Damn *****.Follow

just more gross exaggerations from the pragmatic drumbeaters in the administration to further confuse the public. Nothing new.

No, actually it's the Blue liberals who are rip-roarin' hysterical yappers, shouting at the top of their lungs with every +1 to the treasured death count. For some reason that approach seems to help relieve the pain from the Texas-sized ****** stuck up their asses (one for each of the last two presidential elections).

The question was one of whether or not that hysterical yapping is purely partisan. If you say taht it is, the next question is whether or not the Republicans would be yapping hysterically if a Democrat was running the war.

At which point we either state that the Republicans are just as hypocriticially partisan as you accuse the liberals of or that the Republicans would support the war regardless so we should find a Democrat to run it, hence relieving us of the hysterical liberal yapping.

I'm just looking out for what's best for the war effort, ya know.

Not even close to what I said. I did not say you'd be praising the war, nor the reasons we were there. I simply said that you'd be praising a Dem Whitehouse official if he'd made the same statement that Rumsfeld made (something about comparing his intellect to that of Churchill IIRC...).



It's insulting to you that I made an observation that "you" (as in the group of posters bashing Bush on this issue) would not have bashed a Dem if he'd made the same comments? You're easily offended then I guess...

Hmmm . . . I must say that I approve of the War on Terror, not the War in Iraq. Kicking the Taliban's *** out of Afghanistan was a good thing, it's just too bad that since we've abandoned Afghanistan for Iraq, they've starting taking it back. Even if the War in Iraq was instituted from a Democrat, I just can't believe that I'd support it. Though, at the same time, I can't see a Democrat going to war with Iraq in the first place. I guess that's why I voted for Michael Badnarik in '04. He seemed to be the only sane one of the bunch! Though I saw a great bumper sticker at college today: Frodo failed. Bush has the Ring. I nearly tripped over my own feet laughing (Check out the site, lots of good swag).

You still haven't said what you're basing this on.

I'll assume that you just pulled it out of your ***. Okay then!

Oh, YOU brought that up? Funny, cause I distinctly remember citing that decision and even saying I sided with the conservative members of the Court in that instance. But no, no, that goes against your internal dialogue, so it never happened.

The fact is, a War on <Concept> is never, ever an attainable goal. Ever. Wasn't in Roosevelt's day, wasn't in Johnson's, wasn't in Reagan's, isn't now, won't be next time around either. There's no partisanship in common sense, nor vice versa.

Yes, because he's always been such a big fan of McCain's.

My pleasure.

First, you're not "talking specifically about Hezbollah", since the latter were not given "infinite chances".

Second, how is the policy different? Hmm, where do I start...

Hezzbollah is *not* an industrial nation-state, with an all-powerful head of state, a specific hierarchical system built around it, 45 million people, and a whole economy directed towards building the strongest army the world has ever seen. Hezbollah's ultimate goal is not to invade neighbouring countries. Nor to turn them into a fascist regime. Nor to send a certain part of the population into death camps. Hezbollah never decided to invade its neighbouring country. And then another. And then another. And then start a world war based on a pseudo-scientific race superiority complex.

Hezbollah is a resistance movment that was set-up to repel Israel from Lebanon's territory. It does not invade other countries, not set-up gas chamber for Jews. Hezbollah would cease to exist as a legitimate resistance movement the second Israel complies with UN Resolutions and withdraws from Lebanese territory. Finally, Hezbollah is not that powerful, and simple diplomatic pressure on Syria and Iran would lead to its death.

So how you can even compare "appeasement" in those two issues (WWII and the Israel-Hezbollah conflict) is completely beyond me... I guess it just shows how your incredibly simplistic mind works.



Such bullshi. What has "appeasement" got to do with Iraq?

Is war the only alternative to appeasement? Are negotiations "appeasement"? When the US fund and support the dictatorial regimes of Egypt and Saudi Arabia, is that not a form of "appeasement"?

Rumsfeld is not trying to explain some geopolitical truth or theory about appeasing. He knows, as you do, that the current situation has nothing to do with "appeasement", either in general, or during WWII.

What he is doing, the clever boy, is comparing Hitler to Saddam, and **** Germany to Baath Iraq, without being too explicit about it so that pricks like you can defend him. Just like when they link 9/11 and Iraq. All of which is neither surprising, not especially shocking coming from him.

That you try to pretend he is NOT doing that, but instead giving a lecture on the merits of abstract appeasement in international relations, is pretty funny. Though neither surprising nor shocking either.

See Gbaji seems to think I have some sort of vendetta against pubbies. I like some republican views, I just detest the Bush administration.

Yes, it's as dumb as comparing Iraq and Vietnam....

Good thing I don't do that either!

I know, I know.. "But those other guys did it and you didn't yell at them! ". Find me someone official comparing the two and I'll waggle the finger of shame at them for your appeasement.

Really, I think comparing our current occupation in Iraq to any real war is silly. The actual "war" ended when Baghdad fell, the Iraqi army was dismantled and Saddam was thrown from power. I used to hear Republicans cite the German "werewolf" partisans and Allied occupation after WWII as a reason why we shouldn't have expected Iraq to fall peacefully, but no one was still calling Germany a nation at war in 1948.

Oh, you mean how we extended the war with Japan until all the Muslims in the Pacific were defeated?