Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Gunslinger on December 05, 2005, 05:07:32 PM
-
I know the election is well over but I can't get over the fact that this guy ran as a vet being one of his selling points when has such a history of trashing our troops:
[referring to Joe Leberman's recent comments about real progress recently in Iraq.
Sen. KERRY: Let me--I--first of all, there is so much more that unites Democrats than divides us. And Democrats have much more in common with each other than they do with George Bush's policy right now. Now Joe Lieberman, I believe, also voted for the resolution which said the president needs to make more clear what he's doing and set out benchmarks, and that the policy hasn't been working. We all believe him when you say, `Stay the course.' That's the president's policy, which hasn't been changing, which is a policy of failure. I don't agree with that. But I think what we need to do is recognize what we all agree on, which is you've got to begin to set benchmarks for accomplishment. You've got to begin to transfer authority to the Iraqis. And there is no reason, Bob, that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, women, breaking sort of the customs of the--of--the historical customs, religious customs. Whether you like it or not...
Now we're the terrorists....
Here's something from somone that's actually spent more than a few days there:
The danger American soldiers face on these raids is exacerbated by their great reluctance to use force when there are civilians around, compounded by the fact that there are children in nearly every home, including the homes of the insurgents. The average American soldier will do just about anything to avoid knowingly hurting a child, and will seldom even use flash-bangs (stun grenades) because of possible effects on children in the closed rooms.
.....
Benjamin Morton is part of Recon's raiding patrol. He lives directly across from me on base. Everyone calls him "Rat" because he saves everything. Rat moves upstairs, training his rifle above him. Rat's the #1 man, in the most dangerous position. Two enemy men are hiding on the balcony, and one has an automatic weapon with a large drum of ammunition. As Rat comes round the corner, the insurgent sticks the weapon around the balcony corner and fires a long burst of about twenty rounds. Four bullets strike Ben Morton. His buddies come behind him and throw a flash-bang into the room, and return fire, catching a bed ablaze with tracers. They pull Rat out and call for medics. Despite everyone's valiant efforts, Benjamin Morton does not survive his wounds. Had they thrown grenades first, three women and four children would have died alongside the four men who were captured or killed that night. The men were elements of a car bomb cell.
......
I have participated in, perhaps, one hundred raids. I lost count long ago. In practically every Iraqi home, I have seen the Quran. Soldiers have been trained to leave the Quran alone. American soldiers rarely will even touch the green tome, they leave it where it sits, in special places in many homes. Nevertheless, one story—for which the magazine quickly apologized—spelled death.
Yet, against the wishes of the enemy, and even much of the media, somehow the Iraqis continue to progress. I am amazed at the strength of the Iraqi spirit. These people keep trying, and they love their children.
-Michael Yon
Look I dont want to start yet another why are we here arguments or wmd's but this is the kind of things we see from the left that I just don't understand. This guy wants to beat republicans....OK I get it. But at what cost?
-
Context is good.... so what was the context of this quote?
-
I thought only Janet Reno busted into people's houses at the dead of night to send a little boy back to a communist stronghold? (i.e. Elian Gonzales)
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Context is good.... so what was the context of this quote?
Sorry, I should have posted the entire interview:
http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/face_120405.pdf
Here was the question.
SCHIEFFER: All right. Let me shift to another point of view, and it comes from another Democrat, Senator Joe Lieberman of Connecticut. He takes a very different view. He says basically we should stay the course because, he says, real progress is being made. He said this is a war between 27 million Iraqis who want freedom and 10,000 terrorists. He says we're in a watershed transformation. What about that?
-
Originally posted by LePaul
I thought only Janet Reno busted into people's houses at the dead of night to send a little boy back to a communist stronghold? (i.e. Elian Gonzales)
The little boy went back to his parent.
I thought the repubs were all about family values?
-
Kerry is an stunninghunk, we know that, and he continues to prove it.
-
Here's a thought.
My sons AP Gov teacher Emailed him with this scary thought
"A glaring omission in presidential candidate viability predictions
was brought to my attention last night.
1968 - Richard Nixon, a who lost a very close presidential election
as the sitting VP to JFK and basically disappeared from 1962-1966,
made a historic comeback to win the White House against a teetering
Democratic Party beset by scandal, an unpopular war, and infighting.
2008 - Al Gore ( former VP), after losing the closest presidential
election in history, disappeared somewhat from public view only to
re-emerge as the Democratic frontrunner to take the White House from
a Republican Party beset by scandal, an unpopular war, and
infighting.
If it hadn't been done already I wouldn't even consider it as a
possibility."
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
Here's a thought.
My sons AP Gov teacher Emailed him with this scary thought
"A glaring omission in presidential candidate viability predictions
was brought to my attention last night.
1968 - Richard Nixon, a who lost a very close presidential election
as the sitting VP to JFK and basically disappeared from 1962-1966,
made a historic comeback to win the White House against a teetering
Democratic Party beset by scandal, an unpopular war, and infighting.
2008 - Al Gore ( former VP), after losing the closest presidential
election in history, disappeared somewhat from public view only to
re-emerge as the Democratic frontrunner to take the White House from
a Republican Party beset by scandal, an unpopular war, and
infighting.
If it hadn't been done already I wouldn't even consider it as a
possibility."
for some unexplainable undocumented reason I think I could stomach a President Gore more than a President Kerry.
What I don't understand is this is nothing new for SOME democrats yet it's a perfectly exceptable thing to say. Granted he's not directly calling our troops terrorists but ignoring a question and using it to insult our troops and try and take some kind of political jab here.
I mean look who their leadership likes to rub elbows with.
(http://www.codepink4peace.org/img/original/Tuscon_3.jpg)
A great backround on "code pink" http://michellemalkin.com/archives/000463.htm
-
And there is no reason, Bob, that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, women, breaking sort of the customs of the--of--the historical customs, religious customs. Whether you like it or not...
I dont know why you bolded this statement...Even bolded Red the "terrorizing".
Although I can see where your going. Bad Choice of Bolding. Every
Veteran I have talked too, Says this is what they do. And we do it because we have too. Regardless of religous customs, historical customs, women, children.
I know it doesnt sound good, but in reality that is what we do. Of course we do other things, but if you want to fight a counter insurgency, you have to break down a few doors, and nab suspects. Here in the states we operate the same way in our inner cities.
Its the only way to win a war like this, If you sit around and wait, you leave yourself open to attack. Maybe its a bad choice of words, But it is what it is.
-
I think he put it in bold to emphasize that the man is calling OUR troops the terrorists now.
-
Kerry is a bad man.
-
Originally posted by Nefarious
And there is no reason, Bob, that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, women, breaking sort of the customs of the--of--the historical customs, religious customs. Whether you like it or not...
I dont know why you bolded this statement...Even bolded Red the "terrorizing".
Although I can see where your going. Bad Choice of Bolding. Every
Veteran I have talked too, Says this is what they do. And we do it because we have too. Regardless of religous customs, historical customs, women, children.
I know it doesnt sound good, but in reality that is what we do. Of course we do other things, but if you want to fight a counter insurgency, you have to break down a few doors, and nab suspects. Here in the states we operate the same way in our inner cities.
Its the only way to win a war like this, If you sit around and wait, you leave yourself open to attack. Maybe its a bad choice of words, But it is what it is.
You're wrong. As much as we don't want to at times we are fighting the politically correct sensative war. Read what I posted below that, it states the exact opposite. Some times it's good to be culturally sensative but US troops put their buts on the line even more every day to prevent civilan/colateral casualties. WE are the ones that make those pains, our enemys do not. I know this because I've attended some of these classes. I'm the one that once a year has to update my law of armed conflict and again Michael Yon who's spent 8+ months embeded with US troops documents this very well.
Kerry makes a broad charaterization wich MIGHT represent the exception and definatly not the rule to take political jabs and I think it's wrong.
but what I THINK is even worse is that this type of talk on the left seems more and more to become the rule and not the exception.
-
they sense weakness and are expoiting it for political gain. When the time is right they will spring the trap and destroy the american military in Iraq.
Im not talking about terrorists here........
-
Originally posted by Yeager
they sense weakness and are expoiting it for political gain. When the time is right they will spring the trap and destroy the american military in Iraq.
Im not talking about terrorists here........
Yeager while it pains me to question the patriotism of our political leaders I really have to wonder what are they thinking?
And even more importanly how do they get away with this and who's side are they really on? The troops are fighting Bush's war, a win in Iraq isn't a win for Bush, he's gone in a few years. At what point will some of those that are beyond left of Kerry and Kennedy go because of their hatred of one president?
-
The more I think about it, the madder I get. Kerry would hang the US troops, hand them over to the jihadist if it furthered his political ambitions, and some people were actually stupid enough to vote for that piece of chit.
I hope he gets some painful form of cancer.
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
Here's a thought.
My sons AP Gov teacher Emailed him with this scary thought
"A glaring omission in presidential candidate viability predictions
was brought to my attention last night.
1968 - Richard Nixon, a who lost a very close presidential election
as the sitting VP to JFK and basically disappeared from 1962-1966,
made a historic comeback to win the White House against a teetering
Democratic Party beset by scandal, an unpopular war, and infighting.
2008 - Al Gore ( former VP), after losing the closest presidential
election in history, disappeared somewhat from public view only to
re-emerge as the Democratic frontrunner to take the White House from
a Republican Party beset by scandal, an unpopular war, and
infighting.
If it hadn't been done already I wouldn't even consider it as a
possibility."
Interesting fantasy. I put it right up there with the fantasy that Hillary will run...:)
-
they dont hate bush. They focus their anger at bush because he is the obvious target. bush is the token conservative head of state. Liberals hate capitalism, they hate Amercian Exceptionalism. They hate that we are 8% of the worlds population but use up 35% of the world resources. They hate SUVs and Guns. They think we should sell oursleves into poverty to bring the indians and the chinese out of the dark ages, that way we could all be equally worthless.
Like those nuclear weapons seeking jihadists....Kerry is the sort that thinks Iran and North Korea have a RIGHT to nuclear weapons, to protect them from Bush and the capitalists pigs and the military industrial complex.
They are liberals and they must be chewed off at the head and spat out like so much filth ridden sewage.
:rofl
Long Live King George!
Im just rolling fellas, dont get all bunched up :aok
-
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah, etc...
-
Well Here we have it folks. I figured we wouldn't hear this from the dems till next year but here is Howard Dean:
"idea that we're going to win the war in Iraq is an idea which is just plain wrong."
-
All I can say is, the dems are very heavily invested in failure for Iraq. What in the world will they do when we succeed over there? I guess they will go back to "its the economy, stupid"
-
Oh Paaleeez!
Sometimes it seems people just enjoy getting their panties in a bunch.
Kerry thinks the Iraqis should be the police in Iraq... well duh!
Repubs - "We got the House, the Senate, the White House and the SC.... but if it weren't for those pesky Liberals we could actually get things done."
LOL
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
You're wrong. As much as we don't want to at times we are fighting the politically correct sensative war. Read what I posted below that, it states the exact opposite. Some times it's good to be culturally sensative but US troops put their buts on the line even more every day to prevent civilan/colateral casualties. WE are the ones that make those pains, our enemys do not. I know this because I've attended some of these classes. I'm the one that once a year has to update my law of armed conflict and again Michael Yon who's spent 8+ months embeded with US troops documents this very well.
Kerry makes a broad charaterization wich MIGHT represent the exception and definatly not the rule to take political jabs and I think it's wrong.
but what I THINK is even worse is that this type of talk on the left seems more and more to become the rule and not the exception.
Kicking in doors, Detaining/Kidnapping people, Roadside Bombs and deadly ambushes, doesnt sound very politically correct over there to me. If our enemy uses Unconventional tactics, we need to counter with unconventional tactics, or they will win. The Strategy is as old as time itself. You can't expect to win if your not willing to fight as hard or as dirty (In this case) as your opponent.
I know this because I've attended some of these classes. I'm the one that once a year has to update my law of armed conflict and again Michael Yon who's spent 8+ months embeded with US troops documents this very well.
Does this make me wrong? No. Actually you never told me why I was wrong, You told me we need to fight a politically correct war, Sounds like your strategy is about as bad as the Dems. Handing out candy and rebuilding schools might win over some hearts and minds, But the fact remains the people that kill our troops are still in Iraq, and infiltrating from countries that border Iraq. Your strategy may have worked had there not been such a large insurgency after "Mission Accomplished" But things changed. We can continue to "Win the Hearts and Minds" but we also must continue to kill/capture our enemy, whatever it takes...
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Oh Paaleeez!
Sometimes it seems people just enjoy getting their panties in a bunch.
Kerry thinks the Iraqis should be the police in Iraq... well duh!
Repubs - "We got the House, the Senate, the White House and the SC.... but if it weren't for those pesky Liberals we could actually get things done."
LOL
well, while the patriotic and virtually inerrant republican party does hold a slight majority in the congress it is still not holding a sufficiently large numerical lead to give our great president carte blanche on all his wise initiatives or his excellent nominees to the federal bench. the vile democrats still manage to be a wrench in the works. I say we sell california to the messkins and new york to canuks. that would solve all of our problems immediately, oh and toss in new jersey as well. :D
-
Boy i can't wait until tomorrows "Bash a Democrate post" from Gunslinger. I think the only people who still talk about Kerry are you right wing nuts. Really does anyone even give a flying **** about kerry or what he thinks anymore? Jesus i don't think i would even hear his name anymore if it wasn't for republicans talking about what he says. Anyways, carry on!!!
-
Screaming horward Dean said in a radio interview that the US wont succeed in Iraq. Dean is punk.
-
Excuse me but when a US Senator goes on national TV and says once again without actually being there that our troops are acting like terrorist and/or committing crimes I would consider that news worthy regardless of what party he/she is from.
Also said senator should be held accountable for hurting our troops. Yes hurting our troops! By accusing them of doing something wrong he is helping the insurgents recruit new bombers willing to kill anyone including the people our troops "terrorized".
People like Kerry and Dean and......hell most if not all of the Dem leaders should held accountable for their efforts to lose this war.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
I know the election is well over but I can't get over the fact that this guy ran as a vet being one of his selling points when has such a history of trashing our troops:
Well, if you read the whole thing and did not quote out of context what he's saying is Iraqi soldiers and police will do far better busting into homes then our guys will.
And there is no reason, Bob, that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, women, breaking sort of the customs of the--of--the historical customs, religious customs. Whether you like it or not...
SCHIEFFER: Yeah.
Sen. KERRY: ... Iraqis should be doing that. And after all of these two and a half years, with all of the talk of 210,000 people trained, there just is no excuse for not transferring more of that authority.
Now, let's think about that one:
He did not call us terrorists, and you know it. He said the iraqis would be better at busting into their homes at night, that the US doing it terrorizes people.
Think about it for a time.
Your posting was selective, misleading and inaccurate.
The Iraqis can take each other on like that, it is not possible for us ot win any hearts and monds that way.
Well see, he's calling us terrorists!
Nonsense.
It's hard to believe that you apologists still don't understand that 70% of the nation and the entire world have moved on and you can't get with it.
It's hard, being wrong, factually and obviously errant as you are here, but if you simply stop playing the sound byte/politicize everything game you can one day learn to be honest and objective.
Sakai
-
Everyone always says they are fighting to protect our freedoms, ok then let people be free for a change and say what they want and let the voters respond to him by voting him out. What the hell is so hard about understanding that? I have family and friends over there so don't think I'm against the troops in any way or for Kerry for that matter, but everyone of them have told me through e-mails and letters that it really is not hurting the moral at all. They know crap will be said just like it always has been said and there is nothing they can do about that but do their job and ignore crap comments like this. I have even read interviews with Commanders on the ground over there that say the same thing- It HAS NOT hurt moral in any way. Here is quote from my uncle who is over there "Think of it this way, if we can handle someone shooting bullets, rockets and blowing up roadside bombs then we sure as hell can take some fairy at home saying we don't belong here". I just think some people on this board really needs to find something better to do with their time than worry about what all the democrates are saying. Maybe instead of searching the internet for stories about democrates you can instead use that time to write a letter to a soldier you don't know and if you have I'm sure there are plenty of others who would like one as well. Support your troops that way instead of wasting time posting crap like this EVERYDAY on a message board that will change nothing. Just a thought!!! I think i even need to follow my own advice instead of wasting my time replying as i know it will change nothing.
-
but if you simply stop playing the sound byte/politicize everything game you can one day learn to be honest and objective.
Sakai
Wishfull thinking on this board!!!
-
I think i even need to follow my own advice instead of wasting my time replying as i know it will change nothing.
====
how many licks does it take to get to the center of a tootsie roll lolly pop?
-
Kerry is a Senator....what he say's matters. Dean is the head of the DNC one of the major political partys in the country.
I even said it's not that he's calling us terrorists but this is in response to a question about Joe Leiberman's recent visit to Iraq and report of progress. I have to wonder what they are thinking.
Nef,
Let me rephrase I think you are wrong. I think this because we arent the "secret police" over there. The doors we bust down in the middle of the night are known terrorists based on the good intel job we have been doing over there as of late. We do a far better job of being respectfull of those we detain than the Iraqis themselves. We arent the ones' terrorising people for our actions. I can only assume that a car filled with a few arty shells about to explode at a school where kids are waiting in line for new books would be more of a reason to be afraid. He arent the "boogie men" over there.
But the context of the comments are perfect. I did not take out of context anything. He was responding to a question about progress and spun it into a negative. I can only think he does this for political reasons.
and for the "daily bash the democrats by gunslinger" crowed I hardly call anything I've said here bashing.
How do you explain Dean's comments yesturday "idea that we're going to win the war in Iraq is an idea which is just plain wrong." There's no room for out of context here he say's we are going to lose PERIOD.
DId this make any headlines yesturday.....barely.
Is this bashing? What I'm doing is cronicaling these comments and trying to show a pattern here. These democrats don't seem to want Iraq to succeed. They say things to take political jabs. It's not right.
And there is no reason, Bob, that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, women, breaking sort of the customs of the--of--the historical customs, religious customs.
I dont' see how you can take this out of context. "American soldiers going into the homes of iraqis" and it all goes down hill from there. I can think of more than a few reasons American's go into the homes of Iraqis but none are to terrorize children and break religious customs. again those are the exception and not the rule. We've done a great job recently in snatch and grabs working right along side Iraqi police. Usually one insurgent caught leads to four more and to ten more and so on. It's not like this is done at random and AGAIN this is in response to a question about PROGRESS. This is the best he has to say about our efforts there?
-
I was on my way back from lunch this afternoon when I happened to catch Howard Dean patriotically saying that America was in another "Vietnam" and that it was just "plain wrong" to think that America could prevail in Iraq.
It was at this point that I had to finally admit the hard truth, that I am not a patriot nor it seems will I ever be one. You see, unlike great patriots like Dean, and Kerry, and Sheehan, I just can't seem to bring myself to the patriotic fever pitch point where I am willing to make statements that will demoralize American troops, and give aid, comfort, and encouragement to their enemies.
In hindsight, I think it may be partly because I'm selfish. Too many of the members of my congregation are deployed or are soon to be deployed, and I know its their patriotic duty to be killed and defeated so that the Republicans can be ejected from power and the Jihad prevail, but I just keep hoping that they will come home alive and that the bloodthirsty Islamic Jihadists will be the ones who get defeated. I know too I should be ashamed of my lack of patriotism, especially given the fact that I'm applying to become a citizen, but I just can't help but hope that democracy and goodness will actually prevail, and that Islam will sputter out. If only I could see and understand that America really is the Great Satan and the US Army the true terrorizers, and that the Caliphate will be really be peace and paradise. But I can't, and so it seems I'm doomed to be a traitor, a fifth columnist, and just plain un-American.
I hope you guys at least can understand and perhaps forgive me.
- SEAGOON
-
So now it's patriotic to keep your mouth shut... which freedoms exactly are we fighting for again?
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
So now it's patriotic to keep your mouth shut... which freedoms exactly are we fighting for again?
Do you really fail to understand there is a time and place for everything? The time to debate war is before it starts, once in it, we have to put all chips in and back our nation, and that includes our leadership and our troops. Stand together in a united front. This isn't a new concept, just one some liberals wont grasp because it doesnt serve their selfish nature.
I am sick of fools saying "I support the troops" when they have done exactly zero to support them. Not sent one box of goodies, not treated one soldier to a meal, nothing.
dago
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
So now it's patriotic to keep your mouth shut... which freedoms exactly are we fighting for again?
yes it's unpatriotic to say anything disparaging about our great president so hush up now.
-
Originally posted by storch
yes it's unpatriotic to say anything disparaging about our great president so hush up now.
I fail to see how either of you or MTs comments add anything to this thread nore how they are relevent. No were in this thread does it say the president is great except for your pithy comment.
I still don't see a valid argument where it's healthy in a conflict that we are in fact winning for a political party to say we are losing or disparaging our troops work thus far for no other reason then to politically attack their opposing party. This isn't about patriotism, do any of you realize what the middle east will look like if we lose in Iraq? That seems to be what some democrats want for no other reason than political gain. Again I don't see how this "free speech" as MT put it is healthy for America and our troops fighting abroad.
-
Originally posted by Yeager
Screaming horward Dean said in a radio interview that the US wont succeed in Iraq. Dean is punk.
LOL, GWB said almost the same thing on live primetime TV!
"I don't think you can win it," Mr. Bush replied. "But
I think you can create conditions so that those who
use terror as a tool are less acceptable in parts of
the world."
Bush Cites Doubt America Can Win War on Terror
By ELISABETH BUMILLER
New York Times
Published: August 31, 2004
http://tinyurl.com/at5gp
But, IOKIYAAR I suppose.
-
Bush was talking about the war on terror when he made that comment
:rolleyes:
-
I still think the new rolleyes just don't do justice.
-
Do statements like Dean's encourage the enemy and contribute to a defeat in Iraq? Of course they do. Jihadists are generally at least half as bright as the North Vietnamese, and in terms of their willingness to persevere? Well they've been at this for 1300 years so far...
"Question: How did Hanoi intend to defeat the Americans?
Answer: By fighting a long war which would break their will to help South Vietnam. Ho Chi Minh said, "We don't need to win military victories, we only need to hit them until they give up and get out."
Q: Was the American antiwar movement important to Hanoi's victory?
A: It was essential to our strategy. Support of the war from our rear was completely secure while the American rear was vulnerable. Every day our leadership would listen to world news over the radio at 9 a.m. to follow the growth of the American antiwar movement. Visits to Hanoi by people like Jane Fonda, and former Attorney General Ramsey Clark and ministers gave us confidence that we should hold on in the face of battlefield reverses. We were elated when Jane Fonda, wearing a red Vietnamese dress, said at a press conference that she was ashamed of American actions in the war and that she would struggle along with us."
[Wall Street Journal, Thursday August 3, 1995, Interview with NVA General Staff member, Colonel Bui Tin]
All of America's enemies at this point have learned the real lesson of the Vietnam war: the key to victory lies in defeating the USA at home, not on foreign battlefields.
-
Originally posted by Dago
I am sick of fools saying "I support the troops" when they have done exactly zero to support them. Not sent one box of goodies, not treated one soldier to a meal, nothing.
dago
Just so you know... I am not one of those fools, and I will not have my freedom trampled by anyone... including and especially our government. Time and place is governed by the necessity for action. PERIOD.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Just so you know... I am not one of those fools, and I will not have my freedom trampled by anyone... including and especially our government. Time and place is governed by the necessity for action. PERIOD.
Tell me, has some 18 year old Soldier sent to a war zone and faced with death at the hands of a brutal enemy attempted to deny you of your freedom? Maybe had some Air Force pilot try to arrest you and put you in jail? Maybe a young marine who has a wife and small child worried about him at home has tried to deny you of some constitutional right?
Do you mean to say you dont support the troops?
Or that you do and have done something tangible as a result, such as sending them care packages, volunteering to help at a VA hospital, donating to a military family support organization, volunteered at the USO?
Your answers to my questions will tell us much about you, thanks.
dago
-
I think it is important to note that...
Allmost every one of the liberals on this board that are crying big crocadile tears for the "troops" and wanting to bring them home.... would consider the troops themselves (if they met them) to be moronic rednecks fit only to be the butt of their jokes by some sissy liberal comedian...
The "troops" would not be the kind of people that the bleeding hearts here would hang out with in any case....
simply more liberal "we love humanity but hate people" bs.
lazs
-
Wrong again lazs... does it get old?
Some of the troops shared Thanksgiving dinner at my house, some of the troops got free drinks from me on at least 2 occasions over the past year. I think they appreciated the beers more than the dinner...
Hey Dago... just reread my last post... slowly, you seem to have questions it contains the answers.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Wrong again lazs... does it get old?
Some of the troops shared Thanksgiving dinner at my house, some of the troops got free drinks from me on at least 2 occasions over the past year. I think they appreciated the beers more than the dinner...
Hey Dago... just reread my last post... slowly, you seem to have questions it contains the answers.
I still don't understand were your freedom is getting trampled.
-
My freedom is trampled when I'm told to keep my mouth shut about the war because it aids our enemy... that is pure BS, especially when people make reasonable statements like "pull out as soon as practical" and they are accused of being cowards and wanting to "cut and run". Horse hockey.
-
See Rule #4
-
Originally posted by Seagoon
All of America's enemies at this point have learned the real lesson of the Vietnam war: the key to victory lies in defeating the USA at home, not on foreign battlefields.
Actually, the real lesson there is that democracies like the USA shouldn't pick their fights on the basis of either faulty assumptions (Vietnam) or pretexts of dubious veracity that don't stand up to critical scrutiny (Iraq) otherwise they risk losing the public support needed to stay the course.
-
no one's freedoms are being trampled. I personally oppose the "patriot act" and consider it abusive beyond that everything else is consistent within the context of our current armed involvement on two fronts. many here, and sadly in our nation confuse freedom with libertinism. we are a nation at war, we have a responsibility to the young people we send in harm's way to offer them our support irrespective of our ideology. this is not the time to be opposing the administration's policy on the war by condemning the actions of our people in uniform. this does nothing but encourage the enemy and lengthens the conflict. the time for review of policy and execution will come. sadly you pinhead liberals are too self absorbed to understand any of this and you place the entire nation at risk of further harm while carrying on as if there were no war.
-
Sounds familiar... something like the Cold War mentality where you had best not say anything good about those other guys... you might be a commie simp.
I can most certainly support our troops and wish them not only good luck but insist they have the tools they need to kick ass. At the same time I can most certainly speak out against this stupid move into Iraq and its consequences for the future.
-
I don't read much Ann Coulter, but she did have one good point that always is brought up by Liberals.
McCarthyism.
Liberals have failed to produce one person who was falsely accused of being a Communist.
They have just gone to say that McCarthyism was a whacked out which hunt.
-
Originally posted by storch
no one's freedoms are being trampled. sadly you pinhead liberals are too self absorbed to understand any of this and you place the entire nation at risk of further harm while carrying on as if there were no war.
If no ones freedom's are being trampled (which I can somewhat agree), then no one is placing the entire nation at risk either. Especially by excersing those freedoms.
Here's the problem for Bush et. al.
I supported him in the '00 election and when he first ventured into Iraq.
Now that his stated justification for going into Iraq was shown to be a lie...maybe not his, but certainly he is responsible for the actions of his team as his quote in Rip's signature block would attest, he started to loose me.
He goes on to say "Mission Accomplished", when we are far from it.
Then he states it's about fighting terrorism, when in reality it was about regime change, period.
Now the biggest problem I have with this.....the ONLY terrorist who has proved to be able to strike us on our soil is not captured. In fact, Iraq has taken the American's public eye off of that ball.
Seagoon, I understand your emotional feelings towards this as you are in a line of work and a place that puts close to the people carrying on the fight. However, you are going way over the top with some of your "the nation is not patriotic, or the nation is going to collapse" stuff because people, rightfully, demand accountability and answers to very appropiate challenges.
I am a citizen of this country, and I have every right to and a duty to challenge our elected officials on the choices they make. Remember, they are supposed act on our behalf and just as important, they are to take actions that will benefit us as a nation. I question that in this instance.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
I don't read much Ann Coulter, but she did have one good point that always is brought up by Liberals.
McCarthyism.
Liberals have failed to produce one person who was falsely accused of being a Communist.
They have just gone to say that McCarthyism was a whacked out which hunt.
Joe Conason ripped Coulter a new one for her stupidly thought out and selective re-write of McCarthyism. They agreed, Coulter and Conason, to have a debate about the issue. Coulter insisted they change the deabte for her schedule, they did so and she no-showed. She's not only stupid and a damned liar, she's a coward.
Read Conason's review here:
http://www.yuricareport.com/RevisitedBks/CoulterTreason.html
Sakai
-
sakai, the russians tell us now that McCarthy was right, they say they had spies everywhere, did you know that FDR's first VP was a commi? you do know how russia got the plans for the a-bomb don't you?
-
Originally posted by john9001
sakai, the russians tell us now that McCarthy was right, they say they had spies everywhere, did you know that FDR's first VP was a commi? you do know how russia got the plans for the a-bomb don't you?
That's not really accurate and yes I know something about history and politics, it being one of my main areas of college study.
Read what was posted:
The FBI identified the vast majority of the Communist spy rings unearthed prior to Mccarthy's little stunt and sideshow.
The unveiling of the KGB files identified several actual spies nailed by the FBI, most famously the Rosenbergs as I recall.
There were several people Mccarthy slandered that had never been identified in those files you are touting, and Conason names those.
The other problem with Coulter's poorly researched premise, and the way these things get re-reported on line as "fact" as evidenced here is really the issue, was how McCarthy was actually duped by one of those identified in the KGB files as in fact a Soviet agent to get Joachim Peiper acquitted for Malmedy.
So TG Joe, Coulter's hero, was used by a commie spy to get an actual enemy accused of war crimes, of the US off the hook. Coulter dropped that little piece from her research.
I know no one here is foolish enough to excuse a lunatic like Coulter, but when people repeat these falsehoods as "facts" it takes away from how tarnished her reputation is and how sophmoric and inaccurate her entire premise is.
You need to not associate commie spy with people who ever attended a Communist anything. Those are two different notions and in the US at the time of FDR's actions there was a huge anarcho socialist movement. Most of those folks were patriotic Americans who were sick of starving mate.
Conason's disembowling of Coulter has never been overturned except with clipped bloggers who say they know more than you do.
Facts is facts. The point was Coulter's inaccurate statements and folks parroting those as accurate.
No, she was dead wrong and remains dead wrong. She is a liar, a dolt and a coward--not anyone I would cite or support if I wanted to lend credibility to a debate.
Sakai
-
soo... how many were falsely accused of being commies?
lazs
-
Originally posted by Sakai
That's not really accurate and yes I know something about history and politics, it being one of my main areas of college study.
Sakai
so, you studied revisionist socialist history in college, that explains your attitude toward America.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
soo... how many were falsely accused of being commies?
lazs
Read it yourself.
Sakai
-
See Rule #4
-
poor sakai, so young , so bitter
-
See Rule #4
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
I don't read much Ann Coulter, but she did have one good point that always is brought up by Liberals.
McCarthyism.
Liberals have failed to produce one person who was falsely accused of being a Communist.
They have just gone to say that McCarthyism was a whacked out which hunt.
Show me exactly where in our laws or even the constitution that states being a communist is illegal?
-
Originally posted by john9001
so, you studied revisionist socialist history in college, that explains your attitude toward America.
Some right wing folks will never learn anything because you don't seem to accept the possibility that when the world and all of history says you're wrong, that might be accurate.
There is no review of Ann Coulter that accepts what she has written as anything but inaccurate and revisionist (including arch-right wing man David Horowitz, I might point out), therefore challenging such dialogue is actually a-revisionist, correct?
Any understanding of history readily indicates that nationalism and patriotism are two separate things and those who don't bother to educate themselves as to that fact are doomed to be washed away in the falsehoods of tyrants.
That's what America stands for, not blind and unthinking rhetoric and demagoguery as evidenced by the likes of AC.
Sakai
-
Originally posted by lazs2
I think it is important to note that...
Allmost every one of the liberals on this board that are crying big crocadile tears for the "troops" and wanting to bring them home.... would consider the troops themselves (if they met them) to be moronic rednecks fit only to be the butt of their jokes by some sissy liberal comedian...
The "troops" would not be the kind of people that the bleeding hearts here would hang out with in any case....
simply more liberal "we love humanity but hate people" bs.
lazs
This is inaccurate in my case:
My nephew is a marine mechanic pressed into service as a chopper Door Gunner (and a fine one I'd add) and perhaps I simply want him to live now that he's served two tours.
I'd say what you wrote was offensive in the extreme and not really worthy of thoughtful dialogue.
Why would you wish to suppose such things for others?
This is an extremely offensive and spurious accusation on your part,
Sakai
-
Originally posted by Stringer
He goes on to say "Mission Accomplished", when we are far from it.
If Bush said "mission accomplished", I missed it.
I did hear him say "major combat operations are over", and they were and are. The major combat operations were against the Iraqi Army and Republican Guard, and lets face it, we whipped their butts.
When did he say "mission accomplished"? I really missed it and would like to read about it and find out exactly what he was talking about. Do me a favor and post a link to that speech if you can. Thanks
-
stringer your logic on this issue seems flawed to me. the attitudes/values championed by the liberals such as MT may effectively cause us to collectively lose the will to fight this tough fight just as what occurred in vietnam. notice that the outcome of the vietnam debacle is we now have 3/4 of southeast asia firmly in the communist fold, confirming the much maligned "domino effect" theory has become fiat. unless china modifies it's communism then that monster can once again rear it's repressive head. if we do not continue to press those that would harm our people on their territory then the front lines will once again be here. this conflict began in yemen and in kenya. clinton allowed them to hit us at the tip of manhattan, the current president pushed it to the other side of world once again. do you guys not understand that we need to fight these guys on their turf? weigh the alternatives. there is no appeasing these guys, there is no negotiating with them. they hate us because we are. they will not stop until we make them stop. if you guys don't understand this fundamental truth you are deluded. if you guys regain national power then we are doomed.
-
Originally posted by Sakai
This is inaccurate in my case:
My nephew is a marine mechanic pressed into service as a chopper Door Gunner (and a fine one I'd add) and perhaps I simply want him to live now that he's served two tours.
I'd say what you wrote was offensive in the extreme and not really worthy of thoughtful dialogue.
Why would you wish to suppose such things for others?
This is an extremely offensive and spurious accusation on your part,
Sakai
really? speaking in generalities it seems to me that lazs has hit the nail on the head. aside from your kin, how do you feel about the others currently in service?
-
Originally posted by Dago
If Bush said "mission accomplished", I missed it.
Thanks
[(http://www.zipcon.net/stdale/mission_accomplished.jpg)
-
Dago,
I'll give you a hint....he arrived wearing a flight suit standing on a carrier with a BIG sign that stated "Mission Accomplished".
Not being a smartass, but how could you have missed that staged press op?
EDIT***...doh, MT posted the pic as I was posting.
-
Originally posted by storch
notice that the outcome of the vietnam debacle is we now have 3/4 of southeast asia firmly in the communist fold, confirming the much maligned "domino effect" theory has become fiat.
Communist countries in Southeast Asia
1. Viet Nam
2. Laos
Took a while for both dominos to fall huh?
lol
-
Originally posted by storch
stringer your logic on this issue seems flawed to me. the attitudes/values championed by the liberals such as MT may effectively cause us to collectively lose the will to fight this tough fight just as what occurred in vietnam. notice that the outcome of the vietnam debacle is we now have 3/4 of southeast asia firmly in the communist fold, confirming the much maligned "domino effect" theory has become fiat. unless china modifies it's communism then that monster can once again rear it's repressive head. if we do not continue to press those that would harm our people on their territory then the front lines will once again be here. this conflict began in yemen and in kenya. clinton allowed them to hit us at the tip of manhattan, the current president pushed it to the other side of world once again. do you guys not understand that we need to fight these guys on their turf? weigh the alternatives. there is no appeasing these guys, there is no negotiating with them. they hate us because we are. they will not stop until we make them stop. if you guys don't understand this fundamental truth you are deluded. if you guys regain national power then we are doomed.
Your logic is definately flawed....I'm not a liberal or even a registered Democrat.
The Clinton reference, while not original, is persistent. Funny thing, I voted for Bush Sr. in '92 and Dole in "96.
I am, however, able to sift through the bull**** to think for myself.
-
Again, didnt Bush say "Major Combat Operations are over" in regards to Iraq?
Who put the sign up, Bush or the Aircraft Carrier personnel? And when you get down to it, wasnt the carriers mission accomplished? Could that be what the sign is saying and who it is saying it to? They were given a mission, and they accomplished it, as did all our armed forces, because after all, wasn't the mission of defeating the Iraqi armed forces accomplished? I think it was. Their army ceased to exist as a fighting unit, same could be said for any Navy or Air Force they had. Saddams regime has been removed, are now on trial, and a new democratic government has been elected. That mission is accomplished.
I do not remember Bush yet saying that terrorism has been defeated, that all insurgents and terrorists had been eliminated.
Maybe this line of thought doesnt fit in with the "Bush bad, Bush bad" mentality of those who cant think beyond their own obsession, but thankfully many can and do have the ability to form independant thought and conclusions.
dago
-
Originally posted by Stringer
He goes on to say "Mission Accomplished", when we are far from it.
Decided to review what he said, wanted to be fair and accurate, so I found the transcript on the aircraft carrier, here it is, still dont see the "mission accomplished" that Stringer says Bush said. I do see where he says "the mission continues".
Thursday, May 1, 2003 Posted: 9:48 PM EDT (0148 GMT)
President Bush on the flight deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln
ABOARD THE USS ABRAHAM LINCOLN (CNN) -- The following is an unedited transcript of President Bush's historic speech from the flight deck of the USS Lincoln, during which he declared an end to major combat in Iraq:
Thank you. Thank you all very much.
Admiral Kelly, Captain Card, officers and sailors of the USS Abraham Lincoln, my fellow Americans, major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed.
And now our coalition is engaged in securing and reconstructing that country.
In this battle, we have fought for the cause of liberty and for the peace of the world. Our nation and our coalition are proud of this accomplishment, yet it is you, the members of the United States military, who achieved it. Your courage, your willingness to face danger for your country and for each other made this day possible.
Because of you our nation is more secure. Because of you the tyrant has fallen and Iraq is free.
Operation Iraqi Freedom was carried out with a combination of precision and speed and boldness the enemy did not expect and the world had not seen before.
From distant bases or ships at sea, we sent planes and missiles that could destroy an enemy division or strike a single bunker. Marines and soldiers charged to Baghdad across 350 miles of hostile ground in one of the swiftest advances of heavy arms in history.
You have shown the world the skill and the might of the American armed forces.
This nation thanks all of the members of our coalition who joined in a noble cause. We thank the armed forces of the United Kingdom, Australia and Poland who shared in the hardships of war. We thank all of the citizens of Iraq who welcomed our troops and joined in the liberation of their own country.
And tonight, I have a special word for Secretary Rumsfeld, for General Franks and for all the men and women who wear the uniform of the United States: America is grateful for a job well done.
The character of our military through history, the daring of Normandy, the fierce courage of Iwo Jima, the decency and idealism that turned enemies into allies is fully present in this generation.
When Iraqi civilians looked into the faces of our service men and women, they saw strength and kindness and good will. When I look at the members of the United States military, I see the best of our country and I am honored to be your commander in chief.
In the images of fallen statues we have witnessed the arrival of a new era. For a hundred of years of war, culminating in the nuclear age, military technology was designed and deployed to inflict casualties on an ever-growing scale.
In defeating Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, Allied forces destroyed entire cities, while enemy leaders who started the conflict were safe until the final days. Military power was used to end a regime by breaking a nation.
Today we have the greater power to free a nation by breaking a dangerous and aggressive regime.
With new tactics and precision weapons, we can achieve military objectives without directing violence against civilians.
No device of man can remove the tragedy from war, yet it is a great advance when the guilty have far more to fear from war than the innocent.
In the images of celebrating Iraqis we have also seen the ageless appeal of human freedom. Decades of lies and intimidation could not make the Iraqi people love their oppressors or desire their own enslavement.
Men and women in every culture need liberty like they need food and water and air. Everywhere that freedom arrives, humanity rejoices and everywhere that freedom stirs, let tyrants fear.
We have difficult work to do in Iraq. We're bringing order to parts of that country that remain dangerous. We're pursuing and finding leaders of the old regime who will be held to account for their crimes. We've begun the search for hidden chemical and biological weapons, and already know of hundreds of sites that will be investigated.
We are helping to rebuild Iraq where the dictator built palaces for himself instead of hospitals and schools.
And we will stand with the new leaders of Iraq as they establish a government of, by and for the Iraqi people.
The transition from dictatorship to democracy will take time, but it is worth every effort. Our coalition will stay until our work is done and then we will leave and we will leave behind a free Iraq.
The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11th, 2001 and still goes on.
That terrible morning, 19 evil men, the shock troops of a hateful ideology, gave America and the civilized world a glimpse of their ambitions. They imagined, in the words of one terrorist, that September the 11th would be the beginning of the end of America.
By seeking to turn our cities into killing fields, terrorists and their allies believed that they could destroy this nation's resolve and force our retreat from the world.
They have failed.
In the battle of Afghanistan, we destroyed the Taliban, many terrorists and the camps where they trained. We continue to help the Afghan people lay roads, restore hospitals and educate all of their children.
Yet we also have dangerous work to complete. As I speak, a special operations task force lead by the 82nd Airborne is on the trail of the terrorists and those who seek to undermine the free government of Afghanistan.
America and our coalition will finish what we have begun.
From Pakistan to the Philippines to the Horn of Africa, we are hunting down Al Qaida killers.
Nineteen months ago I pledged that the terrorists would not escape the patient justice of the United States. And as of tonight nearly one half of Al Qaida's senior operatives have been captured or killed.
The liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance in the campaign against terror. We have removed an ally of Al Qaida and cut off a source of terrorist funding.
And this much is certain: No terrorist network will gain weapons of mass destruction from the Iraqi regime, because the regime is no more.
In these 19 months that changed the world, our actions have been focused and deliberate and proportionate to the offense. We have not forgotten the victims of September the 11th, the last phone calls, the cold murder of children, the searches in the rubble. With those attacks, the terrorists and their supporters declared war on the United States, and war is what they got.
Our war against terror is proceeding according to the principles that I have made clear to all.
Any person involved in committing or planning terrorist attacks against the American people becomes an enemy of this country and a target of American justice.
Any person, organization or government that supports, protects or harbors terrorists is complicit in the murder of the innocent and equally guilty of terrorist crimes. Any outlaw regime that has ties to terrorist groups and seeks or possesses weapons of mass destruction is a grave danger to the civilized world and will be confronted.
And anyone in the world, including the Arab world, who works and sacrifices for freedom has a loyal friend in the United States of America.
Our commitment to liberty is America's tradition, declared at our founding, affirmed in Franklin Roosevelt's Four Freedoms, asserted in the Truman Doctrine and in Ronald Reagan's challenge to an evil empire.
We are committed to freedom in Afghanistan, Iraq and in a peaceful Palestine.
The advance of freedom is the surest strategy to undermine the appeal of terror in the world. Where freedom takes hold, hatred gives way to hope.
When freedom takes hold, men and women turn to the peaceful pursuit of a better life.
American values and American interests lead in the same direction. We stand for human liberty.
The United States upholds these principles of security and freedom in many ways: with all of the tools of diplomacy, law enforcement, intelligence and finance.
We are working with a broad coalition of nations that understand the threat and our shared responsibility to meet it.
The use of force has been and remains our last resort. Yet all can know, friend and foe alike, that our nation has a mission: We will answer threats to our security, and we will defend the peace.
Our mission continues. Al Qaida is wounded, not destroyed. The scattered cells of the terrorist network still operate in many nations and we know from daily intelligence that they continue to plot against free people. The proliferation of deadly weapons remains a serious danger.
-
The enemies of freedom are not idle, and neither are we. Our government has taken unprecedented measures to defend the homeland and we will continue to hunt down the enemy before he can strike.
The war on terror is not over, yet it is not endless. We do not know the day of final victory, but we have seen the turning of the tide.
No act of the terrorists will change our purpose, or weaken our resolve, or alter their fate. Their cause is lost; free nations will press on to victory.
Other nations in history have fought in foreign lands and remained to occupy and exploit. Americans, following a battle, want nothing more than to return home. And that is your direction tonight.
After service in the Afghan and Iraqi theaters of war, after 100,000 miles on the longest carrier deployment in recent history, you are homeward bound.
Some of you will see new family members for the first time; 150 babies were born while their fathers were on the Lincoln. Your families are proud of you, and your nation will welcome you.
We are mindful as well that some good men and women are not making the journey home. One of those who fell, Corporal Jason Mileo, spoke to his parents five days before his death. Jason's father said, "He called us from the center of Baghdad, not to brag but to tell us he loved us. Our son was a soldier."
Every name, every life is a loss to our military, to our nation and to the loved ones who grieve. There is no homecoming for these families. Yet we pray in God's time their reunion will come.
Those we lost were last seen on duty.
Their final act on this Earth was to fight a great evil and bring liberty to others.
All of you, all in this generation of our military, have taken up the highest calling of history: You were defending your country and protecting the innocent from harm.
And wherever you go, you carry a message of hope, a message that is ancient and ever new. In the words of the prophet Isaiah, "To the captives, come out; and to those in darkness, be free."
Thank you for serving our country and our cause.
May God bless you all. And may God continue to bless America. [/quote]
You can find the transcript at Transcript (http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/05/01/bush.transcript/index.html)
-
Originally posted by Stringer
Dago,
I'll give you a hint....he arrived wearing a flight suit standing on a carrier with a BIG sign that stated "Mission Accomplished".
Not being a smartass, but how could you have missed that staged press op?
EDIT***...doh, MT posted the pic as I was posting.
Why not be a smartass, your already wrong.
BTW, my son was part of that 82nd Airborne hunting down Taliban and Al Queda in Afghanistan Bush mentioned when this took place. I am proud of him.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
I think it is important to note that...
Allmost every one of the liberals on this board that are crying big crocadile tears for the "troops" and wanting to bring them home.... would consider the troops themselves (if they met them) to be moronic rednecks fit only to be the butt of their jokes by some sissy liberal comedian...
The "troops" would not be the kind of people that the bleeding hearts here would hang out with in any case....
simply more liberal "we love humanity but hate people" bs.
lazs
What an insult Laz..........................
I served.
-
Originally posted by storch
really? speaking in generalities it seems to me that lazs has hit the nail on the head. aside from your kin, how do you feel about the others currently in service?
Well,
The insinuation is highly offensive. One could easliy interpret your postulate as being arrogance (i.e., "I love our troops more than you do, I am more patriotic . . ." etc.). So please correct me if I am worng there.
I don't think of such attitudes as being relevant to anything worthy of our men and women in uniform.
I wouldn't cast aspersions on them by pretending to be anything besides what I am, and I think that when people pretend to know more about the military or care for it more than anyone else they really simply cheapen the service our folks provide. Barbara Bush, the President's mother, famously lectured her husband on untoward flag waving and has described teh cheap and unseemly character it hints at. You might call her and ask her if she supports our men in arms?
So I'd rather not engage in anything that cheapens our men and women more than I feel you already have by insinuating that you or lazs should be allowed to define what this nation is. I think men and women fighting for our freedom deserve better than what you two are offering.
Thanks for the question,
Sakai
-
Don't take offense Dago, but you know, the entire whitehouse has been embroiled in that Mission Accomplished scandal which some political hack there set up.
If the President does not endorse that commentary it would never have been flown behind him.
Sakai
-
Originally posted by storch
really? speaking in generalities it seems to me that lazs has hit the nail on the head. aside from your kin, how do you feel about the others currently in service?
You want me to believe that you cant see the diff between being against the lies, misrepresentation and outright mismanagement of this war and supporting our military?
If you cant see the difference and attacking on this level is all you have then this country is worse off than I thought.
-
MT,
I don't fault you for wanting freedom of speech, I want it too. In fact I have the freedom to criticise that speech wich I disagree with and I think is dangerous.
No one in this thread has yet to explain away dean's comments. I agree Kerry's comments can be construded differently than I presented them but I hardly think that's taking them or anyone else comments out of context. You mix all of this with Nazi remarks by Durbin and Pelosi's latest rehtoric and you get a pattern that even other democrats disagree with.
Here's an excelent article from MSNBC that is saying alot of what I agree with.
Opposition party wrestles with consequences of withdrawing U.S. troops (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10366278/)
how far are the democrats willing to go to bring down a president and regain power?
-
Originally posted by Silat
You want me to believe that you cant see the diff between being against the lies, misrepresentation and outright mismanagement of this war and supporting our military?
If you cant see the difference and attacking on this level is all you have then this country is worse off than I thought.
Silat it's not just about hating the lies and supporting the troops, it's about wanting a win or a victory. It's about ignoring or denying real progress.
We are fighting in a country of 20 million people that want freedom and fight along side us against a group of 10,000 embedded within the population that want nothing more than to A. regain power or B. create an islamic state of oppression.
We've beat the "insurgancy" in every battle militarily but are losing pitifully on the homefront and in the media.
-
I disagree but understand you opinion.:)
But some in this thread have made blanket statements that are personal attacks...................... .................They wouldnt like it if I said they were unpatriotic and didnt love the troops because they support a mismanaged war. It can go both ways.
It is uncalled for.
-
Originally posted by Silat
I disagree but understand you opinion.:)
But some in this thread have made blanket statements that are personal attacks...................... .................They wouldnt like it if I said they were unpatriotic and didnt love the troops because they support a mismanaged war. It can go both ways.
It is uncalled for.
True, and I'm not calling anyone patriotic, but do question their motives.
Do you disagree that having a prominent political figure in our country say (paraphrase: we can't win the war in Iraq) is at minimum careless?
-
Originally posted by Sakai
Don't take offense Dago, but you know, the entire whitehouse has been embroiled in that Mission Accomplished scandal which some political hack there set up.
If the President does not endorse that commentary it would never have been flown behind him.
Sakai
What, you think he was going to show up on the carrier and in front of the camera start demanding they take that sign down? Really?
That carrier had accomplished it's mission and was returning home to loved ones waiting at the docks. They were proud and felt (rightly so) that they had accomplished their mission. Nobody construes accomplishing a mission with winning a war, or ending a fight against terrorism.
I hardly think you or I am in a position to think we know what the President "really" meant, or whether he wanted that sign up there, but I do honestly believe he would not have dared ordered it taken down when he arrived on the ship whether he agreed with it or not.
Instead, lets just go with what he said, and what was recorded "major combat operations are over" and "the mission continues".
You were wrong in your original statement, you put words in his mouth that didnt exist, and now you are trying to dance around it, kind of like Dan Rather dancing around his fraudulent memos trying to pretend that the national guard story was true even though he had zero proof. Its not what you think, its what you can prove.
And, while no offense meant, I proved you wrong here.
It's happened to me enough. :)
dago
-
Originally posted by Silat
What an insult Laz..........................
I served.
So did John Kerry. He doesnt care about our troops though, he is happy to bad mouth them and embarrass them in front of the world for his intended political gain. He would hang them out to dry or let them be slaughtered if he thought it would win him an election.
So, while I respect your service, sadly it doesnt buy you the consideration it should any longer due to traitors like Kerry.
dago
-
Dago,
I mean your right....so seaman rating decided all on their own to put up that mission accomplished sign. I mean the symbolism the White House wanted to create is unmistakable, unless you don't want to admit it.
I
'm not wrong, and where I have said I am not proud of the friends that I know that are serving?
I'm not sure why you even brought that up in a response to my posts. Nice try though Dago. But hey, I'm not a real American right? That's what the dimmer bulbs seem to say here.
I guess I'll take smartass over handsomehunk anyday.
Gunslinger,
Neither has anyone in this thread explained away the lack of WMD's, the fact that the ONLY person that has proved capable of striking us on our soil has yet to be caught.
The person on trial never demonstrated that they could do that. I know that he probably wanted to in his more nutjob moments, but he never did it, and the one who has is not on trial or even in custody.
And if we are losing so pitifully on the homefront don't you think that maybe there's a good reason for that, like the war we are in is not the war we were sold. Or how about Bush not doing a good job of convincing us that just because the eminent threat of Sadam's WMD's were apparently not there, but the reason is still just for causing the deaths of American citizens.
I am no dove, but I do want Bush to be accountable for his misrepresentation. His degree of accountability is higher than the average citizen because his decisions have higher consequences associated with them.
Listen, if this cause of Iraq was so just, then why the shell game with the justification for getting us there. Why didn't he just say, Regime Change is the reason and we are here to spread freedom to the Iraqi's from the get go? Why not make that the case to the American people.
Answer that one. Why the WMD fib then?
And the Dems don't get a free pass on this. They went with it and authorized it as well. They don't get the luxury of playing both sides.
I am all for projecting our power around the globe, even to the point of engaging in war. So do not misread me here. I do not think Iraq action was the best use to leverage our power. It is not Lib or Con or any of that, period.
It is much more pragmatic than all that cheerleader stuff they sell us. It is about lives, dollars and global leadership. It is about showing don't screw with us, but that we can also be trusted with our leadership role to use this power to its utmost advantage for the US. And loosing credibility on the reasons for going into this does not do that.
We are there, and we need to clean it up. But being critical of the Admin is not aiding and abetting the enemy. That is so hyperbolic to be laughable.
-
gunslinger, you need to stop being such an arse. your constant ranting about "the enemy within" is getting tired. nobody but a bunch of crazies would believe that the US military is intentionally terrorizing these people. im not saying that we dont sometimes accidentally freak out an iraqi civilian or two, that is just part of occupation duty.
-
Originally posted by SMIDSY
gunslinger, you need to stop being such an arse. your constant ranting about "the enemy within" is getting tired. nobody but a bunch of crazies would believe that the US military is intentionally terrorizing these people. im not saying that we dont sometimes accidentally freak out an iraqi civilian or two, that is just part of occupation duty.
I think I'm hardly being an "arse" I'm polite, civil, and my questions are valid.
Stringer WMD's??? this thread is not about WMDs???? if you want to beat that dead horse start a new thread.
Basically the only answers to my issue with the "enemy within" (wich is what I see when a prominent leader ignores progress and says we are going to lose for political gain of his party) is more questions about Bush.
What about this....what about that.....that doesn't fix the problem. I see a definate problem here with some of these democrats .AND SO DO OTHER DOMOCRATS AS WELL (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10366278/) . They are taking political jabs at the expense of the American efforts in Iraq for nothing more than political gain. WMD's Haliburton, Abu Garib....yes these are serious issues, but does this mean victory is not within our grasp and defeat is inevatable?
Stringer at what cost do you want the president accountable? If you were a prominant political figure would you go on record as saying we are beat in Iraq, our troops need to come home just to hold the president accountable?
and again, the progress there is evident yet widely ignored
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
Stringer WMD's??? this thread is not about WMDs???? if you want to beat that dead horse start a new thread.
Stringer at what cost do you want the president accountable? If you were a prominant political figure would you go on record as saying we are beat in Iraq, our troops need to come home just to hold the president accountable?
The thread might not be but the Iraq war was supposed to be.....(I think that needs remembering...kind of like people like to bring up Clinton, whom I never did vote for)
Would have been better a dead horse then dead Americans if it comes out they did not have to go there. (I'm for the Afghan operation 100%, btw)
You guys sure like to tell people what is acceptable to say and when, don't ya.
And no, I would not.
I would however use my position to excercise my obligation to keep the Administration honest (just as I hope you would with any and all Administrations).
**Edit...BTW, I've got no problem with the Haliburton type stuff.....they are qualified and can do the job. Better our corporations getting profits then others, but I sure don't want my taxes to go up due to it.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
I
Liberals have failed to produce one person who was falsely accused of being a Communist.
.
Thing is, the liberal KNOW that the accused were communists, and they think its wrong to call a communist a communist.
-
Originally posted by Stringer
The thread might not be but the Iraq war was supposed to be.....(I think that needs remembering...kind of like people like to bring up Clinton, whom I never did vote for)
Would have been better a dead horse then dead Americans if it comes out they did not have to go there. (I'm for the Afghan operation 100%, btw)
You guys sure like to tell people what is acceptable to say and when, don't ya.
And no, I would not.
I would however use my position to excercise my obligation to keep the Administration honest (just as I hope you would with any and all Administrations).
**Edit...BTW, I've got no problem with the Haliburton type stuff.....they are qualified and can do the job. Better our corporations getting profits then others, but I sure don't want my taxes to go up due to it.
Stringer I'm not telling anyone what to say or what not to say. I'm being critical of what they say because I think it's important and it matters to me.
Am I questioning Dean or Kerry's patriotism....no....I'm questioning their and half of the other democrats motives. The fact that anyone doesn't want to be in a war is admirable because war is hell and people die. The remains that we are there now. It seems to me from what I've read that real measurable progress is being made and the Iraqis want their freedom as much as any oppressed people. Even if the invasion was the ultimate mistake leaving Iraq unfinished when it is in fact winnable would be an even bigger mistake.
It seems to me that some prominent democrats are pushing the Idea that we've allready lost or cannot win. The fight is done bring them home and we'll see what happens. All for political gain completly ignoring the progress and success we've had. The world will experience grave consequences if this happens.
-
You question the dems motives for criticizing the president, I question the president's motives for this stupid war... samo-samo. Neither question is unpatriotic, in fact they both uphold the very reason we have a military... to protect the rights of the American people to voice their opinions.. freely and openly.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
You question the dems motives for criticizing the president, I question the president's motives for this stupid war... samo-samo. Neither question is unpatriotic, in fact they both uphold the very reason we have a military... to protect the rights of the American people to voice their opinions.. freely and openly.
Your not reading correcty and making an assumption. I never baught into that criticise a war time president argument that the republicans made. It was a stupid defense.
Go back and re-read Dean's comments and the questions I asked.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
Go back and re-read Dean's comments and the questions I asked.
I haven't heard Dean's comments except secondhand. Is it true he said, "We can't win -- Vote Democrat?"
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Communist countries in Southeast Asia
1. Viet Nam
2. Laos
Took a while for both dominos to fall huh?
lol
Hi MT,
Cambodia fell to the Communist Khmer Rouge in 1975, the same year that South Vietnam fell to the North Vietnamese. Hanoi had been supporting Pol Pot, while the US had supported the Cambodian government's attempts to erradicate the Khmer Rouge. Predictably the US News Media and American anti-war movement sided with Pol Pot in the conflict. Oh, that is until he took power and killed well over 2 million Cambodians. The media "about face" is actually documented in the 1984 movie "The Killing Fields." But then again, being in the media means never having to say you're sorry, or wrong for that matter.
In the Jihadis, we have the most obviously evil opponents since the end of the Second World War. Men who have no problem purposely killing schoolchildren en masse and who will do literally anything to achieve a worldwide Islamic caliphate. And yet, the Western media and left wing is falling all over itself to make the only country in the world which really stands in their way into the villains in this particular conflict.
Ah well, let us assume they succeed, and the US withdraws from Iraq and Afghanistan and overwhelmingly elects the "end the war on terror" party. What do you think will happen next? Do you expect the Jihadis will say, "Ah, the infidels have been defeated, now we will leave them alone because the right-wing infidels who must be subjugated or destroyed are out of power, and the left-wing infidels who must be subjugated or destroyed are in!"
The Muslim Brotherhood and its worldwide network of affiliated organizations could care less what your politics are, the only factor they are concerned about is your religion. If you aren't a Sunni Muslim, you are simply an obstacle to be overcome on the road to victory and once the only people who really stand between them and you are taken out of the way...
But surely you're being naive and reactionary Seagoon. Why if we weren't in Iraq, they wouldn't be attacking us! In fact it is only because they knew in advance, via crystal ball, that we would invade Iraq in 2003 that they hijacked attacked the Achille Lauro in 1986, bombed the WTC in 1993, bombed the Khobar towers in 1996, bombed US embassies in Tanzania and Kenya in 1998, Bombed the US Cole 2000, attacked Washington D.C. and NYC in 2001, and bombed the US embassy in Karachi in 2002, bombed Nightclubs in Bali in 2002, etc. etc. etc.
In fact, if only we hadn't attacked Iraq, they never would have started the Muslim Brotherhood in the 1930s. Who knows, if it wasn't for his being so angry about Bush and Gitmo, Muhammad might never have started this whole Islamic Jihad business in the first place.
- SEAGOON
-
Originally posted by Dago
So did John Kerry. He doesnt care about our troops though, he is happy to bad mouth them and embarrass them in front of the world for his intended political gain. He would hang them out to dry or let them be slaughtered if he thought it would win him an election.
So, while I respect your service, sadly it doesnt buy you the consideration it should any longer due to traitors like Kerry.
dago
He also fought to get them benefits and health care when no one gave a damn about them
-
When Bush said Mission Accomplished he was referring to the war against the IRAQI MILITARY. and that mission WAS ACCOMPLISHED. Thanks....
The insurgency started a few days later and was a new mission....one the democratic morons in congress and beyond, want to surrender to.
Screw Dem, I say.....
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
I haven't heard Dean's comments except secondhand. Is it true he said, "We can't win -- Vote Democrat?"
His exact words
"idea that we're going to win the war in Iraq is an idea which is just plain wrong."
I don't really know how you can take out of context. I really hope libs like MT look at that and cringe and say "what was he thinking" It may be free speech but it is the wrong thing to say.
-
Seagoon, top marks for self righteous pontification, but that's about it.
In the Jihadis, we have the most obviously evil opponents since the end of the Second World War. Men who have no problem purposely killing schoolchildren en masse and who will do literally anything to achieve a worldwide Islamic caliphate. And yet, the Western media and left wing is falling all over itself to make the only country in the world which really stands in their way into the villains in this particular conflict.
Two points here.
1. Radical Islam as a political philosophy was on its last legs in it's own hinterland until your administration decided to invade Iraq. The Islamists failed to spark their revolution in Algeria and tore themselves apart in the process. Much the same occured in Egypt. as elsewhere in the muslim world. But by invading Iraq and by his idiotic axis of evil pronouncements and talk of crusades, your CIC has managed to actually reinforce and reinvigorate the message that the Islamists have been making all along; namely that the lands of Islam are under occupation and that the Islamic peoples are under attack, and consequently the support of generations of previously moderate Arabs has shifted away from moderation towards extremism.
2. To portray the USA as the only country standing between these particular bogeymen and the rest of the world is patent nonsense. The fact is that the USA is with Saudi Arabia allied with the only country in the world that incorporates radical Sunni Islam into its governing establishment, the same country that has made the export of radical islam second only in importance to it's oil exports. The fact is that you and your bumbling CIC and your ongoing relationship with the country once described as the "kernel of evil" in the middle-east are part of the problem, not part of the solution.
..let us assume they succeed, and the US withdraws from Iraq and Afghanistan and overwhelmingly elects the "end the war on terror" party. What do you think will happen next? Do you expect the Jihadis will say, "Ah, the infidels have been defeated, now we will leave them alone because the right-wing infidels who must be subjugated or destroyed are out of power, and the left-wing infidels who must be subjugated or destroyed are in!
The connection between invading Iraq and fighting Islamic terrorism exists only in your head. Invading Iraq makes no sense in the context of combating religious extremism, in fact if anything it has been counterproductive. No-one is seriously arguing that we cease to work against the Bin Ladens and Al Zawahiris; suggesting that that is the case is a straw man of your own construction.
The Muslim Brotherhood and its worldwide network of affiliated organizations could care less what your politics are, the only factor they are concerned about is your religion. If you aren't a Sunni Muslim, you are simply an obstacle to be overcome on the road to victory and once the only people who really stand between them and you are taken out of the way...
Mustafa Mashhur, General Guide, Muslim Brotherhood, Egypt; Qazi Hussain Ahmed, Ameer, Jamaat-e-Islami Pakistan, Pakistan; Muti Rahman Nizami, Ameer, Jamaat-e-Islami Bangladesh, Bangladesh; Shaykh Ahmad Yassin, Founder, Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas), Palestine; Rashid Ghannoushi, President, Nahda Renaissance Movement, Tunisia; Fazil Nour, President, PAS - Parti Islam SeMalaysia, Malaysia; and 40 other Muslim scholars and politicians:
“The undersigned, leaders of Islamic movements, are horrified by the events of Tuesday 11 September 2001 in the United States which resulted in massive killing, destruction and attack on innocent lives. We express our deepest sympathies and sorrow. We condemn, in the strongest terms, the incidents, which are against all human and Islamic norms. This is grounded in the Noble Laws of Islam which forbid all forms of attacks on innocents. God Almighty says in the Holy Qur'an: 'No bearer of burdens can bear the burden of another' (Surah al-Isra 17:15).”
I guess you missed this statement back in 2001? It takes an idiot of the stature of your current leader to squander this amount of goodwill from your ostensible ideological enemies.
But surely you're being naive and reactionary Seagoon. Why if we weren't in Iraq, they wouldn't be attacking us! In fact it is only because they knew in advance, via crystal ball, that we would invade Iraq in 2003 that they hijacked attacked the Achille Lauro in 1986, bombed the WTC in 1993, bombed the Khobar towers in 1996, bombed US embassies in Tanzania and Kenya in 1998, Bombed the US Cole 2000, attacked Washington D.C. and NYC in 2001, and bombed the US embassy in Karachi in 2002, bombed Nightclubs in Bali in 2002, etc. etc. etc.
In fact, if only we hadn't attacked Iraq, they never would have started the Muslim Brotherhood in the 1930s. Who knows, if it wasn't for his being so angry about Bush and Gitmo, Muhammad might never have started this whole Islamic Jihad business in the first place.
I think you're losing it bud. No-one is questioning the occurance any of those incidents that you list, but only one of them has even the most tenous connection with Iraq and certainly not enough to justify the actions of the last three years.
-
David Horowitz is a good example of what happens to a lefty when he wakes up and jumps ship... He is despised by left... Have you ever read his book "Radical Son"?
Seems he is in a unique position to judge lefties yet... you call him an ultra right wing attack dog or whatever.. He watched the movement from the inside as it grew.. What has he ever said that was not true?
Ann Coulter is villified because she points out that all of the lefties being tagged as lefties by Mccarthy wer indeed.... lefties.
Bush never said that "mission accomplished" about Iraq...
What else have you guys got?
I believe that most of the troops that are in Iraq want to be there. I believe that anyone saying that they support the troops but give strength and hope to the enemy is lieing or naive.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Momus--
Seagoon, top marks for self righteous pontification, but that's about it.
Two points here.
1. Radical Islam as a political philosophy was on its last legs in it's own hinterland until your administration decided to invade Iraq. The Islamists failed to spark their revolution in Algeria and tore themselves apart in the process. Much the same occured in Egypt. as elsewhere in the muslim world. But by invading Iraq and by his idiotic axis of evil pronouncements and talk of crusades, your CIC has managed to actually reinforce and reinvigorate the message that the Islamists have been making all along; namely that the lands of Islam are under occupation and that the Islamic peoples are under attack, and consequently the support of generations of previously moderate Arabs has shifted away from moderation towards extremism.
2. To portray the USA as the only country standing between these particular bogeymen and the rest of the world is patent nonsense. The fact is that the USA is with Saudi Arabia allied with the only country in the world that incorporates radical Sunni Islam into its governing establishment, the same country that has made the export of radical islam second only in importance to it's oil exports. The fact is that you and your bumbling CIC and your ongoing relationship with the country once described as the "kernel of evil" in the middle-east are part of the problem, not part of the solution.
The connection between invading Iraq and fighting Islamic terrorism exists only in your head. Invading Iraq makes no sense in the context of combating religious extremism, in fact if anything it has been counterproductive. No-one is seriously arguing that we cease to work against the Bin Ladens and Al Zawahiris; suggesting that that is the case is a straw man of your own construction.
Mustafa Mashhur, General Guide, Muslim Brotherhood, Egypt; Qazi Hussain Ahmed, Ameer, Jamaat-e-Islami Pakistan, Pakistan; Muti Rahman Nizami, Ameer, Jamaat-e-Islami Bangladesh, Bangladesh; Shaykh Ahmad Yassin, Founder, Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas), Palestine; Rashid Ghannoushi, President, Nahda Renaissance Movement, Tunisia; Fazil Nour, President, PAS - Parti Islam SeMalaysia, Malaysia; and 40 other Muslim scholars and politicians:
“The undersigned, leaders of Islamic movements, are horrified by the events of Tuesday 11 September 2001 in the United States which resulted in massive killing, destruction and attack on innocent lives. We express our deepest sympathies and sorrow. We condemn, in the strongest terms, the incidents, which are against all human and Islamic norms. This is grounded in the Noble Laws of Islam which forbid all forms of attacks on innocents. God Almighty says in the Holy Qur'an: 'No bearer of burdens can bear the burden of another' (Surah al-Isra 17:15).”
I guess you missed this statement back in 2001? It takes an idiot of the stature of your current leader to squander this amount of goodwill from your ostensible ideological enemies.
I think you're losing it bud. No-one is questioning the occurance any of those incidents that you list, but only one of them has even the most tenous connection with Iraq and certainly not enough to justify the actions of the last three years.
You assume way too much.
-
Originally posted by Seagoon
Hi MT,
Cambodia fell to the Communist Khmer Rouge in 1975, the same year that South Vietnam fell to the North Vietnamese. Hanoi had been supporting Pol Pot, while the US had supported the Cambodian government's attempts to erradicate the Khmer Rouge. Predictably the US News Media and American anti-war movement sided with Pol Pot in the conflict. Oh, that is until he took power and killed well over 2 million Cambodians. The media "about face" is actually documented in the 1984 movie "The Killing Fields." But then again, being in the media means never having to say you're sorry, or wrong for that matter.
Without Lon Nol and the CIA nothing would had been possible...
-
Originally posted by lazs2
Ann Coulter is villified because she points out that all of the lefties being tagged as lefties by Mccarthy wer indeed.... lefties.
lazs
No argument there. They were members of the communist party, or former members. Dangerous people like Lucy!
The problem with McCarthy and Coulter and the rest of the Ilk you like to quote is that they demonized an activity that was LEGAL. You or I or any other American has every right to join the communist party. None of us should have to pay for that decision with lost careers or blacklists or jail. Study what McCarthy and his attack dog Cohen did to people. Then you will realize the half truths and outright lies Coulter is foisting on the public that is lapped up by the neocons.. sickening.
These people are in power now, yet the power is based on the lie that they are still fighting those dreaded LIBERALS! If only the Libs could be defeated!!! Liberal is now as dirty a moniker as McCarthy created with the word Communist. Why? Because the neocon movement needs an enemy or it will surely fail.
-
MT... I am not following.. If it is legal to be a member of the communist party then what was the problem? Who blacklisted them? Mccarthy? How could he blacklist people from hollywierd jobs?
I am not too familiar with ann coulter but pretty familiar with David Horowitz works... I don't find anything about what he says to be wrong or missrepresented... He has written several good books including "Radical Son" that pretty much jibes with the little I seen of the left in the bay area during that time.
I think David Horowitz is a pretty courageous guy.. He has been abandoned and villified by all the lefties that he grew up with and was once a part of. I can't find anything about him that seems dishonest...
lazs
-
every time a "american" tells the media that the war is wrong, we can't win, bring the troops home, it encourages the enemy to keep on fighting. by protesting the war you only make it last longer and more troops are killed.
it's a fact....learn it.
-
Originally posted by Momus--
Radical Islam as a political philosophy was on its last legs in it's own hinterland until your administration decided to invade Iraq.
horse pucky
-
Originally posted by Momus--
Seagoon, top marks for self righteous pontification, but that's about it.
Two points here.
1. Radical Islam as a political philosophy was on its last legs in it's
islam is a religion of conversion by the sword. that is how it commenced and how it is today. you and I have but one choice according to all moslems convert or die.
-
Originally posted by john9001
every time a "american" tells the media that the war is wrong, we can't win, bring the troops home, it encourages the enemy to keep on fighting. by protesting the war you only make it last longer and more troops are killed.
it's a fact....learn it.
:rofl
-
Originally posted by StarOfAfrica2
I think he put it in bold to emphasize that the man is calling OUR troops the terrorists now.
Cause and effect!
Our troops are not terrorist's! They are following orders and sometimes that means going into a house where children are and ending in being very scary to the children. THe war was a terribly stupid idea in the first place. It was started on some idealogical basis (besides the WMD claim) that a democracy in the heart of the middle east would only be good for us. No matter how this turns out, Americans will never be able to walk the streets of IRAQ without the threat of being kidnapped and killed. Is there a middle eastern democracy or even pro-US arab country now where US citizens are liked and safe from this threat?? Nope!
-
Hello Momus,
I am genuinely sorry if anything I wrote smacked of self-righteousness, if you would like to point out what I wrote that particularly struck you that way, I will be happy to apologize for it.
I am also sorry we differ in your not acknowledging the steady expansion of the Islamic revival and attendent surge in terrorist attacks and activity (as most terrorist attacks against Western targets are still foiled before they come to fruition).
The point I was making was that attacks against America and American interests were ramping up long before the attack on Iraq.
As for leaders in the Muslim Brotherhood "repudiating" the 9/11 attacks, this is disingenuous to say the least. The first Muslim Brotherhood/Al Qaeda attack on the WTC occurred in 1993 under the direction of Sheik Omar Abdel-Rahman an Egyptian with strong ties to Egypt's various Muslim Brotherhood wings, Ramzey Yousef is of course the nephew of Kalid Shaikh Muhammed who was the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks and also involved in the planning and staging of the 1993 bombings. To say that the Muslim Brotherhood, "opposed" the attacks their members carried out not once, but twice, is absurd. Especially when attacking civilian targets to advance the Jihad is their stock and trade. The official Al-Qaeda statement on the 9/11 attacks is far more in keeping with their actual ideology:
"By means of this document we send a message to America and those behind it. We are coming, by the will of God almighty, no matter what America does. It will never be safe from the fury of Muslims. America is the one who began the war, and it will lose the battle by the permission of God almighty."
-- Al-Qaeda statement, April 24, 2002
It's interesting also that less than a year after signing this statement, Jamaat-e-Islami Pakistan had assisting in the bombing of the US consulate in Karachi. Apparently, they oppose all attacks against civilians that don't include the use of their own explosives.
What is going on Momus, is that they play on the fact that most Westerners understand neither the principles of Abrogation or Holy Deception. Firstly, that the Quranic passages written during the earlier Mecca period advocating tolerance of "the peoples of the book" are abrogated by the later Medina period suras advocating that these "apes and pigs" be violently subjugated or put to death. Secondly, the Quran allows for and even compliments the use of blatant deception when dealing with the enemies of Allah. Therefore, when it comes to dealing with the West it is laudible, and not sinful at all to say one thing and do something entirely different. A lie told to an infidel is no sin.
We eat up both of course, because like to many beaten wives we are desperate to believe that our tormentor will stop, that he really loves us, and that if we would just stop enraging him with our "mistakes" we would be able to live in peace. "Look what you made me do!" he says as we once again find our eyes blackened and our teeth knocked out. "It's because of something I did" we repeat, because the truth that it is really all about his problem and that he really is not going to stop is just too painful for us to bear.
- SEAGOON
-
Originally posted by Seagoon :
[...] is just too painful for us to bear.
Well, not really.
-
Originally posted by Momus--
Seagoon, top marks for self righteous pontification, but that's about it.
Two points here.
1. Radical Islam as a political philosophy was on its last legs in it's own hinterland until your administration decided to invade Iraq.
You may want to Google "Taliban Afganistan" and rethink your premise for point one.
It seems radical Islam as a political philosophy was quite strong just a couple of years before "Iraqi Freedom"
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
Silat it's not just about hating the lies and supporting the troops, it's about wanting a win or a victory. It's about ignoring or denying real progress.
A nation wherein most want us to leave and every party campaigns on the notion that they will get rid of the Americans fastest.
Progress, apprently, is in the eye of the beholder, just as the measure of how welcome we were was.
No one does not want a victory, what we're saying is defining a victory as Bush has sets a bar that isn't possible to achieve. There is no "coimplete victory" in Iraq like there was in japan or Germany, that won't occur.
Sakai
-
Originally posted by john9001
every time a "american" tells the media that the war is wrong, we can't win, bring the troops home, it encourages the enemy to keep on fighting. by protesting the war you only make it last longer and more troops are killed.
it's a fact....learn it.
Actually, the way they learned we had no stomach according to most intelligence we have was Reagan's blunder in Beirut. One truck bomb and the US goes home crying.
Talk about stupid incursions, that one takes the cake.
Sakai
-
No kidding.
Who cares about the the Sabra and Shatila refugee camp murders anyway?
-
Originally posted by Momus--
Seagoon, top marks for self righteous pontification, but that's about it.
Two points here.
1. Radical Islam as a political philosophy was on its last legs in it's own hinterland until your administration decided to invade Iraq. The Islamists failed to spark their revolution in Algeria and tore themselves apart in the process. Much the same occured in Egypt. as elsewhere in the muslim world. But by invading Iraq and by his idiotic axis of evil pronouncements and talk of crusades, your CIC has managed to actually reinforce and reinvigorate the message that the Islamists have been making all along; namely that the lands of Islam are under occupation and that the Islamic peoples are under attack, and consequently the support of generations of previously moderate Arabs has shifted away from moderation towards extremism.
2. To portray the USA as the only country standing between these particular bogeymen and the rest of the world is patent nonsense. The fact is that the USA is with Saudi Arabia allied with the only country in the world that incorporates radical Sunni Islam into its governing establishment, the same country that has made the export of radical islam second only in importance to it's oil exports. The fact is that you and your bumbling CIC and your ongoing relationship with the country once described as the "kernel of evil" in the middle-east are part of the problem, not part of the solution.
The connection between invading Iraq and fighting Islamic terrorism exists only in your head. Invading Iraq makes no sense in the context of combating religious extremism, in fact if anything it has been counterproductive. No-one is seriously arguing that we cease to work against the Bin Ladens and Al Zawahiris; suggesting that that is the case is a straw man of your own construction.
Mustafa Mashhur, General Guide, Muslim Brotherhood, Egypt; Qazi Hussain Ahmed, Ameer, Jamaat-e-Islami Pakistan, Pakistan; Muti Rahman Nizami, Ameer, Jamaat-e-Islami Bangladesh, Bangladesh; Shaykh Ahmad Yassin, Founder, Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas), Palestine; Rashid Ghannoushi, President, Nahda Renaissance Movement, Tunisia; Fazil Nour, President, PAS - Parti Islam SeMalaysia, Malaysia; and 40 other Muslim scholars and politicians:
“The undersigned, leaders of Islamic movements, are horrified by the events of Tuesday 11 September 2001 in the United States which resulted in massive killing, destruction and attack on innocent lives. We express our deepest sympathies and sorrow. We condemn, in the strongest terms, the incidents, which are against all human and Islamic norms. This is grounded in the Noble Laws of Islam which forbid all forms of attacks on innocents. God Almighty says in the Holy Qur'an: 'No bearer of burdens can bear the burden of another' (Surah al-Isra 17:15).”
I guess you missed this statement back in 2001? It takes an idiot of the stature of your current leader to squander this amount of goodwill from your ostensible ideological enemies.
I think you're losing it bud. No-one is questioning the occurance any of those incidents that you list, but only one of them has even the most tenous connection with Iraq and certainly not enough to justify the actions of the last three years.
I think you had better expand your research a bit
-
Originally posted by Toad
No kidding.
Who cares about the the Sabra and Shatila refugee camp murders anyway?
Cool!
No one in the world has ever tried to rationalize that intervention blunder before, not even Reagan's closest crony apologists, let us know what you think OK?
Sakai
-
Originally posted by lazs2
I think David Horowitz is a pretty courageous guy.. He has been abandoned and villified by all the lefties that he grew up with and was once a part of. I can't find anything about him that seems dishonest...
lazs
Horowitz was a Leninist, "lefties" in this nation were never Leninists, few indeed anyway. Christopher Hitchens was a maoist.
I think if I wanted to worry, I'd become a right winger and consider why all the Maoists and Leninists flocked to my banner.
I'm sure it can't be the totalitarian, oligarchical nature of the Party can it Comrade?
;-)
Sakai
-
So, you are saying that Horowitz was never a real lefty just some... what? right winng leninist? That is beyond silly... so left he was right? did you read "radical son"? It explains pretty much what he was and why he isn't anymore. The lies and violence of the left is what made him leave the liberal cause.
lazs
-
Originally posted by SkyRock
Cause and effect!
Our troops are not terrorist's! They are following orders and sometimes that means going into a house where children are and ending in being very scary to the children. THe war was a terribly stupid idea in the first place. It was started on some idealogical basis (besides the WMD claim) that a democracy in the heart of the middle east would only be good for us. No matter how this turns out, Americans will never be able to walk the streets of IRAQ without the threat of being kidnapped and killed. Is there a middle eastern democracy or even pro-US arab country now where US citizens are liked and safe from this threat?? Nope!
WRONG!!!!!
Go to northern Iraq and you will see peacfull cities just like anywere else. There's a city up there were American troops go regularly for supply runs. They walk the streets freely with out body armor. The main reason for this is those people won't put up with the terrorists and wont become victoms. The terrorists know this and refuse to operate there. I'll get back to ya with the name of the city later.
-
Originally posted by Sakai
Cool!
No one in the world has ever tried to rationalize that intervention blunder before, not even Reagan's closest crony apologists, let us know what you think OK?
Sakai
I think you should tell us all that you're cool with more than seven hundred Palestinian women, children, and men being executed in those camps.
I think you should tell us that you think a collective, world-wide "tsk, tsk" should have covered the response.
That's what I think, because then I'd know what you think. Right now, I have no idea what you think now about the murders nor do I know what you thought then about the murders.
Just what do you think should have been done?
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
WRONG!!!!!
Go to northern Iraq and you will see peacfull cities just like anywere else. There's a city up there were American troops go regularly for supply runs. They walk the streets freely with out body armor. The main reason for this is those people won't put up with the terrorists and wont become victoms. The terrorists know this and refuse to operate there. I'll get back to ya with the name of the city later.
GS, the cities in northern iraq that are in what would be considered Kurdistan are kirkuk, sulimaniyah, irbil and mosul. IIRC they are under the control of the Kurdish Regional Government. keep in mind that the kurds though moslem are a distinctive indo-european people and not arab.
-
Originally posted by storch
keep in mind that the kurds though moslem are a distinctive indo-european people and not arab.
And this is significant because?
-
Originally posted by Toad
I think you should tell us all that you're cool with more than seven hundred Palestinian women, children, and men being executed in those camps.
I think you should tell us that you think a collective, world-wide "tsk, tsk" should have covered the response.
That's what I think, because then I'd know what you think. Right now, I have no idea what you think now about the murders nor do I know what you thought then about the murders.
Just what do you think should have been done?
No, I think you should explain how it was that Reagan, who stepped in to save the Christian factions, is somehow there to save the Sabra and Chatila camps?
You do know who was murdered there and by whom correct?
And you are saying you understand when and why we engaged there as well?
Did our Allies assist by getting the armed men out of that place, the only people there who could fight back, prior to the massacre?
I was in Athens in 1982 with a red cross pass to be a liitter carrier in Beirut, don't tell me you know more about this then I do about who to sympathize and care for my friend. I did not see you there volunteering to help.
Go ahead, explain yourself and Ronnie's gravest blunder, I'll listen.
Sakai
-
Originally posted by storch
GS, the cities in northern iraq that are in what would be considered Kurdistan are kirkuk, sulimaniyah, irbil and mosul. IIRC they are under the control of the Kurdish Regional Government. keep in mind that the kurds though moslem are a distinctive indo-european people and not arab.
They are still in Iraq and you can still walk safely through them. One day god willing Bagdad will be the same.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
They are still in Iraq and you can still walk safely through them. One day god willing Bagdad will be the same.
The confusion of Kurdish regions as indicative of what "we" accomplished is a sure sign that some folks don't really know anything at all about what is occurring over there.
This kind of belief is remarkable given that so much is at stake.
I have to ask also:
If pulling anyone out of Iraq, and even talking about it, is so incredibly dangerous, why is the GOP senate, Condi Rice, and Rumsfeld all starting to hint at dropping troops prior to the next congressional elections?
Sakai
-
Originally posted by Sakai
The confusion of Kurdish regions as indicative of what "we" accomplished is a sure sign that some folks don't really know anything at all about what is occurring over there.
This kind of belief is remarkable given that so much is at stake.
I have to ask also:
If pulling anyone out of Iraq, and even talking about it, is so incredibly dangerous, why is the GOP senate, Condi Rice, and Rumsfeld all starting to hint at dropping troops prior to the next congressional elections?
Sakai
You assume too much. I never said that "WE" accomplished it, although we had a major impact on it. The only thing that "we" did was that "we" removed Sadam so they are no longer persacuted by him. Other than that I explained it a few threads up.
As far as GOP dropping hints. I think it's funny that liberals want it both ways. They want the troops out and the war to be lost and criticise about that, then when the admin gives hints of troop reductions it's more criticism. The administration has said several times that troop levels are determined by the field commanders needs (wich is the way it should be). I would assume that they should drop after the elections due to the progress of the ING/IP and that they were lower prior to the elections and then raised for them.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
So, you are saying that Horowitz was never a real lefty just some... what? right winng leninist? That is beyond silly... so left he was right? did you read "radical son"? It explains pretty much what he was and why he isn't anymore. The lies and violence of the left is what made him leave the liberal cause.
lazs
I guess that would make Horowitz a flip-flopper.
shamus
-
Originally posted by Sakai
No, I think you should explain how it was that Reagan, who stepped in to save the Christian factions, is somehow there to save the Sabra and Chatila camps?
You are aware that when the Israelis moved into West Beirut on 9/15, Reagan called for Israeli withdrawal as did the U.N. Security Council?
It was after that the masscre occurred with worldwide condemnation. It was Reagan that announced a new Multi-National Force along with the French and Italians. You do know the whys and wherefores of the first MNF Reagan supported with Marines, right?
Originally posted by Sakai
You do know who was murdered there and by whom correct?
Yep, I do. Do you? Do you know who requested a new MNF, right?
Originally posted by Sakai
And you are saying you understand when and why we engaged there as well?
I'm saying I know the sequence of events.
I'm asking YOU to answer a simple direct question: What do YOU think should have been done when the Maronites slaughtered them while the Israelis stood by surrounding the camps and did nothing?
Originally posted by Sakai
Did our Allies assist by getting the armed men out of that place, the only people there who could fight back, prior to the massacre?
[/b]
Beirut was under Israeli siege when the deal to remove Arafat and his PLO fighters was struck. This deal was done after the U.N. Security Council, the US included, demanded a cease-fire and votged to censure Israel. Are you saying it would have been far better to let the Israeli siege continue than to attempt to resolve the situation? You're saying it was wrong to negotitate and end to the siege?
Originally posted by Sakai
I was in Athens in 1982 with a red cross pass to be a liitter carrier in Beirut, don't tell me you know more about this then I do about who to sympathize and care for my friend. I did not see you there volunteering to help.
Then you are in the perfect position to display your omniscence and tell us all what should have been done. Go ahead.
I wasn't in Athens, that's true; I was with Mother Teresa at that time.
-
saki is a typical liberal.... he has no answers but that doesn't stop the hate.
lazs
-
lol, wow, a few comments by Kerry and all hell broke loose, carry on!
-
Originally posted by Sixpence
lol, wow, a few comments by Kerry and all hell broke loose, carry on!
It's not just Kerry. The democrats are trying to get a unified policy on Iraq. Some in the party that have an abundance of common sense feel that they shouldn't be playing political games. While others such as Dean Kerry Pelosi ect think that what they do and say in reguards to on going military operations has no effect what so ever.
Meanwhile the dems are split. That can't get behind Dean, the DNC Chairman, yet there base being the moonbat anti-war protester isn't going to let them slide if they don't pander to them.
http://www.gop.com/Media/120905.wmv
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
Meanwhile the dems are split.
Some things are eternal.
I belong to no organized political party... I am a Democrat
---Will Rogers
-
Hard to argue with defeatocrats, they surrendered before the war even started so its only fitting that they continue to wave the white flag while we finish what we started.
-
Every time I listen to a rant from some of the nutjobs on this thread talking about Kerry or some other "liberal," I can't help but imagine...
http://SecretAgentSkeeter.yafro.com/photo/10174305
(http://badday.gif)
-
Originally posted by lazs2
saki is a typical liberal.... he has no answers but that doesn't stop the hate.
lazs
Are you kidding me? :rofl
I'd ask you to look in the mirror once in a while, but you probably don't cast a reflection
-
Originally posted by Red Tail 444
Every time I listen to a rant from some of the nutjobs on this thread talking about Kerry or some other "liberal," I can't help but imagine...
http://SecretAgentSkeeter.yafro.com/photo/10174305
(http://badday.gif)
Well I consider this serious stuff. As an American I have a vested intrest in weather my govt's leadership wants to make a monumental mistake for political gain.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
Well I consider this serious stuff. As an American I have a vested intrest in weather my govt's leadership wants to make a monumental mistake for political gain.
Agreed, and you are right, the government did make a monumental mistake for political gain. Seems we are arguing the same thing. Those, as lazs put it, "rednecks you wouldn't want to hang out with anyway," are doing the right thing, but solely for political gain. Therefore, it's the wrong damn thing to be doing.
You've forgotten all the lies told to us, forget WMD...
"rose petals..." remember that one? remember being regarded as liberators?
"An end to all major combat operations in Iraq"
"Mission accomplished"
"The death throes of a dying regime"
"Oil revenues will subsidize the war in Iraq (BTW, oil production levels are lower than from when the war started, so much for that BS)"
Well at least no more Iraqis will be flying airplanes into buildings...eh?
:noid
-
Originally posted by Red Tail 444
Agreed, and you are right, the government did make a monumental mistake for political gain. Seems we are arguing the same thing. Those, as lazs put it, "rednecks you wouldn't want to hang out with anyway," are doing the right thing, but solely for political gain. Therefore, it's the wrong damn thing to be doing.
You've forgotten all the lies told to us, forget WMD...
"rose petals..." remember that one? remember being regarded as liberators?
"An end to all major combat operations in Iraq"
"Mission accomplished"
"The death throes of a dying regime"
"Oil revenues will subsidize the war in Iraq (BTW, oil production levels are lower than from when the war started, so much for that BS)"
Well at least no more Iraqis will be flying airplanes into buildings...eh?
:noid
I have not forgotten any of those. I just don't buy into some of the hype as much as you. From the looks of it, seems you are sold hook line and sinker. But none of what you said changes the fact that we are there now. If the democrat leadership get's its way it would be a monumental failure that will be felt for years to come. While the invasion argument goes, it becomes irrelevent when political defeatism is in the air.
What the democrats are doing is inexcusable.....arguing against the invasion doesn't make what they are doing NOW...you know....in the present, any less inexcusable.
-
What Hype?
You contend that past lies are OK, and we should just go ahead and follow in step with the current lies being fed to us? So, in another 8 months, we can look back at these lies and say, "well, that wass then, and this is now."
I totally agree with needing to support the troops, but get real. If the troops are putting it on the line for political gain, is there no concern for those that are in harm's way? it has been long confirmed, even before the war, Iraq had NO connection with 9-11. This war, is not so much about 9-11 as much as it is political gain, and W going in and "finishing the job" his father got chided for....
Do you remember that bumper sticker? I do
If you can't see that, it's only because you aren't looking at the big picture with your eyes open. For all your concern for the armed forces, I would think you would want a clear-cut reason for putting them over seas, as well as a clear strategy for winning any conflict. This administration has done neither to good effect, and anyone who replies screaming about the Twin Towers is as misguided as a pilot whale.
-
Originally posted by Red Tail 444
What Hype?
You contend that past lies are OK, and we should just go ahead and follow in step with the current lies being fed to us? So, in another 8 months, we can look back at these lies and say, "well, that wass then, and this is now."
I totally agree with needing to support the troops, but get real. If the troops are putting it on the line for political gain, is there no concern for those that are in harm's way? it has been long confirmed, even before the war, Iraq had NO connection with 9-11. This war, is not so much about 9-11 as much as it is political gain, and W going in and "finishing the job" his father got chided for....
Do you remember that bumper sticker? I do
If you can't see that, it's only because you aren't looking at the big picture with your eyes open. For all your concern for the armed forces, I would think you would want a clear-cut reason for putting them over seas, as well as a clear strategy for winning any conflict. This administration has done neither to good effect, and anyone who replies screaming about the Twin Towers is as misguided as a pilot whale.
point(s) of order:
1. I never said the lies are ok I was mearly alluding to the fact when in a discussion about a pull out for political gain they become irrelevant as two wrongs don't make a right.
2. I have yet to see ANYONE prove that this administration lied to get us into this war thus the Hype Again SEE: point 1
3. You lost me were you said "W got into this war for political gain". Unless you have some astonishing new evidence to add the discussion that the entire world has yet to see; than again...hype....again SEE: Point 1
4. "This administration has done neither to good effect" is a relevent matter of opinion in wich you are entitled to. But how does this defend the actions of those that wish to do this country more harm for the sake of politcal gain wich so far I've only seen justified based on point 2 wich leads me back to point 1.
I think I can conclude here that the actions of some of the senior democrat leadership is inexcusable and cannot be defended other than by saying "Bush lied in the first place" wich as we all know is not a solution to the current problem. In other words they are no better than this administration and have no better way of dealing with Iraq. This is were you can go ahead an assume I think the administration is all high and mighty and infalable but in doing so you'd be wrong as well.
PS. This is no longer a "support the troops" argument but "support the mission" as well. A failure in Iraq will have devistating consequences for the entire world.
-
The same thing was said when we left Saigon.
Startling new evidence? yes, I read. It's the old stuff that's always been there.
Of course the war was for political gain. Iraq is a much more romantic target than Afghanistan, which I believed was where the conspirators for 9-11 were harbored?
When politicains conduct their fuzzy math and try to draw lines between Iraq and 9-11, is that not a political ploy to garner increased support? And you really can't argue the tension ther has always been between Bush Sr and W. It's pretty well documented. Can you say that he didn't think that he could do a better jon than his dad did in '91?
Anyway, I gotta get going, got horses to feed....
-
Originally posted by Red Tail 444
The same thing was said when we left Saigon.
Startling new evidence? yes, I read. It's the old stuff that's always been there.
Of course the war was for political gain. Iraq is a much more romantic target than Afghanistan, which I believed was where the conspirators for 9-11 were harbored?
When politicains conduct their fuzzy math and try to draw lines between Iraq and 9-11, is that not a political ploy to garner increased support? And you really can't argue the tension ther has always been between Bush Sr and W. It's pretty well documented. Can you say that he didn't think that he could do a better jon than his dad did in '91?
Anyway, I gotta get going, got horses to feed....
no I say Desert Storm was a different mission and is irrelevent to the current situation. There's no basis behind the accusation that Bush is trying to finish the job his dad started. It's completly basless and irrelevent to the current talks about a pullout.