Thursday, March 29, 2007

But where are the clowns? Quick, send in the clowns. Don't bother, they're here. Vol 3!

John Gibson: What's taking Brits so long to take action against Iran?

* Many of the posts by "Independent Thought" were made by a fool using the name of a another poster
I don't have to try again. If you had told me at first about the new concept of 'Empire,' or modern empire, we wouldn't have even had that conversation.

You ever think that you may actually have a valid argument if you took out the vicious language?
Yeah, I believe you. If their is a new conception of 'empire' out there, you can see how it would conflict with the traditional conception of empire.
First of all, as my name may inply, I am not a Republican - I am an Independent. But, I am spry. The far-left blames everything on Bush, which isn't exactly fair and balanced.
Are you that pedantic when studies that claim 700,000 Iraqis are released? I hope so. As far as my estimates - yes, estimates - how far off would it be? America has lost the most soldiers. The Lancet claims 700,000 Iraqis have died. How about this instead: 3,000 + x/700,000. I guess the real question is this: how big is x?

The Lancet study of a year ago claiming 650,000 dead has made the Lancet once again a laughingstock and hurt the professional reputations of Johns Hopkins vital statisticians who did the study, badly.
Their report was not peer-reviewed but rushed into publication to influence elections, something the Lancet editors all but admitted in explaining why they did not follow protocol to have a major study peer-reviewed.

When it was peer - reviewed, other demographers and vital statisticians found the submission completely flawed on methodology and lack of adequate sampling numbers. Also, for not questioning the results being off tenfold from other reputable studies by other NGOs and Iraq itself.

Foreign fighters (besides the U.S.) are killing people in Iraq. Sunnis are killing Shiites, and vice versa. Shiites are killing Shiites. And criminal gangs are preying on everybody else — all because of the vicious stupidity of that sociopathic moron in the Oval Office.
ProfessorDuh


Gee, real bright Prof "Duhhh"! Explain when Bush organized those factions of insane Arabs killing Arabs. Bush giving marching orders to Sunnis, foreign fighters, Shiites to do their normal bloodthirsty butchery. Arabs doing what they do for over a thousand years to one another. If no infidels are handy or are too well armed to kill, the Arab dilemma is to enjoy peace or kill other Arabs...so they decide as usual to work on the heretics, apostates, raid other Arab tribes for booty, heads, and ransom --- and its-ALL-Bush's fault!

Genius logic, "Duhhh"!


They just accept the stats as a matter of faith because that's what they want to believe. Or, they try to separate combatants from noncombatants, which is utterly impossible to do. It makes sense to them, though, because they want to believe that America is an oppressor nation that is killing innocent Iraqis. You have to look at total body count because it is impossible to separate combatants from noncombatants. That sounds right, doesn't finalfurlong?

Why can't it be about both? Hussein was taking the revenue he earned from selling oil and was building palaces. Meanwhile, the Iraqis were suffering. Maybe the Iraqi citizens should benefit from their country's oil reserves.

But all the Iraq nit-picking and minor US casualties (as real wars go) may be soon overshadowed by real, unrestrained major war with Iran.

The same old, same old Lefty debate on years old Iraqi issues may end with Iran loosing it and either starting the shooting war, abusing their hostages in a way NATO cannot accept, or some insane Islamic Iranian zealot commander somewhere punches out a missile that hits Israel or a US warship.

While the most dangerous job on the planet would then become a sailor on an Iranian naval vessel, the Iranians have positioned plenty of sleeper cells in the West and the Quds Revolutionary Forces and allies Hezbollah can do in thousands of Westerners before they and their human rights lawyers are defeated.

The debate about Iraq reminds me of the Lefty obsession about the illegality of helping Britain in WWII and the nuances of moral equivalency between Britain and the Nazis conflict before the Germans invaded the Lefty's favorite country.

Then everything changed. All the Lefty cheering of Germans bombing the UK in the Blitz because Stalin said it was right and just in fighting imperialism ended. When the first German tank hit their beloved Soviet Union's soil, it all changed for the Left.

If war with Iran comes, many of us conservatives and moderates that have become disgusted with Bush's bumbling will have to hope he can do something right again after 5 years of failure. But there will be no question of our loyalties being with the West. Anti-American Lefties will have some serious moments, though. They will be forced to choose loyalties...

Back that up Cedarford. Who, in the West, cheered Germany on during the blitz?
UKBristolDave


Communists. Even Jewish ones. Because after the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, Stalin instructed minions to hew to the Party line that the imperialistic Brits were a greater menace than his "peace partner" Hitler.

While some on the American Left did find fascism still awful enough following Ethiopia and the Spanish Civil War that they could not overlook past clashes between Nazis and "progressives" and actually "broke" with Stalin - communist solidarity got most to fall behind Stalin joining with Hitler. So US communists and many fellow travelers dutifully denounced efforts to help Britain, even cheer the "destruction of the center of global imperialism" as London burned. Odd alliances of Jewish communists endorsing German Bund groups denunciations of the Roosevelt-Churchill relationship. All that was at the height of the 1940 Blitz.

That all changed for American Comunists in June 1941, when Hitler invaded their beloved Soviet Union and the German-Soviet alliance ended. Then the Lefties could be anti-Nazi with Stalin's clear approval and endorse measures to help the USSR's new "bestest buddy", the UK.

Hey Cedarhead, why don't you either STFU or give some sources to back up your BS?
john t


Still too stupid to know how to look up information, ey, Johnt?

And still too stupid to say what info you want.

You repeat the same statement on any thread you visit, with no clarification. Just paste in a different target. It is a brainless troll statement.


The left is correct.
Just withdraw from the Middle East and leave these peace loving religion of peace sweethearts alone.
They are only sitting on the worlds largest oil fields.
But hey, they saw Al Gores movie and now they want nuclear power plants because they are enivronmentalists.
You see they realize that we only have a few years left because of Global Warming.
Let them have their nukes.
Hell, why should we be the only ones with them.
After they nuke those pesky jews off the Planet and send out a suitcase nuke to finish off NYC,
MAYBE THEN PRESIDENT HILLARY AND YOU DEMOCRATS WILL GET THE MESSAGE.

You mean like Joe Kennedy Sr.?


Surely you liberls would be willing to take FULL responsibility right?

But then again I keep forgetting, it's all BUSH's fault.


Course not John, I just mean that if it would happen, and you guys totally had your way, YOU will be resposible and no one else.


I would be but I'm too old.


There is plenty of blame for both administrations.

The sad part is, it has been trivilized by the left and the anger of the American people is gone.
I'm gone for now.


Lend lease.
Resurrection of the Draft in America, 1940.
The secret Naval war with the Nazis, July 1941-Dec 1941.
Over 10,000 Americans volunteering with the UK or Canadian armed forces to fight the Nazis before Dec 1941. One was my wife's grandfather, whose Canadian uniform w/medals is a family keepsake, now.
Extensive US media coverage of the Blitz. Ever hear of Edmund R. Murrow?
Hollywood falling in line as communist writers and moguls began mking pro-British movies following launch of Operation Barbarossa.

If you don't believe that, use your history degree to look up the Nazi declaration of war against the USA of Dec 11th. It is a long and detailed list of covert US help of Britain. Dozens of detailed violations of the Neutrality Act. Everything the Germans said was true, FDR admitted later.
One of my undergraduate degrees is in history. WWII is one of those periods I inhaled...

From what you've said, you agree that the US basically didn't care about WWII until Pearl Harbour. I think we both agree on that point yes?

We cared, but not enough to line our sons up for their spot in what we thought would be another European WWI-style meat grinder with millions of deaths. Even in WWI we were reluctant to get involved in Europe's mess - at the time, we still had a bunch of old men who had seen mega-slaughter up close in our Civil War.

Of course, WWI was more important in changing everything than either our Civil War or WWII.

But I have difficulty reading about WWI battles without wanting to reach back in time and throttle some people to death, the waste and ineptitude make me so angry. The Somme and Gallipoli are right at the top.

Knowing about those old wars gives perspective on the Iraq War. 3,000 deaths was a bad hour in those conflicts with populations well under our present numbers. In WWII, the Soviet Union lost an an average of 17,000 soldiers and civilians a day. The annual losses of soldiers in combat and accidents under Bush II is less than half the annual rate of soldier deaths in Jimmy Carter's peacetime military.
In fact, in every year since the start of WWII, only Clinton had fewer annual military fatalities than Bush II.

Look it up Johnt. You are either too stupid or lazy to explore such knowledge on your own.
We know you haven't even tried.
Just tell me that you cannot use Google, cannot find info, don't have a 8-year old in the house that can tell you how. If that's the case, maybe then I can give you a tutorial...
We also know that no Lefty blubbered or cared a bit about the higher annual deaths back then. Dead soldiers are just convenient props for Lefties to use as anti-war propaganda tools.

UKBristolDave I put my hands up here - someone on this site has accused us Europeans of being pussies.

I'll confess to using "Euroweenies", but not in context of avoiding the stupid, stupid valor of marches to slaughter. More akin to the European need to find moral equivalency between Nazis and Israelis, Americans and Soviets/Al Qaeda, etc. And about their self-suicidal love of criminal & enemy rights, the multiculti induced self-loathing of being Westerners. Europeans so guilty of opposing equally valid cultural expressions like slave-trading nations, commie butchers, fascists, now the radical Islamist butchers.
Europe has indeed lost their guts for now - with respect to the predators that are now out there to unravel all positive things the Euros have done over the centuries, intimidate them into shame for being European, or white. Out to effectively colonize their lands and set up rival cultures..
Bush II is less than half the annual rate of soldier deaths in Jimmy Carter's peacetime military.
In fact, in every year since the start of WWII, only Clinton had fewer annual military fatalities than Bush II.
Cedarford | 03.28.07 - 9:22 pm | #

WTF does that have to do with the fact that combat losses under Bush II have occurred in an unnecessary war? Answer: Nothing. But nice attempt to obfuscate, the gullible may buy your argument, but I'm not buying.
FrankC |

WTF does Bush II having less than half the annual number of dead soldiers as Carter have to do with Carter& Co allowing so many to die? While all you old Lefties sleepwalked through more than double the number of dead, until Reagan began fixing matters? 770 a year under Bush is "intolerable", "shattering" - 2000 a year under Carter you weren't even aware of??

It is simply just another valuable benchmark to show Lefties don't give a shit about soldiers dying...just those doing so under Bush that you anti-Americans can exploit their deaths for advancing your political agenda.

Ah, yes, the Blame-America-First crowd rears its ugly little head once again.

You probably think the innocent civilians in the WTC were "little Eichmanns" who deserved their fate.

You, like most liberals, are so filled with hate for America that you rejoice in the 9/11 attacks.

Is "Patriot Actor" supposed to be ironic, btw?
Try asking a question that isn't stupid, and maybe I'll answer it. Maybe a friend could help you come up with something.

No comments:

Total Pageviews