[zk]

“US Democrats are not the only ones popping champagne corks:”

The link following that quote has the clerical leader of Iran saying, “Since Washington’s hostile and hawkish policies have always been against the Iranian nation, this defeat is actually an obvious victory for the Iranian nation.”

Clearly that’s just rhetoric. Obviously Iran is in a better position now than they were before bush turned the middle east into what it is today. I’m sure Khamenei is very happy the republicans spent as long as they did in power. And I’m sure he’d rather have had the U.S. continue to focus on Iraq, which the republicans seem more likely to do than the democrats. The U.S. has been trying to mediate the balance of power between Iraq and Iran for decades, and for us to basically destroy Iraq all of a sudden is a dream come true for the Iranian government.

[zk]

“All of this finger pointing by the democrats and anxious desire to deny any responsibility is appalling.”

I agree, PD. As I’ve said, I find the democrats’ pansiness in the face of republican bullying to be a huge part of the problem.

What I’m curious about is this: Why do you find the democrats’ finger pointing and anxious desire to deny any responsibility appalling, but you don’t find the republicans’ finger pointing and anxious desire to deny any responsibility appalling?

[zk]

L Thek, your last post is hilariously hypocritical. You argue that a poor argument supported by silly words is not an argument. And than you make a poor argument supported by silly words. You call yourself civil and others rude, and then you act rude. You completely ignore deadzone’s comments on what the democrats were actually voting for. Instead of responding to dz’s statements, you call him names (silly, rude, immature, fanatic). How immature, silly and rude is that? I’d be interested to hear some reasoned, logical counterpoints to what dz said. Have you got any?

[zk]

“Yep, you guys on the left are going to be ‘discovering’ all of the permutations that we right-wingers have gone through, already.”

That’s pretty funny. You right wingers have had it figured out all along. So why have you screwed it up so badly? Oh, that’s right, you don’t see yet that it’s screwed up.

[zk]

I stand corrected on one point: he did “lay out” the theory that democracy may flourish. But what is important is that that was not the reason he gave us for going to war at the time. And it probably wouldn’t have been a good enough reason for congress if congress knew the truth about the intelligence that bush was using. If for no other reason than that congress probably would have seen how unlikely such a thing (flourishing democracy) was.

Which brings me to my next point: In the article that the above link points to, Murhaf Jouejati seems phenomenally prescient, while the other guy sounds like an ass clown for president bush whose optimism is exceeded only by his ignorance. Optimism is nice if you’re talking to your friends about the weather. But if you’re sending your kids to war, I think realism is a better way to go.

(The debate about how much congress knew rages to this day, and I agree that it is a matter of debate. And I place a huge amount of blame on all of congress, democrats included. A lot of them probably voted for the war for fear of the republican rhetoric machine scalding them for appearing soft on terror and hurting their chances of getting reelected. Which is as much the democrats’ fault for being such pansies about it as it is republicans’ for being such jackasses about it. It all goes back to the point I try to make again and again, which is that we need to start running this country based on logic, reason, ideas and rational discourse and dialogue, not on rhetoric and bullying and emotional manipulation.)

[zk]

“So the enemy of your enemy is your friend, zk?”

No.

“Those some citizens you respect so much would love to vaporize you, your family and your friends.”

What makes you think that the citizens of Iran want to vaporize us? It’s a small minority of Iranians or Syrians who want to vaporize us. There’s also a small minority of Americans who would want to vaporize my family because my wife is Chinese and my daughter is half Chinese. Do I lack respect for American citizens as a whole because some of them are ignorant and backwards? No. The vast majority of Syrians and Iranians and the citizens in general of any country in the world are just people who want the best for their families. To assume that they want to vaporize us because their leaders claim to hate us is irresponsible, xenophobic, paranoid, wrong and dangerous.

[zk]

“We differ: I believe that the terrorists are coming our way.”

No, we agree on that. I also believe that they’re coming our way. And I think that we should do everything that we can to stop them. But we’re busy using all the resources we could be using toward that goal on invading a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 and very little to do with terrorism in general. We’ve wasted so much and accomplished so little. In fact, we’ve wasted so much and we’ve gone backwards. If we’d spent so much in lives and money and world political capital on actually fighting the terrorists rather than pursuing the neocons’ goal, we’d probably have gotten a lot closer to keeping the terrorists from coming our way.

[zk]

JES,

I respect the citizens of Iran and Syria. Not their leaders or their system of government. I have no respect whatsoever for gwb.

As far as respecting the “office that he holds,” to be honest with you, I’m not even sure what that means. Sure, it’s probably the most powerful position in the world. But does that mean that any person who holds that office deserves respect? Of course not. Does it mean that if I show no respect for bush that I have no respect for his office? I don’t think it does. But I don’t know for sure because, like I said, I’m not sure what that means. In any case, I have no respect for the man, and it is the man, not the office, for whom I hold very great contempt and disgust.

[zk]

First of all, jg, by saying that the gamble was that we could create a democracy in an Arab nation, you are admitting that bush lied to us by giving us several other reasons for invading Iraq. “Bush clearly laid (the domino theory) out as the gameplan.” Maybe after it became obvious that there were no WMDs he did. But not while he was convincing everyone we should invade.

Second, there was plenty of evidence that trying to turn a country with the culture of Iraq’s into a democracy by force wouldn’t work. The bush administration chose to ignore that evidence and thousands of our soldiers are now dead because of it. To assume that we can invade a country and it will turn into a democracy is ridiculous. To not have known that beforehand put the bush administration in the minority.

Third, even if our plan of creating democracy which would magically create other democracies (explain how that would happen, please), what would we get out of that? “Democracy would provide an outlet for addressing the rightful resentment of the Arabs against their governments.” As if anybody in the bush administration gives the tiniest bit of a damn about the people of the middle east. Less terrorism? Maybe. If the democracy dominoes actually fell. Even then maybe not. But if we can’t create one democracy despite all the force of the mightiest military in the history of humankind, then what makes you think Iran and Syria will magically turn into democracies on their own?

So, to answer your question, the war was a mistake because we’ve killed thousands of Americans, maimed tens of thousands of Americans, spent trillions of Americans’ dollars, angered the world, created more and angrier terrorists, and all for the pursuit of a goal that only one who possesses the arrogance and ignorance of the current president actually thought could be accomplished.

[zk]

First of all, for the record, I’ve never advocated cut and run. Yes, the terrorists may be emboldened if we do that.

As far as remembering 9/11, yes we need to always remember that. But it shouldn’t be implied that 9/11 justified invading Iraq in the first place. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. If we were going to invade anybody (after Afghanistan) because of 9/11, it should have been Saudi Arabia. Comparing Iraq’s funding of terrorists to Saudi Arabia’s is like comparing the Botswana’s GNP to that of the U.S. We invaded Iraq because that’s what neocons had wanted to do for a decade before 9/11. They just needed an excuse, and 9/11 was it.

Let me ask you this, PD: Do you think it was a mistake to invade Iraq? If not, why not? What have we accomplished there? What did we hope to accomplish there (that would make us/the world safer than it was before we invaded, not safer than it is now).

[zk]

“I’m a Repub. and want the Dems to win. Anything to quicken our demise for economy and housing I’m all for it.”

Ha! I actually laughed out loud at that. Not because it’s funny, but because you actually think that republicans are better for the economy than democrats. The borrow and spend republicans will have our grandchildren paying for their mistakes and their pork. That is sick.

[zk]

“The incremental takeover was interrupted by the U.S. invasion of Afganistan and Iraq.”

The incremental takeover was aided by the invasion of Iraq. Not interrupted. The invasion of Iraq has created large numbers of more-determined-than-ever jihadists. Iraq had very little to do with terrorism before we invaded. It is now the world centerpiece for militant islam. Brilliant.

[zk]

“Affirmative Action simply means that you take a person’s whole life experience when judging his/her qualifications.”

No, it doesn’t. Affirmative action means taking affirmative steps to hire/promote/enroll people of particular backgrounds. The only way to do that is at the expense of more qualified persons.

Taking into account all of a person’s history is common sense, but it is not affirmative action.

If we want more black people, for instance, to be doctors, we can’t start with setting quotas for blacks at medical school. Or undergrad school. Or anywhere else. We have to start at the very beginning. We have to make quality education available to all children (no child left behind in no way accomplishes this). More importantly, we have to address the cultural issues that prevent people from lower socioeconomic backgrounds from becoming well educated. To deny that certain cultures, in general, emphasize education less than others is to turn a blind eye to reality. Until that lack of emphasis on education is changed, people from those backgrounds will continue to lag behind the rest of us. And for us to “help” them by hiring them regardless of their lack of qualifications does nobody any good. If we want to help them, we need to figure out a way for them to want to get educated. If that ever changes, then the number of qualified applicants will be much more evenly spread out among all backgrounds, and we won’t need affirmative action.

[zk]

“The far left disgusts me, and in many ways this is one reason that I vote Republican. I am also not pleased with the Democratic ideas for immigration and support of affirmative action.”

The far left disgusts me also. The far right also disgusts me.

I am against affirmative action of any kind. Immigration is complex; while I believe we should protect American jobs, I don’t think those jobs are as at risk as the right would have us believe.

I am not a christian, yet I am against abortion as “contraceptive.”

So we’re closer on a lot of things than most.

And, as far as the left-right battle goes, it’s not so much that people on the right disgust me with their positions (although I disagree with some of them strongly), it’s their tactics that I find repulsive. Everything is fought with attacks, rhetoric, emotion, and manipulation. Let’s talk issues (like you and I are here).

I understand that talking issues isn’t what got them elected, and I suppose that’s the real problem. People respond more to their emotional tactics than to any logical ones.

[zk]

I got a chuckle out of the 1:00 a.m. EST prediction. Good one.

I, too, have not heard a coherent Iraq plan from Democrats. Of course, I haven’t heard a reasonable one from the Republicans, either. Stay until the Iraqis can stand up for themselves. Not gonna happen. What do you think we should do, JES? (Tone of that question: Not a pointed barb, but rather a quest for someone’s opinion)

Pelosi’s plan for her first few days as speaker (if that happens):

Day One: Put new rules in place to “break the link between lobbyists and legislation.”

Day Two: Enact all the recommendations made by the commission that investigated the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

Time remaining until 100 hours: Raise the minimum wage to $7.25 an hour, maybe in one step. Cut the interest rate on student loans in half. Allow the government to negotiate directly with the pharmaceutical companies for lower drug prices for Medicare patients.

Broaden the types of stem cell research allowed with federal funds — “I hope with a veto-proof majority,” she added in an Associated Press interview [October 5].

All the days after that: “Pay as you go,” meaning no increasing the deficit, whether the issue is middle class tax relief, health care or some other priority.

To do that, she said, Bush-era tax cuts would have to be rolled back for those above “a certain level.” She mentioned annual incomes of $250,000 or $300,000 a year and higher, and said tax rates for those individuals might revert to those of the Clinton era. Details will have to be worked out, she emphasized.

That all sounds quite good to me right here in the center (despite jg’s rants, I’m not a liberal – not that there’s anything wrong with that). I’d like to hear arguments against it from the right.

True, there’s nothing about Iraq in there. But it’s a plan for her first few days; Iraq isn’t something that can be solved that quickly. It’s not just a comma. It will never be just a comma, especially to the thousands of dead service men and women and their families. (I’m surprised that bush got away so easily with his “comma” comment. Kerry got more flak for a botched joke than bush did for minimizing the deaths of our people.) Iraq is a national disaster. Trillions of dollars, thousands of lives, tens of thousands of Americans maimed, the world hates us more than ever (which is fine unless we ever need them, which at this rate will be sooner rather than later), and terrorists more angry and numerous than ever. And what have we gotten/will we get out of it? Second chance to answer that question, right-wingers. No takers the first time.

[Author]

Posts