Story Comments
Posted by: Goppy 1 year, 5 months ago
This page is a permanent archive of the comment below and its replies.
To view this comment in the context of the full discussion for the story, use this link.
-
Neutral
Goppy1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I think yall are bein to ROUGH on Sean!
Hes not in COMPLETE lockstep with GeeDub.
Here are some DIRECT quotes from Sean that many of you will be surprised at.
"No goal, no objective, not until we have those things and a compelling case is made, then I say, back out of it, because innocent people are going to die for nothing. That's why I'm against it."
See? He's CLEARLY against ARBITRARY WAR!
---
OH WAIT!! He said that on April 5th, 1999 about the war in KOSOVO!
So ... Sean's world view is liek a reed in the wind ... leaning whichever way provides him the least resistance.
Hey! That's liek all Modern Day Republicans!
Reply-
Neutral
Goppy1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Oh ... here's ANOTHER quote from Sean ... it's one of my favorites.
"Why should one U.S. airman give up his life when our national security is not in imminent danger?"
Surely he must be talkin bout Iraq ...... rrrrrriiiight? After all ... Iraq was not a threat to our national security.
But alas ... he was talking (once again) about Kosovo .... Sean was OPPOSED to our nation stepping in and stopping the murderous rampage of tens of thousands of Muslims being killed at the behest of Slobodan Milosovich.
Reply-
Neutral
Goppy1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
How about THIS gem ...
On March 26th, 1999 ... Sean said:
"And we are having a president compare this to Adolf Hitler. Granted, 2,000 in a year is disgusting, despicable, if we can stop it. But let's arm the Kosovo Liberation Army instead of putting U.S. troops in harm's way."
Now SURELY Sean must be talkin bout IRAQ! Cause, as we know ... in a speech directed to Europeans ... Bush gave as a reason for action in Iraq was that Saddam was the new Hitler.
---
WRONG!
Sean was talkin bout Kosovo AGAIN!!
See?
Once again ... we see that Sean Hannity has about as much credibility as .... A Reed of Grass.
Reply-
Neutral
Goppy1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I liek THIS comment from Sean QUITE a bit.
I liek it because it mirrors nearly WORD FOR WORD something I been saying for years now .... give a listen ...
"So it seems that we're talking about a very ill-conceived military action here. And now the question is, do you go in further and deeper, or do you pull back and rethink what the strategy's going to be here, because there has really been no stated goal, mission or objective."
Sean said this on March 31, 1999.
WOW!!!! Sean seems REALLY Focused on the necessity of the war in Kosovo!
His OUTRAGE at what he calls 'ill-conceived' is REALLY strong!
Reply-
Neutral
Goppy1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Sean also made THIS comment on the same March 31st 1999 show ....
Listen.....
"Colonel, I guess this is why it's so ill-conceived from the very beginning. You know, they didn't anticipate that his popularity would rise. They didn't anticipate that he would beef up his reign of terror, if you will, against the ethnic Albanians. They didn't anticipate the refugee problem, and they didn't anticipate that they would also run out of bombs."
See?
Sean is REALLY disgusted with our Goverment for engaging in 'ill-conceived warfare ... and ESPECIALLY for not anticipating that which is ALWAYS GUARANTEED in any war .... Unintended Consequences.
------
It's really becoming quite evident to me that Sean Hannity is simply a Spokesperson for the Politics of the Right ... as Morally Vacant as they are.
Course ... when you have Morally Vacant Political Philosophy ... it dont hurt to have a Morally Vacant Info-tainer promotin the cause.
Reply-
Neutral
Goppy1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Finally ... I want to share this comment ... (be mindful there's dozens & dozens of these examples ... remember ... we are talking about a spokesperson for a Morally Vacant Political Ideeologie) ...
Listen ...
"Slobodan Milosevic is a bad guy. He's an evil man. Horrible things are happening. I agree with that. Is Bill O'Reilly then saying we go to Rwanda, Burundi, Somalia, Sudan? Where does this stop? And when you look at sheer numbers, 2,000 -- and I'm not minimizing death. It's horrible. What this man is doing with ethnic cleansing is abhorrent, but sheer numbers -- 2,000 killed in the last year versus hundreds of thousands, millions in some cases in other parts of the world. Are you saying the United States should go to all those places?"
MAN ALIVE! It's almost liek we Christian Conservatives have the consistency of JELLO!
We support war when it concerns oil fields ... but NOT when it prevets Ethnic Cleansing!
Reply
-
-
-
-
Neutral
svensun1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Keep telling YOURSELF, Goebby, that 'Iraq was not a threat to our national security."
I have no doubt that it is what you said every day, all through the 70's and 80's, about the Soviet Union, too.
Your problem is that you couldn't tell a national security threat from a neo-con! In fact, you THINK neo-cons ARE a national security threat, don't you?
Reply-
Neutral
MRCOFFEECAKE1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Yep.. They have destroyed our once proud and financially stable nation with blacklists and fear.
Point of fact: Iraq couldn't even attack Israel.
Iraq failed to remain in Kuwait, even though we told them it was ok.
Neocons have wasted money on the military and companies that benefit from war (which are called war profiteers) and people like you stand by while they screw us!
They are war mongerers because the can line their pockets at taxpayers expense and at the expense of the lives of our military.
Won't you ever learn?
You don't even qualify to be in their tax bracket..What's your excuse?
Reply-
Neutral
svensun1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Oh, no Mr Cake, Iraq COULDN"T attack Israel, that would require missiles and jet aircraft. And those aluminum cylinders that everyone got all excited about before the invasion were for URANIUM ENRICHMENT, NOT MISSILES, right? You agree with Condaleeza Rice, don't you?
My excuse? My 'excuse' is that I am a patriot and I sure as heck DO NOT want to learn arabic, and which direction Mecca is located, that's my 'excuse'.
Regarding your comment vis a vis Iraq and Kuwait, your attempt at satire is NOT funny, because it does not bear even a shred of resemblance to the truth. All truly funny comedy has at least a kernel of the truth behind it.
Reply
-
-
Neutral
djn3nunez31 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
No nuclear weapons production, no chemical weapons production, not having rebuilt his conventional military back from the staggering defeat in 1991, exactly what was the threat to our national security that was worth the live of 4100 soldiers?
But don't take my word for it listen to Rice and Powell both said the same things in 2001.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y1X-I-38lrU
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/articl...
Reply-
Neutral
jimdoze1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
How was Iwo Jima a threat to the United States? We lost 6,821 dead there in 5 weeks back in 1945... yet no one seems to have ever questioned that.
You won't tell me there were strategic reasons then, but none now in re: Iraq, to allow such carnage of our own troops, now will you?
Reply-
Neutral
Goppy1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
There WERE strategic reasons!
Saddam Hussein was in talks to turn over ALL oil contracts to the Rooskies!
That was strategically bad for GeeDub's oil buddies.
But, from a POLITICAL and WORLD BALANCE OF POWER strategy ... invading Iraq was a DISASTER for the US.
Saddam Hussein was an ardent opponent of Al Qaida. I don't know if you remember this but Al Qaida is also an enemy of the United States.
Then there is Saddam's counterweight to Iran.
Unfortunately, the leaders of Iran see us an an enemy ... and Saddam saw them as such too!
Ironically, the Wall Street Journal reported mass demonstrations in Iran after 911 IN SUPPORT of the USA! There was even speculation that a 'People's Revolution would topple the Anti-American leadership.
Course, that all changed after GW invaded Iraq .... now the Iranians wonder if they are next.
Funny how war has such unintended consequences.
Reply-
Neutral
svensun1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Keep it up, Goebby! You can spread the BIG LIE like NO OTHER!
" Saddam Hussein was an ardent opponent of Al Qaida"
Yeah, right! And your source for this is, who, David Brock?
Right, that's why Saddam had Zarquawi executed when he came to Iraq for treatment of his Afghanistan war wounds - oops, that was Abu Nidal whom he had bumped off, because he feared the US might bribe Nidal into killing HIM!
Oh, so now you think Rumsfeld was a GENIUS, going to Iraq in the 80's to provide assistance to Saddam versus Iran, do you? Don't tell your International ANSWER AND MoveOn friends you said that... ...too late, they ALL post here, too, don't they?
Oh, yes, now the Iranian people HATE us don't they, and they LOVE their ayatollahs, don't they?
And, of course, it was ALL about OIL, wasn't it? Those oil companies just couldn't WAIT to see gas cost $5 a gallon, so no one could afford it, right?
Reply
-
-
Neutral
djn3nunez31 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Iwo Jima was a threat to our forces in the Pacific because there was 25,000 or so Japanese stationed on the island. Japan attacked us on Dec 7 1941 killing 2350. We had also declared a state of war with Japan.
How many Americans were killed when Iraq attacked us on.....oh wait, they didn't attack us did they? Well that declaration of war we had against Iraq will more than suffice...wait another second, Congress didn't declare war on Iraq either. No they abdicated their constitutional responsibility and gave the President a bill where he was the one to determine if Iraq was a threat. And well of course we all know how honest that MFer was......
Reply-
-
baddad59Comment removed: Retracted by user
-
-
-
-
Neutral
disraeli1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Jim,
I think that the similarity between Iwo Jima and Iraq ends with the first letter. In that sense it's rather biblical an I for an I.
However in real world, circa 1945 "Iwo Jima was strategically important: it provided an airbase for Japanese aircraft to intercept long-range B-29 bombers and provided a haven for Japanese naval units in dire need of any support available. The capture of Iwo Jima would eliminate these problems and provide a staging area for the eventual invasion of the Japanese mainland." (source wiki)
I see no equivalent strategic value to Iraq, unless of course you would consider it a staging ground for an invasion of Saudi or Iran?
Reply-
-
-
Neutral
CRYMTYPHON1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Strategic importance?
I thought we were liberating them from dictatorship.
You seem to have no problem switching back and forth, -
we did it because we wanted to bring them freedom,
we did it because it is a strategic place to control the oil fields.
Was it a happy coincidence that there was just-cause to go to war at the same spot where it was strategic to put our troops?
Nutz. It isn't even any fun to point out the dreary hipocracy.
Death and debt take all the fun out.
Reply
-
-
-
-
Neutral
svensun1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You are taking those quotes ENTIRELY out of context. The danger that Saddam posed was not from his conventional military, or what he might do, but from what he might pass on to terrorists to use against us or others.
After 9/11, it became clear that Islamic terrorists were bent on mass murder, on killing as many Americans as possible, not just on staging attacks to capture the headlines. The best way to cause mass casualties is WMD, and the most likely place terrorists could get WMD is from a state sponsor, and Saddam was, if nothing else, an enthusiastic state sponsor of terrorism, going back to the days of Abu Nidal, one of those favored by his sponsorship.
Reply-
Neutral
djn3nunez31 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"and the most likely place terrorists could get WMD is from a state sponsor, and Saddam was, if nothing else, an enthusiastic state sponsor of terrorism,"
Even our own State Department admitted that the only para-military organizations that Saddam supported was in Palestine and Iran. Furthermore, they concluded that the groups he supported did not have access to his advanced weapons.
Saddam would never give away weapons to radical Muslims like Osama because they would just as likely use the weapons again him one day.
Besides Ronnie Raygun and GWHB were Saddams sponsors. It is because of them that Saddam had the weapons he had in the late 80's.
Reply
-
-
-
Neutral
jordan111 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Your problem is that you couldn't tell a national security threat from a neo-con! In fact, you THINK neo-cons ARE a national security threat, don't you?>>>>
I'll jump in on that one. I KNOW neocons are a national security threat!!! All anyone has to do is read what they did to the FIRST anti terrorism bill presented their Congress in the 90's. They GUTTED IT! Then they gutted the Constitution when their boy took power. Now they're obstructing EVERY piece of legislation the opposing party is trying to get through Congress. HELL YES they're a national security threat! Only a MORON wouldn't see it.
Reply -
-
-
-
loading ...
jordan11
tchef
Xaos
ConquerorWyrm
bubba2
Maui
mesodude
Blackacereturn
GWHayduke
baddad59
bluetexasvalley
TLovesTeddy
NoSpinDave
dBergeron
protoham
Post Reply
You are not signed in to Propeller.com. Please sign in to post a reply.