Big f---ing deal. and a yawn to boot.

Dabe - keep the language clean here or your posts will be deleted.

That goes for other participants as well. Please keep the language clean. Not that I can't, don't, won't curse with the best of them, but the language needn't be something that others may not want to read. If you need to curse like a teenager, then you do nothing but prove to the world how intellectually and verbally challenged you are when you should be searching for a better word to convey the level of unpleasantness you may wish to use in the conversation.

In Dabe's case, it seems to be a given that she's very unhappy with the current administration. It's been stated plenty of times, and adding on a few more A--hole this, or F---ing that's isn't ever gonna change the situation. If it helps to lower Dabe's blood pressure in someway, then I encourage her to make her own article and add to it every day with "I THINK GEORGE W. BUSH IS A LIEING, CHEATING, F---ING A--HOLE" as many times as she cares to (like Bart Simpson and the blackboard messages...) But again, I don't appreciate the comments here when they include the "bonus" language. If you wish to participate, then do it in a way that conveys the intelligence that you want others to believe you have.

Deference, why when you are demonstratrated wrong, do you not acknowledge it? Instead you switch subjects. It would behoove you to admit when you are wrong so that if you are ever right, it would carry more weight.

I guess you dont expect the latter to ever happen tho. Like Dabe and Col Klink.

Great rebuttal Bakerstreet.

Deference, why when you are demonstratrated wrong, do you not acknowledge it? Instead you switch subjects. It would behoove you to admit when you are wrong so that if you are ever right, it would carry more weight.

I did respond to Bakerstreet's 'flakey' defn. if that is what you are referring to in post #8.

You must explain to me how I am proved 'wrong', as I don't know what exactly you're referring to.

Please point out any unaddressed question and I'll be glad to rebutt it as I'm confident and informed in regards to my position, something you may want to re-evaluate in considering yours - whatever it is.

From Dictionary.com:

Subject to frequent lossage. This use is of
course related to the common slang use of the word to describe
a person as eccentric, crazy, or just unreliable. A system
that is flaky is working, sort of - enough that you are
tempted to try to use it - but fails frequently enough that
the odds in favour of finishing what you start are low.

To me, flaky is undependable, wishy-washy, subject to whims.

In that sense of the word, Cindy Sheehan IS flaky.

Cindy Sheehan is undependable, wishy washy and subject to whim?

That's a sharp contrast to her diligent, dogged pursuit of personal contact with the president and undying commitment to the peace movement.

Could you please elaborate upon your point, Texas Wahine? How is she undependable, wishy washy and whimsical?

Bakerstreet has posted a couple of her quotes that demonstrate this. You can google and find plenty more.

Her message has NOT been consistent, but instead has morphed throughout her journey from mom of a Soldier, mom of a deployed Soldier, grieving mom of a dead Soldier, to political mouthpiece for various organizations whose goals have little, if anything, to do with the original grievance she was protesting.

I was initially a Cindy Sheehan supporter. Her disgraceful behavior, belittling of her son's service, disrespect for the service of others, and the wild and unrelated accusations and rhetoric she has picked up from political organizations have pushed me away.

You must have mispoken, Wahine, as I to went to Dictionary.com for my defn. of 'flakey' in post #8 and it is not the defn. you attribute to them.

The Link.

I think it's something we can all agree on simply to say that some of us just don't appreciate Mrs. Sheehan.

I appreciate her contribution in gaining clout for the anti-war movement - even if she is a bit annoying.

I enjoy the venom directed at Cindy Sheehan by mindless warhawks.

Yes. I agree we are enjoyable. But people like Cindy who would happily doom hundreds of thousands Iraqis are not quite as enjoyable.

They look funny, and they do entertain. But in the long run and if they are successful, people will die because of their irresponsible behaviour. And that is just sad.

I guess it takes a "mindless warhawk" to feel sympathy for the victims of the Ba'ath fascists and for the victims of current terrorism in Iraq and elsewhere in the middle east. I am glad you find it enjoyable that some of us support helping the victims of Arab nationalism and Islamic extremism.

I hope you can continue to live in a country where such fun is possible.

But personally I think that when looking at a situation where the world's two greatest powers finally remove a mass-murdering sadist from power and not only save the lives of millions but also give the entire Iraqi nation a future and some nut opposes that because she believes that helping Iraqis is wrong (and that, presumably, they should all die), in such a situation "enjoyable" is not the word.

It's more sad like.

An interesting article can be found here: iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/2005_08_01_iraqthemodel_archive.html (scroll down to "Cindy").

I'm afraid the author is a mindless warhawk (i.e. a person who prefers living Iraqis over dead Iraqis).

You must have mispoken, Wahine, as I to went to Dictionary.com for my defn. of 'flakey' in post #8 and it is not the defn. you attribute to them.

The word is spelled f-l-a-k-y. There is no 'e' in it.

Link to dictionary.com's definition of flaky.

I haven't misspoken. Others have misspelled.

Your own link does list the defn. I give first with both of our spellings listing your spelling first.

I was not aware there were two 'flakes / flaks'!

Of course, if I was referring to two flakes in my cereal I would use the first spelling, but if I were to refer to two 'flaks' or individuals that were eccentric, odd, or unreliable, would I use the phonetic 'flakz'?

Very interesting and great point, Texas.

I enjoy the venom directed at Cindy Sheehan by mindless warhawks. Their hatred for vocal dissidents who have seen personal loss exposes them as simple emotional individuals simply backing 'their team' refusing to give ground and immediately zeroing in on any that may threaten 'their guy'.

yeah Deference, like the respect Cindy Sheehan shows to other mothers who have lost sons in Iraq. She is a grandstanding manipulative woman who has come out in support of those who put an RPG round in her son's vehicle.

I (for one) completely agree her right to stand up for what she believes, to protest, and to make whatever statement she chooses in oposition to this (or any other) war. However, she has gone far beyond mere protest. She has publicly backed the other side. She has publicly insulted other mothers of soldiers killed in Iraq and she (and her cohorts) have even gone so far as to steal Red Cross supplies so they could hand them out to victims of Katrina in their name.

I respect her right to dissent, I respect her loss and the pain she has endured. The only thing I disrespect is Cindy Sheehan as a person. There isn't a low to which she doesn't seem willing to stoop. It is the woman she is who I show my disrepect to, every chance I get.

Colon Gangrene and she should get along well. Neither of them have anything to say worth listening to.

Of course, if I was referring to two flakes in my cereal I would use the first spelling, but if I were to refer to two 'flaks' or individuals that were eccentric, odd, or unreliable, would I use the phonetic 'flakz'?

Hehe. I'm going to go with flakers for plural.

Very interesting and great point, Texas.

Ah, Leuki, yes, people who support losing causes that cost Americans more then what they gain are easily classified in my head as being mindless - perhaps misguided is a more appropriate term, since surely smart people such as yourself realize that the humanitarian mission in Iraq is simply the latest rationalization for Americans occupying their country. Was it the first reason that sprang to mind when talk of invading Iraq was in the air? Or the first on the administration's tongue when mobilizing the American public to war? Forgive me for being cynical, but I faithfully and good-naturedly propose that it was not.

I can see it now, after twenty years of Saddam's rule, Leuki heard the Bush administration will finally do something about the plight of Iraqi citizens and rush to their aid to liberate them of the dictator Donald Rumsfield patted on the back and provided aid to as special emissary of Ronnie's back in '83. Finally, Leuki, someone is going to do something about those poor, starving people, joy!, no, Praise God!, that America will alturistically intervene on behalf of these people and rid them of the guy we erroneously ignored after all these years.

You are a generous and compassionate person Leuki, wishing America would spend $196,816,999,999 American dollars (to date) and ~7,000 'Willing Coalition' lives in quashing this corrupt and abusive regime. I find your courage to spend other people's lives and public money inspiring! We should certainly look forward to your cheering on of similar operations that will never be given even lip service by this administration occuring throughout the world in other human rights abusive hotspots in such areas as Burma, Sudan region, China, and East Timor. We should invade their countries and provide democracy at gunpoint while overspending the last great superpower into economic insecurity.

Alas, your not-so-implicit argument; that you support this war for humanitarian reasons rings false. Surely you would not agree the cost of this war is equal to that of a fuzzy warm feeling, I fail to believe that even you are beyond bleeding heart liberalism and nation-building on the grandest of scales.

I also believe that a smart person such as yourself must be actively attempting to pull the wool over other's eyes or decieved yourself by insisting the new Muslim Shiite majority is less extreme then the previous secular Baathist regime.

Islamic fundamentalism is getting another round in government courtesy of the U.S. . Would it be as bad had we done nothing at all? Probably, but it would not have cost American lives, dollars, and a possible 12 year involvement as Donald Rumsfield hinted at.

In regards to terrorism, certainly there will be an 'insurgency'; rebels fighting to reclaim 'their' land along with Islamic extremists from nearby countries drawn to American troops like bees on honey. Martyrdom seeks it's highest levels when 'oppressors' such as our nubile young troops stake out their 'holy land'.

Abdel Hadi al-Daraji, Moqtada al-Sadr's top official in the sprawling Sadr City slums of Baghdad, told The Daily Telegraph that Britain was plotting to start an ethnic war by carrying out mass-casualty bombings targeting Shia civilians and then blaming the attacks on Sunni Arab groups.

Link



Yes, God forbid we or our closest of allies actually attempt to continue destabilization of Iraq at the expense of both the Iraqis and the American taxpaying public. Unfortunately, Iraqi leaders seem to think it's true.
Echos of Vietnam anyone?

Leuki, I encourage you to re-evaluate your position regarding Iraq and middle-eastern policy in general.

Regards

"To denigrate Sheehan because dubya was out of town is so missing the point, it's ridiculous. But, that is so typical of a neocon supporter. Points and facts are meaningless."

So she can protest anywhere she wants in this great age of fax machines and satelite TV, but Bush can't possibly be doing his job at his ranch, or anywhere else but the White House. Am I reading that right?

Just my two cents.

Deference. I used to take the time to copy and paste the parts of Prs. Bush's speaches before the war that spoke of freeing Iraqis from Hussein's murderous regime, but close minded, anti Iraqi fools glossed over them as if they didn't exist.

I have heard some pretty decent arguments against the war, posed by people who look at both sides and form their opinions of the war accordingly (Dharma and Texas Wahine being two of them).



You can make a liar out of yourself all you want. You, I and everyone else know the truth, so if you want to base your rhetoric on stupidity... that is also your right, just don't whine when we choose to make fun of you instead of taking you seriously.

Ah, Leauki, yes, people who support losing causes that cost Americans more then what they gain are easily classified in my head as being mindless - perhaps misguided is a more appropriate term, since surely smart people such as yourself realize that the humanitarian mission in Iraq is simply the latest rationalization for Americans occupying their country. Was it the first reason that sprang to mind when talk of invading Iraq was in the air?

I'm afraid the cause that is currently losing is the cause of supporting fascists for the sake of stability and deaths for the sake of avoiding war. "Mindless" is probably the appropriate word to describe those who support such causes, although I often try to refrain from using such terms

I grew up in a country that was once a fascist dictatorshop and was liberated by American and British forces. I know that such a cause is not a lost one. And I am grateful. And I utterly despise people who, before World War II, would have argued in favour of peace and stability; because I know what it cost the world. Peace and stability in that sense are fancy terms for genocide and tyranny, and they are easily used in the west, where both are seemingly extinct as local phenomena.

My first reaction when the US talked of invading Iraq was "thank G-d, somebody is going to do something about it". But that was because I had an idea of what was going on in Iraq even though the media didn't report it (as they would later admitt). When after the war I saw the pictures of the mass graves and of Iraqis finally able to at least try and find the graves of their loved ones, murdered by Saddam's thugs, I felt reminded of the pictures in the book "Der Gelbe Stern", a documentary of the holocaust in my own country of birth.

I was before the invasion, during the imvasion, and I remain fully convinced that fascist dictators MUST be stopped, as early as possible, and preferably BEFORE they are a threat to anybody and PARTICULARLY, and I cannot stress this enough, BEFORE they are a threat to the US.

If we ever reach the moment, in this day and age and with the weapons we have available now, where a fascist dictator like Saddam Hussein is actually a threat to the US, we have lost. After that conflict, we won't be discussing the rights or wrongs of invading the dictator's country.

I cannot believe how anybody who has seen the pictures, who has an idea of just how many people Saddam's regime has killed and was still killing, who realises that the weapons Saddam used against the Kurds just vanished without a trace, and who has seen the changes in the middle east since the invasion, could in honesty be against the invasion and its results.

And so far it seems that all those who speak up against the invasion simply have no idea. They haven't seen the pictures, they didn't and don't know about the number of Saddam's victims, and they have an awfully relaxed attitude towards chemical weapons that seemingly vanished. Have you seen the pictures? Do you have any idea of what Saddam's regime was like? And if you do know, how can you HONESTLY be against the invasion which ultimately caused the number of deaths to drop dramatically?

If you are in America, you can be relaxed, of course. If Saddam's poison gas had resurfaced after the inspections it would have been Kurds, Israel, and Shi'ite Arabs who would have been affected at first. Not you. Others. And I do hope that in that case you would at least not be proud of what the selective peace movement (because when have they ever demonstrated against wars that were not targeted at opressive regimes) had once again done for the world.

Leauki, I encourage you to re-evaluate your position regarding Iraq and middle-eastern policy in general.

I look at history books and I see Jews and Kurds regularly attacked and slaughtered by Arab nationalists whenever they have the opportunity. I see countries like Iraq and Syria attacking their neighbours and groups like the PLO refusing to disarm terrorists who have vowed to destroy an established country.

I believe we have now come towards the end of the re-evaluation phase. Too many people have died. We cannot afford another re-evaluation. Something had to be done, and something had to be done before the fascists became a threat again.

Too many people have died.

And if you have a single argument for why it would have been BETTER for Saddam to continue slaughtering his population than for the US to attack, I ask you to tell me now.


But unless that argument also explains why I could have been completely secure in believing that Saddam's WMDs really didn't exist any more, that Iraq would not attack its neighbours again, and that the fate of the Iraqi people really didn't matter; then I'm afraid you won't convince me.

Too many people have died for a continuation of the "leave them in power, stability is good" experiment to make sense.

Just too many.

And Deference, I appreciate the humour you see in the fate of people living in fascist dictatorships.

My father grew up during World War II. He was born in 1939. Had there been no war, his chances of survival would have been a lot lower. He thus in many ways shared the fortunes of Kurds and Shi'ites in Iraq. And then as now there were those in the west who argued that it would have been better for my father to die at the hands of the Nazis, for many people in Germany to die at the hands of the Nazis, than to occupy the damn country and get it over with.

You see, I am really in the position to appreciate the humour you see. I get the joke. I don't find it particularly funny, but I can see where you are coming from.

And I wish you would go back.

Go to http://www.massgraves.info and inform them that you believe that Saddam's rule should have continued.

You alone know whether that is the opinion you want to defend.

Leuki, until you can show me how America can sustain it's role as global policemen and ParaTed, when you can tell me what 'truth' you know of and how it justifies the cost of this war, you both will understand that it will only be pragmatism that eventually leads to our pulling out of Iraq.

I wish it were true we could save every country in every way, but utopian ideals aside, we eventually will leave Iraq when the American people are fed up with our family members and friends dying.

you can question the nimber all you want, the majority of Americans believe the Iraq War was an error. If you think Bush does not know that you are mistaken.

Leauki, until you can show me how America can sustain it's role as global policemen and ParaTed, when you can tell me what 'truth' you know of and how it justifies the cost of this war, you both will understand that it will only be pragmatism that eventually leads to our pulling out of Iraq.

I don't know how America could sustain its role as global policemen. I don't even know whether America must have such a role. Whatever America did seemed to work for Germany, France, South Korea, and Japan.

And yes, eventually America will pull out of Iraq. Just like America pulled out of Germany and France.

But seriously, where is the argument I asked you for?

Remember this:

And if you have a single argument for why it would have been BETTER for Saddam to continue slaughtering his population than for the US to attack, I ask you to tell me now.

Is the eventual pullout the argument? How does a need to eventually pull out the troops make the invasion wrong?

the majority of Americans believe the Iraq War was an error.

To be honest, I doubt the majority of Americans know what Saddam's regime was like. If the press would report how things have changed in Iraq, this might change.

I think it is sad that support for your position relies on the ignorance of the masses.

Deference and COLON Gangrene, might I remind you that the majority of the colonists were either against independance or couldn't care less...

So, even if the "majority" of the U.S. wanted us to abandon Iraqis to the terrorists, does that make it the right thing to do?

The fact you would rather leave them to that terrorist scum tells me exactly what kind of low life scum you are. Until you are willing to live the life you wish on other, just shut your wormy pie holes!

you can question the nimber all you want, the majority of Americans believe the Iraq War was an error.

Col, you mean a media poll of 1000 Americans think that.