THE HYPOCRISY OF THE LEFT PART 1

[thorski]

Jerseyguy how would you handle the middle east after 9-11?
You can be W in the classroom when he hears the news and sits there for a bit.

First of all, you realize that we weren't attacked by the "Middle East"; we were attacked by a terrorist network named al Qaeda run by a man named Osama bin Laden.

You go after bin Laden and you don't stop until he's captured or dead.

You go after the people in the regions that lent him material support... i.e. the Taliban in Afghanistan.

You DON'T invade a completely unrelated country in the Middle East because you already wanted to and can now concoct a false reason to do so.

And you do all of this with the blessing and support of the rest of the world; a world shocked and horrified by 9/11; ready and willing to assist America in her time of need.

Seriously, is any of this new to you?

So then what? Keep going look ahead. Iraq and iran are still problems. What's your next move? Let iraq keep teaching hate and let that go on for another generation?
How long does it take for iraq to forgive past grievances with iran and start to collaborate against our troops in afghanistan?
What's your plan?

I think taking saddam out while he is weak is a smart move. Stabilize iraq prepare for another ground war with iran by being on top of the oil supplies to easily feed our war machine for Taking out the goverment of Iran. Iran is when it's going to get tough. I think it will get worse before it gets better.
All this time we can try diplomatic talk to try to difuse the situation. This is something i am pessimistic about. I've heard way to much madness from their leaders.
So we gather strength in the middle east prepare for war with iran. Take out iran When we need to. Establish another pro west goverment. Stop the teaching of hate to the children.
I'm suprised and happy we haven't been attacked again. It shows to me that Osama bin laden and his minions are on there heels fighting america. We are winning.

[JerseyGuy]

Jerseyguy how would you handle the middle east after 9-11?
You can be W in the classroom when he hears the news and sits there for a bit.

First of all, you realize that we weren't attacked by the "Middle East"; we were attacked by a terrorist network named al Qaeda run by a man named Osama bin Laden.

You go after bin Laden and you don't stop until he's captured or dead.

You go after the people in the regions that lent him material support... i.e. the Taliban in Afghanistan.

You DON'T invade a completely unrelated country in the Middle East because you already wanted to and can now concoct a false reason to do so.

And you do all of this with the blessing and support of the rest of the world; a world shocked and horrified by 9/11; ready and willing to assist America in her time of need.

Seriously, is any of this new to you?

So then what? Keep going look ahead. Iraq and iran are still problems. What's your next move? Let iraq keep teaching hate and let that go on for another generation?
How long does it take for iraq to forgive past grievances with iran and start to collaborate against our troops in afghanistan?
What's your plan?

I think taking saddam out while he is weak is a smart move. Stabilize iraq prepare for another ground war with iran by being on top of the oil supplies to easily feed our war machine for Taking out the goverment of Iran. Iran is when it's going to get tough. I think it will get worse before it gets better.
All this time we can try diplomatic talk to try to difuse the situation. This is something i am pessimistic about. I've heard way to much madness from their leaders.
So we gather strength in the middle east prepare for war with iran. Take out iran When we need to. Establish another pro west goverment. Stop the teaching of hate to the children.
I'm suprised and happy we haven't been attacked again. It shows to me that Osama bin laden and his minions are on there heels fighting america. We are winning.

Here's the problem: you're confusing what we should have / could have done after 9/11 with what we have to do / must do NOW after the mistakes we already made after 9/11.

If you truly believe that Iraq may "forgive past grievances with iran and start to collaborate against our troops in afghanistan", then you CANNOT claim that we are "winning" in Iraq.

We should "prepare for another ground war with iran by being on top of the oil supplies to easily feed our war machine"? My God, do you realize the catastrophe we would create by invading/attacking Iran? Do you know what would happen to our troops? To Israel? To the precious flow of oil through the Persian Gulf?

You're right about one thing: despite everything the Bushies claimed in the run-up to war, Saddam WAS weak. A pushover. And still, we encountered enormous problems afterwards. Iran, on the other hand, IS a far more powerful state: militarily, economically, and strategically. Saying it's "going to get tough" in Iran may very well be the understatement of the century.

Iraq was the weak sister in Bush's ludicrous "Axis of Evil". Iran is the undisputed heavyweight powerhouse of the three. You want to see a genuine bloodbath in the region, one that makes Iraq seem like a fond memory? Keep rooting for an Iranian invasion.

You've heard too much "madness from their leaders"? Anyone who knows Iranian foreign policy knows that Ahmadinejad isn't the REAL power in Iran; the Supreme Leader of Iran, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, is the real Big Cheese. (Hell, Ahmadinejad may not even BE in power in another year or two!)

We need to "gather strength in the Middle East"? We can't even properly defend our interests in Afghanistan! Now you want to add a third front?

So when are YOU enlisting for the effort to "take out Iran"?

[thorski]

So whats your plan? what do we do next?

[JerseyGuy]

So whats your plan? what do we do next?

Next? Next, I'm going to go eat way too much turkey with friends and family and watch the Lions and Seahawks get slaughtered on TV.

As for America... continue to wind down our military occupation in Iraq, redeploy as many troops as possible to Afghanistan to try to reclaim the upper hand in that portion of the Middle East the Bushies have neglected, and start pursuing diplomatic talks with Iran... just like North Korea. (Remember North Korea?)

No, we won't get to blow more stuff up in Iran, but we won't be leading tens of thousands of American troops into an even bloodier war that thoroughly rips apart the Middle East and tears even more of our international influence and prestige away from us, either.

We're not going to solve all of the region's problems for them. Not in a year, not in a decade, or maybe (probably) ever. We're not going to bring them Peace, Love and Understanding anytime soon. But at least we can start acting like the responsible, objective adults in this centuries-old schoolyard shouting (and punching and kicking) match.

We've really made a mess of things over the past several years -- in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in our dealings with Iran, in how the rest of the world views and supports us. But it's not too late to correct at least some of those mistakes... or at least to give it our level-best.

OK, that's enough for today. Time to eat, drink, be merry, and be thankful for the greatness of the country we live in and its ever-present ability to begin anew...

[BadDog]

Invading Iraq was a brilliant tactical move in a global war on terror, and has contributed to America being safer at home.

LOL!

[BadDog]

The enemy of my enemy is my friend. We are the enemy.

Since the secular governemnt of Iraq was diamterically opposed to the religous fanatics of Al Queda, Saddaam's Iraq was our friend by your reasoning (which is probably the justification Bush I, Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al used to sell weapons of mass destruction to Iraq in the first place).

[JerseyGuy]

The enemy of my enemy is my friend. We are the enemy.

Since the secular governemnt of Iraq was diamterically opposed to the religous fanatics of Al Queda, Saddaam's Iraq was our friend by your reasoning (which is probably the justification Bush I, Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al used to sell weapons of mass destruction to Iraq in the first place).

Geez... I can't believe I missed that one! Great point, BadDog.

Thorski, your response?

[BigKahuna13]

The enemy of my enemy is my friend. We are the enemy.

Since the secular governemnt of Iraq was diamterically opposed to the religous fanatics of Al Queda, Saddaam's Iraq was our friend by your reasoning (which is probably the justification Bush I, Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al used to sell weapons of mass destruction to Iraq in the first place).

Geez... I can't believe I missed that one! Great point, BadDog.

Thorski, your response?

don't hold your breath. i'm thinking he won't be able to follow that line of reasoning.

[thorski]

The enemy of my enemy is my friend. We are the enemy.

Since the secular governemnt of Iraq was diamterically opposed to the religous fanatics of Al Queda, Saddaam's Iraq was our friend by your reasoning (which is probably the justification Bush I, Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al used to sell weapons of mass destruction to Iraq in the first place).

Well saddam kinda ruined that relationship with the U.S. don't you think?
After saddam lost desert storm you really think he wouldn't start to work with other enemies of the United states. Especially Iran.
I mean really.
Saddam was weak, a desperate wounded animal. Dangerous. Best move-Take him out.
Bad move-Bush sr. not taking him out in the first place.

[thorski]

The enemy of my enemy is my friend. We are the enemy.

Since the secular governemnt of Iraq was diamterically opposed to the religous fanatics of Al Queda, Saddaam's Iraq was our friend by your reasoning (which is probably the justification Bush I, Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al used to sell weapons of mass destruction to Iraq in the first place).

Geez... I can't believe I missed that one! Great point, BadDog.

Thorski, your response?

don't hold your breath. i'm thinking he won't be able to follow that line of reasoning.

Ha

[BigKahuna13]

The enemy of my enemy is my friend. We are the enemy.

Since the secular governemnt of Iraq was diamterically opposed to the religous fanatics of Al Queda, Saddaam's Iraq was our friend by your reasoning (which is probably the justification Bush I, Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al used to sell weapons of mass destruction to Iraq in the first place).

Geez... I can't believe I missed that one! Great point, BadDog.

Thorski, your response?

don't hold your breath. i'm thinking he won't be able to follow that line of reasoning.

Ha

like i said.......

[thorski]

JG-If you truly believe that Iraq may "forgive past grievances with iran and start to collaborate against our troops in afghanistan", then you CANNOT claim that we are "winning" in Iraq
Iraq under the control of saddam would have worked against us. Now the goverment is working with us.

JG-My God, do you realize the catastrophe we would create by invading/attacking Iran? Do you know what would happen to our troops? To Israel? To the precious flow of oil through the Persian Gulf?

I would say within 10 to 20 years Iran will either change their ways or they will be taken out.
Do you want to wait for them to get and use a nuke? Do you want to wait for them to set off a nuke or a dirty bomb in israel?

JG-We can't even properly defend our interests in Afghanistan! Now you want to add a third front?

Not start a front right away. Gather strength and prepare for it. Negotiate from a position of strength.

They cannot be allowed to develop nukes, If they haven't already.
If you don't see this war getting bigger I think you have blinders on.
Obama has got his work cut out for him. I wonder how fast he is gonna go gray.

[JerseyGuy]

After saddam lost desert storm you really think he wouldn't start to work with other enemies of the United states. Especially Iran.
I mean really.

Wait -- are you claiming that Saddam was an ally of Iran? Are you really that ignorant?

Saddam was weak, a desperate wounded animal. Dangerous. Best move-Take him out.

It sure is a long, long way from taking out Saddam because he was a powerful madman threatening the world with nuclear (sorry -- "nucular") and chemical annihilation... to taking him out because he's a sad, desperate, no-longer-powerful nobody rattling his saber at America, isn't it?

Bad move-Bush sr. not taking him out in the first place.

Yup. And Bush Jr. sure cleaned up THAT mess quickly and efficiently, didn't he?

[JerseyGuy]

JG-If you truly believe that Iraq may "forgive past grievances with iran and start to collaborate against our troops in afghanistan", then you CANNOT claim that we are "winning" in Iraq
Iraq under the control of saddam would have worked against us. Now the goverment is working with us.

YOUR argument -- not mine -- was that Iraq may team up with Iran NOW (or in the immediate future) and gang up against us in Afghanistan.

Your own arguments are so thick-headed, you're starting to confuse yourself.

JG-My God, do you realize the catastrophe we would create by invading/attacking Iran? Do you know what would happen to our troops? To Israel? To the precious flow of oil through the Persian Gulf?

I would say within 10 to 20 years Iran will either change their ways or they will be taken out.
Do you want to wait for them to get and use a nuke? Do you want to wait for them to set off a nuke or a dirty bomb in israel?

Again, more muddled arguments from thuh-ski. In other words, Iran could end up (in his dim, limited worldview) as a good guy or a bad buy -- pretty much the same as any other Middle Eastern country -- so let's launch a bloody, catastrophic war NOW before anything happens... good or bad.

JG-We can't even properly defend our interests in Afghanistan! Now you want to add a third front?

Not start a front right away. Gather strength and prepare for it. Negotiate from a position of strength.

OK, then. How, exactly, do we "gather strength"? (Somehow, I think thuh-ski is envisoning a Rocky Balboa-like training montage.) What exactly is this position of strength you're talking about -- you know, the one we need before we invade Iran? First we solve all of Iraq and Afghanistan's problems, and then we start a new war with Iran?

They cannot be allowed to develop nukes, If they haven't already.
If you don't see this war getting bigger I think you have blinders on.

Ah... I see. For thuh-ski, it's all one Big War. I used the phrase "opening another front" as a satrical, off-hand reference... for thuh-ski, that's exactly what it all is: The Giant Heroic War To Liberate The Middle East From Themselves (And Save America).

Obama has got his work cut out for him. I wonder how fast he is gonna go gray.

Faster than either of our last two Republican presidents, no doubt. Of course, when you skate (mountain bike, horse-ride) through eight years without fully committing yourself to the serious work of the presidency, you've got a much better chance of retaining your youthful appearance...

[thorski]

After reading your responses i can tell you must be in high school.
It is one big war, you are just blind to it.
On this I'm out. I am going to go ski now.
I've told you what i think will happen and you have said what you think will happen.
We shall see what happens in the middle east.