Kerry Purple Heart Doc Speaks Out

[Dubya]

Yeah....W = Whatever

You must be one of those liberal wackos.....and the country needs many more of you.
Class warfare is liberal born and bred. Dork.


W

 

[sqwkvfr]

You are the worst kind of dogmatic partisan....

You know, Herman, I went through the history of your posts on this board, and I've noticed that you have a real problem with only conservative partisans. Is it possible that you're a little one-sided yourself and just unwilling to admit it? Or are you trying to disguise a left-leaning agenda with a mask that pretends to be fair and balanced?

I'd also like to point out another reality. We live in a representative democracy. The majority expresses their views by electing a person from one of, almost exclusively, two parties.

Single-issue candidates are rarely elected and quite frankly, don't have a place in the current system of politics. Regardless, you're not gonna find a politican (unless you run yourself) who shares the exact same views as you on every issue, and you're certainly not gonna find a party that agrees with you on every single issue. If this were the case, there'd be almost 300 million poilitical parties in this country. So, you have to choose....Republican or Democrat.

Most people in this country have chosen one or the other. They demonstrate unity by defending their side's views and supporting their candidates. They by no means agree with every position of every candidate that their party puts forward, but the majority of that party elect the candidate that best fits their philosophy during that particular election cycle.

So most people in this country are partisan....one way or another. That doesn't mean that they're mindless robots (as the condescending tone of your posts suggests) and it doesn't mean that they can't think for themselves.

It simply means that they understand that in this country, majority still rules (and you "selected president" folks can save it, if you wanna bring it up, I'll cream you). Ya gotta pick a side, or you'll just end up standing in the middle looking around.

In a world where too many people think that signing a petition, wearing a ribbon, or walking 2 miles along a baracaded parade route is enough, I use every opportunity that I get to talk about the conservative philosophy of government....because I know that it's right. (it also breaks up the monotony of the "man did you see the rack on that chick?" conversations that seem to be so prevalent among my age group and gender, but that's another post)

Folks around me know my beliefs...even if a person disagrees with me, we exchange good-natured barbs and part friends. I'm proud of my conservative nature...and I don't have to misrepresent my positions, or hide my agenga behind so-called "compassion" or "tollerance."

If the above makes me partisan....call me partisan.

One last thing....if you can't see fit to be more polite, perhaps you should consider excusing yourself from this board. Partisanship may be bad to some people, but I think that far more people consider rude, insulting, condescending, and just plain juvenile behavior far worse.

 

[Snoopy58]

How was the threaet "real and serious in Iraq"

You really aren't paying attention, are you? Invaded neighbors twice without provocation, history of producing & using chemical weapons, shot scuds at Israel, megalomaniacal designs on controlling all Mid East oil, abounding connections to terrorists (not the 19 of 9/11, as far as we presently know, but plenty of terror training camps & funding to various groups), paying off families of suicide bombers, attempted assassination of a former US president, and you don't think Iraq was a serious threat to Middle East stability & thus US national interests? Clearly NOT paying attention there, MW.

and if it was why haven't we invaded N Korea (actually has a nuclear program), syria, Iran, etc. etc? If any country is a "grave threat" I would argue it would be N Korea.

You might, in your grand expertise in foreign policy, argue that, but those who could best examine the data found otherwise. Perhaps the fact that North Korea hasn't invaded anyone in decades, isn't close to oil fields, has China restraining them, lacks any great natural resources to have much wealth, and hasn't actually USED any WMD made them less of a threat in policymakers' estimation. Perhaps there were better avenues to deal with them. Perhaps their turn is coming. Ditto Syria, Iran, etc.

But it's really a pretty silly argument to say "If Iraq is #1 threat, why didn't we also invade #2 and #3 and #4 all as well at the same time?" You deal with the one you evaluate as the greatest threat first, then with the next, etc. You claim to differ on which country would be #1 (although your tune might change if we were at war with North Korea right now), but disagreeing on ranking #1 vs #2 doesn't really deny the necessity of acting, which is your real point.

What is Sadaam going to do with some mustard gas half-way around the world?

Murder thousands of people inside his own country (again) or attempt to destabilize the Middle East (again).

Obviously there was more reason to go in than his WMD program.

Exactly, as was articulated by Administration officials repeatedly before the war. It was NEVER "all about WMD only," until the press found something there they could go after, and then all other reasons to go after Iraq were conveniently forgotten.

Is it worth losing a thousand or more American citizens, Tens of thousands of Iraqi citizens, and spending over 100 Billion dollars to keep Sadamm from terrorizing his people? I dont know...

Check your numbers, I don't think any of them match what this war has cost in combatant deaths of Americans or civillian deaths of Iraqis, nor total cost. However, consider this: what would it have been worth in, say, 1938, to stop Hitler? At that point he showed propensity to invade neighbors & murder Jews, but the actual numbers weren't all that great. "Was it really worth X and Y and Z to depose Herr Hitler, whose 'invasions' were really minor boarde disputes, and whose 'atrocities' were actually but a few hundred gypsies, Jews, gays, and mentally retarded?"

Of course it would have been worth a great price to eliminate Hitler as a threat in 1938 (and I don't mean to trivialize his atrocities to that point, only to suggest that what I wrote there is exactly how it would have been characterized), but at the time there wouldn't be proof of the horror that eliminating him would have avoided. Only of the concrete costs involved.

You can never know for certain how great a calamity a preemptive strike avoids.

Funny how the Dems were so furious that Bush didn't strike preemptively against Al Qaeda, i.e. Afghanistan, to prevent 9/11 (a catastrophe no one envisioned beforehand), but can't tolorate a preemptive war elsewhere, attempting to avert instability, murders, and wars that we can clearly envision, judging from recent history.

Pure hypocrisy.

 

[Herman Bloom]

I went through the history of your posts on this board, and I've noticed that you have a real problem with only conservative partisans.

That's becuase the conservatives on this board tend to be dogmatic, and fundamentalists scare me (more so than dubya's so-called "liberal wackos"). Do I lean towards the left side of most issues? Probably. Should I appologize?

You must be one of those liberal wackos.....and the country needs many more of you.

Class warfare is liberal born and bred. Dork.

I can tell you that I'm not a class warrior. And not a dork. You seem really smart.

 

[Dubya]

Thanks

In fact...I am.

W

 

[bart]

fundamentalists scare me

Two questions:

1) What kind of fundamentalists?

2) Just what about them scares you?