Even in the land down under, conservatism clearly rots the brain.
OPPOSITION Leader Kevin Rudd today went on the
offensive against Prime Minister John Howard over his verbal attack on
US presidential hopeful Barack Obama, warning it might damage the
Australia-US alliance.Mr Rudd said
Mr Howard should be censured over his comment yesterday that terrorist
network al-Qaeda would be hoping for a Democratic candidate to win next
year’s US presidential election.Senator Obama has pledged to withdraw US troops from Iraq by March 2008, a timetable Mr Howard believes is dangerous.
Labor’s
censure motion refers to Mr Howard’s “false statement” that his
comments were directed only at Senator Obama and criticises Mr Howard
for damaging the Australia-US alliance.It also accuses Mr
Howard of “gross insensitivity” for lecturing the United States on Iraq
when the war has claimed the lives of more than 3,000 US servicemen and
women.
I like that Obama responded right back to Howard’s latest bout of stupidity.
“I think it’s flattering that one of George Bush’s allies on the other
side of the world started attacking me the day after I announced (my
candidacy),” Senator Obama said.“I would also note that we have close to 140,000 troops in Iraq and my understanding is Mr Howard has deployed 1400.
“So
if he is … to fight the good fight in Iraq, I would suggest that he
calls up another 20,000 Australians and sends them to Iraq, otherwise
it’s just a bunch of empty rhetoric.”
Somehow I don’t think throwing Australia’s troops on the front lines with Bush’s lost cause would endear Howard to the Australian electorate.
Extensive plastic surgery and a year at charm school couldn’t make John Howard endearing.
“I like that Obama responded right back to Howard’s latest bout of stupidity.”
A Democrat who fights back? That’s unpossible.
I like this guy more and more.
Are you ever going to correct your No Kidding post?
thats fighting back? Throwing a lame “chicken hawk” reference back over.?
Puh-leese.
This is going to be a great election. The democrats are going to start abusing america’s staunchest allies….oh goody!
Oh yeah, Australia. The former prison colony. Howard appears not to be too removed from his ancestory.
A good booting, that’s what he needs.
Pedro just cannot give anyone on “THE OTHER SIDE” credit for anything, can he?
(by the way, you guys are a former prison colony as well, so don’t get cute. We only started using Australia because you did that whole declaring independence thing)
The democrats are going to start abusing america’s staunchest allies….oh goody!
Well, not all of them. Just the racist assholes.
Pedo doesn’t think additional international troops would be helpful.
Obama is getting in trouble. Getting in battle with a loyal ally is not a good thing for any candidate - especially for a Democrat also advocating unequivocal surrender in Iraq.
Getting in battle with a loyal ally is not a good thing for any candidate
Yet you seem to be fine with this Howard guy doing the same.
Obama is getting in trouble. Getting in battle with a loyal ally is not a good thing for any candidate - especially for a Democrat also advocating unequivocal surrender in Iraq.
Um, ending a conflict is not “surrender”.
Did we “surrender” to North Korea when we signed the armistice in 1953? Seems to me that when you surrender to a foreign power, you drop your weapons and put yourselves at their mercy. None of that is contemplated by anyone as regards Iraq.
Dugger surrendered to Playgirl when he cancelled his subscription.
BTW, Howard is trailing badly in the polls. I think he’s picking on Obama to energize his “base”.
For an insight into these folks, rent Romper Stomper. Good flick featuring Russell Crowe before he went Hollywood.
5% is “trailing badly”?
Obama is getting in trouble. Getting in battle with a loyal ally is not a good thing for any candidate
The story is about how Howard said Obama being elected would be a victory for terrorists. Are you being sarcastic about “loyal ally” or did you just not bother to read the article?
Wait, didn’t foreign leaders publicly criticizing our elected officials used to spawn howls of indignation? Shouldn’t Bill O’Reilly be demanding that “Outback Steakhouses” be renamed “O’Malley’s Saloons” or “Bloomin’ Onions” be renamed to “Freedom Onions” or something?
Or does that only apply to criticism of Republican officials?
For the record, Howard is not Australia. He says a lot of stupid things just as our own president does. People there have learned to accept his moronic pronouncements like the rising of the sun. This is not an international incident — just a case of an obscure Aussie politician making a fatuous claim.
5% is “trailing badly”?
Try 16%. Your focus on the head-to-head between Howard and Rudd (which is what you’re referring to) while interesting, is irrelevant given that Australia’s is a parliamentary system.
Labor is up 52% to 48% in the only comparison that matters. Sixteen points. From your own link.
Crap - that should read 58% to 42%. Damn keyboard….
You said “Howard was trailing badly” — not the party. Words matter. I replied to what you wrote.
Quick, split another electron in that hair.
You said “Howard was trailing badly” — not the party.
You’re making an irrelevant distinction. You still don’t understand how it works in parliamentary elections, do you.
Words matter.
Context matters more. A man running for PM being down by 5% in popularity is irrelevant when his party is 16 points behind. Howard wants to stay on as PM and he’s trailing badly.
I replied to what you wrote.
And you were wrong.
Here’s another link that shows context.
This is a classic thread to examine the lefty “argument”.
Please note that not one response has said that Howard was wrong in his analysis. They just attack the messenger.
Rather than some sort of rational argument about why he is WRONG, they spin off in a cloud of obsfucation.
Makes one think that perhaps they understand the fundamental truth in what Howard said eh?
Anyone who genuinely thinks that al-Qaeda want the Democrats to win in 2008 doesn’t deserve to have their stupidity explained to them.
Howard is wrong in his analysis. Just as every other Regressive is wrong in saying that Democrats favor Terrorism.
Makes one think that perhaps they understand the fundamental truth in what Howard said eh?
No it doesn’t.
Please note that not one response has said that Howard was wrong in his analysis.
For the same reason no one on this thread would bother to refute the Green Cheese Theory of Lunar Composition. It’s gibberish. Satisfied?
pedromd07 | Feb 12, 2007 12:13:54 PM
“Rather than some sort of rational argument about why he is WRONG, they spin off in a cloud of obsfucation.”
pedugger in a nutshell.
What’s the big deal? Politicians comment about foreign politics all the time. Republilcan stalwart David Duke had some things to say about South Africa’s poicies, for example.
David Duke opposes the Iraq war as well. What’s your point?
My point was “Politicians comment about foreign politics all the time.” (The second of three (3) sentences.)
David Duke opposes the Iraq War? LOL! When did he defect to the limp-wristed Democrat Party?
I, Barack Obama, swear to do everything in my power to have the evil United States of Amerikkka lose the war on terror. After all, it’s our fault for making them mad in the first place.
Obama….out.
perhaps it is more accurate to say that like the democrats, David Duke doesn’t think Iraqi’s are worth dying for either…
deux
“Um, ending a conflict is not “surrender”. ”
You are fighting the enemy on the battelfield. Then you and all your side packs of their bags and leaves. The enemy occupies the battlefield. Starts celebrating. Sounds to me like you surrendered. Thats certainly how the enemy and your own soldiers will take it. Don’t be afraid, deux. Your side is advocating surrender. Embrace it. Come to love it. The party of surrender. Explain to the terrorists and Baathists and others that just because we said ‘no mas’, it wasn’t surrender. They won’t be listening. They’ll be celebrating our surrender. And Obama has put a timetable on it.
“World come 2008 we’re surrendering in Iraq!”
And for everyone else. learn about the constittution and our system of government. Then study Australia. Obama is one of 100 senators with no power to enact foreign policy. He can cast one of 100 votes every now and then. Bush is Pres and Howard is PM. It is their job to enact foreign policy. Obama stumbled. Forget 2008. 2012 maybe (but then that would be Hillary’s second term).
Wait. Obama could be veep. And then run in 2016 - against another Bush brother - Reggie.
perhaps it is more accurate to say that like the democrats, David Duke doesn’t think Iraqi’s are worth dying for either…
I guess, but that doesn’t sound like the Dukester I came to know. His judgement us usually pretty sound. I can’t understand why he wouldn’t support the Iraq War after they attacked us on 9-11. It just doesn’t add up.
Dugger | Feb 12, 2007 1:57:46 PM
“Wait. Obama could be veep. And then run in 2016 - against another Bush brother - Reggie.”
Of course, this is the same prophet silenced by the Democratic victory last November.
I’d rather see Barney run.
A lot of people are overlooking a lot of nuances in Ed’s statements, and I personally approve.
A lot of people are overlooking a lot of nuances in Ed’s statements, and I personally approve.
I’ll leave the nuance to you surrendering libs.
No one is overlooking ed’s comments. He likes to pretend to be a caricature of the right wing. It’s not very good.
Actually I agree. Ed was quite a bit better in his early transmogrification. Now his snark is weak.
Oh well, the candle that burns twice as bright burns half as long…tough for you though Ed….
And the Pedo candle that is barely bright enough to see, well, stupid goes on for a long long time.
S
Some posters come here and post badly at first, and then gradually mature and improve over time. You’ve been at it a long time now, son, and some of us startng to worry. Its getting late.
Fatherly advice from the leftist certified cool-monikered Dugger.
Dugger | Feb 12, 2007 3:35:13 PM
“Fatherly advice from the leftist certified cool-monikered Dugger.”
Blowing bullshit out of your ass doesn’t make you smart, pedugger, regardless of how long you’ve been doing it.
Friends don’t let friends commit illegal incompetent invasions. If you’re so hot for war, here’s the place for you. In the meantime, among the sensible, continuing to slaughter American troops and waste American treasure on a lost cause is a foolish mistake.
If Aussies want to continue to be ruled by the fool John Howard, that’s their stupidity just as George W. Bush is America’s.
Saddam was not worth one American life nor one American dollar. Nor is it worth 1.2 trillion to go and kill hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. I’m certain they agree.
Actually, those you call “the enemy” are the people of Iraq fighting a foreign invader for the control of their country. We had no business invading. We have no business occupying. We have no business killing Iraqis. However difficult, you need to acknowledge the reality of the situation.
Here’s the place for you, too.
Dugger smashes another glass house.
Mike go back to reading the “workers daily” bud.
Iraq was in material breach of multiple UN resolutions…no illegal invasion here.
“Saddam was not worth one american life”…why not just say you agree with David Duke and be done with it?
Haven’t seen you around here much Mike, hope to not see you much in the future either….
Then you and all your side packs of their bags and leaves. The enemy occupies the battlefield. Starts celebrating. Sounds to me like you surrendered.
Sounds to me like you’re unaware with how this war has been run by your party. This surrender scene you allegedly want to avoid has been repeated over and over again throughout Iraq, thanks to Rumsfeld’s bloody “experiment” in how to fight a war with the thinnest coverage possible. You do know that our troops have repeatedly been forced to abandon ground they’ve been sent to take more than once, don’t you? And that this has resulted in exposing pro-US collaborators to being identified and eliminated over and over and over again? Seriously, you guys are just mashing our troops into the same wall, repeatedly, while hoping for a different outcome that will save your party from further embarrassment for foisting this joke of a President on the American people.
What was that definition of insanity again?
deux,
Congratulations! You gave up pretending the Democratic position is not surrender. Now you are merely arguing surrender is the best policy in this case. And you will pardon me if I don’t take your ‘reports’ as to what is happening on the Iraqi battlefield as gospel? I mean in about two hours you have already given up arguing against the Democrcatic ’surrender’ position.
Mike, Across the board crummy post, dude.
a.The war is legal.
b. We have not killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. Saddam murdered more and would still be murdering more brown skinned persons were it not for Pres Bush and the Republicans and Democrats who voted for war.
3. You don’t consider the terrorists and Baathists in Iraq as enemy? Really? They consider you the enemy (unless you were a human shield and then I’m not sure).
AND, don’t forget pedugger’s insistence that LA COUNTY is much more dangerous than Iraq.
a. So fucking what?
b. If we haven’t killed hundreds of thousands then we must have killed tens of thousands by now, and shut up about how Saddam killed more already. You can’t prove it, and even if you could it’s hardly a fucking moral standard.
c, or 3 or whatever. Mike never said they weren’t our enemy, just that, you know, we MADE them our enemy by invading their fucking country, it’s our own fucking fault and what did we expect?
As for your response to DEM: that takes twisting of words to a whole new level.
a. So fucking what?
b. If we haven’t killed hundreds of thousands then we must have killed tens of thousands by now, and shut up about how Saddam killed more already. You can’t prove it, and even if you could it’s hardly a fucking moral standard.
c, or 3 or whatever. Mike never said they weren’t our enemy, just that, you know, we MADE them our enemy by invading their fucking country, it’s our own fucking fault and what did we expect?
As for your response to DEM: that takes twisting of words to a whole new level.
Wow Nimrod, even you realized that your post was so completely devoid of any worthwhile content that you felt you had to post it twice!
Here is one instance where I agree with you!
Seriously, stop typing words.
AAAAUUUUGGGHHHH!!!!
TEH STOOPID!!! IT BURNS!!!!!11!!!
You know nimrod, most of the free world has given up on trying to shut out other opinions just because they don’t agree with your world-view and can’t generate a cogent argument against it.
You should try to actually develop and argument, rather than just screaming at your opponent to “shut up”…just a thought.
Tried that, doesn’t work with you.
I’m not shutting out your opinions, partly because you won’t give any. I’m just giving you genuine advice. Stop typing words, or saying anything ever again.
A. The war is illegal.
B. Bush lied to get us into it.
C. We have killed tens of thousands of Iraqis.
D. We have engaged in torture and kidnapping in Iraq as policy.
E. Who are we surrendering to and what are their terms? Are we giving away Alabama for instance?
F. The Iraqi constituion creates an Iran-style Islamic Republic based on Sharia law.
G. Bush fucked up the execution of the war from day one. Not enough troops. Now it is civil war with groups sniping at us.
H. Which is why war with Iran is a horrible idea: that sniping could turn into concentrated fire, cutting off the road to Baghdad and the road to the airport. The snipers have already shown they can shoot down our helicopters.
I. We can’t even rebuild the infrastructure.
J. Terrorists have siphoned off millions of dollars to finance themselves.
K. We can’t win the hearts and minds of Iraq with torture and killing.
L. Pedo needs to learn how to make an argument. His ‘argument style’ is the equivalent of putting his fingers in his ears and screaming “Stay the course” over and over again. It just doesn’t work.
M. Dugger still needs to put together that list of Iraq WMD claims Bush & Co. made that turned out to be true. Get to work.
Nimrod Gently, pedugger’s established arrogance (e.g. accusing people of being child molesters) has resulted in a past ban from the blog. There’s every chance he’ll accuse you of something similar in the absence of common sense arguments …
Of course, OW and others did the same thing…but that was alright. Kinda like using the n-word by a Leftist against a conservative black man.
a. Prove it
b. prove it
c prove it
d. prove it
e. We are walking away from the field of battle and leaving unarmed civilians behind….nobody really wants alabama
f. bullshit
g. We won the war in the shortest period of time…EVER
h. snipers ain’t shooting down shit, surface to air missiles from Iran are shooting down helicopters you moron
I Sure we can, we just can’t do it in a day
j. Siphoned off from where?
K. No one is trying to
L. Please check with Nimrod to see who keeps asking people to please stop writing stuff that makes him have to think.
m. The WMD claims came from the UN, France, Germany, England, Spain, Italy, etc etc. Saddam was the one who needed to PROVE he had rid himself of KNOWN WMD’s, this per UN Resolution.
Piddgy, you remain ignorant. Now get to work on proving your baseless assertions or STFU.
A. The war is illegal
B. You may take over point m. from Dugger if you are up to it.
C. Go to Iraq and visit their morgues.
D. Read a paper.
E. As opposed to staying and still leaving unarmed civilians unprotected.
F. Read the damn thing.
G. Which is why we are still there?
H. Sniping was clearly meant to mean individual attacks as opposed to full engagement. Moron.
I. 4 years and Iraq’s infrastructure is worse than it was under Hussein. + there isn’t any money left.
J. From the oil the CPA and Chalabi purposely failed to monitor, the looting of the museums, the 363 tons of cash we flew over there.
K. Chalk up another Bush slogan left by the roadside.
L. It sure wasn’t you.
M. Start putting that list together. And the UN inspectors said he didn’t have them. Oops.
Checkmate, dopey.
J. From the oil the CPA…
You know, that CPA that was working out of his mom’s basement in southern California?
We are walking away from the field of battle and leaving unarmed civilians behind
It doesn’t appear that a lot of them are unarmed.
h. snipers ain’t shooting down shit, surface to air missiles from Iran are shooting down helicopters you moron
Prove it.
The war was clearly legal. Only the insane DU types argue otherwise.
Thre are multiple sites out there, middle of the road, calculating war dead. It infuriates the left to have to deal with context. You just want to hate in a consquence-free vacuum. Saddam accounted for roughly 1.2M dead based on independent, historical sources. The total death toll after Saddam is around 55K per IBC. The magnitude of difference is too big to overcome (rate and actual). More brown skinned people died daily under Saddam than after Saddam. Bush and the R/D Congress clearly saved brown lives. If you are for getting rid of Bush and surrender in Iraq, its up to you to determine if your actions will resort in more brown skinned deaths. If you have any intellectual depth and you are honest, the clear answer is that opposing the war leads to moer brown skinned deaths. Deal with it.
a) Who cares if the war was legal or not at this stage? Thousands of people are dead. If you can prove that’s legal, you can’t prove it’s moral.
b) Even if you could prove that more people would have died under Saddam, IT’S STILL JUST A MEANINGLESS STATISTIC. Tens if not Hundreds of thousands of people are dead for no reason at all and it’s all our fault.
And do you really thing that being Not As Bad As Saddam is a useful target?
Yes Nimrod it is.
This ridiculously cavalier attitude over genocide that the leftists get when “their” people are committing it is ridiculous.
3 Million dead in cambodia. All by the guys that Jane Fonda was cheering on.
Thats a lot of brown people nimrod, a lot.
I could point out all the things wrong with that but I can’t be bothered.
I will just say that it’s amusing that you think I’m the one with a cavalier attitude to genocide when you’re happily using thousands of dead Iraqis and coalition soldiers as a weapon against TEH LEFTISTZ0RZ.
It’s funny that the majority of Dugger’s reported Hussein death toll comes when Hussein was armed and supported by the US, or more specifically conservative Republican American administrations. Kind of makes Pedo’s “leftists… their people” remark ridiculous. Hussein would be the rightwing’s boy. Along with Osama bin Laden.
midder,
Is that the best you can do, bub? Hell, we supported the second worst mass murderer in history with food and weapons for five years - a man that formally allied with the third worst mass murderer in history - Adolph Hitler. Are you saying Roosevelt was responsible for Stalin’s genocide?
I’ll take false equivalency for $100, Alex.
What a leap! From Hussein to Stalin and Hitler. George Bush got kissy with Putin, does that make him responsible for Putin’s drive to undermine Russian democracy? Bush’s family did business with Hitler, some of that money trickled down to GW and was used in his campaigns, was Bush’s presidency supported by the wealth stolen from dead Jews? The US allowed countries whose leaders boil their political opponents in oil into the coalition of the willing, do we condone boiling people in oil for political opposition? No, the right just calls them traitors.
Dumb arguments can just rain down.
Incidently, are you saying that Iraq’s war with Iran was necessary to protect the US from a serious threat to America as Nazi Germany was? Good examples all.
Saddam accounted for roughly 1.2M dead based on independent, historical sources. The total death toll after Saddam is around 55K per IBC.
Yeah, but he had a head start. We just haven’t been at it as long.
1.2 million over twenty-four odd years versus 55k over four years…I’m no mathematician but that doesn’t seem like much of an improvement, if any.
Besides, 55k is still a fuckload of people. People who are dead. Does this mean anything to you, Dugger?
“George Bush got kissy with Putin, does that make him responsible for Putin’s drive to undermine Russian democracy? ”
Exactly. You made my point.
“Incidently, are you saying that Iraq’s war with Iran was necessary to protect the US from a serious threat to America as Nazi Germany was? ”
No. I am merely saying that we can’t assume that the Saudi gov is responsible for the actions of private Saudi citizens.
nimmer (sigh)
Just do the math. All casualties. Saddam 24 years/1.2M = 137 per day. Post Saddam, 4 years say/ 60K (rounding up) = 41 per day. Per day, it is a big improvement - over 3 to 1. I don’t say it is or isn’t good, but it is better - less brown skin people are dying. How many did we deem acceptable to lose in WW 11 to get rid of Herr Hitler and the Tokyo fascists? 300,000 US only in four years. Thats about 205 per day. The per-day US only daily casualty figure for Saddam is about two (four years 3,000). WWII is 100 times the Saddam rate. The WWII fascists murdered about ten times more than Saddam.
You may hate it, but that old devil ‘perspective’ bites you in the *rse yet again.
Dugger, you have your threads confused. Pedo started this line by claiming (falsely) that Hussein was the left’s boy. It was a stupid claim and I made a counter-claim. Then you chimed in with some WWII blather, to which I responded with more blather.
Your estimates are off, they also don’t include refugees, and they fail to take into account the 4000 dead Americans and tens of thousands of seriously wounded Americans.
They do include the dead Americans (not 4,000 actually). What refugee deaths are you talking about. My number from Iraq are pretty much roundings from IBC. As far as wounded, Saddam’s wounded weren’t counted either. Kept it apples to apples.
You don’t get it. I don’t CARE if we kill fewer people than Saddam. The problem is that WE ARE KILLING PEOPLE. THOUSANDS OF THEM. And we’re going to keep doing it until your fucking Decider finally leaves of office.
Do you get it now? Do you understand my objection? People are dying in the mud. Who cares if Saddam killed more? The Third Reich killed 12 million people in the Holocaust, is that like the minimum atrocity now or what?
Nimmer
No. I don’t get it. You are still wrong. Emotions have taken over. First you guys insist vehemently it is a civil war. It has to be a civil war. Well, hell, that means to me that at least two Iraqi domestic factions are fighting and killing each other. Not ‘we’. Not the US and allies.
And if we hadn’t invaded Iraq, data suggests more people of that region would be dying. More deaths.
Would you have not intervened in WWII becasue some of our troops would be killed. “Bomb London all you want Herr Hitler, we don’t want our boys or yours to die in the mud. Take France, take Africa, hell take us as long we have no war deaths.”
War is war. People die in wars. Many of us believe you have to fight at times. One factor in reaching that decision is the cost to fight - human and material.
So no, you don’t care that hundreds of thousands of people are dead in your name. Fine.
You like war so much, go fight one. You think they’re all ideologically identical to World War Two anyway, and you’re completely unfazed by death, so no harm no foul.
Meanwhile, those of us with morals will actually try to do something useful.
Nimrod Gently | Feb 13, 2007 2:30:26 PM
“Do you get it now? Do you understand my objection? People are dying in the mud. Who cares if Saddam killed more? The Third Reich killed 12 million people in the Holocaust, is that like the minimum atrocity now or what?”
Dugger | Feb 13, 2007 4:45:44 PM
“No. I don’t get it. You are still wrong. Emotions have taken over. War is war. People die in wars.”
Nimrod Gently, your stamina and endurance about trying to argue with a brick wall is most admirable. pedugger’s acceptable cost to fight is clearly infinite.
“Meanwhile, those of us with morals will actually try to do something useful.”
Ahh Ha!!! Morally superior. it comes out!
You have morals and the opposition doesn’t. We save more brown skinned lives. Your policy would take more, but you have morals!
Most anyone reading your posts above would agree with me on your amorality.
Here’s the casualty count that matters: 4000 dead Americans. Not to mention the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis dead or displaced.
You haven’t quite reached that many yet, but add on our boys and the Australians and Poles and what have you, and you’ve got 3381.
Dugger is comfortable with all of them being dead, because it’s a war, and it must have been necessary because Hitler existed, and Bush said the war was righteous. And because none of the three thousand, three hundred and eighty one of them are him.
Bingo. Will pedugger STFU now?
Will pigs fly over Gaza?
We have lost over 700 American contractors as well. So the nu mber is about 4000 Americans.
Not to mention the other 5000+ coalition deaths that no one keeps track of or mentions — the Iraqi security forces and police.
And none of you addressed or rebutted my point. Do I assume if ‘3,400′ is too many dead in Iraq, that 300,000 was WAY too many dead in WWII and you would have sat on the sidelines and let Hitler do his dirty work?
Answer that if you are able. Anyone.
What a bad comment, you keep assuming that Bush’s unnecessary invasion of Iraq is the same as WWII.
You fail to address the counter point that Hussein didn’t kill or cripple very many Americans.
Fuck. World. War. Two.
Chuckle.
Chuckle this.
-|–
I’m doing this as hard as I can.
Dugger chuckles at dead or crippled American soldiers.
Petition to change his username to that.