Redstate

in March 2003 when they refused to allow Iraq to be invaded from Turkey?

"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling

then he may still be in one now.

lesterblog.blogspot.com

Dude. You know how difficult it is to get those people thinking about foreign policy as a relevant topic in its own right, instead of as a mechanism with which to push domestic issues...

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

"It's not surprising that this President condones torturing prisoners and killing civilians given that he won't even acknowledge massacres that have taken place in the past."

I second that -- this is a prime example of where the President needs to use the bully pulpit. More soldiers will be killed if the supply of “MRAP” -- mine-resistant, ambush-protected -- vehicles designed to save the lives of American troops. See Jed Babbin's article in Human Events http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=22840. Guess Pelosi is showing her support of the troops by denying them life-saving vehicles.

www.scottbomb.com
Click here to donate to the Fred Thompson campaign.

http://www.modernconservative.com/

Jack Savage, you are exactly right. Enough with the "new tone." Call this what it is!

We do that today, pointing out that Democrats want to bring the troops home....in coffins.

Know you didn't mean it that way, but that's how it came out. :)

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

By that I mean the 'national Democratic apparatus', which, BTW includes the establishment media and Arlen Specter.

But certainly not Moe's mom.

It's war -- so when can we start shooting back at the enemy Democrats?

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

That comment is all worthless blather. The only point here is that Miss Nancy and the Ds are doing their level best to cut off a resupply route to our troops in Iraq. This stupid resolution has NOTHING to do with genocide. It has everything to do with finding new ways to hinder the war effort.

Turkey has their own internal problems and has cross border issues with some Kurds in Iraq. So what. This resolution doesn't do anything to help solve those issues, it's absolutely nothing more than throwing salt in an open wound.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

As usual you completly miss the point.

Tell me how a non-binding resolution makes the situation worse. And explain why Turkey cooperating with Iran is something the US should support.

And explain why Republican Senator Dole wasn't undermining the first Gulf War effort when he started his Armenian campaign in 1990 and Turkey let the US use their Incirlik Air Base to launch the initial air invasion of Iraq in 1991.

that Turkey's actions had no material effect on the Iraq invasion plans. That pretty much says it all.

That is my point, Senator Dole's campaign to pass an Armenian Genocide resolution did not effect Turkey's decission to allow the US to launch the Gulf War of 1991. There is no indication that the non-binding resolution currently sponsored would prompt Turkey to cut off our supply routes through their country now.

The request was to explain why there would be a difference.

In your point #3 that I commented about, you glibly said it created no problems in 2003 because plans were adjusted. That argument would apply to anything. France and Spain didn't let us use their airspace when Reagan bombed Libya, so plans were adjusted. Does that mean it wasn't a problem for us? Plans will always be adjusted for whatever conditions are in place at that time. Your reply to my comment talked about 1991, so you're all over the map (or maybe I should say all over the calendar).

I don't really care who was doing what for what reason 15 or 20 years ago. Do you really think that the purpose of Nancy Pelosi's driving this resolution is because:
a) in her heart she believes it's the most important issue the House can discuss, even though it has no impact on American law, which is the raison d'etre for Congress, or
b) because she knows it will embarrass President Bush and make it harder to continue the war?

If the Turkish government is sufficiently upset by this to stop letting us ship supplies to Iraq through their country - and, again, there is precedent for them reacting to third-country resolutions - American troops will end up being at increased risk.

Now, you may not think that this will happen - the Democratic leadership agrees with you - and you may take the position that it happening is an acceptable risk. But please don't pretend that it hasn't been spelled out, over and over again, that this is a concern.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

I fully understand the point you are making but it is an over reaction. The precedent you reference is about France and they voted to make it illegal for anyone to denounce the Armanian Genocide and all Turkey did was break off military contacts and canceled some, not all, military contracts. The US is talking about a non-binding resolution.

But if this is your position, do you fault Senator Dole for endangering the troops during the first Gulf War and the No Fly Zone operations?

And how come no one has a problem with Turkey helping out Iran?

The issue is whether the Turks will compromise our logistics chain, not whether such compromising would be an overreaction.

I know that you believe that you have a killer argument there wrt Senator Dole, but stop admiring it for thirty seconds and join the rest of us in this conversation. It's bad enough that the Democrats apparently haven't.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

The issue mostly being discussed here is about how much the Democrats are undermining our position in Iraq. I am just trying to point out that this is a biased and overblown position based on the political history of the genocide resolution and Turkey's previous reactions.

Not to harp on it, but if you dont believe Senator Dole endangered the troops in 1991 then why do you believe the same issue now is somehow different?

And, why does no one care that the Turks are siding with Iran?! Isn't that a big snub? Shouldn't we take but the tiniest of political retribution?

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

Its not a hard question, do you think Dole endangered the troops by backing an Armenian genocide resolution, while our military was using Turkish facilities to fight in Iraq?

Here this one might be easier, Should the US send a political message to Turkey about their recent dealings with Iran? If not, why? and if so, in what form?

because you ignore clear and obvious answers.

1. It would appear from a historical view that nothing Dole did had any effect. It was also 15 years ago and times change.

2. It appears that THIS PARTICULAR RESOLUTION will have an impact on being able to supply troops thru Turkey. And since it's this particular resolution, at this particular moment in time that we are talking about, it matters a whole lot.

3. You want to "do" something to Turkey for talking to Iran, then do it back channel. We don't have to jeopordize our military supply lines to talk to them. And, BTW, it's the Administration's job to do that not the idiots in Congress.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

But you know, the trolls wouldn't have anybody to troll if guys like us weren't hear to scream and bang our heads on the keyboard trying to get through to them, heh.

HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Let's nominate the Nash Equilibrium for President.

...lose the attitude.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

You are a stark raving idiot.

1. I don't recall a flap over Dole's resolution, but if it had been an issue at the time, I'd have exactly the same opinion. Shut up and go back to Kansas. With respect to what's different now? The Turks seem willing to shut down supply lines this time. That's a big difference if you have the ability to think about it.

2. With respect to Turkey doing anything with Iran, first of all it's a non-issue with respect to us moving supplies through Turkey. They are mutually exclusive. I'm not real happy about it, but they aren't saying that the Mullahs told them to shut down their ports to us. And should we take retribution? No. Not if it interferes with movement of supplies to the troops.

3. With respect to your stupidity about the quality of an ally that Turkey has historically been, again it's a non-sequetuer. We're dealing with one and only one issue here: MOVING SUPPLYS TO OUR TROOPS IN IRAQ THROUGH TURKEY. Go get that tattooed on your arm in red ink.

4. You are an idiot. Thanks for playing.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

1. Well there was quite an upset over Senator Dole's resolution. And your "Shut up and go back to Kansas" attitude was shared by many Democrats who stood up and took exactly your position.

"It was the second day that the Senate has considered the resolution, which is being sponsored by Senator Bob Dole of Kansas, the Republican leader. Theleader of the opposition is Robert C. Byrd, a West Virginia Democrat who has made a series of emotional pleas not to have Turkey condemned.

Mr. Dole's resolution has touched off a fierce lobbying struggle that features the Turkish Government, Armenian groups, American companies that do business in Turkey, historians and former officials of the Reagan Administration. There were accusations, later denied, that the Israeli Embassy is urging American Jewish groups to oppose the resolution. Turkey and Egypt are the only Muslim countries to have diplomatic relations with Israel.

As a candidate in 1988, President Bush said the United States should acknowledge the ''attempted genocide of the Armenian people'' and pledged that his Administration ''would never allow political pressure to prevent our denunciation of crimes against humanity.'' But the Administration says that as written, the resolution offends the Turks and has worked to keep it from coming to a vote on the Senate floor. "

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0CE7D71538F931A15751C0A...

2. They are not mutually exclussive, you raised the point yourself, the Mullahs haven't asked them to shut down their ports...YET. By allowing the relationship to go unpunished we give Iran more potential sway.

3. The history of our relationship most certianly weighs on how to handle them diplomatically. Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Those who do not remember their past are condemned to repeat their mistakes.

Simply calling all the points non-issues does not make it so. And expand your vocabulary beyond "idiot" its tiresome.

to expand my vocabulary beyond "idiot" when you keep making the point. Which you just reinforced AGAIN!

1. Today is October 15, 2007. What Dole did in the early '90's and what Bush said in 1988 do not matter today.

2. You don't seem to be able to get it through your thick head that foreign policy is conducted by the Administration. That means the Executive Branch. That does not mean the House of Representatives.

3. The issue here is what the Turks are going to do vis-a-vie our supply lines. NOTHING ELSE.

4. If the Iranians tell the Turks to shut down their ports to us and they do, that is an entirely separate issue - as in mutually exclusive - and would have to be dealt with separately. By Condi Rice, NOT Miss Nancy.

5. Any punative action against Iran must be taken by the Administraion, not the Congress. It likely won't even have to be debated and certainly won't have to be approved by the Congress.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

1. Your correct about the date and that's about all. Its relavant to my main point, which is that you are only screaming hysterically about the issue because its conveinant to your politics and if you ignore history, you are bound to repeat mistakes, which you seem to embrace as a philosophy.

2. Correct, it is the responsibility of the Bush administration to conduct foreign policy. The resolution however has nothing to do with foreign policy and is a non-binding resolution about a definition. In a way it's like "freedom fries" because that definately called for Congress to stick it to France.

3. No, the issue at hand is what will the Turks do? They have not stated anywhere that they will cut supply routes, they have voted to cross the border and fight the Kurdish terrorists. So your whole supply route rant is a very unlikely "maybe" but hysterical people exagerate.

4. I'll do like you do...non-issue...next.

5. You couldn't be more wrong about punitive action against another country. Under the powers of Congress as set forth by the Constitution, Congress regulates Commerce with foreign Nations. So things like the Helms-Burton Act, you know the embargo against Cuba, is specifically enacted by Congress and has a little something to do with foreign policy.

Learn from history and get a clue.

...because I wanted to gently reprove mbecker908 about his throwing around the word "idiot." Little did I know that he was just being descriptive.

Thanks for stopping by, montana6672: and be sure to send us a link to whatever site you post your triumphant "They Banned Me! ME!!!!!" whatever at. We collect them.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

It is amusing....was it the "freedom fries" comment or the fact that I pointed out mbecker908 knows nothing about how our government functions?

nevermind, i'll see myself out.

when he called you an Idiot! You're not even close to that smart!

Apparently it is the Citizens of AdHominemistan whose journalism you espouse. Has anyone checked your papers to make sure that you're in the country legally?

This one's a retread; a previously banned troll who can't help but come back to the site. Like moths to the flame, they are - but not your problem, and when we need your help, we'll let you know.

You will now demonstrate that you understand this by saying, "Yes, Moe." Next post, please.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

...in this particular case I mean myself. There are quite a few others, but not any in this subthread.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

Moe, he ain't interested in discussion -- only disruption!

"You're an idiot". Perhaps Montanadude is an idiot, but your posts have been far more heat than light, and, at the end of the day, this is just another "iokiyar" moment. Precisely the same action taken by Senator Dole in precisely the same situation with precisely the same stakes and your response is just a series caterwauling mullah calls of "you're an idiot" and issuing a fatwa against some poster who patiently pointed out your hypocrisy. Oh sure you'll come back and scream about "the troops" like GEN Sanchez trying to save his reputation, but the issue is how this resolution is different than Sen. Dole's, in which the same risk to allied supply lines existed. But, iokiyar.

And, ps, there's something. . .rich about about the fact that you drop "idiot" like it's candy at Halloween while typing an allcaps "SUPPLYS".

-eom-

The Turkish government then could act on the basis of our policy of leaving Saddam's Iraq intact. Thus the security risks of helping the US were modest from their perspective.

The Turkish government now is somewhat Islamic in nature. They clain they support Turkey's secularist constitution, but who knows? Turkey has experienced its share of terrorism since 1990, most of it from the Kurds. The border situation is unstable. The domestic political scene in Turkey is unstable. The Turkish military is nervous.

Thus, it is a situation where only fools will go where angels fear to tread. Thus, its appeals for the Democrats.

They are mostly the same thing, the logistical choice for Turkey to allow the US to conduct support operations in Iraq from their airbase. In 1991 it was the Gulf War and for more than a decade they allowed the continuation of operations for the Iraq No Fly Zone. The campaign by Senator Dole during that time did not endanger that agreement. What exactly about Turkey's choice is different now?

...it's 16 years later?

...Bob Dole isn't in the Senate anymore. He isn't even doing Viagra commercials anymore.

...Tayyip Erdogan and the Islamist Welfare Party didn't hold the majority in Parliament then, they do now.

...Turkish units served in the Desert Storm Coalition forces. They are absent from the OIF coalition. OIF is orders of magnitude more unpopular with the Turkish public than ODS was.

...a Turkish military incursion into N. Iraq in 1991 wouldn't have disrupted reconstruction/recoconciliation/pacification efforts, as there weren't any because Saddam remained in power.

...As you said Turkey didn't restrict operations from Incirlik in response to Senator Dole's resolution. They *are* is threatening to do so in response to *this* resolution.

Other than the above, no difference from 16 years ago. I don't credit the Democrats with naive if misguided altruistic motives here, only baser ones involved with undermining the war effort by any parliamentary means at their disposal.

--furious

"I find your lack of faith disturbing." -- Darth Vader

Sometimes these conversations are better face-to-face. Good luck seeing if he manages to figure out your comment - an excellent one BTW - any better than he did mine.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

See furious is capable of laying out his points in an ordered, coherent pattern and doesn't just shout "idiot" although he implies it, which is fine:) Take a lesson from him and don't just tag along on his intelligent post like a child.

...there's a very simple concept you're missing. When we ban you because you think that conservatives are evil child haters, the idea is for you to leave. Pathetic, the way that you people keep needing to come back to seek our validation.

Now shoo.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

[Retread. Disregard. - Moe lane]

What is amusing is how quickly you move to silence dissent, you don't rise to the occasion and debate topics with facts and wit you just ban people and pray they go away. This is why the site and its community will never ever effect any real change, you will only remain a gaggle of cheerleaders patting each other on the back for shouting the loudest.

You are ineffective. You can't even ban someone correctly.

___________________________________
Two thirds of the world is covered by water,
the other third is covered by Champ Bailey.

I just woke up the two year old I laughed so hard.

Have I told you about my Ron Paul t-shirt?

It's been going on since at least the 1970s. When will America wake up to what is being done to this country?