To set the record straight-

I am NOT anti-Christian… Not in the least!!
I AM anti- Hypocracy which is what is spewed so much by that (right-wing neo-con) camp.
It’s not the other major religions that openly tell their flock who to vote for…
It’s not the other major religions that the Republicans try so hard to woo. Guns, Gays, and God…
Guess Cheney hates his daughter- because she’s Gay and all…
Guess Foley hates hiself!! Republican- and Gay and pedophile predator!!
Busch- yup!! You caught my grammatican error… Oops! Yes- Busch is a drunk and a former if not current coke user…
It’s the hypocracy…
Smaller Government with Republicans they say,when it’s really larger…
Spreading Democracy around the World- while taking away American’s freedoms.
Is it good for the country when Real wages go down- years in a row??
Is it good for the country when more people than ever are uninsured???
Hope you don’t need to go to the E.R. Plan on waiting 6 hours on average- if you don’t get re-routed to another Hospital and die on the way…
Is it good for the country to have a Massive national debt that our Grandchildren will be paying off?
That we’re beholden to Communist China to keep financing our reckless spending (by being the largest buyer of Treasurys) under Republican control??
 The whole- “people of New Orleans should have been prepared”- “Gvt. shouldn’t get involved”… Exept when it comes to a comatose Terri Shiavo- That was a National Emergency that caused the Prez and Congress to convene over a weekend!!!
“Bush has the Americans best interests at heart”???
That couldn’t be farther from the truth!!! Katrina was no surprise as was the attacks of 9/11… Unless you are dumb enough to actually believe Condy… People were drowning in their attics as Busch was playing guitar out West… That’s just sick!!
“Iraquis are happy with Saddam being Executed”…
Just ask the Sunnis… Had this administration done a little research and proper planning, they would have found that Iraq is comprised of fractions that don’t exactly get along… As evil as Saddam was, he kept them in check…
And not “everyone thought they had WMD’s”.
Busch knew the yellowcake story was untrue… Yet they lied about it to the UN. Everyone around the World was with us to get Afganistan… Only the UK who helped us “fix” the intelligence to begin the war was backing us going into Iraq. There was clearly a larger threat from North Korea… Now they have Nukes… Good job Busch!!
Why are we there? Why are we wasting Billions of dollars that they conveniently don’t include in the budget?
If we need to spread Democracy (by force, ie. war) so bad, why aren’t we doing it in Saudi Arania, Syria, North Korea, Cuba, Libya, etc.
Yea yea- Clinton’s fault- for everything!!!
Did North Korea and Iran have Nukes then?
Did over 5,000 Americans die from an attack on US Soil and then an illegal war??
Oh yea- the stock market’s been doing so much better under Busch than Clinton- riiiiiiight!!
Outing a CIA operative who is risking her life to protect America for political reasons???
That’s no leader…
He’s a coward and a LIAR!
The country needs a change.
Hopefully it will begin today!!

Malkin, Coulter, represent commentators who speak in defense of the right. Again, where did I take a shot at them? It was BL who interjected "mindless" into the debate. But to be clear, why I said what I said; what I read here reminds me of what I read or hear from Malkin or Coulter. Call me Molly Ivins but I see similarities. And we all know that, at least you, if no one else here, gets info from the Heritage foundation. Is that a negative? No, I think not. It's a fact. Again, I didn't make any mindless drone statements or comparisons. That came from Babs. Maybe a little oversensitive, I don't know, but she made the comparo, not me. That's not close to my thinking.

Not green please, I'm getting eyestrain.  And yes, probably overly sensitive since most conversations/debates with people on the left immediately descend into a sneering accusation that the only reason I think what I do is because I have been brainwashed by some talking head on television or blabbering mouth on the radio. Plus it is always the same litany of talking heads that the "liberal" Democrats assume all Republicans listen to, as if we are all tuned into the same program and thought waves.

Even some of my own family who are so far left they can see themselves coming around a corner, throw that accusation out as a final closure to any rational debate and is supposed to end the argument.  "Well, you only say those things because you listen to Rush Limbaugh."   Sorry, don't listen to the radio except for music on NPR and certainly wouldn't listen to Rush Limbaugh if I had the time.  As if I, or you for that matter of fact, can't come to conclusions on their own merit and must be mind controlled by someone else if we have a thought not congruent with theirs.   You rarely hear the same sneering accusations from the people on the right/conservative side.

I'm sick of it and resent being pigeonholed by people who refuse to listen to any rational arguments and can't seem to keep the argument/debate on topic.

As to my political leanings, this website's test is pretty good for that http://www.politicalcompass.org/index   Take the test yourself.

I end up just about in the same location as the dot that represents Milton Friedman with just a bit more libertarian leaning.

Do you think that Top Broker is really Put/et al, who has finally figured out how to troll properly and disguise his writing style?  Surely no one who is in the business could be this illiterate and ignorant?  At least I hope he is a toll.

[quote=mikebutler222]

[quote=BondGuy][quote=mikebutler222][quote=BondGuy] <?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

 One guy here, mikebutler(assume the poster is male)  keeps comparing <?:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />Iraq to the Battle of the Bulge. Which I have to admit, I don't get the reference. [/quote]

It should be clear the reference has to do with eventual victories having hard, hard setbacks. An example of “plans” not surviving the first bullet being fired, not making things neat and perfect during a war. Periods when it’s very easy to panic and claim all is lost, especially if you have a political agenda that calls for it.  Setbacks often forgotten, especially by those unaware of military history, once the victory is earned.

[/quote]

Mike thank you for making your position clear.

As for your example, I have a hard time seeing the connection. The battle of the Bulge wasn't a setback. [/quote]

“Wasn’t a setback”???? You would have had a hard time selling that at the time. At the time, when the final result was in doubt, it was an unimaginable error, a disastrous, casualty-filled retreat. A major calamity. Almost 20,000 casualties, out of the blue.

Agree. Setback at the time. The time being the two weeks it took to regain control.  German loses precipitated an unconditional surrender. Big picture, not a setback. Sorry, still not seeing a connection with today's situation of being mired in an insurency/civil war.

[quote=BondGuy]

As "an example of plans not surviving the first bullet", how do you mean this with regard to the BoB?[/quote]

There’s an old military expression about no plan surviving the first bullet fired. We had a plan, it was the best that the experienced professionals on the ground could have produced. It was to concentrate troops elsewhere, in the most likely avenues of the enemy’s advance, , make a dash and cover thinly the wooded approaches the Germans chose to attack through (obviously not expect their attack to come there). The troops there were green and just getting organized when the attack began.

[quote=BondGuy] Maybe for the Germans, as they were the only ones who did any planning here. [/quote]

No, we had a plan, and you’re wrong to assume otherwise, as you’re wrong to make that assumption now. Units didn’t end up there by accident. The enemy had another plan. That’s my point.

Mike two paragraphs above you call it an unimaginable error, now it's a plan. Of course we had a plan. Just not the right plan for what was coming.

[quote=BondGuy] The combination of some extremely heroic fighting, brilliant tactical commanders, and the weather brought us victory in this battle. [/quote]

This was after we were caught completely off-guard, lost almost 20,000 troops, suffered mass surrender.  Came razor close to being tossed off the European continent. Some victory.

And a critical difference in what we have today. We were caught off-guard. yet our commanders made tactical changes that countered the near slaughter. Again, brilliant considering the odds as you've correctly framed. It was close.

The point is Patton, Ike, Bradley, et al weren’t fools, they had a plan. The enemy had another plan and for a significant period of time our eventual victory was in doubt. We were thrown off balance, off schedule and suffered massive, unexpected loses.

[quote=BondGuy]

By comparision, in Iraq the superior force is being fought to a standstill by a ragtag army who have figured out how to bring down a Blackhawk with an RPG. We could use some of those Brilliant WWII commanders about now. [/quote]

They (our Brilliant WWII commanders) proved no one is immune, and I think your description of “stand-off” to be an exaggeration. There’s no danger that the insurgents will be taking or holding ground. There’s no chance they’ll inflicting massive causalities or organizing a counter-government. The best they can do is sniper and use IEDs. There’s no offensive coming out of them. Their only hope is to hang on until the “we’ve lost, let’s leave” crowd here gains sway.

Mike, we must get our news from different places. My news shows a strong insurgency that is nit picking our troops, causing unnecessary deaths of our guys and bringing reconstruction to a halt. They win by fighting us to a stand still. The stand still being our inability to secure the country and rebuild it. Which was the original plan. The budding civil war helps their cause which is drive us off. Unless something changes, sooner or later we will lose our will and leave. I don't like this any more than you do. But, this is their plan. And unlike the BoB, we have not reacted to it. or at least in any way to change the outcome. I want the outcome changed.

[quote=BondGuy]

I understand your point that war is hell, and that it doesn't always go to plan. My problem is that there was no plan. [/quote]

You said we had no plan in the period just before the BoB and you were wrong then, too.

[quote=BondGuy]

Our guys were suppose to be back home in the fall of 2003. [/quote]

I don’t know you told you that.

The pentagon in March of 03. Specifically they said the plan was to reduce troop levels to 30,000 by the fall of 03. The statement is unattributable, but has Rumsfeld's fingerprints all over it. Since he had such a tight gripped hold on all offical info emenating from the pentagon. Much of this was said to counter Shinseki's claim of under manning the mission, which both Rumsfeld and Wolfowicz are on the record as saying he was wildly off the mark. Turns out not so wild. 

[quote=BondGuy] Iraqies were suppose to greet us in the streets in a VE like day, with roses. [/quote]

In some areas, like among the Kurds, that’s exactly what happened.

[quote=BondGuy]

If we had a plan that put Iraq's new government firmly in control, I believe everyone would support it. [/quote]

I have to disagree. There are a great many who wouldn’t support it until it was achieved and complete, and then they would claim they were for it all along. But, every step of the way, they’d be running to microphones to tell us how it wasn’t working, we don’t have a plan, Bush is to blame, etc., etc., etc..

Maybe, but people would give it a chance.

[quote=BondGuy]

The Battle of the Bulge was a fight against tyranny. Now in the eyes of the world, or at least Muslims in the Middle East, who are the tyrants? Look in a mirror, it's you and me.

[/quote]

You have got to be kidding…..where to even begin with that… you figure we’re really the tyrants because some in the Arab street miss Saddam, or want a radical Islamic state? Did the German population view themselves as tyrants? Even the most negative polls taken among the Iraqis say they want us around until they have their government on its feet. Their PM made that point just the other day.

Mike, I believe there were a great number of Germans who didn't support their leaders. Unfortunately, the majority did. And yes, they were tyrants.

I don't believe us to be tyrants, but the average Muslim in the ME does. As I said, it's their view. Unfortunately, the only view that counts. Mike that you either don't get that, or don't believe it is exactly the problem. It's their country, their region not ours. It's their beliefs that count, not what we want for them. It is an affront to them to even have us on their land. They don't want us there. The continuing upheaval leads to giving credence to the theory that the war is going exactly to plan, destablizing the region, bringing Syria and Iran into it and rearranging the power balance in the entire region. regardless, and by the way I don't buy into that theory, we are the ugly americans.

Of course the government wants us to stick around. They can count their time in power in days if we leave.

Mike

Since I've already now provided the solution to both Iraq's trouble and America's political landscape I'm taking suggestions as to what problems you'd like me to solve next.

Except that one you were just thinking of.  Anything but that.

[quote=Indyone]

TJ, I still think you da man (even though you da BLUE man!), but saying that this isn't a place for open and honest debate is selling a lot of us short.  Absolutely, there's a lot of red on this board, and my purple is a bit red biased at the moment...I'm OK with confessing that, but I'm open to debate, even if it gets a bit spirited and some name-calling is involved.  I'll stand by the gist of my message on the lack of literacy and maturity in TB's posts.  My message is grow up and post like the professional you desire to be.  If TB wants to be blue when he grows up, that's fine by me, but I'm deeply offended by an ignorant and bigoted statement like "...or Fundimental Christian- which is even worse than Fundimanetal Islamist.. At least the Islamists want to kill just a percentage of the population. The Rapture-seekers want us ALL to go down!!"  I don't know how you remove illiterate and immature from such a statement, much less bigoted and hateful.  After seeing such crap, I didn't feel the least bit guilty about doing a little "profiling", and I still believe that I'm closer to the truth than TB is willing to admit.

My congressional district has a fine Democratic candidate...moderate on many of his views.  I'd like to vote for him.  Frankly, I'm sick of the Republican incumbent and disagree with several of the positions he's taken over the years, even with my red bias.  Oddly enough, the incumbent voted against the war in Iraq, so I will give him credit for taking a stand for his principals, as I respect that.  That vote is not why I don't care for him.  However, had the Democratic candidate ran against him in the Republican primary, there is no question I would have voted for him over the incumbent.  My struggle with voting for him has to do with some of the folks he is likely to place in power.  While I think his win is inevitable, and I believe that the House will go firmly blue, on principal, I will not vote for him, but will reluctantly vote for a candidate that will most likely be replaced anyway.  I want to be able to say that I had nothing to do with making Nancy Pelosi speaker of the house.  She does not represent my values, but oddly enough, her win would probably mean amnesty for illegal aliens, as that is something she and the current president seem agree on...politics does make strange bedfellows...

Bottom line is, TJ, there are plenty of us somewhere in the middle that would be happy to have a mostly civil debate, but I don't mind fighting fire with fire either.

[/quote]

Indy ,I was surprised to see you go that way as you are usually a vioce of reason. Looking at it from you POV though, I can see why you took off on TB. Still, I'm not a fan of nitpicking someone to drive them off the site.

Good to see you're not married to a party line. My district is represented by a republican. i've voted for every time, before today. However, my issue with him has no national implications. I'm tired of my state getting the short end of the stick on fed funding. We get less back for every dollar sent to DC than just about any state. Enough is enough.

[quote=BondGuy][quote=mikebutler222]

[quote=BondGuy][quote=mikebutler222][quote=BondGuy] <?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

 One guy here, mikebutler(assume the poster is male)  keeps comparing <?:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />Iraq to the Battle of the Bulge. Which I have to admit, I don't get the reference. [/quote]

It should be clear the reference has to do with eventual victories having hard, hard setbacks. An example of “plans” not surviving the first bullet being fired, not making things neat and perfect during a war. Periods when it’s very easy to panic and claim all is lost, especially if you have a political agenda that calls for it.  Setbacks often forgotten, especially by those unaware of military history, once the victory is earned.

[/quote]

Mike thank you for making your position clear.

As for your example, I have a hard time seeing the connection. The battle of the Bulge wasn't a setback. [/quote]

“Wasn’t a setback”???? You would have had a hard time selling that at the time. At the time, when the final result was in doubt, it was an unimaginable error, a disastrous, casualty-filled retreat. A major calamity. Almost 20,000 casualties, out of the blue.

Agree. Setback at the time. The time being the two weeks it took to regain control.  German loses precipitated an unconditional surrender.

German losses THERE didn't make the diff in the eventual surrender. BTW, "two weeks" of 19,000 dead and complete confusion bedlam on the battlefield. An entire division surrendered.

 Big picture, not a setback. Sorry, still not seeing a connection with today's situation of being mired in an insurency/civil war.

Fine, you simply refuse to see how a plan (yes, a plan) can go wrong and how what seems to be a horrific event at the time fades when victory is achieved. Until we regained (and it was no certainty at the time) the upperhand it looked as if we might be pushed back to England.

[quote=BondGuy]

As "an example of plans not surviving the first bullet", how do you mean this with regard to the BoB?[/quote]

There’s an old military expression about no plan surviving the first bullet fired. We had a plan, it was the best that the experienced professionals on the ground could have produced. It was to concentrate troops elsewhere, in the most likely avenues of the enemy’s advance, , make a dash and cover thinly the wooded approaches the Germans chose to attack through (obviously not expect their attack to come there). The troops there were green and just getting organized when the attack began.

[quote=BondGuy] Maybe for the Germans, as they were the only ones who did any planning here. [/quote]

No, we had a plan, and you’re wrong to assume otherwise, as you’re wrong to make that assumption now. Units didn’t end up there by accident. The enemy had another plan. That’s my point.

Mike two paragraphs above you call it an unimaginable error, now it's a plan. Of course we had a plan. Just not the right plan for what was coming.

That's the point, having a plan doesn't matter much when the enemy takes an action of their own. There was a plan, the Germans (not knowing our plan, btw) took an action that forced us to create a new one. "Plans" don't guarantee success AND just because things have been tough doesn't mean there isn't/wasn't a plan.

[quote=BondGuy] The combination of some extremely heroic fighting, brilliant tactical commanders, and the weather brought us victory in this battle. [/quote]

This was after we were caught completely off-guard, lost almost 20,000 troops, suffered mass surrender.  Came razor close to being tossed off the European continent. Some victory.

And a critical difference in what we have today. We were caught off-guard. yet our commanders made tactical changes that countered the near slaughter. Again, brilliant considering the odds as you've correctly framed. It was close.

Seems to me, once again, you desire to claim defeat before allowing the commanders on the ground to shift tactics. It's the "are we there yet"  thing.

The point is Patton, Ike, Bradley, et al weren’t fools, they had a plan. The enemy had another plan and for a significant period of time our eventual victory was in doubt. We were thrown off balance, off schedule and suffered massive, unexpected loses.

[quote=BondGuy]

By comparision, in Iraq the superior force is being fought to a standstill by a ragtag army who have figured out how to bring down a Blackhawk with an RPG. We could use some of those Brilliant WWII commanders about now. [/quote]

They (our Brilliant WWII commanders) proved no one is immune, and I think your description of “stand-off” to be an exaggeration. There’s no danger that the insurgents will be taking or holding ground. There’s no chance they’ll inflicting massive causalities or organizing a counter-government. The best they can do is sniper and use IEDs. There’s no offensive coming out of them. Their only hope is to hang on until the “we’ve lost, let’s leave” crowd here gains sway.

Mike, we must get our news from different places.

I suepct we are, if you think all's lost.

My news shows a strong insurgency that is nit picking our troops, causing unnecessary deaths of our guys and bringing reconstruction to a halt.

My news shows AQ saying to each other they're being smothered (their word, btw). They don't have the power to take or control land, or even come out into the open to fight. If that's "lost" then the IRA won in N. Ireland.

Unless something changes, sooner or later we will lose our will and leave. I don't like this any more than you do. But, this is their plan.

IOW, just as I said, there only hope is that the "we've lost" crowd in this country gets the chance to pull us out and leave the ground to them.

And unlike the BoB, we have not reacted to it. or at least in any way to change the outcome. I want the outcome changed.

We have reacted to it, the tactics are constantly being remodeled to react to the actions on the ground of insurgents. I suggest you read the WP article from yesteday about what our troops on the gorund say. That's why insurgents hold no ground anywhere and can't come out into the open. I doubt you want the outcome changed, you're too committed to being right with your "we've lost"....

[quote=BondGuy]

I understand your point that war is hell, and that it doesn't always go to plan. My problem is that there was no plan. [/quote]

You said we had no plan in the period just before the BoB and you were wrong then, too.

[quote=BondGuy]

Our guys were suppose to be back home in the fall of 2003. [/quote]

I don’t know you told you that.

The pentagon in March of 03. Specifically they said the plan was to reduce troop levels to 30,000 by the fall of 03.

Got a source? I never heard that anywhere....

 Much of this was said to counter Shinseki's claim of under manning the mission, which both Rumsfeld and Wolfowicz are on the record as saying he was wildly off the mark. Turns out not so wild. 

The commanders on the gound have repeatedly said higher US troop strength actually HELPS the insurgents. It's a two edged sword.

[quote=BondGuy] Iraqies were suppose to greet us in the streets in a VE like day, with roses. [/quote]

In some areas, like among the Kurds, that’s exactly what happened.

[quote=BondGuy]

If we had a plan that put Iraq's new government firmly in control, I believe everyone would support it. [/quote]

I have to disagree. There are a great many who wouldn’t support it until it was achieved and complete, and then they would claim they were for it all along. But, every step of the way, they’d be running to microphones to tell us how it wasn’t working, we don’t have a plan, Bush is to blame, etc., etc., etc..

Maybe, but people would give it a chance.

No, not even give it a chance. The "we don't have a plan" mantra is too good to them politically to leave it behind.

[quote=BondGuy]

The Battle of the Bulge was a fight against tyranny. Now in the eyes of the world, or at least Muslims in the Middle East, who are the tyrants? Look in a mirror, it's you and me.

[/quote]

You have got to be kidding…..where to even begin with that… you figure we’re really the tyrants because some in the Arab street miss Saddam, or want a radical Islamic state? Did the German population view themselves as tyrants? Even the most negative polls taken among the Iraqis say they want us around until they have their government on its feet. Their PM made that point just the other day.

Mike, I believe there were a great number of Germans who didn't support their leaders. Unfortunately, the majority did. And yes, they were tyrants.

Do you think they thought of themselves as tyrants? Hardly..

I don't believe us to be tyrants, but the average Muslim in the ME does.

You might want to check those polls again of Iraqis that say they don't want us to leave until they're on their feet.

As I said, it's their view. Unfortunately, the only view that counts. Mike that you either don't get that, or don't believe it is exactly the problem.

Is that right? That sounds like a reason to not even go to Afghanistan. I have a feeling you're going to tell me that reasoning doesn't apply there....

Of course the government wants us to stick around. They can count their time in power in days if we leave.

Not just the government, the people. I've yet to see a poll where the people say they want us out now.  They want us out after they can control their government. You seem to have forgotten the purple finger election pretty quickly.

[quote=TOPBROKR]To set the record straight-
[/quote]

Thanks for the world view from the Democratunderground.com....

Mikebutler

That you think I want defeat is an insult. Coming up with this goes to my original post of name calling. I critisize the war so I automatically want defeat. No mike, I want to win. Right now all reconstruction in iraq has been halted. The people don't have the basics, like water and electricity. Yes, in some parts of the country they have partial utilities. But mostly ,they are doing without. It's been three effing years since we marched in and took over. How long is this supposed to take? Doesn't matter because now it's all stopped. Why? because we don't have control of the country. There's no security.

They can't beat us militarily. The way they can beat us is with will. And they're doing it. Doesn't that piss you off?  It pisses me off. it pisses me off that we're not smart enough to figure that out. It pisses me off that we had no long term plan. Read up mike, no LT  plan. March in, take over, depose Saddam, hand the remains to the Shiites and then march out. Be home by Christmas. Didn't go down that way.

Of course the Germans didn't see themselves as tyrants. That's the point. How do you see the Germans of that Era? I see them as tyrants. That's because the history books my teachers used said they were tyrants. My belief is that many Germans today are ashamed at what their grandfathers did. How do we see ourselves? Certainly not as tyrants. Hmm, I wonder how Arab history books will view us? History will not be kind to our generation.

[quote=BondGuy]

Mikebutler

That you think I want defeat is an insult. [/quote]

I’m sorry you see it that way. Perhaps I share on this subject the same blindness you evidenced with your first post.

I just can’t past the almost gleeful recitation of we’ve lost, it’s lost, we’ve lost, we have no plan, all as you simultaneously admit the insurgents can’t win unless we lose our will. (READ: surrender). Add to that the usual “take back our government” type talking points and, well….

[quote=BondGuy] Hmm, I wonder how Arab history books will view us? [/quote]

Unless we walk away, we’ll be the people that saved them from the Taliban and Saddam.

[quote=BondGuy] History will not be kind to our generation.

[/quote]

The only way your prediction becomes true is if we walk away and leave people in Iraq that have depended on us to the tender mercies of the insurgents and terrorists.

[quote=babbling looney]

Malkin, Coulter, represent commentators who speak in defense of the right. Again, where did I take a shot at them? It was BL who interjected "mindless" into the debate. But to be clear, why I said what I said; what I read here reminds me of what I read or hear from Malkin or Coulter. Call me Molly Ivins but I see similarities. And we all know that, at least you, if no one else here, gets info from the Heritage foundation. Is that a negative? No, I think not. It's a fact. Again, I didn't make any mindless drone statements or comparisons. That came from Babs. Maybe a little oversensitive, I don't know, but she made the comparo, not me. That's not close to my thinking.

Not green please, I'm getting eyestrain.  And yes, probably overly sensitive since most conversations/debates with people on the left immediately descend into a sneering accusation that the only reason I think what I do is because I have been brainwashed by some talking head on television or blabbering mouth on the radio. Plus it is always the same litany of talking heads that the "liberal" Democrats assume all Republicans listen to, as if we are all tuned into the same program and thought waves.

The problem is many on the right use the demeaning terms coined by many commantators of this ilk. Use any of the terms is akin to branding yourself. Same goes with using a favorite tactic of the right which is to decend into name calling. Both sides own this to some extent, but the right lives and breathes it at outlets like Fox. On the recent kerry comments Fox was about as one sided as it could get with the derisive commantary. By comparison ABC news presented a balanced report of the incident and commantary that did not pass judgement about Kerry's varasity.

Even some of my own family who are so far left they can see themselves coming around a corner, throw that accusation out as a final closure to any rational debate and is supposed to end the argument.  "Well, you only say those things because you listen to Rush Limbaugh."   Sorry, don't listen to the radio except for music on NPR and certainly wouldn't listen to Rush Limbaugh if I had the time.  As if I, or you for that matter of fact, can't come to conclusions on their own merit and must be mind controlled by someone else if we have a thought not congruent with theirs.   You rarely hear the same sneering accusations from the people on the right/conservative side.

Maybe it's me, but that's about the only place I hear it. That is the right. Malkin can be balanced but she's an attack dog. Coulter is about as vile as one can get. As mentioned Fox news coverage of the Kerry thing was a disgrace. Since Rush dissed Mcnabb he is no longer somone I listen to to get a pulse on the right. That was pretty out of line.

I'm sick of it and resent being pigeonholed by people who refuse to listen to any rational arguments and can't seem to keep the argument/debate on topic.

I feel your pain. I agree even though I'm not sure if you are talking about me here.

As to my political leanings, this website's test is pretty good for that http://www.politicalcompass.org/index   Take the test yourself.

Interesting. This is the second political compass test i've taken in two weeks. Result is the same, more or less, slightly left. Also, for the purposes of this test, slightly libertarian.

I end up just about in the same location as the dot that represents Milton Friedman with just a bit more libertarian leaning.

[/quote]

Looks like I'm a moderate left leaning Libertarian.  That's where I always got confused...my heavy libertarian leanings were always attributed as conservative values.   Makes more sense to add the extra spectrum.

lol @ “so far left they can see themselves coming around the corner…”

"Same goes with using a favorite tactic of the right which is to decend into name calling. Both sides own this to some extent, but the right lives and breathes it at outlets like Fox."

Oh, please.....

[quote=mikebutler222]

[quote=BondGuy]

Mikebutler

That you think I want defeat is an insult. [/quote]

I’m sorry you see it that way. Perhaps I share on this subject the same blindness you evidenced with your first post.

I just can’t past the almost gleeful recitation of we’ve lost, it’s lost, we’ve lost, we have no plan, all as you simultaneously admit the insurgents can’t win unless we lose our will. (READ: surrender). Add to that the usual “take back our government” type talking points and, well….

"What we have here is failure to communicate" - Strother Martin as Camp Boss, Cool Hand Luke, 1967

I said I was pissed off and you read it as gleeful?

Admit? No, state the obivious, yes. I'm just telling it like it is.  This is their plan to defeat us. Am I wrong just for pointing that out. Because that's all I'm doing.

[quote=BondGuy] Hmm, I wonder how Arab history books will view us? [/quote]

Unless we walk away, we’ll be the people that saved them from the Taliban and Saddam.

In their eyes, this isn't about the Taliban or Saddam. Mike, remember, that there are a large number of people, possibly the majority, from the middle east who believe that on 9/11 we got what was coming to us. Saddam and Omar were not the great satan, we were, and are. Our support for Israel is subverted into amercans want arabs dead. It is American armor, guns, planes and bombs that kill palestinian children. America only invaded iraq to get its oil. You think left leaning commentators are bad, al jazeera has them all beat, plus all the guys from the right and then some. They don't like us and don't consider us saviors. Perception is reality. And no i don't agree with that thinking. I allow that it exists and will influence the outcome of our middle east policy. To ignore it invites disaster.

[quote=BondGuy] History will not be kind to our generation.

[/quote]

The only way your prediction becomes true is if we walk away and leave people in Iraq that have depended on us to the tender mercies of the insurgents and terrorists.

I agree. We broke it, now we own it and have to fix it. Exactly why history won't treat us gently. Were do you get that I want to walk away? I don't want to walk away. But at the same time, who are we fighting for? You keep saying the Iraqie people. There is no Iraqie people. There three tribes, Kurd, Shiia and Sunni. Right now the Sunnis and Shiites are fighting each other. Which tribe are our troops dying for? Unless something changes it's gooing to be all out civil war rather than the limited war we have now. Right now, the terrorist are least of these people's problems. When you have a Sunni or Shiia death squad chasing you through the streets with a custom tailored orange jumpsuit made just for you, what team their playing for loses its significance.

To say that the US "broke" Saddam's Iraq is rather absurd.  Clinton himself said, "[Saddam's] regime threatens the safety of his people, the stability of his region and the security of all the rest of us."  And to suggest there's no Iraqi people flies in the face of every Iraqi foreign national hoping to return to their home country now that Saddam is out of power. 

I think civil war will be inevitable if we are to cut and run, which Bush has sworn will not happen under his watch.  I reiterate, a free Iraq could change the course of history in the mid-east, and Iran knows it.  We can't give up now.

I’m sorry you see it that way. Perhaps I share on this subject the same blindness you evidenced with your first post.

I just can’t past the almost gleeful recitation of we’ve lost, it’s lost, we’ve lost, we have no plan, all as you simultaneously admit the insurgents can’t win unless we lose our will. (READ: surrender). Add to that the usual “take back our government” type talking points and, well….

I said I was pissed off and you read it as gleeful?

You said you were pissed off, late and after scores of we're lost, it's lost posts.

Admit? No, state the obivious, yes. I'm just telling it like it is.  This is their plan to defeat us. Am I wrong just for pointing that out. Because that's all I'm doing.

No, I pointed out the only way we lose is if, as the insurgents hope, the "we've lost, let's leave" crowd gains power.  Then you continue with the chant, "we've lost, it's lost"...

[quote=BondGuy] Hmm, I wonder how Arab history books will view us? [/quote]

Unless we walk away, we’ll be the people that saved them from the Taliban and Saddam.

In their eyes, this isn't about the Taliban or Saddam.

I'm sorry, I wasn't aware you speak for the people of Iraq and Afghanistan, much less the larger M.E..

 Mike, remember, that there are a large number of people, possibly the majority, from the middle east who believe that on 9/11 we got what was coming to us.

Very good point. They hated us before we went there, they hate us after. So your point was, exactly?

They don't like us and don't consider us saviors.

I suggest you read again the polls from Iraq. They, the people, aren't asking for us to leave immediately.

[quote=BondGuy] History will not be kind to our generation.

[/quote]

The only way your prediction becomes true is if we walk away and leave people in Iraq that have depended on us to the tender mercies of the insurgents and terrorists.

I agree. We broke it, now we own it and have to fix it. Exactly why history won't treat us gently.

If we walk away, you're right....if we win, and I believe we will, we will have saved millions from tyranny. Just remember those purple fingers.

Were do you get that I want to walk away? I don't want to walk away. But at the same time, who are we fighting for?

You say the above, add your usual "we've lost, it's lost" and then ask me why I get the idea you want us to leave?

[quote=opie]

To say that the US "broke" Saddam's Iraq is rather absurd.  Clinton himself said, "[Saddam's] regime threatens the safety of his people, the stability of his region and the security of all the rest of us."  And to suggest there's no Iraqi people flies in the face of every Iraqi foreign national hoping to return to their home country now that Saddam is out of power. 

I think civil war will be inevitable if we are to cut and run, which Bush has sworn will not happen under his watch.  I reiterate, a free Iraq could change the course of history in the mid-east, and Iran knows it.  We can't give up now.

[/quote]

Exactly, and again, rather than listening to people, with an unmistakable political agenda declare a loss from half a world away, just listen to what the people closest to the fight, young officers and enlisted men in the Wash Post (yesterday, IIRC) talking about the war, what we're getting done and what happens if we leave.

[quote=joedabrkr] [quote=BondGuy]

TB, relax. You were warned upfront that this solid republican country. Fox news, Michelle Malkin, Ann Coulter, and the Heritage Foundation seem to be the primary sources of information.

 Attacking the poster is a popular way to punish noncompliant thinking. Say something they disagree with and they resort to name calling, or other childish games like picking on spelling or grammer.  More times than not you will not get honorable debate, or answers. You will get non answers, the name calling etc.,rather than speaking to the issue. Yet, these people consider themselves mature independant thinkers who have the right answer. Unfortunately, rather than giving that answer, they name call. Personally, I don't get it.

I too took the poster to be more concerned with taxes than our predicament in Iraq. Of course to some here, there is no predicament in Iraq. Everything is fine. Just the war taking its normal course. One guy here, mikebutler(assume the poster is male)  keeps comparing Iraq to the Battle of the Bulge. Which I have to admit, I don't get the reference. And more than likely if I ask for clarification he won't explain it to me without calling me a name. So, why waste my time. But, again the point is Iraq isn't a problem, just a war in progress. And anyone who questions the war is a defeatocrat.

So, to fit in here do your best not to elucidate any republican shortcomings. Tell this group that with all the republicans coming out of the closet lately that the repubicans should change their mascot to the moth, not appreciated here. And whatever you do don't say anything positive about any democrats. This group is just fine with the non checks and balances of the current power consolidation in government.

Preemptive war, Ok here.

Warrentless wiretaps, Ok here.

Suspension of Habeas Corpus, Ok here

Take from the poor, give to the rich via eminent domain, OK here.

War, I don't have to go, my kids don't have to go, war is Ok here

Osama still out there, Ok here

Stem cell research is unacceptable because it is murder, Ok here

You just have to understand the thinking. Get a blow j** and you're a criminal. Out a CIA agent, which is treason, under Bush, not a crime. And they can give you chapter and verse as to why.

If you're looking for answers to Financial services industry questions, maybe this forum will help. Though quite frankly, I'm finding it less effective in that role than it was at one time. Way too much childishness, with picking on newcomers for spelling, grammer ,etc. That chases away new people who don't get the dynamic and diminishes the roll of those of us who try to earnestly help these people.

As for open and honest debate of the issues, this isn't the forum for it. But at times it can be entertaining to engage the predictable.

Question that? Just watch.

[/quote]

Actually BondGuy I agree with many of your posts, and those with which I do not agree I still find to be thought provoking.

My position is simply this-Mr. Bush is far from perfect.  In fact, he may not even be bright.  But, he's dealing with a very difficult situation in this world, and too many folks simply don't want to face the fact that we're at war with a people who want to eradicate our way of life.  He has made some mistakes, but is doing what he thinks to be best, regardless of what it may cost him in terms of popularity.

He may not be super smart, but he is a man of principles and convictions, and acts according to what he thinks is in the best long-term interests of our country, not the Republican party.  He has been savvy enough and humble enough to also surround himself with some pretty bright people.

Actually Bush is a pretty smart guy. Doesn't know dick about how the world works, but smart just the same. The bright people are part of the problem. Wolfowicz and Rice both proime architects of preemptive war. Rumsfeld and Wolfowicz both on the record with "not a chance" type statements of getting into a protracted war with Iraq. We(the little people) didn't understand the situation in iraq. They knew better. Tenant(then cia director) had to threaten to go public with a denial to stop Cheney from saying in a speech that we had a direct intelligence link to WMDs. Cheney didn't tell the big lie, but it took a lot of balls for Tenant to stand up to him to stop him. so, i disagree about the bright people.

The media, however, has such a super-strong liberal bias, that they don't give the guy a chance, IMHO.  And, too many people out there take everything that the popular media says solely at face value.  (Such as that whole Dan Rather fiasco.)

I think you're not giving people enough credit for being able to think for themselves. I agree that there is a left slant on what was it CBS. I don't find ABC to be left slanted with the exception of Prime Time's John Stossell. Fox is so right they can't look to the right without falling over. WSJ right, NY times left, Sports Illustrated CENTER(fold that is)

I also have a hard time swallowing those on the left who would argue(and believe their own arguments) that Bush and Co. concocted the story about WMD's solely to facilitate war on Iraq.  I'm not sure if I think that view is extremely naive, or extremely cynical.  Based upon the information we had at hand, there was reason to believe that Hussein had WMD's.  Many of his own people thought he had WMD's.  This aside from him ignoring 10 years worth of UN resolutions and baiting the U.S. Air Force just about every single day for that last 10 years. He had to go.
[/quote]

OK, where does this come from? First there is the fact that Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowicz are on the record during the 90's that we should take out Saddam. They beat a drum throughout Clinton's presidency. next, there's Richard Clark. despite the right wing hatch job, no doubt we'll get more of that here, Clark is highly believable in his allegation that Rumsfeld and Cheney told him to find an Iraq connection to 9/11. Lastly, Iraq was on the Bush agenda  before 9/11/ Bush had made it part of his presidency to dipose Saddam. How and when were up in the air, but it was in the wind, so to speak. As you said, he had to go.

So if you add it all up, neocons chomping at the bit, a pre 9/11 plan to depose, highly regarded insider dropping a dime, added to no WMDs, well it doesn't look good. The left's position is not a stretch. It looks like he made it up to have an excuse to take Saddam out. It didn't help when he started backtracking and stating he never said war was because of WMDs. However, there is this, all of our top commanders believed Saddam had WMDs. Not just the penagon generals, the joint chiefs,but also the field generals and intell guys. So if everybody in your chain of command, the hired experts are all telling you one thing, are you going to believe it? Of course you would. So it was with Bush. The problem was they were all wrong. Even though the intell told them there were no WMDs, they all believed that there were. All but one important person, who remained neutral, Powell. No one listened to him. And off to war we went. bad intell, no post war plan, and all. So there is a reason the left hangs Bush on this issue.

As for the truth, it is where it always is, somplace in between what is said by either side.

[quote=opie]

To say that the US "broke" Saddam's Iraq is rather absurd. 

Colin Powell's words. Disagree, write him a letter.

 Clinton himself said, "[Saddam's] regime threatens the safety of his people, the stability of his region and the security of all the rest of us." 

Well, Iraq is certainly a security threat now. We all agree that something had to be done to deal with Iraq. Like somthing has to be done about Iran, and N. Korea. Any ideas for those two hot spots? Should we just march in/ What do you think?

 And to suggest there's no Iraqi people flies in the face of every Iraqi foreign national hoping to return to their home country now that Saddam is out of power. 

I apologise. they're all Iraqie people. After we clear up the little insurgency problem they can fly home and join up with whatever death squad group suits them. my guess is that choice will be made along tribal lines. And going out on a limb here, my real guess is that none will be going home to be repatriated until the death squads go away. Completely away. When will that be? And do our troops have to die for that?

I think civil war will be inevitable if we are to cut and run, which Bush has sworn will not happen under his watch.  I reiterate, a free Iraq could change the course of history in the mid-east, and Iran knows it.  We can't give up now.

Opie, i not trying to pick on you. They're fighting each other. All reconstruction has stopped. There are death squads of the different religious groups hunting each other and committing mass murder. The security forces are invovled in this, as are the police. But it's not their gig, it's their tribe's gig. What would you call that? Some, believe it or not, are calling it civil war.

History is already changed. I'm all for a free Iraq. Tell us how to get there from here? Agree, we can't leave now. So, what do we do?