You said it in your last sentences. War should NEVER be removed from the options and those who wish to do so are the ones that will repeat the atrocities of history (ie not stopping hitler).

Peace is never unilateral. It takes two sides to create peace. So what do you do when one side is hell bent against peace (ie Hitler's invasions, Saddam shooting at planes, al qaeda in general)?

You become Nevile Chamberlain

Those who give up war as an option are usually the first to suffer the wrath of war
[Edited on May 12, 2008 at 5:13 PM. Reason : .]

[Edited on May 12, 2008 at 5:14 PM. Reason : .]

5/12/2008 5:10:21 PM

"the politics of yester-year(sp?)"

5/12/2008 5:13:21 PM

^thats pretty much what we are saying too.

the democrats want to run a modern day europe over here.

5/12/2008 5:14:19 PM

^^ Can you please respond to my argument in an intelligent manner instead of shitting all over every thread you can?

[Edited on May 12, 2008 at 5:14 PM. Reason : .]

5/12/2008 5:14:37 PM

It was a Democratic president that led us through WWII. It was a Democratic president that made the wise decision to drop a couple of nukes on Japan to hasten the end of the war. It was a Democratic president that made the tough decision to go into Vietnam. Don't make false accusations about Democrats going to war. They have no problem going when it is completely necessary. It's stupid assholes like you that believe any time someone so much as disagrees with us we have justification to "smoke em out." You and your fucked up philosophy of shoot first, shoot some more, then try to negotiate are the #1 reason America has lost so much respect in the world. We're viewed as aggressive, fearful warmongers that can't be reasoned with and we've lost so much respect in the world because of it. So shut the fuck up, learn some goddamn history, and realize that war is not something to be glamorized like in the movies. It involves real people, real money, and real consequences, even if your side comes out on top. It is not something to be taken lightly.

5/12/2008 5:15:55 PM

^ we weren't talking about democrats of the 40's and 50's. those are fine. (those same democrats are mostly hillary supporters btw)

it's the modern day democrat that is the bastard of our civilization we are talking about. don't confuse the issues

[Edited on May 12, 2008 at 5:20 PM. Reason : .]

5/12/2008 5:19:21 PM

Well personally I like the baby killing the best

5/12/2008 5:20:04 PM

If he wanted to be intellectually honest, he would've brought up Lyndon Johnson and Jimmy Carter. Yeah, they were GREAT presidents.

5/12/2008 5:20:10 PM

Quote :

"^^ Can you please respond to my argument in an intelligent manner instead of shitting all over every thread you can? "

can you PLEASE stop fucking trolling me at everything i post? its been since fucking like 7:30 today...i sleep for like 7 hours and come back to the same shit...its pretty lame

5/12/2008 5:21:03 PM

THEN VALIDATE WHAT THE FUCK YOU SAY WITH A THOUGHTFUL RESPONSE

5/12/2008 5:21:41 PM

Quote :

"can you PLEASE stop fucking trolling me at everything i post? its been since fucking like 7:30 today...i sleep for like 7 hours and come back to the same shit...its pretty lame"

5/12/2008 5:22:27 PM

it's dnl. i mean, cmon, typical liberal on the fence supporter.

5/12/2008 5:22:27 PM

Dude, stop trying to justify your stupid, bullshit, pussy ass positions by making insults about the other side. You're a stupid, warmongering chicken hawk who's seen too many war movies and not enough wars. If you're so pro-war go join the fucking army you piece of shit.

5/12/2008 5:26:01 PM

if you're antiwar, stop washing your hair and build a treehouse in the redwood forest you liberal hippy douche


(this game is fun!)

5/12/2008 5:27:29 PM

^lol

i love watching the hippies get their panties in a knot. hahahaha

5/12/2008 5:29:12 PM

Congratulations. You've been successfully called out and you're too much of a pussy to even try to explain your beliefs. You are a coward. I win this game. Go home and fuck your cheerleader Oeurve.

5/12/2008 5:37:06 PM

nice, Oeurve has a cheerleader. sorry Stoned, good luck next life, they typically date the non homosexuals.

like we were saying earlier, i kinda like the philosophies of the 40's and 50's democrats. which is what mccain is appealing to. sad truth is that the far left has their heads so far stuffed up their asses right now all they can do is suffocate on their own gas.

[Edited on May 12, 2008 at 8:34 PM. Reason : .]

5/12/2008 8:33:36 PM

Wrong. You're making blanket statements with no justification in order to cover your own poor philosophy which you refuse to defend. You have ZERO understanding of war and its implications and yet you have no problem advocating starting a war on no basis. You and people like you are what the Nazis were in 1937. You are also exactly what is wrong with America and why no one respects us anymore. Please stop being such an ignorant neo-con tool.

5/12/2008 8:40:05 PM

yeh b/c i advocated killing all arabs somewhere back there didn't i. lol

[Edited on May 12, 2008 at 8:41 PM. Reason : .]

5/12/2008 8:41:30 PM

No. You indicated that you were PRO-WAR... which is a ludicrous position to take. Anyone with half a brain should realize war is bad, and yet somehow you are Pro-War without justification.

5/12/2008 8:44:56 PM

Yes sir I support the commander and cheif, commanding generals and all other leaders of our current military.

They are doing what is right to free a nation led by tyrants and bigots and clearing out a gang of robbers and theives and murderers of yours and my brothers.

What we are doing is right and stands for peace. Your take on us being like Nazis is pathetic. You and your small 5% group in this country that actually believes that can go kill yourselves.

5/12/2008 8:48:14 PM

Quote :

"Yes sir I support the commander and cheif(ahahahahahahaa), commanding generals and all other leaders of our current military. They are doing what is right to free a nation led by tyrants and bigots and clearing out a gang of robbers and theives and murderers of yours and my brothers. What we are doing is right and stands for peace. Your take on us being like Nazis is pathetic. You and your small 5% group in this country that actually believes that can go kill yourselves."

I said you are like the Nazis. Not as in you all, or you plural. You and other chicken hawks like yourself. I try to refrain from making blanket statements about large groups of people. Don't try and backpedal and claim you're for clearing out the tyrants and bigots. You said you were PRO War, which is the most ignorant, idiotic statement a person can make. If you really gave so much of a damn as you claim to, you would be in the military. But you're not. Because you're a pussy ass chicken hawk who likes to embarrass himself on internet message boards by acting like a hardass without having any validation to back it up. You should probably just stop talking now because you're a huge tool and you just keep looking more and more like the stereotypical chicken hawk that you are.

5/12/2008 8:53:58 PM

Nope not really at all. Not that you made any sense.... because: I am still PRO war currently.


I'll explain another piece: you and your random beliefs are ANTI war. That's just dumb. You'd rather 6 billion people live by a dictator than have a few 100k people die to keep peace and freedom.

Yeh, I'll be PRO war in that regard for the rest of my life too. thx

5/12/2008 9:00:58 PM

I prefer to say that I'm _____-war depending on the context within which that war would be contained. As I've been saying, make a blanket statement saying you are PRO War without any additional information is stupid, ignorant, and makes you a chicken hawk. War is necessary, but it should always be the last resort. That is the difference you are not realizing. Going to war is a huge decision that a country must face and it is taken far too lightly by chicken hawk politicians who have somehow passed this ideology onto morons like you. You have to understand why you are going to war, what you have to gain by going to war, and what you are going to lose by going to war. This is not a small decision to make. Peoples lives are going to be affected by this decision. You do not toy with this decision and it should not be taken lightly. I'd rather let some people in another country die than send my own countrymen into some place where they are going to get killed and we won't get any benefit out of it. Only a chicken hawk would want to send them in somewhere without understanding the implications of going to war. Only you would want to send them in somewhere without understanding the implications of going to war.

5/12/2008 9:12:55 PM

hey rat, is 2 mccain staffers that support the junta equal to 1 obama staffer that supported hezbollah?

5/12/2008 9:15:04 PM

^^^ Iraq was pretty low on the list of places that need liberating.

Of the areas of the world living under dictators, Iraq was relatively peaceful. You're delusional if you think the gov. would EVER act because of the idea of freeing people from dictators. It makes no sense to do something like that, if we can't gain as well. The freedom, as our history has clearly shown, is always backseat to some other motive. At least, this is how things have been.

If you're "pro war in that regard" then you surely must hate the Republicans, because by their recent actions, they're NOT pro-war in that regard.

[Edited on May 12, 2008 at 9:16 PM. Reason : ]

5/12/2008 9:16:10 PM

^thoughts on korea then? What did we gain there? in your opinion

5/12/2008 9:51:27 PM

Stopping communism while it was still dangerous and a long-term military foothold in Eastern Asia.

5/12/2008 9:56:16 PM

lemme at em, i'm a chicken hawk!

5/12/2008 10:05:37 PM

Quote :

"They are doing what is right to free a nation led by tyrants and bigots and clearing out a gang of robbers and theives and murderers of yours and my brothers."

What about the tyrants in other countries that also murder and steal from the people. There are military dictators in Africa that would make Saddam look like the mother fucking pope. Hell even in the news today their was an article on how the despot leaders of Myunmar are hoarding the aid of food/supplies being sent post-cyclone disaster. Oh Wait i forgot silly me; all these other countries are not sitting on top of one of the worlds largest oil reserves.

Hell if there was one dictator Bush should have taken out to make his legacy it should have been N. Korea. N. Korea is a much larger threat to world stability then 2003 Iraq was.

Quote :

"'ll explain another piece: you and your random beliefs are ANTI war. That's just dumb. You'd rather 6 billion people live by a dictator than have a few 100k people die to keep peace and freedom."

Honestly i may just be an asshole but i consider it an iraqi problem that they let themselves be governed by Saddam. A few kurds getting gassed and Saddam stuffing his pockets with the hard work of the iraqi people does not effect me.
If they want to oust them then that is their deal. When we decided it was time for the english to go; we picked up our muskets and went to action. Clearly the Iraqi's have showed us the last 5 years that they are quite good
at maintaining an asymmetric war/resistance to a largely superior force.

BTW it is funny how the reason in 03 for invading was because Saddam had WMD's, however, when none ever showed up all the warhawks rapidly changed face; declaring the war was to liberate the iraqi people.


On a light note I do think/hope Iraq may end up being a better place on the long run. Nonetheless i think history will note this as being a major blunder on the part of the US on its handling of the war and on getting involved in the first place. Not as bad as Vietnam though.

[Edited on May 12, 2008 at 11:22 PM. Reason : l]

5/12/2008 11:18:33 PM

Quote :

"Honestly i may just be an asshole but i consider it an iraqi problem that they let themselves be governed by Saddam A few kurds getting gassed and Saddam stuffing his pockets with the hard work of the iraqi people does not effect me. "

They "let themselves" be governed? You realize that we had a hand to play in Saddam coming to power?

Just like France and Spain helped us fight Britain in the Revolutionary War, we helped Saddam fight his enemies when he took power.

5/12/2008 11:26:10 PM

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,998512,00.html

5/12/2008 11:29:35 PM

Quote :

"You realize that we had a hand to play in Saddam coming to power?"

I know this dude....

i just did not want to use all my cards in one post to tear up the idiotic "pro-war" rhetoric of our pro-iraq war buddies. although we had more to do with building up Saddam power once he took over as our friendly buffer against Iran then we did while the Ba'th party was taking control.

[Edited on May 12, 2008 at 11:32 PM. Reason : l]

5/12/2008 11:31:43 PM

As a former Marketing major, I'm going to sum it up for you:

1) Old.
2) Old.
3) Old.
4) Old.
5) Old.

Old ideas. Old appearance. Old guard.

McCain is old.

As the Presidential advertising campaign develops into one of contrasting brands by the political duopoly, the sheer contrast between the two men on this simple metric shatters McCain's chances. Between voter perceptions of the economy, foreign policy, and their interplay; anything voters perceive as old won't inspire.

I think the historic influx of enthusiastic young voters (disenchanted Ron Paul Republicans, and OMFBama fans alike) turns a tight election away from McCain based on the weight of this contrast. The general election 2008, IMHO, will resemble a hybrid of 1992 and 1996.

The dramatic influx of campaign staff and voters from the younger bracket will resemble 1992 with similar results for the Democratic Party. The role of Ross Perot will be played by the Silent Conservatives who prefer neither Obama nor present-day McCain, but Ron Paul, or more likely, John McCain v2000. In our 2008 election, I expect this voting bloc will merge with the apathetic majority who form a larger potential voting bloc than either political party: eligible, non-participants.

The 1996 reprisal stems from a Democratic branding effort like the Clinton campaign's portrayal of Bob Dole as "old and moldy" in 1996. As time goes on, and this contrast registers and compounds, John McCain simply won't be able to out-inspire his younger rival. Bill Clinton taught Bob Dole this in 1996. Petty disputes over the minutiae of legislative proposals that have exactly zero chance of being passed (and nobody reads) may provide high brow infotainment, but don't strongly influence the broader vote.

Yes, this is my 2008 election call.

Barack Obama wins in a tight one.

To look for:
After brokering a deal for Hillary Clinton's campaign and fundraising machine in exchange for her role as Secretary of State in his administration, not Vice President, Barack chooses a white man, perhaps even John Edwards, to take the Vice President slot at the Democratic Convention.

[Edited on May 13, 2008 at 12:08 AM. Reason : .]

5/13/2008 12:02:35 AM

i see bayd as vp...call it a hunch

[Edited on May 13, 2008 at 12:06 AM. Reason : love the post]

[Edited on May 13, 2008 at 12:07 AM. Reason : definitely not rendell...guy reminds me of a mobster]

5/13/2008 12:05:46 AM

Do you know why McCain has an advantage because he's old and white.

There is enough people that just hate hillary and enough people who will just refuse to vote for a black guy that i think McCain will win enough moderate/indie voters to stroll in the white house.

If anything Obama picking Hillary as VP would make McCain's campaign easier. He could almost lounge back in his arm chair and let the media do all the work for him.

[Edited on May 13, 2008 at 12:16 AM. Reason : l]

5/13/2008 12:15:11 AM

Hillary as VP would be a poison pill to the Democratic ticket. My prediction is null and void if they split the ticket.

5/13/2008 12:19:46 AM

idk if i'm reading this right but it looks as if mccain has 1 percent of the vote in west virginia...with romney and huckabee leading....wtf

5/13/2008 10:31:35 PM

interesting observation dnl

i see the following statistics

John McCain 56,418 83.14% 9
Mike Huckabee 7,553 11.13% 0
Ron Paul 3,890 5.73% 0

5/13/2008 10:45:24 PM

hmmm...dont know why the yahoo thing came up like that


mine said like 550 for huckabee, like 512 for romney, and 10 for mccain...some yahoo flash thing that loaded...said it was 100 percent of precincts

5/14/2008 5:27:45 AM

I don't understand why the big "CON" about McCain is that he is old. Can the liberals rallying for Obama/Clinton not come up with anything else?? Is the problem people have is they think he will die in office?? He is 72 which is still below the average life expectancy of males in the US. Not to mention I am sure he has a lot better doctors and health treatment options available then the average American. Even looking back at the previous record holder for oldest president Reagan, he survived 15 years after going out of office.

Age of past presidents currently or at death

Clinton - 61
Bush SR- 84 next month
Reagan- Death at 93
Jimmy Carter- 83
Gerald Ford- Death at 93
Nixon- Death at 81

5/14/2008 12:30:25 PM

Quote :

"Can the liberals rallying for Obama/Clinton not come up with anything else?? "

suspend

[Edited on May 14, 2008 at 12:35 PM. Reason : .]

5/14/2008 12:35:30 PM

its kind of unfair that people are attacking hillary just because she is a woman

5/14/2008 12:48:33 PM

cast resurrection on al gore. see what he has to say these days

5/14/2008 12:49:13 PM

Quote :

"HUR: I don't understand why the big "CON" about McCain is that he is old."

And I don't understand why you posted the age of past presidents currently or at death when the problem the voting public will have with McCain is how old he is now before he's in office.

What'll he be, like 80 when he leaves office?

Quote :

"HUR: Can the liberals rallying for Obama/Clinton not come up with anything else??"

What liberals you talkin' about?

Quote :

"HUR: Is the problem people have is they think he will die in office??"

Perhaps.

Who's his VP?

His age certainly makes that question more important.

Further, his age represents a barrier to any attempt to communicate him having:

1) a fresh approach,
2) new ideas,
3) innovative policies.

I certainly never said any of this was justified, but from an ad campaign standpoint, he's got the tougher sale. I'm not siding with anyone. But given the match, I'm calling it for Obama, for the reasons I gave.

Quote :

"TreeTwista10: its kind of unfair that people are attacking hillary just because she is a woman"

Who is?

5/15/2008 1:22:44 AM

Quote :

"Anyone with half a brain should realize war is bad,"

I just think it is funny that someone can say this.

Without war we are the United Colonies under the Queen....but I know that was not the point.

Name one time in U.S. history there has no been some sort of conflict going on? It is impossible to completely withdraw from all forms of war.....

5/15/2008 1:52:37 AM

But that doesn't take away its inherent badness. I already said it was necessary and I'm certainly all for being prepared for any kind of conflict that may present itself, but war is an inherently bad thing and there is no debating that. It may bring about some greater good, but people will always die. Going to war means that all rational debate has come to a halt and people would rather kill each other than talk to one another. I see that as a very bad thing and most of the people throughout history who have seen some of the worst wars would agree with me.

5/15/2008 2:34:09 AM