vote.com (http://www.electoral-vote.com)
they are a very very comprehensive statistical database of all election poll data. the polls are fucked in some way.

[Nate Crisman]

here, exactly 2 years ago today, Nov. 1st 2004
Electoral Vote Predictor 2004: Kerry 298 Bush 231

this is from www.electoral-vote.com (http://www.electoral-vote.com)
they are a very very comprehensive statistical database of all election poll data. the polls are fucked in some way.

I don't dissagree the polls were wrong. I do dissagree with your guess reason WHY they were wrong.

[Nate Crisman]

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/October2006/301006Rumsfeld.htm

wtf mate?

HEH. sounds like he doesn't have his story straight. Pretty common in this administration.

[gtluke]

using my statistical background in psychology i can conclude that it basically it boils down to this statement:

during the lead up to the 2004 election, people replying to pre election polls were more likely to vote democrat than republican. people who showed up at the ballot box were more likely to vote republican than democrat.

in conclusion we can determine that democrats are lazy non self initiating and only respond and hardly assertive.
:)

[gtluke]

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/October2006/301006Rumsfeld.htm

wtf mate?

HEH. sounds like he doesn't have his story straight. Pretty common in this administration.

yeah.. the other guys never get shit wrong

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry Jan, 2003


"Saddam Hussein Certainly Has Chemical And Biological Weapons. There's No Question About That." Rep. Nancy Pelosi, 11/17/02

"We Have Known For Many Years That Saddam Hussein Is Seeking And Developing Weapons Of Mass Destruction." - Sen. Ted Kennedy, 9/27/02


"Everything the President Says About Saddam Hussein Is True" - DNC Chairman Howard Dean, 12/22/02


"I Can Support The President, I Can Support An Action Against Saddam Hussein Because I Think It's In The Long-Term Interests Of Our National Security …" - Sen. Hillary Clinton: 9/15/02


"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." - Madeline Albright, 1998


"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." - Bill Clinton in 1998


"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." - Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998

[Nate Crisman]

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/October2006/301006Rumsfeld.htm

wtf mate?

HEH. sounds like he doesn't have his story straight. Pretty common in this administration.

yeah.. the other guys never get shit wrong


Without question, they all do on both sides say stupid things and make remarks that are looked at in hindsight as moronic.

What I can conclude to this is that just about every politician Bush, KErry, Clinton, or Kennedy will just go along with the flow and tell you want you want to hear, or what they want to belive is true...regardless of reality.

They are all lying, missinformed, or stupid. Pick one. When the shit hits the fan, who is in charge and should bear responsibility?

Point 2: Don't go ripping on Kerry as a dumbass and making rediculus comments, when you can't accept that the other side does the exact same thing. The Rep side has just as much idiodicy as the Dem side.

[Nate Crisman]

using my statistical background in psychology i can conclude that it basically it boils down to this statement:

during the lead up to the 2004 election, people replying to pre election polls were more likely to vote democrat than republican. people who showed up at the ballot box were more likely to vote republican than democrat.

in conclusion we can determine that democrats are lazy non self initiating and only respond and hardly assertive.
:)

I say your stastistical background in psychology is wrong. I dont' give a shit if you have a degree in something, when your not right, your not right.

All you can tell is that the pre election polls said people were more likely to vote democrat, and at the actual polls more voted republican.

you have no data to say how many of each at early poll actually voted. The reason can easily be that every single early poller went to vote and changed thier mind at the last second.

Your conclusion CANNOT be drawn from this data. You can just as easily conclude that every republican went to the poll and voted for kerry, and every democrat went to the poll and voted Bush. That would work out the same way.

In short, your pulling assumtions out of your ass agian. :P

[gtluke]

nga please
its simiple
people who would vote for the democrat candidate are more likely to respond to polls than to vote.
its not rocket science nate. its statistical information. there is not conclusion unless you interview all the bagillion people who voted and replied to polls.

my answer (minus my humor the first time) is a completely accurate hypothesis of the 2004 pre-election poll to election data.

[gtluke]

i have less faith in this statement but this could also be true

"people who would vote for the republican candidate are more likely to refuse or falsify pre-election polls than people who would vote for the democratic candidate."

[Nate Crisman]

nga please
its simiple
people who would vote for the democrat candidate are more likely to respond to polls than to vote.
its not rocket science nate. its statistical information. there is not conclusion unless you interview all the bagillion people who voted and replied to polls.

my answer (minus my humor the first time) is a completely accurate hypothesis of the 2004 pre-election poll to election data.

Yeah, call it whatever statistical term you want...it was pulled from your bias'd anus and it smells like Don Jose.

You have no hard data to back up your assumption other than your bias'd guess.

Why don't you just admit that you have a grudge against democrats and will bend the facts to make them look bad. Im pretty sure everyone can see it, be they conservative or liberal.

Maybe you should be writing campaign commercials instead of working on poop water machines? You seem to be pretty good at making shit up to suit your position.

[Nate Crisman]

i have less faith in this statement but this could also be true

"people who would vote for the republican candidate are more likely to refuse or falsify pre-election polls than people who would vote for the democratic candidate."

I have just as much faith in this statement as I do in yours:

"People who would vote for the republican candidate are more likely to masterbate in the pollbooth and shake your hand after than people who would vote for the democratic candidate."

I have the data to back it up, I got you and Utah at the poll on tape shaking hands.

[gtluke]

ugh
how am i bending anything to suit me? its been over for 2 years.

FACT - polls show democrat will win election
FACT - polls were grossly wrong

polls can be wrong several ways, the pollster or the sample.
i'm going to just give zogby and rassmussen the benefit of the doubt that they know how to properly administer a poll.

so, SOMETHING is wrong with the sample.
you have 2 choices
a considerable portion of the sample is lying for unknown reasons.
or
polls data is gathered from a sample not representative of people who vote.

or if you want, that the pollsters are jaded. but i doubt that.

please, if you have any other theories as to why the polls are wrong please let me know instead of just saying "no"

[Nate Crisman]

ugh
how am i bending anything to suit me? its been over for 2 years.

FACT - polls show democrat will win election
FACT - polls were grossly wrong

polls can be wrong several ways, the pollster or the sample.
i'm going to just give zogby and rassmussen the benefit of the doubt that they know how to properly administer a poll.

so, SOMETHING is wrong with the sample.
you have 2 choices
a considerable portion of the sample is lying for unknown reasons.
or
polls data is gathered from a sample not representative of people who vote.

or if you want, that the pollsters are jaded. but i doubt that.

please, if you have any other theories as to why the polls are wrong please let me know instead of just saying "no"


The polls weren't WRONG, there were just more otions.

Example : poll 1000 random people. Results:
50% democrat
40% republican
10% undecided


Actual recorded vote of same 1000 people:
48% democrat
52% republican


you can conclude by guess many things, most of them being incorrect.

That 2% democrats were lazy and 12%+ republicans got out to vote :roll:

That something changed peoples minds inbetween the entry poll and the actaul vote....SHIT didn't think of that. :P people can change thier mind, especially at the last moment when faced with a choice between a shit taco or turd on a stick.

The most important thing is entry polls have a third option of "I don't know" that will get distributed among the 2 main choices when it comes time for the real election. How many of the original 10% undecided went R vs D? you will never know, the data isn't there.

for all you know both the early poll and the actual vote were 100% accurate, and the change/error was actually voters changing thier minds.

Gee, didn't think of that :idea:


Im going to bed, I got real problems to deal with tommorrow like keeping alex from jumping off the top of the couch. Far more important than arguing politics :D

[gtluke]

the ballot box doesn't have "undecided" so the pre-election poll wouldn't either. if it did, it wouldn't be a valid poll, it would be bullshit.

[Nate Crisman]

the ballot box doesn't have "undecided" so the pre-election poll wouldn't either. if it did, it wouldn't be a valid poll, it would be bullshit.

It does, and it is.

[gtluke]

no, they don't
maybe bullshit polls for news websites or something, but not the serious statistical polls i'm talking about.
zogby, rassmussen, gallop...
they use:
if the election were held today, would you vote for _ or _?
they more than likely randomize what they put in the blanks for more accurate polling and not accidental push polling.
they will alternate democrat and republican, or the candidates names, or a combination of both.

they then follow that question with a series of other questions to place you in a category or a more specific poll
"did you vote in the 2004 election, did you vote in the 2002 election"
they aren't going to count your "vote" if you are 50 years old and never voted before. they attempt to figure out who is actually going to get to the poll.

something is off. popular consensus is that democrats answer polls more than they vote.
it could possibly be some other freak thing unaccounted for so far such as the possibility that republicans don't answer their house phone, or rely only a cell phone which pollsters don't call.
or republicans simply don't answer polls as often and hang up.

or an in person poll is placed at a more democratic ground, like in front of a starbucks or mac store :)

or they are calling or polling during the day, and are more likely to get a woman on the phone, who is more likely to vote democrat than a man.
it could be anything, but most obvious and controllable things like your sample group should be accounted for and i'm sure they are. like calling at all times of the day and evening and averaging shit out, or only taking 51 women for every 49 men.

come on,
you are arguing with a guy who reads the US Census for fun, i live for this shit.

[Utah Joe]

well this story is still #1 on every news station. Kerry's screwed up worse with his rant yesterday. He probablly could have put the entire thing to rest with apolgy, but he chose to say "fuck that" His choice, but now the story is lingering and causing it to be #1 on every debate show. I didn't think it would last this long, but now I am really thinking that this story could actually effect turnout.

[Utah Joe]

I would hope most people that are smart enough to figure out how to opperate a pencil and actaully vote can make the mental leap of knowing that one persons's view does not represent the entire political party.

See its not that so much. I mean people do associate kerry with democrats, but I don't think that is where the major damage would be done. Since only about 25% of us vote, turn out is the real killer. The media pounding this story and Kerry fighting back with the venom that he had yesterday is getting people that might have just stayed home to come out and vote. I will be suprised it kerry says another word in public from now until next week. Anything he says, short of "I really fucked up and I'm sorry" will just keep adding fuel to this media storm. Which I think will have an effect on republican turnout.

[gtluke]

#1 in every news but the new york times and msnbc
but, thats to be expected.

[Utah Joe]

#1 in every news but the new york times and msnbc
but, thats to be expected.

ya, which was another great move by them too. The fact that the NY times BURIED this story on page 18 was a huge story this morning on CNN and fox. It was front page on every paper except the times. Once again, bringing more attention to this story.

[Nate Crisman]

[quote="Nate@DSMotorsport":1d2dx7wr]

I would hope most people that are smart enough to figure out how to opperate a pencil and actaully vote can make the mental leap of knowing that one persons's view does not represent the entire political party.

See its not that so much. I mean people do associate kerry with democrats, but I don't think that is where the major damage would be done. Since only about 25% of us vote, turn out is the real killer. The media pounding this story and Kerry fighting back with the venom that he had yesterday is getting people that might have just stayed home to come out and vote. I will be suprised it kerry says another word in public from now until next week. Anything he says, short of "I really fucked up and I'm sorry" will just keep adding fuel to this media storm. Which I think will have an effect on republican turnout.[/quote:1d2dx7wr]

you know they really should make voting manditory somehow. Like "you can't get your drivers liscense renewed without your poll stub" or you get 5% added onto your income tax if you fail to show up.

The whole deal of under 30% turnout is really pathetic. Like Mr Black says: Who are we to spread democracy? It's so great, you don't have to fucking do it!

[gtluke]

did you see the vote turnout for iraq?
but they don't want this right?
yawn

[gtluke]

oh and i think its arizona that is having a lottery and the only way to get a lottery ticket is if you vote.

[Utah Joe]

I disagree, I dont want people who want nothing to do with voting to vote. If you have no intrest in politics, no problem, dont vote. If you make people vote, they are going to just go in and push buttons without any intrest or thought. I would rather 25% of the country who are concerned and intrested vote. If the other 75% could give a shit and would vote for plant life, then I'm glad they stay home. Nate, there was a place where people were required to vote. It was Iraqi under saddams rule. Lewis Black had it perfect. The great thing about our country and representive republic (NOT DEMOCRACY!!!) is that you dont have to do a fucking thing it you choose not to.

[Nate Crisman]

I disagree, I dont want people who want nothing to do with voting to vote. If you have no intrest in politics, no problem, dont vote. If you make people vote, they are going to just go in and push buttons without any intrest or thought. I would rather 25% of the country who are concerned and intrested vote. If the other 75% could give a shit and would vote for plant life, then I'm glad they stay home. Nate, there was a place where people were required to vote. It was Iraqi under saddams rule. Lewis Black had it perfect. The great thing about our country and representive republic (NOT DEMOCRACY!!!) is that you dont have to do a fucking thing it you choose not to.

I see your point and now agree. Maybe rather than manditory, good incentives to get involved and vote would be more in order.

The whole deal with politics just seems so obsurd that you hear so much of it on TV. Such heated debate and such uproar. But then the vast majority of the country could really give 2 shits about it when it actually means something in Nov. Pretty sad.

If only 25% actaully care enough to vote, why is politics on TV 80% of the time. :P

[satanpez]

WE DEMOCRATS DON'T VOTE BECAUSE WE'RE DISENFRANCHISED!

-Steve in NJ

[gtluke]

http://www.drudgereport.com/irak.jpg

[DrSmile]

It seems that even if you "studied" and went to Yale with a C average, you'd STILL be stuck in Iraq :? AND if you went to Yale with a C average, you STILL don't know when to keep your trap shut!

I personally never thought we were "stuck" in Iraq. We still aren't. Once the money for the subcontractors runs out, we'll be out of there in a real hurry! :roll:

I also love the current fashionable question "Do you want to win the war in Iraq?" that the republicans are asking... Black and White with no shades of grey... What if you CAN'T win the war in Iraq?

[Nate Crisman]

I also love the current fashionable question "Do you want to win the war in Iraq?" that the republicans are asking... Black and White with no shades of grey... What if you CAN'T win the war in Iraq?

It doesn't matter if the question is valid or not, all that matters is that you can trap your enemy into a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" answer on tape to exploit. :roll:

[gtluke]

well honestly, they are asking a news company that was running terrorist propaganda for the enemy that they received from the enemy.

thats some serious backstabbing.

[Utah Joe]

its still pretty big news today. I guess its fitting considering how badly everyone freaked out when GWB said the word shit.

[gtluke]

"I am convinced a volunteer army would be an army of the poor and the black and the brown" John Kerry

[gtluke]

well the times ran a story, a complete blatant cover up lie about the story though.
http://patterico.com/2006/11/02/5332/ne ... s-remarks/ (http://patterico.com/2006/11/02/5332/new-york-times-lies-to-its-readers-about-the-content-of-kerrys-remarks/)

[Flashgordon]

Did you actually expect anything else from that pos paper? I have more respect for the National Inquirer. :lol: :cry:

[gtluke]

i know i know.
but people still take it as the gospel truth.

[DrSmile]

I have to agree with Jon Stewart. Somehow it seems odd to be offended when the troops are insulted, but not to be so offended when they are sent in harms way for the wrong reasons... No one has died as a consequence of insult.

[Utah Joe]

No one has died as a consequence of insult.

thats retarded. Does that mean I can say that any member of the military is a "fucking pole smoker" without them getting offended because I have not killed any of them?

[Nate Crisman]

No one has died as a consequence of insult.

thats retarded. Does that mean I can say that any member of the military is a "fucking pole smoker" without them getting offended because I have not killed any of them?

No it mean if should be offended that someone would call a member of our military a "fucking pole smoker", you should be EVEN MORE offended that they are being put in harms way for questionable reasons.

[Utah Joe]

some people do and some dont. Being put there for the so called wrong reason is debatable. What kerry said is not debatable on the fact that it is an offensive comment. (weather or not he meant to say what he said).

[DrSmile]

Death is hardly a debatable end result. It contains a certain implication of permanence. If you ask any rational, non-gay... I mean non-REPUBLICAN person, they'd prefer being alive over being insulted.

[Utah Joe]

Death is hardly a debatable end result. It contains a certain implication of permanence. If you ask any rational, non-gay... I mean non-REPUBLICAN person, they'd prefer being alive over being insulted.

It really doesn't matter. 85% of the military votes for the people who supposed lied and made them go there for no reason. I guess they are more offended by kerry's comments than by fighting in this war.

[DrSmile]

That's a stupid statistic... I'm assuming you're basing this on the 2004 Military Times survey of its readership (primarily career military officers and enlisted personnel), which does not include junior or short-term military. This falls under the category of a) the military is part of the industrial military complex, hence it's members have a vested interest in voting republican and b) career military personell that would be opposed to GW's policy would unlikely have remained in the military long enough to become "career" personell.

It's like asking Greenpeace members whether they would vote for oil exploration in Antarctica.

[Utah Joe]

no I am not basing it on any survey, I am basing it on prior elections (2000, 2002, 2004) of which military personal voted republican about 85% of the time.

[gtluke]

I have to agree with Jon Stewart. Somehow it seems odd to be offended when the troops are insulted, but not to be so offended when they are sent in harms way for the wrong reasons... No one has died as a consequence of insult.

we should have listened to the liberals


"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry Jan, 2003


"Saddam Hussein Certainly Has Chemical And Biological Weapons. There's No Question About That." Rep. Nancy Pelosi, 11/17/02

"We Have Known For Many Years That Saddam Hussein Is Seeking And Developing Weapons Of Mass Destruction." - Sen. Ted Kennedy, 9/27/02


"Everything the President Says About Saddam Hussein Is True" - DNC Chairman Howard Dean, 12/22/02


"I Can Support The President, I Can Support An Action Against Saddam Hussein Because I Think It's In The Long-Term Interests Of Our National Security …" - Sen. Hillary Clinton: 9/15/02


"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." - Madeline Albright, 1998


"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." - Bill Clinton in 1998


"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." - Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998

[Utah Joe]

I wonder if kerry just botched another joke then when he made those statements.

[Utah Joe]

looks like the case for WMD's got stronger today. wow, the ny-times is running this no less.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/03/world/middleeast/03cnd-documents.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5094&en=d6e60f288e881789&hp&ex=1162616400&partner=homepage

[DrSmile]

No the case didn't get any stronger... Many countries, heck even individuals know HOW to build a bomb... but in order to build a bomb you typically have to enrich Uranium, a LOT of it using a LOT of GIANT centrifuges over a LONG period of time. If Iraq had had a clandestine nuclear program, we would have seen tons upon tons of evidence of it after Saddam was toppled. There is NO WAY IN HELL Iraq had such a program. Newsweek had a nice article on what exactly it takes to build a nuke, it is not a straightforward engineering task. The only way Iraq could feasibly have had a nuke would have been to buy it from the Russians or Chinese. Or maybe from us back in the 80s...

And as for the silly liberal quotes Luke, I remember that long ago, and back before we invaded Iraq any RATIONAL person, liberal or conservative, knew that going in there would be a really bad idea. But the neocons were so totally self-involved in their new world order which they apparently copied from a cracker-jack box that they went in guns blazing regardless. I do indeed fault the democrats for for not taking a stand. I fault them for that now even in this election. But a democrat does not a liberal make, the neocons just have managed to incorrectly equate the two.

[gtluke]

thats because democrats have fantastic hindsight, but absolutely no foresight.
i'm glad we are there
all of my highschool friend either are or have been there and they tell me they are glad we are there so i'm standing by them.
i trust even my internet buddies that are there. TONS of them.
even bob cosby is there.
not a single one has had anything negative to say so far.

[satanpez]

Factory Stock Iraq?

[Nate Crisman]

Looks like Kerry's damage didn't really mean crap. Landslide wins for Dems in the house taking 17 seats and control away from Rep in the house. 3 seats so far in Senate, control is also possible. 3 of 4 remianing senate seats are within half of a %, too close to call yet at 1am. possible recounts coming.

Looks like we will have a woman as speaker of the house for first time ever.

FOX news is what im watching, just to be sure I get "fair and balanced" info. Thier exit polls are saying the major reason is dissatisfaction with handling of Iraq and republican corruption/sex scandals. No mention of Kerry Blunders tonight on TV.

Alot of talk about The Terminator in CA running as REP and smoking the other guy running as DEM in a "Double D" state. something like 61%/32% he wins by. Consolation prize.

[Nate Crisman]

Dems are ahead in all 4 of the undecided senate seats as of 1:15 AM with 80%+ reporting.

Fox of course will not call it for a D untill they have to, but it's likely Dem will pick up all 4 remaining senate seats for a gain of 7+ and control of the senate as well as the house.

[Nate Crisman]

some Exit poll info:

Feelings about war in Iraq:
19% Strongly approve
22% Somewhat approve
16% somewhat disapprove
43% Strongly disapprove

Troops in Iraq:
17% send more
23% maintain level
28% withdraw some
32% withdraw all


Watching MSNBC to see another painted picture. There going through it state by state...holy crap, there were ALOT of blowouts with imcumbents losing seats to D challengers by double digit margens even in middle america conservative states.

Tommorrow statistic should be interesting to see how substantial of a change this makes overall. The talking head on MSNBC is saying a likely takeover ratio of 85% D successfully taking over R seats. And Rep having a total 0% gain, only holding onto a few seats by slim margins.

"A blowout of epic porportions" :lol:

[Nate Crisman]

Missouri R concedes to D
Montana D lead is growing with more counts 50/47, a R concession is expected within a half hour.
Virginia is within 1% for D so it will be recounted unless the R concedes tonight.

Looks like Democrats will take control of both house and senate here.

Talk is now of Hillary Clinton being senate majority leader, and Poulusy being Speaker of the House. Both Woman D. :shock:

[Utah Joe]

no suprise, the house average is 31 seats lost to the presidents party in a mid term election. They got 26. its going to be a while before anyone knows about the senate.

[DrSmile]

That statistic is again both misleading and incorrect, stop listening to Ann Coulter on Fox. To wit:

1946
55
Republicans

1950
28
Republicans

1954
19
Democrats

1958
49
Democrats

1962
2
Republicans

1966
47
Republicans

1970
12
Democrats

1974
49
Democrats

1978
15
Republicans

1982
27
Democrats

1986
5
Democrats

1990
7
Democrats

1994
54
Republicans

1998
5
Democrats

2002
8
Republicans

Average gain:
25.47

A few big swing elections artificially inflate the average, and there are years like 2002 where the ruling party picked up votes.

[gtluke]

rene i think its specifically a 2nd term, mid term.
i know historically you almost didn't even have to have a vote, that this election is like an exact prediction of past elections.
i am surprised though that the polls were correct. i believe this is the first time since 94 or something where the polls were even remotely close.
FAR from a landslide. most of these polls are retarded close, down to less than 1% in many many cases. and 30 seat pickup out of 435 total, half available, not a landslide.

the only upsetting thing is that nancy pelosi is now speaker. that woman disgusts me. she claims she will work with the president, but has voted against like every god damn thing he's ever tried to do, except the war in iraq, she supported him fully on that. shhh

anyway the woman voted to keep partial birth abortion, which to me is the most wrong thing on the face of the planet to do to a baby.
BUT VOTED AGAINST THE DEATH PENALTY
i mean come on, kill the perfectly innocent but save the life of the criminal because there is a chance he might be innocent?
or you are just against killing? unless its a baby?
thats fucked up.

i have no stance on abortion, but i think partial birth abortion is just totally fucking wrong. just push it out and give it away. i don't get it at all how people can justify partial birth abortion.

plus i've been to her city. its horrid. its so expensive to do ANYTHING in san francisco. $35 to park your car for 3 hours, homeless everywhere. its 10 times worse than new york.

the rest of them whatever, its to be expected. with the president and the house and senate opposing nothing will get done. thats fine with me, thats how all the popular presidents went down. don't do shit and you don't get in trouble.

[gtluke]

and rene, ann coulter doesn't work for fox. i where you get your news from :roll:

[Utah Joe]

Ok, 25, whats the difference? The point being that its very common for mid term elections to go against the presidents party. More common in the midterm of a presidents second term. That is where the average increases.

[gtluke]

how many more days do i have left to be a legal gun owner?
and is it okay to start blaming the democratic congress for everything now or do i have to wait for january?
:)

[Utah Joe]

Well whatever. Now that Murtha is going to be in charge of funding the war, he can pull all of the funds and end it. John Conyers will be in charge on the judiciary, so he can start the impeachment proceedings against the president (which he said he will do) Alcee Hastings will now be in charge of the intelligence committe, he of course is famous for being one of the only 6 federal judges in US history to be impeached. (He was bribed into changing a decision.) Pelosi of course is the definition of San Francisco liberal hippie politics. Anti Tax cuts, anti bussiness (as the dow is reflecting today), VERY anti ORV's and speaks out about banning orv use on any public land, ala the seirra club. Anti gun, anti war, against increasing our oil production. Everything a san fran hippie drving a VW bus will love Sounds like a real cracker jack group of fuckers to me. Can't wait to see my life improve. :lol:

[Nate Crisman]

Can't wait to see my life improve. :lol:

Hold the fucking phone. Your a Republican, since when did you need the government to do anything for you? Your free to just start your own capitalist business and drag yourself up by your own hard work and effort.

Get the fuck to it and stop worrying about how the Gov is going to make your life better. :D

And I can't wait to hear what you guys have to say when Hillary is Majority Leader. good stepping stone to a presidency. It's a big jump from generic senate seat to leader of the country, but 2 years leading the senate might shrink the step. :?

[Utah Joe]

[quote="Utah Joe":1v5ullxy] Can't wait to see my life improve. :lol:

Hold the fucking phone. Your a Republican, since when did you need the government to do anything for you? Your free to just start your own capitalist business and drag yourself up by your own hard work and effort. [/quote:1v5ullxy]

Exactly my point. "can't wait to see my life improve" ergo....Can't wait for more intervention from the government into my life, ala taxes, laws against ORV's, Guns, etc...




And I can't wait to hear what you guys have to say when Hillary is Majority Leader. good stepping stone to a presidency. It's a big jump from generic senate seat to leader of the country, but 2 years leading the senate might shrink the step.



In case you dont realize, pelosi is now the stepping stone, not Hillary. Pelosi is 3rd inline to be president now. Not to mention hillary is a senator which is a historically bad place to start a run for the prediency. It has only happend twice in the past 120 years. One was JFK, who did not have bill clinton as a husband. The other was a republican, warren g harding. If Rudy runs, she is going to have a very hard time, even in her own state of NY.

So what views of yours is pelosi representing nate? Other that obviously anti war. You must be happy that a spokesperson for these people is now the speaker of the house http://www.sierraclub.org/wildlands/orv/

[Nate Crisman]

Exactly my point. "can't wait to see my life improve" ergo....Can't wait for more intervention from the government into my life, ala taxes, laws against ORV's, Guns, etc...

Maybe you should have thought about how much your taxes would go up to cover the billions and billions spent on going to war. You got alot of balls to complain about your taxes going up when you support pissing away money in Iraq.



So what views of yours is pelosi representing nate? Other that obviously anti war. You must be happy that a spokesperson for these people is now the speaker of the house http://www.sierraclub.org/wildlands/orv/

Thankfully, I was not forced to choose pelosi I have not alot of info on her, since it was out of my control..being im in NJ and she is not.

But since you mention it, anti-war is a big one. Frankly the biggest issue to me. when we are at war, all the focus is on war. Taking focus off the things I think are more important: Education, Social Security, Healthcare and Insurance, and budget.

If I was forced to make the decision between anti-war/anti OHV vs Pro-War/Pro OHV well, I guess I would be likely to be giving up my dirtbike land. Not pissing away alot of money and people at war causing a need to increase taxes is kinda more important than having dirtbike land. Thankfully, that decision was not mine to make this time.

Unfortunatly I don't have a viable candidate to align with that is:
Anti war
Anti gun
Anti torture
Anti wiretapping
Anti "easy" immigration
Pro education spending increase
Pro OHV
Pro increase oil production
Pro Choice
Pro decrease OVERALL spending
Pro reigning in corperate "fuck the employees"
And legalize drugs & and tax the fuck out of them.

Im on both sides of the fence on many issues.

[quasimondo]

This just in:

President Bush accepts the resignation of Donald Rumsfeld from his post as Secretary of Defense.

[Utah Joe]

It is not out of your control. You vote for your congress person who in turn elects a speaker of the house. You voted democrat, so you voted for Pelosi. Thats the way its works unfortunetly. Otherwise there would be no point in voting against the war.

[gtluke]

i think the best choice is to just vote libertarian. in hopes they get the idea.
that way most of the things you believe in nate, can be had by moving to the right state, or electing the right people in your state.
SOME things look to be heading that way. legal gay marriage in NJ? illegal abortions in SD? legal ORV use in PA? guns illegal n CA? legal pot in KY?
thats what i'd rather see, states choose these issues. the only thing that wouldn't be solved is war. war has to be federal. but our electorates voted on this war so we can't blame anyone for that, it was all of them.

this war is so jaded by the media. i wish you guys could come to dinner with me with some of my buddies that have served over there recently.
its a real eye opening experience when they tell you about how they helped and enabled the iraqi people build a bridge that connected one village to another, so the distance between the two became a 10 minute walk, and not a 2 hour walk going to the nearest bridge across the river. from what i'm told, the locals were hugging happy that this was being done for them. not really even for them, its with them and by them. the army gave them the plans, and helped with some materials and planning but the locals built it. thats just the latest story from my friend steve who is a gunnery sergeant in the marines.

i just talked to my friend joey who served 2 tours with the marines. the first one was in falluja in its peak of violence, the second was more of an aid mission in the south or iraq. he has great stories too. but they are completely overlooked because one asshole blows himself up in a market and kills a bunch of innocent people and the news focuses on that for a week.

my friend dave did a tour there with the air force, bob cosby is now on his tour with the navy, my friend justin did a year there as a private contractor for the army, my friend darren did a year there with the army, my friend max did a tour there with the army, my friend mike did a tour there with the army.

none of them ever have things to say even resembling what you see on the nightly news, and they are the ones IN the news. nobody ever complained about lack of bullet proof vests, or armored hummers, or a "hopelessness" that the media portrays over there. they all basically give the same response. "its hard, its tough, but its worth it and we are making a difference in these people's lives and they truly appreciate it"

[Utah Joe]

. Thankfully, that decision was not mine to make this time.

Unfortunatly I don't have a viable candidate to align with that is:
Anti war
Anti gun
Anti torture
Anti wiretapping
Anti "easy" immigration
Pro education spending increase
Pro OHV
Pro increase oil production
Pro Choice
Pro decrease spending
Pro reigning in corperate "fuck the employees"
And legalize drugs & and tax the fuck out of them.

Im on both sides of the fence on many issues.

hahaha, pro decrese in spending, pro increase in education spending? How does that happen?

Anyway, your fucked, vote for plants, you will be happier :lol:

[Nate Crisman]

i think the best choice is to just vote libertarian. in hopes they get the idea.
that way most of the things you believe in nate, can be had by moving to the right state, or electing the right people in your state.
SOME things look to be heading that way. legal gay marriage in NJ? illegal abortions in SD? legal ORV use in PA? guns illegal n CA? legal pot in KY?
thats what i'd rather see, states choose these issues. the only thing that wouldn't be solved is war. war has to be federal. but our electorates voted on this war so we can't blame anyone for that, it was all of them.

this war is so jaded by the media. i wish you guys could come to dinner with me with some of my buddies that have served over there recently.
its a real eye opening experience when they tell you about how they helped and enabled the iraqi people build a bridge that connected one village to another, so the distance between the two became a 10 minute walk, and not a 2 hour walk going to the nearest bridge across the river. from what i'm told, the locals were hugging happy that this was being done for them. not really even for them, its with them and by them. the army gave them the plans, and helped with some materials and planning but the locals built it. thats just the latest story from my friend steve who is a gunnery sergeant in the marines.

i just talked to my friend joey who served 2 tours with the marines. the first one was in falluja in its peak of violence, the second was more of an aid mission in the south or iraq. he has great stories too. but they are completely overlooked because one asshole blows himself up in a market and kills a bunch of innocent people and the news focuses on that for a week.

my friend dave did a tour there with the air force, bob cosby is now on his tour with the navy, my friend justin did a year there as a private contractor for the army, my friend darren did a year there with the army, my friend max did a tour there with the army, my friend mike did a tour there with the army.

none of them ever have things to say even resembling what you see on the nightly news, and they are the ones IN the news. nobody ever complained about lack of bullet proof vests, or armored hummers, or a "hopelessness" that the media portrays over there. they all basically give the same response. "its hard, its tough, but its worth it and we are making a difference in these people's lives and they truly appreciate it"

Luke...I really do side with you that the media puts a negative spin on Iraq. I know there are good things happening there. I know our military is working hard to improve the lives and situation of Iraq's people.

But that doesn't change the fact that there are bridges in need or repair in the USA. There are starving and homeless people in our own country. We are being smoked in education and technology by Asia.

I feel our resources are better spent at home than Iraq. Pure and Simple.

The USA cannot afford to "fix up the world" and help everyone.

[Utah Joe]

This just in:

President Bush accepts the resignation of Donald Rumsfeld from his post as Secretary of Defense.

Ya he is being replaced by Robert Gates, former CIA director. Rumsfeld haters will really LOVE this guys :lol:

[quasimondo]

This just in:

President Bush accepts the resignation of Donald Rumsfeld from his post as Secretary of Defense.

Ya he is being replaced by Robert Gates, former CIA director. Rumsfeld haters will really LOVE this guys :lol:

Is he at least going to listen to his generals?

[Utah Joe]

This just in:

President Bush accepts the resignation of Donald Rumsfeld from his post as Secretary of Defense.

Ya he is being replaced by Robert Gates, former CIA director. Rumsfeld haters will really LOVE this guys :lol:

Is he at least going to listen to his generals?

lets hope so, I am all for increasing troop levels and WINNING this war. But he was a former cia director, so he is surley going to feel the love from the anti torture and wire tapping crowd.

[Nate Crisman]

lets hope so, I am all for increasing troop levels and WINNING this war. But he was a former cia director, so he is surley going to feel the love from the anti torture and wire tapping crowd.

I really want to know what consitutes WINNING this war? What criterial is to be judged for "mission completion"? (I so want to see Hillary/Polusi on an aircraft carrier in a jumpsuit under a banner :roll: )

When every terrorist is dead?
When there are no more suicide bombs in XXX weeks?
Where is the line drawn?

What I get out of the whole thing is that there is no way to win a war against an insurgency that will forever reproduce and will always have financial support and new recruits. We aren't fighting a military that will eventually run out of diesel fuel, bullets, and tanks.

My feeling is we got into a war that is essentially unwinnable, as long as it is prolonged into the next administation, then it's thier problem to deal with and look like assbags when we finally quit and withdrawl. Either we fight them forever, or eventually give up. seems Islamic militant terrorists are not going to back down..EVER. It's like trying to deflea a dog with tweezers.

So what does it take for us to WIN the war in Iraq, and bring home our troops with heads held high. Proud of what they accomplished with no whining on either side that there is unfinished business, or that the terrorists will retake Iraq? Seriously, I want to know. :idea:

I could maybe get behind the thing, so as for it all the expenditure to not be in vain. IF I knew what the goal was and it atleast seemed possible to accomplish.

[gtluke]

look at europe under the nazi's as a model for victory.
hang saddam just like mussolini
dive back the fighters until they go into hiding or kill themselves or assimilate.
reestablish borders, install governments, keep bases there for decades.
look at italy, germany, japan now... they were worse off than iraq but are now considered totally normal players in the world.

it can be done, and its worth it.
we lost more people in 1 day in WW2 than in the 3 years we have been in iraq
and that was worth it, if we hadn't charged into europe and taken insane casualties, we wouldn't have rene :)



Suppose the current media posture about American military and security activities had been in effect during World War II. It is easy to imagine that happening. In the 1930s, after all, the well-connected America First Committee had been arguing for years about the need for America to stay out of “Europe’s wars.” Aware of these popular views, the House extended the draft by only a one-vote margin in 1941. Women dressed in black crowded the entrance to the Senate, arguing against extending the draft. Several hundred students at Harvard and Yale, including future Yale leader Kingman Brewster and future American president Gerald Ford, signed statements saying that they would never go to war. Everything was in place for a media attack on the Second World War. Here is how it might have sounded if today’s customs were in effect:

December 1941. Though the press supports America’s going to war against Japan after Pearl Harbor, several editorials want to know why we didn’t prevent the attack by selling Japan more oil. Others criticize us for going to war with two nations that had never attacked us, Germany and Italy.

October 1942. The New York Times runs an exclusive story about the British effort to decipher German messages at a hidden site at Bletchley Park in England. One op-ed writer criticizes this move, quoting Henry Stimson’s statement that gentlemen do not read one another’s mail. Because the Bletchley Park code-cracking helped us find German submarines before they attacked, successful U-boat attacks increased once the Germans, knowing of the program, changed their code.

January 1943. After President Roosevelt and Prime Minister Churchill call for the unconditional surrender of the Axis powers, several newspapers criticize them for having closed the door to a negotiated settlement. The press quotes several senators complaining that the unconditional surrender policy would harm the peace process.

May 1943. A big-city newspaper reveals the existence of the Manhattan Project and its effort to build atomic weapons. In these stories, several distinguished scientists lament the creation of such a terrible weapon. After Gen. Leslie Groves testifies before a congressional committee, the press lambastes him for wasting money, ignoring scientific opinion, and imperiling the environment by building plants at Hanford and Oak Ridge.

December 1944. The German counterattack against the Allies in the Ardennes yields heavy American losses in the Battle of the Bulge. The press gives splashy coverage to the Democratic National Committee chairman’s assertion that the war cannot be won. A member of the House, a former Marine, urges that our troops be sent to Okinawa.

August 1945. After President Truman authorizes dropping the atomic bomb on Japan, many newspapers urge his impeachment.

[gtluke]

wow wikipedia updated robert gate's bio already with secretary of defense
wtf haha

[Utah Joe]

[quote="Utah Joe":3l34n7xl]
lets hope so, I am all for increasing troop levels and WINNING this war. But he was a former cia director, so he is surley going to feel the love from the anti torture and wire tapping crowd.

I really want to know what consitutes WINNING this war? What criterial is to be judged for "mission completion"? (I so want to see Hillary/Polusi on an aircraft carrier in a jumpsuit under a banner :roll: )

When every terrorist is dead?
When there are no more suicide bombs in XXX weeks?
Where is the line drawn?

What I get out of the whole thing is that there is no way to win a war against an insurgency that will forever reproduce and will always have financial support and new recruits. We aren't fighting a military that will eventually run out of diesel fuel, bullets, and tanks.

My feeling is we got into a war that is essentially unwinnable, as long as it is prolonged into the next administation, then it's thier problem to deal with and look like assbags when we finally quit and withdrawl. Either we fight them forever, or eventually give up. seems Islamic militant terrorists are not going to back down..EVER. It's like trying to deflea a dog with tweezers.

So what does it take for us to WIN the war in Iraq, and bring home our troops with heads held high. Proud of what they accomplished with no whining on either side that there is unfinished business, or that the terrorists will retake Iraq? Seriously, I want to know. :idea:

I could maybe get behind the thing, so as for it all the expenditure to not be in vain. IF I knew what the goal was and it atleast seemed possible to accomplish.[/quote:3l34n7xl]

There will always be whinning, even WWII has its haters. There will always be another side. Look at the civil war for intance. In its time it was hated and thought to be a monumental failure. 500,000 american dead, fighting one another no less. Lincoln was not loved like he is today. In my view, when Iraqi is stable and its army is able to take control the insurgecy with out our help, that is when the mission is over. Maybe I am a bit nieve, but I have tremendous faith in our army and I belive when they are allowed to do what they are meant to do (kill people and break things) they are the best at it. Right now the insurgency needs to be crushed, bottom line. Look at the alternative though. Letting Iraqi turn into a total cesspool terrorist haven is the worst thing we can do IMO. Letting terrorists control one of the worlds largest oil supplies is a huge mistake. Letting the whole country fall apart is not in our best intrest.

[gtluke]

yeah actually our civil war is a great example. it was really a horrible bloody stalemate for a long time. everyone HATED lincoln, they wanted "us" (the north) to pull out but he stayed in knowing the end justified the means.
yeah 500,000 dead but ultimately it meant a better country.
overall it wasn't about slavery considering that virginia outlawed slavery before the war and still fought for the south, it sure helped when we finally "won" and outlawed it all together.
there is a black family that goes to island that has confederate flags on their car and truck, they are from virginia iirc.

[Utah Joe]

look at europe under the nazi's as a model for victory.
hang saddam just like mussolini
dive back the fighters until they go into hiding or kill themselves or assimilate.
reestablish borders, install governments, keep bases there for decades.
look at italy, germany, japan now... they were worse off than iraq but are now considered totally normal players in the world.

it can be done, and its worth it.
we lost more people in 1 day in WW2 than in the 3 years we have been in iraq
and that was worth it, if we hadn't charged into europe and taken insane casualties, we wouldn't have rene :)



Suppose the current media posture about American military and security activities had been in effect during World War II. It is easy to imagine that happening. In the 1930s, after all, the well-connected America First Committee had been arguing for years about the need for America to stay out of “Europe’s wars.” Aware of these popular views, the House extended the draft by only a one-vote margin in 1941. Women dressed in black crowded the entrance to the Senate, arguing against extending the draft. Several hundred students at Harvard and Yale, including future Yale leader Kingman Brewster and future American president Gerald Ford, signed statements saying that they would never go to war. Everything was in place for a media attack on the Second World War. Here is how it might have sounded if today’s customs were in effect:

December 1941. Though the press supports America’s going to war against Japan after Pearl Harbor, several editorials want to know why we didn’t prevent the attack by selling Japan more oil. Others criticize us for going to war with two nations that had never attacked us, Germany and Italy.

October 1942. The New York Times runs an exclusive story about the British effort to decipher German messages at a hidden site at Bletchley Park in England. One op-ed writer criticizes this move, quoting Henry Stimson’s statement that gentlemen do not read one another’s mail. Because the Bletchley Park code-cracking helped us find German submarines before they attacked, successful U-boat attacks increased once the Germans, knowing of the program, changed their code.

January 1943. After President Roosevelt and Prime Minister Churchill call for the unconditional surrender of the Axis powers, several newspapers criticize them for having closed the door to a negotiated settlement. The press quotes several senators complaining that the unconditional surrender policy would harm the peace process.

May 1943. A big-city newspaper reveals the existence of the Manhattan Project and its effort to build atomic weapons. In these stories, several distinguished scientists lament the creation of such a terrible weapon. After Gen. Leslie Groves testifies before a congressional committee, the press lambastes him for wasting money, ignoring scientific opinion, and imperiling the environment by building plants at Hanford and Oak Ridge.

December 1944. The German counterattack against the Allies in the Ardennes yields heavy American losses in the Battle of the Bulge. The press gives splashy coverage to the Democratic National Committee chairman’s assertion that the war cannot be won. A member of the House, a former Marine, urges that our troops be sent to Okinawa.

August 1945. After President Truman authorizes dropping the atomic bomb on Japan, many newspapers urge his impeachment.

oh man can I see that happening today.

[sage]

haha thats funny,your friends are fixing bridges that coke head bush and his cronies spent billions blowing up,how ironic,and they feel good about this?saddam was feerful of terrorists in that they would assasinate him or overthrow his government like in afghanistan,so in fact we helped grow more terrorists in a country where they were not welcome
only an idiot would compare the outcome from our civil war or hitlers germany or japan decades or a century later
who is to say that things would not be the way they are now in the world without the americans sticking their nose where it doesnt belong,only a self righteous azzzzhole

[gtluke]

did you graduate 3rd grade yet karl?

[DrSmile]

Iraq is nothing like post WWII Germany...

1) Saddam didn't invade anyone we didn't want him to. Not so with Hitler.
2) There was a declaration of war against Germany. The Geneva conventions were adhered to, at least officially. Neither one of these apply to Iraq, relinquishing both international support and the moral high ground.
3) Saddam posed no danger to the US or it's interests (except for oil). Germany was an obvious global threat.
4) Germany is a Christian nation unlike Iraq and Hitler used this to his advantage (a favorite "I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord"). There were no religious tensions between the German populous and the Allied occupiers following WWII.
5) The Nazi followers were re-integrated into the German government after WWII with the exception of a few very senior members. Not so with the Ba'athist Sunnis who followed Saddam who were forbidden to be in the government.
6) There were no ethnic tensions in Germany following WWII. In Iraq there are at least three major ethnic groups that have long-standing ill-will.
7) Unlike Iraq, in Germany there was no armed resistance, no assassinations or reprisals against collaborators, and no centers of terrorism in neighboring states.
8 ) Germany maintained a fully functional democratic government before and after the war. In Iraq there is/was no functional democratic government before or after the war.

[sage]

thanks to g.bush and his v.p.,,, over 150,000 killed in iraq,
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061110/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq
when is the last time we heard of binladen`s name(wasnt he the one that attacked us)why was it on the news that the cia and the forces that were in charge or capturing him was called back,it seems that we completely gave up on capturing a 6ft 6inch arab wearing a bed sheet in a cave on dialysis
why is it that haliburton and its subsidiaries got all the control of the oil fields and contracts in rebuilding iraq with none of those contracts going up BID??????only someone who is brainwashed by our government would think it is other then the oil,and if you were brainwashed by all the bulls... that came from that cokehead idiot of a president then you must be the biggest smuck on EARTH

[DrSmile]

As for 2nd presidential term midterm elections, well there have been only 6 since WW2. Look for yourself:

1950
28
Republicans (following the beginning of the Korean war)

1958
49
Democrats

1966
47
Republicans (not a true 2nd term as Kennedy was assassinated)

1974
49
Democrats (Nixon was nearly impeached that year and resigned)

1986
5
Democrats

1998
5
Democrats (should be -5 as Bill Clinton was in office)

Draw your own conclusions from this. IMHO this has very little to do with a trend and more with historical events at the time. As does this election. The republicans focus on how this is SUPPOSED to happen is a sad attempt at deflecting the truth, which is that they took a horrific beating because of scandals and failure of their policies. The thinly veiled insinuation that this has nothing to do with their performance in government is baseless.

[Utah Joe]

Iraq is nothing like post WWII Germany...

1) Saddam didn't invade anyone we didn't want him to. Not so with Hitler.

He invaded Kuwait in case you missed the first gulf war. If we wanted him to do that, seems strange to me that we went over to stop him.

2) There was a declaration of war against Germany. The Geneva conventions were adhered to, at least officially. Neither one of these apply to Iraq, relinquishing both international support and the moral high ground.

The Geneva conventions were REALLY adheared to when hitler was marching people into ovens for extermination.

3) Saddam posed no danger to the US or it's interests (except for oil). Germany was an obvious global threat.

germany could not cross a 35 mile chanel to invade england, the britts made fools of them and their air force during the battle of Britan. They were no direct threat to the United States.



4) Germany is a Christian nation unlike Iraq and Hitler used this to his advantage (a favorite "I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord"). There were no religious tensions between the German populous and the Allied occupiers following WWII.

So what? They might have hated one another but they could have all at least gone to church together? I don't see where your point is relvent. Germany is probably the only country we have invaded who majority religion is the same as the USA's. The occupation worked in Japan and they wern't christian.





5) The Nazi followers were re-integrated into the German government after WWII with the exception of a few very senior members. Not so with the Ba'athist Sunnis who followed Saddam who were forbidden to be in the government.

the Nazi Followers were DEAD!!!!! There were 3.5-4 MILLION German military personal killed during the war. Another 4.5 million wounded, Another 2 million Civilians killed. Thats 13% of the german population killed or wounded, DWARFING any damage done in iraqi. There was nobody left to rise up against the ocupiers. And that is not entirely true either. There was the "werwolf" which was aided the Wehrmacht by means of guerrilla attacks against the Allies in the Allied-occupied regions of Germany. They killed many allies after the war was over. They even killed the new anti-nazi mayor of Aachen. Major John Poston, Field Marshal Sir Bernard Law Montgomery's liaison officer, and Colonel-General Nikolai Berzarin, Soviet commandant of Berlin. So they had their resistence too, not as successful since we dessamated the entire country.


6) There were no ethnic tensions in Germany following WWII. In Iraq there are at least three major ethnic groups that have long-standing ill-will.



7) Unlike Iraq, in Germany there was no armed resistance, no assassinations or reprisals against collaborators, and no centers of terrorism in neighboring states.

read above, there was

8 ) Germany maintained a fully functional democratic government before and after the war. In Iraq there is/was no functional democratic government before or after the war.

oh ya germany had really great democratic government before the war. Everyone got to voice their opinion to Hitler :roll:

[Utah Joe]

As for 2nd presidential term midterm elections, well there have been only 6 since WW2. Look for yourself:

1950
28
Republicans (following the beginning of the Korean war)

1958
49
Democrats

1966
47
Republicans (not a true 2nd term as Kennedy was assassinated)

1974
49
Democrats (Nixon was nearly impeached that year and resigned)

1986
5
Democrats

1998
5
Democrats (should be -5 as Bill Clinton was in office)

Draw your own conclusions from this. IMHO this has very little to do with a trend and more with historical events at the time. As does this election. The republicans focus on how this is SUPPOSED to happen is a sad attempt at deflecting the truth, which is that they took a horrific beating because of scandals and failure of their policies. The thinly veiled insinuation that this has nothing to do with their performance in government is baseless.

Rene, you will be happy to know that democrat leaders spoke with the Iraqi president yesterday and assured them that we would not pull out of Iraqi. So I hope you get the changes your looking for. What do all of those major swings have in common that you listed? War times. Just like now.

[gtluke]

rene has been pwned

we attacked italy and germany, 2 countries that never attacked us in any single way. infact we attacked them after JAPAN struck us.

[DrSmile]

It's amazing how clueless people are about revisionist history.

He invaded Kuwait in case you missed the first gulf war. If we wanted him to do that, seems strange to me that we went over to stop him.

What does that have to do with the invasion of Iraq in 2002? Answer: Personal bush vendetta

The Geneva conventions were REALLY adheared to when hitler was marching people into ovens for extermination.

Umm, the Geneva conventions deal with PRISONERS OF WAR. Look it up.


Germany could not cross a 35 mile chanel to invade england, the britts made fools of them and their air force during the battle of Britan. They were no direct threat to the United States.

Germany was about to take over the entire European continent and most of Russia. It was so obvious even to Isolationist America that they HAD to enter the war.

So what? They might have hated one another but they could have all at least gone to church together? I don't see where your point is relvent. Germany is probably the only country we have invaded who majority religion is the same as the USA's. The occupation worked in Japan and they wern't christian.

The point is that that the Germans didn't see us as occupiers trying to fight a holy war.

The Nazi Followers were DEAD!!!!! There were 3.5-4 MILLION German military personal killed during the war. Another 4.5 million wounded, Another 2 million Civilians killed. Thats 13% of the german population killed or wounded, DWARFING any damage done in iraqi. There was nobody left to rise up against the ocupiers. And that is not entirely true either. There was the "werwolf" which was aided the Wehrmacht by means of guerrilla attacks against the Allies in the Allied-occupied regions of Germany. They killed many allies after the war was over. They even killed the new anti-nazi mayor of Aachen. Major John Poston, Field Marshal Sir Bernard Law Montgomery's liaison officer, and Colonel-General Nikolai Berzarin, Soviet commandant of Berlin. So they had their resistence too, not as successful since we dessamated the entire country.

You have no idea what you are talking about here. The people killed were soldiers, not the people in charge of the political or economic infrastructure of Germany. People like barons of industry and scientists were recruited and returned to positions of power. John McCloy, US high commissioner, granted celemency to every single industrialist convicted at Nueremberg. An example is Hermann abs, CEO of Deutsche Bank, on trial at Nueremberg, who went from financing the Nazi regime to financing reconstruction under the Marshall plan. in 1951 Nazi civil servants were reinstated by the US to their prior positions, including promotions they would have received had their service not been interupted. Why you ask? Because the purpose of the Marshall plan was not anti-Nazi in nature. It was to build up Germany as a bufer against the USSR. The uprisings you speak of were Antifas in nature, a socialist/communist movement against fascist control. This obviously did not please the US and they chose instead to support more structure minded ex-Nazis. Indeed many major corporations such as VW, Krupp, IG Metal etc were Nazi coroporations.

People have this grand idea that Nueremberg got rid of all the Nazis. The truth is that except for the few executions, all the people on trial received clemency by the US. This is the whole reason Israel decided to take matters of retribution into their own hands.

Also the majority of the army did NOT consist of Nazis. They were mostly draftees, certainly at the end of the war they were mostly children and old men.

oh ya germany had really great democratic government before the war. Everyone got to voice their opinion to Hitler

Germany DID have a democratic government before the war. a republic in fact, the Weimar republic. It did not have a democratic government DURING the war. I never said it did. But interestingly, the END of the republic began in 1933 with removal of habeas corpus and restriction on civil liberties. sound familiar?

[Utah Joe]

It's amazing how clueless people are about revisionist history.


What does that have to do with the invasion of Iraq in 2002? Answer: Personal bush vendetta

So that must be the reason John Kerry voted for the war too, he wanted to help bush with his personal vendetta. :roll:



Umm, the Geneva conventions deal with PRISONERS OF WAR. Look it up..

ok fine, nevermind the millions of jews, go look up the millions of Russian POWs killed by the germans. 2.8 MILLION russian POW were simply executed. Geneva convention all the way


Germany was about to take over the entire European continent and most of Russia. It was so obvious even to Isolationist America that they HAD to enter the war.

Before we ever set foot in frace, Germany had already gotten its ass handed to it at the battle of stalingrad. While of course we did the right thing, germany was no direct threat to the usa.

The point is that that the Germans didn't see us as occupiers trying to fight a holy war.

rather than religion, we were fighting there belief in the fact that they were superior beings (nazi) and everyone not like them needed to die. Sounds alot like islamic fundalmentalists to me.

You have no idea what you are talking about here. The people killed were soldiers, not the people in charge of the political or economic infrastructure of Germany. People like barons of industry and scientists were recruited and returned to positions of power. John McCloy, US high commissioner, granted celemency to every single industrialist convicted at Nueremberg. An example is Hermann abs, CEO of Deutsche Bank, on trial at Nueremberg, who went from financing the Nazi regime to financing reconstruction under the Marshall plan. in 1951 Nazi civil servants were reinstated by the US to their prior positions, including promotions they would have received had their service not been interupted. Why you ask? Because the purpose of the Marshall plan was not anti-Nazi in nature. It was to build up Germany as a bufer against the USSR. The uprisings you speak of were Antifas in nature, a socialist/communist movement against fascist control. This obviously did not please the US and they chose instead to support more structure minded ex-Nazis. Indeed many major corporations such as VW, Krupp, IG Metal etc were Nazi coroporations.

People have this grand idea that Nueremberg got rid of all the Nazis. The truth is that except for the few executions, all the people on trial received clemency by the US. This is the whole reason Israel decided to take matters of retribution into their own hands.

what were we supposed to do? execute EVERY person who helped the war effort? You think everyone wanted to go along with the nazis? The s.s. proved that they would kill anyone who did not fall in line. It would have been a diaster if we had tried to kill every german who helped the war effort as well a impossible.

Germany DID have a democratic government before the war. a republic in fact, the Weimar republic. It did not have a democratic government DURING the war. I never said it did. But interestingly, the END of the republic began in 1933 with removal of habeas corpus and restriction on civil liberties. sound familiar?

sounds exactly the same. People in this country are being rounded up and sent by train to happy camps. :roll: The brownshirts are all being murdered, the jews are being crushed, just like germany. Wonder how much longer we will be able to talk on the internet for? You kill me rene, you love socialism, but WE in the usa have no civil liberties. :roll: What about when FDR marched thousands of americans into camps just for bieng of japanese decent? I would tend to think that was a bit worse then denying trial to a few hundred (many of who have been released) ememy terrorists in which the geneva convention does not apply too.

[gtluke]

so all the people who died when we fire bombed tokyo and when we dropped 2 atomic bombs on them were soldiers?
how about those residents of dresden? anzio? argentan? colmar? donner? jagd? kalt?
we came in an occupied, or killed them all.

[DrSmile]

so all the people who died when we fire bombed tokyo and when we dropped 2 atomic bombs on them were soldiers?
how about those residents of dresden? anzio? argentan? colmar? donner? jagd? kalt?
we came in an occupied, or killed them all.

What are you saying they were Nazis? The VAST majority of the people killed in all these incidents were civilians.

[gtluke]

thats what i'm saying, use ww2 as a model for iraq
civilians die,
and a lot of them
but the end justifies the means.

just because saddam didn't move outside of his boundaries (recently) doesn't mean we should let him go hitler before we put an end to it.
i think we learned our lesson from WW2 about waiting and diplomacy

[DrSmile]

Also more information on how truly non-existant the post-war Nazi movement was:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Werwolf

[gtluke]

exactly
we need to blow them up so bad that their post 9/11 islamic nazism fails in every attempt and dies out almost instantly.
but people are pussies now and we can't do that.

[DrSmile]

Nothing beats resorting to basic instinct does it... Luckily reality is a bit more complex.

[Utah Joe]

Also more information on how truly non-existant the post-war Nazi movement was:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Werwolf

like I said, it was not as effective due to the utter destruction that we rained down upon germany, but it was there. Look at your link, bombings, military leaders and civilians were killed.

[gtluke]

disguising the human nature causes half of this shit.
its kill or be killed. world peace will not happen and believing so will only get you killed.

[DrSmile]

Anyone who reads the link objectively will understand the truth. To quote:

"Werwolf was principally a war stratagem of the Nazi government. It withered by the month after German surrender."

I'm done trying to argue when people resort to non-intellectual arguments about "human nature." My comments will end here.

[gtluke]

intellectualism and socialism work so well
just ask france!

http://nomadlife.org/uploaded_images/france_burning-790771.jpg

[gtluke]

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2006/03/22/international/paris.184.1.650.jpg

[gtluke]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/images/40995000/jpg/_40995188_burning_bus.jpg

http://media.npr.org/news/images/2005/nov/07/reuters/francehub200.jpg

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/41457000/jpg/_41457770_car-ap-416.jpg

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/41449000/jpg/_41449854_1carburnsafp416.jpg

[gtluke]

that looks like fun
lets try this "talking" and diplomacy and socialism like rene wants so i can get a free TV during the riots.

[gtluke]

no matter what,
i'll still always love rene with all my heart
<3

[Utah Joe]

no matter what,
i'll still always love rene with all my heart
<3

me too. Nothing personal at all, Rene will always be the man, even if he is a commie.

[Nate Crisman]

I really don't see the point in these comparasons. Things have changes so much in military statagy since WW2 that I can't see how much of it would apply.

Think of what would have happened in WW2 if we went in with civil war mentality and assumed the germans and japanese would all make a nice straight line with our straight line.

In WWII we were fighting against a real formal military force with tanks, generals, units, comanders, bases and such and we knew how to break them. Resource denial. When we cut off fuel and raw materials to germany and came at them from all sides, they crumbled.

Now we are fighting against little rouge units. I just don't see how we can win a war of attrition against an enemy like this. What we are doing now is like what we did in the pacific against japan. Invading little islands and trying to flush out little groups from caves and bunkers while they ambush us. Only we don't have the advantage of it being a small island that we know what came in/went out of. fighting against japan like that was rediculus, hence the bomb.

[NJGSX96]

I like how Rene stayed on topic, intelligently answered all the questions you threw at him and owned all ya'll, right up to the point you started throwing pictures from France up and saying stupid shit. Give me 5 minutes. I can find thousands of pictures of riots and fires that are started right here in the US of A.

[gtluke]

you would be very surprised at the shit we still use today that we used in WWII
i know the tankers still get the "grease gun"
handguns have gone almost entirely unchanged
same bombs, same bombers
and the enemy is still using an automatic kalashnikov

[Nate Crisman]

you would be very surprised at the shit we still use today that we used in WWII
i know the tankers still get the "grease gun"
handguns have gone almost entirely unchanged
same bombs, same bombers
and the enemy is still using an automatic kalashnikov

Great. :lol: That has nothing to do with what I said. :roll:

I said STRATEGY changed. We are not going to beat the iraq "terrorist" insurgents by surrounding them or blockading thier supply of bullets, guns, fuel, food, or money.

[Utah Joe]

I really don't see the point in these comparasons. Things have changes so much in military statagy since WW2 that I can't see how much of it would apply.

Think of what would have happened in WW2 if we went in with civil war mentality and assumed the germans and japanese would all make a nice straight line with our straight line.

In WWII we were fighting against a real formal military force with tanks, generals, units, comanders, bases and such and we knew how to break them. Resource denial. When we cut off fuel and raw materials to germany and came at them from all sides, they crumbled.

Now we are fighting against little rouge units. I just don't see how we can win a war of attrition against an enemy like this. What we are doing now is like what we did in the pacific against japan. Invading little islands and trying to flush out little groups from caves and bunkers while they ambush us. Only we don't have the advantage of it being a small island that we know what came in/went out of. fighting against japan like that was rediculus, hence the bomb.

This is basiclly why luke and I are making the comparsion. WWII might have had different players, but the tatics used demonstrate how wars should be fought. We did not worry about what the bomb was going to do to school kids, we realized that the death that would insue due to an invasion would have dwarfed that. Peace follows victory. Once side beating the other side bad enough that they are totally defeated and will except your terms of surrender without further fighting. Its unfortunetly the only way wars are ever fully won. This new tone of every civilian must be protected at all costs is a great "feel good" idea, but it makes winning wars much harder. If you don't want to kill civilians, might as well not even bother fighting, because they are going to die. Everyone wants to limit the civilians deaths, but this insurgency shows exacly what happens when you fight a limited, rather than total war. I'm not trying to say that a total war is not the most brutal thing there is, but fighting a limited war is worse. Not only do they drag on for years, they rarely result in a clear winner. Which leads to further war. While I know that this war CAN be won, I am skeptical that it ever will be because of this refusal by people to except the fact that armys are only meant for 2 things. Killing people and breaking shit. Thats it. The fact that the military body count is the lead story every night is proof that we are not ready for a total war. We lost more people in one training mission for d-day than we have during all 3 years in iraqi. If we want to win, the body count on both sides will have to be looked at as an end to justify the means.

[gtluke]

i'm more saying how we would finish this bitch and get out.
we didn't just leave all these countries in shambles. but we were a bajillion times more aggressive at ridding any leftovers.

[Utah Joe]

I like how Rene stayed on topic, intelligently answered all the questions you threw at him and owned all ya'll, right up to the point you started throwing pictures from France up and saying stupid shit. Give me 5 minutes. I can find thousands of pictures of riots and fires that are started right here in the US of A.

go back and read what I wrote and tell me that I didn't respond to rene points.

[Nate Crisman]

[quote="Nate@DSMotorsport":1xb5abvw]I really don't see the point in these comparasons. Things have changes so much in military statagy since WW2 that I can't see how much of it would apply.

Think of what would have happened in WW2 if we went in with civil war mentality and assumed the germans and japanese would all make a nice straight line with our straight line.

In WWII we were fighting against a real formal military force with tanks, generals, units, comanders, bases and such and we knew how to break them. Resource denial. When we cut off fuel and raw materials to germany and came at them from all sides, they crumbled.

Now we are fighting against little rouge units. I just don't see how we can win a war of attrition against an enemy like this. What we are doing now is like what we did in the pacific against japan. Invading little islands and trying to flush out little groups from caves and bunkers while they ambush us. Only we don't have the advantage of it being a small island that we know what came in/went out of. fighting against japan like that was rediculus, hence the bomb.

This is basiclly why luke and I are making the comparsion. WWII might have had different players, but the tatics used demonstrate how wars should be fought. We did not worry about what the bomb was going to do to school kids, we realized that the death that would insue due to an invasion would have dwarfed that. Peace follows victory. Once side beating the other side bad enough that they are totally defeated and will except your terms of surrender without further fighting. Its unfortunetly the only way wars are ever fully won. This new tone of every civilian must be protected at all costs is a great "feel good" idea, but it makes winning wars much harder. If you don't want to kill civilians, might as well not even bother fighting, because they are going to die. Everyone wants to limit the civilians deaths, but this insurgency shows exacly what happens when you fight a limited, rather than total war. I'm not trying to say that a total war is not the most brutal thing there is, but fighting a limited war is worse. Not only do they drag on for years, they rarely result in a clear winner. Which leads to further war. While I know that this war CAN be won, I am skeptical that it ever will be because of this refusal by people to except the fact that armys are only meant for 2 things. Killing people and breaking shit. Thats it. The fact that the military body count is the lead story every night is proof that we are not ready for a total war. We lost more people in one training mission for d-day than we have during all 3 years in iraqi. If we want to win, the body count on both sides will have to be looked at as an end to justify the means.[/quote:1xb5abvw]


I can agrew with that. I see what we are doing now...fighting "man to man" with hand held guns, in city streets and in mountains with caves is going nowhere. We can't kill them all fast enough compared to the rate they "breed" so to speak. By breeding I mean recruting more, replacing weaponry and supplies.

We can't stop the black market trade of weapons, ammo, expolives, and money. Thus we cannot hit the insurgency significantly on the resources front either.

IMHO what we are doing now will never ever "accomplish the goal" of killing every terrorist or getting every terrorist out of Iraq.

Even if we did, the country of Iraq cannot deal with itself..let alone the outside terrorist that are flocking to Iraq to fight with us. They have to much civil unrest to be left alone without hellbreaking loose anyway.

The whole thing is a giant fucking mess, and IMHO we should have never gotten involved with it in the first place.

Since we did stick our nose in it, we should have done like Utah says...and went in full blast and wiped the whole country clean in one big swoop with a massive invasion. but that has it's own issues since 100%of the world would see us as just taking over Iraq as invaders rather than only 45%. :lol:

I don't know what the solution is, Im not a rumsfeld or a schwartzkoff. But for what I can see...what we are currently doing is not a viable solution.

[NJGSX96]

I like how Rene stayed on topic, intelligently answered all the questions you threw at him and owned all ya'll, right up to the point you started throwing pictures from France up and saying stupid shit. Give me 5 minutes. I can find thousands of pictures of riots and fires that are started right here in the US of A.

go back and read what I wrote and tell me that I didn't respond to rene points.

But you manipulated the topic/answer to fit your rebuttal or else sidestepped the entire thing with your answer.

[Monger]

you faggots watch too much history channel :lol:

[Utah Joe]

I like how Rene stayed on topic, intelligently answered all the questions you threw at him and owned all ya'll, right up to the point you started throwing pictures from France up and saying stupid shit. Give me 5 minutes. I can find thousands of pictures of riots and fires that are started right here in the US of A.

go back and read what I wrote and tell me that I didn't respond to rene points.

But you manipulated the topic/answer to fit your rebuttal or else sidestepped the entire thing with your answer.

I dont think so.

[gtluke]

the way we "win" is when we get the people to have faith that they won't be turned over to anarchy again. that they can rely on their government or us to help them.
iraq has been fed empty promises for a long long time. it wasn't tool long ago that the brits and french controlled "iraq" for their oil. they eventually turned them loose and soon after the nazi party gained influence and control over iraq, basically installing saddam into power through a series of events.
saddam was the most stable thing that country has seen in a long time but he was evil and murderous.
the iraqi people don't know what its like to make choices in law or have faith in the sytem.
once they get used to it, and can trust their law they will start turning over the terrorists themselves. thats when we will "win", when terrorism is thought of there as it is here and they can sustain themselves without much intervention from us.
and its on its way. iraq was able to export goods and turn a buck recently. something not seen under saddam. education is growing tremendously and with it will be faith in themselves and the system.

but the killing will never ever stop. the religious groups will always kill each other in the name of god. nobody can stop that unless they somehow find a religious leader that they trust that can unite them, but i do not see that happening.
but hey, the christians stopped murdering for a while. well at least till hitler came and left.

[Utah Joe]

you faggots watch too much history channel :lol:

Ain't that the truth, when I was in the hospital I was so pissed that they didn't have it. :lol:

[Utah Joe]

[quote="Utah Joe":3o8hedpp][quote="Nate@DSMotorsport":3o8hedpp]I really don't see the point in these comparasons. Things have changes so much in military statagy since WW2 that I can't see how much of it would apply.

Think of what would have happened in WW2 if we went in with civil war mentality and assumed the germans and japanese would all make a nice straight line with our straight line.

In WWII we were fighting against a real formal military force with tanks, generals, units, comanders, bases and such and we knew how to break them. Resource denial. When we cut off fuel and raw materials to germany and came at them from all sides, they crumbled.

Now we are fighting against little rouge units. I just don't see how we can win a war of attrition against an enemy like this. What we are doing now is like what we did in the pacific against japan. Invading little islands and trying to flush out little groups from caves and bunkers while they ambush us. Only we don't have the advantage of it being a small island that we know what came in/went out of. fighting against japan like that was rediculus, hence the bomb.

This is basiclly why luke and I are making the comparsion. WWII might have had different players, but the tatics used demonstrate how wars should be fought. We did not worry about what the bomb was going to do to school kids, we realized that the death that would insue due to an invasion would have dwarfed that. Peace follows victory. Once side beating the other side bad enough that they are totally defeated and will except your terms of surrender without further fighting. Its unfortunetly the only way wars are ever fully won. This new tone of every civilian must be protected at all costs is a great "feel good" idea, but it makes winning wars much harder. If you don't want to kill civilians, might as well not even bother fighting, because they are going to die. Everyone wants to limit the civilians deaths, but this insurgency shows exacly what happens when you fight a limited, rather than total war. I'm not trying to say that a total war is not the most brutal thing there is, but fighting a limited war is worse. Not only do they drag on for years, they rarely result in a clear winner. Which leads to further war. While I know that this war CAN be won, I am skeptical that it ever will be because of this refusal by people to except the fact that armys are only meant for 2 things. Killing people and breaking shit. Thats it. The fact that the military body count is the lead story every night is proof that we are not ready for a total war. We lost more people in one training mission for d-day than we have during all 3 years in iraqi. If we want to win, the body count on both sides will have to be looked at as an end to justify the means.[/quote:3o8hedpp]





Since we did stick our nose in it, we should have done like Utah says...and went in full blast and wiped the whole country clean in one big swoop with a massive invasion. but that has it's own issues since 100%of the world would see us as just taking over Iraq as invaders rather than only 45%. :lol:

[/quote:3o8hedpp]

well we have the same problem that Israel has. The minute we start kicking ass the discussion turns into "why are we using so much force against these poor people?" "Why are we such bullies?"

[NJGSX96]

well we have the same problem that Israel has. The minute we start kicking ass the discussion turns into "why are we using so much force against these poor people?" "Why are we such bullies?"

Don't open that up too. Isreal can suck it. They misuse force more than anyone. I would say I hope that one day soon they get destroyed but that would suck because we'd be forced to help them and then everyone would hate us that much more.

[Utah Joe]

well we have the same problem that Israel has. The minute we start kicking ass the discussion turns into "why are we using so much force against these poor people?" "Why are we such bullies?"

Don't open that up too. Isreal can suck it. They misuse force more than anyone. I would say I hope that one day soon they get destroyed but that would suck because we'd be forced to help them and then everyone would hate us that much more.

I wish they actually did misuse it, they don't do it enough. If they did perhaps they could get rid of the hezbos once and for all.

[NJGSX96]

I wish they actually did misuse it, they don't do it enough. If they did perhaps they could get rid of the hezbos once and for all.

They do but on innocent people. Just the other day they parked a couple tanks overlooking a Palestinian town and fired 10 rounds killing a bunch of families. They later said it was a "malfunction" that caused this to happen. I'm just curious after a malfunction, why did they load the cannons again? So they could fire on innocent... so they could have the tanks malfunction again?

And that is just one example of many. Mistakenly targeting UN vehicles/buildings, US ships, innocent people, this is all in a day in the Israeli military.

[Utah Joe]

I wish they actually did misuse it, they don't do it enough. If they did perhaps they could get rid of the hezbos once and for all.

They do but on innocent people. Just the other day they parked a couple tanks overlooking a Palestinian town and fired 10 rounds killing a bunch of families. They later said it was a "malfunction" that caused this to happen. I'm just curious after a malfunction, why did they load the cannons again? So they could fire on innocent... so they could have the tanks malfunction again?

And that is just one example of many. Mistakenly targeting UN vehicles/buildings, US ships, innocent people, this is all in a day in the Israeli military.

well we now know that the hezbos were using that UN building as a base to fire from, the a UN soldger inside even said so in an email to his family. They hit one US ship in the 60's, most likely by mistake. I mean we have hit our own ships before. As far as innocent people, I'm sure they get killed when they shouldn't. But its not their enemy has any concern whatsoever for innocent people.

[gtluke]

is this thread 10 pages yet?

[Nate Crisman]

is this thread 10 pages yet?

Maybe

[Nate Crisman]

is this thread 10 pages yet?

Maybe

OH YEAH

[gtluke]

SNAP INTO IT

[Utah Joe]

yes!!!!!!!!!!

[Nate Crisman]

enough of this stupid shit...Im going back to killing my DSM and droppin the trans. BTW thanks luke for keeping the 5th gear on old faithfull seperate from the box of junk trans parts. I forgot how that shit goes back together!

[gtluke]

hahaha
actually now that i think about it you may have to scrounge for those parts
the 92 stuff was different, and the one in the trans was seriously 100% smashed and destroyed. i put the one off my current trans on there, it fit on but then i found out the problem with the rail.
so if there isn't enough parts to put together a whole 91 assembly, you might have to get or buy a 92 reverse brass blocker ring and put the original one on there.

did you figure out whats going on in the shift rail part yet?

[Nate Crisman]

hahaha
actually now that i think about it you may have to scrounge for those parts
the 92 stuff was different, and the one in the trans was seriously 100% smashed and destroyed. i put the one off my current trans on there, it fit on but then i found out the problem with the rail.
so if there isn't enough parts to put together a whole 91 assembly, you might have to get or buy a 92 reverse brass blocker ring and put the original one on there.

did you figure out whats going on in the shift rail part yet?

I haven't taken Old Faithfull apart yet. I farted around with it, it has to be those ears that are pinned to the rail are snapped of...or the pin is sheared and the ear thing is sliding on the rail. The arm is moving inside becuase the reverse detent works..once you go into R, your locked out of 5.

Just got the trans out of my car, naturally, looks like a stock pressure plate..or some parts store replacement. Has a Valeo disk with plenty of meat left on it. Flywheel looks perfectly flat and no cracks. Maybe it's a NT pressure plate or something becuase the clutch would slip pretty much as soon as it got on boost. I was expecting the disk worn down to the rivets :?

[rsk_wannabe]

WOW... 10 pages... and most of it intelligible. ;-)

Don't you guys work on Friday? I was even off today and am so glad I did not check the board until this evening. It was such a beautiful day, weather-wise. Sometimes, (heated) debates should not take such a high priority.

But since it is evening and I finished reading a thoroughly enjoyable exchange between the right and left, and some middle of the roaders as well, I just wanted to put in my .02.

First, congrats to DEMS for regaining control of house and senate. At first I was a bit disappointed (or should that be depressed?:p), but then I came to the realization that such result only reinforces my belief that this is the best country that civilization has ever known. Choices. The free and unfettered ability to choose who will be the law-makers in our society is what separates democratic governments from fascism, communism, despotism, and any other 'ism' that deprives its citizenry from deciding its own fate.

Although my personal beliefs are more in line with Luke and Utah, I do realize that Rich and Rene are two intelligent and highly respected members who simply see the world in a very different way. The free exchange of those views without fear of persecution is why our society is so envied (Yes, ENVIED), by most of the rest of the world. And those who do not envy it at least respect it, contrary to what some news reports may claim.

Second, now that there has been a shift in control in Congress, those who sincerely believed this country was going downhill can propose whatever steps they feel are needed to correct whatever they feel was wrong. That is the foundation of how the country was founded. And if the majority of the people believe that:

(1) Fighting terrorism in a country which sponsors terrorist groups is wrong and would rather fight those terrorists on our soil, so be it. Maybe when our citizens instead of our trained soldiers are casualties, we will all sleep better knowing world opinion on the US foreign policy is no longer criticised.

(2) Raising taxes to pay for social welfare instead of leaving money in working people's pockets to reinvest and sustain a healthy economy is the path to follow, more power to them.

(3) Grant legal status to all immigrants irrespective of how those persons arrived in the US and whether those citizens were law abiding in their own countries, who am I to complain? Actually, this may even work out as a coup for me if I opened up an immigration practice. :)

I will not even discuss the social issues of pro-choice, embryonic stem cell research despite scientific studies showing other viable and better alternatives, abolishment of death penalty, etc since these issues more than the top three are really subjective issues where there is hardly right or wrong answers (notwithstanding religious bias).

Third, since most of us, myself included, usually are just talking out of our respective arses, could this topic be moved to Smack Talk? At least in that forum, there is not even the slighest indicia that we are trying to take ourselves seriously.

FWIW, I did look up Geneva Convention (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Geneva_Convention) So depending on which time period you are talking about, the rules may apply to not only POWs but to all non-combatants. Beyond the Geneva Convention, there are also Rules of Engagement (ROE) that every military operation operates under.

[sage]

mad max was correct when he said the jews caused all the world wars,either directly or indirectly cause dont forget who runs this country withs its power and money and lobbyists(didnt one just get busted helping bush n his republicans :) ,de beers is the company that controls 90% of the diamonds in this world and all the biggest mines in s.africa ,so please tell me why it was never reported on all the news channels that the jews were the cause of the apartheid,when mandella became president the vp of debeers was on the stage behind mandella pretty much telling the people in the know that they were still in control

oh yeh another thing the photos that they showed us every night that were supposidly the WMD`s were actually photos of portable ambulances and buildings for the iraqi army,guess where the state dept got them from that they said was from a reliable allie(who would want us to go in and take saddam out more then anyone else?)
i guess they are mostly the cause of the world problems,"the chosen people",the ones that betrayed and killed Jesus
dont ask me how i know about debeers!

[sage]

exactly
we need to blow them up so bad that their post 9/11 islamic nazism fails in every attempt and dies out almost instantly.
but people are pussies now and we can't do that.

another one that is brain washed by the bush people and the jewish media
how many islamic countries are occupying and have military bases around the world??????????????????
all this shit thats going on is because we gave the weapons and training to the jews so they could occupy arab land you idiot,after lawrence convinced the arabs to rebel against the otomans telling them they would be free and have their own land!!
then what did we and england do those people that helped us????we invited all the jews from russia and europe and the world gave them weapons and training to occupy and kill

they are the biggest cowards on the face of the earth!!!! and of all time!!!!
they are very brave when innocent people are in their homes n with no weapons

[Nate Crisman]

Damnnit I was hoping to crank this amp to page 11 without it getting locked. Guess it's not likely now with Mr anti-semite running around.

[rsk_wannabe]

sage (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sage) :shock:

I take it the name was derived from the "plant" definition.

History of Israel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Israel)

Not that you would believe this very factually supported account since it was probably generated by the Jewish controlled media, but for those of us (non-jewish) members who are not as predisposed as yourself, I thought it was a fairly good primer on the history and background of Israel and the Jewish state.

Please feel free to forward it to Mel with my regards.

[Monger]

sounds like homeboy sage wants to martyr himself :lol:

[1gnasty]

i figure that this will end up here :lol:

[Utah Joe]

sounds like homeboy sage wants to martyr himself :lol:
he should, but he's to big of a pussy and likes his american lifestyle too much.

[twizzle]

we are all fucked come 2008. (global id's, only the tip of the iceberg)

[gtluke]

I will not even discuss the social issues of pro-choice, embryonic stem cell research despite scientific studies showing other viable and better alternatives, abolishment of death penalty, etc since these issues more than the top three are really subjective issues where there is hardly right or wrong answers (notwithstanding religious bias).


doesn't matter now!
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071120/ap_ ... 3kQCQPLBIF (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071120/ap_on_sc/stem_cells;_ylt=AmErf_9ZFCZYj4HUnH3kQCQPLBIF)

and yeah, i was right. kerry isn't even discussed this election cycle. he's such a douchebag.

[rsk_wannabe]

I will not even discuss the social issues of pro-choice, embryonic stem cell research despite scientific studies showing other viable and better alternatives, abolishment of death penalty, etc since these issues more than the top three are really subjective issues where there is hardly right or wrong answers (notwithstanding religious bias).


doesn't matter now!
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071120/ap_ ... 3kQCQPLBIF (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071120/ap_on_sc/stem_cells;_ylt=AmErf_9ZFCZYj4HUnH3kQCQPLBIF)

and yeah, i was right. kerry isn't even discussed this election cycle. he's such a douchebag.

I guess I was right, too! There ARE ways to have your cake and eat it too... conduct stem cell research for the benefit of mankind and still stand by one's morals... Unless people stood firm, who knows if the scientists would have even tried to find this solution....