dum dum de de dum keep on beating
Posted By: satinlizard on 2008-09-19
In Reply to: Truth hurts, right? If you can't refute, take potshot... - sam
nm
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
Why don't you just keep beating a
dead horse? Just to keep sparks flying? Can't you come up with something worth discussing once in a while?
Actually I am beating myself up. s/m
If my dad taught me anything it was "look out in front of you and see what's comming at ya so ya don't get tripped up." Thus, in my lifetime I've been right about as many times as McCain voted with Bush. Well this time I got totally tripped up. Not because of Obama. As you said, I now think he is nothing more than a well-planned out puppet. You are right on all things you said when I look at it retrospectively. McCain could have contested the race, as I expected he would if he lost, yet he leaped out before it was hardly dark and gave his concession speech. A few days after their bitter rivalry Obama is consulting him????
I have a clear conscience because I voted the best I knew how, for what I thought MIGHT be change. I really believe that evil took over this country in 1960. The JFK assassination was never resolved to my mind.
Another thing that looks strange to me is all the righteous allegations that are causing congressmen to fall like flies...the latest being the Alaskan Senator and by the way.....WHY was Palin really put on the Republican ticket?
I know that now is seems like I'm bashing the Democrats. Let me be clear, I am bashing ALL politicians. There is only one party running our government and it becomes clear in my mind that we are ruled by Clintons/Bushs/Cheny and McCain. Obama, I think, is the perfect puppet. If I had it to do over I'd go for my original plan and do a write-in for Lou Dobbs!!! I certainly never intended to vote for more of the same!
I may have to start eating those crow feathers now!!!!!
still beating that drum huh
Not getting much traction with that.
He's beating a dead horse.
Even Bush finally came clean and said there were none. That's when the *reason* for the war changed from WMDs to freeing the Iraqis (while ignoring bin Laden in Afghanistan).
I find it very, VERY interesting that his sudden *find* came less than 24 hours after PBS aired a very revealing show (*The Dark Side*) about the Iraq war, Bush, Tenet, Rumsfeld and Cheney, with the majority of the people interviewed being CIA agents, who generally had more than 20 years of service with the CIA, and they said some pretty shocking (but not too surprising) things about this whole war. (If you'd like to see this show, you can view it in its entirety on line by going to http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/darkside/; I'd personally recommend it.)
When it's all said and done, though, regardless of how many facts are presented, Santorum could have declared to the world that there's evidence that Saddam had SLINGSHOTS, and some unfortunate souls on these boards would still say, *See? We told you he had WMDs.* It's really difficult to even be upset, frustrated or angry with them any more. I just mostly feel sorry for them. 
You are beating a dead horse! (nm)
Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
Where's my dead horse beating stick???
The US went to war with Iraq for a number of reasons, including concern over Saddam's failure to account for WMDs, which put him in violation of the treaty that ended Gulf War I, and violation of several UN resolutions - I can never remember if it was 14 or 17.
If you really want an answer to this question, a search for the resolution permitting use of force in Iraq should be relatively easy. I'm not sure it's worthwhile, though, since the matter is essentially moot, since we are there now.
My question to you: There is a lot of discussion lately about possibly increasing troop levels in Iraq to try to bring the security situation under control. What are your thoughts on that? Do you support it? Would you support it if you could be persuaded that there was a reasonable possibility of success?
Personally, I'm a bit ambivalent. I don't have a problem supporting more troops, but I think it's as much a PC problem as a troop number problem in Iraq. In other words, I don't think US forces can do much to bring security to Iraq if they are forced to always act in the most P.C. manner possible so as not to risk offending any single faction or, heaven forbid, creating negative spin in the press.
I certainly think we could be effective there in securing the country, but only if we realize that we might have to leave a heavy footprint in Iraq in order to accomplish that goal. For example, I think we should have taken out al Sadr, even if it meant leveling significant portions of Sadr City, when he first became a major underming influence to the new Iraqi government. Some may think that makes me a flag-waving member of the Death Squad, but I have to wonder how many lives could have been spared in the long run had we stamped al Sadr out then, when we had a good tactical opportunity and could have done so fairly easily.
If we're going to send our troops over there in harm's way to fight for the security of Iraq, the dream of democracy, and the creation of a competing vision for the future of the Middle East, then we must let them fight to win.
If it is moving and a heart is beating its alive.
Your denial does not change that.
|
