Way to Go Chamberlain

A picture is worth 1000 words; a complete funny video maybe even more. This is worth more than my 1000 words about appeasement. Here is one about Iran. This one is N. Korea. This one is off subject and OBE’d but good. Even liberals will have to admit they are funny.

We should be ready to talk to the Iranians & N. Koreans, but not expect much from them. I think the saying would be assume they are lying and verify to be sure.

Posted by Jack at December 19, 2006 5:45 PM
Comments
Comment #199835

Like most right-wing “humor” this was tin-eared and off the mark. Can’t you guys learn from Stewart, Colbert, and Trudeau? Wit can be applied creatively and artfully. This just goes clunk.

Posted by: mental wimp at December 19, 2006 6:05 PM
Comment #199838

I thought the protrayal of MA was more truer than what the MSM fed us during her time at Foggy Bottom.

Posted by: tomh at December 19, 2006 6:23 PM
Comment #199839

On the video concerning taxes.

You probably have hearn of the new federal tax form. It has only two lines.

How much did you make last year?
Send it in.

Posted by: tomh at December 19, 2006 6:25 PM
Comment #199841

Yep Jack, I have to admit that this is funny all right. Imagine the Iranians trying to appease the US given their experience of it in the past, what with the Shah and Savak and all. We won’t mention Mossadegh, for fear of rousing the devil. I’m sure that if the Iranians came back to Tehran with a piece of paper proclaiming peace in our time, they would be lynched. As Bushie said, fool me once, eh, eh eh,………

(PS, although I guess looking at the paper tiger next door, they shouldn’t really worry too much)

Posted by: Paul in Euroland at December 19, 2006 7:15 PM
Comment #199851

What you have to remember about Chamberlain as in any good performance, you must have a willing and equally stupid audience. Now the good dims of Britan and Europe are still about like they were then and it seems they exported an aboundance of it here in the good ol united states.

Are we a good audience or will we say the King has no cloths?

This is a debt we owe our Grand-children to say Bull S*&% before we step in it.

Posted by: im at December 19, 2006 8:43 PM
Comment #199859


im: At about the time that Chamberlin was doing his thing, Madison Square Garden was filled with goose stepping Nazis. When the British and French were being shoved into the sea at Dunkirk, America was jitterbuggin.

Posted by: jlw at December 19, 2006 9:58 PM
Comment #199861

jlw

What does that mean? Yes the Nazi movement was present in America (as well as in France, Britian etc) They were inflitrating many societies. They called it their fifth column.

America in 1939 thought it could just pull back from the rest of the world and ignore evil dictators.

If you are trying to make an argument for a Bush style agressive policy, it is a pretty good one, but I doubt that is your goal.

Posted by: Jack at December 19, 2006 10:16 PM
Comment #199865

Mental Wimp, agreed they are hilarious, problem is some (again some) of their satire and humor is take for reality or true. They also lean slightly left in my humble opinion.

I remember hearing that their demographic (25-40 I believe) gets their news from a combination of blogs and shows like Stewarts, Colbert. Is that a good or bad thing?

Posted by: Edge at December 19, 2006 10:35 PM
Comment #199872


These are at best sensationalistic neo-con garbage. To be honest they are in my opinion a failed attempt to lend credibility to the failed neo-con agenda thru the use of sick humor.

I think that disturbing cheap digs, might be a proper descriptive. I suppose that obstinate neo-cons in denial may see humor here. But in fact these attempts at humor serve to highlight the diplomatic weaknesses of this administration.

Posted by: Ildem at December 19, 2006 11:20 PM
Comment #199874


Jack: What I was getting at was that in hindsight, it is very easy to criticize Chamberlain. At the time, we weren’t interested in stopping Hitler either. Yes, that was a long time ago and the World was much larger and places were much farther away then.

Of course I am not making a case for Bush. In WWII, Germany and Japan were the aggressors. Today, Bush is the aggressor.

Posted by: jlw at December 19, 2006 11:37 PM
Comment #199883

Jack, that’s not nearly as funny as some of the JibJab stuff.

Seriously, what makes good satire is how close to reality it is. Unfortunately for Zucker, nobody believes Baker wants to give Iran nukes or that Albright would bake cookies for al Qaeda. This stuff just isn’t plausible, which makes it fail as comedy.

Posted by: American Pundit at December 20, 2006 1:02 AM
Comment #199898

How come, Jack, that when one argue that Bush made the wrong decision going to Iraq War in 2003 you reply that at this time he take this decision based on the information he had and it’s always easier to know afterward that before, but when it comes to Chamberlain you didn’t give him the same?

You can’t have both way.

What matter more, beside the obviously ill informed jokes you link us to, is did their decision “in fine” to go to war or peace worth it and how many people died due to their decision.

Dare to compare how many people died due to Chamberlain blind peacemongering in 1939’s Europe with how many people died due to Bush blind warmongering in 2003’s Iraq?
Dare to compare how just World War II was with how just Iraq (notice the lack of World word here, because it *does* matter - a lot) War 2003 is today?

The good thing with always trying peace *before* war is it needs only one second to shift to blind violence. Alas, it takes sometime forever in the reverse order.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at December 20, 2006 5:33 AM
Comment #199903
We should be ready to talk to the Iranians & N. Koreans, but not expect much from them. I think the saying would be assume they are lying and verify to be sure.

What about assume nothing, wrong or right, truth or lie, but check everything to be sure?
Assuming whatever is always dangerous. Let’s check. Hard. And take decisions with good knowledge.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at December 20, 2006 7:46 AM
Comment #199906

I remember hearing that their demographic (25-40 I believe) gets their news from a combination of blogs and shows like Stewarts, Colbert. Is that a good or bad thing?

Be thankful. At least they are getting news.

Posted by: bobo at December 20, 2006 8:19 AM
Comment #199911

Of course I am not making a case for Bush. In WWII, Germany and Japan were the aggressors. Today, Bush is the aggressor.

Posted by: jlw at December 19, 2006 11:37 PM

I do believe you have forgotten or just don’t know shinola. We were attacked at pearl harbor by the Japanese and Germany never raised a hand against us but we attacked Germany first in WWII.

Kosovo never attacked the United States once but Klinton bombed their infra structure such as electric stations, water, and transportation facilities killing countless colatoral damage.

As I remember, Al Queda started this dance when Klinton was president and now Bush has to clean Klintons house.

Man what a bunch of dumb… sorry jackasses.

Posted by: im at December 20, 2006 8:47 AM
Comment #199914

jlw,

“Today, Bush is the aggressor.”

The radical Islamists, led by Iran, formally declared war against the U.S. in 1979. They have been conducting war against us ever since. Most of their acts of war have gone unanswered.
Clinton’s foreign policy was a campaign of appeasement. In the Kosovo war he used our military to bring a radical Islamic narco-terrorist organization to power.
9-11 is his legacy.
The invasion of Iraq didn’t occur in a vacuum. It is one theater of operation in a global war of conquest the Islamists are conducting.
I believe the invasion of Iraq is a massive strategic blunder but it is one campaign in a larger war.
Waging war against those who have declared war against us is not aggression.
It is the Islamists who are the aggressors. They are religious zealots bent on world conquest.
I am around liberals all the time and I have to just shake my head at all the silly nonsense I hear.You just don’t get it. We are at war. Even if we had not gone into Iraq we would still be at war.

Posted by: traveller at December 20, 2006 9:31 AM
Comment #199920

AP

I agree that Albright probably doesn’t know how to bake decent cookies.

Philippe

I think Chamberlain is a lesson more than a failure. It showed the dangers of appeasement. Given the pacifist nature of W. Europe at the time, I doubt he could have done much more. By 1938, it was probably too late anyway. The Allies were not in a position to really do much.

I am sure you know the history of the time. The French advocated a tougher stand against the Nazis, but were rebuffed as unreasonable. They did not have the power to do anything unilaterally and so nothing got done.

World opinion is almost always ready to accomadate a dictator.

I understand that we cannot judge historical figures in light of subsequent events alone, but it was very bad the way Chamberlain cravenly sold the Czechs down the river, however, for temporary gain. I hope we Americans do not do the same to the Kurds.

Jlw

You have to pick up both ends of the stick. You cannot get away with saying Bush was the aggressor w/o supporting the continuing rule of Saddam Hussein AND recognizing that WHEN the inspectors found no WMD the sanctions would be off, which means restrictions are gone and no fly zones are open. I believe we would be in a war by now anyway and world support would be about as strong as it is for intervention in Darfur.

Posted by: Jack at December 20, 2006 10:59 AM
Comment #199928

im,

I do believe you have forgotten or just don’t know shinola. We were attacked at pearl harbor by the Japanese and Germany never raised a hand against us but we attacked Germany first in WWII.

Germany attacked and sunk for years US convoys supplying Europe during Battle of the Atlantic, way before US declared war to Germany.
Germany was the clear first aggressor.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at December 20, 2006 11:32 AM
Comment #199930

Oh yes Jack, this is so funny. You have such a great sense of humor. I’m sure that you must be riot at partys. About the “joke” of Iran having but not using nukes, doesn’t it remind you of how funny it is that we intertained the idea of using low yield wepons not so long ago. You scare me more than they ever could.

Posted by: Dell at December 20, 2006 11:46 AM
Comment #199931

Here’s why this isn’t funny.

The program of weapons inspections within North Korea was working. I read an article by one of the inspectors, about how he put his life in danger every day, because he knew it was keeping the world safe. The embargo with Iraq worked too. I think that’s been proven beyond any doubt at this point.

When I watch something like this, I honestly wonder if Republicans are simply fools, able to be baited by the most obvious and stupid media ploys used by their party to hook them in.

We have paid so much money and blood on this dumb, rash war that was never well planned. Please, please, let us go back to what worked. Bush Seniors plan of effectively managing risk without our having to pay these impossibly high costs. This is what would be best for the war against terror.

How you can watch something like this, at this point, and think “those dumb Dems” is beyond me. Where does your partisanship end and responsible thinking begin? I watch something like this and cringe. What a low opinion your own party (or whoever funded this) has of you.

Posted by: Max at December 20, 2006 11:52 AM
Comment #199940

Max

Re sanctions, maybe you were not paying attention in the late 1990s. I was. I recall the outrage in the Arab world and among humanitarians because “sanctions were killing 50,000 Iraqi children a year”. I do not believe that was true, but it does give a different flavor. Nobody was in favor of keeping sanctions except us, the Brits and a few of our allies. And nobody (including us) was following them to the letter.

The sanctions on Iraq worked more or less until the middle 1990s. They were coming seriously apart by 2002 and remember something very important. This is not Republican or Dem, just logical sequence. Follow the logic and the facts, not the emotion and the wishful thinking.

You and I agree that Saddam did not have WMD in 2003 (as we now know)

We must assume that inspections would have turned this up sometime in 2003 given more time. (so far so good)

IF Saddam could prove he had no WMD, the basis of sanctions disappears. Sanctions would be lifted.

W/o sanctions Saddam is no longer in the box (even the weakened one he was in 2003). We can no longer legitimately patroll no fly zones or regulate him.

What happens in 2004?

What you are not considering is that in the case of both N. Korea and Iraq, we would be dependent completely on the good will of Saddam and Kim and either was allowed to chance his mind at any time.

I think the humor is less funny when you consider that it actually does reflect many Dem mind sets.

Posted by: Jack at December 20, 2006 1:24 PM
Comment #199955

Max

The war was “never well planned”.

Lay out your war plan learned General.

What is your level of expertise that qualifies you to be a war planner?

There are so many facts concerning this war that the general public does not know that affect the effect of the war and I’m glad we don’t know them.

It is so easy to sit back with your suds and cigar and pretend you are playing war on your video machine of choice and think you are a war planner, general, special ops leader, etc.

I am tired of hearing of you pseudo “experts” knowing what is wrong, but offering nothing of constructive help to fix it.

Integrity sucks when there is no substance.

Posted by: tomh at December 20, 2006 2:43 PM
Comment #199956
What you are not considering is that in the case of both N. Korea and Iraq, we would be dependent completely on the good will of Saddam and Kim and either was allowed to chance his mind at any time.

When did North Korea start testing missiles? Under Clinton’s plan or Bush’s (remove inspectors)…. nuff said.

As far as needing to be an expert to know there was no planning for Iraq…. Even a five year old would know enough to send enough troops and have a plan B in place for things not going one’s way.

Posted by: Max at December 20, 2006 2:58 PM
Comment #199958

Germany attacked and sunk for years US convoys supplying Europe during Battle of the Atlantic, way before US declared war to Germany.
Germany was the clear first aggressor.


Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at December 20, 2006 11:32 AM


Now that you know what aggression really is or at least what is is, you will agree with traveler that Radical Islam and Iraq under Saddam was Radical Islam support, we are at war not just jitterbugging our time away.

Seems Iraq is justified. We are helping our allies and putting dumb.. sorry, traitorous jackasses like yourself on notice.

Posted by: im at December 20, 2006 3:13 PM
Comment #199959

It is not enough said. But I do not think I can make you understand.

I can understand how you feel, because I used to think things worked the way you do. But the more experience I got, the more I began to understand delayed responses and how we should be more interested in capabilities than intentions when dealing with dictators.

Maybe someday…

Posted by: Jack at December 20, 2006 3:15 PM
Comment #199960

im and Phillipe

And Germany declared war on the U.S. thereby saving FDR the trouble.

But it is hard to really identify aggressors even in the most “clear cut” situations.

The U.S. ship sunk by the Germans was the destroyer U.S.S. Reuben James. It was escorting convoys headed for Britain, maybe no exactly a neutral task.

Posted by: Jack at December 20, 2006 3:19 PM
Comment #199961
We are helping our allies and putting dumb.. sorry, traitorous jackasses like yourself on notice.

I may not speak for everyone else here, but I for one would appreciate it if you could tone down the personal attacks on others. If you have something thoughtful to say, say it. If you want to call people names, go elsewhere. Thank you.

Posted by: Dr D at December 20, 2006 3:26 PM
Comment #199969

Those videos are sort of funny to me, because I know it’s hogwash.

What is sad is that some people really believe those things, and for them, it fuels the distracting, divisive, circular, petty partisan warfare. Too many blind party loyalists are all too happy to wallow in the partisan warfare.

It’s a wonderful distraction, since we can’t any longer use religion, or race, or gender, or color. So, a new detractor had to be invented (i.e. partisan warfare). It is wonderfully effective at pitting Americans against each other, without them realizing how they are being manipulated. Smart people too, proving how truly clever and effective it really is.

It pits Republican voters and Democrat voters against each other, while neither seem to notice that the politicians in our DO-NOTHING CONGRESS are not solving any problems (and creating some new ones, and making some even worse; e.g. like starting unnecessary wars based on non-existent WMD, etc.).

The funny part about one video are the claims by one party that the other party is fiscally irresponsible, and spends too much. Then one video makes out like the Democrats want to over tax everyone into the poor house, when both Dems and Repubs created the ridiculously perverted tax system we have now, and neither want true fair tax reform. Why is everything that is screwed up the OTHER parties fault? Especially since both parties are merely taking turns? Are we to conclude that Congress, as a whole, is dysfunctional? Are we to conclude that Congress, as a whole, provides no net benefit to society, if it creates more problems than it resolves? We should draw that conclusion, but we don’t. Instead, voters reward irresponsible incumbent politicians by repeatedly re-electing them.

What the Dem and Repub incumbent politicians say, and the contrasting results we all see of what they actually do are completely two different things … what Dem and Repub Congress persons actually do are are very similar.

In the mean time, we all dwell on what they say, instead of what they do, and fail to ever see the difference. And, what they are doing (especially lately, Dems and Repubs alike) is either nothing or worse than nothing. Future generations are being screwed in a lot of ways, but they either don’t have a clue, or don’t care, or have been also been seduced into the circular, distracting petty partisan warfare.

Regarding fiscal irresponsibility, how much more debt can we run up on future generations ?
So, what does next year look like ?

Posted by: d.a.n at December 20, 2006 4:26 PM
Comment #199977

Philippe and im,

Germany attacked and sunk for years US convoys supplying Europe during Battle of the Atlantic, way before US declared war to Germany. Germany was the clear first aggressor.

More importantly, Germany declared war on us BEFORE we attacked them. Japan bombed us, so we declared war on Japan. Then Germany declared war on us (since they were allied with Japan). THEN we attacked Germany.

Posted by: Rob Cottrell at December 20, 2006 6:23 PM
Comment #199982

Thanks Rob, I was beginning to wonder if anyone here had read a history book, or if we have officially declared it make up your own history to fit your opinion month.

Posted by: gergle at December 20, 2006 6:53 PM
Comment #199985
But the more experience I got, the more I began to understand delayed responses and how we should be more interested in capabilities than intentions when dealing with dictators.

That’s what Clinton’s inspections and Bush seniors embargo did - limit capabilities. All Bush has done is limit ours. Sigh - I don’ expect you to ever get it either. If you don’t see Bush for what he is at this point, you’re hopeless.

Posted by: Max at December 20, 2006 7:07 PM
Comment #199986

Elephant in the room: none of the videos showed any hint of humor. No wit, no timing, no double meaning, no artistry, nothing. Nada. A college student could do better. They are heavy-handed, didactic, and sophomoric. They entertain the righties because they think they are true. But humor? No.

Posted by: Mental Wimp at December 20, 2006 7:14 PM
Comment #199987


Jack: Why is there a need for me to pick up both sides of the stick when the other side is speculation by you based primarily on the same kind of faulty information that got us into Iraq.

Posted by: jlw at December 20, 2006 7:17 PM
Comment #200002

Rob wrote; Germany attacked and sunk for years US convoys supplying Europe during Battle of the Atlantic, way before US declared war to Germany. Germany was the clear first aggressor.

So Rob and all else who say we should be out of Iraq and WWII was a just war because we were attacked and war declared on us.

I believe that Sadam declared war on us and has anyone forgotten that he had been shooting land to air missles at our planes in the no fly zone for years while clinton did nothing which is an act of war.

Germany attacked our interest, Japan attacked our country and the axis powers declared war on us, so we are now doing what we did in WWII.

So you all say we should not be in Iraq then how do you suggest we kill our enemies?

What is your plan?

I wonder where Iran got the accelerated Nuclear plan and where did syria get the qasam rockets raining down on Israel? Seems like it all started just before we attacked Iraq and the wmds were shipped to Iran and syria.

Heads in the Sand.

sorry for calling you all dumb.. sorry you know what i mean. Now apologize for what you call Bush.

Posted by: im at December 20, 2006 9:12 PM
Comment #200005

Max

Just read the history of sanctions. Then we can talk.

Mental

Sorry you don’t like it. My kids like “Family Guy” and I cannot see it.

Jlw

Because it is important to understand that there is no zero option. You make choices among options, sometimes among less than optimal ones. If you have an operation that removes a cancer growth, concentrating only on the pain of the operation or the scar it leaves probably does not tell the whole story.

This part requires no speculation. Just answer the questions.

Did Saddam have WMD?
The sanctions were in place why?
If Saddam could prove he had not WMD, would sanctions continue?

Now you can speculate about what Saddam would have done w/o sanctions. If you love and trust him, give him the benefit of the doubt. Given his long record, I would not expect too much.

Posted by: Jack at December 20, 2006 9:43 PM
Comment #200009
Even liberals will have to admit they are funny…Posted by Jack at December 19, 2006 05:45 PM
Ummm, No. Not funny. It’s truly sad that anyone could find humor in such nonsense. The videos had no redeeming or creative quality. No requirement to think, no parody or exageration or stereotyping or any tool of comedy. Just simplistic regurgitated talking point gibberish exampling how Annhole can make a living. Posted by: Dave1-20-2009 at December 20, 2006 10:17 PM
Comment #200011

Just substitute Condi for MA, then all you lefties, liberals, etc. would be rolling down the aisles like holyrollers at a revival.

Typical southpaw approach.

Posted by: tomh at December 20, 2006 10:32 PM
Comment #200013

tomh,

Ummm, no. Not funny even if you picked Aziz as the alt.

Here’s a question for you: Who would you prefer as a daughter: Jenna Bush or Chelsea Clinton, and why?

Posted by: Dave1-20-2009 at December 20, 2006 11:21 PM
Comment #200014

I will answer your question when you give the answer to the proverbial question of, when did you stop beating your wife?

There family tree and genetic code is different enough from mine that I would want neither one for a daughter. I have a daughter and she is just fine.

Posted by: tomh at December 20, 2006 11:28 PM
Comment #200016


Did Sadam have WMD? Yes, prior to and shortly after the Gulf War.

Were most if not all of his WMD destroyed shortly after the Gulf War?

The sanctions were in place why? Partly for his past deeds, but primarily to insure his cooperation in the continued destruction of any remaining WMD and facilities for continued manufacturing of WMD especially Nuclear and to varify through inspections that he was complying. Did he obstruct the inspectors and try to avoid complyance? Yes, he did but, Clinton threatened and did punish Sadam for his noncomplyance and the inspectors kept at it doggedly even though Sadam interupted the process on more than one occasion.

Did Bush interrupt this process and order the inspectors out of Iraq when they were very close to accomplishing their objectives?

Did Bush use terrible, cooked by Cheney intelligence to justify his actions and his invasion?

If Sadam could prove he had no WMD, would sanctions continue? First, it wasn’t a matter of Sadam proving he had no WMD, it was a matter of us varifying that he had no WMD. If the inspectors had been given the opportunity to varify that he didn’t have WMD then yes, we could assume that UN sanctions would have been lifted but, we can’t be certain of that because had Bush posed the option to the UN that it is either sanctions of war, then there is the possibility that the sanctions would have stayed in place especially considering that good profits were being made off of the food for oil deal. Obviously, Sadam wasn’t using his cut for WMD.

Now, we can speculate all we want about what he may or may not do if the sanctions were lifted. However, your suggestion that we could either roll over and let him rub our bellies till we were asleep or invade is very much untrue. For instance, Bush has shown that he has no more compunction when it comes to violating international law than Sadam did and had he wanted to maintain the no fly zones which were more to protect the Kurds and Shia, he could have ask Congress for a resolution to do so and I think they would have complied with his request. We could have continued to keep a rather close eye on him and more importantly, we could have made it perfectly clear that if we discovered any evidence that he was trying to restore his facilities or stockpiles, it would be his demise. Ditto for any evidence that he was in anyway aiding radical Islamist. I realize that this would be very hard to do, especially given the tyrants past.

Did any of us or most of the Iraqis want Sadam to stay in power? Absolutely not, given what has happened though, most of us and them would have accepted it at least in the short term.

As to the war option, Bush was just not up to the task. He let Cheney who for all of his supposed knowledge, turned out to be a pathetic jerk, along with Cheney’s little platoon of neocons convince him that they knew better than our field commanders when it comes to conducting a war. The results, as you well know, have been disasterous for our objectives in the Middle East as well as the people of Iraq. We got what we paid for or should I say what we haven’t paid for.

If you are going to pose the question should we have left Sadam in power or let Bush and the neocons do what they did, we would have been better off to have left Sadam in power.

If the question is, should we have let Sadam stay in power or let our field generals have what they need to win the war and secure the peace so that our objectives could have been achieved then the answer is equally obvious.

Posted by: jlw at December 20, 2006 11:54 PM
Comment #200017


tomh: When it comes to thinking, it has been scientifically proven that southpaws think faster than righties especially when it comes to reacting in critical situations.

Posted by: jlw at December 20, 2006 11:59 PM
Comment #200018


Jack: I posted my answers to your questions just above. I forgot to address them to you.

Posted by: jlw at December 21, 2006 12:03 AM
Comment #200021

tomh,

Then: Is your daughter more like Jenna (a druggie alkie failure sleeps around) or more like Chelsea (studious brilliant succesful monogamous)? bwaaawkk!

Posted by: Dave1-20-2009 at December 21, 2006 12:24 AM
Comment #200031

Whatever Jenna and Chelsea are, they are private citizens who have not elected to enter the public arena. They should be left alone.

Posted by: Paul in Euroland at December 21, 2006 8:12 AM
Comment #200034

jlw

Good thoughtful responses.

But you reveal something interesting that you might notice when you reread.

We agree that sanctions would come off and then you assume that Saddam would be kept in check BECAUSE of Bush’s continued agression.

Posted by: Jack at December 21, 2006 8:57 AM
Comment #200036

Ummm, No. Not funny. It’s truly sad that anyone could find humor in such nonsense. The videos had no redeeming or creative quality. No requirement to think, no parody or exageration or stereotyping or any tool of comedy. Just simplistic regurgitated talking point gibberish exampling how Annhole can make a living. Posted by: Dave1-20-2009 at December 20, 2006 10:17 PM

That is why they were made so you and all libs could understand. It is what you go through each day. without your tape recorder you would all die. Breath in, Breath out. sure hope your batteries are good.

as far as no redeeming value it sounds like the Dims change in direction. I hear the French are taking the Dims approach in Afghanistan, they are pulling their troops out. withdrawal is something the dims seem to suffer from.

Posted by: im at December 21, 2006 9:24 AM
Comment #200038

Dave1-20-09

Why is my daughter part of your concern on this post?

There is no comparison of my daughter to the aforementioned young ladies.

Therefore it is none of your damn business.

Posted by: tomh at December 21, 2006 9:53 AM
Comment #200041

Jack,

Judging from the responses on this thread, your attempt at “humour” seems to be playing well in the trailer parks all accross America.

What is truly funny is the unintended irony shown in each video.

Someone earlier said something about “cleaning Bin Laden’s closet”. Five years later, and how many trillions of dollars, and we seem no closer to catching him.
Just a thought, how much more “collateral damage”, and how many more trillions will it take to actually find him?

On the “war plan”;

Any 10 year old that has played “Risk” could have done it better.

All of you guys keep bringing up WW2;

When did we start securing areas taken during that war?
Did we start the construction before or after the actual fighting stopped?

Posted by: Rocky at December 21, 2006 10:04 AM
Comment #200043

tomh,

Wow, I was always taught to never underestimate an opponent, but you really don’t know, do you?

Posted by: Dave1-20-2009 at December 21, 2006 10:51 AM
Comment #200048

Dave1-20-2009

Don’t know what? You are not making sense.

Don’t respond. It is going off topic.

Posted by: tomh at December 21, 2006 12:08 PM
Comment #200056

im,

Seems like withdrawl is something many neocon ancestors should have practiced. The world would be a much safer and happier place.

tomh,

“Not making sense” because it’s obvious you just don’t get it, maybe next time…

Posted by: Dave1-20-2009 at December 21, 2006 12:43 PM
Comment #200077

Mental Wimp, Dave 1,

Please, you guys, lighten up. If you don’t find the humor in the action, at least admit the impersonator of Madame Albright is a doll! She should win an Academy Award, or something of that nature. She is surely more deserving of reward than Al Gore in his comical documentary of Global Warming.

JD

Posted by: JD at December 21, 2006 2:06 PM
Comment #200085

JD,

Sorry, the videos were just stupid, not humorous.

Posted by: Dave1-20-2009 at December 21, 2006 2:57 PM
Comment #200086

JD,

Perhaps one of us isn’t seeing the big picture, and I can assure you it isn’t me.

The problem is that some people see this fluff as truth, and it is about as far from the truth as it gets.
This is a lame, no, sophomoric attempt to paint Democrats with one huge brush.

Typical Republican hyperbole.

It makes me wonder if there is one creative bone in the entire Republican party.

Or is this truly as good as you guys get?

Posted by: Rocky at December 21, 2006 2:58 PM
Comment #200105

Rocky

Have you not seen how President Bush is portrayed on various liberal media or how they handle religious people?

Posted by: Jack at December 21, 2006 5:18 PM
Comment #200111

Jack,

What kind question is that?

Posted by: Rocky at December 21, 2006 5:34 PM
Comment #200114

Jack,

There has been a constant litany of insults and criticism leveled at the “liberal press” for at least a decade.
Not to mention the constant use of the word “liberal” itself as an insult.

These seem to be the worst of “Saturday Night Live”, and they’re just not very funny.

You posted this crap, and you brought out the meat eaters that think we should just “nuke’em all”, and you will just have to suffer the slings and arrows that come as a result.

As I said before, you can cut the stench of irony in these videos with a knife.

Perhaps there are those that can’t see that, but surely you should, and I expect better.

Posted by: Rocky at December 21, 2006 5:52 PM
Comment #200115

Well, for all you thin skin liberals maybe this will help you towards this Christmas Season.

Try this site:

www.ChristmasWishMovie.com

Posted by: tomh at December 21, 2006 6:00 PM
Comment #200116

Rocky

My point is that I can sometimes enjoy the satire aimed at Republicans. Most of it is not true. It is sometimes funny. For example, Michael Moore makes funny films. They are only vaguely connected to reality, but they are funny. Al Franken is not funny, but that is not because of his material.

You know that if we had the same kind of satire involving George Bush, liberals would love it. In fact, since you mention Saturday Night Live, you could easily have seen something like that.

Posted by: Jack at December 21, 2006 6:05 PM
Comment #200117

Jack,

I stopped watching “Saturday Night Live” when it became stopped being funny back in the eighties.

While I enjoyed “Roger and Me”, I find Moore’s films to be overbearing, and not very entertaining.

I have met Franken twice, and he can be engaging, and though some of his material is also overbearing, I found “Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot” hysterical.

Where is George Carlin or even Pogo when we truly need them?

Posted by: Rocky at December 21, 2006 6:21 PM
Comment #200121

Have you ever seen Cartoon Network Adult Swim? Some is very funny; some if very bad, but it is all weird. My kids watch it. It must be a generational thing

Posted by: Jack at December 21, 2006 6:36 PM
Comment #200123

Jack,

“Have you ever seen Cartoon Network Adult Swim”

No.

I watch “South Park” occasionally, and enjoy “Futurama” when I can find it.

Most of what passes for comedy today I find insipid, sophomoric, insulting, or even down right offensive.
I’m not some fuddy-duddy, I do enjoy Lewis Black, and sometimes even Dennis Miller.

Satire to me should be intelligent, biting and, hopefully it will force you to think, which is why I found Zucker’s videos lame.

Posted by: Rocky at December 21, 2006 6:55 PM
Comment #200128

Jack,

Another thing that bothers me about this thread is that any time any one evens mentions the word “negotiate” any more, somebody starts to rail about Chamberlain.

Well, we have to negotiate with Iran, and North Korea. We now have no choice as our intrepid leaders squandered any kind of advantage we had by screwing the pooch in Iraq.

Saddam signed away his life after the Gulf War because he had no choice. He had just had his ass handed to him by the largest coalition of countries the world had ever put together. He had to accept “oil for food”, and the “no fly zones”, because he had no choice.

We don’t have those options with Iran.
Iran has a lot of the most valuable commodity on the face of the planet, they can sell it to whoever they want, and there isn’t squat we can do about it.

According to our own CIA, Iran can put together a 21 million man army, 25 million if they conscript all available people of fighting age.

Look it up, the information is there.

If we make the mistake of taking on Iran, we will have to rain down hell on them.
We will have to make “shock and awe” look like a picnic, and frankly I don’t think Mr Bush has the balls to do that, and the world probably won’t back us this time.

Posted by: Rocky at December 21, 2006 9:46 PM
Comment #200131

someone once asked if prostitutes had babies. sure they do, where do you think dave1-20-2009 came from.

Posted by: im at December 21, 2006 9:57 PM
Comment #200133

im,

Why do you bother to waste our time and bandwith with crap like that?

Please, let me be the first to invite you to go elsewhere.

Posted by: Rocky at December 21, 2006 10:00 PM
Comment #200136

Rocky

I do not think we should invade Iran. The Iran problem is not solvable at this time, but conditions may allow a solution a year or two from now.

Posted by: Jack at December 21, 2006 10:29 PM
Comment #200138

Jack,

Curiously, a year or two from now Iran ceases to be Mr. Bush’s problem.

Serendipity maybe?

Posted by: Rocky at December 21, 2006 10:35 PM
Comment #200147

Jack: In my reply to your questions, I did not speculate on what Saddam would or would not do if sanctions were lifted. I believe that your assumption is that Saddam’s past agression was conclusive evidence that future agression was a given and therefore, preemptive agression by Bush, was warranted before Saddam’s future agression was manifest. I suggested that options other than all out war could have been attempted.

I think your assumptions about Saddam are classic neocon. What do we really know about Saddam and what can we assume from it. We know that Saddam, just like virtually every Arab and or Muslem leader at one time another has rattled his saber at Israel and or the United States. We know that he attacked Israel during the Gulf War in a desperate attempt to draw Israel and Arab nations into it. We know that he briefly invaded Saudi Arabia under the pretext of driving the Americans out of the holy land in an equally desperate attempt to make it a holy war. We know that before the Gulf War, after his invasion of Kuwait, we vehemently protested his actions and demanded his immediate withdraw. Although it was given very little credence, Saddam claimed that the U.S. had deliberately mislead him into believing that we would acquiesce if he reclaimed that part of Iraq known as Kuwait. As far as internal politics goes, we know that Saddam was an above average brutal and sadistic dictator.

I think that a pretty safe bet would be that the most important thing in the World to Saddam is Saddam and his position. This implies, to me at least, that Saddam was not beyond approach if we assured him that his position was not in jeopardy and that we would pretty much overlook his brutal agression against his own people. The two most important interests we have in Iraq are oil and Israel. That is basically the deal we offered him and even let him crush the uprising we instigated to show our good intentions. Even after the stupid assassination attempt on the former President Bush, Clinton slapped his hand but stuck to the offer.

The offer was still on the table until George Bush anounced that Dick Cheney had found him a vice presidential candidate. You know Jack, If Dick Cheney was half as smart as he thinks he is, he would have probably figured out that he could manipulate Saddam and the Iraqi People easier than he did Bush and the American People. Why, who knows what might have come from that. We might be discussing how American airpower had been the decisive factor in the 2nd Iran Iraq War.

Posted by: jlw at December 22, 2006 1:43 AM
Comment #200170

Rocky at December 21, 2006 10:00 PM

We need to be kind to the mentally deficient. Although we can certainly laugh at the evil ones among them, since they’re incompetent and can’t understand what a joke they are anyway…

Happy holidays…

BTW, Jack. I’m curious what “conditions” you refer to in regards to invading Iran. Do you mean security in our oil supplies? A defeat of the Iraqi insurgency and an end to their civil war? A world wide acceptence of the BushNeocon agression approach to world politics? I’m truly interested in your perspective on that since you’re an intelligent if severely misdirected guy. (no sarcasm included this time :-)

Posted by: Dave1-20-2009 at December 22, 2006 10:09 AM
Comment #200200

Dave1

I am reactive to conditions. I am not sure what those conditions will be, but may recognize them. I am actually not thinking in terms of an invasion of Iran. I do not think that is practical under any likely conditions. What I am thinking of is internal problems IN Iran.

I know that it might just be my bias (give a man a hammer and everything looks like a nail) but when I see Iran today, it looks more like Poland 1975 (of course a worse version) than Iraq in 2003.

You have a nationalistic people who are out of step with their neighbors and ostensible allies, a cohesive culture, limited (but some) possibilities for democracy and a rotten system running the show. The chances of an Iran like this staying stable for very long are small. We need to be able to flow with the options as they present themselves.

BTW - an attack on Iran would be the worst possible scenario at this time. It would accomplish nothing except the destruction of this nascent change.

Us war mongers only monger war when we think it might work. We prefer the tools of peace, such as guile and deception. It is better for business. We just do not have much use for pacifists who insist on renouncing what we hope not to use, but want to keep anyway.

Posted by: Jack at December 22, 2006 2:15 PM
Comment #200213

Why not let the Iranians take down the bastard? They seem to do a good enough job of it already!

According to this article, published Dec. 20th, Ahmedinejad was heckled into cutting short a speech he was given, and the pursuing protestors had his security detail so rattled as they were getting him away that four of their vehicles had accidents driving away.

This ties in rather nicely with my post just the day before. The last thing we need to do is give this idiot the excuse he needs to rally the country behind. Keep the pressure on and let this idiot drag the Mullah’s down with him. When somebody’s running for the edge of the cliff, you don’t need to push them off. Just encourage them to keep on going.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at December 22, 2006 5:23 PM
Comment #200239

Stephen Daugherty,

Did you ever think that the so-called quagmire in Iraq with terrorists getting their butts kicked, and civilians getting caught between the fire may be causing some of those more moderate Iranians to think twice about messing with the U.S. and dragging their country into the same? Looks like the Bush strategy may be working. Perhaps, the Iranians are trying to lock their President in a closet to keep his mouth shut as fast as the Democrats locked John Kerry in a closet when he tried to embarrass Bush and the troops! Too bad he doesn’t have the MSM to salvage his remarks like Kerry had.

JD

Posted by: JD at December 23, 2006 4:38 AM
Comment #200243

Jack,

The Iran video was funny and fair.

The North Korea video didn’t make any freakin’ sense. NK developed nukes under Bush’s watch. The USS Cole and embassy attacked happened under Clinton’s watch, but they had nothing to do with NK.

Posted by: Woody Mena at December 23, 2006 10:49 AM
Comment #200245

WM

It takes more than a couple years for a backward country like N. Korea to develop the expertise and buy the technologies to develop nuclear weapons. They could not have done it if they started in 2001.

I really do not know what to do about N. Korea. I do know that the Clinton/Albright policy was not the answer.

Re the video, It was not only about North Korea. It was meant as a general criticism of the idea that we can be nice to some people.

Posted by: Jack at December 23, 2006 11:08 AM
Comment #200253

Jack,

Here’s a detail analysis of the Clinton, Bush, and NK:

http://www.slate.com/id/2151354/

Posted by: Woody Mena at December 23, 2006 2:53 PM
Comment #200409

JD-
I don’t know whose spin you’re listening to, but you’d do well to get up to date on a few facts. Al-Qaeda virtually owns al-Anbar province now. Moqtada al-Sadr can openly defy Prime Minister Malaki and potentially collapse the coalition that keeps him in power, even while the guy leads his Shia militia in keeping the sectarian violence going on his end.

The question is, did we need a war in Iraq to be intimidating, much less one that is widely viewed as a failure across party lines? No. If we had defeated the Taliban and al-Qaeda once and for all, that would have sent a clear enough signal. So too would showing up on their doorstep with our massive armies fresh, and our financial resources intact.

Instead we show up in such a way that the Iranian government knows that we can’t sustain a fight. When we attack, they wait us out, and we’re forced by money and readiness problems to take a less than ideal resolution to the situation, you’ll not only have united people behind the Mullahs, but will have given them a moral victory, even if everything else is in pieces.

Liberal-bait all you want to, but it doesn’t change the fact that Bush has a real problem with getting things done right, done permanently, before he moves on to the next problem. I’m sure you have a wonderful excuse for why five years have passed and the man who ordered the destruction of the twin towers is still at large.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at December 26, 2006 1:09 PM
Comment #200998

Stephen Daugherty,

I just took what you wrote and applied some context to why the people of Iran may be reacting this way to their President. Not spin, just believing what you wrote!

JD

Posted by: JD at December 31, 2006 3:27 PM
Post a comment