I said it before, now let me repeat more clearly...

[insein]

Actually I'm here to respond to what you view as unpatriotic or 'cowardly'.. how is war required when there were no weapons of mass destruction?

You're new so i'll give the benefit of the doubt on not reviewing the boards yet. Do yourself a favor. Go look at the numerous threads involving the WMD topic and you'll find that they were there and that all of our allies agreed that they were there including the hapless UN.

It takes more guts to understand and sympathize with people who are different..

IT takes ZERO guts to understand and sympathize with those that wish to kill us. That is the very definition of cowardly. If a bully keeps punching you in the nose every other day, do you try to talk to him and ask him why he keeps punching you in the nose or do you knock him out next time you see him to keep him from punching you in the nose again?

How are we 'defeated' by going to war in a country like North Korea for example. I mean there are things I totally disagree with in some countries but we are American-centric.

We are not on North Korean Soil but we will be at war because they pose a threat to us (Hawaii, West Coast) as well as our allies (SK, Japan, Taiwan, etc).

how many of us are concerned that 50, 000 Iraqis died? We're only concerned about our own fraction of the casualties. If you are Iraqi wouldn't that outrage you?

Seems to me that the only ones concerned with troop deaths are those scoring polictical points with the issue. If anyone truely cared about IRaqis then we would have removed Sadaam years ago when we first got there. After all we did find hundreds of thousands of bodies in mass graves of those that "disagreed" with Saddam's views. Of those that have died since we've gone there, about 70% are at the hands of foreign terrorist groups that have targeted Iraqi civilians in order to disrupt their everyday lives and prevent them from becoming a democracy.

To me America is about innovation, creativity and righteousness, not about using force to spread our values.

We arent using force to spread values. We are going forth and killing those that wish to kill us before they succeed. Wherever that takes us then so be it.

 

[sitarro]

What a discussion!!!!!

Psychoblues

When have any of you asswipes ever been interested in a discussion? Bully-shit bates the board constantly with his childish comments about the leaders of our country, you will champion any mentally challenged far left clown over anyone from the right of center without knowing facts or even the rumored accusations against them. Then there is the Grump who defends even the most indefensive as long as they have a D next to their name. You all ignore the volumes of facts and figures that have been painstakenly researched by many on this board only to parrot the current bullshit being floated by the Nancy Pelosi/Howard Dean/ Hillary Clinton spin machine. None of you three have an analytical bone in your collective bodies, what's to discuss? You ignore the ridiculous amount of direct quotes from leaders around the world that said a few short years before the disasterous murder of 3,000 members of our countrymen that Saddam Hussein was a huge threat and needed to be dealt with.....instead you claim it is an unjustified action taken by the neocons of the imperialistic United States. How can anyone discuss anything with ones that ignore all facts and merely claim that untruths are true?

 

[ScreamingEagle]

The war in Iraq has become the primary recruitment vehicle for violent Islamic extremists, motivating a new generation of potential terrorists around the world whose numbers are increasing faster than the United States and its allies are eliminating the threat, U.S. intelligence analysts have concluded.

Maybe you can explain to us why most of the Islamic people in Iraq are willing to fight against these so-called "newly-created" Islamic extremist terrorists?

 

[roadhouse158]

Originally Posted by Bullypulpit View Post
The war in Iraq has become the primary recruitment vehicle for violent Islamic extremists, motivating a new generation of potential terrorists around the world whose numbers are increasing faster than the United States and its allies are eliminating the threat, U.S. intelligence analysts have concluded.

In my opinion this would have been withstood if all the other countries leaders that was with us weren't listening to their citizens constant complaining about being in a war and just left their Militaries in Iraq to FINISH the job. I hate doing this, pointing fingers at a certain party cause it's one MAJOR problem in this country, but the Democrats refuse to learn anything. Republicans do learn from their mistakes. Sorry, but they do. Democrats live in a ideological world where Republicans live in a realistic one. I guarantee you not one Rep. has a hard on for war like you think. Rep aren't happy that troops are dying, but a lot more of us will be in danger, whom don't have any training in warfare when the terrorist countries do unite and attack the West. This would have happened, and still can. You need to wake up and let your FOOLISH PRIDE go. I swear everyone knows that if Bill or Hiliary were in office and did this same shit you would be praising it. That's just sad. This world will never see actual "peace". Too many liberals now. You know....That's where you care more for someone miles away than you actually care for your neighbor....That's should be the Liberals tag....."Screw my neighbor, but I will fight for the rights of anybody that I don't actually have to see or be bothered with talking to. My time is too precious for that. I just want to feel good about myself".

 

[Redhots]

You're new so i'll give the benefit of the doubt on not reviewing the boards yet. Do yourself a favor. Go look at the numerous threads involving the WMD topic and you'll find that they were there and that all of our allies agreed that they were there including the hapless UN.

Hardly.

Do we need to dance this dance again?

Even Bush amited "These are not the WMD we were after".

 

[Redhots]

Maybe you can explain to us why most of the Islamic people in Iraq are willing to fight against these so-called "newly-created" Islamic extremist terrorists?

30-60% unemployment.

Also, do you include the ones who trade in their Iraqi uniforms at night for a insurgent scarf?

Heres a recent one.

BAGHDAD The Iraq government has suspended a brigade of up to 700 policemen and put members under investigation for suspected "complicity" with death squads in the wake of a mass kidnapping this week in Baghdad.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/10/04/news/iraq.php

 

[nt250]

When have any of you asswipes ever been interested in a discussion? Bully-shit bates the board constantly with his childish comments about the leaders of our country, you will champion any mentally challenged far left clown over anyone from the right of center without knowing facts or even the rumored accusations against them. Then there is the Grump who defends even the most indefensive as long as they have a D next to their name. You all ignore the volumes of facts and figures that have been painstakenly researched by many on this board only to parrot the current bullshit being floated by the Nancy Pelosi/Howard Dean/ Hillary Clinton spin machine. None of you three have an analytical bone in your collective bodies, what's to discuss? You ignore the ridiculous amount of direct quotes from leaders around the world that said a few short years before the disasterous murder of 3,000 members of our countrymen that Saddam Hussein was a huge threat and needed to be dealt with.....instead you claim it is an unjustified action taken by the neocons of the imperialistic United States. How can anyone discuss anything with ones that ignore all facts and merely claim that untruths are true?

What really kills me is that during the 2004 election there were numerous videos going around the internet with quotes from Democrats that said exactly that. John Kerry alone must have been filmed at least 3 times saying that Saddam and Iraq had WMD as early as 1998.

And how about now and North Korea? The press, and the Democrats, are using the fact that Bush hasn't bombed the fucking country yet, and is using the UN and diplomacy to deal with it, against him. Seriously. At his last press conference one reporter actually him if he was sorry he didn't bomb North Korea when they first had all their nuclear materials in once place and would have been easy to take out.

Un-fucking-believable. No, the liberals would rather ridicule Bush because he says nuculer.

 

[Redhots]

I would say they're mocking him mostly, at least the people on the internet.

All the U.N. talk and "pussyfooting" really flys in the face of the pre-Iraq toughguy talk. Even if a lot of it does makes sense.

Some people are just retarded like that.

 

[Psychoblues]

Nay,,,,,It'a just that shitheads don't understand credible refutation and you can't stand critisism no matter how meaningful and researched it might be. The discussion speaks for itself. Overall, I still like it as it exposes many weaknesses in the conservative mindset that new readers need to know about.

I repeat, GREAT DISCUSSION!!!!!!


Psychoblues

When have any of you asswipes ever been interested in a discussion? Bully-shit bates the board constantly with his childish comments about the leaders of our country, you will champion any mentally challenged far left clown over anyone from the right of center without knowing facts or even the rumored accusations against them. Then there is the Grump who defends even the most indefensive as long as they have a D next to their name. You all ignore the volumes of facts and figures that have been painstakenly researched by many on this board only to parrot the current bullshit being floated by the Nancy Pelosi/Howard Dean/ Hillary Clinton spin machine. None of you three have an analytical bone in your collective bodies, what's to discuss? You ignore the ridiculous amount of direct quotes from leaders around the world that said a few short years before the disasterous murder of 3,000 members of our countrymen that Saddam Hussein was a huge threat and needed to be dealt with.....instead you claim it is an unjustified action taken by the neocons of the imperialistic United States. How can anyone discuss anything with ones that ignore all facts and merely claim that untruths are true?

 

[Psychoblues]

I don't call the pRez "Chimpy", nt250. But I appreciate the comparison. Don't you? Or are you as confused as you were when you made the stupid and practically illiterate accusation? By the way, as the insults come they also go.

Psychoblues

If you want a better discussion, you could set a better tone yourself. And you could start by not calling the President of the United States "Chimpy".

 

[sitarro]

I don't call the pRez "Chimpy", nt250. But I appreciate the comparison. Don't you? Or are you as confused as you were when you made the stupid and practically illiterate accusation? By the way, as the insults come they also go.

Psychoblues

Speaking of illiteracy, how is it that after numerous years on this board you, along with a number of others who claim to be progressives, continue to ignore the quote button at the bottom of each and every post? I know this has been brought to your attention before and yet you still do something that is not only more work but also isn't at all logical..... why?

I guess we will once again see how weak the conservative voters are in a few weeks. What illegal voting gerrymandering and fraudare you planning on performing for your masters in the Dimwit party?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

This thread is quite relevant today to the discussion about the terrorist attack in Paris. When news broke of the attack the right wing media erupted in a frenzy blaming the current president. But eight years ago the righties were shifting blame for the rise in Islamo-demented terrorism away from Bush43. Clinton did it. Now Bush had nothing to do with anything bad related to terrorism and the war on terror like the invasion of Iraq - it now turns out to righties that it's all Obama's fault.


LuvR 482448 2006

Fact is al quiada grew at its fastest rate and first became a serious threat under clinton.

It is not relevant as to which US President was in office when al Qaeda formed and grew. But the two or three terrorists in Paris are said to be home grown and one of the left France to go kill Americans in Iraq. The Iraq invasion, torture and deadly violence caused by the invasion that needed not to be has a lot to do with the lone wolves terrorism that we are seeing these days.

This thread has a lot to say about what is real and what is false compared to the trouble that is going on today.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Causality is a funny thing some times. Islamic terrorism is caused by many things, most notably the dictates of the manifesto written by a murderous warlord who infused a religious aspect into calls for his followers to attack and subjugate all in their path. Despite this, many hacks will attempt to defend these attacks through various claims that the responsibility for such is actually lies in the actions of western nations, most notably the United States. In doing so, these hacks are simply repeating some of the packaged talking points of Islamists, who seek to divide us by creating useful idiots among us who are easily manipulated by their hatred of anything called "right wing"

In the case of "creating" terrorism, if our involvement in foreign countries created terrorism, my teen years would have been filled with stories of Vietnamese engaging in such. Chileans would have been on a rampage to kill innocent people, and the entirety of Eastern Europe would have been doing all in their power to blow up marketplaces and run planes into buildings. They didn't, of course, and so this idiotic notion that we "create" terrorists should be treated with nothing but contempt. Such claims have nothing to do with understanding Islamic terrorism, only in explaining it away by redirecting anger to a convenient pet target.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

In the case of "creating" terrorism, if our involvement in foreign countries created terrorism, my teen years would have been filled with stories of Vietnamese engaging in such.

I agree. It is sinfully ridiculous the way the right blames Obama's 'weakness on terrorism' or being a 'Muslim terror sympathizer or for being born the 'son of a Muslim' for the every act of terror or violence that has occurred since becoming the leader of the free world. Its ridiculous because Obama has not been weak on terrorists in the first place. He has been quite strong on killing terrorists specifically when a target for drone or air strike is presented to him. There is no US military option available to killing three home-grown terrorist that are blended into the population until they acquire weapons or explosives and strike. Suicidal loner sub-human cockroaches don't usually advertise their intent to murder innocent people as happened in Paris. It would be good if the US right wingers could support President Obama's actions against terrorist and start blaming the murderous killers and make an excuse for their terrorist ways as a symptom of weakness by a President of the US. US air strikes killed al Baghdadi's top terrorist commanders and may have hit the top DAIISH terrorist his damned self.

The next time I hope Obama blows that terrorist's head off. The right will say he did it in a friendly way or something along those lines.