Wednesday, June 11, 2014

Mission Accomplished!

So, let's think this over.

Bush got us into Iraq to save them. Obama got us out of Iraq because we showed them how to take care of themselves and be "more democratic."

Now militant radicals, who are anti American, by the way, are taking over many major cities in Iraq.

Within six months, Iraq will be indistinguishable from Iraq when Clinton was in office.

Blame Bush for "getting us into Iraq" (although he really just escalated the  fighting) ONLY if you are willing to blame Obama for the awkward, meaningless way he "got us out of Iraq."

Those people are, by-and-large, savage, uncivilized beasts who will NEVER be anything else.

Can you adapt and apply to Iraq the old saying, "You can get the boy out of the country, but you can never get the country out of the  boy?"

75 comments:

Xavier Onassis said...

No one but Dubya and his Insane Clown Posse ever thought this would end any other way than the way it is ending right now.

We never should have gone in.

How Obama got us out is irrelevant. Once we were out this was bound to happen and nothing was going to change that.

And guess what? Once we are out of Afghanistan...exact same thing.

Both wars were a complete and total waste of trillions of dollars and human treasure, as all wars are.

Joe said...

XO: "How Obama got us out is irrelevant."

Not to my point it isn't.

But you have never gotten the point before. I see no reason to expect you to get it now.

"Both wars were a complete and total waste of trillions of dollars and human treasure..."

Agreed. (Again? What is this world coming to?)

Duckys here said...

Joe, we lost in Ira as soon as Bush invaded.

More to the point, do we double down ans intervene to stop ISIS?

By the way, what's your point?

Craig said...

Those people are, by-and-large, savage, uncivilized beasts who will NEVER be anything else

Who was it that blew up their country on false pretenses? We killed at least 100,000 of those savages, displaced over 1M uncivilized beasts. Saddam was a bad dude but we unleashed hell on them. What do you suppose "those people" think of us?

It much easier to kill them when they're something less than human.

Fredd said...

The Middle East has been a mess since the days of The Prophet.

One could argue that The Prophet is the root cause of that mess.

The only way that this mess will be cleared up is for one side or the other to completely annihilate its enemy.

Tip-toe tactics like the US used will never work, never have. Now, fleets of B-52s raining bombs for years on end, now THAT's the way to change hearts and minds.

Craig said...

Yes, Fredd. That would be the civilized thing to do. I'm sure it's what Jesus would do.

Shaw Kenawe said...

Just to refresh your memory, Joe:

"Iraq and U.S. agree that all U.S. forces will withdraw "no later than December 31, 2011." On November 17, 2008, US and Iraqi officials signed a Security Agreement, often referred to as a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA), stating that "All the United States Forces shall withdraw from all Iraqi territory no later than December 31, 2011." The agreement also called for all U.S. combat forces to withdraw from Iraqi cities "no later than June 30, 2009." [U.S.-Iraq Status of Forces Agreement, 11/17/08]

"Bush praised agreement as "another sign of progress." Calling the SOFA "another sign of progress," President Bush said in a November 27, 2008, statement, "The Strategic Framework Agreement sets the foundation for a long-term bilateral relationship between our two countries, and the Security Agreement addresses our presence, activities, and withdrawal from Iraq." [whitehouse.gov, 11/27/08]

"Bush signed SOFA, which "lays out a framework for the withdrawal of American forces in Iraq." In a press conference at the signing of the SOFA, President Bush commented: "We're also signing a Security Agreement, sometimes called a Status of Forces Agreement. The agreement provides American troops and Defense Department officials with authorizations and protections to continue supporting Iraq's democracy once the U.N. mandate expires at the end of this year. This agreement respects the sovereignty and the authority of Iraq's democracy. The agreement lays out a framework for the withdrawal of American forces in Iraq -- a withdrawal that is possible because of the success of the surge." Bush later commented: "There are certain benchmarks that will be met -- such as troops out of the cities by June of '09. And then there's a benchmark at the end of the agreement. As to the pace of meeting those agreements, that will depend of course upon the Iraqi government, the recommendations of the Iraqi military, and the close coordination between General Odierno and our military." [whitehouse.gov, 12/14/08]

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Oh, my, I find myself in agreement with X.O.

Stand by for mega-disasters world-wide.

Lisa said...

More proof we should leave these decisions up to the generals,not a bunch of lawyers.
It is only justified to increase drone use,send skud missles into Baghdad,kill innocents in Somolia,kill millions in Hiroshima and Nagasaki,go to war in Viet Nam as long as there is a "D" following their name

Joe said...

Ducky: The point is we never should have been there. That is one of the areas in which I severely criticized Bush, and his predecessor, Clinton.

I now criticize Obama for how long it took to get us out and for the way in which he did it.

Craig: IMHBCO, we were wrong. The only way to civilize those people is to blow them right off the map. That, too, would be wrong.

My solution: let them kill each other off and forget about it. If they attack the U.S., blow them off the map. Otherwise, leave them to their stupidity.

Fredd: "The Prophet" is a sham and the situation in the ME is his making. They are fools to follow him or his sun god.

SK: That is why I criticized Bush at the time. While his "mission accomplished" banner was mischaracterized, the overall mission was a fiasco.

Lisa: "... we should leave these decisions up to the generals,not a bunch of lawyers."

Agreed. Only the lawyers won't allow it.

Xavier Onassis said...

Lisa - "More proof we should leave these decisions up to the generals..."

Umm, you do realize, I hope, that in this country the civilian authority (in the form of the Commander in Chief) is in control of the military. The military's job is to follow the orders and achieve the objectives given to it by the civilian authority.


There once was a general named MacArthur who thought the way you do. President Truman had to remind him who was in charge.

Duckys here said...

Yeah Fredd, it worked in Vietnam.

Not only are you a demented barbarian but you're stupid to boot.

Duckys here said...

Joe, it's a moon god.

You're knowledge of Islam seems to be on a par with Glenn's so it's necessary to dismiss some of your writings.

Is it valid to push the start of the instability back to Saint Ronnie Raygun's intervention in Lebanon?

Just asking. I know he's a the source of freedom and democracy so it creates some dissonance.

Lisa said...

yeah well XO in my company the owner is in charge but waits for his oks from the operations manager ,whom I am proud to say is a woman

Xavier Onassis said...

Lisa - "yeah well XO in my company the owner is in charge but waits for his oks from the operations manager ,whom I am proud to say is a woman"

Yeah, well, that ain't the way the military works.

Although in 2016 the Commander in Chief will be a woman.

Lisa said...

"Yeah, well, that ain't the way the military works."
which is why it doesn't or should I say isn't working


"Although in 2016 the Commander in Chief will be a woman."

Oh yes because it's Hillary's "turn" now, because nah,nah,nah,nah,nah,nah Obama had his "turn"

It's all about "turns" not qualifications

sue hanes said...

Joe - We just got out of Iraq. Now they want us to get back in.
I say - no to that. Let another country take care of their problems.

Duckys here said...

Might be President Warren, Lisa.

Get ready for it, sweetheart.

Xavier Onassis said...

Lisa - "Oh yes because it's Hillary's "turn" now, because nah,nah,nah,nah,nah,nah Obama had his "turn"

It's all about "turns" not qualifications"

Umm, no, that's the way you Republicans do things.

Was it Barack Obama's "turn" in 2008? I think not.

But you folks had to give John McCain his "turn" and Mit Romney his "turn".

How did that work out for you?

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

You're knowledge of Islam seems to be on a par with Glenn's

Which is one heck of a lot greater knowledge about Islam than Ducky has.

Geaux said...

Now what about Obama? Is he going to let Baghdad fall to al Qaeda? Make an alliance with Syria for one stronghold in the middle East? What will our Knight in Shining Armor do About Iraq Now Hummm? Iraqi Cities are Falling Like Dominoes to al Qaeda, the same al Qaeda that he (Obama) said was on the run, and are NOT really such Bad-Guys..!
Will he allow air strikes? Will he run to the UN and ask for their help? Yeah Right, they are really going to help!! Or will he ask John Kerry for advise, or better yet Hillary “The Butcher of Benghazi” Clinton!
I don’t know about you people, but I am still sickened by it! Is this what we spent so much for, is this why SO MANY AMERICANS WERE KILLED FOR AND WHY SO MANY FAMILIES LOST THEIR LOVED ONES FOR? We are in lots of trouble as longs as wackos like Obama, Pelosi, Biden, and Kerry are the leaders of this great nation. This nightmare keeps getting worse and worse.
Obama’s incompetency is on full display right here and right now. He is not trusted or respected by ANY of our allies, and not by more than half of our country!. This is what happens when the leader of the free world fails to lead. It leads to complete chaos. We knew this was going to happen when he pulled out before we were ready to. It’s very easy to just say, “I’m going to end the war” and leave. But these are the consequences, right here! Once again Obama was ill-advised by the IDIOT’S wh advise him. Maybe the thing to do is to go on a Vacation with the Moocher or just go and play some Golf, or perhaps go on a “Fund-Raiser”.

I’ll bet that the collapse in Afghanistan is just around the corner. and of course, it'll all be Bush's fault

Lisa said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Lisa said...

Bin Laden is dead and Al-Qaeda is on the run. Last Wed our community organizer also said the world is less violent.
Lucky for the democrats their voting base consists of the "What's in it for me" crowd

Shaw Kenawe said...


"He is not trusted or respected by ANY of our allies" --Geaux

The writer of that sentence is obviously marinating in his own prejudices. Because he hates Obama, he makes the mistake of thinking our allies hate Obama. It's simply not true.


"Crowds lined the streets of Brussels, The Hague and Rome to catch a glimpse of Obama's motorcade. The crowd watching Obama's speech at the Palais des Beaux Arts in Brussels was described as "star-struck."

Obama is so popular in the Netherlands, where he began his trip, that there's an Obama Club, PRI reports. Its members get together and discuss issues relevant to Obama's presidency, including foreign policy and diversity.

"These countries in Western Europe are really Obama countries,"


SOURCE

Also this counters what Geaux claims.

"You can have your own opinion, but you can't have your own facts." D.P.M.

Shaw Kenawe said...

More misinformation from Geaux's rant:

"We knew this was going to happen when he pulled out before we were ready to. It’s very easy to just say, “I’m going to end the war” and leave. But these are the consequences, right here! Once again Obama was ill-advised by the IDIOT’S wh advise him."


WRONG again:

"President Barack Obama’s announcement on Friday that all 40,000 U.S. troops still in Iraq will leave the country by New Year’s Eve will, inevitably, draw howls of derision from GOP presidential hopefuls — this is, after all, early election season. But the decision to leave Iraq by that date was not actually taken by President Obama — it was taken by President George W. Bush, and by the Iraqi government.

In one of his final acts in office, President Bush in December of 2008 had signed a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) with the Iraqi government that set the clock ticking on ending the war he’d launched in March of 2003. The SOFA provided a legal basis for the presence of U.S. forces in Iraq after the United Nations Security Council mandate for the occupation mission expired at the end of 2008. But it required that all U.S. forces be gone from Iraq by January 1, 2012, unless the Iraqi government was willing to negotiate a new agreement that would extend their mandate. And as Middle East historian Juan Cole has noted, “Bush had to sign what the [Iraqi] parliament gave him or face the prospect that U.S. troops would have to leave by 31 December, 2008, something that would have been interpreted as a defeat… Bush and his generals clearly expected, however, that over time Washington would be able to wriggle out of the treaty and would find a way to keep a division or so in Iraq past that deadline.

But ending the U.S. troop presence in Iraq was an overwhelmingly popular demand among Iraqis, and Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki appears to have been unwilling to take the political risk of extending it. While he was inclined to see a small number of American soldiers stay behind to continue mentoring Iraqi forces, the likes of Shi’ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, on whose support Maliki’s ruling coalition depends, were having none of it. Even the Obama Administration’s plan to keep some 3,000 trainers behind failed because the Iraqis were unwilling to grant them the legal immunity from local prosecution that is common to SOF agreements in most countries where U.S. forces are based.

So, while U.S. commanders would have liked to have kept a division or more behind in Iraq to face any contingencies — and, increasingly, Administration figures had begun citing the challenge of Iran, next door — it was Iraqi democracy that put the kibosh on that goal."


SOURCE

Rants make you feel good, but they contribute nothing to understanding the complexities of what is present-day Iraq.

Lisa said...

when the troops were pulled out Obama and his supporters were taking credit for bringing the troops home even though the decision to pull out was Bush's .
Please Shaw make up your mind.
Now you can all go back to blaming Bush becuase things are going bad.
Commitment to pull out or not, Obama was warned this was going to happen. At least Bush would have listened to his generals instead of firing them.

Shaw Kenawe said...

Lisa, I don't know where you get the idea that I gave Obama any credit for pulling troops out of Iraq. You can search my blog for any evidence, and you'll come up empty.

I don't have to "make up" my mind, since I've been consistent on this in not giving credit to Obama for the Iraqi troop withdrawal.

As far as listening to his generals is concerned, the military doesn't have the authority to break the agreements that the Bush administration made with the Iraq government.

OTOH, President Obama DID listen to his generals when they advised him of their plan for a troop surge in Afghanistan, and the left was extremely angry with Obama's decision to listen to his generals in that decision.

As our friend Ducky would say, "pitch 'til you win."

Lisa said...

He listened to them after it went viral about the troop surge. He was dithering on it for a few months

Oh so you telling people who accredited Obama for the pullout that
They were wrong?

Shaw Kenawe said...

Lisa, you have an annoying habit of leaping to conclusions with only fragments of information.

I'm not in the habit of "telling people" anything. That seems to be what you're about when it comes to anything concerning President Obama. You jump right in with half-truths, misinformation and your own very special "false facts."





Lisa said...

Shaw you always "tell people"-that is
those who don't share your unconditional love for Obama

Dave Miller said...

Lisa, if you cared to actually read and enter into conversations where we expect evidence, you'd know that Shaw, like most of us lefties for Obama are anything but an echo chamber. Certainly we lean to his side, but if you read our comments, you'd know we've had major issues with Obama and his policies over the years.

Now about those false facts of yours...

Lisa said...

All I see is her complete devotion to him Dave,maybe you can show me where Shaw had any issue with Obama's policies.

Lisa said...

All I see is her complete devotion to him Dave,maybe you can show me where Shaw had any issue with Obama's policies.

Xavier Onassis said...

My ongoing problem with Obama has been that he isn't anywhere near the socialist tyrant that the Right portrays him to be.

If he were, we would have a single payer health care system like every other civilized and industrialized country on the entire planet instead oof Romneycare on steroids.

sue hanes said...

Joe - I blame Bush for getting our troops into Iraq. Obama got them out and that cannot be denied. I don't think we should go back in. Let some other kind- hearted country clean up over there.

Joe said...

To All: You liberal folks just don't seem to be able to get the point or stick to the subject.

This post was NOT about who got us in or who got us out. This post was about the people of Iraq being unable to establish a peaceful government because of their barbarianism.

Xavier Onassis said...

Joe - " This post was about the people of Iraq being unable to establish a peaceful government because of their barbarianism."

I find your characterization "barbarianism" to be small minded and offensive.

It implies that they are somehow inherently inferior with the inverse implication that we are better than them.

I see things, differently.

The modern day Iraqis, Iranians, Syrians and other people in that area of the world are direct descendants of the very first civilizations, dating back 6000-8000 years ago. The Sumerians, the Persians, the Mesopotamians.

At no point in that rich and ancient history, did they ever develop any form of representative government.

They have always been tribal societies held together in various forms by strong, dictatorial, tyrants, warlords and kings.

These leaders served 2 main purposes...to give the people a sense of identity and to keep the enemies at bay.

That is their history, their culture, and all they have ever known.

So we shouldn't be all that surprised that things go horribly wrong when we, with our measly 200+ years of democratic tradition, decide to invade those countries, depose their leaders, destroy their infrastructure and try to force them, at the point of a gun, to adopt a way of life that WE think will be better for THEM.

That is arrogance and hubris.

Shaw Kenawe said...

"Lisa said...
All I see is her complete devotion to him..."

Lisa, you manifest complete enmity to him (Obama). Do you believe you're somehow a better person for that?

I am not completely devoted to Obama, since I did not agree with the A.C.A. because I was for a single-payer system. I criticized him for his disastrous roll-out of the A.C.A. I also thought he was too slow to support marriage equality. And I'm not happy with drone strikes on civilians. It appears that if someone isn't totally hating on the president, you accuse them of devotion.

In fact, I think it is YOU who has the problem, since I've never ever read anything but rancid snark and crushing criticism about this president. I, at least, acknowledge his failings. You, OTOH, never acknowledge his successes.

Think about it.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

The people may be descendants of such culture, but their religious/social/political system is barbaric. Islam is an ideology of violence. Libs castigate people in the U.S. for being anti-women, anti-homosexuality, etc, yet they say nothing about the horrible abuse of women under Islam, the execution of homosexuals, etc. There is no such thing as a democratic country under Islam. Look at the daily news and see how may Christians are murdered daily in Islamic countries. Look how many people are sold into slavery. Leave the Islamic religion and it's capital punishment time. In some Islamic countries it is illegal to be a Christian.

Yes, the Islamic religious/political system is indeed barbaric. Only liberals who deceive themselves believe otherwise.

Joe said...

XO: "... to be small minded and offensive."

I am not overly concerned with how you find it. And I don't care whether or not you are offended.

A lot of people were not offended. So to whom should I kowtow? To you or to them?

"...they are somehow inherently inferior ..."

They are. They are not civilized at all. We are a little bit civilized...some more than others.

"...we are better than them."

We are...by a LONG shot.

"That is their history, their culture, and all they have ever known."

That they have never learned is not an argument in favor of their being civilized. The history of other cultures stem back exactly as far as the barbarians', but many of them have risen ABOVE barbarism, including us.

SK: "You, OTOH, never acknowledge his successes."

His only success is the degradation of America.

GEC: And deceive themselves they do.


Shaw Kenawe said...

"SK: 'You, OTOH, never acknowledge his successes.'

Joe: 'His only success is the degradation of America.'"

Oh Crikey, Joe, you're being ridiculous and you know it. Both you and Lisa are blindly partisan and the only degradation here is what your hatred of Mr. Obama does to you and Lisa.

You do know what they say about hatred, don't you?

It's like drinking poison and hoping the other guy dies. But good luck with that soul-crushing emotion toward Obama. It doesn't harm him one whit, but it will continue to degrade you.

Xavier Onassis said...

G.E.C. - "Libs castigate people in the U.S. for being anti-women, anti-homosexuality, etc, yet they say nothing about the horrible abuse of women under Islam, the execution of homosexuals, etc"

That's because I'm a U.S. citizen who lives in the U.S. I can only influence what goes on in the U.S. What goes on in other countries and other cultures is none of my business.

"In some Islamic countries it is illegal to be a Christian"

Then Christians probably shouldn't go to those countries with boxes full of Bibles trying to convert people. Because that is just stupid and they get what they deserve.

Plus, I'm sure if you had your way it would be illegal to be Muslim in America, so you are no better than they are. Stop pretending to be.

Xavier Onassis said...

Joe - "That they have never learned is not an argument in favor of their being civilized. The history of other cultures stem back exactly as far as the barbarians', but many of them have risen ABOVE barbarism, including us."

I feel the same way about religion. Many people in the world, a growing number in fact, have risen above religion.

I would argue that religion and barbarism are the exact same thing. In both cases you have a patriarchal, tribal mentality, filled with superstitious nonsense and fueled by ignorance, intolerance and a visceral hatred of "the other".

he sooner mankind can leave both tribalism and religion behind us the better our chances of survival will be.

Joe said...

SK: You are blindly partisan.

The degradation here is what your hatred of Mr. Bush does to you.

XO: "I feel the same way about religion."

So your attitude is the same as what you accuse me of, only directed in another direction. So quit whining, already.

Shaw Kenawe said...

Joe, Joe, Joe. The use of the pre-pubescent "I know you are but what am I!" trope is boring.

You did not address any of the points I made at the beginning of this thread, except to say Nyah! Nyah! Nyah!

If that's all you've got, you've got nuthin'.

Shaw Kenawe said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Plus, I'm sure if you had your way it would be illegal to be Muslim in America, so you are no better than they are. Stop pretending to be.

As usual, X.O. is a bald-facee liar.

Lisa said...

XO-"That's because I'm a U.S. citizen who lives in the U.S. I can only influence what goes on in the U.S. What goes on in other countries and other cultures is none of my business."

If you were gay,a woman or a Christian it may bother you,just
because we are divided by an ocean,doesn't mean we are not human.
I guess than we shouldn't provide aid to poor countries then either or help them have clean water because it's none of our business?
It's humanity pure and simple

Lisa said...

I guess why would a liberal care about women's rights or gay rights when they don't care about their own overeaching government

Lisa said...

This may better help clarify

Shaw Kenawe said...

Lisa: "I guess why would a liberal care about women's rights or gay rights when they don't care about their own overeaching government"

Just to refresh your memory, Lisa, it was GOVERNMENT that passed laws giving women the right to vote and giving people equality in marriage.

Wyoming (at the time, a territory) was the first to give women the right to vote -- that happened during the Progressive Era. The first state to approve of marriage equality was liberal Massachusetts.

Progressives, in both instances, delivered equality in voting and in marriage.




Shaw Kenawe said...

Lisa, your link to Jamie Glasnov was a winner. Here's more background on this kook:

Jamie Glazov Warns 'Anti-American' Obama will Imprison Critics of Islam, Submitted by Brian Tashman on Friday, 1/4/2013 5:05 pm

Last month, we reported Jamie Glazov of the David Horowitz Freedom Center told the Christian Broadcasting Network’s sports reporter/terrorism “expert” Erick Stakelbeck that progressives and radical Islamists – united over their shared “hatred for humans” – would succeed in “destroying this country.” Glazov fired off a totally-not-unhinged response in late December, comparing me to someone who aided the Holocaust, and then went on The Janet Mefferd Show to make sure that everyone knows that he is definitely not crazy:

Glazov: This is how I see it; this is how I see the picture: you come into a person’s house and you gain control of it with certain thought rules and certain speech rules and then you go to the top window and you open the top window and you yell to the enemy, ‘come in guys, come in guys, I did it, nothing can be said and you can come in now.’ So that’s what the left has done in America and it’s opened the top window and it’s waving in the Islamists.

Mefferd: I really hate to agree with you but I have to agree with you.

Glazov: And Janet, by the way, people think—and when I say people of course there’s people that understand—but I just mean the mainstream media and a very large number of people that you would run into the street and I start talking like this and they think I’m crazy.
Glazov later predicted that there will be more Fort Hood-style attacks because “people who hate America and reach out in solidarity to the people who want to destroy freedom in America are in the White House.”

SOURCE

Are you sure Jamie and Orly Taiz weren't separated at birth?

Duckys here said...

"told the Christian Broadcasting Network’s sports reporter/terrorism “expert” Erick Stakelbeck"
--------
This material writes itself

Joe said...

SK: "The use of the pre-pubescent "I know you are but what am I!" trope is boring."

It's what you do all the time.

Shaw Kenawe said...

Oh Gawd! Joe, you just did it again!

Patriot1212 said...


Being a liberal, fascist, socialist, communist, progressive makes you either a blithering idiot, or a criminally insane authoritarian sociopath. Or all of the above!

Patriot1212 said...

Barry is going to play monkey in the middle.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Nothing barbaric here:
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/06/15/islamist-militants-slaughter-dozens-of-iraqi-soldiers-in-mass-graves-then-post-the-pictures-online-graphic-images/

Patriot1212 said...

There is countless connections Cantor has to hard core progressive groups, yet the RNC embraces Cantor as a leader.
That is why I will give NOTHING to the RNC until they purge the party of RINO's.
Contribute direct to your conservative candidates

Duckys here said...

Glenn, you act as if you're surprised that there are casualties in war.

Silly, Glenn.

Joe, Patriot1212 (LMAO) is violating the vulgar language rule.



Lisa said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Lisa said...

Shaw that made no sense to counter what was said in the video, but oh yes ignoring what party was in favor of women's rights and using it as a deflection that it was because of the
Progressive movement.
It's ok ,we all know

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Ducky,

Um, no surprise. It's the way Muslims fight wars, which is extraordinarily barbaric.

Duckys here said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Duckys here said...

Glenn, just what is non-babaric war?

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Ducky,

Some war actions are more barbaric than others. That's why there are such things as "war crimes." And if you can't see the difference between how Muslims treat their adversaries and how normal civilized people treat their adversaries, then you just aren't paying attention. Or you are so deceived as a liberal Muslim-lover that you shut your eyes to the truth.

Shaw Kenawe said...

Okay, Lisa, here's a test for you.

If you really believe the Republican Party of today is as progressive as it was when it championed the abolition of slavery, giving African Americans the right to vote, and women's suffrage, then why is the Republican Party of today in various red states doing all it can to deny gay people marriage equality?


Why was it the blue liberal states that championed that cause? And why did the Democrats in the south split from the Democratic Party of the Civil Rights era and become the solid Republican voting bloc that it has been since President Johnson passed Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act?

I know why, but you won't face the reason why.

The Republican Party of the 19th and early 20th century has absolutely nothing in common with what it is in the 21st century. To pretend not to know this is to be willfully ignorant.

The abolitionists of Lincoln's Republican Party were PROGRESSIVES. His own secretary of the treasury, Salmon Chase, and his secretary of state, William Seward didn't think Lincoln was LIBERAL ENOUGH, when he was elected. Liberal enough to end slavery. Read history and learn.

The majority of the southern Democrats who wanted to keep slavery in place were CONSERVATIVES. They want to and fought to CONSERVE the institution of slavery.

The Democratic Party of today has NOTHING in common with what it was in the 19th century, even in the beginning of the 20th century. Read history and learn.

Simple-minded memes like "the Democrats supported slavery and the Republicans ended it" shows a lack of understanding of history and a dishonest effort to muddy it.

Had I been alive in the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century I would have been a progressive in the Republican Party, never, never, a conservative, Jim Crow southern Democrat.


Joe said...

XO "I find your characterization "barbarianism" to be small minded and offensive."

Did you see what the invaders did today? They captured Iraqi soldiers, lined them up in the streets and filmed their mass execution.

Just a cultural thing, I know. That was certainly not a barbaric act. Oh! It WAS?

Duckys here said...

Glenn, get hold of Errol Morris' Fog of War and report back to class.

Tough duty, Shaw, the Dixiecrat period of American history really has them putting there fingers in their hears and humming loudly.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Ducky,

I already have almost 100 books on my "To Read" shelf - I'm not adding another, especially one which won't tell me something I don't already know.

I've studied war for decades. The Oriental people are the most brutal to their enemies; look at what the Japanese did in WWII. But even they can't light a candle to the Muslims, who've had much longer to practice their barbaric ideology.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Duckys here said...

Its a documentary film, Glenn.

Morris is one of the best active documentary film makers.

It's an extended conversation with Robert McNamara. Top notch.

Duckys here said...

@Glen --- The Oriental people are the most brutal to their enemies

----
Ever study the Russian withdrawal from Belarus?

Duckys here said...

oops, I mean the German withdrawal.

Duckys here said...
This comment has been removed by the author.