Democrats: "FAILURE IS THE ONLY OPTION!"

Dixie said:
Well Oncie, I don't know what you've "been vocal" or "railed about" because you're going by a new moniker these days. Maybe you are a Flip-flopper, like Kerry? That would make it easy to claim you were FOR something you were also AGAINST. I was talking about pinheads in general... those like Desh, who fervently believe Republicans stole the elections, and Dick Cheney is an alien extraterrestrial. Pinheads like AC, who have read some book by Chomsky or Lenin, and think they have all the answers, and any of the 90% opposing opinions are just ignorant stupidity, not worthy of discussion. Pinheads like Jarod, who think the Iraq war was about oil and Haliburton contracts, because that's what Michael Moore and Al Franken told them to believe. Pinheads who insist to this day, of saying things like "Impeached Clinton for a Blowjob!" when they know that was not the issue. Those are the koolaid drinking pinheads I am talking about, and they wrote the fucking book on it!

It's amazing, to hear the pinheads here, you'd assume I am representative of the most extreme right wing, but every one of those online political surveys put out by libertarians, I score somewhat in the center. My personal ideology often conflicts with my political ideology, and my political ideology is changeable. Many times, I have posted an "argument" from a 'devils advocate' standpoint, because I believe it is important to look at all aspects of an issue.

We are characters on a message board, and I separate who I am personally, with who I am here, this is a place for intellectual thought, debate, mental stimulation, an electronic soap-box, and I thoroughly enjoy it, or I wouldn't do it. One of the great misconceptions, though, is that Dixie is anything like you perceive him to be, in real life.
Click to expand...
If you go by the theme, Dr. Suess characters, you can pretty easily figure out who the Onceler is... *cough* his initials are *cough* Lorax *cough*...
 
Sunnis and shiites would still be living together in Iraq without hundreds dying every day in a civil war.

LOL... Yeah, because Saddam would pay the Sunnis to feed the disgruntled Shiites into the wood chippers! Problem Solved! No Civil War!

You are making excuses, and supporting the idea of leaving a brutal and tyranic dictatorship in place, with no apparent regard whatsoever, for the nightmare those people were living under Saddam!

so the presence of governmental subjegation of a religious group makes that government, all of a sudden, not secular. Have I got that right?

A "government" controlled by a Sunni Muslim, who routinely subjugated Shiites and appointed only Sunnis as his deputies and administrators, or any position of authority, based solely on the fact that they were a particular religious sect.... is anything BUT not pertaining to religion, as IS the definition of secular.

Is that clear enough?
 
Now look what this war has done. We got muslims in our own country getting into congress and wanting to swear on teh Koran rather than the bible. All your fault Dix, all your fault.
 
DigitalDave said:
Now look what this war has done. We got muslims in our own country getting into congress and wanting to swear on teh Koran rather than the bible. All your fault Dix, all your fault.
Click to expand...


LOL, it doesn't bother me, I didn't elect him. If it's a problem for you, I suggest you seek out the Liberal Pinhead district he was elected in, and lodge your complaints there.
 
Dixie said:
Sunnis and shiites would still be living together in Iraq without hundreds dying every day in a civil war.

LOL... Yeah, because Saddam would pay the Sunnis to feed the disgruntled Shiites into the wood chippers! Problem Solved! No Civil War!

You are making excuses, and supporting the idea of leaving a brutal and tyranic dictatorship in place, with no apparent regard whatsoever, for the nightmare those people were living under Saddam!

so the presence of governmental subjegation of a religious group makes that government, all of a sudden, not secular. Have I got that right?

A "government" controlled by a Sunni Muslim, who routinely subjugated Shiites and appointed only Sunnis as his deputies and administrators, or any position of authority, based solely on the fact that they were a particular religious sect.... is anything BUT not pertaining to religion, as IS the definition of secular.

Is that clear enough?
Click to expand...

the number of shiites fed into wood chippers in the past decade by baathist pales in comparison to the number of Iraqis that have been slaughtered and will be slaughtered by this violence we have unleashed. Part of your "story" has always been the demonization of Saddam. He needed to be Hitler and not just Idi Amin in your eyes so that our actions would be justified. Saddam is not the worst dictator on the planet since Hitler...we let many worse than him stay in power because it served OUR national interest. Life in Iraq under Saddam was nowhere NEAR the hell that life in Iraq is today.

So tell me....Nazi Germany was not a secular nation state? Is that correct?
 
You, on the other hand, have been one of the most shameless koolaid-guzzling simpletons that I have ever seen, on every big issue over the past 6 years. On Iraq, it has gone beyond koolaid; you have contradicted yourself, inverted arguments, made one blown prediction after another, and made every excuse in the book. You have been Bush's biggest apologist & cheerleader, every step of the way, and always in complete denial of the reality of the situation.
Click to expand...

:whip: :ouch:
 
maineman said:
the number of shiites fed into wood chippers in the past decade by baathist pales in comparison to the number of Iraqis that have been slaughtered and will be slaughtered by this violence we have unleashed. Part of your "story" has always been the demonization of Saddam. He needed to be Hitler and not just Idi Amin in your eyes so that our actions would be justified. Saddam is not the worst dictator on the planet since Hitler...we let many worse than him stay in power because it served OUR national interest. Life in Iraq under Saddam was nowhere NEAR the hell that life in Iraq is today.

So tell me....Nazi Germany was not a secular nation state? Is that correct?
Click to expand...


Oh, I suspect the Ba'ath party wasn't involved in any feeding of Shiites into wood chippers, being they were secularist. The Sunni Dictator in Baghdad, most certainly fed Shiites into the chipper, and videotaped it for future enjoyment. You don't know how many he fed into wood chippers, because you weren't there, and it wasn't like CBS News was reporting it daily. 300,000 was the latest count of corpses uncovered in Iraq, and we've barely scratched the surface. It is estimated, in his 30-year reign, Saddam murdered as many as a million people.

Excuse me for not buying your premise that Iraq would be "better off" under Saddam, than with a legitimate and democratically elected government. As for Iraq's 'secularity' it is more secular now, than under Saddam. The Constitution allows for freedom of religion, and prohibits discrimination. Under Saddam, a Sunni Muslim had far more clout in Iraq, and a Shiite was routinely fed into the wood chipper. Iraq was "secular" like Iraq was a "democracy" and that is evidenced by Saddam's very actions.
 
It is estimated by YOU who, as I said, needs to demonize Saddam into something much worse than he actually was (which was pretty fucking bad, no doubt). methinks you have the totals from the Iran-Iraq war tossed in, but hell....if we are going to demonize Saddam, let's make him responsible for the holocaust while we're at it, eh?

And don't twist my words. I agree with you that a legitimate secure peaceful democratic Iraq would be in America's best interest. What I said was, that having Saddam in place would be better than having an Iraq (AS IT IS) where the sectarian violence was rampant and threatening to spread to the rest of the middle east, an Iraq (AS IT IS) where AQ could run rampant killing civilians and foreign nationals at will, and an Iraq (AS IT IS) so weakened by strife and warfare that it could not act as a regional foil to Iranian hegemony.

Iraq under Saddam was better for American interests than Iraq as it presently sits.

And that is entirely your fault....you and your cute boyfriend in bluejeans.
 
Dixie, why dis Bush I ignore all those Sadam attrocities at the time they happened, but now they have become big issues with Bushites ?
 
Dixie said:
LOL, it doesn't bother me, I didn't elect him. If it's a problem for you, I suggest you seek out the Liberal Pinhead district he was elected in, and lodge your complaints there.
Click to expand...

Damn you, I was hoping to get a rise out of ya but didn't seem to work. Screw you!
 
It's over, Dixster.

You lost. Iraq is in chaos. Everyone knows it. You aren't going to put this genie back in the bottle.

You lost, you ape-shit crazy rightwing pathological lying Bush-bootlicker.

The Terri Schiavo days are over. No one likes you or your President any more. Nobody on the planet respects him, or even listens to him besides 20 million GOP kool aid drinkers. He's irrelevant. A lame duck.

But please do stay vocal about your denial over Iraq - we still need to win back the presidency in two years. May I suggest you nominate a leading Iraq war apologist who wants to escalate the conflict and send more troops? McCain or Guiliani? Thanks
 
uscitizen said:
Dixie, why dis Bush I ignore all those Sadam attrocities at the time they happened, but now they have become big issues with Bushites ?
Click to expand...

I don't know think he ignored them, it's just hard to do anything about it when you are the governor of Texas. Clinton certainly didn't ignore Saddam atrocities, he bombed the hell out of Saddam and signed the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, which called for replacing the brutal regime with Democracy, so I think the powers in charge, were well-aware of the atrocities, and were taking appropriate measures against them. This went on for over 12 years in the UN, before Bush ever became president. Most of the legitimate justification for taking action against Saddam, was based on his history of genocide with his own people, so I don't see where you get that this is suddenly a new issue with the right.
 
Dixie said:
I don't know think he ignored them, it's just hard to do anything about it when you are the governor of Texas. Clinton certainly didn't ignore Saddam atrocities, he bombed the hell out of Saddam and signed the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, which called for replacing the brutal regime with Democracy, so I think the powers in charge, were well-aware of the atrocities, and were taking appropriate measures against them. This went on for over 12 years in the UN, before Bush ever became president. Most of the legitimate justification for taking action against Saddam, was based on his history of genocide with his own people, so I don't see where you get that this is suddenly a new issue with the right.
Click to expand...

I think if you READ the question you would see that it referred to BUSH I (Bush the First...Bush the Elder..... George Herbert Walker Bush)
 
And Dixie always seems to think that having the United States roll into Iraq with an invading and conquering army, occupy it, and try to shove a multicultural jeffersonian democracy down the Iraqi's throats at the point of a gun is the same thing as Bill Clinton being willing to help Iraqis rise up themselves and overthrow Saddam.

I wonder if America would be the great country we are today if, in 1776, France and Spain had invaded the eastern seaboard, kicked out the british and "helped" the colonists write a constitution and hold elections all while their armies remained on our soil?
 
Dixie said:
OMG! For real? Well, I guess I should have guessed it! But why did Lummox change names? Hmmmmmmmmm............
Click to expand...

Just for kicks, Rebel. Same as LadyT & ConnecticutStud...why go w/ the same name? I figured everyone knew Dr. Seuss...maybe they banned that one down in 'bama because of its "environmentalist propoganda"....

Besides, I figured YOU would guess who it was, due to the decisive nature with which I have handled you & your endless series of contradictions in debate...
 
And Dixie always seems to think that having the United States roll into Iraq with an invading and conquering army, occupy it, and try to shove a multicultural jeffersonian democracy down the Iraqi's throats at the point of a gun is the same thing as Bill Clinton being willing to help Iraqis rise up themselves and overthrow Saddam.

Well, that's not what happened. We didn't force those 12 million people to the polls to participate in democracy at the point of a gun. In fact, they were threatened with death by the terrorists, who wanted to cram radicalism down their throat at the detonation of an IED.

We had to invade, in order to overthrow the regime with our military, and since we had to also occupy when we invaded, we did that too. We didn't specify what kind of democracy the Iraqis adopted, we had little or no input into the Constitution they formed.

I know you want to run away from the ILA of 1998, but the ultimate objectives of that policy have now been met, and that is something you simply can't refute... well, you can, but you look really stupid.

Come to think of it, every time I see you post that stupid rant about "forcing democracy down their throats at gunpoint" I envision this American soldier frog-marching a poor Iraqi to the polls to make him vote! Anyone with any sense, knows this scenario didn't happen. Iraqis were given a chance at democracy, and they responded... nothing was "forced down their throat at gunpoint" and your continued silly assertions of such, are without merit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top