Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan Woody: When you post inane made-up stuff things like "I love it when Democrats admit they love Saddam," you reside in a glass house yourself and can hardly afford to be tossing stones at people's debate tactics.
Originally Posted By woody Actions speak louder than words. The Democrats are never shy in doing everything that appears to support Saddam. I'm only saying what the Democrats are too afraid to admit. At the the anonymous polls suggest at least 41% of Dems don't mind it if Saddam is back in power.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer Saddam is the worst dictator since Hitler? LOL How about Pol Pot? How about Mao? Saddam is just a two-bit thug.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>The Democrats are never shy in doing everything that appears to support Saddam.<< Now you're just making stuff up.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy <<Saddam is the worst dictator since Hitler? LOL How about Pol Pot? How about Mao? Saddam is just a two-bit thug. >> Well, the libs and their anti war activity did a great job at letting Pol Pot get loose and kill millions. Saddam was filling Mass graves Tom. He was invading other countries, he used WMD's on his own people... he killed at least 300,000 of his own people. That's a two-bit thug to you?
Originally Posted By woody Howard Dean: "It looks like today, and this could change, as of today it looks like women will be worse off in Iraq than they were when Saddam Hussein was president of Iraq." <a href="http://www.gopbloggers.org/mt/archives/001847.html" target="_blank">http://www.gopbloggers.org/mt/ archives/001847.html</a> So Howard, do you want him back?
Originally Posted By Beaumandy Anyone who is still arguing that the war is illegal, Saddam was no threat, blah blah blah, are saying Saddam should still be in power. It's just that simple.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy Isn't Howard Dean the Democrat Chairman?? Isn't Howard Dean the one time Democrat front runner for President? Isn't Howard Dean a big voice for the left? He says we can't win the war in Iraq and that women were better off under Saddam. People.... who would vote for this party?
Originally Posted By ADMIN <font color="#FF0000">Message removed by an administrator. <a href="MsgBoard-Rules.asp" target="_blank">Click here</a> for the LaughingPlace.com Community Standards.</font>
Originally Posted By cmpaley >>Isn't Howard Dean the Democrat Chairman??<< Yes. >>Isn't Howard Dean the one time Democrat front runner for President?<< Sorta. >>Isn't Howard Dean a big voice for the left?<< No, he's a voice on the left. That's the difference between the rabid right where you dwell and the left. The left is made up of many voices. The rabid-right is like the Borg...everyone speaks the same thing and in unison.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy <<Why, why why does anybody indulge the right wing crap anymore around here?>> Translation: I lose again so I am going to start name calling instead of actually debating the topic at hand.
Originally Posted By ADMIN <font color="#FF0000">Message removed by an administrator. <a href="MsgBoard-Rules.asp" target="_blank">Click here</a> for the LaughingPlace.com Community Standards.</font>
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<I don't know what you base that on. Transitory polls from nearly 3 years later? Even today, the polls show most Iraqis feel they are under occupation, and don't like it.>> <I base it on the reports and polls at the time.> I'd like to see that. It may have been the case, but I don't remember a poll near the invasion saying that most Iraqis "greeted us as liberators," as you're saying. <And the polls in Iraq now don't show what you say they do.> I haven't seen the very most recent, but as of fairly recently they were saying just that. <<What do you base THAT on? What are your "metrics" for that? I don't think we're losing, exactly, but I think we're in the middle of a very long stalemate.>> <I base it on lots of things. To recite a few: 1)We're getting more and more tips from the Iraqi people about insurgents. 2)We're cutting off their supply lines, and denying them areas to operate out of. 3)They're sending out letters complaining about having troubles recruiting new members.> And yet they're just as deadly as ever. Although those things above may be true, if this insurgency has shown anything, it's that they're able to adapt tactics. As one door closes, they're opened another. Sad, but true. I think "stalemate" is closer to our current situation than "winning" although reasonable minds can disagree. <<the optimists didn't say "a lot of," they said it would pay for the reconstruction, period.>> <No, they didn't.> Yes, they did. <<Reagan essentially continued the policy first set in place by Truman.>> <No, he didn't.> Yes, he did. That policy morphed over the years, probably most greatly under Nixon and "detente," but the long view shows a very consistent policy from 1946 till the demise of the soviet union. <And there were many cries from "realists" that his more aggressive stance towards the Soviets wasn't helpful.> They actually weren't for his whole first term. Nothing really changed until Gorbachev came in and reformed from the inside. I give Reagan credit for (eventually) recognizing the opportunity that Gorbachev represented, but if Breshnev had lived longer, there's no way the wall came down in 1989. <<But when it comes to actually committing a country to war, I'll take hard-headed realism over optimism, thank you.>> <And I'll take optimism over pessimism.> And I'll take clear-eyed realism over rose-colored optimism OR gloomy pessimism, thank you.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<"I said "who HERE..." You just forfeited any pretense of reading comprehension.">> <I think you have the problem. My initial accusation was against Democrats in general. You decided to shift it to LP only.> I can't speak for Democrats in general, can I? Nor can anyone here. So it makes more sense to talk about our opinions. And the fact remains that I asked about "anybody here," you gave me Ramsey Clark (!), and then get all huffy when I point out he hasn't been seen in LP lately. <You're a shifty debater with no concern about my original post.< Let's not say "no concern." Let's say "no respect." I mean, come on, Opinionnation??? Who in the world is that? I've never seen results anywhere in the same ZIP CODE as that poll from any of the respected news organizations or polling companies, and I defy you to show me something similar from one of them. Polls, even when conducted by respected, above-board companies, are always to be looked at with a grain of salt. From the likes of Opinionnation? That you swallow it in the first place says a lot. <BTW: I love it when Democrats won't admit they love Saddam.> And this is the kind of thing that gets you pegged. I don't mind, and often rather enjoy, engaging with Doug, as he usually backs up his points, writes well... he's a worthy adversary. You're getting closer and closer to Floyd R. Turbo territory. And thus, "why bother?" territory.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh You're wrong again, Dabob. There's good reason to be optimistic, as the future will show.
Originally Posted By ADMIN <font color="#FF0000">Message removed by an administrator. <a href="MsgBoard-Rules.asp" target="_blank">Click here</a> for the LaughingPlace.com Community Standards.</font>
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <You're wrong again, Dabob. There's good reason to be optimistic, as the future will show.> Yes, we'll see indeed. I actually hope you're right. But the realist in me sees the encouraging signs AND the more troubling ones (Sunnis having a hard time accepting the outcome of the elections, the Shia not being inclined to re-work the constitution to take Sunni concerns into account, the rise of Shia militias in the south as de facto army). But there are encouraging signs as well. We'll see.
