by dolphman 96 Replies latest social current
dolphman,
If Bush is serious about Mid East peace with the Palestinians, they'll even have less reason to hate us.
exactly...we will see how serious bush is about what he promised to iraq and the arab world in general. it would be a minor miracle if the US would be able to change the opinion the arabs have about the US.
i hope it works out but i seriosly doubt it ...as i doubt Bush's true motives.
Hey, is that the best you can do? Seriously, is that the best you can do?
C'mon keep trying...c'mon now
look, take baby steps, it helps.
first, form an intelligent though, then articulate it using your vocal chords into sound that travels through the air and is picked up by the ears of someone else and recognized as what's called a "thought-provoking" statement. Then, you'll have what's called a debate with someone.
cool huh?
Realist:
I sincerely agree with you. But we've had a signifigant first step. One of action and not mere BS politicking
By the same reasoning, the number of people who protested the war "proves" that everyone was against it does it not? There were a lot more demonstrating then than were stomping on the statue.
You cannot judge the mood and intent of a city of 5million based on an emotive, one off event on an extraordinary day.
We have to hope they will remain 'positive' to the west but be prepared for their mood changing the them chosing a government that doesn't like us ... if they are allowed of course.
Dolphman,
I just wanted to say that we Brits really appreciate how your boys lent us a hand in Iraq.
Englishman.
I have never felt so sorry for a group of people in my entire life.
What about dubs? I definitely feel more sorry for dubs than I do for people who prefer peace to war.
Dedalus
simon-
By the same reasoning, the number of people who protested the war "proves" that everyone was against it does it not?
the majority was against it, yes. the u.s. i believe is the only country where the majority of the public approved of the war, and the antiwar crowd will tell you that even those stats are probably spun by the u.s. propaganda machine. but, all in all id say that reasoning works pretty good for the argument that most were indeed against the war.
it doesnt "prove" that everyone was against it...but im sure you already know that no one on this thread has said this act "proved" that every iraqi has open arms for the u.s. troops, dont you? ive noticed you have a habit of implying the other side has taken a certain stance (with very little to back up the implication), and then attempting to discredit it. you generalize quite often, and almost always ignore a solid point when it is made. you basically engage in the exact types of antics that i see you accuse others of. just some observations.
You cannot judge the mood and intent of a city of 5million based on an emotive, one off event on an extraordinary day.We have to hope they will remain 'positive' to the west but be prepared for their mood changing the them chosing a government that doesn't like us ... if they are allowed of course.
i agree.
aa
Dolphman, will you never learn?
Being a liberal is a religious phenomena, not a political one. Arguing with a liberal is like arguing with a Jehovah's Witness; they've got an answer to ANYthing you might want to point out about that war, the price of jelly beans in California, or the stupid remarks of Tom Daschle, America's chief coward.
Did you like arguing with Jehovah's Witnesses? Then you'll love arguing with liberals. It's rare when I waste my time arguing with a liberal; it's just like chasing your own tail.
Do something more productive. Go screw a nun.
francois
francois,
wow, your right. No wonder.
thanks for the advice.
-Dolphman
Just think, if we would have listened to these naysayers, kooks, red diaper doper babies, appeasers and the anti-US crowd, Saddam would still be in power today! The thought really makes me sick.
The bright side is their viewpoints have, once again, been rendered irreverent by history.
Saddam has killed more Iraqis then what this war will ever bring.
| Democratic Party makes creepy French connection | |||
| Commentary by Jonah Goldberg April 08, 2003 | |||
| Last Wednesday, right around the time U.S. forces were wading into the thick of the battle, Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio), a candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination, called for a halt to the war: "Rescue this nation from a war that is wrong, that is unjust, that is immoral." Meanwhile, Sen. John Kerry, the nominal front-runner for the nomination, declared, "What we need now is not just a regime change in Saddam Hussein and Iraq, but we need a regime change in the United States." Kerry and Kucinich are simply this week's poster boys for what we might call the Frenchification of the Democratic Party. France's opposition to America bares a striking resemblance to the Democratic Party's opposition to President Bush. French President Jacques Chirac has overplayed his hand to the point where he is definitively anti-American. When asked recently if he wanted the United States to win the war, France's foreign minister answered with a verbal shrug. Part of the problem is France's leaders have spent so long cultivating widespread anti-American sentiment, they are now constrained by what their constituencies will allow. The Democrats are suffering from a similar problem. While it's certainly unfair to call rank-and-file Democrats "anti-American," it's increasingly clear that a very active core of the Democrat base is so anti-Bush so as to make it difficult to tell the difference. Pro-war senators Richard Gephardt, Joe Lieberman and John Edwards have all been greeted by hecklers shouting things like "Shame! Shame!" at Democratic events. And Hollywood liberals who write big checks to Democrats honestly believe that President Bush is invading Iraq to send profits to Big Oil or to distract from various domestic problems. In other words, the political gravity in the Democratic Party is pulling everybody to the left. Indeed, these gravitational forces have turned Kerry into a pretzel. He voted to authorize the use of force last fall but is now borrowing the protesters' favorite line and calling for "regime change" in Washington. Meanwhile, polls are showing wide support from average Americans, many of whom are Democrats. Indeed, roughly 50 percent of Democrats support the war, according to polls taken before and after the war started. Seventy-eight percent of white Americans are in favor of war, according to a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll. Plus, 29 percent of blacks, the most reliably Democratic demographic, are in favor of war. If that were to translate into equivalent support at the polls, Bush would win in a historic landslide. Regardless, if the war ends well, this could spell huge problems for the Democratic Party as President Bush's approval ratings will soar once again. Of course, Democrats argue that the same thing happened in 1991, and the first President Bush lost to Bill Clinton. That's true. But the precedent breaks down for two reasons. First, not only are Democrats aware of the lessons of 1992, so are the Republicans. Talk to White House insiders and they will tell you how well they've learned the lessons of Bush I. This White House is much more in sync with domestic considerations than the former. And if the economy gets better by Labor Day 2004, domestic issues won't even be an issue. But more importantly, the analogy to 1991 doesn't work because the times are truly different. We are not merely at war with Iraq; we are at war with global terrorism (a useful euphemism for Islamic terrorism). This will not go away when the battle in Iraq is over. It seems that Democrats — like our friends the French — do not understand this, and so they assume bad motives on the part of President Bush. This might make their constituencies happy, but most Americans don't want to hear it. Jonah Goldberg is a syndicated columnist. |
