I thought we were over this...

[Wednesdays]

I frequent another (non-political) message board. Sometimes discussion turns to politics, but not very often. The moderator, who presents himself as a totally impartial, fair-minded leader, has never posted anything political, until now. Here's his thread header from today:

-------
Democrats, CNN, Iraq, Veto, etc..
« Thread Started on Today at 4:45pm »

I know this thread is coming in some form or another, so I'm going to start it so I can control it.

Please be respectful of your fellow members opinions....or else.

The US Government is heading towards a clash with the White House over IRAQ. Basically, more than half of America wants to get out of Iraq so that Iraq can become a normal country again. (as if it were that easy...) and the Democrats are trying to follow the will of the people by forcing the White House to comply.

Meanwhile, some of the media is running into a little trouble. CNN has historically been known to be a liberal news organization. You would think their reporters would back the Democrats/American People's Will (APW) on this issue. Not so. Check out Michael Ware's report:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=W7yruTD3amk
By the way, he just made an even more scary report on CNN a few minutes ago.

Bush has promised a VETO on this bill with all its withdraw deadlines (plus special interest pork).

Whether you believe in this war or not, a smart person will look at the current situation and evaluate the best course of action based on the current facts. Iraq is very unstable and the US presence is the only thing keeping it from collapsing. No one in America wants to see US deaths. However, bailing could cause catastrophic consequences that I don't see many people acknowledging.

-----------------

Just wondering why he felt he needed to "control the conversation?" :shrug:

[MADem]

1. You might want to ask him that question. Point out that he's already told everyone how to feel, so

what does he want? A whole load of "Yep, me toos?"

[Wednesdays]

2. I just did, but....

I don't think he's going to take it very kindly.

[MADem]

3. Well, to hell with him. If he wants acolytes, he should start a monastery.

If he wants discussion, he should grow up and toughen up.

[Wednesdays]

6. His answer will likely be a "Duh..." to me

He'll say he gave the reason in his OP: that he wants to control the thread so it doesn't turn into a flame war. :banghead:

But that's not how I took his word "control," and it raises a big red flag to me.

[Monkeyman]

4. Scare Tactics at work again

[Toucano]

5. I'm missing something...probably just me.

But where is he saying he needs to "control the conversation"?

[Wednesdays]

7. It's in his OP

Sorry, I accidentally left it out of my OP, but now I've fixed it. He says it in his opening line.

[Toucano]

8. I get it now. Thanks.

I think he just meant that he wanted people to be respectful of each other and if they didn't he would do something.

On DU we have rules and mods to keep people the conversation a little civil, but maybe he doesn't have those things.

I wouldn't interpret that as he wouldn't allow anyone to disagree with him, though.

[Wednesdays]

9. Yes, however

"start it so I can control it" has different connotations to me than what you said.

[Toucano]

11. And you know him better than I, so you can put it in context better.

I'd proceed to show him how he's wrong. I bet you can pursuade him!

[BeFree]

10. Bottom line

"However, bailing could cause catastrophic consequences that I don't see many people acknowledging." He says.

Which is the same thing said about Viet Nam. Wrong then, wrong now.

What we said was: "Give peace a chance". We were right then, and we are right, now.

Most of the chaos in Iraq is because our troops are there. As in Viet Nam, once our troops leave peace will come in.

However, it must be acknowleged, for some people, peace would be a catastrophic consequence.

[Skittles]

12. yes

choices are: get out now, Iraq goes to hell, or get out when 50,000 of our troops have been killed and Iraq will still go to hell

[Wednesdays]

13. I totally agree, but

as their thread evolved, they argued that if we leave Iraq would become a nest of terrorists.

[BeFree]

14. Proof?

What proof is there of that? The asswipes said all of Asia would go commie if we left Viet Nam, and they were wrong.

And what makes them think our terrorizing Iraq is gonna stop it from being a terrorist nest?

Those idiots over there should be invited over here so we can beat some sense into their dull little minds.