News What was the true motive behind the Iraq War?

[Skyhunter]

How can we oppose a policy if we don't know what it is?

Why are we building permanent bases in Iraq, while telling everyone that we want to "stand up" the Iraqi people so we can "stand down"?

The administration won't tell us what their policy is. Just like the build up to the war, we are being decieved again.

I am going to make a bumper sticker that reads in big letters;

IMPEACH THE TREASONOUS LIAR!

 

[outsider]

How can we oppose a policy if we don't know what it is?

Why are we building permanent bases in Iraq, while telling everyone that we want to "stand up" the Iraqi people so we can "stand down"?

The administration won't tell us what their policy is. Just like the build up to the war, we are being decieved again.

I am going to make a bumper sticker that reads in big letters;

IMPEACH THE TREASONOUS LIAR!

it is the shroud of confusion that companies use in many cases to mislead the competition or minimize the adverse affects of employees prior to giving them the axe... (if you've ever worked in an office, you know what i mean... the person to get fired is usually the last person to know).

there is a definite plan that is being played out... populous of the world are energy & product consuming pets to big business. I have no real point of view right now... just got back from a little time off... got some family visiting... join y'all later.

 

[Informal Logic]

Too late, I think, TSA - anyone know what's happened to TSM? I am guessing what the line through a name means, but don't know for sure... Where can I read about it?

he can't be kicked like that... who kicked him? why? i saw his last posts and he didn't brake any forums policies...

I agree, if it is true that TSM was kicked, I'd find this sad, because his contributions here were often well-informed, and especially witty. (remember his 99 dead baboons, and the suicide bomber song "Allah Me, Why don't you take Allah Me ?" :-)

I was just wondering, though, where we can read to find out the rules about how being kicked off works? What must one do to get kicked off? I searched the PF site yesterday and read some general guidelines for posting in the PF and MKaku forums, but are there specific rules for this section of the boards? What is the 'law' and where can I read its specifics?

EDIT: And perhaps if one voluntarily 'deregisters', the name gets crossed out? Perhaps TSM had enough and just withdrew? I hope it was his decision rather than anything else, in any case (as you say, vanesch).

So my other question is: if someone deregisters from this site, is that what happens to that person's name? I imagine this may be the case.

I agree TSM was a great contributor and it is sad he has been banned. Unfortunately there were probably members complaining to the moderators. Suppressing freedom of speech is not the liberal way, but there are a few members who are far more offensive. Complaints could become a two way street you know.

Back to the topic. Today there are reports of air strikes against Al Qeada in Iraq, but a lot of good this will do. Because Iraqi organizations are rapidly growing into a postwar popular movement.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9122485/

So if the terrorists leave, they will be replaced once again with insurgents who are Iraqi. Then what will Bush call them I wonder, and will he blow them to pieces too?

 

[edward]

I agree, if it is true that TSM was kicked, I'd find this sad, because his contributions here were often well-informed, and especially witty. (remember his 99 dead baboons, and the suicide bomber song "Allah Me, Why don't you take Allah Me ?" :-)

I also agree. TSM provided us with more facts and links on the global situation than any other poster.

TSM did, after a prolonged dialog with one of the more antagonistic extreme right wing posters, refer to that poster as a -ick head.

I thought at the time that it might go unnoticed amongst the three pages of diatribe that the antagonist had presented and TSM had patiently replied to. Apparently that person reported it.

The antagonist who is ex military should have not been bothered by the term -ick head, because it is a common expression used in the military. It is one of the more gentle terms used to address a junior ranking person.
I served in the military myself and heard the expression -ick head on a daily basis.

In the context and in the situation in which the term -ick head was used, it was the only term that accurately described the antagonist.

 

[edward]

I agree TSM was a great contributor and it is sad he has been banned. Unfortunately there were probably members complaining to the moderators. Suppressing freedom of speech is not the liberal way, but there are a few members who are far more offensive. Complaints could become a two way street you know.

In the overall context of the posts involved, TSM is the one who was unfairly ridiculed. I saw this as a successful attempt to draw out an explitive from TSM by dumping three pages of pure garbage on him.

The supposedly offensive term could have simply been deleted by the mod.

 

[edward]

he can't be kicked like that... who kicked him? why? i saw his last posts and he didn't brake any forums policies...

He got tired of trying to respond to replies like:

can you read? Seriously? I didn't ask you about that stuff and does nothing to even address the question. I ask you one thing and you run off talking about something completely different...what is wrong with you? Do you take meds?

and

I am right on the money...you are the broken record in capable of original thought and incapable of forming a coherent idea...

from the thread: "Does the U.S. Administration owe an apology to the French" I think on page 10. The last few pages are a good read.

 

[DM]

from the thread: "Does the U.S. Administration owe an apology to the French" I think on page 10. The last few pages are a good read.

Yes, now I remember.

 

[2CentsWorth]

Quote:
can you read? Seriously? I didn't ask you about that stuff and does nothing to even address the question. I ask you one thing and you run off talking about something completely different...what is wrong with you? Do you take meds?

That is offensive. Why isn't the member who posted this banned too? Fair is fair.

 

[Skyhunter]

In the overall context of the posts involved, TSM is the one who was unfairly ridiculed. I saw this as a successful attempt to draw out an explitive from TSM by dumping three pages of pure garbage on him.

The supposedly offensive term could have simply been deleted by the mod.

I have to agree with TSM and his assesment of the antagonist's behavior. Although what he said was a personal insult.

TSM kept repeating his original statement the the antagonist kept misquoting him until finally he lost his temper.

Should have stayed with replying the way he did in earlier posts:

If you say so Townsend.

I bow to your logic.

Continue.

 

[Skyhunter]

That is offensive. Why isn't the member who posted this banned too? Fair is fair.

I agree, fair is fair.

Insults are insults, and that is a personal insult.

At least TSM added information to the dialogue instead of pure ad hominem.

 

[russ_watters]

What must one do to get kicked off? I searched the PF site yesterday and read some general guidelines for posting in the PF and MKaku forums, but are there specific rules for this section of the boards?

There are no specific extra rules for this section of the board. TSM was warned first unofficially, then officially, by Evo quite a number of times for his abusive posts. He would not change his tone and his warning level eventually reached the point where the server automatically banned him (15 points).

 

[edward]

There are no specific extra rules for this section of the board. TSM was warned first unofficially, then officially, by Evo quite a number of times for his abusive posts. He would not change his tone and his warning level eventually reached the point where the server automatically banned him (15 points).

I disagree strongly, he had changed his tone greatly since I first started posting here.

 

[Skyhunter]

There are no specific extra rules for this section of the board. TSM was warned first unofficially, then officially, by Evo quite a number of times for his abusive posts. He would not change his tone and his warning level eventually reached the point where the server automatically banned him (15 points).

Good to know it was an impartial computer that did the deed.

How does the server determine what is an abusive post?

 

[edward]

There are no specific extra rules for this section of the board. TSM was warned first unofficially, then officially, by Evo quite a number of times for his abusive posts. He would not change his tone and his warning level eventually reached the point where the server automatically banned him (15 points).

Hell the people in poverty by the numbers in China is more then the entire population of most countries on Earth. Its not self-delusion, its called science. But I suppose you don't know what "science" is.

Abuse apparently is all in the eye of the beholder. I see a lot of trash talk like that above. Let's define abuse once and for all.

 

[Art]

Abuse apparently is all in the eye of the beholder. I see a lot of trash talk like that above. Let's define abuse once and for all.

I concur with all those who have lamented the banning of TSM. The political forum will be severly diminished as a consequence. His unique position as an Englishman based in China added a perspective to the discussions which nobody else here can replace. He will be missed not only because of the extremely interesting posts he contributed, which led many of us into areas which were previously unchartered and so were very educational but also because the knock on effect will be that others of strong minds and persuasive facts will be intimidated by this action.
As others have noted there are many, far more abusive rightwing posters on this site who appear to sail along unscathed whilst insulting all and sundry along the way.
From comments made to me by Evo (in relation to complaints about my own posts) it appears there are many rightwing activists (BTW many of whom never even post on the political forum) who regularly make complaints about posts from people who they believe to be left leaning.
Personally although I have found many many posts from neocon members to be personally insulting and offensive I have never complained about any of them as I believe that a) free speech is paramount and b) generally when people resort to ad hominem attacks it is in lieu of an intelligent argument or c) it is a subject they feel strongly about and so passion overflows at times.

However given that there appears to be an orchestrated attempt by some to have other members excluded I for one will be rethinking my laissez-faire approach!

 

[oldunion]

could a petition be started to get TSM back on PF?

 

[SOS2008]

I concur with all those who have lamented the banning of TSM. The political forum will be severly diminished as a consequence. His unique position as an Englishman based in China added a perspective to the discussions which nobody else here can replace. He will be missed not only because of the extremely interesting posts he contributed, which led many of us into areas which were previously unchartered and so were very educational but also because the knock on effect will be that others of strong minds and persuasive facts will be intimidated by this action. As others have noted there are many, far more abusive rightwing posters on this site who appear to sail along unscathed whilst insulting all and sundry along the way.

From comments made to me by Evo (in relation to complaints about my own posts) it appears there are many rightwing activists (BTW many of whom never even post on the political forum) who regularly make complaints about posts from people who they believe to be left leaning. Personally although I have found many many posts from neocon members to be personally insulting and offensive I have never complained about any of them as I believe that a) free speech is paramount and b) generally when people resort to ad hominem attacks it is in lieu of an intelligent argument or c) it is a subject they feel strongly about and so passion overflows at times.

However given that there appears to be an orchestrated attempt by some to have other members excluded I for one will be rethinking my laissez-faire approach!

Art I agree, and in particular with what I have highlighted.

We have lost quite a few members from this forum such as "number42" for these very reasons. I was sad to see him leave since he was one of the members who inspired me to join. It has reached a point that members are openly voicing concerns, and I for one don't want to see more loss of quality members like TSM. Moderators should be neutral (Evo and several others do a great job IMO), but some seem to struggle with this...some themselves who are borderline with abusive terms--at least anyway in this area, or those who lock threads that are not in their sections? It only hurts this forum if it lacks even-handedness, because members can drift elsewhere.

In any event, I too have never lodged a complaint, and for the same reasons Art stated. Too bad there aren't points against members who constantly post unsubstantiated drivel, because I find these far more annoying in an academic forum than the so-called abusive terms, which are usually instigated/deserved to begin with.

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm about to go reply to some posts with as much restraint as I can muster... (Oh, and I would have voted yes to reinstate TSM.) And before moving to a new thread...

YES -- IMPEACH THE TREASONOUS LIAR!

 

[solutions in a box]

Driving people away by any means is one of the typical neocon approaches on forums. If they can't make you angry enough to attack, they send threatening Pm's and try scare tactics such as happened to me.

Their tactics are so similar that it appears to be a contrived effort. It reminds me of the Hitlerian tactics of karl Rove.

I am hoping that TSM will take on a new persona and come back and hit them where it hurts, right squarely in their ego.

 

[outsider]

I've just read all the follow ups and I am saddened and steamed to learn of the fate of one of the most if not THE MOST informative member I've ever found on the Internet! I have been warned on multiple occasions for my writing style, however I feel TSM has always been more than gracious to those most undeserving. It is a shame on this system as there are many far more abusive writers on these boards who should first be gone. How do we get TSM back?

 

[Daminc]

I have also felt that I've been insulted now and again but I wouldn't even consider putting a complaint in. If someone crosses the line the moderators should step in. That's what they are there for IMO.

Automatic banning by the server? That seems pretty dumb. Does that mean I could just complain and complain about anyone whom I disagree with and they'll end up getting banned by the server?

IF TSM was guilty of a crime worthy of being banned for then the moderators should probably ban a good 30% of the posters here.

People lose their cool. Especially if faced with a *ick-head. Although we should try and moderate our own behaviour we're only human and our emotions can get the better of us now and again.

 

[vanesch]

Driving people away by any means is one of the typical neocon approaches on forums. If they can't make you angry enough to attack, they send threatening Pm's and try scare tactics such as happened to me.

Their tactics are so similar that it appears to be a contrived effort. It reminds me of the Hitlerian tactics of karl Rove.

Yes, except that here, such a behaviour is ridiculous. After all, what's the point in coming to a politics discussion forum if you only want to read same-minded opinions ? PF is no propaganda instrument (it will not alter, in any way, significantly any outcome in any vote). One should in fact install automatic forums where neocon (or other, you could maybe specify it in a user control panel) ideological material is automatically generated and displayed, so that they can log in there and have their egos satisfied there. They could post polls and bots would vote on it in such a way that it satisfies their desires, with simulated identities of people all over the world so that they think that the whole world agrees with them. If they want to have some arguments they can win, bots could post argumentation against their positions, with obvious flaws in it, so that they can attack those flaws and demonstrate their argumentative superiority. After a few counter arguments, the bots would then apologize and recognize the superiority of their views.
Some bots could even start spouting insults, and then get banned so that our posters would get the impression that they have the administrators on their side. Wouldn't that be a great forum for such people ?

 

[Art]

I've just read all the follow ups and I am saddened and steamed to learn of the fate of one of the most if not THE MOST informative member I've ever found on the Internet! I have been warned on multiple occasions for my writing style, however I feel TSM has always been more than gracious to those most undeserving. It is a shame on this system as there are many far more abusive writers on these boards who should first be gone. How do we get TSM back?

I did try the democratic approach of starting a poll to vote for or against his reinstatement but it appears democracy is too radical a concept for some of our more rightwing moderators and so one of them who doesn't even moderate this forum locked it.

 

[Burnsys]

This is totaly unfair, it's so evident that TSM was banned becouse of his political ideas and not for nothing else..
It would be nice that some of those SuperMentors who support the invasion of irak becouse they want to take democracy to irak, start to listen to the people in this forums, becouse democracy starts at home...

PD: If TSM was banned becouse he used insulting language or somenthing like that, i see a lot of more User which should be banned..

Someone has TSM Email?

 

[vanesch]

It would be nice that some of those SuperMentors who support the invasion of irak becouse they want to take democracy to irak

It is because they didn't want to have it at home that they needed to dump it somewhere else

 

[Daminc]

I did try the democratic approach of starting a poll to vote for or against his reinstatement but it appears democracy is too radical a concept for some of our more rightwing moderators and so one of them who doesn't even moderate this forum locked it.

Mustn't cross the masters

 

[outsider]

I did try the democratic approach of starting a poll to vote for or against his reinstatement but it appears democracy is too radical a concept for some of our more rightwing moderators and so one of them who doesn't even moderate this forum locked it.

yes.. i did see that thread... he'll be back again... like the original coca cola

 

[outsider]

btw... what ever happened to TSMs little blue friend?

 

[edward]

Originally Posted by solutions in a box
Driving people away by any means is one of the typical neocon approaches on forums. If they can't make you angry enough to attack, they send threatening Pm's and try scare tactics such as happened to me.

Their tactics are so similar that it appears to be a contrived effort. It reminds me of the Hitlerian tactics of karl Rove.

Yes, except that here, such a behaviour is ridiculous. After all, what's the point in coming to a politics discussion forum if you only want to read same-minded opinions ?

I think SIAB's point was that it is becoming apparent that Neocons are coming to forums to stifle two sided discussions by: distracting from the topic, leading it off topic, attacking the person, or doing whatever is necessary to stifle opinions or even facts. I tend to agree with this.

PF is no propaganda instrument (it will not alter, in any way, significantly any outcome in any vote).

You missed the plural (forums). There are many forums where it is apparent that coordinated distasteful tactics are being used. Check out other forums. The methodology used by the conservatives to disrupt is too similar to be coincidence.

 

[Skyhunter]

I think SIAB's point was that it is becoming apparent that Neocons are coming to forums to stifle two sided discussions by: distracting from the topic, leading it off topic, attacking the person, or doing whatever is necessary to stifle opinions or even facts. I tend to agree with this.



You missed the plural (forums). There are many forums where it is apparent that coordinated distasteful tactics are being used. Check out other forums. The methodology used by the conservatives to disrupt is too similar to be coincidence.

Could you post some links?

I would like to do just that.

 

[BobG]

Hmm, whatever happened to Rev Prez? Certainly, he didn't get banned for being too liberal.

Actually, I miss TSM, as well, and I hope his punishment is a suspension rather than a permanent ban. He did make some very good posts, but it's also easy to see how he could start to accumulate warning points.

TSM occasionally made some abusive remarks, but at least the majority of his posts addressed issues, making most of his abuses easier to tolerate. More bothersome is when the conversation drops all pretense of addressing the issue - something a few on both sides have a habit of doing.

 

[Burnsys]

I am sure he is reading this.. TSM send me an email to : Burnsys@hotmail.com.

 

[alexandra]

I think SIAB's point was that it is becoming apparent that Neocons are coming to forums to stifle two sided discussions by: distracting from the topic, leading it off topic, attacking the person, or doing whatever is necessary to stifle opinions or even facts. I tend to agree with this.

I agree that many posts seem to have this agenda in mind. But there are things one could do to minimise the effectiveness of their strategies: try to ignore the posts that distract from the topic, attack the person, etc. In any case, this is my personal new resolution. I will ignore childish taunts like being called a 'fruitcake' or 'obtuse', for instance. I will just talk 'over' such comments and make whatever points I wanted to make in the first place

 

[Art]

I agree that many posts seem to have this agenda in mind. But there are things one could do to minimise the effectiveness of their strategies: try to ignore the posts that distract from the topic, attack the person, etc. In any case, this is my personal new resolution. I will ignore childish taunts like being called a 'fruitcake' or 'obtuse', for instance. I will just talk 'over' such comments and make whatever points I wanted to make in the first place

Yes and I notice the person who insulted you doesn't have a line through their name. I wonder why not??
I also see that in the normal spirit of evenhandedness Evo unlocked my thread long enough for her to post a message in effect calling me a liar and then promptly closed it again. Rather than retort in kind by calling her a liar I will assume she has simply suffered a memory lapse.

 

[SOS2008]

Yes, except that here, such a behaviour is ridiculous. After all, what's the point in coming to a politics discussion forum if you only want to read same-minded opinions ? PF is no propaganda instrument (it will not alter, in any way, significantly any outcome in any vote). One should in fact install automatic forums where neocon (or other, you could maybe specify it in a user control panel) ideological material is automatically generated and displayed, so that they can log in there and have their egos satisfied there. They could post polls and bots would vote on it in such a way that it satisfies their desires, with simulated identities of people all over the world so that they think that the whole world agrees with them. If they want to have some arguments they can win, bots could post argumentation against their positions, with obvious flaws in it, so that they can attack those flaws and demonstrate their argumentative superiority. After a few counter arguments, the bots would then apologize and recognize the superiority of their views.
Some bots could even start spouting insults, and then get banned so that our posters would get the impression that they have the administrators on their side. Wouldn't that be a great forum for such people ?

There are many forums that seem to be like this, as well as web sites like Free Republic.

Hmm, whatever happened to Rev Prez? Certainly, he didn't get banned for being too liberal.

Actually, I miss TSM, as well, and I hope his punishment is a suspension rather than a permanent ban. He did make some very good posts, but it's also easy to see how he could start to accumulate warning points.

TSM occasionally made some abusive remarks, but at least the majority of his posts addressed issues, making most of his abuses easier to tolerate. More bothersome is when the conversation drops all pretense of addressing the issue - something a few on both sides have a habit of doing.

True, Rev Prez was a fundamentalist, but other than that it was difficult to know his true position because he was too busy being abusive. And the insults can come from both sides of the ideology spectrum, but as I've said before, liberal members have a much better record of providing evidence via quotes/links from reliable sources. Maybe if this was enforced a little more it would provide a more even-handed approach here (as one moderator has already suggested).

I agree that many posts seem to have this agenda in mind. But there are things one could do to minimise the effectiveness of their strategies: try to ignore the posts that distract from the topic, attack the person, etc. In any case, this is my personal new resolution. I will ignore childish taunts like being called a 'fruitcake' or 'obtuse', for instance. I will just talk 'over' such comments and make whatever points I wanted to make in the first place

It's unfortunate though.

Now this thread probably needs to be split so members can return to the topic of the OP if they would like.

 

[Art]

Now this thread probably needs to be split so members can return to the topic of the OP if they would like.

I tried that but the new thread was locked.

 

[alexandra]

Returning the thread to the OP

Hi Art, SOS, everyone - returning this thread to the OP:

I was thinking the other day how everyone is waiting for the iraw war to end and for everyone to come home etc etc. I also recall bush saying that "you're either with us or you're against us," referring to other countries.

Well it is unreasonable to assume that 9/11 (which i believe was an intelligence success) was orchestrated just to allow bush to declare war on iraq; his mission must have been on a much larger scale.

I don't think bush is going to pack up and come home and give iraq back to its people, if it is given back it will be to people who are 100% loyal to bush/his regime under any circumstance.

Thus, i believe that bush's plan is to subdue the world.

speaking in generalities, a few terrorists attacked the usa, bush attacks the nation of afghanistan, bush attacks the nation of iraq, patriot acts are set in place to ensure the submission of the us people is made legal as possible.

London attacks take place, although no fowl play has been propogated as yet, they have brought the people back into the mindset of "the world is dangerous and we must listen to the people who know."

These are my thoughts, the usa plans to conquer the world over a long period of time.

I was interested in whether or not anyone is aware of the Washington-based thinktank, "The Project for the New American Century" - http://www.newamericancentury.org/
Here's how this group describes itself:

Established in the spring of 1997, the Project for the New American Century is a non-profit, educational organization whose goal is to promote American global leadership. The Project is an initiative of the New Citizenship Project (501c3); the New Citizenship Project's chairman is William Kristol and its president is Gary Schmitt.
Reference: http://www.newamericancentury.org/aboutpnac.htm

What is the 'New Citizenship Project'? Is it connected in any way to the US government?

The PNAC published a report entitled "Rebuilding America's Defences: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century" (2000), and some political analysts claimed this to be a sort of 'blueprint' that the US administration is following. The paper is available online at http://www.newamericancentury.org/R...casDefenses.pdf . I am just wondering whether anyone knows to what extent the contents of this report play a role in US foreign policy decisions.

alex

 

[Skyhunter]

What is the 'New Citizenship Project'? Is it connected in any way to the US government?

William Kristol is now head of the World Bank.

The PNAC published a report entitled "Rebuilding America's Defences: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century" (2000), and some political analysts claimed this to be a sort of 'blueprint' that the US administration is following. The paper is available online at http://www.newamericancentury.org/R...casDefenses.pdf . I am just wondering whether anyone knows to what extent the contents of this report play a role in US foreign policy decisions.

alex

Ask Dick Cheney.

 

[alexandra]

William Kristol is now head of the World Bank.


Ask Dick Cheney.

Yeah, Skyhunter. I knew the answer I just wanted to get people to do some thinking (and reading) about this. But as vanesch points out in another thread, it is not certain that everything is going according to plan

 

[alexandra]

First stage not going too well...

It seems the insurgents are getting way more organised - as some on this forum have predicted. This news also seems to confirm vanesch's view that the US administration has not achieved its aims and probably won't (I'm more and more inclined to agree with you, vanesch!):

Armed assault on Baghdad ministry

At least two Iraqi police officers have been killed and several wounded in a surprise attack by insurgents on the interior ministry building in Baghdad.
About 30 gunmen in 10 cars carried out the dawn raid using automatic weapons and rocket propelled grenades.

Although Baghdad is a frequent scene of violence, attacks on heavily-guarded government buildings are very rare.

The attack lasted about 10 minutes, police said, and about five police officers were reported wounded.

The attackers withdrew after the short clash. It was not clear if there were any casualties on their side.

More: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4214904.stm

 

[Smurf]

I am sure he is reading this.. TSM send me an email to : Burnsys@hotmail.com.

if you actually get a response tell him to drop me a line.

 

[Burnsys]

if you actually get a response tell him to drop me a line.

No Response until now... HE just disapeared...

 

[Art]

if you actually get a response tell him to drop me a line.

Me too please Burnsys...

 

[Informal Logic]

Hi Art, SOS, everyone - returning this thread to the OP:

I was interested in whether or not anyone is aware of the Washington-based thinktank, "The Project for the New American Century" - http://www.newamericancentury.org/
Here's how this group describes itself:

What is the 'New Citizenship Project'? Is it connected in any way to the US government?

The PNAC published a report entitled "Rebuilding America's Defences: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century" (2000), and some political analysts claimed this to be a sort of 'blueprint' that the US administration is following. The paper is available online at http://www.newamericancentury.org/R...casDefenses.pdf . I am just wondering whether anyone knows to what extent the contents of this report play a role in US foreign policy decisions.

alex

Per the link - "to stimulate useful public debate on foreign and defense policy and America's role in the world" my arse.

Ask Dick Cheney.

Cheney is such a *ick.

As someone posted elsewhere, support for Bush and the invasion of Iraq has dropped to 45%. One can only wonder how that many people can still support this moron and the mess we are in. It should prove the neocon philosophy is faulty, yet believers remain gung-ho as ever.

 

[Art]

As someone posted elsewhere, support for Bush and the invasion of Iraq has dropped to 45%. One can only wonder how that many people can still support this moron and the mess we are in. It should prove the neocon philosophy is faulty, yet believers remain gung-ho as ever.

Or the democrats are so at sea people still do not see them as a credible alternative?? The democrats really need to decide what their policies are and speak about them with a common voice. One may despise the GOP but it is difficult for people to leave them and support a party who's policies they are unsure of and who appear to be split between the right and the left.
Although I despise Bush and his administration I at least know what they stand for but I couldn't say the same for the democratic party.

 

[edward]

Or the democrats are so at sea people still do not see them as a credible alternative?? The democrats really need to decide what their policies are and speak about them with a common voice. One may despise the GOP but it is difficult for people to leave them and support a party who's policies they are unsure of and who appear to be split between the right and the left.
Although I despise Bush and his administration I at least know what they stand for but I couldn't say the same for the democratic party.

The Democrats have a big disadvantage. They can't call a press conference every week and indoctrinate people with a bunch of well prepared propaganda.

 

[Townsend]

Or the democrats are so at sea people still do not see them as a credible alternative?? The democrats really need to decide what their policies are and speak about them with a common voice. One may despise the GOP but it is difficult for people to leave them and support a party who's policies they are unsure of and who appear to be split between the right and the left.
Although I despise Bush and his administration I at least know what they stand for but I couldn't say the same for the democratic party.

IMO you hit the nail on the head...

 

[Townsend]

The Democrats have a big disadvantage. They can't call a press conference every week and indoctrinate people with a bunch of well prepared propaganda.

The question is how did they get that way? The democrates had quite a bit of political power but then lost it. Why do you suppose they lost so much of their power?

 

[Smurf]

the iraq war, the first stage

Nonsense. The first stage was 50 years ago when the neo-libertarian Roosevelt enacted the new deal and took steps to making US foreign policy extremely interventionist. Iraq is only the latest in America's crimes. There is no "New World Order" It's just another brick in the wall painted red instead of crimson, and if you like, with a big sticker on it saying "this is softwood lumber".

 

[Informal Logic]

Or the democrats are so at sea people still do not see them as a credible alternative?? The democrats really need to decide what their policies are and speak about them with a common voice. One may despise the GOP but it is difficult for people to leave them and support a party who's policies they are unsure of and who appear to be split between the right and the left.
Although I despise Bush and his administration I at least know what they stand for but I couldn't say the same for the democratic party.

I believe there is consensus that the Democrats need to do a better job of offering Americans a desirable alternative. However, that is a separate matter from supporting the neocon agenda as foreign policy. For example, in the link provided by Alexandra, the stated goals not only are not feasible, this approach will be resisted as the invasion of Iraq has shown. Regardless of party platforms, people should realize by now this is not an alternative. If 45% of the population still are staunch Bush supporters who favor the invasion and occupation, I find this to be of concern.

I agree with Smurf that the war is not in the first stage, though it is hard to tell what stage it is supposed to be.

 

[Art]

I believe there is consensus that the Democrats need to do a better job of offering Americans a desirable alternative. However, that is a separate matter from supporting the neocon agenda as foreign policy. For example, in the link provided by Alexandra, the stated goals not only are not feasible, this approach will be resisted as the invasion of Iraq has shown. Regardless of party platforms, people should realize by now this is not an alternative. If 45% of the population still are staunch Bush supporters who favor the invasion and occupation, I find this to be of concern.

I don't believe there would be a figure of 45% staunch Bush supporters if people were offered a viable option to assess the current policy against. The democrats criticize Bush but do not yet have a consensus amongst themselves on alternative policies and so essentially people are being asked to choose between the devil they know and the devil they don't. Experience shows that people generally stick with the devil they know.

My concern is that if the democrats believe the screw-ups of the Bush administration will result in political power falling into their laps they are very much mistaken as evidenced by the election of John Major in Britain following the forced departure of Margaret Thatcher.

US democrats need to learn from New Labour and study how they restructured the party on all levels to make themselves into a viable option. Otherwise like old Labour they will find themselves being the permanent party of protest.