Whats next?

[dilloduck]

your getting soooooo desperate-----if this gets any worse your going implode-----stop and save whatever face might be left.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by dilloduck



your getting soooooo desperate-----if this gets any worse your going implode-----stop and save whatever face might be left.

Answer the question.

 

[st8_o_mind]

Originally posted by nycflasher
N.Korea
S.Arabia
Iran

perhaps...
Wherever those fuckwhores are hiding.

You all need to get a crip on reality.

At yesterday's Congressional hearings Gen. Myers, chair of the JCS was asked when we would "see the light at the end of the tunnel" in Iraq. Myers response was that this fall or winter the US could make a judgement about the way forward.

So things are so instable in Iraq that the JCS can even begin to talk about exit strategy for six months.

In the shorter term, another supporter of the war, Republican Senator Pete Domenici said yesterday, "We have cities we are abandoning to a bunch of thugs and yet at the same time we're saying we're going to form a new government and turn over power to them. I believe that you have to be better prepared for this tansition than I have heard."


Quotes aside, anyone who has read a newspaper or has seen a news report in the last few months knows the situation in Iraq has deteriorated significantly. The US military has asked for more troops and expects them to be there fora long time. The strain on the military is acute by all reports.

Any you folks are talking about opening new "front lines in the war on terrorism."

Let me make a suggestion. How about finishing what we've started in Iraq, and finishing what Al-Qaeda started in Afgnanistan. Remember Tillman? Where was he serving. Yet Al-Qaeda is rebuilding in Afghanistan nearly as fast as they are rebuilding thier poppy production to export herion to US cities.

Your posts blow my mind. Iraq is a huge cluster-*uck by any standard and you all are already lookiing for the next fight. Get a grip!

 

[Isaac Brock]

Originally posted by JIHADTHIS
What does that mean?

My apologies for the confusion.
I'm saying that a war against another primarily Muslim country before Iraq and Afghanistan are stabilized will most likely result in rise in anti-American sentiments throughout the Muslim world. It would push moderate Muslims towards radicals and by extension, terrorists. As such I believe it is a bad move towards to War on terror.

 

[007]

Originally posted by st8_o_mind
Quotes aside, anyone who has read a newspaper or has seen a news report in the last few months knows the situation in Iraq has deteriorated significantly.

That may be what it looks like to you, because you've got your nose buried in the N.Y. Times, or the L.A. Times. Both of which are the most liberal newspapers in the country. They try and outdo each other preaching dome and gloom, and that the ony people that can fix it are liberals.

Maybe YOU are the one that needs to "GET A GRIP".

 

[st8_o_mind]

Originally posted by Sir Evil
I must assume...

You assume too much.

Originally posted by Sir Evil

...you know damn well that you have no respect... [/B]

What I know is that you are incredibly arrogent to presume to know what I think and what I respect.

Originally posted by Sir Evil ...the thinking of your very kind [/B]

My kind? Again, you assume a hell of a lot. You don't know jack about me or "my kind." My kind is patriotic, freedom loving American. What kind are you?

Originally posted by Sir Evil simply because our current President [/B]

My post said nothing about the President. Again you assume. Seems like SOP for you.

Get a grip!

 

[st8_o_mind]

Originally posted by Pale Rider
That may be what it looks like to you, because you've got your nose buried in the N.Y. Times, or the L.A. Times. Both of which are the most liberal newspapers in the country. They try and outdo each other preaching dome and gloom, and that the ony people that can fix it are liberals.

Maybe YOU are the one that needs to "GET A GRIP".

I don't read either paper. What newspaper do you read?

 

[st8_o_mind]

Originally posted by Sir Evil
Again, were would the post be that you have had anything decent to say of our current President
B]

It is right next to all those posts of yours praising Ted Kennedy. Gimme a break. What are you the right-wing thought police? Gotta be nice to dubya if you want to post here.

Bull. After watching the right-wing crucifixion of Hillary and Bill Clinton, you’re now saying I’ve got to compliment the president in some sort of twisted right-wing version of political correctness. Forget it.

Let me be clear. Like most Americans who voted in 2000, I did not vote for Bush. The nicest thing I can think of to say about him off the top of my head is: One Term President.

You don’t have to like it. I don’t need your permission to post my opinions. That what this blog is for. That is why we come here -- to share views. Free speech is fundamentally American. But not for the right-wing thought police like Sir Evil. You ever read 1984?

You jumped on my case for even mentioning Tillman as if you can read my mind. Now you won't have to. I'll tell you straight. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, did not have WMD, and did not pose a threat to the security of the US. Tillman was fighting in Afghanistan against Al Qaeda. You remember them don’t you? If Bush had not been so myopically obsessed with Iraq he would have given Tillman and the military the resources and manpower they needed to prevail in Afghanistan. Instead our Commander in Chief misled the nation into a war with the wrong country at the wrong time. That's why Tillman is dead.

Reactionary right-wing extremists took the politics of personal destruction to new levels in the last Administration, but saying NOTHING about Bush (my post neither mentioned or referred to him) is not good enough for some conservative zealots…No, the Gospel According to Sir Feeble requires that I say NICE things about the President. Try this.

The President is a war-monger and a coward, sending off Americans overseas even though he didn’t have the guts to go himself during Vietnam.

He’s a liar. He misled the nation about the most important decision a President can face in office.

He destroyed the good will the entire world had toward the US after 9/11 about as fast as he turned the budget surpluses he inherited into the largest deficit spending in US history.

He can’t leave the White House without the Vice President holding his hand.

He can’t form a sentence without a speechwriter…and even then he tends to screw it up.

As the Command in Chief he is worse than he is as steward of the economy. He does not have a strategy for winning the war, just for winning the next election and who’s paying the price for his ambition? American young men and women in the service of their country. Bush is the great betrayer. And I don’t give a damn whether you like it or not.

 

[dilloduck]

Aint America great? I disagree with everything you said but you said it well

 

[st8_o_mind]

Originally posted by Sir Evil
Well 8_my_mind, I would say with that ridiculous post you just proved my point!

And make no mistake about this, you do need my permission to post here!

you can paste you opinions all over this board, but I think people will now see right through them!

DISMISSED!

:rotflmao: :rotflmao:

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by st8_o_mind
It is right next to all those posts of yours praising Ted Kennedy. Gimme a break. What are you the right-wing thought police? Gotta be nice to dubya if you want to post here.

Nope, but your bias makes you look like an asswipe. Your clear condemnation for the leader of our country is apparent and your lack of condemnation for the terrorists is even more apparent. I can handle people bashing Bush, but it sickens me when they ignore the atrocities committed by the enemy.

Bull. After watching the right-wing crucifixion of Hillary and Bill Clinton, you’re now saying I’ve got to compliment the president in some sort of twisted right-wing version of political correctness. Forget it.

I don't believe he ever stated you HAD to compliment GWB, but that it was odd that you don't post anything positive about the war in Iraq or on terrorism in general. Kinda look like a troll when you only look to incite flames.

Let me be clear. Like most Americans who voted in 2000, I did not vote for Bush. The nicest thing I can think of to say about him off the top of my head is: One Term President.

And when he's re-elected, that'll just be more gibberish to pile on to your already overflowing shitpile.

You don’t have to like it. I don’t need your permission to post my opinions. That what this blog is for. That is why we come here -- to share views. Free speech is fundamentally American. But not for the right-wing thought police like Sir Evil. You ever read 1984?

First off, this isn't a blog. I try to allow as much 'free speech' as possible, more so than other political boards, but this is a privately owned board and falls under no such restrictions. So, technically speaking, you DO need permission to speak your views here. That doesn't mean you'll be censored in any way, just a reminder not to get too cocky.

You jumped on my case for even mentioning Tillman as if you can read my mind. Now you won't have to. I'll tell you straight. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, did not have WMD, and did not pose a threat to the security of the US. Tillman was fighting in Afghanistan against Al Qaeda. You remember them don’t you? If Bush had not been so myopically obsessed with Iraq he would have given Tillman and the military the resources and manpower they needed to prevail in Afghanistan. Instead our Commander in Chief misled the nation into a war with the wrong country at the wrong time. That's why Tillman is dead.

The search for WMD is FAR from over, and Iraq posed a threat to the entire Middle East region. Saddam would have loved nothing more than to get weapons into the hands of terrorists that would happily use them against us.

Reactionary right-wing extremists took the politics of personal destruction to new levels in the last Administration, but saying NOTHING about Bush (my post neither mentioned or referred to him) is not good enough for some conservative zealots…No, the Gospel According to Sir Feeble requires that I say NICE things about the President. Try this.

I suggest that be the last time you use the term 'Sir Feeble'. How about you TRY THAT again?

The President is a war-monger and a coward, sending off Americans overseas even though he didn’t have the guts to go himself during Vietnam.

One has nothing to do with the other. One need not be a veteran to do what he feels is best for our country and our allies.

He’s a liar. He misled the nation about the most important decision a President can face in office.

And yet you can't produce even one lie. Pathetic.

He destroyed the good will the entire world had toward the US after 9/11 about as fast as he turned the budget surpluses he inherited into the largest deficit spending in US history.

Good will? You mean the good will France, Germany & Russia were getting in bribes from Saddam?

He can’t leave the White House without the Vice President holding his hand.

What a load of crap. They're rarely ever together.

He can’t form a sentence without a speechwriter…and even then he tends to screw it up.

I've never had one problem understanding the points he was trying to get across. Maybe you should look into a remedial comprehension course.

As the Command in Chief he is worse than he is as steward of the economy. He does not have a strategy for winning the war, just for winning the next election and who’s paying the price for his ambition? American young men and women in the service of their country. Bush is the great betrayer. And I don’t give a damn whether you like it or not.

He is COMMANDER IN CHIEF, not command.

Great, you spoke your mind. You don't care if we care or not. Now go crawl back into your hole.

 

[Reilly]

Originally posted by jimnyc
Nope, but your bias makes you look like an asswipe. Your clear condemnation for the leader of our country is apparent and your lack of condemnation for the terrorists is even more apparent. I can handle people bashing Bush, but it sickens me when they ignore the atrocities committed by the enemy.

That seems unfair. One is something we can definitely control (elections) and one is not (the actions of terrorists). One speaks for us, and the other against us. One shouldn't have to condemn terrorists every time one chooses to speak strongly against the President.

Originally posted by jimnyc

And yet you can't produce even one lie. Pathetic.

I don't think Bush lied, but he was wrong about the WMD's (to the extent we can currently discern). This was an important issue, and I think the fact that he led us to war on incorrect information and assumptions calls into question his abilities as commander in chief. I know everybody else got it wrong too, but as my President leading my country, I expect him to get it right. It may not always be easy or even possible, but when the government screws up, that is a proper time to criticize.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by Reilly
That seems unfair. One is something we can definitely control (elections) and one is not (the actions of terrorists). One speaks for us, and the other against us. One shouldn't have to condemn terrorists every time one chooses to speak strongly against the President.

You find it unfair when I call someone out for the constant bashing of our CIC when the very same person has NEVER made a post that I'm aware of condemning the actions of terrorists? It's evident when someone chooses to bash the President but reserves comment when atrocities are committed by the enemy that they are trolling.

I don't think Bush lied, but he was wrong about the WMD's (to the extent we can currently discern). This was an important issue, and I think the fact that he led us to war on incorrect information and assumptions calls into question his abilities as commander in chief. I know everybody else got it wrong too, but as my President leading my country, I expect him to get it right. It may not always be easy or even possible, but when the government screws up, that is a proper time to criticize.

He made his decisions based on intelligence. We cannot expect our CIC to personally verify the intel that is brought forth from the FBI NSA and CIA. At some point he needs to have faith in those who surround him. If the intel ultimately proves to be 100% false, then corrections need to be made to make our intel capabilities better for the future.

 

[Reilly]

Originally posted by jimnyc
You find it unfair when I call someone out for the constant bashing of our CIC when the very same person has NEVER made a post that I'm aware of condemning the actions of terrorists? It's evdient when someone chooses to bash the President but reserves comment when atrocities are committed by the enemy that they are trolling.

What is trolling?

Originally posted by jimnyc

He made his decisions based on intelligence. We cannot expect our CIC to personally verify the intel that is brought forth from the FBI NSA and CIA. At some point he needs to have faith in those who surround him. If the intel ultimately proves to be 100% false, then corrections need to be made to make our intel capabilities better for the future.

As the sign on Eisenhower's (or was it Truman) desk read: The Buck Stops Here.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by Reilly
What is trolling?

When someone posts with the sole purpose of riling up other members. Their desire is to illicit responses rather than actually 'discuss'.

As the sign on Eisenhower's (or was it Truman) desk read: The Buck Stops Here.

I just have a different opinion, I think he is responsible for much but not for bad intelligence. I'll respect your opinion though.

 

[Annie]

by Issac Brock
I'm saying that a war against another primarily Muslim country before Iraq and Afghanistan are stabilized will most likely result in rise in anti-American sentiments throughout the Muslim world.

Actually when one considers the 'friendships' that have been shown to be shams, I really don't think the US has a lot of worries about making enemies. That is something some of our former allies should be taking into consideration. Behold, many Americans are very fed up with the big play of the prison compared to the relative quiet and excuse making for the beheading.

Our European and North American friends, are making the US into an Israel-pretty dangerous in my opinion, but they are free to do so.

 

[st8_o_mind]

Originally posted by jimnyc
Nope, but your bias makes you look like an asswipe. Your clear condemnation for the leader of our country is apparent and your lack of condemnation for the terrorists is even more apparent. I can handle people bashing Bush, but it sickens me when they ignore the atrocities committed by the enemy.

Hey Jim,

It’s been a while. Forgive me for saying so, but in the past you’ve had a tendency to cuss me out without really saying anything, so I stopped reading them. In this case, you cussed me out first, but you then tookthe trouble to post your thoughts so I feel I should reply.

In your first sentence you called me an asswipe. Brilliant. Once again the radical right-wing thought police insults everyone that does not fit in their little “Leave it to Beaver” world. Whatever.

You guys are incredible. Where this started was Sir Evil was pissed because I didn't mention Bush at all in my posting He felt I should say something nice about dubya. Duh. That's because the President was not the subject of what I was wirting about.

Now you're going on about my NOT condeming the "terrorists." First, don't confuse the terrorists in Iraq with 9/11. Iraq had nothing to do with that. Bluring that distinction is a disservice. Especially if you're the President.

More to the point though, you can pick up the newspaper and read the comments of as many conservative, war supporting Members of the House and Senate today as they condemned the torture of Iraqi's in Iraq -- guess what, none that I read even mentioned the terrorists either. Nobody felt the need to say terrorists are bad peope...We already know that.

Tim Russert, the host of Meet the Press was interviewed on Charlie Rose a couple of nights ago. Russert mentioned that his dad "Big Russ" a WWII vet was a bit bent out of shape because of the attention the torture pics were getting and not condemning the mutilation of the four Americans. Russert’s response was to the effect of, Yeah Dad, but WE don’t do that. We stand for something better than that.

So yes, I hold the US to a higher standard. I don’t feel the need to apologize for that. I won’t apologize for that.

Originally posted by jimnyc
I don't believe he ever stated you HAD to compliment GWB, but that it was odd that you don't post anything positive about the war in Iraq or on terrorism in general. Kinda look like a troll when you only look to incite flames..[/B]

I did't support the war. I think the military was very effective and did a great job during the "major combat phase" but then the political people have come in a made a mess of it. I think Bush went in without a plan, has been improvising, and doing it badly. That's how I feel.

Originally posted by jimnyc And when he's re-elected, that'll just be more gibberish to pile on to your already overflowing shitpile. .[/B]

Let's revist this in November.

Originally posted by jimnyc First off, this isn't a blog. I try to allow as much 'free speech' as possible, more so than other political boards, but this is a privately owned board and falls under no such restrictions. So, technically speaking, you DO need permission to speak your views here. That doesn't mean you'll be censored in any way, just a reminder not to get too cocky. .[/B]

Fair enough. But disagreeing is cocky. I really think that what gets you and Evil bent out of shape is that I have very different views.

Originally posted by jimnyc The search for WMD is FAR from over, and Iraq posed a threat to the entire Middle East region. Saddam would have loved nothing more than to get weapons into the hands of terrorists that would happily use them against us..[/B]

Chances are Al Qaeda would have used them against Iraq, a secular government despised by Osama.

Originally posted by jimnyc I suggest that be the last time you use the term 'Sir Feeble'. How about you TRY THAT again? ..[/B]

But asswipe is okay? Apart from the obvious hypocracy, did you ever notice the language Sir Feeble uses when he flames someone? And you're upset with feeble? Take a scroll back and check out his language to others and get back to me on this.

Originally posted by jimnyc One has nothing to do with the other. One need not be a veteran to do what he feels is best for our country and our allies. ..[/B]

I 100% agree.

Originally posted by jimnyc And yet you can't produce even one lie. Pathetic. ..[/B]

We've already covered this ground in March.



I can't respond to the rest of the post...I have to pick up my pardner from work. Maybe later

 

[rtwngAvngr]

ST8. Opposing views are fine. But your points are bad. You skew reality; you judge Bush all day, and refuse to acknowledge the atrocities on the other side. You have a right to be an idiot, we're just trying to save you some future embarrasment by showing you the glaring flaws in your thoughts.

 

[preemptingyou03]

ST8,

You said Osama hates "secular governments" like Iraq's but what you fail to understand is the following:

- There are many radical elements working against us: Sunnis, Shiites, Wahhabis, Dictators. They may disagree with each other. They may even hate each other. But they work together. Dictators must have ties to terrorists or else terrorists would flaunt their radical beliefs on the population of the dictator.

- Saddam Hussein had ties to al-Qaeda. Have you ever heard of Abdul Yassin? Have you ever heard of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi? Ansar al-Islam? The MEK? The ANO? Abu Nidal? The PKK?

- Saddam Hussein had ties to terrorism, as a whole.

Terrorist groups like Hezbollah are no different than groups like al-Qaeda. In fact, since 8 out of al-Qaeda's top 10 leaders are dead or captured, I see al-Qaeda no longer being a threat in about 5 years... Hezbollah will be the next big threat. Hezbollah is today, where al-Qaeda was in 1993.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by st8_o_mind
Hey Jim,

It’s been a while. Forgive me for saying so, but in the past you’ve had a tendency to cuss me out without really saying anything, so I stopped reading them. In this case, you cussed me out first, but you then tookthe trouble to post your thoughts so I feel I should reply.

In your first sentence you called me an asswipe. Brilliant. Once again the radical right-wing thought police insults everyone that does not fit in their little “Leave it to Beaver” world. Whatever.

I hardly cuss people out without saying anything. I may be a prick at times, but I take the time to state my views coherently and back them up as much as possible with articles and facts. I've given the same treatment to many conservatives that came to this board solely to get a rise out of people too. In fact, one guy joined the board 2 days ago as 'liberalsrfuckheads' and I banned him before he ever got a post off. He emaile me, if you could have only read the glorious words of wisdom I had for him.

You guys are incredible. Where this started was Sir Evil was pissed because I didn't mention Bush at all in my posting He felt I should say something nice about dubya. Duh. That's because the President was not the subject of what I was wirting about.

I think he gets upset like I do with the people coming here spouting crap after crap about Bush while giving the enemy a free pass on their tirades.

Now you're going on about my NOT condeming the "terrorists." First, don't confuse the terrorists in Iraq with 9/11. Iraq had nothing to do with that. Bluring that distinction is a disservice. Especially if you're the President.

Never said they were completely related. But, there were terrorists that were responsible for 9/11 just as there are terrorists in Iraq. Suicide bombings, sneak attacks, using civilians as shields and cutting off the head of an American. I think they deserve to be condemned. Someone who takes the time to condemn Bush's speaking ability and doesn't take 2 seconds to condemn their actions makes me wonder what their motives are here on this board.

More to the point though, you can pick up the newspaper and read the comments of as many conservative, war supporting Members of the House and Senate today as they condemned the torture of Iraqi's in Iraq -- guess what, none that I read even mentioned the terrorists either. Nobody felt the need to say terrorists are bad peope...We already know that.

Yet I'll bet each and every one of them has condemned the terrorist activities many times, something I've yet to see you do. It's called being fair and balanced.

Tim Russert, the host of Meet the Press was interviewed on Charlie Rose a couple of nights ago. Russert mentioned that his dad "Big Russ" a WWII vet was a bit bent out of shape because of the attention the torture pics were getting and not condemning the mutilation of the four Americans. Russert’s response was to the effect of, Yeah Dad, but WE don’t do that. We stand for something better than that.

So yes, I hold the US to a higher standard. I don’t feel the need to apologize for that. I won’t apologize for that.

Nobody is asking you to apologize for anything. It's just that the nonstop Bush bashing while seemingly forgetting the actions of terrorists gets a bit tiresome after awhile.

I did't support the war. I think the military was very effective and did a great job during the "major combat phase" but then the political people have come in a made a mess of it. I think Bush went in without a plan, has been improvising, and doing it badly. That's how I feel.

That's a bit better stated than the way you have stated your opinion in the past. But again, you refer to the 'military' when giving accolades but then blame Bush for anything considered wrong.

Let's revist this in November.

Be happy to.

Fair enough. But disagreeing is cocky. I really think that what gets you and Evil bent out of shape is that I have very different views.

Not entirely true. There are quite a few on this board who have the opposite views than I do. They just state their views in a different fashion. I can respect someone who has different views but states them in a non-condescending manner.

Chances are Al Qaeda would have used them against Iraq, a secular government despised by Osama.

Who knows exactly what terrorists would have done with certain weapons if they could attain them? That's why I feel we need to keep giving them the good fight. Al Qaeda is horrible, but there are a lot more terrorist organizations out there. I think Saddam would have gladly worked with 'anyone' that was willing to strike against America.

But asswipe is okay? Apart from the obvious hypocracy, did you ever notice the language Sir Feeble uses when he flames someone? And you're upset with feeble? Take a scroll back and check out his language to others and get back to me on this.

First off, we are talking about you, not Sir Evil, try not to confuse the two. Sir Evil being an administrator doesn't give him automatic rights to engage in namecalling, but I assure you that he'll get the benefit of the doubt before you will. I'm not going to get back to you on this, I just suggest you cool off on flaming the administrator of the board.

I 100% agree.

I'm glad we see eye to eye on this. But why would you make the prior comments you did about him then?

We've already covered this ground in March.

I thought we did as well. To date I've yet to be convinced by anybody of any outright lies.

I can't respond to the rest of the post...I have to pick up my pardner from work. Maybe later

Adios.