All the rants raves and ramblings by Rhinoceroses Donkeys and Jackasses not fit to print
Friday, August 03, 2007
"Quote"
But if history teaches anything, it teaches that simpleminded appeasement or wishful thinking about our adversaries is folly. It means the betrayal of our past, the squandering of our freedom.
It all goes back to the James Madison quote that you posted in sidebar...
How could a readiness for war in time of peace be safely prohibited, unless we could could prohibit, in like manner, the preparations and establishments of every hostile nation?"
The opposition are so focused on Bush they forget that there are actual real life bad guys that would do us harm.
They were there before Bush they will be there after Bush but the "anti-war" crowd is only concerned with the miniscule point of geography.
Ok even if one were to concede that Iraq was a mistake, the enemy is there now... shouldnt we fight them? If as the dems say that this war has attracted alqaeda to Iraq then shouldnt we kill them (you know while theyre there) and applaud the brilliant strategy of drawing them out of the caves as Hulugo Khan did to the Hashshashin. Certainly a better strategy than spelunking. Think about that.
The good news is that dem pusillanimousity combined with their cowardice equals incompetence and I cant see them doing all that much about anything anytime soon, well besides holding press conferences to say how mad they are.
We have long said that despite democrat interference the war on terrorism is working and also as you point out that the corrupt and incompetent unions (in this case the steamfitters) as well as the runaway liberally slanted judicial system poses a serious threat to the safety and security our Country. Rest assured we are working on that as well.
I will say one good thing about Reagan. He kept us out of war. Not counting Grenada which barely qualified as a war. Remember when he sent troops to Lebanon? Muslim extremists blew up 241 Marines. Reagan had the good sense to "cut and run".
Also, remember how firmly Reagan dealt with the Muslim extremists in Iran? He was taken to the cleaners by the wily Iranians in the Iran-Contra affair. He traded arms for hostages.
Reagan talked tough. Like Rhino and Donkey. But he wasn't so tough. It was an act.
The Aurora has an open comment policy but if all you are going to bring to the table is cock jokes just for the sake of trolling then you will be ignored.
Gary, you are 100% correct in that Reagan made some serious errors in his dealings with islamist extremists but it has nothing to do with not being "tough" as he demonstrated by bitch slapping the Soviet Union but rather it just goes to show you that these animals are unreasonable that appeasement doesnt work and that they must be eradicated from the face of the planet.
After 9/11 Bush should have moved to eradicate al Qaeda. Unfortunately, he didn't do that as he had other plans involving Iraq. Al Qaeda got away and now has a safe haven in Afghanistan/Pakistan.
Reagan, like all men, wasn't perfect. He made a few huge mistakes as president.
His biggest mistake was definitely his retreat from Lebanon. In his defense i don't think western society in general really understood these islamic animals at the time. But it was a big mistake in any event.
His second biggest mistake was granting amnesty to the illegals who numbered only about 2 or 3 million at that time. It was a very popular move at the time, but now we know that it encouraged more people to cross our borders illegally.
so no doubt, he made some mistakes. The only question is why would haven't the libs learned from these mistakes? We know the retreat from lebanon emboldened our enemies in the islamic world, and we know that granting amnesty only encouraged more lawlessness and illegal immigration. These are facts. Why does the left want to repeat these EXACT mistakes????? I don't get it???
Im not sure if you remember this Gary or just choose to ignore it but we dismantled the alqaeda backed taliban in one of the most decisive military strikes in world history, and you have to understand that we are fighting cowards that hide in caves and plant bombs on children and who ingore every single aspect of the Geneva Convention that you libs exect our Military to adhere to.
But whoa wait a minute here? You think we should leave Iraq to go into Afghan/Paki? Well its good to see you partially agree with Bush because newsflash we are already there and conducting successful operations and providing reasonable stability to a region that has known none.
Its always semantics with you libs. We'll fight terrorism but not here only there. Dont you see how fucking absolutely stupid that is. Ok lets say Bush screwed up and let alqaeda escape Afghan, shouldnt we fight them where they are then? In this case Iraq. As I mentioned previously, isnt that a great strategy to draw them out of the caves? Sounds like it to me.
... and lets be careful Rhino we are going to confuse the hero worshipping liberals who think the likes of a Clinton Carter or a Kennedy are infalligle that did no wrong and expect us to think the same about great men such as Reagan. As you know they are not big on dissention and they dont understand how conservatives can disagree with some of what their leaders do while supporting others.
Reagan was truly a great man, and he did indeed give great speech. His speeches, like the speeches of all presidents were written by others, but the message was his.
From what I have read they now control a fairly large area along the Afghanistan - Pakistan border. Not exactly hiding in caves.
Let's agree that Bush meant well. It's just that he screwed up Afghanistan, he screwed up Iraq, he turned most of the Islamic world against us, and is creating more terrorists than we are killing. After 9/11 there was considerable and widespread sympathy for America through out the world, and near unanimity at home. Bush blew all that because of the insane imperial ambitions and schemes of the neocons.
But we are now in the "last throes" of the Bush administration, and almost any President to follow will be an improvement.
Ill never understand why liberals use that argument over and over and over again. Its wrong on every level. Oh yeah thats why.
The islamic world has not been with us since they started kidnapping our sailors going back to the mid 1600's (note: pre-Bush) Their actions speak louder than your empty words.
Did FDR create more Germans soldiers that wanted to kill us? Yeah he did, its kind of how war works. When you are at war there are more enemies that want to hurt you then when you are not. Complicated stuff I know so Ill let you slide.
You may need a hug but I could care less if the world likes us. Sympathy is for the emotionally weak. The world didnt care all that much for us before 9/11 and now they are just going back to old ways. There are those that would do my Country harm and I think we should fight them and now apparently you do as well, so whats the argument? Is it really about geography? Killing alqaeda in Iraq bad but killing alqaeda in Pakistan good? Even you have to admit thats just stupid. I want Osama captured as much as the next American (well besides libs) but its so much more than just about one man.
Well you are right that the Bush Presidency is coming to an end, you tell me whats gonna change if you win the WH.... same as when you won Congress?
How about lets NOT agree. You're argument is ridiculous and very very old.
Bush didn't screw up afghanistan, it was screwed up long before we got there, he didn't screw up iraq, and in fact he has freed 20+ million people from tyranny.
There are no "imperial ambitions" or else we wouldn't have an iraqi government in place, we would have an American government in place and we would rule it the way we do Puerto Rico or Guam.
I think the funniest thing is what donkey said. You think we should be fighting al qaeda in Pakistan or Afghanistan but not in Iraq. What?
Yeah lets pull out of Iraq and move all the troops to Afghanistan.
So what do you propose we do when we scare them from Afghanistan and they run back to Iraq? Should we leave them alone? RE-invade? Pray?
Actually if my arguments were stupid you would probably embrace them.
There are an estimated 1200 al Qaeda in Iraq, loosely affiliated with bin Laden. Who weren't there before we invaded. We gave them the opening. Why can't 160,000 troops take them?
Why four years later is Baghdad only getting 1-2 hours a day of electricity? Why are they not getting water? Why are attacks on the Green Zone on the rise. How many American soldiers have to die in Iraq?
Lets talk about something new because you think we're stupid, and i think you're a loser and truly not that bright but i feel like i shouldn't ignore you because you're loyal and probably well intentioned.
You're not going to change my mind and i'm not going to change yours so lets agree to disagree for today and fight about the exact same thing next week. AGAIN.
1200 is enough for another sixty 9/11's and youre saying we should just pack up and leave.
You romanticize WWII but dont talk about the elctricity of Dresden or the water supply of Hiroshima. You say you are anti-war but suggest we invade Pakistan?
You couldnt be more full of shit if you went for seconds at the all-you-can-eat shit buffett.
I never said we should invade Pakistan. We should have finished off al Qaeda in Afghanistan when we had the chance. What we should do now I'm not sure.
Comparisons to Dresden or Hiroshima miss the point. We are (supposedly) not at war with Iraq. We are supposedly trying to rebuild and stabilize the nation.
I think that an orderly withdrawal from Iraq is preferable to a disorderly one.
Although I was opposed to this war from the start, if we had been greeted as liberators and if all had gone well, I would have admitted I was wrong. You never will. Then you'll blame me (and the other liberals.)
Oh for the golden age of Ronald Reagan. AFDC in full working order. No bullshit about privatizing Social Security. Nothing too nice in Central and South America but RELATIVE peace. First chance to sit down with Gorby at Hofdi House he took it. He'd speechify about this and that and O'Neill would do the same and then they'd settle it over whiskeys in the Oval Office.
Brilliant administration: SHULTZ, J. BAKER, H. BAKER, REGAN, STOCKMAN, PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS, BRUCE FEIN.
Why can't we have a LIBERAL president like Ronald Reagan again? Why is the choice between CONSERVATIVE HILLARY CLINTON and ULTRA-CONSERVATIVE whoever?
23 comments:
what an ass.
seriously--reagan had a great ass.
It all goes back to the James Madison quote that you posted in sidebar...
How could a readiness for war in time of peace be safely prohibited, unless we could could prohibit, in like manner, the preparations and establishments of every hostile nation?"
The opposition are so focused on Bush they forget that there are actual real life bad guys that would do us harm.
They were there before Bush they will be there after Bush but the "anti-war" crowd is only concerned with the miniscule point of geography.
Ok even if one were to concede that Iraq was a mistake, the enemy is there now... shouldnt we fight them? If as the dems say that this war has attracted alqaeda to Iraq then shouldnt we kill them (you know while theyre there) and applaud the brilliant strategy of drawing them out of the caves as Hulugo Khan did to the Hashshashin. Certainly a better strategy than spelunking. Think about that.
The good news is that dem pusillanimousity combined with their cowardice equals incompetence and I cant see them doing all that much about anything anytime soon, well besides holding press conferences to say how mad they are.
i'm an ass spelunker.
all this talk about soldiers and cavemen makes me hungry.
but seriously, folks, you have a better chance falling down a manhole (or getting hit by lightning... twice) than dying in a terrorist attack.
you also have a much better chance of being wrongfully imprisoned by our government.
who's the threat to freedom again?
and one more thing... i want to get married!
Yeah you know that's true! You have a better chance of falling down a manhole cover than dying ina terrorist attack!!! Good point!
Thank you President Bush for making it safer for us, and keep up the good work because i want to be able to quote that statistic forever!
Thanks for pointing that out Richard and good luck with your wedding plans.
Excellent points.
We have long said that despite democrat interference the war on terrorism is working and also as you point out that the corrupt and incompetent unions (in this case the steamfitters) as well as the runaway liberally slanted judicial system poses a serious threat to the safety and security our Country. Rest assured we are working on that as well.
thank god that a donkey and a rhino are on the case, because i'm too busy riding cock in my cowboy hat.
you're behind bush, and i'm behind the glory hole.
see you tonight!
I will say one good thing about Reagan. He kept us out of war. Not counting Grenada which barely qualified as a war. Remember when he sent troops to Lebanon? Muslim extremists blew up 241 Marines. Reagan had the good sense to "cut and run".
Also, remember how firmly Reagan dealt with the Muslim extremists in Iran? He was taken to the cleaners by the wily Iranians in the Iran-Contra affair. He traded arms for hostages.
Reagan talked tough. Like Rhino and Donkey. But he wasn't so tough. It was an act.
The Aurora has an open comment policy but if all you are going to bring to the table is cock jokes just for the sake of trolling then you will be ignored.
Gary, you are 100% correct in that Reagan made some serious errors in his dealings with islamist extremists but it has nothing to do with not being "tough" as he demonstrated by bitch slapping the Soviet Union but rather it just goes to show you that these animals are unreasonable that appeasement doesnt work and that they must be eradicated from the face of the planet.
After 9/11 Bush should have moved to eradicate al Qaeda. Unfortunately, he didn't do that as he had other plans involving Iraq. Al Qaeda got away and now has a safe haven in Afghanistan/Pakistan.
Reagan, like all men, wasn't perfect. He made a few huge mistakes as president.
His biggest mistake was definitely his retreat from Lebanon. In his defense i don't think western society in general really understood these islamic animals at the time. But it was a big mistake in any event.
His second biggest mistake was granting amnesty to the illegals who numbered only about 2 or 3 million at that time. It was a very popular move at the time, but now we know that it encouraged more people to cross our borders illegally.
so no doubt, he made some mistakes. The only question is why would haven't the libs learned from these mistakes? We know the retreat from lebanon emboldened our enemies in the islamic world, and we know that granting amnesty only encouraged more lawlessness and illegal immigration. These are facts. Why does the left want to repeat these EXACT mistakes????? I don't get it???
hey, reagan gave 'good speech' ... mostly because he had the donkey's main crush, peggy noonan, writing them for him.
but don't forgot, before she wrote for reagan, she was writing for ... you got it, dan rather.
richard, what are our chances now of careening into the hudson from a collapsing bridge?
Im not sure if you remember this Gary or just choose to ignore it but we dismantled the alqaeda backed taliban in one of the most decisive military strikes in world history, and you have to understand that we are fighting cowards that hide in caves and plant bombs on children and who ingore every single aspect of the Geneva Convention that you libs exect our Military to adhere to.
But whoa wait a minute here? You think we should leave Iraq to go into Afghan/Paki? Well its good to see you partially agree with Bush because newsflash we are already there and conducting successful operations and providing reasonable stability to a region that has known none.
Its always semantics with you libs. We'll fight terrorism but not here only there. Dont you see how fucking absolutely stupid that is. Ok lets say Bush screwed up and let alqaeda escape Afghan, shouldnt we fight them where they are then? In this case Iraq. As I mentioned previously, isnt that a great strategy to draw them out of the caves? Sounds like it to me.
... and lets be careful Rhino we are going to confuse the hero worshipping liberals who think the likes of a Clinton Carter or a Kennedy are infalligle that did no wrong and expect us to think the same about great men such as Reagan. As you know they are not big on dissention and they dont understand how conservatives can disagree with some of what their leaders do while supporting others.
Reagan was truly a great man, and he did indeed give great speech.
His speeches, like the speeches of all presidents were written by others, but the message was his.
From what I have read they now control a fairly large area along the Afghanistan - Pakistan border. Not exactly hiding in caves.
Let's agree that Bush meant well. It's just that he screwed up Afghanistan, he screwed up Iraq, he turned most of the Islamic world against us, and is creating more terrorists than we are killing. After 9/11 there was considerable and widespread sympathy for America through out the world, and near unanimity at home. Bush blew all that because of the insane imperial ambitions and schemes of the neocons.
But we are now in the "last throes" of the Bush administration, and almost any President to follow will be an improvement.
Ill never understand why liberals use that argument over and over and over again. Its wrong on every level. Oh yeah thats why.
The islamic world has not been with us since they started kidnapping our sailors going back to the mid 1600's (note: pre-Bush) Their actions speak louder than your empty words.
Did FDR create more Germans soldiers that wanted to kill us? Yeah he did, its kind of how war works. When you are at war there are more enemies that want to hurt you then when you are not. Complicated stuff I know so Ill let you slide.
You may need a hug but I could care less if the world likes us. Sympathy is for the emotionally weak. The world didnt care all that much for us before 9/11 and now they are just going back to old ways. There are those that would do my Country harm and I think we should fight them and now apparently you do as well, so whats the argument? Is it really about geography? Killing alqaeda in Iraq bad but killing alqaeda in Pakistan good? Even you have to admit thats just stupid. I want Osama captured as much as the next American (well besides libs) but its so much more than just about one man.
Well you are right that the Bush Presidency is coming to an end, you tell me whats gonna change if you win the WH.... same as when you won Congress?
... and what Islamists were with us after 9/11 again? The ones that were jumping up and down in the streets of damn near every major moslem city?
Yeah friends like that......
How about lets NOT agree. You're argument is ridiculous and very very old.
Bush didn't screw up afghanistan, it was screwed up long before we got there, he didn't screw up iraq, and in fact he has freed 20+ million people from tyranny.
There are no "imperial ambitions" or else we wouldn't have an iraqi government in place, we would have an American government in place and we would rule it the way we do Puerto Rico or Guam.
I think the funniest thing is what donkey said. You think we should be fighting al qaeda in Pakistan or Afghanistan but not in Iraq. What?
Yeah lets pull out of Iraq and move all the troops to Afghanistan.
So what do you propose we do when we scare them from Afghanistan and they run back to Iraq? Should we leave them alone? RE-invade? Pray?
Just kind of stupid.
Actually if my arguments were stupid you would probably embrace them.
There are an estimated 1200 al Qaeda in Iraq, loosely affiliated with bin Laden. Who weren't there before we invaded. We gave them the opening. Why can't 160,000 troops take them?
Why four years later is Baghdad only getting 1-2 hours a day of electricity? Why are they not getting water? Why are attacks on the Green Zone on the rise. How many American soldiers have to die in Iraq?
I'm so tired of the exact same argument.
Lets talk about something new because you think we're stupid, and i think you're a loser and truly not that bright but i feel like i shouldn't ignore you because you're loyal and probably well intentioned.
You're not going to change my mind and i'm not going to change yours so lets agree to disagree for today and fight about the exact same thing next week. AGAIN.
Have a good weekend.
So we should just let them be???
...because theres only an estimated 1200 alqaeda?
You really believe that?
1200 is enough for another sixty 9/11's and youre saying we should just pack up and leave.
You romanticize WWII but dont talk about the elctricity of Dresden or the water supply of Hiroshima. You say you are anti-war but suggest we invade Pakistan?
You couldnt be more full of shit if you went for seconds at the all-you-can-eat shit buffett.
I never said we should invade Pakistan. We should have finished off al Qaeda in Afghanistan when we had the chance. What we should do now I'm not sure.
Comparisons to Dresden or Hiroshima miss the point. We are (supposedly) not at war with Iraq. We are supposedly trying to rebuild and stabilize the nation.
I think that an orderly withdrawal from Iraq is preferable to a disorderly one.
Although I was opposed to this war from the start, if we had been greeted as liberators and if all had gone well, I would have admitted I was wrong. You never will. Then you'll blame me (and the other liberals.)
Oh for the golden age of Ronald Reagan. AFDC in full working order. No bullshit about privatizing Social Security. Nothing too nice in Central and South America but RELATIVE peace. First chance to sit down with Gorby at Hofdi House he took it. He'd speechify about this and that and O'Neill would do the same and then they'd settle it over whiskeys in the Oval Office.
Brilliant administration: SHULTZ, J. BAKER, H. BAKER, REGAN, STOCKMAN, PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS, BRUCE FEIN.
Why can't we have a LIBERAL president like Ronald Reagan again? Why is the choice between CONSERVATIVE HILLARY CLINTON and ULTRA-CONSERVATIVE whoever?
ha !!!
Post a Comment