The Stout Republican

You forget that the west hides behind ‘women and children’ on a daily basis by not shying away from utilising the term ‘terrorism’ in response to attacks. By doing so, they are positing their nation as being disqualified from retaliatory attacks whilst being simultaneously enabled to do just that to others. Whilst the ‘terrorists’ do it in times of war, the west does it to argue against retaliation.

Hey, just thought that I’d randomly mention that your talking about quicksand (see my last silly annalogy). One of the biggest issues that most people take with Bush tends to be the stating that the whole purpose for liberating Iraq was due to them denying having weapons of mass destruction, of which we have still never found. I don’t think that any logical thinker would actually believe that Iraq wasn’t messed up, or that the government wasn’t oppressive and the people of Iraq weren’t clearly oppressed. The issues taken with Bush, from my point of view (and I believe one of the things that has lost Bush’s public approval rating in the past year or so), which are still unresolved, are the initial reason that the war was initiated for is faulty, was fictitious (whether intentionally misleading or not). Meanwhile, the Republican party continues to storm on about how these people needed liberation, while dodging the fact that there WERE NO WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION. This was what was the core reason for us being “justified” in turning against the UN, against the worlds consensus, and going to war with Iraq. It being wrong, lets accept the idea that there are far more threatening countries in existence (Korea) with known weapons of mass destruction, that supported terrorism with just as much charisma, that we didn’t go to war with (lets not forget how quickly we left Afghanistan, the country that had blatantly been responsible for the attack on the two towers. People like Stephen Colbert aren’t confronting the president about whether or not Iraq was a just happy government, or even an unAmerican government. They are taking issue with the fact that the core reason for invasion has yet to be fully proven true. I respect your political views, but lets not forget that there is a VERY clear reason that people do not agree with Bush, that spreads much further than partisan values. If you give a reason to go to war to a nation after they have been through a terrible experience and are ready to be led, once the fear has worn off, people remember that reason, and if the reason isn’t there, they question why, then naturally doubt the credibility of a war built on something that isn’t there (like a home without a foundation). So, when you respond, I challenge you to address the foundation of this house we’ve built, rather than staring blankly at the structure built on quicksand. (too much analogy, I know, but, you get the point)… Responses?
-one of your liberal friends

p.s. I wasn’t referring to the Hizbollah and Israel conflict as posted, but more a response to some previous blogs, and the flier posted above from the middle east (as well as previously stated political views.)

Hmmm… The link for the WMDs didn’t work. Sources?

my sources, that seem to agree (apparently the CIA agrees as well) that there were no weapons of mass destruction found:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4169107.stm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A2129-2005Jan11.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7634313/

First off, to say “there were WMDs in Iraq” is a joke, unless you’re changing what “WMD” means. Cheaney was talking about mushroom clouds over American cities, not 25 year-old chemical weapons (probably that we gave to Saddam, our ally at the time). I heard on the radio that the Pentagon has come out and said that what Santorum was talking about is not what the administration would consider “WMD”, and that they’re less dangerous than what most people have under their kitchen sink (I’ll put in the work to find sources if you won’t grant “I heard on the radio…” as a valid source). Also, you seem to be changing the argument again from “This is what Bush (and company) said, and this is what happened/is happening” to “Well, this is what Clinton and other Democrats said”. Clinton didn’t spend 400 billion dollars taking us to war to tear down a nation and build a new one by saying (or at least insinuating) that there’d be hundreds of thousands of dead Americans if we didn’t do it (sidenote, the Clinton policy link didn’t work for me), and I really couldn’t care less what John Kerry said in 2003, it has nothing to do with Bush being wrong now. If someone says to you “John Kerry has always been against going to war with Iraq”, you can certainly slap them with a quote to show that he once saw Saddam as an imminent threat. But when someone says to you “Bush was wrong about Iraq”, it is not a valid rebuttal to say that some Democrats were wrong too, or to say that the Iraqi people needed to be “liberated” (which seems to be another favorite tactic of yours). While your gushing altruism for the Iraqi people is admittedly touching, there’s plenty of crap that needs to be fixed here Stateside, thanks. If Bush and other “neo-cons” really had an insatiable need to better the lives of 35 million people, I would have loved to see some of that 400 billion here in California (which gets the lowest return of federal dollars on the taxes we pay, by the way). Word on the street is there’s about 45 million Americans without health insurance (myself included), and it would cost a heck of a lot less to take care of that problem (and actually save money in some ways due to reduced reliance on Emergency Room care) than it’s costing us to wage this “War of Compassion” in Iraq. If domestic spending isn’t really your thing, another option would be to take even a modest fraction of what we’re spending in that one little country and use it to help feed, say, a starving continent (I’m sure Africa would appreciate that a bit more than the Iraqis seem to be appreciating our efforts there). My point is, I don’t buy the whole “Bleeding-heart Conservative” act one bit. If you bought into the administration’s rhetoric about Iraq before the war, fine, you were duped and you weren’t alone (myself certainly not included). What’s wrong with admitting that things didn’t turn out how those guys said it would, and that we’re in one ungodly mess thanks to their lack of foresight and planning? Why keep trying to defend the indefensible? Simple pride? I seriously don’t get it, and I would love to have someone (say…you?) explain it to me.

Are you kidding me, Mike? Africa? Please leave it to Bono. Let me tell you something I know Curdish people that fled Iraq because they were afraid they would be killed just because they are Curdish. They are GREATFUL that we went in (with other countries) to liberate Iraq. Saddam was/is a tyrant. Have you been following his trial? He is a lunatic! Just imagine that running a country. Africa is corrupt. Yes, I know people that have been stationed there. They get people (rich) trying to pay them off just to look the other way. It never works, but they always try. Now when you say redefine WMD is it the same way Clinton tried to redefine the word “is”? Clinton’s “peace keeping” policy was his lame way of trying to get a Nobel Peace Prize. It failed. He stirred the pot and left us to deal with it. http://www.dailyrepublican.com/appeasement.html If you look up Clinton’s Peace Policy you get nothing but negative feedback, because it did nothing but piss people off over there. For you to ask Stout to explain to you anything is really laughable. Can he really make you see his side? No. Kinda like how you could never tell me how to understand any of your “opinions”.

Mike… I wasn’t at all suggesting us leaving Iraq. That would be the most inhumane thing we could possibly do. I was simply suggesting that Bush seems to have made a mistake, and that I distrust his leadership, and that I don’t think his reasons for going have been proven, therefore providing reason for people to doubt in his leadership. However, I wouldn’t be foolish enough to state that we should just abandon people in a country that we took the government and policing force away from. That would be chaos, and would be directly ruining an entire country. Even if Bush messed up, us being there is no longer an option. If we left, more people would die than you could possibly imagine. (Just compare to what occurs in our country without a police force in New Orleans for a few months, and amplify that). However, this doesn’t excuse Bush from responsibility for his wrongs.

Still, Mike, I’m surprised that due to someone’s political leanings, or someone possibly disagreeing with your point of view, you would make a statement like “My point is, I don’t buy the whole “Bleeding-heart Conservative” act one bit.” Someone, even if wrong in reality, be pure in intention. And anyhow, I do feel like republicans have feelings (I’m not that blocked by partisan bias).

The Stout Republican: The WMDs that have been “found” are still listed from entirely non-credible sources. If they are proven to be true, then I’ll drop the WMD gripe. However, as of now, those sources are false. Which means that Bush can’t yet say that our reasons were justified. The foundation for our “war” with Iraq is not yet there, leaving, until proven, a lack of initial purpose to the war. This IS a problem for Bush, whether you support or completely hate the man.

Abby: Making slams about people who are sympathetic to Africa, where the largest amount of deaths have been occurring due to aids, starvation, and poverty; might be a bit blind-sided. However, making fun of Bono, who’s band completely began sucking the second they got all “worldy” is commendable.
However, let’s not keep swinging the conversation to other “democratic” leaders, and how dreadful they were (I, for one, hated Clinton in office although he was a far better speaker than Bush, and went on bombing campaigns to take heat off of personal scandal) or how bad “they” are. Lets stop talking about “Others” and deal with who’s in office now: Bush. And, the other point: a lack of WMDs (the sole reason for going into war).

Josh,
I never said Africa did not need the help, hence Bono. But it is not our problem soley. We also went to war with Iraq because of their ties with terrorists. Now, I do not agree 100% with the war. WHAT?! No really, I don’t.

Trying to get back to the original post, here is something I think was written VERY well. I support Israel 100%.
http://www.xanga.com/SoMuch_4_theAfterglow/513935947/this-is-not-what-i-meant-to-write.html
She also wrote something else on her main site. Now, I know this is not a legitimate news link but I feel it applies to the above topic.

Oy, Abby, enough with the Clinton… Billy Boy had nothing to do with this war, and I don’t get how some people insist on turning the conversation to Clinton’s foreign policy as some sort of defense of Bush’s foreign policy. About the link you included, I hardly think it’s fair to pin any of Israel’s problems on Clinton in any way. I think the man tried his best, and I don’t feel too good about anyone ever being able to get those kids to get along over there. They’re dealing with thousands of years of history and animosity that’s built into the fabric of their cultures. And as far as all this Africa talk goes, I never meant to suggest that it would be easy to solve world hunger (I know that corruption is rampant in Africa), but it sure as hell isn’t easy to “Nation-build” either. I just meant to highlight the fact that if we, as a nation, decided that we were now in a position to save the world in any way, Iraq was a curious place to start. Was Saddam a bit off his rocker and a dick to the Kurds? Sure, but there’s plenty of other kooky leaders and nations dealing with ethnic strife. Saddam certainly wasn’t the biggest threat to our national security. Were the Iraqi people suffering considerably under Saddam? Absolutely, but there’s millions and millions of suffering people in the world, some much more so than the Iraqis were. I happen to think that America is not in a position to save the world right now (maybe some day, after we get our own crap together), but if we were, I think it makes a lot more sense to start with Africa and work on creative solutions to their problems (I’m not just suggesting throwing money at them, but of course it will take plenty of money) than to start by tearing down Iraq and building one that we like better. What I’m saying is that this war can’t be justified on any of the grounds that supporters of the war claim. No WMDs have been found, and let’s drop the games and be very clear that Bush/Cheaney/Rumsfeld were talking about a nuclear weapons program and stockpiles of usable chemical weapons (an “imminent threat”), and they did not cast any doubt on their knowledge of the existence of such weapons (Rummy’s famous “We know where the WMDs are… they’re just north, south, east, and west of Tikrit” or whatever nonsense he blabbered). After the war, some people are now trying to justify it by saying we needed to liberate the Iraqi people, and I’m just trying to show what a bogus justification that is… gotta go for now, more to follow…

Josh, I don’t think I said anything about you suggesting us leaving Iraq (I couldn’t find it in my post anyways), but shouldn’t that be everyone’s goal now? Getting us the hell out of this mess as soon as possible? I’m not saying we “close up shop” and leave tomorrow, but I don’t know how it helps the situation for us to have 150,000 troops there. Stout, you suggest I may be rooting for failure, but I don’t see how that’s really possible at this point, because I have no idea how to quantify “failure” or “success” in this situation. Do I cheer when I read a headline that says “40 die in a bombing in Iraq” or “2 Marines killed…”? Of course I don’t… I don’t even pay attention to that stuff anymore, it just pisses me off and doesn’t affect the situation one bit. Is it reason for celebration if a new school is opened in Iraq (or any other “positive” happenings)? Why would it be, when every kid over there still has to live in constant fear of death. What do we consider “victory” at this point? Is it going to make one bit of difference whether we leave next year, or 5 years from now? Will Iraq be “stable” enough for us to leave in 20 years? Will we have tens of thousands of troops still stationed at bases there in 40 years? I certainly don’t think I have all the answers, but I think it’s pretty clear that “Staying the Course” indefinitely is the wrong answer, especially when the course was as faulty and poorly planned as it was here.
One thing we can agree on is that government waste (i.e. pork spending) is a bad thing, but I tell ya, the $27.3 billion quoted in your link hurts a lot less than the hundreds of billions we’ve spent in Iraq… at least the pork money gets spent building bridges over here instead of blowing up bridges and building new ones over there. I’m not defending pork spending, I just don’t get how that stuff can piss you off but it doesn’t piss you off how much of your tax dollars are being spent in Iraq. It just drives me insane that we have so many serious problems here in the U.S that don’t get solved because they’re “too expensive”, but when it comes to Iraq or military spending in general, nothing is too expensive. America has no universal healthcare because it’s “too expensive” (we’ll get more into the healthcare crisis another time, don’t fixate on it for now), Social Security is in trouble because it’s “too expensive”, we have to cut funding for student loans because it’s “too expensive” (I could go on, but I’ll spare you), but all of the expense of all of those problems put together is nothing compared to how much we’ve spent on this war. How does that not infuriate you? Josh, I brought up the “Bleeding-heart Conservative act” not because I think Conservatives don’t have feelings, but because of the irony of anyone who passionately rails against their tax dollars being spent on “entitlement programs” or to provide social services here in the U.S to just as passionately defend the spending of hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars to “liberate” the people of another nation. You seem to like doing research, Stout, so here’s a project for you: add up all the money we’ve spent in the last three years on whatever you want to consider “entitlement programs” (or social programs you think we can do without), and compare that with what we’ve spent on Iraq in the last three years.

Mike,

Firstly: Read above, I think you just got Owned by Stout.

Secondly:
You fail to get MY point: you stated above that you didn’t ever say we should leave Iraq, but then continued to state a negation “but shouldn’t that be everyone’s goal now?” That’s a positive statement followed by a negation of the positive with the opposite negative, which makes a simple equation: A-A= (A being the positive “I didn’t ever say we should leave Iraq,” then -A being: “But shouldn’t that be everyones goal right now?”

If you do the math, that means that you’ve managed to say absolutely nothing to back the idea that abandoning Iraq wasn’t your implied idea. I think it was. You’re basically saying that we should take our troops elsewhere (which, as I said would easily cause unmeasurable amounts of slaughter and chaos). I don’t like that we’re there, or that we’re spending money on what seems like a ridiculous war either, but I recognize the importance of staying in the country, and yes, “staying the course.”

Because, like it or not, we’ve created this dreadful situation by even entering into the war (which does actually include Clinton in the equation, since he had made preparations to go to war with Iraq while in office), and just because you didn’t like how it was went about, doesn’t change the fact that we’re locked into it (this isn’t to say we should be happy with Bush, or even allow him to lead us, but it is to say that we can’t just cntrl+Z the situation.) Unless, of course, you’d like us to take out the troops, go home, and let billions of Iraqis die due to a lack of policing, economy, as well as a constant flooding of terrorist attacks without any means for self defense. Wow, you’re such the humanitarian Mike.

Also, it’s odd that there can be no “bleeding heart,” meaning someone who cares, “Republican.” I was, in responding to your statement, not confused about the implications. You are once again making a statement to “clear up” my misunderstanding of your statement, although I clearly believe I understood it. You are implying that if someone pretends (or as you said “Acts;” see: “Bleeding heart Republican act”) to care about “liberating” other nations, they are clearly not a humanitarian due to them not looking out for “their own” by agreeing with your ideas on spending for “social programs.” Basically, anyone who doesn’t agree with your political stance isn’t truly a humanitarian.

Well, Mike, I like to think of myself as a humanitarian, so perhaps I should tell people to get our troops out of Iraq, and look inward only at our nations problems, because we aren’t ready to watch out for any other countries (like we did in WWII with the holocaust. Seems like a good model to follow, doesn’t it. I mean, it was wildly successful then). Meanwhile, Iraq can fall, an entire nation can go into total chaos and war, and we can just come back and apologize to the survivors: “Sorry, our bad.”

I’m not directly saying that Iraq was like Germany in WWII, and an equal kind of comparison could be made quite easily to Korea, or to Vietnam (if you wanted to play the fear of history repeating itself card as I just did), but some other perspectives saw Saddam as being comparable to Hitler due to his mistreating of his people, and didn’t want to stand idly by, allowing another Hitler to happen. I don’t agree with this perspective, but I can respect it as indeed having a “bleeding heart.” Possibly this has something to do with an ability to see outside of my own opinion on issues, and accept that some things (like this war) are gray, not black and white.

I’m not even gonna finish reading your post… when did I say that I “didn’t ever say that we should leave Iraq”? My exact words are “Josh, I don’t think I said anything about you suggesting us leaving Iraq”. I’d bold the letters YOU if I knew how, to add emphasis. You can’t say shit like that (the A-A bullshit) when my own words are right there for everyone to see. Slowdown next time and read things twice before you respond to them like a total pompous dick. I’ll be back later to read the rest of your post and respond…

…and I think you just got Owned.

Oy, Mike. I think you should take a “time out”, like I tell my three-year-old. If you continued to read his post he does answer your comment. It is kinda funny reading two liberals argue with eachother.

Mike…
You fail to take in any information, and instead linger far too long on semantics that hold no water to the over all argument. If you want to debate, make some points, and back them with some facts, rather than attacking everyone. Chill.

Aside from that this whole:”I’m not even gonna finish reading your post…” attitude is ridiculous. If you don’t want to read posts, then don’t post. If you don’t want to debate, don’t.

“You can’t say shit like that (the A-A bullshit) when my own words are right there for everyone to see. Slowdown next time and read things twice before you respond to them like a total pompous dick”

I can’t? Hmm, that’s odd, I must be doing the undoable, because I did (If you want to get into the semantics of everything).

Hmm… perhaps I misquoted. Instead I CAN (I’d put that in bold letters if I knew how to) still apply the equation to “I’m not saying we “close up shop” and leave tomorrow” for the first A, and the point still holds.

Perhaps you should stop applying terms like “pompous dick” to a civil debate, since it makes you sound like a sore looser.

Aside from all of that, I believe you just “owned” me on a simple semantic point that still captured the gist of what you were saying, while you seem completely happy to misquote statistics to prove your point, then not give any credit to the guy (Stout) who pointed out that you were TRILLIONS of dollars off.

Perhaps I misread a word or two, but you, my friend, left off a couple hundred billion in your faulty facts about the cost of war. I suppose you’ll point out the semantics in the previous sentence (being so literal and all) and point out that we are not, nor did you ever state that we are, “friends.”

Hmm…. I misread a sentence in your blog, and am a “pompous dick”, while you completely seem ignorant of the world news… I wonder what that, in comparison, would make you.

Perhaps ignorant. And, apparently, angry (using brilliant words like “shit” and “dick” in what was previously a simple debate in which you where getting “schooled” (not actually quoted from your last post, don’t worry).

And, hell, if you want to sink low and start cussing and calling names:

Your mom is a pompous dick. There, I just made it inexcusably trite. I’m sure that’s where you wanted it to go, isn’t it?

You’d all be pissed too if someone misrepresented what you were saying (twice) and used that to lecture you about “negating statements”. And we’re not just talking about semantics here (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/semantics), we’re talking about someone accusing me of saying something I very clearly did not (twice), and using that mistake to “prove” that I’ve “managed to say absolutely nothing”, because he fancies himself some sort of philosopher. I was completely cordial the first time he put words in my mouth (”Josh, I don’t think I said anything…”), but to do it a second time is inexcusable, and the little lecture (like I’m the idiot) is what really pissed me off. He either did it on accident because he was careless, or on purpose because he was being a jackass, either way it was out of line. It’s all there, read through it and tell me how I’m wrong.
Stout, you know I wasn’t talking about Social Security or Medicare/Medicaid, I don’t think retirement and healthcare for the poor and elderly qualify as the government taking your tax dollars and giving it to people who don’t deserve it. And just because you ignore 90% of what I say doesn’t mean it isn’t there. If you disagree with my points or my logic, address them and show me where I’m mistaken. To blow off someone’s arguments without addressing them is a cop-out. And I don’t know what you’re talking about when you say I only post on hot-button issues and have no range… is Lieberman a hot-button issue? Dean? The comic convention? McKinney? This thread is the first one where I’ve really said anything about the war… what issues are you talking about? I just read your posts and let you know when I think your justifications are wrong. If it’s always going to turn to misunderstandings, misrepresentations, and frustration, then what’s the point?