longhorngunman
Member
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2005
- Messages
- 852
Mak 43, Thanks for your posting. It is indeed people like yourself that make the Democratic party of today what it is!
Scoop Jackson would be so proud.
Scoop Jackson would be so proud.
Dems Back Saddam Hussein in New Poll
- Thread starter Desertdog
- Start date
- Status
308win
Member
Well now, I wonder why? Let's see, could it be his pandering to the rich and entitled, could it be his pandering to the illegal residents in the U.S., could it be his completely incompetent handling of the Hariott Myers nomination, could it be the economic mess this country is in because of the record deficits, could it be the incompetent planning for the war in Iraq, hmmmm what am I forgetting?
mountainclmbr
Member
The left wing of the Dems are largely Socialists. Saddam was a Stalinist (international Socialist). Why is it so surprising that the Socialists here would side with the Socialists there?
geekWithA.45
Moderator Emeritus
I dunno about this one, gang.
I smell a heap o' spin in the newsmax report, and I'm turbo skeptical until I see the questions & data.
I'm cool with indicting the collectivoLeftists/dems/progs/etc for the sins they actually commit, and there are many, but I'm fairly certain that 41% actively rooting for Saddam isn't one of them.
Incidentally, I find that way too many people have bought into the exact set of memes that mak43 displays.
It's spooky, to see so many people in our society slavishly and relentlessly parrot those points over and over, without regard or reference to the wider spectrum of facts and circumstance.
Far too many of our own people are lost.
I smell a heap o' spin in the newsmax report, and I'm turbo skeptical until I see the questions & data.
I'm cool with indicting the collectivoLeftists/dems/progs/etc for the sins they actually commit, and there are many, but I'm fairly certain that 41% actively rooting for Saddam isn't one of them.
Incidentally, I find that way too many people have bought into the exact set of memes that mak43 displays.
It's spooky, to see so many people in our society slavishly and relentlessly parrot those points over and over, without regard or reference to the wider spectrum of facts and circumstance.
Far too many of our own people are lost.
Art Eatman
Moderator In Memoriam
mak43, do you have a map of the world, and a smaller-scake (larger size) map of the middle east? Those are helpful in trying to make sense out of a lot of the goings-on.
Think of a gigantic four-way chess game, with the Great Powers as players: The U.S., China, Russia, and the European Union. Japan could be, but so far seems content as a bystander. Kipling referred to it as "The Great Game" in his "Kim", some hundred years ago. As in the Cold War, some countries are pawns; others are knights or bishops, if not rooks.
National interest? Simple. Oil. No less important to our society than the blood in your own veins is to your continued existence.
I suggest we have more of a national interest in the control of Iraq than of the Balkans. The Balkans are the best pipeline route to bring oil into central Europe, which strikes me as having lesser importance to the U.S. than does the Persian Gulf area. But we're in the Balkans as well as Iraq. One wonders...
I've had a moment of Old Timer's Disease on the source: "Nations do not have friends. They have interests." Our interest is continuance of some sort of viable economy. Without out oil there is none.
Art
Think of a gigantic four-way chess game, with the Great Powers as players: The U.S., China, Russia, and the European Union. Japan could be, but so far seems content as a bystander. Kipling referred to it as "The Great Game" in his "Kim", some hundred years ago. As in the Cold War, some countries are pawns; others are knights or bishops, if not rooks.
National interest? Simple. Oil. No less important to our society than the blood in your own veins is to your continued existence.
I suggest we have more of a national interest in the control of Iraq than of the Balkans. The Balkans are the best pipeline route to bring oil into central Europe, which strikes me as having lesser importance to the U.S. than does the Persian Gulf area. But we're in the Balkans as well as Iraq. One wonders...
I've had a moment of Old Timer's Disease on the source: "Nations do not have friends. They have interests." Our interest is continuance of some sort of viable economy. Without out oil there is none.
Art
CAnnoneer
Member
Art Eatman said:
And that is why we should stop shmucking around, but take the oil! With all that oil in Iraq, we can have 1 dollae/gallon as a form of requisition and injection into our own economy.
Sooner or later, we'll have to fight the Chinese over the remaining oil. Might just as well take what we can now.
I am sick and tired of political correctness and liberal wishy-washy save-the-planet crap. We need the oil to survive. Those leftists that oppose this should stop using any and all oil products and products manufactured by use of oil. Otherwise they are just hypocrites or idiots (or both).
What we are doing now is exactly to worst possible - not only don't we take the oil, we run ourselves into the ground with this furious spending, with money borrowed from our inevitable enemy. F***ing stupid Grofaz Claudius and his gang of globalists!
Dubya makes a great Democratic president! Viva el Presidente!
El Tejon
Member
mak,
Iraq has not been around for a long time. According to the Left, Iraq was not a Muslim country, but a secular one.
Iraq was created on the kitchen floor of a British general after WWI. It is not ten times older than the USA. Japan, Italy and Germany were much older than the USA when we invaded them and forced democracy upon them.
Yes, kindly Uncle Saddam had WMDs. Cyclosarin, mustard gas, sarin and VX, in addition to prohibited missles were all found in Iraq (not counting the big lab of precursors of various sorts found in August 2005). The French, the British, the Germans, the Russians, the CIA, Hans Blix, Richard Butler, Ken Pollack, Algore, Bill Clinton, Madeline Notsobright, John Kerry, Anthony Cordesman, Rolf Ekeus and David Kay all said that kindly Uncle Saddam had them.
One can argue that the War of Continuation was elective and that the USA did not need this war. That argument had been rationally made here at THR before and after the war by people I respect. However, one is entitled to his opinion, one is not entitled to his own facts.
In fact, the Democrats would get very far with this argument in 2006 and 2008. However, the Democrats are allowing the current moonbats to drive the bus.
Iraq has not been around for a long time. According to the Left, Iraq was not a Muslim country, but a secular one.
Iraq was created on the kitchen floor of a British general after WWI. It is not ten times older than the USA. Japan, Italy and Germany were much older than the USA when we invaded them and forced democracy upon them.
Yes, kindly Uncle Saddam had WMDs. Cyclosarin, mustard gas, sarin and VX, in addition to prohibited missles were all found in Iraq (not counting the big lab of precursors of various sorts found in August 2005). The French, the British, the Germans, the Russians, the CIA, Hans Blix, Richard Butler, Ken Pollack, Algore, Bill Clinton, Madeline Notsobright, John Kerry, Anthony Cordesman, Rolf Ekeus and David Kay all said that kindly Uncle Saddam had them.
One can argue that the War of Continuation was elective and that the USA did not need this war. That argument had been rationally made here at THR before and after the war by people I respect. However, one is entitled to his opinion, one is not entitled to his own facts.
In fact, the Democrats would get very far with this argument in 2006 and 2008. However, the Democrats are allowing the current moonbats to drive the bus.
wingnutx
Member
ArmedBear said:
+1
- Status
