Liberal Press Boosts the Terrorists

[Adam's Apple]

Was there freedom in Iraq under Saddam? Go ask some of the people who voted in their election and proudly displayed their purple fingers.[/QUOTE

I fail to see how IRAQI's voting in a fixed election makes America a safer place to live.

Of course, you wouldn't. Typical lib argument. Establishing democracy in the Middle East to replace dictatorships with festering Muslim jihadists will not affect America's security at all. How could it possibly?

 

[Allanon68]

Of course, you wouldn't. Typical lib argument. Establishing democracy in the Middle East to replace dictatorships with festering Muslim jihadists will not affect America's security at all. How could it possibly?

Trying to establish democracy in the Middle East will not decrease Terrorism...It will Increase it. You cant stop the way these people think. And our being there only makes them more angry. Sorry I dont see it. Oh yeah, and your post above is a typical right wing argument. See how that works ?

 

[dilloduck]

Trying to establish democracy in the Middle East will not decrease Terrorism...It will Increase it. You cant stop the way these people think. And our being there only makes them more angry. Sorry I dont see it.

Bin Laden and his thugs are certainy trying to incite people to be angry about American presence in Arabs lands but that is the battle we are fighting---one of ideology and truth. Many Arabs are very grateful that the western countries have come there and are dependent on western counties to purchase thier oil.
Nazism was a radical ideology that was defeated by using overwhelming force force. Yes-the are small pockets left but they are watched and marginalized.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Trying to establish democracy in the Middle East will not decrease Terrorism...It will Increase it. You cant stop the way these people think. And our being there only makes them more angry. Sorry I dont see it. Oh yeah, and your post above is a typical right wing argument. See how that works ?

You don't seem to understand, if this doesn't work, turning great spans of desert into glass is the only other option, besides defeat of the non muslim world. Which do you choose?

1. "help them" reform their societies
2. crush them militarily
3. lose to them and become dhimmi, those non muslims subjugated to islamic rule.

 

[no1tovote4]

I guess you could say that from my earlier post. But you cannot deny that there is substantial evidence to indicate that the war in IRAQ is much worse than we hear in the news. Especially in the beginning when everyone was in a "Patriotic" sort of mood. I will also say that there is evidence that might support the other side. Just depends on what YOU choose to believe. I choose to believe that being in IRAQ is doing NOTHING to benefit America. Absolutely nothing. As a matter of fact the money spent there would be much much better off here. Especially now. Boy I feel so much safer now that Bush has half the military over in Iraq. Boy that makes me feel safe. I mean all the terrorists must be in IRAQ right ? Oh wait, the grand plan, First IRAQ , then IRAN, then the rest of the middle east. BWWAHAHAHAHAHA..

/ Saracasm.

Half the military? We have 2,000,000 people in the military and 100 some thousand is half the military? I don't think so. Exaggeration will get you anywhere. Did you know that 95% of all statistics are made up on the spot?

LOL.

 

[no1tovote4]

Trying to establish democracy in the Middle East will not decrease Terrorism...It will Increase it. You cant stop the way these people think. And our being there only makes them more angry. Sorry I dont see it. Oh yeah, and your post above is a typical right wing argument. See how that works ?

Over the short term you are correct, it will increase. However a stable democracy that promotes the individual freedoms will in the long run win over terrorism. We must take the long view, to plan only for the short-term is to end up working towards appeasement and the enslavement and exploitation of the people in the ME, this will in the long-term create more terrorism and will increase our danger exponentially.

 

[theim]

"freedom fighters"

What I would usually call people who are defending thier nation from a FOREIGN INVADER/OCCUPIER.

I guess the Wehrmacht and SS would also qualify then. Best quit now pal, and attempt to save what little strands of credibility you have left. Of course its probly too late for that, too.

 

[theim]

"But whatever. Defending America is never in the interests of liberals, because you think we don't deserve to win. Your snide remarks toward patriotism, even your blatant endorsement of the enemies that want to destroy this country would have, a few years ago, caused me great shock. But now I have come to the realization that leftists are not just people who have a different idea of how America should be defended, but you don't even really want it defended."


And defending America's honor is no longer a republican priority. LIE/HIDE/CONCEAL is now normal. TO HELL WITH HONOR AND INTEGRITY. AMERICA DOESN'T NEED IT.

I guess these men could also be considered UNPATRIOTIC. LOL!!!!


"We, the People are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts -- not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow men who pervert the Constitution."
- Abraham Lincoln

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."
- Theodore Roosevelt

"Here in America we are descended in spirit from revolutionaries and rebels -- men and women who dare to dissent from accepted doctrine."
- Dwight D. Eisenhower

"To sin by silence when they should protest makes cowards of men."
- Abraham Lincoln

"A little rebellion now and then is a good thing. "
- Thomas Jefferson

Nice screed. Touched a nerve there, did I?

 

[theim]

Was there freedom in Iraq under Saddam? Go ask some of the people who voted in their election and proudly displayed their purple fingers.

Approaching from the wrong angle again. He KNOWS this. He watches TV. He isn't blind.

He is calling people "freedom fighters" who have OPENLY STATED that they DONT want freedom. Liberal mental incompetance.

 

[Adam's Apple]

Approaching from the wrong angle again. He KNOWS this. He watches TV. He isn't blind.

He is calling people "freedom fighters" who have OPENLY STATED that they DONT want freedom. Liberal mental incompetance.

Of course he knows that. The true "freedom fighters" were the Iraqis who went to the polls, voted, and displayed their purple fingers with pride. The libs all know the truth, but they don't want to accept it. They want things to be the way they think they should be. If they are going to inundate us with their redundancy, then I will inundate them right back with our redundancy.

 

[Adam's Apple]

Oh yeah, and your post above is a typical right wing argument. See how that works ?

Of course, my post is a typical right-wing argument. This is a conservative chat board for people who support the conservative philosophy, This fact is clearly stated in the information about this board, so you knew it when you signed up as a participant. If you don’t like what you hear here, go elsewhere where things are more to your liking and more supportive of the “truths” you are trying to promote. If you think you are going to win any converts to your case here, you are badly mistaken.

We have all heard the anti-American, anti-war propaganda in response to Kincaid's article many times. Nothing new in any of it. It has been responded to in depth on this board, but evidently you have your own agenda and are not seeking for truth, as you claim. Where are the lies in Kincaid’s article?

Despite your claim that half of our military is in Iraq, that lie was laid to rest in the last week, in case you did not know about it. As No1 pointed out, there are less than 200,000 American troops in Iraq. There are more than 2 million volunteer professionals in our military. That does not add up to half any way you want to spin it. Even when plain, hard facts are laid before you, this does not make any difference. You just go on repeating the lies as if they were truth anyway. If you can’t win fair and square, then lie, steal, sully reputations of good, decent people with falsehoods and innuendo, etc. Tricks of the trade for you and your moveon.org crowd.

Do you have an authoritative, valid source for your claim that America’s "grand" plan is to first take over Iraq, then Iran, and then the rest of the Middle East? If you do, please produce it, and I don’t mean the kind that says half of our troops are in Iraq fighting a war that has nothing to do with America’s security. You can believe that if you wish, but don’t try to foist it off on me as “truth”.

You state that there is substantial evidence to indicate that the war in Iraq is much worse that we hear in the news. What is that evidence? If you have been reading the posts on this board instead of looking for opportunities to spread meaningless, liberal propaganda, I am sure you have read a lot of evidence that things are going a lot better than the anti-American, anti-war, liberal press is reporting.

 

[theim]

Of course, my post is a typical right-wing argument. This is a conservative chat board for people who support the conservative philosophy, This fact is clearly stated in the information about this board, so you knew it when you signed up as a participant. If you don’t like what you hear here, go elsewhere where things are more to your liking and more supportive of the “truths” you are trying to promote. If you think you are going to win any converts to your case here, you are badly mistaken.

We have all heard the anti-American, anti-war propaganda in response to Kincaid's article many times. Nothing new in any of it. It has been responded to in depth on this board, but evidently you have your own agenda and are not seeking for truth, as you claim. Where are the lies in Kincaid’s article?

Despite your claim that half of our military is in Iraq, that lie was laid to rest in the last week, in case you did not know about it. As No1 pointed out, there are less than 200,000 American troops in Iraq. There are more than 2 million volunteer professionals in our military. That does not add up to half any way you want to spin it. Even when plain, hard facts are laid before you, this does not make any difference. You just go on repeating the lies as if they were truth anyway. If you can’t win fair and square, then lie, steal, sully reputations of good, decent people with falsehoods and innuendo, etc. Tricks of the trade for you and your moveon.org crowd.

Do you have an authoritative, valid source for your claim that America’s "grand" plan is to first take over Iraq, then Iran, and then the rest of the Middle East? If you do, please produce it, and I don’t mean the kind that says half of our troops are in Iraq fighting a war that has nothing to do with America’s security. You can believe that if you wish, but don’t try to foist it off on me as “truth”.

You state that there is substantial evidence to indicate that the war in Iraq is much worse that we hear in the news. What is that evidence? If you have been reading the posts on this board instead of looking for opportunities to spread meaningless, liberal propaganda, I am sure you have read a lot of evidence that things are going a lot better than the anti-American, anti-war, liberal press is reporting.

Now now now, just because they say they hate America and everything she does, that does not mean they are patriotic. After all, they are using the very freedoms given to them!

[Insert Presidential quotes here, mainly along the lines of people shouldn't thrown in jail for unpopular speech]

And using freedoms to disparage the country, not loving the country, is the definition of patriotism!

...Isn't it?

SARCASM ALERT [no, its not]