Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#151
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 14:10:11 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote: Dave Hall wrote: On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 07:28:43 -0400, Harry Krause wrote: Uh, when your policies are wrong, and you keep on promulgating them, and they keep on delivering death and destruction, and you keep on promulgating them, then perhaps it is time to come up with some new policies. Who are you to declare that these policies are "wrong" By what objective criteria do you make this judgement call? Dave You've been living in a cave the last year? That didn't answer the question. What factual, OBJECTIVE criteria can you cite that proves that the president's policies were "wrong"? After 9/11, enhanced security policies were enacted. A new department of homeland security was created. To date, there have been no further attacks on U.S. soil. To call this policy a failure, there would have to be another attack in spite of the new policies. The war in Iraq was won in a matter of weeks. Saddam was deposed, and eventually captured, his son's killed. Most of Saddam's underlings were also captured. The Iraqi people were freed from tyrannical oppression. While it's true that keeping the peace has been somewhat tumultuous, that is to be expected when the desperation of the terrorists are hightailed as the date for the transition of power looms ahead. How is this a failure? It would be a failure if we pulled out now and let the insurgents win. Sure there was a cost. Both monetarily and in human lives. But any war has these costs, and they have never historically been a major consideration when the greater good is factored into the big picture. Dave |
#152
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 14:08:30 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote: Dave Hall wrote: I would not want to carpet bomb innocents either. But when the terrorists are so gutless as to hide behind them as human shields, what choice would we have? Some other choice, perhaps? I'm all ears. Tell me what that choice is. By oozing down to the level of the terrorists (killing innocent civilians), we're no better than they are, and we certainly cannot claim any higher moral ground. We don't need to. We only need to win. If that's what we're left with, and if in terms of practicality, we kill lots of innocent civilians, too, we're not demonstrating much difference between us and those we go after. The difference is we don't kill people for no reason. We didn't fly airplanes into tall buildings to make a political point. If the terrorists refuse to follow the terms of war as defined by the Geneva convention, then they should be the ones responsible for the lives of the people that they willingly place in harm's way. We still have the right to pursue the enemy. What signal does that send to the enemy if we cease pursuing them if they hide in civilian areas? It's so unfortunate we don't seem to have reliable intel or even reliable Iraqis on the ground in their country, eh? I wouldn't know, and neither do you. Neither one of us has a "need to know". Dave |
#153
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 14:42:10 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote: Dave Hall wrote: On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 11:41:56 -0400, Harry Krause wrote: Am I a neocon because I looked in a M-W dictionary? John H On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay! No, you are a neocon because you are a rigid, mindless fool who accepts virtually every line of bull**** the neocons feed you. As opposed to you, a rigid mindless fool who accepts virtually every line of bull**** the liberals and emotionally driven writer hacks feed you? That's simply not true, Dave. I have different opinions on a number of significant issues with the presumed Democratic standard=bearer and with the true liberals in my party. Anyone can say that. No one is 100% in lock step with anyone's political party. As for the emotionally driven "writer hacks," I suspect you are just jealous, as your writing skills are rudimentary. I am hardly "jealous". I at least have the integrity to report facts, not my opinion of what my interpretation of those facts are. Most of those articles, that you faithfully cut and paste, are little more than op-ed pieces, with little factual basis. Sort of like Michael Moore's "propagandamentary" film. Harry, the real joke is that you are nothing more than the flip side of the same coin. If there is such a thing as a "neo-conservative" (other than the webster definition), then you are a shining example of a "neo-liberal". I'm more of a Clinton Democrat on fiscal issues, but very liberal on social issues. I suspect my truly liberal friends would make you quake in your boots. I'm more of a Reagan conservative, but that's not the point. Once I cut your liberal friends to shreds with solid reasoning and practical logic, they would be the one's quaking. I wonder how many of them truly understand the concepts of a free market economy and freedom, and the benefits and consequences of each. Dave |
#154
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Dave Hall wrote:
On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 14:42:10 -0400, Harry Krause wrote: Dave Hall wrote: On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 11:41:56 -0400, Harry Krause wrote: Am I a neocon because I looked in a M-W dictionary? John H On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay! No, you are a neocon because you are a rigid, mindless fool who accepts virtually every line of bull**** the neocons feed you. As opposed to you, a rigid mindless fool who accepts virtually every line of bull**** the liberals and emotionally driven writer hacks feed you? That's simply not true, Dave. I have different opinions on a number of significant issues with the presumed Democratic standard=bearer and with the true liberals in my party. Anyone can say that. No one is 100% in lock step with anyone's political party. As for the emotionally driven "writer hacks," I suspect you are just jealous, as your writing skills are rudimentary. I am hardly "jealous". I at least have the integrity to report facts, Dave, you wouldn't know a fact if it bit you on the ass. Your simple-minded, right-wing pronouncements from "on the mount" are the epitome of silliness. You're like a junkyard dog whose been tossed a tired out old bone, and you're going to worry that meatless bone down to what you hope is marrow. Except the bone is so old and chewed out, there isn't any. |
#155
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
"John Gaquin" wrote in message ...
"basskisser" wrote in message Another ignorant post from the village idiot. HEY! WAIT A MINUTE!!! Last week you said I could be the Village Idiot! No fair! No fair! The whole S.R.W.C.J. is. |
#156
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#157
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#158
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 01:06:59 GMT, "Stanley Barthfarkle"
wrote: This is a boat newsgroup. Plonk. Mr. Barthfarkle, it is not necessary to notify the group, thus adding to the OT stuff, every time you "plonk" someone. John H On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay! |
#159
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#160
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|