Bush's Shrinking Safety Zone

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

Her observations on the Democrats and mine mesh pretty closely, and she's got more detail.

She's got lots and lots of detail, but if you follow her footnotes, you find that they don't support her. She approaches all of her research the same way she (and other creationists) approach science. Put it in a form similar to the one that legitimate research is presented in, and confidently expect that your core audience will not look deeper.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

And another link, which I didn't get to fit into #877:

Further investigation from JustOneMinute.com

I love it. Those guys buried Kerry.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

No bad thing, from what I've seen of Kerry and his voting record.

[tw]

From ABC News of 4 Nov 2007: Nearly Three-Quarters Say the Country Is on the Wrong Track, Highest in a Decade

Seventy-four percent of Americans in the latest ABC News/Washington Post poll say the country is headed in the wrong direction, the most since the government shut down in a contentious budget battle in early 1996. And while George W. Bush remains at his career low in job approval, he now has company: A year after they won control of the House and Senate, approval of the Democrats in Congress has fallen to its lowest since 1995.

As the article notes, this is below any other president. But then where is a single George Jr accomplishment?

[Urbane Guerrilla]

The terrs haven't been able to touch us since 9-11, and we've been touching them quite hard. Frenetic Republican-haters are the only ones yelling about "what accomplishments has he?" but this comes only out of the most discreditable of all possible motives: anti-Republican bigotry, carried to a ridiculous extreme. You've been carrying a lot of that water, you mule-headed bigot. It will drown you just as it submerges your integrity -- which as is well known is too small and carious to be allowed out alone, for fear the wind would blow it away.

The Democrats will not accomplish winning the war, not for democracy or for anything else; for that we must turn to the Republicans. I think that we, a democracy, should win this war against the democracy-opposers. You never have thought this way for as long as I've known you, and that is why I despise you and why you really don't have friends here.

Your agenda has not, perhaps, been furthered. This is precisely in accord with the needs of our Republic.

[queequeger]

First of all, 'the terrorists haven't touched us since 9-11' is ridiculous. When was the previous foreign terrorist attack on civilians before that? 1993 WTC bombing killing 6. Yeah, that was a pretty crazy time before Bush got to office, so many foreign terrorists were bombing us constantly. The US is no more or less safe now than it was before.

To preempt a likely argument, there have actually been slightly MORE terrorist attacks (outside of Iraq) on the US military after 2001 than before. In fact, we're averaging just over one a year, whereas the previous 10 years or so, we had about one every 2 years.

So if you remove September 11th (dear god, no, where will the kneejerk reactions go!?) in the interest of this argument, the civilians of this country are about as safe now as then, and the military is more at risk.

Point: I am not anti-Republican because of some kind of bigotry. I am anti-republican because I disagree with every single idealogical difference between them and the democrats. To claim anyone has some kind of bigotry for political views is a little ridiculous, considering you can't make a post without bringing up how much you hate the Democrats...

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Actually, I can, and you are indulging in hyperbole precisely when for the sake of your argument you shouldn't.

Nor is it particularly hatred: it's just that for fifteen or twenty years straight they've been trying to sell what I don't want to buy. In a republic that's a pretty long time to be so totally on the outs with any part of the electorate -- I know full well I'm not alone. I reckon they're wrong for the Republic, and on the wrong side of history also.

For some reason you're not taking into account for the attacks on American targets outside the US prior to 9-11: Marine barracks Beirut 1983, East African embassies, USS Cole, Khobar Towers Saudi Arabia. I think these count quite satisfactorily as terrorist assaults. These guys have been trying since 1983 to get a war going with us. After about eighteen years of trying, they got one. And they're losing it. Happy-happy.

Were I a particularly deep thinker as leftists go, I wouldn't associate with the anti-Republican bigots even in thought, for lying down with dogs means you get up with fleas.

[DanaC]

And lying down with logs means you get up with trees....

[queequeger]

You're right, I didn't include the attacks on the military as a reason to go to war, because no one has ever said that this was for the military's safety. In fact, we almost never go to war for small scale attacks on our military. It has to be a definite and severe attack, because otherwise we'd be at war with 75% of the globe. We all know coming in that we're going to be at significantly higher risk than as a civilian.

If you reread my post, you'd notice that I said that civilians are no more safe now than before, as we can't really address the number of attacks, because it hasn't been long enough. I also said

To preempt a likely argument, there have actually been slightly MORE terrorist attacks (outside of Iraq) on the US military after 2001 than before. In fact, we're averaging just over one a year, whereas the previous 10 years or so, we had about one every 2 years.

Which includes every attack you mentioned.

Total terrorist attacks on our military (and embassy employees) 1993-2001: 4.

Total terrorist attacks on our military (and embassy employees not including Iraq) 2001-present: 8.

That's twice as many attacks in just about half as many years. We're safer?

...and the democratic party has been on the outs with the electorate? How did we have a democratic congress and a democratic president? If you don't hate the democratic party, why do you keep labeling them as enemies of the state!? I can't believe.. never mind, I said before I'd give up responding, but I guess I forgot myself. Enjoy your insanity, man.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

Actually, I can, and you are indulging in hyperbole precisely when for the sake of your argument you shouldn't.

For some reason you're not taking into account for the attacks on American targets outside the US prior to 9-11: Marine barracks Beirut 1983, East African embassies, USS Cole, Khobar Towers Saudi Arabia. I think these count quite satisfactorily as terrorist assaults. These guys have been trying since 1983 to get a war going with us. After about eighteen years of trying, they got one.

Again UG lumps them all into one giant international conspiracy. According to UG, we must massacre all Arabs due to attacks on Marines in Beirut, embassies, USS Cole, Khobar Towers, 1993 WTC attack, Kansas City, highjacked ships off Somolia, Tehran Embassy hostages, and by the Barbary Pirates.

UG - at what point do you identify each suspect and only go after that suspect. UG never answers this question. "When do we go after bin Laden?" It means we would not have an excuse to massacre so many others.

Instead we should attack Hamas, Egypt, Iraq, Iran, Muslims in the Phillippines ... Yea, that will solve all problems. How funny. That is the complete opposite of what UG's recent (and now diposed) idol Thomas Barnett wrote.

UG - still waiting for the publication of "The Pentagon Papers" by Urbane Guerrilla. Clearly history will not be correct until it is rewritten. Thomas Barnett never said that either.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Two letters, tw: BS. You merit no further reply, and you're not talking sense nor truth.

[tw]

From the BBC of 13 Nov 2007:

'Hidden costs raise' US war price
The US wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are costing nearly double the amount previously thought, according to a report by Democrats in the US Congress.
They say "hidden costs" have pushed the total to about $1.5 trillion - nearly twice the requested $804bn (£402bn).

Higher oil prices, treating wounded veterans, and the cost to the economy of pulling reservists away from their jobs have been taken into account.

The White House has called the report politically motivated.

How curious. Having White House lawyers rewrite science for a political agenda is not politically motivated?

Not bad for a war that would be paid for by Iraq's oil revenues. Not bad for a war that would only cost $2billion. But George Jr's wackos (ie Cheney) did not lie?

The Kuwait liberation did not destroy American standards of living. America did not pay for that war. America was paid to liberate Kuwait. But back then, an American president was not making the world hate Americans.

60% of the US Military equipment is deployed for the glory of Cheney. 50% of National Guard equipment is deployed. How did another lying president do this same thing? He simply lied about the costs in Nam. Deja vue - or why should America's worst president in 100 years be any different. Oh. It does not cost that much? God told him? "Reagan proved that deficits do not matter".

Did your mother say you would burn in hell if you lied? Who believes words from a burning Bush? Only those who believe it must be the word of god. Oh. In god we trust? No problem. George Jr talks to him. Next week the slogan. A vote for George Jr is a vote for god. So god will fix those debts?

Yeph. Sub-prime loan crisis. Falling dollar. Rising oil prices. Rising gold and copper prices. Inevitable tax increases. America for sale to foreigners. So few Americans now technically educated that America cannot import enough immigrants. Katrina. A long list enemies that previously did not exist. God even knocked down two highest buildings and we still did not get the message? Maybe the burning Bush was not his messenger. It only took seven years to figure that out? “Mission Accomplished”.

[tw]

From the NY Times of 13 Nov 2007:

F.B.I. Says Guards Killed 14 Iraqis Without Cause F.B.I. Says Guards Killed 14 Iraqis Without Cause
Federal agents investigating the Sept. 16 episode in which Blackwater security personnel shot and killed 17 Iraqi civilians have found that at least 14 of the shootings were unjustified and violated deadly-force rules in effect for security contractors in Iraq, according to civilian and military officials briefed on the case.

The F.B.I. investigation into the shootings in Baghdad is still under way, but the findings, which indicate that the company's employees recklessly used lethal force, are already under review by the Justice Department.

Prosecutors have yet to decide whether to seek indictments, and some officials have expressed pessimism that adequate criminal laws exist to enable them to charge any Blackwater employee with criminal wrongdoing. Spokesmen for the Justice Department and the F.B.I. declined to discuss the matter.

Maybe the good guys are not the good guys? Of course not. After all, everyone in 2003 knew Saddam must have had WMDs. Therefore only Americans are good guys.

How can Blackwater, et al have done wrong? We even made it legal for them to kill anyone they want at any time. They are Americans - not second class people like Iraqis, Germans, and Brits (yes this is what an extremist religious lady and supporter of George Jr was telling me last night). That reasoning was sufficient to even prove Saddam had WMDs. Others who know differently are so silent because they have "weak liberal minds". Considering the so few who speak out here, she must be right.

Good thing we have George Jr and Condi Rice's State Department to protect our heroes in Blackwater uniforms. Blackwater employees cannot be prosecuted even for murder. Also good is that Blackwater takes revenge for what happened to employees in Fallujah. God heil Amerika even though Democrats and so many others who remain silent are so backboneless.

Investigators found no evidence to support assertions by Blackwater employees that they were fired upon by Iraqi civilians. That finding sharply contradicts initial assertions by Blackwater officials, who said that company employees fired in self-defense and that three company vehicles were damaged by gunfire.

... investigators determined that the subsequent shootings of 14 Iraqis, some of whom were shot while fleeing the scene, were unprovoked. ...

A separate military review of the Sept. 16 shootings concluded that all of the killings were unjustified and potentially criminal. One of the military investigators said the F.B.I. was being generous to Blackwater in characterizing any of the killings as justifiable.

Cars were heavily damaged mostly in the rear with few if any bullets entering their front. Clearly all these vehicles were backing up to threatened Blackwater.

No problem. This is what we want. Even our Democrats silently cheer that inferior races are killed. If not, Democrats would be screaming loudly. A majority of Cellar dwellers clearly approve just as loudly. Al Qaeda must exist in Iraq. That's the only way to explain a clearly misguided FBI analysis. We all know the only enemy in Iraq is Al Qaeda.

[lookout123]

shhh, take your pill. the voices will go away.

[tw]

From ABC News of 14 Nov 2007:

Blackwater Turret Gunner 'Paul': Why I Opened Fire in Baghdad
A 29-year-old U.S. Army veteran hired by Blackwater last year is at the center of the investigation into the Sept. 16 shooting incident that killed at least 17 civilians, U.S. officials say. ...

It was just the beginning.

He went on to describe why he opened fire on what witnesses have said were bystanders running from the scene.

"I started receiving small arms fire from the shack approximately fifty meters behind the car. I then engaged the individuals where the muzzle flashes came from," he said.

Iraqi officials say there was no such small-arms fire aimed at the motorcade of State Department officials.

The Blackwater guard's account describes why he continued to fire.

"I was told on our radio that the command vehicle was down and that we were still taking fire," he said.

In his statement, he said he then fired on a man armed with an AK-47, later described as an Iraqi police officer. ...

There was still one more target that the Blackwater turret gunner claimed to be an enemy threat in his statement, a passenger car he said he thought might be rigged as a bomb.


"There was a red vehicle backing toward the command vehicle. Fearing that it was a VBIED [vehicle-borne improvised explosive device], I engaged in order to stop the threat," his account reads.

These people represent the American flag in Iraq. Lookout123 approves of this. More dead inferiors means less surplus population.