Dipstick!

Oh, thank God.

So this “minor offense” is not why I want out of this thread; it’s because I know where it’s headed. As witness, your suggestion that Frank isn’t my real name.

1) If it wasn’t my real name, why would calling me “Frankie” bother me? It’s obviously designed to be demeaning and condescending. It is such a typical Jadegold “m.o.” that his intention is obvious.

2) You can click through my screen name, too, and see that, unless I’m lyiing about name over there, too, my name is splashed all over the place. Because I’ve never been concerned with calling you “framie” or some other similar nonsense,I’ve never bothered to click on your name.

3) Finally, I didn’t feel so much “ganged up on” in an emotional sense (what you call “playing the victim” I call “blaming the victim” [on your part]), as I did feel extremely pressured to respond to three posts totalling nearly 1500 words

I’ll tell you what: since you want to re - hash the whole history of the Ear in Iraq, I’m going to need some time to respond. I’ll just move “up”, or is it “down” to the other comments in “Iraq becomes Terror Central”

Jadegold feels the need to demean me, motivated by God knows what. Then you all line up to support him when I fight back. “He’s not wrong, I’m a ‘touchy bastard’; he started it, but I should ‘lead by example’”.

Do either of you have, at least, the guts to leave it alone, and leave it between Jadegold and me? Nope.

Comment to him?

God forbid…

I’m sorry you think you’re being hanged up on. This is an open forum is it not? We don’t have private chat rooms to slip off to for one on one debate. It’s all out there for anyone to jump in at any time right? Why do you feel compelled to always play the victim?

Damn Frank, you are one touchy bastard.

Frameone: There is no need for that shit, and no need for me to take it. Touchy? Call it what you will — I’ll mail you $.50, and you can call someone who gives a shit. I can’t get respect or demand respect, but I can leave the thread. Perhaps if you had the guts to use your real name, you might understand how I feel. Until then, save it.

It’s simple: Jadegold starts calling me Frankie, for absolutely no reason whatever, I fold up my tent and go away.

You keep missing the point. Let me put it as simply as I can: Afghanistan, not Iraq. Israeli-Palestinian resolution, not Iraq.

No one on my side has EVER argued that “doing nothing is better than what you’re doing.” But you bring up an interesting point. I think the abysmal planning, implementation and execution of this administration’s plan becomes apparent when one takes into consideration that one could probably make a fairly strong argument that doing nothing, would have been, in fact, better that what we are currently doing.

Now, slow down…I’m not advocating a “do nothing” policy. I’m just playing Devil’s Advocate, by saying the negative implications of the actions taken by this administration FAR outweigh the negative implications inherent in a potential “do nothing” policy. I know you’ll use this as some sort of evidence that “the left” really wants to sit around in drum circles with Al Qaeda, but it’s worth point out the following:

- By all accounts, FBI, CIA, DoD have stated the fact that fundamentalist recruitment has increased as a direct result of our actions in Iraq.
- Saddam was one of the most secular leaders in the Muslim world. Our actions in Iraq have opened this nation up to the influence of their neighboring Iranian theocracy.
- Terrorists are now able to use the chaotic environment of Iraq for the purposes of training and armament. Gaining valuable and deadly experience that is sure to be exported to our shores.
- Our Army is bogged down and most likely would not be able to appropriately deal with actual and viable threats in the future.
- Our National Guard forces are spread so thin that they can not adequately deal with domestic disasters (Katrina, etc)
- Bin Laden and his petty band of radicals have now been raised to the status of “equals” with American military might, as perceived in the Muslim world, when our policy should have been to minimize Al Qaeda’s threat, not trumpet and glorify it as Bush has in order to obtain re-election.
- Bush has justified “pre-emptive” warfare and has removed (realistically) any position our nation has to argue against it’s use against us.
- We have lost all standing around the globe, as a moral leader, and have instead, justified global fears of American Imperialism.
- We are spending record amounts of tax dollars to justify all these horrible outcomes.

There were, and are, plenty of other suggestions being made from my side of the aisle. Simply because you are too stubborn to hear them doesn’t mean they were not being made available. But if I was actually FORCED to ignore them, just as you have, and choose between Bush’s policy and this other mystical “doing nothing” policy you’ve made up…well, unfortunately, Bush’s policy of pre-emptive war against Iraq, always seemed so abysmally stupid to me, that that’s not as easy a choice as it should be.

In conjunction with this aggressive military policy, the Dems had aother simple ideas for a complex problem. They wanted to beef up homeland security and so the Dems even proposed the creation of a new department specifically devoted to protecting Americans here at home. I believe they called it the Department of Homeland Security.

The Dems also called for an investigation into the events of 9-11. The Dems wanted to know what went wrong so that in the future we could better prevent terrorist attacks on American soil.

The Dems also proposed that we get more aggressive on the law enforcement front, proposing new money for the FBI and CIA while increasing our cooperation with foreign law enforcement agencies to freeze terrrorist assets and dry up their money supply.

The Dems proposed increases in foreign aid targeted to supporting moderate Islamic leaders and democratic activists around the world. The Dems called for tougher sanctions and inspection regimes against rogue states such as Iraq, Iraq and North Korea. The Dems proposed a plan to buy back Russian nuclear stockpiles and uranium to ensure that they woudl never reach the hands of terrorists. They called for an increased international effort to contain the flow of conventional and non-conventional arms around the world.

All these things and more the Dems called for and we know what happened. Bush went into Afghanistan but quickly shifted his attention to Iraq allowing Bin Laden to get away while opening up a substabtial space for Zarqawi to emerge and expand his operations. The Republicans took over and took credit for establishing the Department of Homeland Security only to exploit the fear of terror for political purposes and to hand over the protection of Americans to cronies and incompetents. The fought the 9-11 commission, then allowed it, then played politics with its results and have yet to follow through on many of its most significant recommendations. Bush has alienated many of our most significant allies. They have twisted the idea of international intelligence gathering and law enforcement cooperation into a secret prison system. Bush has forever stained America’s reputation by giving tacit approval to torture. Then they pulled us out of nuclear proliferation treaties and proposed the development of a whole new class of tactical nuclear weapons, sending a horrible single to rogue regimes around the world. Here at home, the Republican pushed through legislation that makes it okay for the FBI to conduct gather and keep private information about law abiding citizens without any kind of judicial oversight. The result? Global terrorism has increased and America is more isolated than it has ever been.

So you see, the Dems had a plan post 9-11. Bush and the Republicans went another way and fucked everything up. So when you say the Dems don’t have a plan now, what you really mean is that the Dems don’t have a plan now to fix the disaster that the Republicans have unleashed on the country and the world. There’s a difference. So now that the Republicans have shit themselves, what’s the Dem plan to change their diapers? Well, first we have to get the Republicans to quit bawling and stop squirming around, because they’re only making things worse.

Now we get a glimpse into the lack of critical thinking that ‘informs’ Frank’s political mind. Great analogy, Frank. Our jails are full (we have nearly one percent of our population behind bars, the highest rate of any industrial democracy) because we insist on locking people up for nonviolent personal choices (’drug war’, anyone). Our cops are busy chasing pot smokers and peddlers, and playing an endless game of whack-a-mole against the drug du jour. A pot peddler gets life, while a child rapist is out in less than a sawbuck.

The Bushies’ fight against ‘terror’ is even less efficient. The alleged mastermind of the 9/11 attacks quickly went from World Public Enemy No. 1 to being tactically forgotten. Instead of pursuing the ‘terrists’, the Bushies invaded a country that clearly posed a threat to no one. Now bin Laden is still loose, and a new generation of militants is rising out of the ashes of Iraq. Nice going, Dubya! Maybe you could pay Halliburton to build more prisons. Oh, done that!

We re taking casualties at a rate of about 1 to 10, in other words, we are beating them.

Oh, the body counts. A war of attrition again? Amen, bryan; that worked great in Vietnam.

And finally:
I guess the illegality is evidenced by all the protesting around the world to put him back in office. Even the Loony (Sheehan) Left isn t touching that. Where s the ACLU when you need them?

I’m sorry, was that another lame-ass right-wing attempt at sarcasm? I thought Dubya didn’t listen to ‘focus groups.’ If he did, maybe he’d have listened to the millions of marchers worldwide who protested before he launched his illegal, ill-advised war. Saddam Hussein isn’t important; how the putative “leader of the free world” behaves is. I don’t need the ACLU to tell me that “wrong is wrong, no matter who says or does it.”

You see, Frankie, you don’t want to them “learning on the ground;” that’s what gets a lot of troops killed. You want them going into a combat situation already trained, organized, and equipped to perform the mission.

Frankie, war isn’t a game that you just throw bodies into and hope they adjust.

BTW, for the record, asymmetrical warfare* doen t mean  terrorists win, big, American armies lose.

No, and asymmetrical warfare also doesn’t mean terrorism–although terrorism can be a component of asymmetrical warfare. But the fact is our forces are ill-designed for asymmetrical warfare, Frankie.