Mission Accomplished?
National NewsSubmitted by WSClark
Some will take exception to my comments, but I truly want an answer. I want an answer from the right wingers. I want an answer from the conservatives. I want an answer from the Bush lovers.
In March of 2003, you called me a traitor. You called me un-American. You called me a coward. You said that I was appeasing terrorists. You said I was betraying my country. You told me to leave America.
Now, the War on Iraq is not going like you said it would. Your "Mission was not Accomplished." The civil war I predicted has become reality. You have created more terrorists and made America less safe. There were no Weapons of Mass Destruction. There was no link between Saddam and 9/11. Iraq was not a supporter of terrorism.
You lied to us.
Now the right wing expects us to fall in line and support the war that we have always been against. Now they want us to be good little American. Now they want us to resist the temptation to protest. Now they want us to follow the right wing course and forget that we told you so.
Now you want us to shut up and not ask questions.
So tell me – why should I shut up now? Why should my voice be silenced now? If I was un-American then, what are you now?
Why should I forgive your accusations of treason now?
Tell me why.
Please.
lindainks55 said:
I know you don't want an answer from me, but you're going to get one anyway.
You were called all kinds of names because the people doing the calling were passionate, out of other words, trying hard to get you to see their view, and carried away.
And, by the way, they were wrong! You aren't a traitor, un-American, you aren't appeasing terrorists and you shouldn't be asked to leave your country. You see this issue TOTALLY DIFFERENTLY than they see it.
This war. It's hard (ok, impossible) for me to see any good reason why we're there, what good has been accomplished, and why we need to continue to pretend something will change. I am so solidly on the side of "this war is wrong" I can't (haven't yet been able to) consider that another opinion could have any merit.
At my house I don't get to talk about this subject. And NOT TALKING about it is a good idea! My husband and I are both strong willed people and we happen to be on opposite sides on this topic. I don't understand why. He really is a very intelligent man, level headed, kind, reasonably well-informed. He has the opinion we must act instead of reacting, show strength... I don't have the words to describe what he is thinking because I don't have any understanding of how anyone could think that way. He thinks I am as wrong as I think he is. We would need an arbitrator in order to even discover exactly what the other thinks and why. I get the feeling if he were a young man he may go join the military, the fray, the fight. I could be wrong but I know for sure he feels we must fight and anything less is the wrong choice.
So I'm interested in hearing the other side too. If someone posts an opposing opinion I will read and try hard to understand. Reading here doesn't endanger the peace at home.
You were called all kinds of names because the people doing the calling were passionate, out of other words, trying hard to get you to see their view, and carried away.
And, by the way, they were wrong! You aren't a traitor, un-American, you aren't appeasing terrorists and you shouldn't be asked to leave your country. You see this issue TOTALLY DIFFERENTLY than they see it.
This war. It's hard (ok, impossible) for me to see any good reason why we're there, what good has been accomplished, and why we need to continue to pretend something will change. I am so solidly on the side of "this war is wrong" I can't (haven't yet been able to) consider that another opinion could have any merit.
At my house I don't get to talk about this subject. And NOT TALKING about it is a good idea! My husband and I are both strong willed people and we happen to be on opposite sides on this topic. I don't understand why. He really is a very intelligent man, level headed, kind, reasonably well-informed. He has the opinion we must act instead of reacting, show strength... I don't have the words to describe what he is thinking because I don't have any understanding of how anyone could think that way. He thinks I am as wrong as I think he is. We would need an arbitrator in order to even discover exactly what the other thinks and why. I get the feeling if he were a young man he may go join the military, the fray, the fight. I could be wrong but I know for sure he feels we must fight and anything less is the wrong choice.
So I'm interested in hearing the other side too. If someone posts an opposing opinion I will read and try hard to understand. Reading here doesn't endanger the peace at home.
Vaughn Tolle said:
WS, no response from me other than to say I am awaiting a response from those from whom you requested one.
Linda, I'm not going to say I can explain to you why your good spouse feels as he does, but from my military days and subsequent life, I believe I understand his thinking. While it's a bit of a "generational male" thing, it's also rooted in his experiences gained through life, and somewhat dependent upon how he grew up, his family's military experiences, and so on and so on.
I believe many of us formerly "draft-eligible" males of a certain age understand the mindset; but we don't think Iraq is the place for "the fight". All in this cohort recall the horror that was VietNam; many regard the effort there ultimately futile; we all mourn the loss of friends and relatives; and cynically wonder if this current situation really isn't all about the oil, just as the VietNam experience was all about the "Domino Theory".
Not a good post; I've lost my train of thought, so I'm out for now.
Linda, I'm not going to say I can explain to you why your good spouse feels as he does, but from my military days and subsequent life, I believe I understand his thinking. While it's a bit of a "generational male" thing, it's also rooted in his experiences gained through life, and somewhat dependent upon how he grew up, his family's military experiences, and so on and so on.
I believe many of us formerly "draft-eligible" males of a certain age understand the mindset; but we don't think Iraq is the place for "the fight". All in this cohort recall the horror that was VietNam; many regard the effort there ultimately futile; we all mourn the loss of friends and relatives; and cynically wonder if this current situation really isn't all about the oil, just as the VietNam experience was all about the "Domino Theory".
Not a good post; I've lost my train of thought, so I'm out for now.
Fundie said:
WS and Linda,
Very good posts...the fundamental difference between here and the WE is that you all get it, that the two sides both want the same outcome (a better stronger America) but have different paths to get thier.
My current position on the war, as it changes everyday, is that I don't know. This very well may have been an unjust war, and many men and women have tragicly lost their lives. The whole region is a cluster, and no peacefull solution is in sight. Now with all of that said, an objective, and patriotic thinker will put those questions, and tragedies behind them and decide, as of right now, what is best for America. If the republicans were wrong, if the Dems were wrong, it doesn't matter right now (let the next generation decide that). The mission of this generation is to ensure that a next generation will exist. So to that end we must decide should we stay or should we go. Keeping in mind that we should not complicate the question with why we are there, but only think on what is best for the US now and later.
Now the issue, as I see it, is the question of rather the US, and the World for that matter, are safer with us fighting in Iraq, or is our presence only increasing the problem. Truely only a prophet could tell, but in the absence of a prohet we must collect and analyze the relevant facts, and only rhe relevant facts. The question of whether Bush lied or not are not relevant to the decision to fight, they may be relevant to the election, but not the war as it stands now.
These are my thoughts, comments are always welcome, and thank you for reading.
Very good posts...the fundamental difference between here and the WE is that you all get it, that the two sides both want the same outcome (a better stronger America) but have different paths to get thier.
My current position on the war, as it changes everyday, is that I don't know. This very well may have been an unjust war, and many men and women have tragicly lost their lives. The whole region is a cluster, and no peacefull solution is in sight. Now with all of that said, an objective, and patriotic thinker will put those questions, and tragedies behind them and decide, as of right now, what is best for America. If the republicans were wrong, if the Dems were wrong, it doesn't matter right now (let the next generation decide that). The mission of this generation is to ensure that a next generation will exist. So to that end we must decide should we stay or should we go. Keeping in mind that we should not complicate the question with why we are there, but only think on what is best for the US now and later.
Now the issue, as I see it, is the question of rather the US, and the World for that matter, are safer with us fighting in Iraq, or is our presence only increasing the problem. Truely only a prophet could tell, but in the absence of a prohet we must collect and analyze the relevant facts, and only rhe relevant facts. The question of whether Bush lied or not are not relevant to the decision to fight, they may be relevant to the election, but not the war as it stands now.
These are my thoughts, comments are always welcome, and thank you for reading.
WSClark said:
In my pathetic mind, just about the worst thing you can call me is a traitor. I love my country passionately, but I have to admit that I hate our current president.
Perhaps it is part of my Sixties upbringing and subsequent radicalism, but I consider the POTUS to be MY servant. He answers to ME, not the other way around.
As I have said many times, I am better than no one and no one is better than me.
I see it as my right and my duty to interject my opinion into the discourse concerning my country, not as being anti-American or treasonous.
I also find it to be maddening when I am accused of not supporting our troops. I want them home safely - that is MY support for the troops.
Anyway, I am damned sick and tired of being called a traitor - that is my primarily reason for leaving WE Blog. Some find that to make that accusation is funny, but I take it very seriously.
Perhaps it is part of my Sixties upbringing and subsequent radicalism, but I consider the POTUS to be MY servant. He answers to ME, not the other way around.
As I have said many times, I am better than no one and no one is better than me.
I see it as my right and my duty to interject my opinion into the discourse concerning my country, not as being anti-American or treasonous.
I also find it to be maddening when I am accused of not supporting our troops. I want them home safely - that is MY support for the troops.
Anyway, I am damned sick and tired of being called a traitor - that is my primarily reason for leaving WE Blog. Some find that to make that accusation is funny, but I take it very seriously.
Fundie said:
Oh, and to add, WS those that called you a trader or unpatriotic, were wrong. This country was founded on individuals that saw problems and spoke out...if that is what it means to be unpatriotic, I would wear the badge with honor
lindainks55 said:
VT, He was drafted into the army during Vietnam. He was sent to MP school and served most of his two years at a prison in Germany. Although the army made it attractive to "reup" he didn't because he thought his next tour of duty couldn't be as safe. He didn't want to stand in the road as a crossing guard -- something about the sun glinting off his silver helmet making him an excellent target.
The world changed while he was gone. When he returned he felt like an old man. People his age were into drugs and protests and free love. He was into living and making decisions for himself and his future. He probably seemed very straight laced and perhaps stodgy to many his age.
He knows and mentions that some in our military and police forces have what he calls an, "I've got a gun" attitude. He doesn't approve of that attitude. So he was/is not the kind of man who seeks confrontation but would stand firm when he thinks it's justified.
Here's another thing about this man who is absolutely intelligent, responsible and all other things good I could list. I love that man sooooo much even if some days I don't like him very much. He has only voted ONE TIME IN HIS WHOLE LIFE. That was when he was in Germany (during those Vietnam years) and his staff sergeant stood over him while he marked his absentee ballot. He has NEVER registered to vote. Go figure me that one too!
The world changed while he was gone. When he returned he felt like an old man. People his age were into drugs and protests and free love. He was into living and making decisions for himself and his future. He probably seemed very straight laced and perhaps stodgy to many his age.
He knows and mentions that some in our military and police forces have what he calls an, "I've got a gun" attitude. He doesn't approve of that attitude. So he was/is not the kind of man who seeks confrontation but would stand firm when he thinks it's justified.
Here's another thing about this man who is absolutely intelligent, responsible and all other things good I could list. I love that man sooooo much even if some days I don't like him very much. He has only voted ONE TIME IN HIS WHOLE LIFE. That was when he was in Germany (during those Vietnam years) and his staff sergeant stood over him while he marked his absentee ballot. He has NEVER registered to vote. Go figure me that one too!
Vaughn Tolle said:
Linda, it sounds like your husband was a "good MP"; I know the attitude to which he refers, and during my USAF days (with the influx of the first "volunteers") found it, much to my dismay, one which increased over time.
In support of your final paragraph, I, too, know many vets who DON'T VOTE, and who do not register to vote, especially those who saw service during the Viet Nam days. Most of these were draftees. I've no explanation of this behavior, rational or otherwise. One would think that after being involuntarily impressed into service for the government, such individuals would want a say in who makes up the government so others might not face the same "fate"; but they don't.
In support of your final paragraph, I, too, know many vets who DON'T VOTE, and who do not register to vote, especially those who saw service during the Viet Nam days. Most of these were draftees. I've no explanation of this behavior, rational or otherwise. One would think that after being involuntarily impressed into service for the government, such individuals would want a say in who makes up the government so others might not face the same "fate"; but they don't.
darwinsdisciple said:
WSC,
I knew this really arrogant psychiatrist (he is now a retired arrogant artist) who used to say: "When people like that tell me I am wrong, I know I am on the right track." The foregoing in basically my take on the folks you mention at the WE Blog. I would worry if those detractors were saying "Spot-on, Clark" - because then you'd have to know you were completely screwed up.
Those clowns of whom you refer are "reverse barometers" - the show the way in terms of what not to think. I should say, also, that every once in a while, a brain dead conservative will make a reasonable and good point - it does happen, just not very often.
Linda, thanks for sharing your story. I will never again complain about anything my sweet spouse does, or doesn't do.
I knew this really arrogant psychiatrist (he is now a retired arrogant artist) who used to say: "When people like that tell me I am wrong, I know I am on the right track." The foregoing in basically my take on the folks you mention at the WE Blog. I would worry if those detractors were saying "Spot-on, Clark" - because then you'd have to know you were completely screwed up.
Those clowns of whom you refer are "reverse barometers" - the show the way in terms of what not to think. I should say, also, that every once in a while, a brain dead conservative will make a reasonable and good point - it does happen, just not very often.
Linda, thanks for sharing your story. I will never again complain about anything my sweet spouse does, or doesn't do.
lindainks55 said:
We've been married 27 years and long ago decided to very carefully choose which hill we want to die on.
Danny said:
WS,
I had a long answer all typed up and closed my browser before submitting, so now I get to do this all over again. Bear with me as this is going to be fast and furious typing.
So I'll try to address each question posed. Why should you shut up now? You shouldn't. I look at it from the point of view of the following, your interpretation and thoughts about the war are good, it also should cause others to think. Accepting things blindly is bad.
Why would people call you unpatriotic or treasonous? I think this stems from one of three possible causes(that I can see):
1. The people voicing support of the war don't really support it themselves but don't want anybody else voicing anything against it.
2. The people voicing support of the war really do believe in it's cause(freeing people of Iraq from a dictator... finding and destroying WMDs... etc) however, do not have a really idea of how to achieve that goal. Therefore don't want you to voice your dissenting opinion regarding it.
and
3. Don't really have a care either way, but because the President saw it has being important define patriotism as supporting the President through thick and thin, regardless of the number of mistakes made. And further, don't know how or didn't know how to defend their belief.
In addressing your last question:
Should you forgive? That is a very personal choice my friend(I hope that I am allowed to call you friend) and as such I don't know that I can answer it.
Personally, I was like you though, against the war. I think that those calling someone unpatriotic is an indication of the three things listed above, coupled with the inability to defend the actions taken in regards to Iraq.
I had a long answer all typed up and closed my browser before submitting, so now I get to do this all over again. Bear with me as this is going to be fast and furious typing.
So I'll try to address each question posed. Why should you shut up now? You shouldn't. I look at it from the point of view of the following, your interpretation and thoughts about the war are good, it also should cause others to think. Accepting things blindly is bad.
Why would people call you unpatriotic or treasonous? I think this stems from one of three possible causes(that I can see):
1. The people voicing support of the war don't really support it themselves but don't want anybody else voicing anything against it.
2. The people voicing support of the war really do believe in it's cause(freeing people of Iraq from a dictator... finding and destroying WMDs... etc) however, do not have a really idea of how to achieve that goal. Therefore don't want you to voice your dissenting opinion regarding it.
and
3. Don't really have a care either way, but because the President saw it has being important define patriotism as supporting the President through thick and thin, regardless of the number of mistakes made. And further, don't know how or didn't know how to defend their belief.
In addressing your last question:
Should you forgive? That is a very personal choice my friend(I hope that I am allowed to call you friend) and as such I don't know that I can answer it.
Personally, I was like you though, against the war. I think that those calling someone unpatriotic is an indication of the three things listed above, coupled with the inability to defend the actions taken in regards to Iraq.
darwinsdisciple said:
Linda, indeed, one can't die on every hill. My spouse, I think, is more like me, whereas I am inclined to think, yours may be more unlike than like you. Your situation is probably more interesting, but boredom is not always the bad thing it is made out to be. In my humblest of opinions.
Danny said:
If I may, I'd like to cover a few reasons for why we probably should stay, and some reasons for why we should leave.
Staying:
1. Fix our mess. We broke it, we should own up and fix it now. Sadly, the problem with this "fix what we broke" mentality is a time table, do we leave it open ended? The answer is, no. We have to set a time on when we are going to start pulling out, and a time on when we will be fully withdrawn. This puts pressure on both the Iraqi government to start stepping up to the plate and taking some responsibility, and us on fixing the things we damaged or destroyed.
Sure not all of us supported the war, myself included, and as such feel we shouldn't personally be responsible for the mistakes made there. However, we are all Americans and as such, we should take responsibility and start demanding we begin to fix things there, and set some damned time tables.
If given an open ended time table to accomplish something, people procrastinate. This is why it is important to have time tables, and stick to them as closely as possible. People start to do things when all of a sudden there is a deadline.
So identify the things we can fix(infrastructure) fix those. Identify who needs trained to take over security, train them. Then start the withdrawing process, watching that the training worked, and then eventually be fully withdrawn.
2. In staying, we do help to ensure the safety of those citizens in Iraq, that otherwise do no harm to anybody else, and contribute to the well being of their fellow Iraqi's is good. Yes, why should do this? Because we are the invader. At the same time, in staying we still need time tables for when withdrawl begins and when we are to completely be out of Iraq.
3. Would leaving early make it worse? If so, then wouldn't staying be a better option? Sure we are in a civil war there, but I think doing the things mentioned in 1(my thoughts and my thoughts only) I do believe we may be able to accomplish some good there.
Leaving(I don't have alot here because of... well read my reasons for staying):
1. We get out of a bad situation, and we bring our troops home. Nobody is really going to complain about this. Further, it relieves some temptation to go to war with Iran.
2. Most of America disagrees with this war. While I'd say most of America agreed with Afghanistan, the Iraq war was likely to finish something Bush Sr. started but wisely(or incapablely) didn't finish himself. Or was this more about protecting our oil interests?
3. War is generally unpopular, it doesn't really help the economy in the long term, and generally we end up spending more than we take in for taxes, so future generations may likely still be paying for this.
Anyway... my thoughts.
Staying:
1. Fix our mess. We broke it, we should own up and fix it now. Sadly, the problem with this "fix what we broke" mentality is a time table, do we leave it open ended? The answer is, no. We have to set a time on when we are going to start pulling out, and a time on when we will be fully withdrawn. This puts pressure on both the Iraqi government to start stepping up to the plate and taking some responsibility, and us on fixing the things we damaged or destroyed.
Sure not all of us supported the war, myself included, and as such feel we shouldn't personally be responsible for the mistakes made there. However, we are all Americans and as such, we should take responsibility and start demanding we begin to fix things there, and set some damned time tables.
If given an open ended time table to accomplish something, people procrastinate. This is why it is important to have time tables, and stick to them as closely as possible. People start to do things when all of a sudden there is a deadline.
So identify the things we can fix(infrastructure) fix those. Identify who needs trained to take over security, train them. Then start the withdrawing process, watching that the training worked, and then eventually be fully withdrawn.
2. In staying, we do help to ensure the safety of those citizens in Iraq, that otherwise do no harm to anybody else, and contribute to the well being of their fellow Iraqi's is good. Yes, why should do this? Because we are the invader. At the same time, in staying we still need time tables for when withdrawl begins and when we are to completely be out of Iraq.
3. Would leaving early make it worse? If so, then wouldn't staying be a better option? Sure we are in a civil war there, but I think doing the things mentioned in 1(my thoughts and my thoughts only) I do believe we may be able to accomplish some good there.
Leaving(I don't have alot here because of... well read my reasons for staying):
1. We get out of a bad situation, and we bring our troops home. Nobody is really going to complain about this. Further, it relieves some temptation to go to war with Iran.
2. Most of America disagrees with this war. While I'd say most of America agreed with Afghanistan, the Iraq war was likely to finish something Bush Sr. started but wisely(or incapablely) didn't finish himself. Or was this more about protecting our oil interests?
3. War is generally unpopular, it doesn't really help the economy in the long term, and generally we end up spending more than we take in for taxes, so future generations may likely still be paying for this.
Anyway... my thoughts.
darwinsdisciple said:
Should my wife read the above, I will swear it was written by a name-stealing troll!!! :-)
Danny said:
DD,
You mean what I had just written?
Well, except for the fact I'm me! Always have been. I think I always will be, then one day I'll leave and never to return.... hmmm... maybe I should download my brain into a computer. Then I could forever antagonize people... but would probably get one of those virii that Tracy had mentioned on one of the other threads here...
You mean what I had just written?
Well, except for the fact I'm me! Always have been. I think I always will be, then one day I'll leave and never to return.... hmmm... maybe I should download my brain into a computer. Then I could forever antagonize people... but would probably get one of those virii that Tracy had mentioned on one of the other threads here...
lindainks55 said:
I found this "lesson plan" which is a simple explanation of some of the problems in Iraq. Now, I don't recognise the author so don't have any clue whether there is a slant from one perspective or not. Just found it easy to read and interesting. Also poses some questions that are interesting.
http://www.teachablemoment.org/high/iraq3-05.html
http://www.teachablemoment.org/high/iraq3-05.html
lindainks55 said:
Do we fix things in Iraq over and over again? Rebuild and rebuild the water lines, electric lines, schools, roads? Do American soldiers undo what they just did with their bombs?
If Americans are hated by the bad guys, did a bunch of the bad guys come to Iraq from all over? If we weren't there would they go back to their home countries? Would Americans being gone take some of the wind out of their sails?
As far as the civil war between the Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds: Aren't we offering protection to one group more than another? If we set any timetable would the opposing people just wait us out? After all they’ve been warring for awhile now.
I am of the opinion many of the so-called terrorists may just be angry people. I think I've said before that if someone bombed the hell out of my neighborhood, unloaded their tank in the street in front of my house or parked their truck there and out crawled armed soldiers I would be angry and do what it took to protect my home and family even if that made me fit someone's definition of a terrorist.
If America provided money to Iraqis to do their own rebuilding wouldn’t that provide needed jobs and fix their infrastructure? And it surely wouldn’t’ cost more (maybe less) than we’re currently spending. It would put more of the responsibility on their shoulders. And maybe put many people out of danger (our soldiers at least!).
If we came home and guarded our borders wouldn’t that do something towards the threat of them following us here?
Just wondering?
If Americans are hated by the bad guys, did a bunch of the bad guys come to Iraq from all over? If we weren't there would they go back to their home countries? Would Americans being gone take some of the wind out of their sails?
As far as the civil war between the Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds: Aren't we offering protection to one group more than another? If we set any timetable would the opposing people just wait us out? After all they’ve been warring for awhile now.
I am of the opinion many of the so-called terrorists may just be angry people. I think I've said before that if someone bombed the hell out of my neighborhood, unloaded their tank in the street in front of my house or parked their truck there and out crawled armed soldiers I would be angry and do what it took to protect my home and family even if that made me fit someone's definition of a terrorist.
If America provided money to Iraqis to do their own rebuilding wouldn’t that provide needed jobs and fix their infrastructure? And it surely wouldn’t’ cost more (maybe less) than we’re currently spending. It would put more of the responsibility on their shoulders. And maybe put many people out of danger (our soldiers at least!).
If we came home and guarded our borders wouldn’t that do something towards the threat of them following us here?
Just wondering?
Danny said:
Linda,
That identified some of the issues I think we need to address. Contrary to Bush, a time table does need to be set, else people just procrastinate. Yeah, we need to start fixing things, just to get basic services back into place.
We did break it, so I think we should be responsible and fix those things. Oh well... I don't know though, I'm of the type... identify problems, address, build a plan with a deadline, and get to work on it.
Maybe we won't be perfect, but crap anything is better than this perception of: we have no plan, no time tables, no deadlines. That perception to me is seemingly more and more reality as I see more information come out.
That identified some of the issues I think we need to address. Contrary to Bush, a time table does need to be set, else people just procrastinate. Yeah, we need to start fixing things, just to get basic services back into place.
We did break it, so I think we should be responsible and fix those things. Oh well... I don't know though, I'm of the type... identify problems, address, build a plan with a deadline, and get to work on it.
Maybe we won't be perfect, but crap anything is better than this perception of: we have no plan, no time tables, no deadlines. That perception to me is seemingly more and more reality as I see more information come out.
Danny said:
Linda,
Good points on your last post there. I don't know. Maybe helping them help themselves is the way to go. Certainly I think with deadlines we do run that risk of them playing a waiting game, but at the same time, things don't get done with out one.
I think we should fix those things we are responsible for breaking. And try to help them out, but at the same time, its time to get realistic and setup up deadlines on when things are going to happen.
Good points on your last post there. I don't know. Maybe helping them help themselves is the way to go. Certainly I think with deadlines we do run that risk of them playing a waiting game, but at the same time, things don't get done with out one.
I think we should fix those things we are responsible for breaking. And try to help them out, but at the same time, its time to get realistic and setup up deadlines on when things are going to happen.
TRACY said:
HOWL
For Carl Solomon
I
I saw the best minds of my generation destroyed by madness,
starving hysterical naked,
dragging themselves through the negro streets at dawn looking for an angry fix,
angelheaded hipsters burning for the ancient heavenly connection to the starry dynamo in the machinery of night,
who poverty and tatters and hollow-eyed and high sat up smoking in the supernatural darkness of cold-water flats floating across the tops of cities contemplating jazz,
who bared their brains to Heaven under the El and saw Mohammedan angels staggering on tenement roofs illuminated,
who passed through universities with radiant cool eyes hallucinating Arkansas and Blake-light tragedy among the scholars of war,
who were expelled from the academies for crazy & publishing obscene odes on the windows of the skull,
who cowered in unshaven rooms in underwear,
burning their money in wastebaskets and listening to the Terror through the wall,
(continued)
II
What sphinx of cement and aluminum bashed open their skulls and ate up their brains and imagination?
Moloch! Solitude! Filth! Ugliness!
Ashcans and unobtainable dollars!
Children screaming under the stairways!
Boys sobbing in armies!
Old men weeping in the parks!
Moloch! Moloch! Nightmare of Moloch!
Moloch the loveless! Mental Moloch!
Moloch the heavy judger of men!
(continued)
For Carl Solomon
I
I saw the best minds of my generation destroyed by madness,
starving hysterical naked,
dragging themselves through the negro streets at dawn looking for an angry fix,
angelheaded hipsters burning for the ancient heavenly connection to the starry dynamo in the machinery of night,
who poverty and tatters and hollow-eyed and high sat up smoking in the supernatural darkness of cold-water flats floating across the tops of cities contemplating jazz,
who bared their brains to Heaven under the El and saw Mohammedan angels staggering on tenement roofs illuminated,
who passed through universities with radiant cool eyes hallucinating Arkansas and Blake-light tragedy among the scholars of war,
who were expelled from the academies for crazy & publishing obscene odes on the windows of the skull,
who cowered in unshaven rooms in underwear,
burning their money in wastebaskets and listening to the Terror through the wall,
(continued)
II
What sphinx of cement and aluminum bashed open their skulls and ate up their brains and imagination?
Moloch! Solitude! Filth! Ugliness!
Ashcans and unobtainable dollars!
Children screaming under the stairways!
Boys sobbing in armies!
Old men weeping in the parks!
Moloch! Moloch! Nightmare of Moloch!
Moloch the loveless! Mental Moloch!
Moloch the heavy judger of men!
(continued)
Predestined said:
"If America provided money to Iraqis to do their own rebuilding wouldn?t that provide needed jobs and fix their infrastructure?"
Linda,
I think the above and the rest of that paragraph you wrote is what we need to be looking at for the future.
Surely there is another way, other than staying in Iraq for eternity. But eternity is what the current administration is hoping for. Not that I think they want an eternity of war, but I do think they want to "own" Iraq, in more ways than one.
Whether going into Iraq in the first place was right or wrong, it was very poorly planned. Or maybe that was the idea? I don't know. All I do know is that I don't trust those in positions of power. I don't trust those who talk out of both sides of their mouths. Somebody should have smacked W when he said, "You're you're with us or against us." Then again, it's easy to see just who isn't with us, especially now. Let's see, that would be 70% of the U.S. and most of the rest of the world.
But someone who sees themselves as a "cowboy" and a "decider" and whatever else his deluded mind is imagining, really doesn't care what anyone else thinks.
I still say that if W couldn't make a go of 3 oil companies in TEXAS, he sure didn't have the credentials to run this great country.
Linda,
I think the above and the rest of that paragraph you wrote is what we need to be looking at for the future.
Surely there is another way, other than staying in Iraq for eternity. But eternity is what the current administration is hoping for. Not that I think they want an eternity of war, but I do think they want to "own" Iraq, in more ways than one.
Whether going into Iraq in the first place was right or wrong, it was very poorly planned. Or maybe that was the idea? I don't know. All I do know is that I don't trust those in positions of power. I don't trust those who talk out of both sides of their mouths. Somebody should have smacked W when he said, "You're you're with us or against us." Then again, it's easy to see just who isn't with us, especially now. Let's see, that would be 70% of the U.S. and most of the rest of the world.
But someone who sees themselves as a "cowboy" and a "decider" and whatever else his deluded mind is imagining, really doesn't care what anyone else thinks.
I still say that if W couldn't make a go of 3 oil companies in TEXAS, he sure didn't have the credentials to run this great country.
lindainks55 said:
Read here. Poetic words of war, truth, seems someone should learn something some year so none of these words need to be about now or the future.
This one especially:
The Teeth Mother Naked at Last
by Robert Bly
"...Now the Chief Executive enters, and the press conference begins.
First the President lies about the date the Appalachian Mountains rose.
Then he lies about the population of Chicago,
then the weight of the adult eagle, and then the acreage of the Everglades
Next he lies about the number of fish taken every year in the Arctic.
He has private information about which city is the capital of Wyoming.
He lies about the birthplace of Attila the Hun,
Then about the composition of the amniotic fluid,
He insists that Luther was never a German,
and that only the Protestants sold indulgences,
He declares that Pope Leo X wanted to reform the church, but the liberal elements prevented him.
He declares the Peasants War was fomented by Italians from the North.
And the Attorney General lies about the time the sun sets..."
http://www.caterina.net/paw/
This one especially:
The Teeth Mother Naked at Last
by Robert Bly
"...Now the Chief Executive enters, and the press conference begins.
First the President lies about the date the Appalachian Mountains rose.
Then he lies about the population of Chicago,
then the weight of the adult eagle, and then the acreage of the Everglades
Next he lies about the number of fish taken every year in the Arctic.
He has private information about which city is the capital of Wyoming.
He lies about the birthplace of Attila the Hun,
Then about the composition of the amniotic fluid,
He insists that Luther was never a German,
and that only the Protestants sold indulgences,
He declares that Pope Leo X wanted to reform the church, but the liberal elements prevented him.
He declares the Peasants War was fomented by Italians from the North.
And the Attorney General lies about the time the sun sets..."
http://www.caterina.net/paw/
Hank Price said:
Dear Clark,
I read your little rant, clumsily disguised as a series of questions. At first I thought I’d just ignore it like many of your irrational posts. But then, I thought why not set the record straight! After all, you did ask!
So lets dissect this little rant shall we? First a thought or two to ensure you understand where I’m coming from. I don’t think that with your demonstrated attitude in this post and others you will get much from my reply. I think your mind is closed. I respond mainly, like many others on the BLOGs, to get something off my chest, not to address your questions. I will merely use your questions as a way to proceed. I believe that your questions and the way you ask them are more indicative of your very biased attitude rather than your curiosity.
“Some will take exception to my comments, but I truly want an answer.”
You have every right to make any comment that you like. When they become abusive and personal, like many of yours do, I will generally ignore them. When I do take exception to your comments most of the time I will just ignore them, in fact I’ll ignore everything you say for days afterward. So go ahead and ‘comment’ all you want!
“ I want an answer from the right wingers.”
OK! I wear the label ‘right winger’ with pride! Although you use it as a term of derision, I’m proud of the work and effort it takes to have an informed ‘right wing’ opinion!
“I want an answer from the conservatives.”
Again, OK! Conservative is another term I gladly identify with! I’m always amazed at how easy the liberals on the BLOGs can allow themselves to totally miss the point of a conservative post by merely resorting to name calling like, “neo-con”, “right winger”, etc. The number of BLOGers that think that just because you are a conservative, or Christian, or republican you aren’t really smart enough to post an intelligent response amazes me! .
“I want an answer from the Bush lovers.”
Well, a true conservative has always been a little disappointed in Bush. He wasn’t my first choice for the republican nomination in 2000, but, oh well, he was running against Al Gore for heavens sake! When Bush came out with his phony “compassionate conservative” crap it completely turned me off. It’s like saying conservatives really weren’t compassionate until he came along!
I realize that it was merely a campaign slogan to fool the dumbest amongst the great-unwashed moderates, the ‘undecided’, and the dumbest among us. But for me, I thought it was caving in to the old democratic propaganda that would have you believe that conservatives are ‘mean spirited, and their policies are ‘cruel’.
If you want to be a conservative leader, a man that will advance conservative policies, you don’t start off by accepting the liberal bullshit propaganda of your opponents.
Don’t love him. I respect him. I think he has been presidential to a fault. I think that he believes presidential politics should be above the petty bickering and childish BS the democrats constantly bombard him with. I think he should control the debate better. I still think he is twice the man that Al Gore or John Kerry are and a much better president overall than any of the democratic hopefuls that we’ve seen in the last twenty years.
“In March of 2003, you called me a traitor. You called me un-American. You called me a coward. You said that I was appeasing terrorists. You said I was betraying my country. You told me to leave America.”
Dear Clark, I have no idea what you are talking about. Didn’t know you in 2003. I suppose it’s merely a rhetorical question, but since you make specific charges that I know nothing of I’ll just answer in general terms.
I don’t think you or anyone else on the BLOG are traitors. I think that many of the democrats in congress are traitors. I think that people like you that believe what they say are merely dupes. I think that many of you are too lazy to educate yourselves on the reality of living in a world that has a global terrorist network determined on many levels to destroy our life as we know it. I also believe that the majority of the left-wing-idiots that post their venomous anti American comments on these BLOGs are, in fact, in an insignificant minority in the country. I don’t believe that an irrational hate for a president is a policy for getting things done.
“Now, the War on Iraq is not going like you said it would.”
So what? What war has ever gone as expected? What does that have to do with anything? You either need to go to war or you don’t. The overwhelming bipartisan opinion of congress was that we needed to go to war. War is serious stuff. If you vote to go to war you are obligated to do every thing in your power to win it as soon as possible with the minimum loss of OUR lives. The democrats have generally done every thing in their power to undermine the president at every turn. In that sense, I’m sure the war hasn’t gone as the president hoped or expected.
Your "Mission was not Accomplished."
When I see some one use the old “Mission Accomplished” mantra I know that I’m either dealing with an incredibly disingenuous politician or one of his dupes. I assume that you are referring to the famous “Mission Accomplished” banner on the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln.
I have not addressed this democratic lunacy much in the past. It’s merely propaganda. When President Bush made his address on the Abraham Lincoln it bothered the democrats a lot. Here we have a very strong president making a strong speech on an aircraft carrier during a very successful period of the war. We had toppled the Iraqi regime! Quicker and with less loss of life than had been predicted or expected, by either side! The democrats had to get their spin machine in high gear! Lets see how we can turn this into a lie! How do we get the dumbest amongst us to believe that this was really something it wasn’t? First we have to avoid the substance and the reality! Mission accomplished? There’s something we can spin and lie about for political gain! And with the help of the willing media they reduced a glorious homecoming and a military victory that is unsurpassed in modern warfare into a shameful sound bite.
The mission was accomplished. The mission was accomplished on several levels. The mission of the Abraham Lincoln was accomplished. Its mission was to supply air support for our troops. Its mission was to provide real time aerial intelligence. Its mission was to destroy Iraq’s ability to wage war. Then and now, we control the air in the Mideast! Its mission was to support the larger mission, the overthrow of Saddam Hussein.
If, in your twisted, little, hate filled world you don’t think the “mission was accomplished” you must first allow the definition of ‘mission’ be perverted by the democrats. You must allow them to define mission as ‘winning’ the war. Then you must allow them to convince you that any definition of ‘winning’ can’t exist. You have to be stupid and allow yourself to be manipulated on several levels to fall for the “Mission Accomplished” propaganda the democrats have used. When a liberal uses the “Mission Accomplished” BS I know he is either disingenuous or a fool.
“The civil war I predicted has become reality. You have created more terrorists and made America less safe. There were no Weapons of Mass Destruction. There was no link between Saddam and 9/11. Iraq was not a supporter of terrorism.” ‘
More liberal Bullshit. Really Clark? Every one of your statements above are lies. They are liberal talking points that have no basis in truth. None. I hesitate to even address my thoughts on these propaganda statements of the left because I honestly believe that you believe them. However, just because you are sincere in your beliefs, doesn’t mean liars aren’t fooling you. So, even though you didn’t pose these idiotic statements as a question, because you have erroneously stated them as facts I will address them to clear the air.
What is your definition of “civil war”? You predicted it? You believe it? Bull Shit. What ever it is that you believe is going on in Iraq, it is not a civil war. The intelligent observers of the insurgent’s actions there don’t believe it is a civil war. The Iraqis don’t believe it is a civil war, furthermore, the democrat leadership and liberal media doesn’t even believe it is a civil war. Only the dumbest amongst us believe what is happening or going to happen is a civil war. They willingly fall the liberal catch phrases such as “quagmire”, “civil war”, and other ridiculous phrases not based on fact because they are either too lazy to try and understand what is actually going on; unable to remember any events in the past prior to GWB; or have such an irrational hate for GWB that they will never be able to participate in the debate in a logical, thoughtful manner.
“You have created more terrorists and made America less safe.”
Right. What an incredibly stupid statement. How incredibly stupid would someone have to be to believe such nonsense? How far do you want to go back in history to try and understand the violent history between the Christian and Muslim cultures? Should we only go back as far as the Clinton years and blame him for our problems today because he sat by and allowed attack after attack by Muslim extremists with no consequence? Should we go back only as far as Bush senior and blame him for not ‘finishing the job in ’91? Maybe we should blame Reagan because he did nothing to retaliate when the Marine barracks was bombed. Maybe we have this problem today because Jimmy Carter allowed the Iranians to kidnap and hold hostage our embassy people for days. Did things go south for us when the Marines landed at Tripoli? Or maybe, the radical Islamic terrorists are still annoyed with Christians in general because of the Crusades!
Nope, we only have to go back as far as GWB taking office with the help of Supreme Court if you are a liberal! He had eight months in office and all he did was plan ways to steal oil and help his rich buddies! Good Grief. “You have created more terrorists and made America less safe.” What an incredibly stupid, short sighted, history ignoring statement.
George Bush is the first American president that has come up with a change in foreign policy that will change the way we react to terrorists. It scares the liberals. For the democrats in congress and the willing dupes that vote for them, Bush is scarier than a suicide bomber.
“There were no Weapons of Mass Destruction.”
Another liberal mantra not based in reality. So what? Everyone believed he had WMDs. He wanted WMDs. He had programs in place to manufacture WMDs. All the democratic leaders thought he had WMDs. The intelligence agencies of every western country thought he had WMDs. He had used WMDs on his own people in the past. But when we invade Iraq, with overwhelming success, the libs can only come up with ‘Bush lied, people died” How incredibly stupid.
Oh, buy the way, Saddam had WMDs!
“There was no link between Saddam and 9/11.”
So what? Saddam was supporting al Qeada! Saddam was working with al Qeada! There is tons of evidence that proves Saddam and Ben Laden were allies against so-called ‘American aggression’. Books have been written about the connection! Furthermore, we invaded Iraq because they had consistently ignored the terms of the cease-fire established after the first Gulf War. We were at war with Iraq all of the Clinton years! They ignored all of Clinton’s ‘tough talk’. They ignored 17 UN resolutions. They were ignoring GWB. Saddam had bought off the members of the UN Security Council with his oil for food dollars. So, the facts on little piece of the liberal democrat propaganda program: “There was no link between Saddam and 9/11.” Remain: It’s irrelevant. It’s also a lie.
“You lied to us.”
No Clark, your inability to recognize the truth does not make us liars. No Clark, your ability to ignore any facts that disprove your narrow-minded world-view does not make us liars. No Clark, your irrational hate for Bush, your contempt for conservatives, your disdain for any opinion that does not fall in line with the democratic propaganda does not make us liars. It merely shows you for the fool you and other liberals are.
Amazing, how the whole premise of your post is a lie and you attempt to use it to say, “You lied to us.”!
“Now the right wing expects us to fall in line and support the war that we have always been against. Now they want us to be good little American. Now they want us to resist the temptation to protest. Now they want us to follow the right wing course and forget that we told you so.”
No Clark, we have come to expect very little from you! We don’t think you are traitors, you would actually have to do something to be a traitor! You would have to do more than just bitch and moan on a BLOG. The democratic leaders that undermine our president every step of the way are traitors. The libs on this BLOG are merely dupes.
“Now you want us to shut up and not ask questions.”
Well it would be nice if you had the ability to ask a question without a false premise. It would be nice if you really asked a question with a sincere desire to know and try to understand the opposing viewpoint. It would be nice if you could ask a question without undisguised contempt of the person you are asking. It would be nice if you could enter the debate with even a very basic understanding of history. However, if your rant that started this little thread is any example you are not capable of any meaningful debate.
“So tell me – why should I shut up now? Why should my voice be silenced now? If I was un-American then, what are you now?”
By all means Clark, keep posting! You make reasonable people look good! When you get on a roll I can just ignore your hate filled meaningless rants. You make up a very small majority of the American people. You’re irrelevant in the grand scheme of things!
“Why should I forgive your accusations of treason now?
Tell me why.”
Never accused you, I don’t need nor do I beg your forgiveness!
You may be proud of your little rant but in truth it is merely nothing more than a litany of democratic talking points. It shows that you have fallen for political spin at its lowest level. It shows that you are basically incapable of an original thought or opinion. Your questions are insulting to anyone that loves his country. It shows that like your liberal spin-doctors you are guilty of the very things that you are accusing conservatives of.
MISSION ACCOMPLISHED
Hank
I read your little rant, clumsily disguised as a series of questions. At first I thought I’d just ignore it like many of your irrational posts. But then, I thought why not set the record straight! After all, you did ask!
So lets dissect this little rant shall we? First a thought or two to ensure you understand where I’m coming from. I don’t think that with your demonstrated attitude in this post and others you will get much from my reply. I think your mind is closed. I respond mainly, like many others on the BLOGs, to get something off my chest, not to address your questions. I will merely use your questions as a way to proceed. I believe that your questions and the way you ask them are more indicative of your very biased attitude rather than your curiosity.
“Some will take exception to my comments, but I truly want an answer.”
You have every right to make any comment that you like. When they become abusive and personal, like many of yours do, I will generally ignore them. When I do take exception to your comments most of the time I will just ignore them, in fact I’ll ignore everything you say for days afterward. So go ahead and ‘comment’ all you want!
“ I want an answer from the right wingers.”
OK! I wear the label ‘right winger’ with pride! Although you use it as a term of derision, I’m proud of the work and effort it takes to have an informed ‘right wing’ opinion!
“I want an answer from the conservatives.”
Again, OK! Conservative is another term I gladly identify with! I’m always amazed at how easy the liberals on the BLOGs can allow themselves to totally miss the point of a conservative post by merely resorting to name calling like, “neo-con”, “right winger”, etc. The number of BLOGers that think that just because you are a conservative, or Christian, or republican you aren’t really smart enough to post an intelligent response amazes me! .
“I want an answer from the Bush lovers.”
Well, a true conservative has always been a little disappointed in Bush. He wasn’t my first choice for the republican nomination in 2000, but, oh well, he was running against Al Gore for heavens sake! When Bush came out with his phony “compassionate conservative” crap it completely turned me off. It’s like saying conservatives really weren’t compassionate until he came along!
I realize that it was merely a campaign slogan to fool the dumbest amongst the great-unwashed moderates, the ‘undecided’, and the dumbest among us. But for me, I thought it was caving in to the old democratic propaganda that would have you believe that conservatives are ‘mean spirited, and their policies are ‘cruel’.
If you want to be a conservative leader, a man that will advance conservative policies, you don’t start off by accepting the liberal bullshit propaganda of your opponents.
Don’t love him. I respect him. I think he has been presidential to a fault. I think that he believes presidential politics should be above the petty bickering and childish BS the democrats constantly bombard him with. I think he should control the debate better. I still think he is twice the man that Al Gore or John Kerry are and a much better president overall than any of the democratic hopefuls that we’ve seen in the last twenty years.
“In March of 2003, you called me a traitor. You called me un-American. You called me a coward. You said that I was appeasing terrorists. You said I was betraying my country. You told me to leave America.”
Dear Clark, I have no idea what you are talking about. Didn’t know you in 2003. I suppose it’s merely a rhetorical question, but since you make specific charges that I know nothing of I’ll just answer in general terms.
I don’t think you or anyone else on the BLOG are traitors. I think that many of the democrats in congress are traitors. I think that people like you that believe what they say are merely dupes. I think that many of you are too lazy to educate yourselves on the reality of living in a world that has a global terrorist network determined on many levels to destroy our life as we know it. I also believe that the majority of the left-wing-idiots that post their venomous anti American comments on these BLOGs are, in fact, in an insignificant minority in the country. I don’t believe that an irrational hate for a president is a policy for getting things done.
“Now, the War on Iraq is not going like you said it would.”
So what? What war has ever gone as expected? What does that have to do with anything? You either need to go to war or you don’t. The overwhelming bipartisan opinion of congress was that we needed to go to war. War is serious stuff. If you vote to go to war you are obligated to do every thing in your power to win it as soon as possible with the minimum loss of OUR lives. The democrats have generally done every thing in their power to undermine the president at every turn. In that sense, I’m sure the war hasn’t gone as the president hoped or expected.
Your "Mission was not Accomplished."
When I see some one use the old “Mission Accomplished” mantra I know that I’m either dealing with an incredibly disingenuous politician or one of his dupes. I assume that you are referring to the famous “Mission Accomplished” banner on the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln.
I have not addressed this democratic lunacy much in the past. It’s merely propaganda. When President Bush made his address on the Abraham Lincoln it bothered the democrats a lot. Here we have a very strong president making a strong speech on an aircraft carrier during a very successful period of the war. We had toppled the Iraqi regime! Quicker and with less loss of life than had been predicted or expected, by either side! The democrats had to get their spin machine in high gear! Lets see how we can turn this into a lie! How do we get the dumbest amongst us to believe that this was really something it wasn’t? First we have to avoid the substance and the reality! Mission accomplished? There’s something we can spin and lie about for political gain! And with the help of the willing media they reduced a glorious homecoming and a military victory that is unsurpassed in modern warfare into a shameful sound bite.
The mission was accomplished. The mission was accomplished on several levels. The mission of the Abraham Lincoln was accomplished. Its mission was to supply air support for our troops. Its mission was to provide real time aerial intelligence. Its mission was to destroy Iraq’s ability to wage war. Then and now, we control the air in the Mideast! Its mission was to support the larger mission, the overthrow of Saddam Hussein.
If, in your twisted, little, hate filled world you don’t think the “mission was accomplished” you must first allow the definition of ‘mission’ be perverted by the democrats. You must allow them to define mission as ‘winning’ the war. Then you must allow them to convince you that any definition of ‘winning’ can’t exist. You have to be stupid and allow yourself to be manipulated on several levels to fall for the “Mission Accomplished” propaganda the democrats have used. When a liberal uses the “Mission Accomplished” BS I know he is either disingenuous or a fool.
“The civil war I predicted has become reality. You have created more terrorists and made America less safe. There were no Weapons of Mass Destruction. There was no link between Saddam and 9/11. Iraq was not a supporter of terrorism.” ‘
More liberal Bullshit. Really Clark? Every one of your statements above are lies. They are liberal talking points that have no basis in truth. None. I hesitate to even address my thoughts on these propaganda statements of the left because I honestly believe that you believe them. However, just because you are sincere in your beliefs, doesn’t mean liars aren’t fooling you. So, even though you didn’t pose these idiotic statements as a question, because you have erroneously stated them as facts I will address them to clear the air.
What is your definition of “civil war”? You predicted it? You believe it? Bull Shit. What ever it is that you believe is going on in Iraq, it is not a civil war. The intelligent observers of the insurgent’s actions there don’t believe it is a civil war. The Iraqis don’t believe it is a civil war, furthermore, the democrat leadership and liberal media doesn’t even believe it is a civil war. Only the dumbest amongst us believe what is happening or going to happen is a civil war. They willingly fall the liberal catch phrases such as “quagmire”, “civil war”, and other ridiculous phrases not based on fact because they are either too lazy to try and understand what is actually going on; unable to remember any events in the past prior to GWB; or have such an irrational hate for GWB that they will never be able to participate in the debate in a logical, thoughtful manner.
“You have created more terrorists and made America less safe.”
Right. What an incredibly stupid statement. How incredibly stupid would someone have to be to believe such nonsense? How far do you want to go back in history to try and understand the violent history between the Christian and Muslim cultures? Should we only go back as far as the Clinton years and blame him for our problems today because he sat by and allowed attack after attack by Muslim extremists with no consequence? Should we go back only as far as Bush senior and blame him for not ‘finishing the job in ’91? Maybe we should blame Reagan because he did nothing to retaliate when the Marine barracks was bombed. Maybe we have this problem today because Jimmy Carter allowed the Iranians to kidnap and hold hostage our embassy people for days. Did things go south for us when the Marines landed at Tripoli? Or maybe, the radical Islamic terrorists are still annoyed with Christians in general because of the Crusades!
Nope, we only have to go back as far as GWB taking office with the help of Supreme Court if you are a liberal! He had eight months in office and all he did was plan ways to steal oil and help his rich buddies! Good Grief. “You have created more terrorists and made America less safe.” What an incredibly stupid, short sighted, history ignoring statement.
George Bush is the first American president that has come up with a change in foreign policy that will change the way we react to terrorists. It scares the liberals. For the democrats in congress and the willing dupes that vote for them, Bush is scarier than a suicide bomber.
“There were no Weapons of Mass Destruction.”
Another liberal mantra not based in reality. So what? Everyone believed he had WMDs. He wanted WMDs. He had programs in place to manufacture WMDs. All the democratic leaders thought he had WMDs. The intelligence agencies of every western country thought he had WMDs. He had used WMDs on his own people in the past. But when we invade Iraq, with overwhelming success, the libs can only come up with ‘Bush lied, people died” How incredibly stupid.
Oh, buy the way, Saddam had WMDs!
“There was no link between Saddam and 9/11.”
So what? Saddam was supporting al Qeada! Saddam was working with al Qeada! There is tons of evidence that proves Saddam and Ben Laden were allies against so-called ‘American aggression’. Books have been written about the connection! Furthermore, we invaded Iraq because they had consistently ignored the terms of the cease-fire established after the first Gulf War. We were at war with Iraq all of the Clinton years! They ignored all of Clinton’s ‘tough talk’. They ignored 17 UN resolutions. They were ignoring GWB. Saddam had bought off the members of the UN Security Council with his oil for food dollars. So, the facts on little piece of the liberal democrat propaganda program: “There was no link between Saddam and 9/11.” Remain: It’s irrelevant. It’s also a lie.
“You lied to us.”
No Clark, your inability to recognize the truth does not make us liars. No Clark, your ability to ignore any facts that disprove your narrow-minded world-view does not make us liars. No Clark, your irrational hate for Bush, your contempt for conservatives, your disdain for any opinion that does not fall in line with the democratic propaganda does not make us liars. It merely shows you for the fool you and other liberals are.
Amazing, how the whole premise of your post is a lie and you attempt to use it to say, “You lied to us.”!
“Now the right wing expects us to fall in line and support the war that we have always been against. Now they want us to be good little American. Now they want us to resist the temptation to protest. Now they want us to follow the right wing course and forget that we told you so.”
No Clark, we have come to expect very little from you! We don’t think you are traitors, you would actually have to do something to be a traitor! You would have to do more than just bitch and moan on a BLOG. The democratic leaders that undermine our president every step of the way are traitors. The libs on this BLOG are merely dupes.
“Now you want us to shut up and not ask questions.”
Well it would be nice if you had the ability to ask a question without a false premise. It would be nice if you really asked a question with a sincere desire to know and try to understand the opposing viewpoint. It would be nice if you could ask a question without undisguised contempt of the person you are asking. It would be nice if you could enter the debate with even a very basic understanding of history. However, if your rant that started this little thread is any example you are not capable of any meaningful debate.
“So tell me – why should I shut up now? Why should my voice be silenced now? If I was un-American then, what are you now?”
By all means Clark, keep posting! You make reasonable people look good! When you get on a roll I can just ignore your hate filled meaningless rants. You make up a very small majority of the American people. You’re irrelevant in the grand scheme of things!
“Why should I forgive your accusations of treason now?
Tell me why.”
Never accused you, I don’t need nor do I beg your forgiveness!
You may be proud of your little rant but in truth it is merely nothing more than a litany of democratic talking points. It shows that you have fallen for political spin at its lowest level. It shows that you are basically incapable of an original thought or opinion. Your questions are insulting to anyone that loves his country. It shows that like your liberal spin-doctors you are guilty of the very things that you are accusing conservatives of.
MISSION ACCOMPLISHED
Hank
lindainks55 said:
Hank, Your post said (to me) you are a person with a different opinion who is accusing Will of ranting but unable to see you are using the same tactic. You called names and used many words to say you are right and anyone who thinks differently is wrong. If there was something helpful to support your opinion I missed it. Maybe because it was hidden in the way you stated it?
So we're right back where we started. Two polarizing opinions stated strongly, because each is held strongly.
Don't both sides use the following phrases I copied and pasted from your post? What do any of these phrases tell us?
-------------------
***I think that people like you that believe what they say are merely dupes
***I think that many of you are too lazy to educate yourselves
***I know that I'?m either dealing with an incredibly disingenuous politician or one of his dupes.
***The **democrats/republicans** had to get their spin machine in high gear! Lets see how we can turn this into a lie! How do we get the dumbest amongst us to believe that this was really something it wasn?t? First we have to avoid the substance and the reality!
***If, in your twisted, little, hate filled world
***You have to be stupid and allow yourself to be manipulated on several levels
***Every one of your statements above are lies.
***However, just because you are sincere in your beliefs, doesn?t mean liars aren?t fooling you.
***So, even though you didn?t pose these idiotic statements as a question, because you have erroneously stated them as facts I will address them to clear the air.
***What an incredibly stupid statement. How incredibly stupid would someone have to be to believe such nonsense?
***your inability to recognize the truth does not make us liars.
***your ability to ignore any facts that disprove your narrow-minded world-view does not make us liars.
***keep posting! You make reasonable people look good!
***When you get on a roll I can just ignore your hate filled meaningless rants. You make up a very small majority of the American people.
***It shows that you have fallen for political spin at its lowest level. It shows that you are basically incapable of an original thought or opinion.
***Your questions are insulting to anyone that loves his country.
--------------------------------
What each of these phrases tell me is everyone has a strong opinion and we aren't getting anywhere in helping anyone see the opposing one.
WSClark said:
Well, Mr. Price, I am not going to take the time to refute every one of your points, but I will address several.
I love my country more than you could ever know. I want the best for America and all it's citizens. I am far from stupid and I reach my own conclusions by personally researching the facts. I do not need a Limbaugh or a Hannity for provide me with talking points.
So state emphatically that Saddam had WMD and had operational ties with al Qaeda. Even George W Bush has had to admit that he was wrong. The Pentagon just released a report that completely disproves the al Qaeda connection with Iraq. If Iraq is not in a civil war, then what do you call to armed factions fighting one another within a country? The pentagon has stated that al Qaeda only makes up about 5% of the "insurgency" so who is fighting?
You say that we were fighting Saddam throughout the Clinton presidency. Really? How many US servicemen were killed by Iraqi forces during that time?
I will help you with the answer - zero.
But let's start with the premise of my commentary.....
When I stated that I had been called a traitor by the right wing in 2003, I obviously was not referring to you specifically. The statement was RHETORICAL.
I was referencing the fact that the vast majority of Republicans accused those that were anti-war of being traitors and cowards. Specifically a number of posters of the WE Blog have accused me directly of treason. You know exactly who I am talking about.
You suggest that I am in a very small minority of Americans. You could not be more wrong. Seventy percent of American citizens want us out of Iraq, without qualification. The poll question was NOT qualified based on "victory" etc. Your president, George W Bush is the least popular President since Nixon. Bill Clinton's popularity was more than TWICE that of GWB on the day he was impeached.
Those are facts, Mr. Price.
I do not need Democratic talking points to help me make up my mind. And as for not doing anything except blog - you could not be further from the truth. As a citizen, I am extremely politically active. My current projects are the campaign of Barack Obama and the veteran homeless issue.
What are you working on, Mr. Price?
I would not expect you to even remotely understand my feelings on this subject. To some, calling another citizen a traitor is a big joke. I really do not care what you think of me, Mr. Price. You opinion of me is meaningless, but I will not be called a traitor.
To me, it is the ultimate insult.
I love my country more than you could ever know. I want the best for America and all it's citizens. I am far from stupid and I reach my own conclusions by personally researching the facts. I do not need a Limbaugh or a Hannity for provide me with talking points.
So state emphatically that Saddam had WMD and had operational ties with al Qaeda. Even George W Bush has had to admit that he was wrong. The Pentagon just released a report that completely disproves the al Qaeda connection with Iraq. If Iraq is not in a civil war, then what do you call to armed factions fighting one another within a country? The pentagon has stated that al Qaeda only makes up about 5% of the "insurgency" so who is fighting?
You say that we were fighting Saddam throughout the Clinton presidency. Really? How many US servicemen were killed by Iraqi forces during that time?
I will help you with the answer - zero.
But let's start with the premise of my commentary.....
When I stated that I had been called a traitor by the right wing in 2003, I obviously was not referring to you specifically. The statement was RHETORICAL.
I was referencing the fact that the vast majority of Republicans accused those that were anti-war of being traitors and cowards. Specifically a number of posters of the WE Blog have accused me directly of treason. You know exactly who I am talking about.
You suggest that I am in a very small minority of Americans. You could not be more wrong. Seventy percent of American citizens want us out of Iraq, without qualification. The poll question was NOT qualified based on "victory" etc. Your president, George W Bush is the least popular President since Nixon. Bill Clinton's popularity was more than TWICE that of GWB on the day he was impeached.
Those are facts, Mr. Price.
I do not need Democratic talking points to help me make up my mind. And as for not doing anything except blog - you could not be further from the truth. As a citizen, I am extremely politically active. My current projects are the campaign of Barack Obama and the veteran homeless issue.
What are you working on, Mr. Price?
I would not expect you to even remotely understand my feelings on this subject. To some, calling another citizen a traitor is a big joke. I really do not care what you think of me, Mr. Price. You opinion of me is meaningless, but I will not be called a traitor.
To me, it is the ultimate insult.
lindainks55 said:
There are two statements you make Hank that I would like to address. They are the basis of our disagreements.
1. “You either need to go to war or you don?t.”
The United States of America needed to find Bin Laden and his alQaeda organization that were responsible for the attacks on America and bring them to justice. America did not need to send soldiers into Iraq and begin a war there.
2. “George Bush is the first American president that has come up with a change in foreign policy that will change the way we react to terrorists. It scares the liberals. For the democrats in congress and the willing dupes that vote for them, Bush is scarier than a suicide bomber.”
Other presidents have come up with changes in foreign policy that are changes you don't agree with. Bush is the first president to choose war and killing many innocent people as the way to react to terrorists. That doesn't make his way better. It only makes it one you agree with.
You are right that I fear George W. Bush much more than a suicide bomber. His decisions have more negative impact, have killed more people, and have disrupted more lives than any suicide bomber ever dreamed of accomplishing.
1. “You either need to go to war or you don?t.”
The United States of America needed to find Bin Laden and his alQaeda organization that were responsible for the attacks on America and bring them to justice. America did not need to send soldiers into Iraq and begin a war there.
2. “George Bush is the first American president that has come up with a change in foreign policy that will change the way we react to terrorists. It scares the liberals. For the democrats in congress and the willing dupes that vote for them, Bush is scarier than a suicide bomber.”
Other presidents have come up with changes in foreign policy that are changes you don't agree with. Bush is the first president to choose war and killing many innocent people as the way to react to terrorists. That doesn't make his way better. It only makes it one you agree with.
You are right that I fear George W. Bush much more than a suicide bomber. His decisions have more negative impact, have killed more people, and have disrupted more lives than any suicide bomber ever dreamed of accomplishing.
Nathan said:
Linda,
How did Bush kill many innocent people in Iraq? That is a blatant lie.
It appears as if you like to think you want to make progress in discussing opposing views, yet the very fact that you make such an outrageous statement is why we say what we do about you being a dupe.
How did Bush kill many innocent people in Iraq? That is a blatant lie.
It appears as if you like to think you want to make progress in discussing opposing views, yet the very fact that you make such an outrageous statement is why we say what we do about you being a dupe.
lindainks55 said:
Read Nathan. I said HIS DECISONS....
Don't try to correct me until you learn to read the words.
Don't try to correct me until you learn to read the words.
WSClark said:
I thought that the War on Iraq was all about "LIBERATING" Iraq, Nathan. So the Iraqis that were killed were all terrorists, right? They were all insurgents even before the insurgency, right, Nathan? Bush is always right and everyone else is wrong, right Nathan?
Where are the WMD, Nathan? Even Bush has had to admit that there were no weapons of mass destruction.
Where are the connections to al Qaeda, Nathan? Your bosses at the Pentagon say that there are no connections between Saddam and al Qaeda.
Where was the threat to America, Nathan? Saddam could not even control all of his own country, but you say that he was a threat to us?
According to you, Nathan, all of the Iraqis that have been killed during the last four years were THE BAD GUYS.
I am sorry to say, Nathan, that just because you served in Iraq doesn't make you an expert in foreign policy or warfare.
There is a very good reason that the military of the United States of America is under civilian control, and that is to keep people like YOU from determining policy.
Thank God for something.
Christ, God forbid that you should be directing our foreign policy.
Where are the WMD, Nathan? Even Bush has had to admit that there were no weapons of mass destruction.
Where are the connections to al Qaeda, Nathan? Your bosses at the Pentagon say that there are no connections between Saddam and al Qaeda.
Where was the threat to America, Nathan? Saddam could not even control all of his own country, but you say that he was a threat to us?
According to you, Nathan, all of the Iraqis that have been killed during the last four years were THE BAD GUYS.
I am sorry to say, Nathan, that just because you served in Iraq doesn't make you an expert in foreign policy or warfare.
There is a very good reason that the military of the United States of America is under civilian control, and that is to keep people like YOU from determining policy.
Thank God for something.
Christ, God forbid that you should be directing our foreign policy.
Nathan said:
Linda,
Allow me to give you the qoute:
"Bush is the first president to choose war and killing many innocent people as the way to react to terrorists."
Do you see the word DECISIONS there?
I make mistakes sometimes, but this aint one of them.
You later used the word DECISIONS in this sentence:
"His decisions have more negative impact, have killed more people, and have disrupted more lives than any suicide bomber ever dreamed of accomplishing."
Now you try to read the words!
Allow me to give you the qoute:
"Bush is the first president to choose war and killing many innocent people as the way to react to terrorists."
Do you see the word DECISIONS there?
I make mistakes sometimes, but this aint one of them.
You later used the word DECISIONS in this sentence:
"His decisions have more negative impact, have killed more people, and have disrupted more lives than any suicide bomber ever dreamed of accomplishing."
Now you try to read the words!
lindainks55 said:
Nathan,
I made one post to you while you were in Iraq. It was because I was so disappointed with how you represented America that night in that conversation. You were angry and each of the words you posted sounded angry. You sounded like you had that attitude of, "I've got a gun!" I told you how much I thanked you for taking on a job I wasn't doing. How much I admired you for your service to our country. I am not brave enough to tackle what you've done! I know me and everyone in our country owes you more than it's possible to repay. But, I wanted you to be less angry because I thought it would better represent you, your job, our people and our country. You never responded, but Hank sent me a private email (off the board) explaining how difficult your job was and how sometimes you were facing such great danger you sounded differently than you really are. I believed him COMPLETELY!! I can't begin to imagine what you have seen or experienced -- FOR ME AND EVERYONE IN OUR COUNTRY. I didn't respond to your Father because I was ashamed of feeling that you were sounding less than kind. You had every right to sound any way and I had no right to expect anything!
And maybe you're still too close to realize how angry you sound. I won't argue with you. I have not been there. You absolutely know better than I ever will what is going on there. I asked a simple question. It wasn't anything else. I'm not an enemy. I am not a person who stirs ant pots. I really wondered. And I still wish you could represent me and my country more kindly.
I made one post to you while you were in Iraq. It was because I was so disappointed with how you represented America that night in that conversation. You were angry and each of the words you posted sounded angry. You sounded like you had that attitude of, "I've got a gun!" I told you how much I thanked you for taking on a job I wasn't doing. How much I admired you for your service to our country. I am not brave enough to tackle what you've done! I know me and everyone in our country owes you more than it's possible to repay. But, I wanted you to be less angry because I thought it would better represent you, your job, our people and our country. You never responded, but Hank sent me a private email (off the board) explaining how difficult your job was and how sometimes you were facing such great danger you sounded differently than you really are. I believed him COMPLETELY!! I can't begin to imagine what you have seen or experienced -- FOR ME AND EVERYONE IN OUR COUNTRY. I didn't respond to your Father because I was ashamed of feeling that you were sounding less than kind. You had every right to sound any way and I had no right to expect anything!
And maybe you're still too close to realize how angry you sound. I won't argue with you. I have not been there. You absolutely know better than I ever will what is going on there. I asked a simple question. It wasn't anything else. I'm not an enemy. I am not a person who stirs ant pots. I really wondered. And I still wish you could represent me and my country more kindly.
lindainks55 said:
Nathan,
Honestly I know what I wrote and what I feel better than you know what I wrote and what I feel. I probably could have written the words better or more clearly -- I often am not able to write exactly what I feel. President Bush made decisions which put my country into a war I disagree with completely. His decisions caused many deaths of amy innocent people.
Have you never written anything unclear? Do you ever wonder or need answers? Is there anything you would like to understand better? Are you perfect?
Honestly I know what I wrote and what I feel better than you know what I wrote and what I feel. I probably could have written the words better or more clearly -- I often am not able to write exactly what I feel. President Bush made decisions which put my country into a war I disagree with completely. His decisions caused many deaths of amy innocent people.
Have you never written anything unclear? Do you ever wonder or need answers? Is there anything you would like to understand better? Are you perfect?
Nathan said:
Linda,
I learned along time ago that you can't read tone.
I had a falling out with a close friend because of an email war between the two of us where we both thought we were pissed and hated each other, but we simply implied it to the words written.
I have never been angry in my postings except for one that I can really remember in the past year anyhow.
That was when I was talking about how upset I was in the Airport to see the Democrats passing their crap on demanding withdrawl by next year.
Regardless of the circumstances surrounding this war, why, how, or what, there are peoples lives which are in our hands. That is what I care about.
I care very deeply for the Iraqi people and understand the protection we are providing them right now.
All this political crap aside, we are talking about leaving those people to basically die at the hands of themselves, the terrorists, probably even Iran.
I care first and foremost for them and feel that we would be leaving them left for dead if we pulled out in a year.
It annoys me more because I could swear that most of those democrats ran on the agenda that they didn't want to cut and run they wanted a better strategy.
I have yet to see them suggest or enact anything other than withdrawl.
Yes it does upset me.
But please understand that I argue very passionately and that is why I type the way I do.
And... when you say something like: Bush is killing innocent people, that is crap!
I learned along time ago that you can't read tone.
I had a falling out with a close friend because of an email war between the two of us where we both thought we were pissed and hated each other, but we simply implied it to the words written.
I have never been angry in my postings except for one that I can really remember in the past year anyhow.
That was when I was talking about how upset I was in the Airport to see the Democrats passing their crap on demanding withdrawl by next year.
Regardless of the circumstances surrounding this war, why, how, or what, there are peoples lives which are in our hands. That is what I care about.
I care very deeply for the Iraqi people and understand the protection we are providing them right now.
All this political crap aside, we are talking about leaving those people to basically die at the hands of themselves, the terrorists, probably even Iran.
I care first and foremost for them and feel that we would be leaving them left for dead if we pulled out in a year.
It annoys me more because I could swear that most of those democrats ran on the agenda that they didn't want to cut and run they wanted a better strategy.
I have yet to see them suggest or enact anything other than withdrawl.
Yes it does upset me.
But please understand that I argue very passionately and that is why I type the way I do.
And... when you say something like: Bush is killing innocent people, that is crap!
WSClark said:
You have no right to attack anyone for their opinion on the war, Nathan. The fact that you have served in Iraq does not make you an expert. There is a reason that there are Generals and Admirals, and that is to keep people like you from screwing things up for this country.
Come election day, you get one vote, Nathan, just as I do. You and your father have no more influence than I do and that is how the Founding Fathers meant it to be.
The majority of the people in the United States want us out of Iraq, and nothing you or your father can say makes a god damned difference.
You vote. Your father votes. I vote.
That is just THREE fuckin' votes and yours does not count any more than mine.
And for Linda, there is no way that Nathan will represent you any better than the Man in the Moon.
He absolutely hates ONE HALF of the American people, and that half includes you and me.
Come election day, you get one vote, Nathan, just as I do. You and your father have no more influence than I do and that is how the Founding Fathers meant it to be.
The majority of the people in the United States want us out of Iraq, and nothing you or your father can say makes a god damned difference.
You vote. Your father votes. I vote.
That is just THREE fuckin' votes and yours does not count any more than mine.
And for Linda, there is no way that Nathan will represent you any better than the Man in the Moon.
He absolutely hates ONE HALF of the American people, and that half includes you and me.
lindainks55 said:
When Bush chose war as the way to react to terrorists did that war kill many innocent people?
Don't EVER call me a liar young man! No matter what you do not have the right to call me a liar!
Don't EVER call me a liar young man! No matter what you do not have the right to call me a liar!
lindainks55 said:
And furthermore, you have no right to decide what I say is crap! I have never said one unkind word about you. At least be respectful!
Nathan said:
Linda,
If you want to play silly logical games, I can play.
War doesn't kill people. War is merely a term for something people do. During war people die.
When you say Bush is killing innocent people, it is a lie.
Do you honestly think Bush wanted to kill innocent people?
Our military takes great pains to not kill innocent people, putting our troops at greater risk.
If you want to play silly logical games, I can play.
War doesn't kill people. War is merely a term for something people do. During war people die.
When you say Bush is killing innocent people, it is a lie.
Do you honestly think Bush wanted to kill innocent people?
Our military takes great pains to not kill innocent people, putting our troops at greater risk.
lindainks55 said:
I am a very proud liberal Democrat. I am a very intelligent woman. I respect you. I respect your service to our country. I contribute to our country in different ways than you. I don't lie. What I say and feel and thin is not crap!
Nathan said:
I have every right to call anyone a liar. Especially when I have to be subjected to all the accusations made against Bush on this blog and the WE Blog.
If I think what you say is crap, then it is my opinion. Guess what? It was a crapy statement to make saying that Bush kills innocent people.
If I think what you say is crap, then it is my opinion. Guess what? It was a crapy statement to make saying that Bush kills innocent people.
lindainks55 said:
I think you are someone I don't want to speak with. I think you are someone who needs to be put over someone's knee and taught respect. My opinion is as valid as yours. We disagree. I'm glad you aren't my son.
Nathan said:
I appreciate that you appreciate my service. But none of it changes that your statement was rediculous.
Nathan said:
Linda,
What makes my saying what you say is crap any different than what you say about the President?
If you can't respect the President of the United States, then why whould I respect what you say?
What makes my saying what you say is crap any different than what you say about the President?
If you can't respect the President of the United States, then why whould I respect what you say?
WSClark said:
STFU, Nathan............... You have gone way too far in your attacks on Linda. If you want to play the game, I am right here. I am more than willing and able to play.
You and your father are cut from the same cloth - no fact is too accurate for you to ignore.
Leave Linda alone - your attacks are childish and uncalled for. Be a big boy for once.
You and your father are cut from the same cloth - no fact is too accurate for you to ignore.
Leave Linda alone - your attacks are childish and uncalled for. Be a big boy for once.
Nathan said:
I take it all back Linda. You have not been unkind to me in your posts.
I should have given you a chance to explain your comment before I ridiculed it.
So, why would you say that Bush is killing innocent people the way you did?
I should have given you a chance to explain your comment before I ridiculed it.
So, why would you say that Bush is killing innocent people the way you did?
Nathan said:
WS Clark,
I attacked her comment on Bush. I have yet to say one thing about her or attack her.
You people need to learn the difference in attacking a person and attacking their ideas.
I attacked her comment on Bush. I have yet to say one thing about her or attack her.
You people need to learn the difference in attacking a person and attacking their ideas.
WSClark said:
Nathan, you are a two bit little muthafucker, and you know it. Your opinion means absolutely nothing. Just because you served in Iraq does not give you the right to attack other people on any blog.
You cry-baby about what people say about Bush, yet you right wing assholes attacked Bill Clinton EVERY day that he was in office. You impeached a duly elected president over nothing, yet you want us to give a pass to the fuckin' moron George W Bush.
As said before, your service in Iraq does not make you an expert. Your service in Iraq does not give your opinion any more weight than mine.
Your absolute hatred for the left, however, makes you uniquely unqualified to comment on anyone's thoughts about Iraq or anything else.
Just like a Rush Limbaugh or a Sean Hannity, it is obvious that your hatred prevents you from considering any point of view that differs from yours.
I know that this will come as a great shock to you, but about 51% of the American population is liberal and there is not a god damned thing you can do about it.
You cry-baby about what people say about Bush, yet you right wing assholes attacked Bill Clinton EVERY day that he was in office. You impeached a duly elected president over nothing, yet you want us to give a pass to the fuckin' moron George W Bush.
As said before, your service in Iraq does not make you an expert. Your service in Iraq does not give your opinion any more weight than mine.
Your absolute hatred for the left, however, makes you uniquely unqualified to comment on anyone's thoughts about Iraq or anything else.
Just like a Rush Limbaugh or a Sean Hannity, it is obvious that your hatred prevents you from considering any point of view that differs from yours.
I know that this will come as a great shock to you, but about 51% of the American population is liberal and there is not a god damned thing you can do about it.
lindainks55 said:
NATHAN POSTED:
"WS Clark,
I attacked her comment on Bush. I have yet to say one thing about her or attack her.
You people need to learn the difference in attacking a person and attacking their ideas."
------------------
And, Nathan posted to Linda:
you have no business pretending like you give a damn about what happens to those people in Iraq.
It appears as if you like to think you want to make progress in discussing opposing views, yet the very fact that you make such an outrageous statement is why we say what we do about you being a dupe.
when you say something like: Bush is killing innocent people, that is crap!
When you say Bush is killing innocent people, it is a lie.
If I think what you say is crap, then it is my opinion. Guess what? It was a crapy statement to make saying that Bush kills innocent people.
I appreciate that you appreciate my service. But none of it changes that your statement was rediculous.
If you can't respect the President of the United States, then why whould I respect what you say?
-------------------------------------------
You have respected EVERY president of the United States of America, Nathan?
I haven't and DON'T respect the current one. I have however been very respectful of you. You haven't been respectful of me. I am glad you are not my son!
"WS Clark,
I attacked her comment on Bush. I have yet to say one thing about her or attack her.
You people need to learn the difference in attacking a person and attacking their ideas."
------------------
And, Nathan posted to Linda:
you have no business pretending like you give a damn about what happens to those people in Iraq.
It appears as if you like to think you want to make progress in discussing opposing views, yet the very fact that you make such an outrageous statement is why we say what we do about you being a dupe.
when you say something like: Bush is killing innocent people, that is crap!
When you say Bush is killing innocent people, it is a lie.
If I think what you say is crap, then it is my opinion. Guess what? It was a crapy statement to make saying that Bush kills innocent people.
I appreciate that you appreciate my service. But none of it changes that your statement was rediculous.
If you can't respect the President of the United States, then why whould I respect what you say?
-------------------------------------------
You have respected EVERY president of the United States of America, Nathan?
I haven't and DON'T respect the current one. I have however been very respectful of you. You haven't been respectful of me. I am glad you are not my son!
WSClark said:
You suggested that Linda was a liar, Nathan, and that was completely uncalled for. You know it. I know it and Linda knows it.
Apologize or shut the fuck up.
And don't even think about calling me "you people."
Apologize or shut the fuck up.
And don't even think about calling me "you people."
Nathan said:
WS Clark,
Usually when you are trying to make a point of explaining why one should not attack someone in their posts, you don't attack the person.
Like I have said many times:
If you don't want to have your ideas or thoughts criticized then don't share them.
I have yet to say one thing about Linda as a person, I attacked what she said.
Oh well...
It has been enough fun for one evening watching you go off.
Usually when you are trying to make a point of explaining why one should not attack someone in their posts, you don't attack the person.
Like I have said many times:
If you don't want to have your ideas or thoughts criticized then don't share them.
I have yet to say one thing about Linda as a person, I attacked what she said.
Oh well...
It has been enough fun for one evening watching you go off.
lindainks55 said:
You, young man, definitely said many things about me as a person! You have shown no respect for me as a person and MUCH disrespect! Go back and read what you've posted. I know people say things in anger they wouldn't say if they were more calm. Is your memory so short?
Nathan said:
Linda,
I stick by everyone of my statements. I only regret that I should have been more engaging than combatitive in my comments towards you. I sometimes get caught up in replying to people like WS Clark and lump everyone else in that category on the way.
I stick by everyone of my statements. I only regret that I should have been more engaging than combatitive in my comments towards you. I sometimes get caught up in replying to people like WS Clark and lump everyone else in that category on the way.
WSClark said:
Just like your father, Nathan, you project your failures on the rest of us. You attack us and then you deny that you did it.
You are a loser, Nathan, and yes I am attacking you directly - right in your motherfuckin' face.
If you want some of this, little boy, come and get it.
Otherwise, STFU.
You are a loser, Nathan, and yes I am attacking you directly - right in your motherfuckin' face.
If you want some of this, little boy, come and get it.
Otherwise, STFU.
Nathan said:
Linda,
The answer to my question will be the difference in whehter or not you deserved the comments I made:
Why did you say that Bush is killing innocent people?
Because that statement in it's self has to disregard so many things and also presents something which I believe to be false.
The answer to my question will be the difference in whehter or not you deserved the comments I made:
Why did you say that Bush is killing innocent people?
Because that statement in it's self has to disregard so many things and also presents something which I believe to be false.
lindainks55 said:
Noramally I abhor the person who feels they need "the last word." Normally I would have ignored you and your posts long ago. It's a discussion board. I've never met you and never will (that is because I don't want to!). I just want you to know how much I don't admire you as a person. How much I am ashamed that you do represent my country. I think a person who is as disrespectful as you does a poor job of representing the country I take such pride in!
Nathan said:
Linda,
I have called you a dupe because of a comment you made and said your comment was a lie.
Neither of which even remotely compare to the statements you make about my representing this country.
So, go cry your river to WS Clark about name calling.
I have called you a dupe because of a comment you made and said your comment was a lie.
Neither of which even remotely compare to the statements you make about my representing this country.
So, go cry your river to WS Clark about name calling.
Nathan said:
WS Clark,
It is a blog. One in which you seem incapable of presenting anything close to an intelligent thought on.
It is a blog. One in which you seem incapable of presenting anything close to an intelligent thought on.
WSClark said:
I would have to second Linda's motion, Nathan, I don't want you representing my country either. It is people like you and George W Bush that give America a bad name.
And it is my country. You have no say in that. It is my country and I am every bit as important as a citizen as you are.
So go fuck yourself, Nathan.
And yes, Nathan, I am ashamed that you represent this country also.
And it is my country. You have no say in that. It is my country and I am every bit as important as a citizen as you are.
So go fuck yourself, Nathan.
And yes, Nathan, I am ashamed that you represent this country also.
lindainks55 said:
Will,
I know how you feel. I know you are a proud American, as am I. Ignore the insults. I will! People who behave as Nathan don't affect me. There is no reason to listen to what he says. He does my country a disservice!
I know how you feel. I know you are a proud American, as am I. Ignore the insults. I will! People who behave as Nathan don't affect me. There is no reason to listen to what he says. He does my country a disservice!
WSClark said:
My cat took a crap this morning that was more intelligent than you, Nathan. So what is your point?
By the way, are you going to start trolling now? Are you going to start stealing nics? Are you going to start attacking defenseless people like quadripalegics or disabled folks? Do you want to take a couple shots at my brother - he's in a wheelchair? Do you want to steal my nic and post some crap?
That is your style, isn't it Nathan?
And you wonder why we don't want you representing our country?
By the way, are you going to start trolling now? Are you going to start stealing nics? Are you going to start attacking defenseless people like quadripalegics or disabled folks? Do you want to take a couple shots at my brother - he's in a wheelchair? Do you want to steal my nic and post some crap?
That is your style, isn't it Nathan?
And you wonder why we don't want you representing our country?
Nathan said:
Linda,
Are you serious? You get your panties in wad because I call you a dupe.
Meanwhile, WS Clark is going off on whatever name calling tantrum he is on.
You then end up saying even worse comments about me and then agree with WS Clark like he has done nothing?
LOL, you guys are too funny.
I bet you email each other about how hard it is to be liberal being called dupes...
Are you serious? You get your panties in wad because I call you a dupe.
Meanwhile, WS Clark is going off on whatever name calling tantrum he is on.
You then end up saying even worse comments about me and then agree with WS Clark like he has done nothing?
LOL, you guys are too funny.
I bet you email each other about how hard it is to be liberal being called dupes...
WSClark said:
You are such a funny boy, Nathan. You are so funny that I could puke. God damn, I am sorry that the Marines made such a mistake and took you. If only they knew what an asshole you are.
You attacked Tracy because his father was a quadriplegic. You made up a nic and made horrible crude comments about him. Then you denied that you were a nic thief.
And now you want us to respect you because you served in Iraq?
You are a human piece of shit, Nathan.
Thanks to your HERO George W Bush, you will be back in Iraq before too long.
Something tells me that there is an IED with your name on it, just waiting for you.
Maybe then, you will see why the true Americans like Linda and I want us out of Iraq.
Enjoy your next tour in Iraq, Nathan.......
You attacked Tracy because his father was a quadriplegic. You made up a nic and made horrible crude comments about him. Then you denied that you were a nic thief.
And now you want us to respect you because you served in Iraq?
You are a human piece of shit, Nathan.
Thanks to your HERO George W Bush, you will be back in Iraq before too long.
Something tells me that there is an IED with your name on it, just waiting for you.
Maybe then, you will see why the true Americans like Linda and I want us out of Iraq.
Enjoy your next tour in Iraq, Nathan.......
lindainks55 said:
Nathan, I'm like the grandma of this blog. Will stands up for me. He doesn't know for sure when I might feel hurt or not able to defend myself. He is so kind. He is the most loyal of friends! I feel honored and humbled to have him as my friend. I simply told him your comments don't affect me.
Nathan said:
Linda,
Do you understand the inanity of getting upset at me for calling you a dupe while claiming allegience with one of the greatest offenders of the blog while being honored by his comments?
Wow. I am truely amazed. And I am not very easily amazed either!
Do you understand the inanity of getting upset at me for calling you a dupe while claiming allegience with one of the greatest offenders of the blog while being honored by his comments?
Wow. I am truely amazed. And I am not very easily amazed either!
lindainks55 said:
Nathan,
I haven't felt upset. I have felt you are disrespectful of me. You have an opinion. I have a different opinion. Nothing we posted made either of us right or wrong.
I haven't felt upset. I have felt you are disrespectful of me. You have an opinion. I have a different opinion. Nothing we posted made either of us right or wrong.
WSClark said:
Now YOU are the fuckin' liar, Nathan..............
And yes, I do defend people on this blog and the other one. And yes I do kick neocon ass all over the Internet on a daily basis.
So what is your point?
I can kick your butt and your Daddy's butt and I can do it while making dinner, cleaning the house, checking my friends car out, drinking a few beers, having sex with my girlfriend and watching TV.
So what was your point?
Chump.
And yes, I do defend people on this blog and the other one. And yes I do kick neocon ass all over the Internet on a daily basis.
So what is your point?
I can kick your butt and your Daddy's butt and I can do it while making dinner, cleaning the house, checking my friends car out, drinking a few beers, having sex with my girlfriend and watching TV.
So what was your point?
Chump.
Nathan said:
Well,
It is my bedtime now. Got to go to work bright and early.
You two kids have fun emailing each other about how hard it is to be liberal while being called a dupe.
Perhaps we can continue with an actual discussion later. Oh wait, perhaps you can actually discuss what my father wrote since he took the time to respond to you.
It is my bedtime now. Got to go to work bright and early.
You two kids have fun emailing each other about how hard it is to be liberal while being called a dupe.
Perhaps we can continue with an actual discussion later. Oh wait, perhaps you can actually discuss what my father wrote since he took the time to respond to you.
WSClark said:
I already answered the response from your Daddy, Nathan. I used to respect him and frequently spoke highly of him, but he chose to change the channel. That is his loss.
I am sorry that I can no long respect you or your father, Nathan, but attacking American citizens as you two do is just not acceptable. We have our right to our opinions and we deserve better than what you right wing bastards have dealt out.
I responded to your father, Nathan, despite the fact that he does not grant me the same respect that he grants one of his dogs.
I am just sorry that I ever granted either of you any respect.
I am sorry that I can no long respect you or your father, Nathan, but attacking American citizens as you two do is just not acceptable. We have our right to our opinions and we deserve better than what you right wing bastards have dealt out.
I responded to your father, Nathan, despite the fact that he does not grant me the same respect that he grants one of his dogs.
I am just sorry that I ever granted either of you any respect.
lindainks55 said:
I claim allegiance to friends like Will because he deserves my allegiance! He is a thoughtful, intelligent, kind, funny, interesting man. I've enjoyed getting to know him. I look forward to getting to know him better. He isn't perfect, neither am I. We both make mistakes and admit them. We like to exchange information and sometimes plain silliness. Believe me, we know the difference! We both get along with people who have different political philosophy. We just don't think much of those who think it's their way or the highway. There are two sides to every story. Most people are interested in hearing both and understand each person will choose what fits them best. I don't have a problem with people who think differently than I do. I have a problem with those who can't accept that I might not agree with their thoughts but my different thoughts are just as worthy.
WSClark said:
Thank you, Ms. Inks....................
I know that you do not need me to defend you, but I will always try, regardless....
Always,
Will
I know that you do not need me to defend you, but I will always try, regardless....
Always,
Will
Hank Price said:
Interesting,
When the liberals get confronted with facts they are reduced to name calling and profanity! Plus out and out lies!
Yes Clark you are a liar! I thought you were just an ignorant liberal dupe, but when I get time I'll point out two or three of worst lies!
Nathan and I are working 14-15 hours a day right now ant the dog show.
Tonight or tomorrow I'll respond to some of the incredibly ignornant comments you have made last night.
In the mean time. . .
HAPPY EASTER!
Hank
When the liberals get confronted with facts they are reduced to name calling and profanity! Plus out and out lies!
Yes Clark you are a liar! I thought you were just an ignorant liberal dupe, but when I get time I'll point out two or three of worst lies!
Nathan and I are working 14-15 hours a day right now ant the dog show.
Tonight or tomorrow I'll respond to some of the incredibly ignornant comments you have made last night.
In the mean time. . .
HAPPY EASTER!
Hank
lindainks55 said:
Last night at 10:39 p.m. I answered the question Nathan was still repeating at 11:21 p.m. I've copied and pasted my post which answered his question (AGAIN), and the LAST time he posted still asking. I don't need to use insults. It's difficult to discuss with a person who won't accept an honest answer. Is it not an answer unless you agree with it? I won't change my opinion, Nathan. I don't expect you to change yours. I, however, accept and respect your right to your opinion. All I asked was the same courtesy from you.
***********************************
Linda's post:
Nathan,
Honestly I know what I wrote and what I feel better than you know what I wrote and what I feel. I probably could have written the words better or more clearly -- I often am not able to write exactly what I feel. President Bush made decisions which put my country into a war I disagree with completely. His decisions caused many deaths of amy innocent people.
Have you never written anything unclear? Do you ever wonder or need answers? Is there anything you would like to understand better? Are you perfect?
Posted By lindainks55 | 4/7/07 10:39 PM
************************************
************************************
Nthan's LAST post repeating the question I answered.
Linda,
The answer to my question will be the difference in whehter or not you deserved the comments I made:
Why did you say that Bush is killing innocent people?
Because that statement in it's self has to disregard so many things and also presents something which I believe to be false.
Posted By Nathan | 4/7/07 11:21 PM
************************************
I can't make it any clearer. I never intended my words to say bush personally killed anyone. I always meant my words to say his decisions. I've explained and explained again. When I make a comment about bush it isn't a comment about you. If I have an opinion of you I will (and have) clearly stated it. I don't owe you an apology. If that's what you expect, need, or are waiting for it won't come. I have an opinion. You have an opinion. Nothing we have said has made a difference in the opinion the other person holds. because you and I hold differing opinions and yours hold that mine is false still doesn't give you the right to be disrespectful.
I will ignore your posts in the future. I was right that you aren't someone I want to interact with.
***********************************
Linda's post:
Nathan,
Honestly I know what I wrote and what I feel better than you know what I wrote and what I feel. I probably could have written the words better or more clearly -- I often am not able to write exactly what I feel. President Bush made decisions which put my country into a war I disagree with completely. His decisions caused many deaths of amy innocent people.
Have you never written anything unclear? Do you ever wonder or need answers? Is there anything you would like to understand better? Are you perfect?
Posted By lindainks55 | 4/7/07 10:39 PM
************************************
************************************
Nthan's LAST post repeating the question I answered.
Linda,
The answer to my question will be the difference in whehter or not you deserved the comments I made:
Why did you say that Bush is killing innocent people?
Because that statement in it's self has to disregard so many things and also presents something which I believe to be false.
Posted By Nathan | 4/7/07 11:21 PM
************************************
I can't make it any clearer. I never intended my words to say bush personally killed anyone. I always meant my words to say his decisions. I've explained and explained again. When I make a comment about bush it isn't a comment about you. If I have an opinion of you I will (and have) clearly stated it. I don't owe you an apology. If that's what you expect, need, or are waiting for it won't come. I have an opinion. You have an opinion. Nothing we have said has made a difference in the opinion the other person holds. because you and I hold differing opinions and yours hold that mine is false still doesn't give you the right to be disrespectful.
I will ignore your posts in the future. I was right that you aren't someone I want to interact with.
WSClark52 said:
Don't waste your time Mr. Price............ I have no desire to discuss any subject with you.
The Pentagon report stated without qualification that there was no connection between Iraq and al Qaeda, yet you insist that you KNOW better.
What point is there in debating anything with you when you choose to ignore the facts and attack others for believing those same facts?
What sort of twisted denial must you go through to debate in such a manner?
I used to think that you were worthy of respect, Mr. Price. You have proven me wrong.
As for Nathan, what sort of lowlife comes to this blog for the sole purpose of attacking Linda Inks?
The Pentagon report stated without qualification that there was no connection between Iraq and al Qaeda, yet you insist that you KNOW better.
What point is there in debating anything with you when you choose to ignore the facts and attack others for believing those same facts?
What sort of twisted denial must you go through to debate in such a manner?
I used to think that you were worthy of respect, Mr. Price. You have proven me wrong.
As for Nathan, what sort of lowlife comes to this blog for the sole purpose of attacking Linda Inks?
WSClark said:
Things are just going great in Iraq. Absolutely swimmingly (to quote Ann "the Man" Coulter).
There were ONLY ten Americans killed this weekend in Iraq.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18005279/page/2/
"On deadly day, Al-Sadr says he wants U.S. out
Cleric urges unity against Americans; military announces 10 soldiers killed"
And there are those that claim that the reason that folks are against the war is that the media doesn't report ALL the good things going on in Iraq.
Right. I can give you TEN bad things that happened this weekend that outweigh any good that may have been done.
There were ONLY ten Americans killed this weekend in Iraq.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18005279/page/2/
"On deadly day, Al-Sadr says he wants U.S. out
Cleric urges unity against Americans; military announces 10 soldiers killed"
And there are those that claim that the reason that folks are against the war is that the media doesn't report ALL the good things going on in Iraq.
Right. I can give you TEN bad things that happened this weekend that outweigh any good that may have been done.
Nathan said:
Linda,
You answered my question in yet another very obscure way.
Alright, you add that his decisions killed many innocent people.
So... What decisions of his are you talking about?
Feel free to explain your answer in more than adding one word to the original statement.
I was not asking you to clarify the statement, I was asking you to explain it.
You answered my question in yet another very obscure way.
Alright, you add that his decisions killed many innocent people.
So... What decisions of his are you talking about?
Feel free to explain your answer in more than adding one word to the original statement.
I was not asking you to clarify the statement, I was asking you to explain it.
Nathan said:
Also, now that I am done looking at the Wild West Worlds website...
I never asked for an apology nor do I expect one.
This is a blog. If you want to act like an ignorant pant load or simply be friends with one then more power to you.
If you want to actually engage in a discussion, that is what I prefer to do.
I never asked for an apology nor do I expect one.
This is a blog. If you want to act like an ignorant pant load or simply be friends with one then more power to you.
If you want to actually engage in a discussion, that is what I prefer to do.
Predestined said:
I see you all are going in circles with Nathan. I would have thought he would have had a better reply than the one he gave you, Linda. Usually Nathan is sharper than that. Arguing with him is a waste of time. He'll find a way to twist anything you say. (Yes, you do, Nathan.)
If Bush is the Commander in Chief, then he is responsible for the deaths of our soldiers, because he is the one who chose to go to "war". So is he the CiC or not? He's the guy at the top, so he gets blamed, just like people blamed Clinton for things, and every other man who was president.
Oh, and, Nathan? Saddam hadn't been captured when the Mission Accomplished banner was displayed on the ship. He was still in his hidey hole where the Kurds found him for us. ;)
Have a great Monday, everyone!
If Bush is the Commander in Chief, then he is responsible for the deaths of our soldiers, because he is the one who chose to go to "war". So is he the CiC or not? He's the guy at the top, so he gets blamed, just like people blamed Clinton for things, and every other man who was president.
Oh, and, Nathan? Saddam hadn't been captured when the Mission Accomplished banner was displayed on the ship. He was still in his hidey hole where the Kurds found him for us. ;)
Have a great Monday, everyone!
lindainks55 said:
I read in this morning's Wichita Eagle, "The powerful Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr ordered his militiamen on Sunday to redouble their battle to oust American forces.."
Guess everyone is planning a "surge."
Thanks for the good wishes and warnings, Pre. I figured it out over the weekend. I committed to our host here at Wichita Voice, to myself and all bloggers that this would be a place where adults may post without the abuse of name calling and thinking one person is better than another. I keep my promises, and help police our own which is another commitment we all made to one another.
Guess everyone is planning a "surge."
Thanks for the good wishes and warnings, Pre. I figured it out over the weekend. I committed to our host here at Wichita Voice, to myself and all bloggers that this would be a place where adults may post without the abuse of name calling and thinking one person is better than another. I keep my promises, and help police our own which is another commitment we all made to one another.
Nathan said:
Oh no, linda.
You are past the point of claiming that you are policing this blog after the comments you made towards me and the complete lack of any disdain towards your buddy WS Clark for the comments he made to me either.
You people are a joke acting like you are the ones who are trying to make this a place to discuss things in a civil way.
You are past the point of claiming that you are policing this blog after the comments you made towards me and the complete lack of any disdain towards your buddy WS Clark for the comments he made to me either.
You people are a joke acting like you are the ones who are trying to make this a place to discuss things in a civil way.
Nathan said:
Predestined,
There is a difference in being responsible for things and causing them.
The terrorists and insurgents are killing people, not Bush.
What is your point about the mission being accomplished sign? Saddam was no longer in power and his military had been defeated. The Air Craft carrier had accomplished it's mission.
It is beyond silly that you people sit here trying to twist that banner anyway you can to try to discredit Bush.
There is a difference in being responsible for things and causing them.
The terrorists and insurgents are killing people, not Bush.
What is your point about the mission being accomplished sign? Saddam was no longer in power and his military had been defeated. The Air Craft carrier had accomplished it's mission.
It is beyond silly that you people sit here trying to twist that banner anyway you can to try to discredit Bush.
Nathan said:
Oh no, linda.
You are past the point of claiming that you are policing this blog after the comments you made towards me and the complete lack of any disdain towards your buddy WS Clark for the comments he made to me either.
You people are a joke acting like you are the ones who are trying to make this a place to discuss things in a civil way.
You are past the point of claiming that you are policing this blog after the comments you made towards me and the complete lack of any disdain towards your buddy WS Clark for the comments he made to me either.
You people are a joke acting like you are the ones who are trying to make this a place to discuss things in a civil way.
Loading....