War and Liberals

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

There is something missing in the brain of a liberal. Possibly some chemical imbalance or mutated gene, but definitely some handicap which makes them unable to comprehend war or its consequences. Being this is the case, they are wholly incompetent in dealing with war on any level. In fact, war itself, goes against many of the very principles of liberalism. It is the antithesis of the liberals Holy Trinity... Peace, Love, and Dope!

When we look through history, the greatest liberals are not ever the greatest generals. Liberals generally don't achieve the rank of general, if they ever try, they are killed long before, because they don't comprehend war...duh. The decisions which have to be made in strategy, the strength and courage needed to send men to their death in battle, is just not something a liberal can ever get their minds around.

So it goes without saying, a Liberal Commander in Chief is never a good idea at a time of war. We can look back in American history for some prime examples of Liberal presidents botching wars, or getting us into wars we didn't need, or making the situation worse by not knowing what strategy is best, because of their mental handicap. Time and time again, we somehow manage to get into a war and then end up with a liberal president, it seems like we would have learned by now. They are not able to comprehend war, it is a mental thing with the brain! Let's just all be honest at admit this... it's like people who are born homosexuals... liberals just don't understand war.

And now, to prove my argument, we will see the parade of liberals come here to lambaste Bush and blame the war on him some more, and throw some more mud while ignoring the point of the thread. This is now considered the liberal's preferred method of response to anything pertaining to Iraq, Afghanistan, War on Terror, Radical Islam... No need in having to be embarrassed by their handicap of not comprehending war, they can deflect all criticisms by intensely focusing anger toward Bush. For years, I thought that it was strange how liberals seemed to hate Bush so much, then I figured it out, it's not personal at all... the rage is not about Bush, he could have been anyone... it's how they camouflage their mental handicap of not being able to deal with war or its consequences.

We've also seen how libs want to jump to defend radical extremists who are at war with us. They don't comprehend the war part, but they can relate to radicals, it's what they are all about. They feel this common bond with our enemies, they can see their point. Again, this stems from the lack of whatever in the brain, and is not their fault really. To the Liberal, war is not ever a necessary evil, it is always an evil that is unnecessary. It all coincides with what we have come to know as "Liberal Utopia" ...where everyone gets along and is at peace and harmony with each other... there is no more war, only love and peace... we all plant daisies and raise rainbow bunnies.

To the modern political Liberal, war has become somewhat of a novelty item. They can use it to appropriate our tax money for all kinds of things, so they like having it to justify their spending binges...lots of places to hide pork in defense contracts... and there is the public perception aspects... when the polls say staying in the war is popular, they can support it with a clear conscious, but they just don't deal with it. I was often puzzled at why liberals weren't more angry with Obama for not immediately withdrawing from Iraq, like they just knew he would... then I realized, they don't really care about the war in Iraq, as long as they can gain things politically from it. Right now, pushing through socialized health care and bailing out their contributors are more important than bringing home the troops. There is also the risk of losing votes if a withdrawal of forces caused something really bad to happen over there. So the war serves a purpose for liberals at this time, and they can justify their hypocrisy.

[Beefy]

You're up pretty late. Is Kinko's 24 hours in Alabama? Must not be too busy at 4:00 in the morning for you to have time to write this diatribe.

Is Pat Buchanan a liberal?

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

You're up pretty late. Is Kinko's 24 hours in Alabama? Must not be too busy at 4:00 in the morning for you to have time to write this diatribe.

Is Pat Buchanan a liberal?

It's not late it is early.

Pat Buchanan is not a liberal.

Any more questions, skippy?

[Beefy]

It's not late it is early.

Pat Buchanan is not a liberal.

Any more questions, skippy?

Shit, my bad. Its 5 in the AM over there.

Buchanan's take on the wars is actually quite conservative. And its one that you take effect to, placing you squarely on the left on this one. If you remove Party from the equation, where would you state you stand?

Clearly, nation building, democracy delivering, and westernizing are "progressive" ideas and we all know how "progressive" ideas can backfire. Not only how they can, but how they always do, ergo Iraq. And we all know how "progressive" ideas lead to doublespeak when they pan out differently than the intentions that lead to the ideas.

You have stated in the past that the war on Iraq is a resounding success. Mr. Orwell would be proud. Becoming a cog in the wheel, denying it at the same time, and then claiming success should have its own term in the 10th edition of Newspeak.

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Shit, my bad. Its 5 in the AM over there.

Buchanan's take on the wars is actually quite conservative. And its one that you take effect to, placing you squarely on the left on this one. If you remove Party from the equation, where would you state you stand?

I don't understand what you are trying to say, Buchanan's views on war are not equivalent to a liberals view on war. I regret that you have somehow misunderstood Buchanan or my position regarding war, but it really has nothing to do with how liberals lack the competency to deal with war.

Clearly, nation building, democracy delivering, and westernizing are "progressive" ideas and we all know how "progressive" ideas can backfire. Not only how they can, but how they always do, ergo Iraq. And we all know how "progressive" ideas lead to doublespeak when they pan out differently than the intentions that lead to the ideas.

You have stated in the past that the war on Iraq is a resounding success. Mr. Orwell would be proud. Becoming a cog in the wheel, denying it at the same time, and then claiming success should have its own term in the 10th edition of Newspeak.

I think you are confusing justification and rationale for war with handling and dealing with war as a reality of life. These are two different debates. I reject the presumptions you've made about Iraq, and the people of Iraq who now enjoy freedom and democracy, reject your presumptions as well. Although you can argue it is a form of "progressive" ideology, it is the only progressive ideology that has ever worked, instilling democracy. However, I fail to see what this has to do with liberals? They adopted the term "progressive" to avoid the stigma of being called "liberal" and not because they have a progressive foreign policy view. If anything, a liberal's foreign policy view is actually "regressive" ...America is sorry... we've done wrong... it's all our fault... we're not exceptional at all!

[Blackwater Lunchbreak]

The only war a liberal would support would be the war on white american males.

Liberalism is one side of the manipulation machine, its the "hate yourself" side, just like the right extreme of the manipulation machine is the "hate others" side.

By pulling us between these two, we are manipulated by illuminati conspirators.

[Beefy]

The only war a liberal would support would be the war on white american males.

Liberalism is one side of the manipulation machine, its the "hate yourself" side, just like the right extreme of the manipulation machine is the "hate others" side.

By pulling us between these two, we are manipulated by illuminati conspirators.

High five.

I don't understand what you are trying to say, Buchanan's views on war are not equivalent to a liberals view on war. I regret that you have somehow misunderstood Buchanan or my position regarding war, but it really has nothing to do with how liberals lack the competency to deal with war.



I think you are confusing justification and rationale for war with handling and dealing with war as a reality of life. These are two different debates. I reject the presumptions you've made about Iraq, and the people of Iraq who now enjoy freedom and democracy, reject your presumptions as well. Although you can argue it is a form of "progressive" ideology, it is the only progressive ideology that has ever worked, instilling democracy. However, I fail to see what this has to do with liberals? They adopted the term "progressive" to avoid the stigma of being called "liberal" and not because they have a progressive foreign policy view. If anything, a liberal's foreign policy view is actually "regressive" ...America is sorry... we've done wrong... it's all our fault... we're not exceptional at all!

Its getting late, and admittedly, I'm probably blowing a .18 or more. So as a matter of course, I've summed up your post to say this: "The reasons we go to war are irrelevant so long as a Republican gives them. The reason we stay at war is relevant because a Democrat is in office. Thus, the democrats suck dick."

Alls I can say is - touche'


Hackery can't be argued with any more than religion. So spare yourself the grief and just make Bush your God. That way you won't have to fight your crusade on two fronts.

[Blackwater Lunchbreak]

Beefy just jizzed in dixies face.

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Beefy just jizzed in dixies face.

You would certainly be the one to know what's going on with Beefy's jizz!

[apple0154]

There is something missing in the brain of a liberal. Possibly some chemical imbalance or mutated gene, but definitely some handicap which makes them unable to comprehend war or its consequences. Being this is the case, they are wholly incompetent in dealing with war on any level.

Quite the contrary. Liberals understand all too well the consequences of war and that's why, as you just explained,

In fact, war itself, goes against many of the very principles of liberalism. It is the antithesis of the liberals Holy Trinity... Peace, Love, and Dope!

When we look through history, the greatest liberals are not ever the greatest generals. Liberals generally don't achieve the rank of general, if they ever try, they are killed long before, because they don't comprehend war...duh. The decisions which have to be made in strategy, the strength and courage needed to send men to their death in battle, is just not something a liberal can ever get their minds around.

It's not a matter of getting their minds around it. Liberals excel at peace while Conservatives thrive on war.

So it goes without saying, a Liberal Commander in Chief is never a good idea at a time of war. We can look back in American history for some prime examples of Liberal presidents botching wars, or getting us into wars we didn't need, or making the situation worse by not knowing what strategy is best, because of their mental handicap. Time and time again, we somehow manage to get into a war and then end up with a liberal president, it seems like we would have learned by now.

Yes, it seems like we should have learned but people still vote for Conservatives and end up getting a war and then having to elect a Liberal.

And now, to prove my argument, we will see the parade of liberals come here to lambaste Bush and blame the war on him some more, and throw some more mud while ignoring the point of the thread. This is now considered the liberal's preferred method of response to anything pertaining to Iraq, Afghanistan, War on Terror, Radical Islam... No need in having to be embarrassed by their handicap of not comprehending war, they can deflect all criticisms by intensely focusing anger toward Bush. For years, I thought that it was strange how liberals seemed to hate Bush so much, then I figured it out, it's not personal at all... the rage is not about Bush, he could have been anyone... it's how they camouflage their mental handicap of not being able to deal with war or its consequences.

You're starting to get a grasp on things, although tenuous at best. No, people don't hate Bush because he's a Bush. They hate him for the death and destruction Conservatives bring.

We've also seen how libs want to jump to defend radical extremists who are at war with us. They don't comprehend the war part, but they can relate to radicals, it's what they are all about. They feel this common bond with our enemies, they can see their point. Again, this stems from the lack of whatever in the brain, and is not their fault really. To the Liberal, war is not ever a necessary evil, it is always an evil that is unnecessary. It all coincides with what we have come to know as "Liberal Utopia" ...where everyone gets along and is at peace and harmony with each other... there is no more war, only love and peace... we all plant daisies and raise rainbow bunnies.

For ages we were told the folks half way around the world wanted to interfere in our lifestyle but the reality is we have been in their countries interfering in their way of life for many, many years.

To the modern political Liberal, war has become somewhat of a novelty item. They can use it to appropriate our tax money for all kinds of things, so they like having it to justify their spending binges...lots of places to hide pork in defense contracts... and there is the public perception aspects... when the polls say staying in the war is popular, they can support it with a clear conscious, but they just don't deal with it. I was often puzzled at why liberals weren't more angry with Obama for not immediately withdrawing from Iraq, like they just knew he would... then I realized, they don't really care about the war in Iraq, as long as they can gain things politically from it. Right now, pushing through socialized health care and bailing out their contributors are more important than bringing home the troops. There is also the risk of losing votes if a withdrawal of forces caused something really bad to happen over there. So the war serves a purpose for liberals at this time, and they can justify their hypocrisy.

Again, your grasp of reality is most fragile. The damage and destruction caused by the Conservatives, who it just so happens were led by Bush, needs to be addressed.

To use an analogy if a teen damages someone's property the parent is responsible to make restitution. It's called taking responsibility. Liberals understand they can't just walk away. Not because they don't want to. It's because of what the previous administration did.

That's the reason for the delay and the debates and the "thinking it through"
time Obama has taken. He has to figure out the best way to repair the damage that has been done so as to diffuse the hatred.

///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

There is something missing in the brain of a liberal. Possibly some chemical imbalance or mutated gene, but definitely some handicap which makes them unable to comprehend war or its consequences. Being this is the case, they are wholly incompetent in dealing with war on any level. In fact, war itself, goes against many of the very principles of liberalism. It is the antithesis of the liberals Holy Trinity... Peace, Love, and Dope!

When we look through history, the greatest liberals are not ever the greatest generals. Liberals generally don't achieve the rank of general, if they ever try, they are killed long before, because they don't comprehend war...duh. The decisions which have to be made in strategy, the strength and courage needed to send men to their death in battle, is just not something a liberal can ever get their minds around.

So it goes without saying, a Liberal Commander in Chief is never a good idea at a time of war. We can look back in American history for some prime examples of Liberal presidents botching wars, or getting us into wars we didn't need, or making the situation worse by not knowing what strategy is best, because of their mental handicap. Time and time again, we somehow manage to get into a war and then end up with a liberal president, it seems like we would have learned by now. They are not able to comprehend war, it is a mental thing with the brain! Let's just all be honest at admit this... it's like people who are born homosexuals... liberals just don't understand war.

And now, to prove my argument, we will see the parade of liberals come here to lambaste Bush and blame the war on him some more, and throw some more mud while ignoring the point of the thread. This is now considered the liberal's preferred method of response to anything pertaining to Iraq, Afghanistan, War on Terror, Radical Islam... No need in having to be embarrassed by their handicap of not comprehending war, they can deflect all criticisms by intensely focusing anger toward Bush. For years, I thought that it was strange how liberals seemed to hate Bush so much, then I figured it out, it's not personal at all... the rage is not about Bush, he could have been anyone... it's how they camouflage their mental handicap of not being able to deal with war or its consequences.

We've also seen how libs want to jump to defend radical extremists who are at war with us. They don't comprehend the war part, but they can relate to radicals, it's what they are all about. They feel this common bond with our enemies, they can see their point. Again, this stems from the lack of whatever in the brain, and is not their fault really. To the Liberal, war is not ever a necessary evil, it is always an evil that is unnecessary. It all coincides with what we have come to know as "Liberal Utopia" ...where everyone gets along and is at peace and harmony with each other... there is no more war, only love and peace... we all plant daisies and raise rainbow bunnies.

To the modern political Liberal, war has become somewhat of a novelty item. They can use it to appropriate our tax money for all kinds of things, so they like having it to justify their spending binges...lots of places to hide pork in defense contracts... and there is the public perception aspects... when the polls say staying in the war is popular, they can support it with a clear conscious, but they just don't deal with it. I was often puzzled at why liberals weren't more angry with Obama for not immediately withdrawing from Iraq, like they just knew he would... then I realized, they don't really care about the war in Iraq, as long as they can gain things politically from it. Right now, pushing through socialized health care and bailing out their contributors are more important than bringing home the troops. There is also the risk of losing votes if a withdrawal of forces caused something really bad to happen over there. So the war serves a purpose for liberals at this time, and they can justify their hypocrisy.

[Topspin]

Dixie the warhawk, yet another armchair general who was too much a wuss to sign up.
weakling

[Onceler]

I think liberals comprehend war much better than you or Bush. Most liberals I know understand that you avoid war at all costs; you try to exhaust every option possible before making that decision - you treat it as a last resort.

See, if I had told you in 2003 that Iraq would be a 7+ year slog, and that we'd lose thousands of American lives, and not really make America safer at all, you're likely response would have been "LMAO, Onzies! You just sit back and watch how Republicans can run a war!" You would have laughed even harder if I had still warned you about possible pitfalls when Saddam's statue fell.

Why, it was only about a year or so ago that you were here yelling that Iraq was the "greatest military achievement of our generation!"

You don't understand war, or what it means. You're careless about it, and stupid.

[ironhead]

Strangely, to Dixie, the utopians are those who wish to see the world without war, or who at least try to support it only as a matter of last resort. The great irony, of course, is that Dixie is the greatest utopian, for two reasons: thinking that the state, via military invasion, can force cultural and cognitive change on any nation it wishes and not expect drastic unintended consequences - and (this one is the really utopian idea) that a government which engages in endless wars, policing the world can somehow be restricted to its constitutional limitations at home, that its spending and power can be kept under control. Keep dreaming, Dixie.

[Cypress]

Pixie, can you tell us that heroic story again about how you were in Iraq dodging roadside bombs and insurgents?

[Onceler]

Oh, and just to add, lest anyone forget - let's remember that it was conservatives who said things like "bring 'em on" and "we'll be welcomed as liberators," and who predicted 6 months tops for the Iraq war...