Top 9 reasons a Dem president couldn't handle the war against terrorists

[LuvRPgrl]

Well there are a lot of inputs into Terrorism. If you want more specifics, there is poverty, low levels of education, the religious conflict which has been going on between Sunnis and Shiites, the blind desire for revenge against the Sunnis, since they were in power with Saddam. All of these factors contribute to local social disorder, is another factor in the creation of Terrorism.

Those are all symptoms of another underlying cause, all of those issues exist elsewhere in the world, but do not cause terrorism.

 

[maineman]

I just explained to you why you have NO privacy on any phones you use. By your own self volition, you are a farthead, arent you.

so what? that does not mean that I want the government listening in on all my conversations, simply because they have the technology to do so.
..
Please show me one example of phone conversations being listened into, of American citizens, "because" of terrorism. And DONT include any conversations that include talking with a known terrorist, or having a discussion about plans for terrorism.

how would you know? there is no oversight. that is the point. If the executive branch of government (readolice) can place wiretaps on citizen's phones because of terrorism and they don't have to clear that with anyone else in government,there is nothing to stop them from placing wiretaps on anyone's phone for any reason. Given the lax requirements of FISA, why is the administration so loathe to use them?

well, abortion is legal. And what stops them now? how is allowing them to listen to conversations to stop terrorists going to stop, or help them to be allowed to listen to abortion calls? Its a red herring, and the general public knows you guys are just a bunch of whiny ass fartheads who dont really care if your calls are listened in on, but are just finding ANYTHING you can to complain about Bush, if you can bring him down with something else, you can quit rooting for us to not win in Iraq.

no. it is not a red herring. if you allow the police to listen to telephone calls without having to get warrants, without oversight, they will be able to listen to anyone anytime for any reason. And why wouldn't they? Again...you refuse to explain why the adminstration cannot use the legal channels available through FISA. Until you address that, you appear like an ignorant shill who doesn't understand the issue being discussed

TRUSY ME, they wont be listening in on yours. gays dont have rights?

why would I trust you? and gays certainly have some rights...are you suggesting that they have equal rights?

 

[Hamiltonian]

Those are all symptoms of another underlying cause, all of those issues exist elsewhere in the world, but do not cause terrorism.

Yeah, those issues exist all over the Middle East, and guess what: there is Terrorism there. You can see the same sort of thing in the effect of the first Gulf War. When Kuwait was handed back to the Emir, tons of crimes happened against Iraqis in that country. The lack of social structure causes Deviance, and Deviance can happen in many ways once social structure is destroyed. You can see large gangs, or high crime, or other forms of deviance in other parts of the world. Some local religious leaders have chosen Terrorism as the leading expression of Deviance in the Middle East.

The trouble with Terrorism though is that the movement is self propagating. It's not like if you kill the leaders then it's over, and the people go "perhaps we should be deviant in ways other than Terrorism, like just through crime." The leaders just become martyrs and there are many more people waiting to take over the leadership.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

I think the real question here is why such obviously Communist propoganda is even being debated. The anti-Americanism evident in this piece is staggering.

Explain yourself, nuthead.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

You need to copy and paste the (QUOTE=maineman;531576) and the [/QUOTE) at the beginning and ending of your statments.

I just explained to you why you have NO privacy on any phones you use. By your own self volition, you are a farthead, arent you.

so what? that does not mean that I want the government listening in on all my conversations, simply because they have the technology to do so.]

You oppose wiretapping. They dont have to wiretap to get into conversations. They are in the public air waves where they can go anytime and pick them up wireless.
..
Please show me one example of phone conversations being listened into, of American citizens, "because" of terrorism. And DONT include any conversations that include talking with a known terrorist, or having a discussion about plans for terrorism.

how would you know? there is no oversight. that is the point. If the executive branch of government (readolice) can place wiretaps on citizen's phones because of terrorism and they don't have to clear that with anyone else in government,there is nothing to stop them from placing wiretaps on anyone's phone for any reason. Given the lax requirements of FISA, why is the administration so loathe to use them?]

Uh, generally people only complain about an activity if there is proof that it is in fact going on. We dont make laws for potentially hypothetical activities that might be happening.

well, abortion is legal. And what stops them now? how is allowing them to listen to conversations to stop terrorists going to stop, or help them to be allowed to listen to abortion calls? Its a red herring, and the general public knows you guys are just a bunch of whiny ass fartheads who dont really care if your calls are listened in on, but are just finding ANYTHING you can to complain about Bush, if you can bring him down with something else, you can quit rooting for us to not win in Iraq.

no. it is not a red herring. if you allow the police to listen to telephone calls without having to get warrants, without oversight, they will be able to listen to anyone anytime for any reason.]

SO WHAT?? Conversations about abortion are about a legal activity, so it wont give the govt any ammunition to use against the abortionists.
And why wouldn't they? Again...you refuse to explain why the adminstration cannot use the legal channels available through FISA. Until you address that, you appear like an ignorant shill who doesn't understand the issue being discussed][/QUOTE]
You dont understand it. FISA is there to issue warrants to DOMESTIC spying. But the authority to do international spying is given without a warrant. Domestic spying is not a part of this program of spying without warrants.

TRUSY ME, they wont be listening in on yours. gays dont have rights?

why would I trust you? and gays certainly have some rights...are you suggesting that they have equal rights?

well of course. I am not gay, I cant marry another guy. The gays can marry a woman, just as I can. Besides, marriages isnt a right, and homos actually have more rights than I do. If a homosexual is murdered, its possible for the penalty to be harsher than if I were murdered.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Yeah, those issues exist all over the Middle East, and guess what: there is Terrorism there. You can see the same sort of thing in the effect of the first Gulf War. When Kuwait was handed back to the Emir, tons of crimes happened against Iraqis in that country. The lack of social structure causes Deviance, and Deviance can happen in many ways once social structure is destroyed. You can see large gangs, or high crime, or other forms of deviance in other parts of the world. Some local religious leaders have chosen Terrorism as the leading expression of Deviance in the Middle East. .

But the fact that the same situation exists in other areas of the world where the terrorist threat by those from other parts of the world dont exist, shows that it is something else causing the muslim terrorists to do what they do.

The trouble with Terrorism though is that the movement is self propagating. It's not like if you kill the leaders then it's over, and the people go "perhaps we should be deviant in ways other than Terrorism, like just through crime." The leaders just become martyrs and there are many more people waiting to take over the leadership.

You dont know that for sure, or how long that can last. There is not an infinate number of musllims

 

[Hamiltonian]

But the fact that the same situation exists in other areas of the world where the terrorist threat by those from other parts of the world dont exist, shows that it is something else causing the muslim terrorists to do what they do.

You don't have that same situation elsewhere in the world. Where do you have extremist Muslim factions change power, where the Sunnis committed horrible crimes against Shiites, and now the Shiites are in power they are retaliating for the years of bloodshed. You can't point me to a situation which is exactly identical to Iraq. Religion is surely part of culture, and these religious leaders are unique to the Middle East.

You dont know that for sure, or how long that can last. There is not an infinate number of musllims

Don't be ridiculous. You're suggesting to eliminate crime by killing all of the criminals. There are 1.3 billion Muslims, surely you don't plan on killing them all? If a third of them are extremist, and you decide only to go against extremist Islam, that's more Muslims than the population of the US. Surely you don't plan to kill them all? I would say thanks for the laugh, but I find your ideas of mass killing very disturbing.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

You don't have that same situation elsewhere in the world. Where do you have extremist Muslim factions change power, where the Sunnis committed horrible crimes against Shiites, and now the Shiites are in power they are retaliating for the years of bloodshed. You can't point me to a situation which is exactly identical to Iraq. Religion is surely part of culture, and these religious leaders are unique to the Middle East. .

WOW, quite pathetic. YOu have a way of getting wayyyyy off point.
It was claimed that item poverty, lack of education etc is what causes people to become terrorists, NOT past atrocities by opposing tribes.

Don't be ridiculous. You're suggesting to eliminate crime by killing all of the criminals. There are 1.3 billion Muslims, surely you don't plan on killing them all? If a third of them are extremist, and you decide only to go against extremist Islam, that's more Muslims than the population of the US. Surely you don't plan to kill them all? I would say thanks for the laugh, but I find your ideas of mass killing very disturbing.

1/3 are extremists? TALK ABOUT A LAUGH.

 

[Hamiltonian]

WOW, quite pathetic. YOu have a way of getting wayyyyy off point.
It was claimed that item poverty, lack of education etc is what causes people to become terrorists, NOT past atrocities by opposing tribes.

Really, because when you asked me to elaborate on cultural factors I said:

Well there are a lot of inputs into Terrorism. If you want more specifics, there is poverty, low levels of education, the religious conflict which has been going on between Sunnis and Shiites, and the blind desire for revenge against the Sunnis, since they were in power with Saddam. All of these factors contribute to local social disorder, which is another factor in the creation of Terrorism.

Note the bold text. Apparently I did say that past atrocities were one of the causes of Terrorism.

1/3 are extremists? TALK ABOUT A LAUGH.

Do you think that more or less than 1/3 of Muslims are extremists? My guess would be that you think there are more, which would only add to my point that trying to kill them all is not an effective strategy.

 

[red states rule]

As VP Cheney once said, instead of wanting to capture and kill terrorists, the left wants to coddle them. Offer them anger management classes and therapy

The left can never be trusted with the national defense or security of the US

 

[Hamiltonian]

As VP Cheney once said, instead of wanting to capture and kill terrorists, the left wants to coddle them. Offer them anger management classes and therapy

The left can never be trusted with the national defense or security of the US

Great job destroying that strawman

 

[red states rule]

Great job destroying that strawman

Libs do that everytime they open their mouths. Today the Dems are the best friends the terrorists have

 

[maineman]

Muslim terrorists believe they will be with Allah someday

The US military is happy to arrange the intorduction

so you think that all muslims who use terror as a tactic should become the target of the American military?

 

[red states rule]

so you think that all muslims who use terror as a tactic should become the target of the American military?

Yes, while you think they should be the target of Democrat voting registration drives

 

[Hamiltonian]

Libs do that everytime they open their mouths. Today the Dems are the best friends the terrorists have

Uhoh, you better go get the HUAC on it.

 

[red states rule]

Uhoh, you better go get the HUAC on it.

No need to. Most Americans know Dems want the US to lose in Iraq

 

[maineman]

No need to. Most Americans know Dems want the UsSto lose in Iraq

I am a democrat. I do not want the US to lose in Iraq. I want the US to declare victory - we got rid of Saddam...we got rid of all those pesky weapons of mass destruction (that was really easy!)...we helped them hold elections and write a constitution. Now they have chosen to fight amongst themselves. What business is that of ours and what does that really have to do with America's war against islamic extremists?

 

[red states rule]

I am a democrat. I do not want the US to lose in Iraq. I want the US to declare victory - we got rid of Saddam...we got rid of all those pesky weapons of mass destruction (that was really easy!)...we helped them hold elections and write a constitution. Now they have chosen to fight amongst themselves. What business is that of ours and what does that really have to do with America's war against islamic extremists?

First I am so happy to read you admit you are a Dem. The first step on the road to recovery is to admit you have a problem

Now, the Dems are falling back to the national defense strategy of the French - surrender. Jack Murtha is now crafting a bill which would cut off funding for the Iraq war. The Dems are now following the footsteps of other defeatist Dems like McGovern, Carter, Mondale, Dukakis, and Kerry.

To libs they actually believe the following:

1) Those who have helped us (elected officials, police, military, translators, ect) will not be killed

2) the terrorists will not have an entire country as a base of operations

3) The terrorists will not have the wealth from oil sales to finance their world wide attacks

4) The terrorists will not see the pull out as a sign of weakness which would drive them to come after us again on US soil

The Dems see the loss in Iraq as a loss for Pres Bush and not the US. They only want to humble the President and try to take over the role as Commander in Chief.

By retreating from Iraq, the terrorists will be emboldened, and they will follow the us and fight us here on US soil.

Will the Dems take responsibility, or will they blame Pres Bush?

 

[Hamiltonian]

No need to. Most Americans know Dems want the US to lose in Iraq

Then why do you think that registered voters want the next president to be a Dem? Are a majority of Americans anti-American? Why did people vote to give the Dems control of Congress? Apparently they see past your empty rhetoric.

 

[maineman]

To libs they actually believe the following:

1) Those who have helped us (elected officials, police, military, translators, ect) will not be killed
they might be...it's a civil war...all sorts of folks are dying

2) the terrorists will not have an entire country as a base of operations
they will not... the Iraqi sunnis and shiites who are fighting with one another have no reason to let foreign insurgents have the run of the place

3) The terrorists will not have the wealth from oil sales to finance their world wide attacks
they won't...sunnis, shiites and kurds will figure out a way to share it eventually.... after they all get sick of the carnage
4) The terrorists will not see the pull out as a sign of weakness which would drive them to come after us again on US soil
why should we care what AQ thinks of us? do you honestly think they admire us today? We can't run foreign policy on what our actions will do to the opinion our enemies hold of us

The Dems see the loss in Iraq as a loss for Pres Bush and not the US. They only want to humble the President and try to take over the role as Commander in Chief.

wrong. I see the war in Iraq as counterproductive to our larger war on islamic extremism and think we should start fighting that war instead of this one. I would feel exactly the same way if president Gore or president Kerry were doing the same thing that Bush is

By retreating from Iraq, the terrorists will be emboldened, and they will follow the us and fight us here on US soil.

do you really think they don't know the way?

Will the Dems take responsibility, or will they blame Pres Bush?
Dems will take responsibility for ending the war in Iraq and starting the war against islamic extremists once we are in the white house