Bill Clinton Campaigning for Lieberman

WTM45

Senior Member
If the power bases of Tehran, Damascus and Pyongyang were taken out, the rest of the worlds muslims will change their tune. Quickly.

Water is being provided in Iraq, if that is what you are referring to, dbone.

You are another who does not understand the tactical use of nuclear weapons. They shortened WWII, saved America and broke the fighting spirit of the Japanese, a much more advanced and dedicated culture. Now is the time to break the radical Islamic movement.

I'm done with this. I suggest some major history study (reading other than Air-America) for a few of you folks.
 

dixie

Senior Member
Linwood said:
The vast majority of Arabs and Persians just want a glass of cool, clean water.

That might be hard to get in the aftermath of a full-scale, preemptive nuclear strike.
If they wanted a drink of cool clean water all they have to do is get to any one of the 14 providces where, water, power plants have be rebuilt along with the schools and hospitals away from the four around baghbad, Iraq is only a few months away from being a free nation and the demorats are scared to death of it.
 
The radical Islamists hate Israel and the US. THEY ARE NOT THE MAJORITY! They incite the poor and uneducated citizens in ways similiar to what the Democratic party in America does with the poor and uneducated. The vast majority of Arabs and Persians just want a glass of cool, clean water.


You do not have much understanding of tactical nuclear useage. It is not total destruction.
After taking care of the power bases, that cool, clean water would be provided to the people who would welcome it and food with open arms. Never would a fine upstanding Islamist or North Korean raise a weapon towards us again.




I see. Shock and awe didn't quite work the first time, so we raise the stakes a little. Maybe a few tactical nukes will get their attention. THEN maybe these ingrates will drink from the cup of democarcy. And if not, if instead we just harden more hearts and minds against the west? Not to worry. We've got more nukes. No matter what happens, in the end the only way we can possibly lose this is if we just go all squishy at the thought of genocide. Of course we hope it doesn't come to this ;) but those ragheads need to smarten up a little if they know what's good for them.
 

WTM45

Senior Member
Linwood said:


Quoted from WTM45
The radical Islamists hate Israel and the US. THEY ARE NOT THE MAJORITY! They incite the poor and uneducated citizens in ways similiar to what the Democratic party in America does with the poor and uneducated. The vast majority of Arabs and Persians just want a glass of cool, clean water.



You do not have much understanding of tactical nuclear useage. It is not total destruction.
After taking care of the power bases, that cool, clean water would be provided to the people who would welcome it and food with open arms. Never would a fine upstanding Islamist or North Korean raise a weapon towards us again.




LINWOOD REPLY
I see. Shock and awe didn't quite work the first time, so we raise the stakes a little. Maybe a few tactical nukes will get their attention. THEN maybe these ingrates will drink from the cup of democarcy. And if not, if instead we just harden more hearts and minds against the west? Not to worry. We've got more nukes. No matter what happens, in the end the only way we can possibly lose this is if we just go all squishy at the thought of genocide. Of course we hope it doesn't come to this ;) but those ragheads need to smarten up a little if they know what's good for them.
Your getting closer, Lin. Shock and awe was only for the liberal media's benefit. Hard targets were softened up for a ground invasion, that is all. The real targets that should have been hit were not hit, as far as I am concerned. And for that matter, the bombing stopped too soon in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Now, we need to hit some other cities, as they have risen up thinking we are weak because of the lack of total destruction to our enemies.
I'm for a REAL, solid and successful preemptive strike, one that takes out the power bases completely. USING OUR TECHNOLOGY. I could care less if they "drink from the cup of democarcy" after the fact. When they are hungry and thirsty, they will not be so inclined to bite the hand that feeds them.
There will be an end to this call for war against the west and Israel if the mouthpieces of radical Islamic hatred are taken out completely. Collateral damage, I sincerely hope so. Killing the enemy is not genocide. It is called victory.
 
dixie said:
thank goodness the demorats don't know what they have with Joe Lieberman! Just goes to show clintax will do anything for a buck
To borrow from Glenn Greenwald, if Dixie, Hannity, Coulter and Kristol support Lieberman, what possible reason could the Democrats have for opposing him? LOL

http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/
 

dixie

Senior Member
Linwood said:
To borrow from Glenn Greenwald, if Dixie, Hannity, Coulter and Kristol support Lieberman, what possible reason could the Democrats have for opposing him? LOL

http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/
You raised a interesting point lin, why are the demorats REALLY shunning Joe? They say its because he goes along with W on Iraq, BUT, so does billery, what's the demorats really up to with him?
 
Read the link to Greenwald.
 
Let me help you.

And it isn't just Kristol. The most enthusiastic supporters of Lieberman are not "moderate" Democrats, but are instead the most extreme Bush "conservatives." It is the Sean Hannitys and Michelle Malkins and Rush Limbaughs and Ann Coulters and Fred Barnes who consider Lieberman their ideological soulmate and who are most supportive of his candidacy. Why is that? Isn't the obvious answer because the issues that are most important to the country are (a) the endless, limitless "Global War of Civilizations" and (b) the radically enhanced police powers which that "War" justifies at home? In those areas, Joe Lieberman is as pure and reliable ally as it gets for the most extreme elements on the neoconservative Right.
 

dixie

Senior Member
thanks lin, and this is the part that doesn't make sense to me, he votes over 90% straight party line so why are the demorats treating him like zell miller? Take a look at his voting record, he's more a demorat than billery is!
 
He used to be a moderate Democrat, and I guess he still is on some issues. But as noted by Greeenwald, things have changed.

Throughout the 1990s, one's political orientation was determined by a finite set of primarily domestic issues -- social spending, affirmative action, government regulation, gun control, welfare reform, abortion, gay rights. One's position on those issues determined whether one was conservative, liberal, moderate, etc. But those issues have become entirely secondary, at most, in our political debates. They are barely discussed any longer.

Instead, what has dominated our political conflicts over the last five years are terrorism-related issues -- Iraq, U.S. treatment of detainees, domestic surveillance, attacks on press freedoms, executive power abuses, Iran, the equating of dissent with treason. It is one's positions on those issues -- and, more specifically, whether one agrees with the neoconservative approach which has dominated the Bush administration's approach to those issues -- which now determines one's political orientation.
 

dixie

Senior Member
Linwood said:
He used to be a moderate Democrat, and I guess he still is on some issues. But as noted by Greeenwald, things have changed.

Throughout the 1990s, one's political orientation was determined by a finite set of primarily domestic issues -- social spending, affirmative action, government regulation, gun control, welfare reform, abortion, gay rights. One's position on those issues determined whether one was conservative, liberal, moderate, etc. But those issues have become entirely secondary, at most, in our political debates. They are barely discussed any longer.

Instead, what has dominated our political conflicts over the last five years are terrorism-related issues -- Iraq, U.S. treatment of detainees, domestic surveillance, attacks on press freedoms, executive power abuses, Iran, the equating of dissent with treason. It is one's positions on those issues -- and, more specifically, whether one agrees with the neoconservative approach which has dominated the Bush administration's approach to those issues -- which now determines one's political orientation.
Oh OK, I see now, if your not 100% against ANYTHING thats for the good of the country that W did, then your not a good demorat, thanks for clearing that up for me.
 
I could care less if they "drink from the cup of democarcy"--WTM45

This sentiment has been pretty obvious in your posts on the war all along. Though you denied in another thread that you were advocating genocide in Iraq ("there are no innocent Iraqis. Let the bombing begin" I believe were your words) it's no stretch to conclude you wouldn't be much troubled by it.

This could have been written in response to you view of the war and where we shoud go from here.

Amazingly, the neoconservatives’ response to the patent failure of their warmongering approach is to urge more of the same, just with more intensity and with less restraint. When the violence they urge produces results that are the opposite of what they claim they want to achieve, their solution is never to reconsider the approach but, instead, to urge more violence and more wars. The National Review's John Podhoretz, for instance, recently suggested that the West is insufficiently brutal to win wars, and on Friday, here was Podhoretz's response to the massive anti-U.S. and anti-Israel protests in Baghdad:

"Among the worst decisions in the course of the war in Iraq was allowing Moqtada al-Sadr to live."

So Podhoretz sees seething anger and anti-U.S. resentment even among Iraqi Shiites -- the group that has been the greatest beneficiary of the U.S. invasion -- and the only response he has is to lament our failure to have killed their revered religious leader months earlier, as though that would have diminished the anti-Americanism and prevented resentment.

The reason we "allowed Moqtada al-Sadr to live" is precisely because killing him would have provoked a massive and violent Shiite uprising against the U.S. and our 140,000 troops in the middle of that country. Had we satisfied Podhoretz's desire to see Sadr dead, the resulting backlash would have made Friday's demonstrations in Baghdad look tiny and sedate. When you bomb a region and kill their leaders, you necessarily radicalize them, i.e., you spread the resentment and hatred that the president says is what caused the 9/11 attacks. But neoconservatives know no other approach besides killing and bombing their failures away, which -- as the state of the Middle East today conclusively demonstrates -- serves only to exacerbate those failures.

That is the inescapable incoherence that lies at the core of neoconservatism. It claims as its goal the transformation of "hearts and minds" but the only instruments it knows are air raids and ground invasions. This approach is no different than trying to extinguish a fire with gasoline, and unsurprisingly, the flames that for decades were simmering are now raging, with no limits and no end in sight.

-- Glenn Greenwald


http://salon.com/politics/war_room/
 
Last edited:
Podhoretz was right, we are insufficiently brutal, and we should have killed al-Sadr, things would be a lot quieter over there.
 
Another subscriber to the theroy that we haven't won enough hearts and minds because we haven't killed enough Iraqis. Or maybe you never bought into this squishy freedom on the march thing and for you it has always been about killing as many as possible.
 
No I subscribe to the facts that history teaches about war. Killing as many of the enemy as quickly as possible in the most violent manner while destroying his infrastructure, including his civilian population so he is unable to wage war is how wars are won.

Once the war is won, you keep your boot on the collective neck of the population of the nation you have defeated with your weapon's muzzle behind their ear. You tell them you are going to let them up slow, but if they start anything, you will kill them dead, and if they do try to "start" something, you do just that.

Your previous post is another signpost that indicates why you liberals are not trusted by this country to wage war. You don't know how to do it, and recoil in horror when someone suggests the old fashioned way is still the best way.
 
elfiii said:
No I subscribe to the facts that history teaches about war. Killing as many of the enemy as quickly as possible in the most violent manner while destroying his infrastructure, including his civilian population so he is unable to wage war is how wars are won.

Once the war is won, you keep your boot on the collective neck of the population of the nation you have defeated with your weapon's muzzle behind their ear. You tell them you are going to let them up slow, but if they start anything, you will kill them dead, and if they do try to "start" something, you do just that.

Your previous post is another signpost that indicates why you liberals are not trusted by this country to wage war. You don't know how to do it, and recoil in horror when someone suggests the old fashioned way is still the best way.
That'll preach !

:) :) :)
 
elfiii said:
No I subscribe to the facts that history teaches about war. Killing as many of the enemy as quickly as possible in the most violent manner while destroying his infrastructure, including his civilian population so he is unable to wage war is how wars are won.

Once the war is won, you keep your boot on the collective neck of the population of the nation you have defeated with your weapon's muzzle behind their ear. You tell them you are going to let them up slow, but if they start anything, you will kill them dead, and if they do try to "start" something, you do just that.

Your previous post is another signpost that indicates why you liberals are not trusted by this country to wage war. You don't know how to do it, and recoil in horror when someone suggests the old fashioned way is still the best way.
We have certainly come a long way from the pie-in-the-sky talk that Bush gave us before the invasion. We are now into "we may have to destroy Iraq in order to save it" territory. Which is why a solid majority of Americans think Bush hasn't a clue what he is doing in Iraq.
 

dixie

Senior Member
Linwood said:
We have certainly come a long way from the pie-in-the-sky talk that Bush gave us before the invasion. We are now into "we may have to destroy Iraq in order to save it" territory. Which is why a solid majority of Americans think Bush hasn't a clue what he is doing in Iraq.
Elfie your dead on target and as usual the demorats think the only way to win is to cutnrun and then talk them to death at the u n
 
No I subscribe to the facts that history teaches about war. Killing as many of the enemy as quickly as possible in the most violent manner while destroying his infrastructure, including his civilian population so he is unable to wage war is how wars are won.

The fact that you won't admit that this is totally at odds with the reason (at least one of them) that Bush gave us for invading Iraq is telling. This was to be a war to liberate Iraqis from the regime of Saddam, not to put our boots on their necks until they acquiesce. The Iraqis were not our enemy, they were being held hostage by a cruel regime. Clearly Bush was wrong about how this would play out. Rather than admit it and call for changing course, you now pretend this was always about killing Iraqis. Your senseless take on this has us destroying as much infrastructure as possible at the same time we are pumping billions into the country in a supposed effort to rebuild it. Utter madness. And anyone who dares even question it is smeared as cut and run, etc, etc, ad nauseum. Greenwald has it exactly right. This war will go on as is for political reasons, not practical ones. What a shameful waste.
 
Top