Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Raider179 on June 26, 2005, 11:09:07 AM
-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4624385.stm
Insurgent attacks appear to be on the rise
US officials in Iraq have had talks with leaders of the anti-US insurgency, Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld says.
US officials have acknowledged that the Iraq insurgency is growing.
Quoting Iraqi sources, the Sunday Times said insurgent commanders "apparently came face to face" with four American officials during the talks held on 3 and 13 June at a summer villa near Balad, about 40 miles (60km) north of Baghdad.
It said the insurgents included representatives of Ansar al-Sunna, which has carried out numerous suicide bombings, as well as lesser known groups such as Mohammed's Army, the Islamic Army in Iraq and Jaish Mohammed.
What is this crap? Negotiating with terrorists? Is this true?
edited more info...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8359553/
The U.S. officials tried to gather information about the structure, leadership and operations of the insurgent groups, which irritated some members, who had been told the talks would consider their main demand, a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq, the report said.
-
Originally posted by Raider179
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4624385.stm
Insurgent attacks appear to be on the rise
US officials in Iraq have had talks with leaders of the anti-US insurgency, Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld says.
US officials have acknowledged that the Iraq insurgency is growing.
Quoting Iraqi sources, the Sunday Times said insurgent commanders "apparently came face to face" with four American officials during the talks held on 3 and 13 June at a summer villa near Balad, about 40 miles (60km) north of Baghdad.
It said the insurgents included representatives of Ansar al-Sunna, which has carried out numerous suicide bombings, as well as lesser known groups such as Mohammed's Army, the Islamic Army in Iraq and Jaish Mohammed.
What is this crap? Negotiating with terrorists? Is this true?
edited more info...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8359553/
The U.S. officials tried to gather information about the structure, leadership and operations of the insurgent groups, which irritated some members, who had been told the talks would consider their main demand, a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq, the report said.
isn't that what liberals want? Theropy for understanding terrorists?
-
Hhm... Can't say I see anything wrong with trying to " gather information about the structure, leadership and operations of the insurgent groups."
As for your comment Gunslinger, this is about the third time now that you've parroted Rove's indefensible remarks.This (http://takeittokarl.blogspot.com/) might make for some interesting reading for you.
-
Originally posted by Nash
Hhm... Can't say I see anything wrong with trying to " gather information about the structure, leadership and operations of the insurgent groups."
As for your comment Gunslinger, this is about the third time now that you've parroted Rove's indefensible remarks.This (http://takeittokarl.blogspot.com/) might make for some interesting reading for you.
well considering I heard what he was talking about after 9/11 I can see were he's coming from. That was a good link though and put up a good perspective. I'm sure those guys lambasted their own liberal senator that compared them and their fellow soldiers to SS but hey he appologized and all is forgiven. This is politics right.
EDIT: But hey nash, "there is no terrorist threat" anyways right?
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
isn't that what liberals want? Theropy for understanding terrorists?
Nah, that's what Cheney said they wanted. Listening to Cheney tell you want liberals want is the same as listening to Michael Moore tell you what conservatives want.
-
why does every single topic in the o'club have someone make comments about liberals or conservatives? Do we really not have anything worth saying or is this just a way to get the post count up?
68Parker
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
isn't that what liberals want? Theropy for understanding terrorists?
I think it was bush that said "we are bringing the fight to the terrorists" So now what? We are bringing negotiations to the Terrorists so we can get out of Iraq? That is the topic here. Should we negotiate with insurgents/terrorists to get out of Iraq faster? I say no.
-
Rove is pretty much on target. Srry it hurts some if you fellas but thats life.
-
After reading both Rove's statement and the soldier's letter below, I know who I respect and believe more:
Active Iraq Soldier: Karl, Come over _here_ and say that, Chickehawk...
From the mailbag:
I'm writing you from [Location Withheld] Iraq, about 35 miles NW of Baghdad.. And I'm too tired to give Karl the verbal beating he deserves for his insults. I'm too tired because we're jsut a bit shorthanded over here, fighting his war for him. A war taht has made nearly every country in the world fear and distrust America, a war fought for a knowing lie dreamed up by Karl and his buddies, none of whom have ever heard a shot fired in anger, or helped pick up the parts of another human being after an IED blast.
I enlisted after the war beganm and after I'd gotten my degree. I could easily have stayed home and watched the war on TV, and Karl does. I do not support this war in the slightest, but I will not sit at home and lecture others on their insufficient patriotism when the nation is in need. I joined because I believe in giving back some measure of service and devotion to my country.
To hear a man like Karl insinuate that only conservatives are really patriotic is a knife in the back to every man and woman in Iraq who serves here. At least a third of us voted against Bush and pals. The number increases every day that we stay here, forced to make bricks without straw for months on end.
We've been here for 6 months. We're going to be here for at least 6 more. And next week we're moving to a more 'active' sector because the unit there is rotating home and the are is still too hot to entrust to the IA or IP, most of whom are still not fit to guard a traffic light, despite two years of efforts on our part. For some of us, this is our second tour through Iraq. My unit, [Withheld] was the tip of the spear in OIF I. At least half of us are combat veterans of a major battle and liberals. Can any of your gang say that, Karl?
Never insult me and my fellow liberals again, Karl. Watching a fat, hateful thing like you that has never faced any greater danger in your life than a long golf shot denigrate every liberal who has put on a uniform is more demoralizing than ten thousand speeches that uphold America's highest ideals from Sen. Biden or Byrd.
[Name Withheld]
-
oboe, you believe that letter is authentic?
If you do, I have some oceanfront property in Montana that I could sell you for a bargain!
-
How much? And which ocean? :)
-
Originally posted by oboe
After reading both Rove's statement and the soldier's letter below, I know who I respect and believe more:
for every one of these letters there's two more that stand by his (Rove's) comments.
-
I have no idea if it's real or not but it is very easy to fake testimonials and that letter is just a bit too specific and perfec t in tone or content.
It's almost a direct copy of the propaganda John Kerry built around himself.
The college grad who didnt have to go join the military or doesnt really like it.
Joins the military to go fight in a war he doesnt support but does it out of a holy sense of service.
Is surprised that he doesnt like combat in a war he doesnt belive in it and then bashes the politicans for starting/contioug the war and praises those who oppose it.
The bit about favorite democrat party KKK grand wizard Robert Byrd esposing great america values is pretty bizzare too.
The letter could certinly be true, but... Not like it matters the statement is ot there now and it will used by partisans as appropriate to further their own views...
-
The Petition
We, the undersigned, citizens and residents of the United States of America and of countries around the world, appeal to the President of The United States, George W. Bush; to the NATO Secretary General, Lord Robertson; to the President of the European Commission, Romano Prodi; and to all leaders internationally to use moderation and restraint in responding to the recent terrorist attacks against the United States. We implore the powers that be to use, wherever possible, international judicial institutions and international human rights law to bring to justice those responsible for the attacks, rather than the instruments of war, violence or destruction.
Furthermore, we assert that the government of a nation must be presumed separate and distinct from any terrorist group that may operate within its borders, and therefore cannot be held unduly accountable for the latter's crimes. It follows that the government of a particular nation should not be condemned for the recent attack without compelling evidence of its cooperation and complicity with those individuals who actually committed the crimes in question.
Innocent civilians living within any nation that may be found responsible, in part or in full, for the crimes recently perpetrated against the United States, must not bear any responsibility for the actions of their government, and must therefore be guaranteed safety and immunity from any military or judicial action taken against the state in which they reside.
Lastly and most emphatically, we demand that there be no recourse to nuclear, chemical or biological weapons, or any weapons of indiscriminate destruction, and feel that it is our inalienable human right to live in a world free of such arms.
http://web.archive.org/web/20021127190638/peace.moveon.org/petition.php3
Everyone should be carefull of what they say when they aligne themsevles the some of the left. It will come back to bite them.
Wasn't that Michael Moore sitting in the DNC's Presidential Box? Wasn't that John Kerry on Meet the Press asserting that the war on terror was "primarily" a law enforcement action? Isn't George Soros a major political contributer to the DNC?
I think this pretty much sums it up:
"It’s outrageous that the same Democrats who stood by Dick Durbin’s libeling of our military are now expressing faux outrage over Karl Rove’s statement of historical fact. George Soros, Michael Moore, MoveOn and the hard left were wrong after 9/11, just as it was wrong for Democrat leaders to stand by and remain silent after Dick Durbin made his deplorable comments.”
- RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman
-
and dont think the above are just extremests here's more from the liberal party:
Rep. Neil Abercrombie (D-HI): “Only Now Are We Trying To Figure Out What Is Islam. Maybe If There Was A Department Of Peace, They Would Be Able To Say, ‘Uh-Oh, We’ve Got Some Problems With These People,’ … I Truly Believe That If We Had A Department Of Peace, We Would Have Seen [9/11] Coming.” (Ethan Wallison, “War A Challenge For Peace Caucus,” Roll Call, 10/1/01)
Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA): “I Am Convinced That Military Action Will Not Prevent Further Acts Of International Terrorism Against The United States.” (Eddy Ramirez, “Calif. Congresswoman Alone In Vote Against War Powers Resolution,” [University Of California-Berkeley] Daily Californian, 9/17/01)
Al Sharpton (D-NY) Said That The Attacks On The World Trade Center Are Evidence That “America Is Beginning To Reap What It Has Sown.” (Adam Nagourney, “Say It Loud,” The New York Times, 12/1/02)
Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D-OH) Claimed Osama Bin Laden Could Be Compared To “Revolutionaries That Helped To Cast Off The British Crown.” “‘One could say that Osama bin Laden and these non-nation-state fighters with religious purpose are very similar to those kind of atypical revolutionaries that helped to cast off the British crown,’ Kaptur told an Ohio newspaper, The (Toledo) Blade.” (Malie Rulon, “Lawmaker Compares Osama, U.S. Patriots,” The Associated Press, 3/6/03)
Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE) Said The United States Would “Pay Every Single Hour, Ever Single Day” That Bombs Were Dropped In Afghanistan. “‘How much longer does the bombing campaign continue?’ Biden asked during an Oct. 22 speech at the Council on Foreign Relations. ‘We’re going to pay every single hour, every single day it continues.’” (Miles A. Pomper, "Building Anti-Terrorism Coalition Vaults Ahead Of Other Priorities," Congressional Quarterly Weekly, 10/26/01)
and now the current head of the DNC ladys and gentlmen
Gov. Howard Dean (D-VT) Said Osama Bin Laden Not Guilty. Dean: “I Still Have This Old-Fashioned Notion That Even With People Like Osama, Who Is Very Likely To Be Found Guilty, We Should Do Our Best Not To, In Positions Of Executive Power, Not To Prejudge Jury Trials.” (“Dean Not Ready To Pronounce Osama Bin Laden Guilty,” The Associated Press, 12/26/03)
oh yea Rove was completly wrong in his statements. :aok
-
Hijack in progress.
-
heard re-enlistment for the army of those who already had an Iraq tour has never been higher.
I think the majority of them know who is right and that we are doing the right thing for the US and the rest of the world by being there.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Hijack in progress.
you are correct. I appologize. For the current subject I can only say commanders on the ground have a better perspective of what works and what doesn't in reguards to winning over the insurgancy.
I'm sure the white house cringes when they see this because it goes against national policy. OTOH they arent dumb enough to lambast these local commanders for their decisions especially when it produces results.
-
It doesn't realy matter if you are left or right!
What matters is how you guys sort out this mess. It would be nice to get British troops back home too!
And make no mistake it is a real mess. Seriously I think you have to be blind or overdosed on propaganda not to start to see this.
Follow this link to the next big thing in Iraq to see what I mean.
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1514897,00.html
Civil war anyone?
Didn't notice US troops intervening in Yugoslavia's civil war, Wonder if the US will stick around for Iraq's
( wonder if this post will be allowed to stay? )
-
Seriously I think you have to be blind or overdosed on propaganda not to start to see this.
====
Sounds like propaganda to me :D
-
I have to concede to Grun and Yeager- I think they are most likely right; that letter is probably faked. It does read a little too well -almost like a poster-soldier for liberal servicemen. It is suspicious, I grant that.
-
real or fake it still only represents one veiw point. A minority view among service men at that.
-
The fact that this administration, in a time of war, is calling half of its citizens including those serving, weak.... well, it's absurd. (http://nationaljournal.com/cgi-bin/ifetch4?ENG+HOTLINE+7-hot0195+1125209-REVERSE+0+0+114712+F+24+33+21+POLL+AND+WAR+AND+PD%2f09%2f12%2f2001%2d%3e09%2f30%2f2001) .
What do I think? Support for the war has absolutely tanked. It is just going to get worse in the coming months. Their rosy picture "last throes" talking points aren't working anymore because people just aren't buying it. What to do? Go on the attack.
I think Rove's remarks portend a strategy to divide the nation even more solidly, and shore up support for the war by trying desperately to paint those opposed to it as being unpatriotic. This is not a new idea, but I've never heard it coming directly from the White House. That to me is significant.
And that's the theme they appear to be going with. Coming to a television set near you.
-
Originally posted by Nash
The fact that this administration, in a time of war, is calling half of its citizens including those serving, weak.... well, it's absurd.
Quote/source please?
What do I think? Support for the war has absolutely tanked. It is just going to get worse in the coming months. Their rosy picture "last throes" scenarios aren't working anymore because people just aren't buying it. What to do? Go on the attack.
that I can agree with
I think Rove's remarks portend a strategy to divide the nation even more solidly, and shore up support for the war by trying desperately to paint those opposed to it as being unpatriotic. This is not a new idea, but I've never heard it coming directly from the White House. That to me is significant.
again source/quote? This is funny considering democratic efforts to undermine this administrations every efforts to wage effective war. There record on any kind of comprimise on anything as of late is abismal to say the least.
And that's the theme they appear to be going with. Coming to a television set near you.
THE DNC, If you say it loud and long enough people will beleive it. Especially if you are talking about big bad evil conservatives.
-
I put a source for your first question in my post.
The second, regarding the White House strategy is just my gut instinct. Could be wrong.
I'd like you, however, to give me a source for: "...democratic efforts to undermine this administrations every efforts to wage effective war." You mean like not voting for it? Not funding it? What are you referring to?
-
Originally posted by Nash
I put a source for your first question in my post.
The second, regarding the White House strategy is just my gut instinct. Could be wrong.
I'd like you, however, to give me a source for: "...democratic efforts to undermine this administrations every efforts to wage effective war." You mean like not voting for it? Not funding it? What are you referring to?
fair enough but I don't see how this administration called half it's citizens weak.
Are we talking about Rove here or Bush?
-
Rove is the deputy chief of staff in charge of policy in the administration, Gunslinger.
-
Originally posted by Nash
Rove is the deputy chief of staff in charge of policy in the administration, Gunslinger.
I dont doubt that. What he says the administration is responsible for.
“Liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers.” Conservatives, he said, “saw the savagery of 9/11 and the attacks and prepared for war.”
I don't think he's calling them weak I think he's calling a spade a spade. Nash do you disagree with the nature of his comment or the comment itself. I sited several examples in this thread of prominent democrats confirming EXACTLY what he is talking about.
Personally with all the diarea of the mouth that's been spewed by all the liberals as of late (to specifically include the head of the DNC) I wouldnt say this is at all unfair unfounded or uncalled for.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
I don't think he's calling them weak I think he's calling a spade a spade.
Oh? Lets see how his remarks squares with reality:
CBS/New ork Times poll taken 2-3 days after the attack.
Should U.S. Take Military Action Against Those Responsible?
All GOP Dem Ind
Yes 85% 93% 86% 76%
No 6 4 4 11
DK/NA 8 3 9 13
So what do we have here? Oh, 4% of Democrats wanted therapy for the attackers. And 4% of Republicans also wanted therapy for the attackers.
Tell me again how Rove's remarks square with reality?
(damn, formatting sucks... see the link (http://nationaljournal.com/cgi-bin/ifetch4?ENG+HOTLINE+7-hot0195+1125209-%20REVERSE+0+0+114712+F+24+33+21+POLL+AND+WAR+AND+PD%2f09%2f12%2f2001%2d%3e09%2f30%2f2001) I posted earlier.
-
It wasn't just theropy it was "indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers.”
There's a ton of these examples. Not to mention the petition from moveon.org
I heard it myslef. Liberals were all about "why they hate us" and we need to find an understanding with them.
Rep. Neil Abercrombie (D-HI): “Only Now Are We Trying To Figure Out What Is Islam. Maybe If There Was A Department Of Peace, They Would Be Able To Say, ‘Uh-Oh, We’ve Got Some Problems With These People,’ … I Truly Believe That If We Had A Department Of Peace, We Would Have Seen [9/11] Coming.” (Ethan Wallison, “War A Challenge For Peace Caucus,” Roll Call, 10/1/01)
Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA): “I Am Convinced That Military Action Will Not Prevent Further Acts Of International Terrorism Against The United States.” (Eddy Ramirez, “Calif. Congresswoman Alone In Vote Against War Powers Resolution,” [University Of California-Berkeley] Daily Californian, 9/17/01)
Al Sharpton (D-NY) Said That The Attacks On The World Trade Center Are Evidence That “America Is Beginning To Reap What It Has Sown.” (Adam Nagourney, “Say It Loud,” The New York Times, 12/1/02)
Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D-OH) Claimed Osama Bin Laden Could Be Compared To “Revolutionaries That Helped To Cast Off The British Crown.” “‘One could say that Osama bin Laden and these non-nation-state fighters with religious purpose are very similar to those kind of atypical revolutionaries that helped to cast off the British crown,’ Kaptur told an Ohio newspaper, The (Toledo) Blade.” (Malie Rulon, “Lawmaker Compares Osama, U.S. Patriots,” The Associated Press, 3/6/03)
Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE) Said The United States Would “Pay Every Single Hour, Ever Single Day” That Bombs Were Dropped In Afghanistan. “‘How much longer does the bombing campaign continue?’ Biden asked during an Oct. 22 speech at the Council on Foreign Relations. ‘We’re going to pay every single hour, every single day it continues.’” (Miles A. Pomper, "Building Anti-Terrorism Coalition Vaults Ahead Of Other Priorities," Congressional Quarterly Weekly, 10/26/01)
and now the current head of the DNC ladys and gentlmen
Gov. Howard Dean (D-VT) Said Osama Bin Laden Not Guilty. Dean: “I Still Have This Old-Fashioned Notion That Even With People Like Osama, Who Is Very Likely To Be Found Guilty, We Should Do Our Best Not To, In Positions Of Executive Power, Not To Prejudge Jury Trials.” (“Dean Not Ready To Pronounce Osama Bin Laden Guilty,” The Associated Press, 12/26/03)
-
Yes I saw that, Gunslinger, the first time you posted it.
Those are 6 quotes...
I'm telling you that 86% of Democrats wanted to go to war. 4% didn't. 93% of Republicans wanted to go to war. 4% didn't.
Those quotes and Rove's gross distortions don't change that fact.
Things get bad in Iraq, and what does it always come down to? 9/11. Like clockwork. It's smoke and mirrors, mate. We're doing exactly as I think he intended. "Look over there........"
-
Originally posted by Nash
Yes I saw that, Gunslinger, the first time you posted it.
Those are 6 quotes...
I'm telling you that 86% of Democrats wanted to go to war. 4% didn't. 93% of Republicans wanted to go to war. 4% didn't.
Those quotes and Rove's gross distortions don't change that fact.
Things get bad in Iraq, and what does it always come down to? 9/11. Like clockwork. It's smoke and mirrors, mate. We're doing exactly as I think he intended. "Look over there........"
This is the DNC leadership. The elected members of that party. They represent the very liberals we are talking about. I also agree with the RNC chair's quote.
Sorry Nash but I happen to agree with Rove. I do not question the liberal's patriotism, but I do question (as a whole) their back bone.
EDIT:
This is also why I've allways contended that the DNC is out of touch with their party and America in general. These are the liberals Rove was referring to maybe not the 86% you are talking about just the leaders they elect.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
isn't that what liberals want? Theropy for understanding terrorists?
hehe, read between the lines. The man is saying that' if you question how we spend the lives of your sons, daughters and fathers, then you are unpatriotic and should be shamed by society."
-
Originally posted by WhiteHawk
hehe, read between the lines. The man is saying that' if you question how we spend the lives of your sons, daughters and fathers, then you are unpatriotic and should be shamed by society."
No. Dont read what you think is between the lines. Read whats written - youll be far less confused.
-
Originally posted by FaliFan
How is this wrong Gunslinger? Unless you actually think innocent civilians should be hurt, NBC weapons used, and the terrorists should not be brought to justice. What that petition expresses is absolutely correct.
there's nothing wrong with it. It is yet another fact that proves Rove's statement correct.
-
Originally posted by WhiteHawk
hehe, read between the lines. The man is saying that' if you question how we spend the lives of your sons, daughters and fathers, then you are unpatriotic and should be shamed by society."
what Saurdaukar said. No one is saying liberals are unpatriotic.
I really don't think you guys have a legg to stand on here.
-
I wonder if the libs realize how many they are chasing away from the dem party here in Fl with chicken little speak like that...
I know more than one who is switching to the big R, just for that very reason. These are not under 30 libs I am talking about but lifelong dems who are tired of the direction the dems are heading..
-
Caller: Once we get you in the White House, would you please make sure that there is a thorough investigation of 9/11 and not stonewalling?
Howard Dean: Yes there is a report which the president is suppressing evidence for, which is a thorough investigation of 9/11.
Diane Rehm: Why do you think he is suppressing that report?
Howard Dean: I don’t know. There are many theories about it. The most interesting theory that I’ve heard so far—which is nothing more than a theory, it can’t be proved—is that he was warned ahead of time by the Saudis. Now who knows what the real situation is? But the trouble is, by suppressing that kind of information, you lead to those kind of theories, whether they have any truth to them or not, and eventually, they get repeated as fact. So I think the president is taking a great risk by suppressing the key information that needs to go to the Kean Commission.
Howard Dean. DNC Chair. My kind of "great risk."
-
No. Dont read what you "think" is between the lines. Read whats written - youll be far less confused.
====
Bullseye
-
if you read the bold text it does
"indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers.”
use moderation and restraint in responding to the recent terrorist attacks against the United States
judicial institutions and international human rights law to bring to justice those responsible for the attacks, rather than the instruments of war
Innocent civilians living within any nation that may be found responsible, in part or in full, for the crimes recently perpetrated against the United States, must not bear any responsibility for the actions of their government, and must therefore be guaranteed safety and immunity from any military or judicial action taken against the state in which they reside.
-
Originally posted by Raider179
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4624385.stm
Insurgent attacks appear to be on the rise
US officials in Iraq have had talks with leaders of the anti-US insurgency, Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld says.
US officials have acknowledged that the Iraq insurgency is growing.
Quoting Iraqi sources, the Sunday Times said insurgent commanders "apparently came face to face" with four American officials during the talks held on 3 and 13 June at a summer villa near Balad, about 40 miles (60km) north of Baghdad.
It said the insurgents included representatives of Ansar al-Sunna, which has carried out numerous suicide bombings, as well as lesser known groups such as Mohammed's Army, the Islamic Army in Iraq and Jaish Mohammed.
What is this crap? Negotiating with terrorists? Is this true?
edited more info...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8359553/
The U.S. officials tried to gather information about the structure, leadership and operations of the insurgent groups, which irritated some members, who had been told the talks would consider their main demand, a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq, the report said.
Let me summarize...
- The US wants to withdraw from Iraq in a clean peaceful manner.
- Iraqi political/religious factions would like the USA to withdraw
- The two sides get together and talk about it
and you guys think this is wrong? Bar a couple of fringe lunies everybody seems to want the same goal. The best way to achieve that is talking. If the outcome is that these groups say "OK we'll stop blowing civilians up for 12 months" to give the USA time to make a clean exit then whats so bad?
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
Let me summarize...
- The US wants to withdraw from Iraq in a clean peaceful manner.
- Iraqi political/religious factions would like the USA to withdraw
- The two sides get together and talk about it
and you guys think this is wrong?
Not neccessarily, but this guy sure does:
"No nation can negotiate with terrorists. For there is no way to make peace with those whose only goal is death."
George W. Bush
Remarks to Reporters
April 4, 2002
-
Originally posted by FaliFan
Gunslinger wrote:
if you read the bold text it does
"indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers.”
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
use moderation and restraint in responding to the recent terrorist attacks against the United States
judicial institutions and international human rights law to bring to justice those responsible for the attacks, rather than the instruments of war
Innocent civilians living within any nation that may be found responsible, in part or in full, for the crimes recently perpetrated against the United States, must not bear any responsibility for the actions of their government, and must therefore be guaranteed safety and immunity from any military or judicial action taken against the state in which they reside.
>>>
How? It says that the terrorists should be brought to justice (as the criminals they are), and that innocent civilians should be spared in any military conflict with a terrorist supporting state. How does that prove "understanding" "therapy" and "indictments"?
To me it seems the whole petition is more a reaction to their fears that you ultra-nationalists would go completely fascist and start slaughtering innocents.
you could read between the lines and see that but that's clearly not what it says. Is english your second language?
use moderation and restraint in responding to the recent terrorist attacks against the United States
judicial institutions and international human rights law to bring to justice those responsible for the attacks, rather than the instruments of war
Innocent civilians living within any nation that may be found responsible, in part or in full, for the crimes recently perpetrated against the United States, must not bear any responsibility for the actions of their government, and must therefore be guaranteed safety and immunity from any military or judicial action taken against the state in which they reside.
-
so by your own admission you are proving Rove's quotes correct....assuming you are in fact a liberal.
Rove: “Liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers.” Conservatives, he said, “saw the savagery of 9/11 and the attacks and prepared for war.”
You: Moderation and restraint ... as opposed to total war...Terrorists are crimminals
-
whats your birth language?
-
Originally posted by FaliFan
If I were American I'd probably be an independent or a liberal. I do not see how that text or my words can lead anyone to think that I would offer the terrorists "therapy" and "understanding". I believe they would face the death penalty in your country, at least life imprisonment. Also that text does say that the terrorists should be dealth with by the law and not the military ... of course they should, they're civilians not warriors. However the nations that support the terrorists are another matter entirely ... as that text does indeed confirm.
you are completly ignoring the whole indictments part of the quote. This is the biggest difference here between Liberals and Conservatives as far as fighting terrorism goes. It's one of the things that cost john kerry the election. Liberals look at this as a criminal matter.....republicans went to war instead.
-
Gunslinger, slow down....
Liberals supported the war overwhelmingly. On Afghanistan - which I hope is what we're still talking about.
I've showed you this. Why are you going back to saying otherwise?
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
isn't that what liberals want? Theropy for understanding terrorists?
Its Reps and conserves that are in power Guns. They are talking to terrorists to see what their grievences are. How come you blame the "Libs" for everything?
-
Gibberish.
====
The shoe does indeed fit.
Are you muslim?
-
Good thing we didnt listen to that logic when we went to war against fascism.
-
lol :D
Indeed!
Ok...so whats your old ID :aok
-
Originally posted by FaliFan
You didn't go to war against fascism.
Sure we did. They call it "World War Two" these days, I believe.
A war against an idea. A bad idea.
It wasnt limited to Germany then, so our troops werent limited to Germany.
It isnt limited to Afghanistan now, so our troops arent limited to Afghanistan.
Just think... in 50 years, a young lad from Iraq or Afghanistan might be able to post on this very message board after flying a sortie in a 109 and badmouth America just like you!
Isnt freedom grand?
-
Hello again Falifan.
How exactly would the FBI or the NYPD deal with Al Qaeda in Afghanistan?
-
the very fact that we automaticaly label people as terrorists is why the insurgency is growing. the hipocracy is unbelievable. americans idolize self-sacrifice. if you dont believe me, watch how they destroy the space ship in "independence day" (kamikazi attack). we must stop seeing this as a black and white war and start understanding the other side. we must let go of our petty pride and accept that iraq will never be an american style democracy, but something uniqe. we must also accept that our enemies believe that the united states is an imperialist nation only looking out for itself and strive to change this view.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
isn't that what liberals want? Theropy for understanding terrorists?
Well here is an example of our admin taking it to companies involved with terrorists by using the LAW. You know, like the liberals want? :)
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Listening to Cheney tell you want liberals want is the same as listening to Michael Moore tell you what conservatives want.
Amen to that!!
-
Originally posted by Raider179
What is this crap? Negotiating with terrorists? Is this true?
edited more info...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8359553/
The U.S. officials tried to gather information about the structure, leadership and operations of the insurgent groups, which irritated some members, who had been told the talks would consider their main demand, a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq, the report said.
Ok... lets make a bets.. how many months will US media still call them terrorist ? I guess we have 3 months till new term "resistance" :)
Sure officials had to date with Jihadist to get some information from them... LOL does anybody hear belive in that statement ?
Anyway it would be more effective IMO to have official talks with them and let them say, whats their point.
or maybe some guys in CIA simply missing their old friends, so they wanted to see them :D
-
DELETED
Rule #7
-
Originally posted by lada
Ok... lets make a bets.. how many months will US media still call them terrorist ? I guess we have 3 months till new term "resistance" :)
Sure officials had to date with Jihadist to get some information from them... LOL does anybody hear belive in that statement ?
Anyway it would be more effective IMO to have official talks with them and let them say, whats their point.
or maybe some guys in CIA simply missing their old friends, so they wanted to see them :D
1) they are already called insurgents
2)If you read the article the insurgents point was "when is the US gonna leave"
3)oh I see your trollin
-
Originally posted by FaliFan
You went to war against Japan because they attacked you. You went to war against Germany because they declared war on you and attacked you.
Fascism lived on in Spain and South America even into the 1980's.
So no ... you most certainly did not go to war against fascism.
truth hurts!
-
Originally posted by Raider179
1) they are already called insurgents
2)If you read the article the insurgents point was "when is the US gonna leave"
3)oh I see your trollin
1. BBC call them insurgenc since start of the war. While some other media still keen on terrorist. http://www.brokenmasterpieces.com/archives/001088.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,159961,00.html
http://news.google.com/news?q=terrorist+Iraq+attack&hl=en&oi=newsr
2. Its not mentioned in article at BBC. Is it ?
3. booooooo booooooo booooooo
-
"the very fact that we automaticaly label people as terrorists is why the insurgency is growing. the hipocracy is unbelievable. americans idolize self-sacrifice. if you dont believe me, watch how they destroy the space ship in "independence day" (kamikazi attack). we must stop seeing this as a black and white war and start understanding the other side. we must let go of our petty pride and accept that iraq will never be an american style democracy, but something uniqe. we must also accept that our enemies believe that the united states is an imperialist nation only looking out for itself and strive to change this view."
A small sane voice amongst the braying voices to the right of the house!
SMIDSY
-
You know SMIDSY is right. In fact, if you think about it we never quite started winning WW2 until we started to understand the Nazi and Imperialist Japanese point of view, began valuing their uniquine political systems and changing their minds regarding our global intentions.
SMIDSY
-
and... isn't that what we are doing in the middle east? Show me where we are imposing our type of democracy on anyone unless it is that we "force" the governments to hold elections. They do seem to be well attended tho.
We did try to stay out of all the euro barbarians wars but they brought em to us anyway.... you are right on that. We did not impose our political system on either country that we crushed either... you are right on that... we never do. that is what you guys do.
lazs
-
because you know "how things really are"??
How do you negotiate with a cadre of suicide bombers who won't be happy unless they can impose their brand of hateful religious supression on everyone in the world?
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
Show me where we are imposing our type of democracy on anyone unless it is that we "force" the governments to hold elections. They do seem to be well attended tho.
lazs
WTF are all those men and women in uniform on the ground over there doing if it isnt enforcing the will of the US??
Checking out new hardware under combat conditions?
Not saying its a bad thing, but you cant deny that is what they are there for.
-
hmm... we are not allowing them to choose their own form of government?
I guess you would have a case if you are saying that not allowing terrorists to impose their will without an election is us imposing our will.
We are giving the people the right to form their own government.
If the muslim communist party wins the election we will live with it.
lazs
-
Originally posted by FaliFan
You went to war against Afghanistan (as Nash pointed out). How do you wage war on terrorism? Of course you Americans have a way of using the word "war" on almost anything, like "war on drugs", "war on poverty" etc. It is of course meaningless since a war on poverty is impossible. So is a war on terrorism. You can only catch them and deal with them, and as far as I know your DO indeed prosecute the terrorists you catch.
So I guess you're wrong. You and Rove both.
but we didn't invade afganistan with the FBI or the NYPD. We may have arrested terrorists that we caught but we waged WAR on terror with military might not police.
keep saying it long and loud enough and maybe you can even fool your self.
-
Originally posted by FaliFan
Gunslinger, if you had cared to read all the posts since you left you'd notice Grunherz already made your point, and I responded to it.
noted. I tried to post this last night before bed but my router took a dump
personally I believe I made my point way before that but that's just me.
-
Originally posted by FaliFan
Gibberish.
lmao.. man that was fantastic!! :lol
-
"hmm... we are not allowing them to choose their own form of government?"
Within limits. It has to be a democratic form of government, thats how it was setup post-Saddam. A representative democracy.
Im not saying thats bad either, but lets not pretend that the US was not instrumental in the design. A religious oligarchy (like Iran) would not have been allowed, nor would a military dictatorship (like N.Korea), or a one party communist state (like China). Of course, it may end up like that in 5 yrs anyways. Who knows.
What did Churchill say, democracy is the worst kind of government, except for all the other kinds?...
...In any case the few muslim-commies are making bombs not campaign signs, that im sure of.
-
are you saying that we would not allow a communist party member to be elected if that were the case?
What would we do? Tell him he didn't really win and have another election till we got the results we wanted?
lazs
-
Originally posted by FaliFan
You went to war against Japan because they attacked you. You went to war against Germany because they declared war on you and attacked you.
Fascism lived on in Spain and South America even into the 1980's.
So no ... you most certainly did not go to war against fascism.
Nah, if you take a close look at American foreign policy we go to war against ideas almost exclusively. The country in question doesnt matter all that much. They pose a threat or have brought a threat to fruition and they must be dealt with.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
isn't that what liberals want? Theropy for understanding terrorists?
No.
-
"What would we do? Tell him he didn't really win and have another election till we got the results we wanted? "
I expect so!
-
"are you saying that we would not allow a communist party member to be elected if that were the case?"
No, there is a big difference between individuals being elected that are unsavory characters (hey, we have a few up here beleive me...), and a form of government.
There are no "elections" in a military dictatorship, monarchy, oligarchy or one-party state (fascist, communist, ect) that the ruling group does not approve of. There is no "loyal opposition", Congress, Parliament or the like.
The USA wanted to install a multi-party representative democratic form of government post- war, and thats what happened. Again, im not saying thats "bad", im just saying thats the way it is.
Democracy is but one form, there are many. Most of them suck.
-
Originally posted by Saurdaukar
Nah, if you take a close look at American foreign policy we go to war against ideas almost exclusively. The country in question doesnt matter all that much. They pose a threat or have brought a threat to fruition and they must be dealt with.
The US goes to war for the same reasons man has always gone to war; to extend its power and influence or to prevent others from doing likewise at its expense. You can dress it up in any ideology you like but that is the bottom line.