You Conservatives Can't Face the Truth So you Resort to School Yard Name Calling...?

Question

It just shows the average intelligence level of you conservatives on this board. The Cheney clip is now on YouTube but was taken from a news network. I'm sure you could view it on Yahoo video as well. Would you still doubt it's reliability? The point is that he realized the negative ramifications that an invasion of Iraq would have on the region as well as the reputation of our country and it's government. But you conservatives are so brain washed that you will not admit that we do not belong in that country...and why is it that not one conservative addresses the fact as to why we can't defeat these punks with machine guns? Are we not the most powerful fighting force on this planet?...and I guarantee that as a liberal, I love my country more than any conservative because I want more freedoms for my people, not government controlled programs like Homeland Security or some suit telling me what to do with my body. You cons have got it backwards...

Answer 1

THEY JUST DON'T LISTEN


Do they listen to the troops

A poll taken last year showed that an overwhelming majority of troops in Iraq WANTED US OUT OF THERE BY NOW.
http://www.zogby.com/news/readnews.dbm?i...
An overwhelming majority of 72% of American troops serving in Iraq think the U.S. should exit the country within the next year, and more than one in four say the troops should leave immediately, a new Le Moyne College/Zogby International survey shows.
The poll, conducted in conjunction with Le Moyne College’s Center for Peace and Global Studies, showed that 29% of the respondents, serving in various branches of the armed forces, said the U.S. should leave Iraq “immediately,” while another 22% said they should leave in the next six months. Another 21% said troops should be out between six and 12 months, while 23% said they should stay “as long as they are needed

Do they listen to the generals that have experience

Retired generals are speaking out against this war and the civilian leadership that thought it up and messed it up. Retired, yes. But all senior generals are (or at least consider themselves) members of a rather exclusive club, and when they speak out, it's not impossible that they express the opinions of their active peers.
The list is impressive. In a New York Times op-ed column, retired Major Gen. Paul Eaton, who helped revive the Iraqi army, described Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld as "incompetent strategically, operationally and tactically" and called for his resignation. Retired Lt. Gen. William Odom, former director of the National Security Agency and now a Yale professor, said in a speech covered by the Providence Journal that America's invasion of Iraq might be the worst strategic mistake in American history.
Publicizing his book, "The Battle for Peace," in a recent "Meet the Press" appearance, retired Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni, a four-star former commander of the Central Command, describes administration behavior that ranged from "true dereliction, negligence and irresponsibility" to "lying, incompetence and corruption." Another Marine, retired Lt. Gen. Greg Newbold, has written in Time magazine that the Iraq war was unnecessary. Finally, Lt. Gen. Bernard Trainor and Michael Gordon have written a history of the invasion of Iraq, Cobra II, which describes a willfully self-deluding planning process.
Now, on CNN, Maj. Gen. John Batiste also called for Rumsfeld's resignation; the Washington Post reported that Batiste, commander of the First Infantry Division in Iraq during 2004-2005, turned down a third star and a tour in Iraq as the second-ranking U.S. military officer there. He retired rather than continue to work for Rumsfeld.
In one sense, this "revolt" is the last act of the Vietnam War. The current generation of generals served as junior officers during Vietnam, where they swore that, when they held the senior positions, they would never collapse before civilian delusion and zealotry, as had so many of that era's leaders. They sensed, back then, a moral rot at the top. Zinni took to heart the day he was shot three times in Vietnam, and promised that if he lived, he would always say what he thought was right. He has. An early opponent of the Iraq war, he was called a "traitor" by the White House. Now Newbold, who served as director of operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff until October 2002, cites an old anti-Vietnam song, "Won't Get Fooled Again" and concludes: We were.

Do they listen to George H W Bush

after Saddam Hussein after Iraqi forces were pushed out of Kuwait in the Gulf War.
"We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under those circumstances, furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-cold war world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the U.N.'s mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the U.S. could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different--and perhaps barren--outcome."
Seems like besides running the CIA and being a one term president, Bush Sr. was a a fortune teller, for his own kid

NO THEY JUST DON'T LISTEN
THEY WOULD RATHER CLOSE THEIR EYES TO THE TRUTH THAN ADMIT THEY SURRORT A FOOL AND A FOOLISH ENDEAVOR !!!

Answer 2

That is way too funny. Liberals don't do any name calling. Right.

By the way, right or wrong (in regard to the invasion), we cannot just pull out and let Iraq's neighbors (Iran and Syria) just pick up the pieces. Why do Liberals ignore this? The reason Conservatives get so annoyed is that the Left always makes these simple, one-dimensional arguments. Life is complicated. Grow up.

Answer 3

You make some good points, but your consistent use of "you conservatives" undermines your points, I think.

I consider myself a conservative, in that I believe (and always have) in fiscal accountability, and that a strong government is one which exerts the least control over the personal decisions of the citizens. I did not, do not, and never would, under any stretch of the imagination, condone this bogus "war" in Iraq, while I do support, and always have, the justified war in Afghanistan.

Answer 4

I would say it is more of a school yard tactic to place people into small defined groups. It is much easier for some to deal with people in these broad terms rather than look at people on an individual level and deal with differences in a constructive manner.

Answer 5

You make some interesting points there.

But before you go attacking the right for name-calling, perhaps you might want to clean up your own house first...

The left is good lately for Bush/Hitler comparisons and a myriad of other taunting and name calling.

I'm not saying that it's ONLY on the left, but a little intellectual honesty might be nice, eh?

Answer 6

You don't want government controlled programs like Homeland security but you do want government controlled literature, health care, assistance programs, liberal public education, nationalization of corporations etc. etc.

Pick a lane!

Answer 7

I saw this clip on The Daily Show last night. Someone once referred to this kind of thing as selective amnesia.

Answer 8

You mean like when we show that the Census Bureau numbers refute the Dobbs/Krugman/Reich "class warfare" rhetoric and you call us racist, bigoted, homophobic, anti-woman, planet-hating big corporate fat cat trailer park redneck trash?

Answer 9

You accused someone of namecalling and then turned around and called someone a 'punk'.

Thanks for the laugh!

.

Answer 10

.
so you don't resort to name calling

just hate filled speech, huh

.