[quote]Three individuals
[quote=“fred smith”][quote]
I mention these two incidents in order to highlight what too many people excuse or even champion: the nature of the so-called Iraqi “insurgents.” To many people in the West
So the neocon invasion and occupation of Iraq is now a ‘civil rights movement?’
I guess patriotism is no longer the last refuge of scoundrels.
Damn it! It’s not [i]our[/i] business if Saddam and the Taleban kill their own citizens! Let them kill all they want so long as they don’t endanger the environment or endanger a woman’s right to choose.
(And can everyone please stop talking about those ever so pesky Joooooos?)
I put forth the motion that anyone using the ridiculous term “neocon” be forced to immediately buy a round of drinks for the bar.
[quote=“Richardm”]
That is total BS.
So many righties confused about anti-war aims.[/quote]
and exactly what are those anti-war aims? the organizers of anti-war protests wanted to get us troops out of iraq as soon as possible. is that an anti-war aim? many posters critical of the war have suggested that the un needs to be given control of iraq. is that an anti-war aim? was allowing saddam to stay in power an anti-war aim? the insurgents in iraq want the country run under strict muslim law in which women have no rights. is that an anti-war aim?
maybe the righties are confused because even the lefties have no clue what their anti-war aims are. 
No no spookie:
For me it is first and foremost about taking out Saddam. Remaking the Middle East is secondary but important.
The point of this article is that the Democrats and many of their supporters who CLAIM to see racism everywhere and to support civil rights are curiously on the wrong side of the fence as usual in Iraq. The author wanted to show how ridiculous the support given to the insurgents by people like Michael Moore is. Jesus (intentional) can’t you read with any critical ability? 
[quote=“spook”]So the neocon invasion and occupation of Iraq is now a ‘civil rights movement?’
I guess patriotism is no longer the last refuge of scoundrels.[/quote]
the american invasions and occupations of afghanistan and iraq have done more to improve civil rights(especially for women) in the region than any other event in modern or ancient history. that’s a bit of a broad statement, but if anyone more knowledgable in middle eastern history can prove me wrong on this point, i will gladly amend my statement.
here’s a question, spook, do you think any of the new groups fighting for women’s rights in iraq want to see us troops leave right now? do you think any of them want the insurgents to drive the americans out and impose islamic law?
The correct term, of course, is “neoconman”.
[quote=“Flipper”][quote=“Richardm”]
That is total BS.
So many righties confused about anti-war aims.[/quote]
and exactly what are those anti-war aims? the organizers of anti-war protests wanted to get US troops out of Iraq as soon as possible. is that an anti-war aim? many posters critical of the war have suggested that the UN needs to be given control of Iraq. is that an anti-war aim? was allowing Saddam to stay in power an anti-war aim? the insurgents in Iraq want the country run under strict muslim law in which women have no rights. is that an anti-war aim?
maybe the righties are confused because even the lefties have no clue what their anti-war aims are. [/quote]
No. It’s just the conservative mindset. They are so set in their beliefs that any different opinion is seen as a personal attack. When confronted with opposition, it is easier to make the opponent some sort of devil and therefore avoid the challenge to preconceived ideas. It is much more comforting to make straw man arguments and vilify the opposition than to consider that the neocon god Bush has made a colossal blunder. (Tainan Cowboy I owe you a beer.)
Problem is Richardm:
Iraq was more of a problem with Saddam in power. We have accomplished a lot. We have resolved the wmd question once and for all and there was a question. Anyone who disagrees with that is a liar or fool. Second, Saddam is out of power. Now, things are not perfect but those were our two stated objectives and they have been satisfied. Others like me however have greater goals for the Middle East. We are doing quite well with accomplishing those. Libya, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Sudan, Somalia, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Palestine, Algeria, Morocco, Gulf States, Yemen and have more work to do on
Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt and Pakistan, and of course Iraq and Afghanistan.
Just for the idiots, I realize I have mentioned several countries in several lists but that means that goals have been accomplished, more remains to be done.
And the people who might disagree with your vision of world conquest are bad. They’re bad.
Yes, Richardm:
They are bad to stop my vainglorious effort to dominate the world. While the fact that OUR plans were revealed in the last James Bond movie, I fully intend to be back for repeat sequels. I NEED Iraqi oil in order to continue to clip my vast stock market wealth. Without it, why I might have to get a job to fund my extravagant lifestyle. 20 palaces is NOT enough for Fred Smith. I need more. There can never be enough. And precisely for these reasons of intense and selfish greed that I have embarked on this ultimately foolhardy campaign to bring democracy (cough cough) and human rights (er yeah) to the Middle East. While it will cost America a lot in blood and tears, I will continue to live my country club lifestyle and isn’t that really what it should be about? I mean I deserve a luxurious life and I don’t care how many people need to die for me to continue to maintain myself in the style to which I have become accustomed. Why is this so wrong? Why is it so difficult for people like you to understand? Why can’t you just play along with my program? Why? Why? Why? Damn you!!!
Er that is what you were referring to wasn’t it Richard?
That’s for sure. 
Hey, it was so much fun though let’s do it again. I can think of somebody else we can try it on: North Korea! (Ha, just kidding. You know who I mean.)
We may have trouble getting the “we’re not liars, we’re just incompetent fools” excuse to fly again though so we’ll have to come up with some new strategy. Like the first run through, it will need to be a two-parter, a “before” version when the facts are up for grabs and an “after” version when those so-called facts come home to roost.
Here’s my nomination for parts one and two, Part II:
Before: “We’re not lying this time. Promise.”
After: “Thank you for your cooperation. Since we’re now finally absolute masters of the Middle East, your services as chumps will no longer be required.”
Fred rants: [quote]The author wanted to show how ridiculous the support given to the insurgents by people like Michael Moore is.[/quote]
What a beautifully typical Republican generalization that is supported only by echoing another ignoramASS’ opinion. What basis do you have for believing the Left is glorifying the Iraqi insurgency? Bush and other Republicans have commented on the growing skill and sophistication of the insurgency, so does that mean they support them?
According to one online dictionary, insurgency means:
[quote]in
[quote=“Richardm”]
No. It’s just the conservative mindset. They are so set in their beliefs that any different opinion is seen as a personal attack. When confronted with opposition, it is easier to make the opponent some sort of devil and therefore avoid the challenge to preconceived ideas. It is much more comforting to make straw man arguments and vilify the opposition than to consider that the neocon god Bush has made a colossal blunder. (Tainan Cowboy I owe you a beer.)[/quote]
your post is a perfect synopsis of the anti-war confusion. you used your post to attack the other side, but did not expound on a single aim of the anti-war lefties.
kinda like kerry’s iraq plan. you have aims, but you just won’t tell us what they are? 
Seems like the Bush administration is more confused than the antiwar guys.
What are the war aims? WMDs? Nope – no weapons to find. Liberation? Nope – Abu Ghraib simply continued torture under new management.
The organizers of the Iraq war ensured that half the combat strength of the United States would be locked down in a desert in the middle of nowhere for a long time, thus hindering our nation’s ability to project military power to the rest of the world. By locking ourselves down in Iraq, we now no longer have the troops available for action in a variety of other world scenarios, leading to North Korea (which brags about its WMDs) and China among other powers to be greatly emboldened. We’re stuck as a “paper tiger” throughout the rest of the world because we simply don’t have the troops, equipment or supplies to handle anything else. Was that the war aim?
Well, perhaps a multinational force might be less of a magnet for anti-US sentiment. However, one has to ask whether U.S. credibility is helped by assembling a bogus “coalition of the willing” full of the sorts of Pacific-island-dot countries that don’t even have militaries or terrorism problems.
Is torturing prisoners an “American” value or a “Republican” value. My sense it is that torturing prisoners is not an American value and so it must be the latter. The Bush administration apparently rewards those who support torture by giving them promotions – hence the selection of the new AG.
Did the neoconmen even think this might happen? I did. Lots of people did. Iran is right next door to Iraq and shares the same majority sect of Islam. Was it a Bush administration aim to utterly not think about postwar scenarios no matter how likely??
Maybe the righties are confused because they have no idea what they’re doing.
anti-war is against war and death.
Fred, until such time as the new Iraq that is still in the process of being built is a calm, contented useful member of the community rather than the hotbed of insurgency as current, then your statement may hold some value, until such time then your statement is premature at best and plain ridiculous at worst.
The current cost to the Allies is probably higher now both in terms of lives lost and monetary cost than it was whilst Saddam was in power, the rest was hypothetic might be’s.
You are undeniably correct here Fred, it was resolved once and for all, and surprise surprise he did not have what you claimed, and i do believe the only liars and fools are the governments belonging primarily to the US and UK.
God help us, the rate we are going, WWIII seems only just round the corner, all because of one over bearing pompous ass in DC.
What a beautifully typical Republican generalization that is supported only by echoing another ignoramASS’ opinion. What basis do you have for believing the Left is glorifying the Iraqi insurgency? Bush and other Republicans have commented on the growing skill and sophistication of the insurgency, so does that mean they support them?[/quote]