NationStates Jolt Archive

WASHINGTON - The United States has obtained a letter from one terrorist leader to another that discusses plans to force a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq, create an Islamic state there and then spread their fight into neighboring countries, Pentagon officials said.
SOURCE (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051007/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/terrorist_letter)
The far-left wing agenda suddenly sickens me even more than I thought possible.

Kiss my ass. It's not like the left wing 1) had anything to do with the motives or plans of these guys, or 2) had anything to do with destabilizing the whole fucking area so they could get a foothold in a major nation. It's your fucking guy's fault, so man up and take the blame.

Left wing? You're a moron. Both the terrorist organizations under attack, the nation under occupation, and the attacking administration are rabid, reactionary, ultra-conservative right wing psychos.

Welcome to another episode of the Republican Party Date Rapes an Entire Generation...

Bush: Aw, c'mon...! Just the tip, ok? Don't worry... I'll pull out.

Yeah. Right.

What he said. The right wing (and I love your assumption that anyone opposed to this bullshit in Iraq is in the same headspace as Stalin, btw) didn't have a problem with destabilising the country in the first place, so it's just going to have to live with the consequences of pulling out, because there's no way that you're going to stay there indefinitely, even if you do elect another cretinous mouthpiece for the neocon conspiracy in '08. If it takes a Saddam Hussein to run Iraq (and it would appear that it does), removing him from power was bloody irresponsible, to say the least.

Kiss my ass. It's not like the left wing 1) had anything to do with the motives or plans of these guys, or 2) had anything to do with destabilizing the whole fucking area so they could get a foothold in a major nation. It's your fucking guy's fault, so man up and take the blame.
Ok flamer, whatever. Kiss your ass? Wash the nasty thing first.

Left wing? You're a moron. Both the terrorist organizations under attack, the nation under occupation, and the attacking administration are rabid, reactionary, ultra-conservative right wing psychos.

Welcome to another episode of the Republican Party Date Rapes an Entire Generation...

Bush: Aw, c'mon...! Just the tip, ok? Don't worry... I'll pull out.

Yeah. Right.
I"M a moron? You keep tellin yourself that, and I'm sure your special ed teacher agrees too!

SOURCE (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051007/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/terrorist_letter)
The far-left wing agenda suddenly sickens me even more than I thought possible.

Here's an idea: Maybe if the US stopped invading a different country every year or two, terrorists would lose interest and stop running planes into the US government buildings.

And it's not as though two wildly differing ideologies couldn't want the same things for two wildly differing reasons.

Jesus Christ! This is the most flame filled, ignorant bunch of posters Ive seen in a while! I can see you all lookin at the story, and goin "OH Shit!, we better just attack the poster" Degenerates.

BTW, I was simply trying to show cause that the "Bring the troops home now" crowd aren't doing us any favors. But NNOOOOOOO, you guys had to show up, and turn into a bunch of flaming douchebags. Way to show your age.

Here's an idea: Maybe if the US stopped invading a different country every year or two, terrorists would lose interest and stop running planes into the US government buildings.
Doesn't work. During the Clinton years we didn't invade anyone and Al Quaeda still attacked the world trade center, the USS Cole, and two embassies in Africa. Al Quaeda wants the US to stop sending financial and military aid to Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia so it can more easily topple those governments and install Islamist regimes. While the US presence in Iraq certainly makes them angry, leaving won't stop them from attacking us.

BTW, I was simply trying to show cause that the "Bring the troops home now" crowd aren't doing us any favors. But NNOOOOOOO, you guys had to show up, and turn into a bunch of flaming douchebags. Way to show your age.I suppose that depends on whether or not you believe that Saddam Hussein's Iraq is worse than the theocracy that will inevitably follow it, whether or not this particular terrorist gets his way.

If I recall, it was the right-wing who forced out the ironfist secular dictator.

SOURCE (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051007/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/terrorist_letter)
The far-left wing agenda suddenly sickens me even more than I thought possible.

Alright look man. About a year ago we moved in to clear out a few towns in Anbar province in Western Iraq of insurgents. Now we're moving back into the same damn province (http://www.mg.co.za/articlePage.aspx?articleid=252694&area=/breaking_news/breaking_news__international_news/) to clear out what appear to be an assload more insurgents. Next year we'll probably be moving back again to clear out only more insurgents. Ad infinitum.

Either pull out or send more troops. No more of this half-assed frittering around, accomplishing nothing while our troops get ground up. Unless someone can convince me that we have a chance of winning this thing with the current scenario, I say we change strategies.

Here's an idea: Maybe if the US stopped invading a different country every year or two, terrorists would lose interest and stop running planes into the US government buildings.

um, that's unlikely. We hadn't done a whole lot during the mid-late 90s, yet they decided to move on NYC/Washington.

to stop killing insurgents/terrorists would very likely not lead to terrorists' insane hatred for the Unitd States.

Facts:

Saddam is/was a bad man who killed thousands of his own citizens

The Iraqi people did not have the opportunity/ability to vote him out of office

We have removed Saddam from power and given the Iraqi people the ability to vote the LEADERS OF THEIR CHOICE into public office.

We are now trying to stop an insurgency aimed at hurting the birth of freedom/democracy in Iraq.


judgment: i'd say that we're fighting for a fairly worthy cause: freedom.

Here's an idea: Maybe if the US stopped invading a different country every year or two, terrorists would lose interest and stop running planes into the US government buildings.

um, that's unlikely. We hadn't done a whole lot during the mid-late 90s, yet they decided to move on NYC/Washington.

to stop killing insurgents/terrorists would very likely not lead to terrorists' insane hatred for the Unitd States.

Facts:

Saddam is/was a bad man who killed thousands of his own citizens

The Iraqi people did not have the opportunity/ability to vote him out of office

We have removed Saddam from power and given the Iraqi people the ability to vote the LEADERS OF THEIR CHOICE into public office.

We are now trying to stop an insurgency aimed at hurting the birth of freedom/democracy in Iraq.


judgment: i'd say that we're fighting for a fairly worthy cause: freedom.

Here's an idea: Maybe if the US stopped invading a different country every year or two, terrorists would lose interest and stop running planes into the US government buildings.

um, that's unlikely. We hadn't done a whole lot during the mid-late 90s, yet they decided to move on NYC/Washington.

to stop killing insurgents/terrorists would very likely not lead to terrorists' insane hatred for the Unitd States.

Facts:

Saddam is/was a bad man who killed thousands of his own citizens

The Iraqi people did not have the opportunity/ability to vote him out of office

We have removed Saddam from power and given the Iraqi people the ability to vote the LEADERS OF THEIR CHOICE into public office.

We are now trying to stop an insurgency aimed at hurting the birth of freedom/democracy in Iraq.


judgment: i'd say that we're fighting for a fairly worthy cause: freedom.

Here's an idea: Maybe if the US stopped invading a different country every year or two, terrorists would lose interest and stop running planes into the US government buildings.

um, that's unlikely. We hadn't done a whole lot during the mid-late 90s, yet they decided to move on NYC/Washington.

to stop killing insurgents/terrorists would very likely not lead to terrorists' insane hatred for the Unitd States.

Facts:

Saddam is/was a bad man who killed thousands of his own citizens

The Iraqi people did not have the opportunity/ability to vote him out of office

We have removed Saddam from power and given the Iraqi people the ability to vote the LEADERS OF THEIR CHOICE into public office.

We are now trying to stop an insurgency aimed at hurting the birth of freedom/democracy in Iraq.


judgment: i'd say that we're fighting for a fairly worthy cause: freedom.

Here's an idea: Maybe if the US stopped invading a different country every year or two, terrorists would lose interest and stop running planes into the US government buildings.

um, that's unlikely. We hadn't done a whole lot during the mid-late 90s, yet they decided to move on NYC/Washington.

to stop killing insurgents/terrorists would very likely not lead to terrorists' insane hatred for the Unitd States.

Facts:

Saddam is/was a bad man who killed thousands of his own citizens

The Iraqi people did not have the opportunity/ability to vote him out of office

We have removed Saddam from power and given the Iraqi people the ability to vote the LEADERS OF THEIR CHOICE into public office.

We are now trying to stop an insurgency aimed at hurting the birth of freedom/democracy in Iraq.


judgment: i'd say that we're fighting for a fairly worthy cause: freedom.

Here's an idea: Maybe if the US stopped invading a different country every year or two, terrorists would lose interest and stop running planes into the US government buildings.

um, that's unlikely. We hadn't done a whole lot during the mid-late 90s, yet they decided to move on NYC/Washington.

to stop killing insurgents/terrorists would very likely not lead to terrorists' insane hatred for the Unitd States.

Facts:

Saddam is/was a bad man who killed thousands of his own citizens

The Iraqi people did not have the opportunity/ability to vote him out of office

We have removed Saddam from power and given the Iraqi people the ability to vote the LEADERS OF THEIR CHOICE into public office.

We are now trying to stop an insurgency aimed at hurting the birth of freedom/democracy in Iraq.


judgment: i'd say that we're fighting for a fairly worthy cause: freedom.

If I recall, it was the right-wing who forced out the ironfist secular dictator.
True. Saddam was a brutal gangster. You can do business with a gangster. The Al Quaeda types are true beleivers. You can only hunt them down and kill them while weathering the attacks that they send your way and trying to win over the people that they live among.

Jesus Christ! This is the most flame filled, ignorant bunch of posters Ive seen in a while! I can see you all lookin at the story, and goin "OH Shit!, we better just attack the poster" Degenerates.
That's a bit rich coming from yourself.
The far-left wing agenda suddenly sickens me even more than I thought possible.

BTW, I was simply trying to show cause that the "Bring the troops home now" crowd aren't doing us any favors. But NNOOOOOOO, you guys had to show up, and turn into a bunch of flaming douchebags. Way to show your age.

Obviously you weren't trying very hard. You showed nothing of the kind. All you did was regurgitate a story that says "Yep. They still hate us." and then make a completely incomprehensible reference to liberals that have nothing to do with the above situation.

"Way to show your age"? This admonition comes from the moron who had the conversational acumen to call me a "dickhead" because I pointed out that he was, evidently, a moron? That's not "flame" junior... That's just statement of a fact using the proper, dictionary definition of a real live word.

Here's an idea: Maybe if the US stopped invading a different country every year or two, terrorists would lose interest and stop running planes into the US government buildings.

um, that's unlikely. We hadn't done a whole lot during the mid-late 90s, yet they decided to move on NYC/Washington.

to stop killing insurgents/terrorists would very likely not lead to terrorists' insane hatred for the Unitd States.

Facts:

Saddam is/was a bad man who killed thousands of his own citizens

The Iraqi people did not have the opportunity/ability to vote him out of office

We have removed Saddam from power and given the Iraqi people the ability to vote the LEADERS OF THEIR CHOICE into public office.

We are now trying to stop an insurgency aimed at hurting the birth of freedom/democracy in Iraq.


judgment: i'd say that we're fighting for a fairly worthy cause: freedom.

Here's an idea: Maybe if the US stopped invading a different country every year or two, terrorists would lose interest and stop running planes into the US government buildings.

um, that's unlikely. We hadn't done a whole lot during the mid-late 90s, yet they decided to move on NYC/Washington.

to stop killing insurgents/terrorists would very likely not lead to terrorists' insane hatred for the Unitd States.

Facts:

Saddam is/was a bad man who killed thousands of his own citizens

The Iraqi people did not have the opportunity/ability to vote him out of office

We have removed Saddam from power and given the Iraqi people the ability to vote the LEADERS OF THEIR CHOICE into public office.

We are now trying to stop an insurgency aimed at hurting the birth of freedom/democracy in Iraq.


judgment: i'd say that we're fighting for a fairly worthy cause: freedom.

Here's an idea: Maybe if the US stopped invading a different country every year or two, terrorists would lose interest and stop running planes into the US government buildings.

um, that's unlikely. We hadn't done a whole lot during the mid-late 90s, yet they decided to move on NYC/Washington.

to stop killing insurgents/terrorists would very likely not lead to terrorists' insane hatred for the Unitd States.

Facts:

Saddam is/was a bad man who killed thousands of his own citizens

The Iraqi people did not have the opportunity/ability to vote him out of office

We have removed Saddam from power and given the Iraqi people the ability to vote the LEADERS OF THEIR CHOICE into public office.

We are now trying to stop an insurgency aimed at hurting the birth of freedom/democracy in Iraq.


judgment: i'd say that we're fighting for a fairly worthy cause: freedom.

Here's an idea: Maybe if the US stopped invading a different country every year or two, terrorists would lose interest and stop running planes into the US government buildings.

um, that's unlikely. We hadn't done a whole lot during the mid-late 90s, yet they decided to move on NYC/Washington.

to stop killing insurgents/terrorists would very likely not lead to terrorists' insane hatred for the Unitd States.

Facts:

Saddam is/was a bad man who killed thousands of his own citizens

The Iraqi people did not have the opportunity/ability to vote him out of office

We have removed Saddam from power and given the Iraqi people the ability to vote the LEADERS OF THEIR CHOICE into public office.

We are now trying to stop an insurgency aimed at hurting the birth of freedom/democracy in Iraq.


judgment: i'd say that we're fighting for a fairly worthy cause: freedom.

Here's an idea: Maybe if the US stopped invading a different country every year or two, terrorists would lose interest and stop running planes into the US government buildings.

um, that's unlikely. We hadn't done a whole lot during the mid-late 90s, yet they decided to move on NYC/Washington.

to stop killing insurgents/terrorists would very likely not lead to terrorists' insane hatred for the Unitd States.

Facts:

Saddam is/was a bad man who killed thousands of his own citizens

The Iraqi people did not have the opportunity/ability to vote him out of office

We have removed Saddam from power and given the Iraqi people the ability to vote the LEADERS OF THEIR CHOICE into public office.

We are now trying to stop an insurgency aimed at hurting the birth of freedom/democracy in Iraq.


judgment: i'd say that we're fighting for a fairly worthy cause: freedom.

Here's an idea: Maybe if the US stopped invading a different country every year or two, terrorists would lose interest and stop running planes into the US government buildings.

um, that's unlikely. We hadn't done a whole lot during the mid-late 90s, yet they decided to move on NYC/Washington.

to stop killing insurgents/terrorists would very likely not lead to terrorists' insane hatred for the Unitd States.

Facts:

Saddam is/was a bad man who killed thousands of his own citizens

The Iraqi people did not have the opportunity/ability to vote him out of office

We have removed Saddam from power and given the Iraqi people the ability to vote the LEADERS OF THEIR CHOICE into public office.

We are now trying to stop an insurgency aimed at hurting the birth of freedom/democracy in Iraq.


judgment: i'd say that we're fighting for a fairly worthy cause: freedom.

Here's an idea: Maybe if the US stopped invading a different country every year or two, terrorists would lose interest and stop running planes into the US government buildings.

um, that's unlikely. We hadn't done a whole lot during the mid-late 90s, yet they decided to move on NYC/Washington.

to stop killing insurgents/terrorists would very likely not lead to terrorists' insane hatred for the Unitd States.

Facts:

Saddam is/was a bad man who killed thousands of his own citizens

The Iraqi people did not have the opportunity/ability to vote him out of office

We have removed Saddam from power and given the Iraqi people the ability to vote the LEADERS OF THEIR CHOICE into public office.

We are now trying to stop an insurgency aimed at hurting the birth of freedom/democracy in Iraq.


judgment: i'd say that we're fighting for a fairly worthy cause: freedom.

Here's an idea: Maybe if the US stopped invading a different country every year or two, terrorists would lose interest and stop running planes into the US government buildings.

um, that's unlikely. We hadn't done a whole lot during the mid-late 90s, yet they decided to move on NYC/Washington.

to stop killing insurgents/terrorists would very likely not lead to terrorists' insane hatred for the Unitd States.

Facts:

Saddam is/was a bad man who killed thousands of his own citizens

The Iraqi people did not have the opportunity/ability to vote him out of office

We have removed Saddam from power and given the Iraqi people the ability to vote the LEADERS OF THEIR CHOICE into public office.

We are now trying to stop an insurgency aimed at hurting the birth of freedom/democracy in Iraq.


judgment: i'd say that we're fighting for a fairly worthy cause: freedom.

Here's an idea: Maybe if the US stopped invading a different country every year or two, terrorists would lose interest and stop running planes into the US government buildings.

um, that's unlikely. We hadn't done a whole lot during the mid-late 90s, yet they decided to move on NYC/Washington.

to stop killing insurgents/terrorists would very likely not lead to a cessation of terrorists' insane hatred for the Unitd States.

Facts:

Saddam is/was a bad man who killed thousands of his own citizens

The Iraqi people did not have the opportunity/ability to vote him out of office

We have removed Saddam from power and given the Iraqi people the ability to vote the LEADERS OF THEIR CHOICE into public office.

We are now trying to stop an insurgency aimed at hurting the birth of freedom/democracy in Iraq.


judgment: i'd say that we're fighting for a fairly worthy cause: freedom.

Alright look man. About a year ago we moved in to clear out a few towns in Anbar province in Western Iraq of insurgents. Now we're moving back into the same damn province (http://www.mg.co.za/articlePage.aspx?articleid=252694&area=/breaking_news/breaking_news__international_news/) to clear out what appear to be an assload more insurgents. Next year we'll probably be moving back again to clear out only more insurgents. Ad infinitum.

Either pull out or send more troops. No more of this half-assed frittering around, accomplishing nothing while our troops get ground up. Unless someone can convince me that we have a chance of winning this thing with the current scenario, I say we change strategies.
Ok, what alot of people don't seem to understand is that we are training Iraqi troops EVERY DAY! Everyone says, "but theres only one battalion that can work alone" , but they fail to see theres another 60 that are well on the way.
IT WONT LAST FOREVER! The exit strategy is to keep the left off our backs long enough to train their troops, which is progressing.

[QUOTE=Frangland]<snip>[\QUOTE]
WTF dude? You filled up a whole page with copies of the same post!

um, that's unlikely. We hadn't done a whole lot during the mid-late 90s, yet they decided to move on NYC/Washington.

to stop killing insurgents/terrorists would very likely not lead to terrorists' insane hatred for the Unitd States.

Facts:

Saddam is/was a bad man who killed thousands of his own citizens

The Iraqi people did not have the opportunity/ability to vote him out of office

We have removed Saddam from power and given the Iraqi people the ability to vote the LEADERS OF THEIR CHOICE into public office.

We are now trying to stop an insurgency aimed at hurting the birth of freedom/democracy in Iraq.


judgment: i'd say that we're fighting for a fairly worthy cause: freedom.
Mmmm. The Iraquis voting a Shi'ite government into power will certainly make that country a far freer place.

Ok, what alot of people don't seem to understand is that we are training Iraqi troops EVERY DAY! Everyone says, "but theres only one battalion that can work alone" , but they fail to see theres another 60 that are well on the way.
IT WONT LAST FOREVER! The exit strategy is to keep the left off our backs long enough to train their troops, which is progressing.
Shouldn't the exit plan involve keeping the religious fanatics off your backs?

I mean, no left-wing pinko liberal commie has been using car-bombs in Iraq recently, right?

um, that's unlikely. We hadn't done a whole lot during the mid-late 90s, yet they decided to move on NYC/Washington.

to stop killing insurgents/terrorists would very likely not lead to terrorists' insane hatred for the Unitd States.

Facts:

Saddam is/was a bad man who killed thousands of his own citizens

The Iraqi people did not have the opportunity/ability to vote him out of office

We have removed Saddam from power and given the Iraqi people the ability to vote the LEADERS OF THEIR CHOICE into public office.

We are now trying to stop an insurgency aimed at hurting the birth of freedom/democracy in Iraq.

judgment: i'd say that we're fighting for a fairly worthy cause: freedom.

Ok... I more or less agree on an emotional level, but let's not get carried away, huh?

First, yes. The Iraquis now have the freedom to vote for any leaders we pre-approve for them.

And yes, Saddam Hussein is a bad man and was an evil national leader. We knew that, we gave him the power to rule in the first place. He was one of our favorite dogs, til he slipped the leash.

If we'd decided to attack because Saddam was a bad man, well, there were and are a -lot- worse men out there who somehow escaped our wrath. It wasn't an Al Queada thing... They hated him as much as they hate us. What was it...? Let's see. He was, for all intents and purposes a puppet gone rogue.

And let's not forget, He had oil, and it'd take military action to oust him... And we have an oil baron for a president, and a military supplier representative for a vice president.

Yeah. We freed some people. Yay, us. Now, if we were only -serious- about this "and justice for all" bullshit cover story the current administration is peddling, that might actually be something.

Doesn't work. During the Clinton years we didn't invade anyone and Al Quaeda still attacked the world trade center, the USS Cole, and two embassies in Africa. Al Quaeda wants the US to stop sending financial and military aid to Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia so it can more easily topple those governments and install Islamist regimes. While the US presence in Iraq certainly makes them angry, leaving won't stop them from attacking us.

It's worked for Canada. Maybe you just need to give it a few years. Don't be so reactive all the time.

How do we know the letter is genuine, and not an American or Israeli fabrication? Show me a grainy avi of a swarthy-looking guy writing it, with the text clearly visible, and maybe I'll believe you.

um, that's unlikely. We hadn't done a whole lot during the mid-late 90s, yet they decided to move on NYC/Washington.

to stop killing insurgents/terrorists would very likely not lead to a cessation of terrorists' insane hatred for the Unitd States.

Facts:

Saddam is/was a bad man who killed thousands of his own citizens

The Iraqi people did not have the opportunity/ability to vote him out of office

We have removed Saddam from power and given the Iraqi people the ability to vote the LEADERS OF THEIR CHOICE into public office.

We are now trying to stop an insurgency aimed at hurting the birth of freedom/democracy in Iraq.


judgment: i'd say that we're fighting for a fairly worthy cause: freedom.

Firstly, it's not America's place to step in when a country is subjecting it's people to torture. It's the UN's place to make sure that Iraqis have the opportunity to leave Iraq safely, and that's it, unless the Iraq is a member of the UN (is it?). I understand that the UN is usually quite inefficient and does not work quickly to solve problems, but that's something that can be worked out slowly. However, the US is not the supreme world authority, and therefore has no place telling other countries how they should behave.
Secondly, with an american invasion, many innocent Iraqis have been killed.
Thirdly, HOW MANY TIMES DO YOU HAVE TO POST THAT SAME MESSAGE? WE GOT THE POINT THE FIRST TIME!

How do we know the letter is genuine, and not an American or Israeli fabrication? Show me a grainy avi of a swarthy-looking guy writing it, with the text clearly visible, and maybe I'll believe you.
How do I know YOUR not the one who wrote it? Maybe it was leprechauns? Oh, no wait, it's a vast rightwing conspiracy elect Hitlers clone in 08. Yeah, thats it! (man, somebody has to tell the terrorists to remember to take pictures so Tactical Grace can feel better.)

How do I know YOUR not the one who wrote it? Maybe it was leprechauns? Oh, no wait, it's a vast rightwing conspiracy elect Hitlers clone in 08. Yeah, thats it! (man, somebody has to tell the terrorists to remember to take pictures so Tactical Grace can feel better.)
Well, put it this way. I haven't read it, and the only stuff available that I've seen is partisan pundits' commentary on the contents. So it's not worth the toilet paper it's printed on.

Well, put it this way. I haven't read it, and the only stuff available that I've seen is partisan pundits' commentary on the contents. So it's not worth the toilet paper it's printed on.
It doesn't matter if you read it or not. I learned long ago that people who think like you are too closed minded, and too full of conspiracy theories to ever really listen to someone elses opinion with anything but disdain. Keep on drinkin the kool aid!

the terrorists do not attack the US out of grievance, their attacks are motivated by their own desire for imperial conquest and global relevance.

Keep on drinkin the kool aid!
What's Kool Aid?

I don't go heavier than Diet Dr. Pepper, I'm afraid.

Firstly, it's not America's place to step in when a country is subjecting it's people to torture. It's the UN's place to make sure that Iraqis have the opportunity to leave Iraq safely, and that's it, unless the Iraq is a member of the UN (is it?). I understand that the UN is usually quite inefficient and does not work quickly to solve problems, but that's something that can be worked out slowly. However, the US is not the supreme world authority, and therefore has no place telling other countries how they should behave.
Secondly, with an american invasion, many innocent Iraqis have been killed.
Thirdly, HOW MANY TIMES DO YOU HAVE TO POST THAT SAME MESSAGE? WE GOT THE POINT THE FIRST TIME!

Yes, Iraq is a member of the UN.

When a government violates the human rights of its own people, it loses the sovereignty that it uses to shield itself from the international community. So in that sense, yes, we do have the right to tell others how to behave, in such circumstances.

of course, though, for many reasons (from legal to moral to diplomatic), we should have gone through the UN or NATO during this latest Iraq war.

SOURCE (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051007/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/terrorist_letter)
The far-left wing agenda suddenly sickens me even more than I thought possible.
geee if that letter is real, they havent convinced the head guy to stop hitting civillian and religious targets. guess it must not have been so well written

the desire to get the hell out of iraq is no longer a far left thing. its a mainstream american desire. we can now see that we were sold a bill of goods from the beginning and we are tired of paying the price for bush's mistake.

Yes, Iraq is a member of the UN.

When a government violates the human rights of its own people, it loses the sovereignty that it uses to shield itself from the international community. So in that sense, yes, we do have the right to tell others how to behave, in such circumstances.

of course, though, for many reasons (from legal to moral to diplomatic), we should have gone through the UN or NATO during this latest Iraq war.

The UN has a right to tell Iraq that it is not following the rules that member nations are expected to, and even to intervene (though not with warfare). However, I still maintain that the US has no authority over Iraq, and therefore should not legally be allowed to invade Iraq. However, it's not my place to stop the invasion. Again, the UN should be stepping in.

Doesn't work. During the Clinton years we didn't invade anyone...Lie

Doesn't work. During the Clinton years we didn't invade anyone...
Lie
Um... Are you perhaps using a different definition of the word "invade" than the rest of us?

BTW... You're in the valley? Whatup, homey!!

BTW, I was simply trying to show cause that the "Bring the troops home now" crowd aren't doing us any favors. But NNOOOOOOO, you guys had to show up, and turn into a bunch of flaming douchebags. Way to show your age.

Way to show yours.

Give the President too much power and this is what happens, a senseless war, at least Congress had the smarts to not agree with it, and the country (not everyone) are just as bad for believing his pathetic lies from the start.

Kiss my ass. It's not like the left wing 1) had anything to do with the motives or plans of these guys, or 2) had anything to do with destabilizing the whole fucking area so they could get a foothold in a major nation. It's your fucking guy's fault, so man up and take the blame.

Actually the left wing is not good for much of anything except ; whining ,moaning ,bitching and complaining . They never have produced much of anything helpfull . They are useless for defense and anything military. Not surprisingly they do not win elections . so of course they had nothing to do with motives or plans. Since when did a left winger ever have a plan ? lets see .."destabilized an entire region " to paraphrase .. :D sure by removing a Loonytoon despot and a very UNSTABLE one at that . And introducing two democracys to areas that do not have one . I can see how that may " destabilise the area " FOR THE BETTER . Not to mention you get all the jihadist to come out from under their rocks and attack you so that you can help them attain the matyrdom they desire ...But not on your soil or in your cities. Shhh dont tell no one about that unintentional (?) side effect of introducing an alternative to the taliban and a Despotic mad man .
When Clinton was in office they declared war and only one side was fighting . Now you have both sides going at and whats the lefts response ?

CUT AND RUN . BEND OVER AND TAKE IT .

I'd much rather give than recieve . The left is a waste let them babble .

The UN has a right to tell Iraq that it is not following the rules that member nations are expected to, and even to intervene (though not with warfare). However, I still maintain that the US has no authority over Iraq, and therefore should not legally be allowed to invade Iraq. However, it's not my place to stop the invasion. Again, the UN should be stepping in.


Maybe you can get the UN to do something usefull in SUDAN . I hear they ran out of Africans to kill .

geee if that letter is real, they havent convinced the head guy to stop hitting civillian and religious targets. guess it must not have been so well written

the desire to get the hell out of iraq is no longer a far left thing. its a mainstream american desire. we can now see that we were sold a bill of goods from the beginning and we are tired of paying the price for bush's mistake.

We want to leave when we are done . We want the war to end successfully .
No one but the left wing loonytoons just wants to cut and run . Dont claim to speak for the " mainstream " . The " mainstream " wants to get out of Iraq but only under the right circumstances .

Actually the left wing is not good for much of anything except ; whining ,moaning ,bitching and complaining . They never have produced much of anything helpfull . They are useless for defense and anything military. Not surprisingly they do not win elections . so of course they had nothing to do with motives or plans. Since when did a left winger ever have a plan ? lets see .."destabilized an entire region " to paraphrase .. :D sure by removing a Loonytoon despot and a very UNSTABLE one at that . And introducing two democracys to areas that do not have one . I can see how that may " destabilise the area " FOR THE BETTER . Not to mention you get all the jihadist to come out from under their rocks and attack you so that you can help them attain the matyrdom they desire ...But not on your soil or in your cities. Shhh dont tell no one about that unintentional (?) side effect of introducing an alternative to the taliban and a Despotic mad man .
When Clinton was in office they declared war and only one side was fighting . Now you have both sides going at and whats the lefts response ?

CUT AND RUN . BEND OVER AND TAKE IT .

I'd much rather give than recieve . The left is a waste let them babble .

Wow, where to begin? How about liberals as good for nothing and not thinking of anything? I hate to break it you, but much of Bush's foreign policy is a very skewed take on classic Wilsonian beliefs. I'll save you time from having to check wikipedia -- he was a Democrat president. Neocons took a lot of his foreign policy and messed it up, which I regret because I always thought of myself as a classic Wilsonian.

Introduced two new democracies in an area that have none? I hate to break it to you, once again, but the broader middle east already had two democracies -- Israel and Turkey.

We fight them there so we don't fight them on our own soil? Tell that to London.

Anyways...I don't even know why I bother -- you're always going to think of liberals as dirty, birkenstock-wearing hippies. Which is sad, because people like you make a lot of liberals think that all conservatives are gun-toting, bigot hicks. I guess, in the end, it's a wash.

I wouldn't go around finger pointing here, as that is very dangerous to do. It doesn't matter, for example, whether the US invaded Iraq or not, for the motives of the terrorists would be the same. All they'd do is find the weakest nation in the Middle East, and start an insurgency there. If it weren't Iraq, I'm sure it'd be Syria. The Syrian president, Bashar al-Asad, is weak and growing weaker, and already, clashes by religious extremists with police are becoming more frequent. Whether Iraq is an oppritunity for terrorists to create their own ministate remains to be seen, but even if they are driven from that country, they'll simply move somewhere else. They have the motivation.

Wow, where to begin? How about liberals as good for nothing and not thinking of anything? I hate to break it you, but much of Bush's foreign policy is a very skewed take on classic Wilsonian beliefs. I'll save you time from having to check wikipedia -- he was a Democrat president. Neocons took a lot of his foreign policy and messed it up, which I regret because I always thought of myself as a classic Wilsonian.

Introduced two new democracies in an area that have none? I hate to break it to you, once again, but the broader middle east already had two democracies -- Israel and Turkey.

We fight them there so we don't fight them on our own soil? Tell that to London.

Anyways...I don't even know why I bother -- you're always going to think of liberals as dirty, birkenstock-wearing hippies. Which is sad, because people like you make a lot of liberals think that all conservatives are gun-toting, bigot hicks. I guess, in the end, it's a wash.

Wilson was not a left wing liberal by any stetch of the imagination. today he might have been compared to right of Ronald Regan . Not that every democrat is a left winger anyway .
The Persian gulf region includes no Democracys . Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East . turkey..if you want to call it a democracy is close.

And as you should have noticed I qualified the remark about the comming out from under their rocks and fighting in Iraq with a question. For much the very same reason .It does seem to have reduced the amount of jihadist running aroud elsewhere looking to become martyred .

You caught us. We secretly want Al-queda to control the US.

I mean, obviously, pulling out of iraq would make the terrorists stronger somehow, not weaker(by making less people have reason to join Al-queda). Hell, the last time we pulled out of a bad situation(somalia), Al-queda came and occupied us. And before that(vietnam), communism overtook the world by falling domino's!

Its not like the terrorists would ever over-achieve.

Wilson was not a left wing liberal by any stetch of the imagination. today he might have been compared to right of Ronald Regan . Not that every democrat is a left winger anyway .
The Persian gulf region includes no Democracys . Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East . turkey..if you want to call it a democracy is close.

And as you should have noticed I qualified the remark about the comming out from under their rocks and fighting in Iraq with a question. For much the very same reason .It does seem to have reduced the amount of jihadist running aroud elsewhere looking to become martyred .

Last I checked, Iran was a democracy(If you want to call nations democracy at all in this world, Iran is as deserving as say the US).

We want to leave when we are done . We want the war to end successfully .
No one but the left wing loonytoons just wants to cut and run . Dont claim to speak for the " mainstream " . The " mainstream " wants to get out of Iraq but only under the right circumstances .
that must be why (according to a poll released today) only 28% of people think the country is headed in the right direction.

Doesn't work. During the Clinton years we didn't invade anyone and Al Quaeda still attacked the world trade center, the USS Cole, and two embassies in Africa. Al Quaeda wants the US to stop sending financial and military aid to Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia so it can more easily topple those governments and install Islamist regimes. While the US presence in Iraq certainly makes them angry, leaving won't stop them from attacking us.

yea...what you said.

i was/am against the war in iraq,however...nothing is going to change the terrorists agenda short of a complete pullout from the whole of the middle east...and leaving the jews completely....and even that wont satsify their bloodlust against all things west....europe and canada included.

at the moment,we are the 500 pound gorilla right now,and all the rest of the west will follow....and your suckers to believe that by being appeasers and booing the us will change their agenda....you will be next

you should be thanking us for fighting your battles as usual(brits/aussies and poles aside)rather then trying to put up roadblocks every chance you get.

and flying planeloads of innocent people into buildings of innocent people...real moral and justified.

do any of you ever read obl's rantings...he hates all of us..not just the u.s.

we are just the biggest thorn in his side at the moment...no thanks to most of the world.

i think alot of people that hate us are just plain jealous, or like the scumbags that love to see the person knocked off a pedestal types....

and dont kid yourselves either..the ONLY reason most of europes leaders did not support the ousting of saddam was they were making mad money on the side with the oil for food shit,and other ventures.

but the u.s. is the greedy capitalist jerkoffs....think again...for every finger you point at us..there is 4 pointing back at you...freaking hypocrites..yea...hypocrites or fools.

dont worry..the dumb greedy americans will save the dumb hypocritacal/greedy euro's and everyone from mister nice guy osama(who only wants to be left alone with his insane version of islam to lord over the middle east then eventually the world)

we may have been assholes and greedy double dealing louses on many occasions(as has almost every european country...and it only took us 200 years to understand....what did it take europe...ww1/ww2 comes too mind)

but to somehow even justify 911 (as a poster implied earlier) that we were nasty biz wise and supported dictators(again europe..pot/kettle/black) some how justifys killing innocents.

i am openminded on soooo many issues...but you have to be totally brainwashed by the liberal college left to believe that the u.s. is even remotely the threat to your life/lifestyle that al qaida is!...wow..i am truly baffled.

oh,i despise bush but do agree with him in this 1 area.

.It does seem to have reduced the amount of jihadist running aroud elsewhere looking to become martyred .

London, Sharm el Sheik, Bali... Yep, safer places now.

that must be why (according to a poll released today) only 28% of people think the country is headed in the right direction.

Call me when that poll means something ..the polls said Kerry would win .

-snip-

Troll much? :p

London, Sharm el Sheik, Bali... Yep, safer places now.

Last I looked London was safe so was Bali . Suicide bombers can only be stopped by killing them before they commit suicide . Cant speak for Sharm el Sheik . But the other two places learned a valuable lesson on staying awake .

Last I looked London was safe so was Bali . Suicide bombers can only be stopped by killing them before they commit suicide . Cant speak for Sharm el Sheik . But the other two places learned a valuable lesson on staying awake .

Bali? Safe? You haven't read the papers much have you? They got bombed again. So much for your statement.

Wilson was not a left wing liberal by any stetch of the imagination. today he might have been compared to right of Ronald Regan . Not that every democrat is a left winger anyway .
The Persian gulf region includes no Democracys . Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East . turkey..if you want to call it a democracy is close.

And as you should have noticed I qualified the remark about the comming out from under their rocks and fighting in Iraq with a question. For much the very same reason .It does seem to have reduced the amount of jihadist running aroud elsewhere looking to become martyred .

As long as the nation of Israel encompasses the West Bank, it's an apartheid and there's no way you can call it a democracy. Palestinians who live in occupied territories are second class citizens and do not have the right to vote. You might as well have called South Africa a democracy.

Last I looked London was safe so was Bali . Suicide bombers can only be stopped by killing them before they commit suicide . Cant speak for Sharm el Sheik . But the other two places learned a valuable lesson on staying awake .

Dude, what are you talking about?? :eek:
All those places have been bombed in the past 4 months!

Bali was last week!!! :(

As long as the nation of Israel encompasses the West Bank, it's an apartheid and there's no way you can call it a democracy. Palestinians who live in occupied territories are second class citizens and do not have the right to vote. You might as well have called South Africa a democracy.
Not to mention Egypt is as much a democracy as America as far as everyone's suffrage is concerned. All Egyptian citizens can vote as long as they're over 18.

Dude, what are you talking about?? :eek:
All those places have been bombed in the past 4 months!

Bali was last week!!! :(


They are just as safe now as they were before they were bombed . Maybe safer ..if they learned anything from it . Whats Bali have to do with Iraq at any rate ?

As long as the nation of Israel encompasses the West Bank, it's an apartheid and there's no way you can call it a democracy. Palestinians who live in occupied territories are second class citizens and do not have the right to vote. You might as well have called South Africa a democracy.

Its considered a democracy . I could care less what it is . Its not exactly a shining example at any rate . Nothing in the region is . THATS THE PROBLEM . :D

They are just as safe now as they were before they were bombed . Maybe safer ..if they learned anything from it . Whats Bali have to do with Iraq at any rate ?

Ok.... I don't know what your 'safe' logic is in relation to this but this is what you said:


It (ie Iraq) does seem to have reduced the amount of jihadist running aroud elsewhere looking to become martyred .

By showing these 3 examples (and recent ones too), Iraq has not reduced the amount of 'jihadists' running around at all. Thats what Sharm el Sheik, London and Bali (twice for them) have to do with Iraq. :(

Its considered a democracy . I could care less what it is . Its not exactly a shining example at any rate . Nothing in the region is . THATS THE PROBLEM . :D

Nothing in the world is a shining example of democracy.

Ok.... I don't know what your 'safe' logic is in relation to this but this is what you said:




By showing these 3 examples (and recent ones too), Iraq has not reduced the amount of 'jihadists' running around at all. Thats what Sharm el Sheik, London and Bali (twice for them) have to do with Iraq. :(

If they were not occupied in Iraq the 3 examples may just as well have been twenty examples . Every one of them killed in Iraq or kept busy in Iraq is one less going elsewhere to blow up . Bali has its own home grown problem . Londons attackers came from LONDON . :D

If they were not occupied in Iraq the 3 examples may just as well have been twenty examples .

THATS your logic!!!
:eek:

I am actually stunned by that. :(

The UN has a right to tell Iraq that it is not following the rules that member nations are expected to, and even to intervene (though not with warfare). However, I still maintain that the US has no authority over Iraq, and therefore should not legally be allowed to invade Iraq. However, it's not my place to stop the invasion. Again, the UN should be stepping in.

incorrect i am afraid.

the u.s. could have re attacked iraq numerous times after gulf war 1(which was supported by the un and europe) if memory serves.

iraq SIGNED AN UNCONDITIONAL CEASEFIRE that they repeatedly violated..remember clinton(who i liked somewhat) ordered precision strikes quite a few times.

if you violate a ceasefire agreement with an enemy...they have every right to resume military action.

unfortunately for the iraqi people..and our soldiers...they continued to do so..even after 911 which was flat stupid by saddam.he did play games with the inspectors,whether or not wmd's are ever found(the desert is a big place and changes daily)he could have simply complied..under his own agreement to do so...and bush would have had no footing for this war..period..he is too blame for this mess...not bush,not america,not the un...saddam could have just said okay to the world and that would have been that...then if bush went in..he would have a hell of a lot more detractors on both sides of the aisle.but he didn't!(my theory is he was afraid to be seen without wmd's to his regional rivals and played a game of chicken with the world to keep his opponents wondering and at bay) he lost that gamble obviously,and now american/british and other forces are paying with there lives for his gamble..and lest we forget...his own innocent citizens.(but it was obvious his love for his fellow citizens)

another more cynical thought...maybe we want to fight the crazy fucks over there rather then here?

i hate bush,but some of you have such blind hatred for bush that it clouds your judgement and or ability to reason...how can anyone prefer obl over bush,it is a money whore verses a homicidal religous fanatic that would stone you women for showing your face...but i guess he is anti bush so thats good enough eh! :headbang:

SOURCE (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051007/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/terrorist_letter)
The far-left wing agenda suddenly sickens me even more than I thought possible.
From the news article:

It was released Thursday evening after a presidential speech, designed to revive public support for the war in Iraq, in which Bush said the insurgents want to establish and spread a radical Islamic empire, beginning with Iraq.

How do you spell propaganda?

i hate bush,but some of you have such blind hatred for bush that it clouds your judgement and or ability to reason...how can anyone prefer obl over bush,it is a money whore verses a homicidal religous fanatic that would stone you women for showing your face...but i guess he is anti bush so thats good enough eh! :headbang:

Well, you just showed how strong your argument is.

Troll much? :p

???

i just stated an opinion,how is that trolling..i was simply pointing out that alot of liberal euro's seem to think if we just leave them alone..they will leave us alone...and i think that is not the case.

if i insulted anyone in europe..i apologize..not my intent..just trying to point out the deleterious affect of thinking that appeasing the obl's of the world would accomplish anything...and yes..i am sick of liberal euro's slamming the u.s. and gleefull when we have a setback..yet see no rage at the true evil of the religous fanatics...ok..i hate bush but i wont be so blinded by my dislike of him as too presume the obl's of the world are a better choice or root for evil because i dissagree with scumbag george.

???

i just stated an opinion,how is that trolling..i was simply pointing out that alot of liberal euro's seem to think if we just leave them alone..they will leave us alone...and i think that is not the case.

if i insulted anyone in europe..i apologize..not my intent..just trying to point out the deleterious affect of thinking that appeasing the obl's of the world would accomplish anything...and yes..i am sick of liberal euro's slamming the u.s. and gleefull when we have a setback..yet see no rage at the true evil of the religous fanatics...ok..i hate bush but i wont be so blinded by my dislike of him as too presume the obl's of the world are a better choice or root for evil because i dissagree with scumbag george.

We have our own homegrown liberals to slam us . The Euro ones do not count , they cant vote here .

another more cynical thought...maybe we want to fight the crazy fucks over there rather then here?

See, this is where the reasons for invading Iraq cease to make any sense. If we are there to help the Iraqi people, and at the same time are there to provoke a battle royale with international terrorists, those two strategies are at odds. Because bringing terrorists to Iraq so we can fight them is making life less safe for Iraqis.

So which is it? Are we there to fight or are we there to help?

From the news article:

It was released Thursday evening after a presidential speech, designed to revive public support for the war in Iraq, in which Bush said the insurgents want to establish and spread a radical Islamic empire, beginning with Iraq.

How do you spell propaganda?
Sure, its politics as usual. HOWEVER, that doesn't mean its not true.

Well, you just showed how strong your argument is.

please elaborate...i see no point in your comment..or maybe i am just tired.

i don't like bush but i do think so many people hate him so much that it doesnt matter what the anti bush do..as long as it is anti bush it is good...please explain your statement how that has any bearing on what i said...or did you just pick a line and think you could toss out a quip and sound smart?without even reading what i wrote...certainly with your astute take on world views you could pick apart my opinions better then taking a line that had nothing to do with my argument and then proceed to attempt to make me sound?trite,stupid,bushaphile(which i certainly am not)or do you actually have no argument or responce and just covered your ears and went nanna na nanna na na..like in a schoolyard when you have no reply?

argue wmd's,the un,anything...what you said made zero sense to me...but i am dumb i guess...sorry. :fluffle:

it is possible you are agreeing with me...but i am too exhausted to catch your meaning..if so..sorry.

We have our own homegrown liberals to slam us . The Euro ones do not count , they cant vote here .

Have you any idea that every time you badmouth liberals, you're badmouthing about 100 million of your fellow countrymen? That makes you about 50% anti-American. Think about it.

Have you any idea that every time you badmouth liberals, you're badmouthing about 100 million of your fellow countrymen? That makes you about 50% anti-American. Think about it.

Some liberals are actually making a good point now and then , in fact I like Bill Mahre and bought his book . But I cant watch his show because of the penut gallery . Not all liberals are lunatics just like not all conservatives are lunatics . In fact my biggest concern is that the lunatics from both sides have taken over the political parties that are supposed to represent me . I am a social libertarian , I cant abide by some of the pepublican domestic adgenda but the left wing has destroyed the democratic party so much so that republicans are closer to representing me than the Dems are !
look as long as the Dems want to keep and promote a welfare class and cant figure out what a military and a foreign policy is used for they are doomed .
As long as the loony left drives the party adgenda they will continue to decline . The Republicans will learn to get rid of the nutters like Santorum ( Sen Pa. ) by having them lose to Conservative / moderate Democrats like Casey Jr. ..But the Moderate democrat is quickly becoming a dying breed .

See, this is where the reasons for invading Iraq cease to make any sense. If we are there to help the Iraqi people, and at the same time are there to provoke a battle royale with international terrorists, those two strategies are at odds. Because bringing terrorists to Iraq so we can fight them is making life less safe for Iraqis.

So which is it? Are we there to fight or are we there to help?

very good point i will concede.

i would hope both?however the cynical side of me probably would lean towards the bring them there to fight logic,as much as it sickens me.

now that is a thought provoking argument i can appreciate ...thank you,i actually never considered that perspective.

i am basically trying to get a handle on what i percieve as a rampant attitude that if it is bad and happens to america..great..no matter the messenger,and you have to admit there is that attitude out there.

most americans,myself included..would be overjoyed if we actually freed an oppressed country rather then oppressed it.(and i realize the are many despots as bad or worse then saddam..but it is partially about oil)

maybe thats the answer..it is a self serving strategic move on our part with the hopefull byproduct that the people of iraq may end up better off in the end...wishful thinking maybe...but it is (geopolitics) a fine line between self interest and doing some good.

thank you for a thought provoking idea,instead of just the same old...left/ right kneejerk reaction.

the terrorists do not attack the US out of grievance, their attacks are motivated by their own desire for imperial conquest and global relevance.Prove it. That's certainly not what they tell us (http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/29/bin.laden.transcript/).

the desire to get the hell out of iraq is no longer a far left thing.It never was. I'm not at all on the left and was against this war before it began. So was Pat Buchanan. I mention him, because nobody can call him a lefty with a straight face.

Give the President too much power and this is what happens, a senseless war, at least Congress had the smarts to not agree with it, and the country (not everyone) are just as bad for believing his pathetic lies from the start.
What the hell are you talking about? Congress overwhelmingly approved granting the President the authority to wage war, along with the necessary funds.

...
Not to mention you get all the jihadist to come out from under their rocks and attack you so that you can help them attain the matyrdom they desire
Iraqis do not appreciate being used as a honeypot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honeypot), to borrow a geek word. When they hear Americans saying things like "we're fighting them over there so they we don't have to fight them over here" they tend not to believe assertions that this war was waged for their benefit. It's also total BS. Our forces have killed tens of thousands over there. When was the last time we had to fight anywhere near that many over here?
We want to leave when we are doneAnd when will that be? We've taken care of all the prohibited weapons that so many of us were so worried about. We've deposed Saddam. They've even had elections. What the hell is left to do? The war's over. Our guys won, and they should come home.

Iraqis do not appreciate being used as a honeypot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honeypot), to borrow a geek word. When they hear Americans saying things like "we're fighting them over there so they we don't have to fight them over here" they tend not to believe assertions that this war was waged for their benefit. It's also total BS. Our forces have killed tens of thousands over there. When was the last time we had to fight anywhere near that many over here?

it reminds me of back in the 80s when president reagan talked about fighting a limited nuclear war in europe and then was surprised to find that europeans didnt care much for that plan.

SOURCE (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051007/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/terrorist_letter)
The far-left wing agenda suddenly sickens me even more than I thought possible.


This tune has been sung for a while now.

um, that's unlikely. We hadn't done a whole lot during the mid-late 90s, yet they decided to move on NYC/Washington.

to stop killing insurgents/terrorists would very likely not lead to terrorists' insane hatred for the Unitd States.

Facts:

Saddam is/was a bad man who killed thousands of his own citizens

The Iraqi people did not have the opportunity/ability to vote him out of office

We have removed Saddam from power and given the Iraqi people the ability to vote the LEADERS OF THEIR CHOICE into public office.

We are now trying to stop an insurgency aimed at hurting the birth of freedom/democracy in Iraq.


judgment: i'd say that we're fighting for a fairly worthy cause: freedom.

Fact: The US has caused many casualties of innocent Iraqi civilians.
Fact: The US troops are not in a good state of mind and were known to abuse prisoners in degrading fashions.
Fact: Religious extremists in Iraq are blowing each other up on a regular basis.

Hate to get all communist on you, but history needs to go in steps, not leaps. There is no way Iraq can go from a theocentric dictatorship to a democracy in one simple mass killing of civilians (although people like to call it war). There has to be a renaissance and a questioning of values, perhaps a revolution and settling period. Democracy doesn't work when it's just dropped on people.

Wilson was not a left wing liberal by any stetch of the imagination. today he might have been compared to right of Ronald Regan . Not that every democrat is a left winger anyway.Oh Dear God. It's bad enough to see "conservatives" fawn over FDR, but Wilson? Ehhhh. I guess interventionism is a conservative thing now. I suppose you could call Reagan an interventionist, but he wasn't as bad as Wilson, or even Johnson for that matter.

It does seem to have reduced the amount of jihadist running aroud elsewhere looking to become martyred .Only if you're not paying attention. Read this (http://independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1501).

See, this is where the reasons for invading Iraq cease to make any sense. If we are there to help the Iraqi people, and at the same time are there to provoke a battle royale with international terrorists, those two strategies are at odds. Because bringing terrorists to Iraq so we can fight them is making life less safe for Iraqis.

So which is it? Are we there to fight or are we there to help?We're there to help them fight! :D






/sorry

Democracy doesn't work when it's just dropped on people.

Interesting. Not to be cynical, but can you name a few countries where "democracy" is an actual success?

Personally, I think that the whole "democratic experient" has turned into a disasterous mistake, just as flawed as the "feudal system", in fact, to me the Western World simply replaced the Old Feudal System with Feudal System New Style; different names for the same-ol-same-ol. Instead of "clergy&nobility" you now have "politicians&stockholders". Everything else is still the blind and ignorant masses who are being manipulated every which way.

As for Iraq, how can the Iraqi ever be free if they can't even fight for their own freedom, huh? Freedom, and the strength to protect it, is not something that can be bestowed upon a nation by another nation, it has to be earned the hard way, just as is the case with pretty much everything of value in life.

Interesting. Not to be cynical, but can you name a few countries where "democracy" is an actual success?


I was using the term loosely like "Slipknot" and "musicians".

Jesus Christ! This is the most flame filled, ignorant bunch of posters Ive seen in a while! I can see you all lookin at the story, and goin "OH Shit!, we better just attack the poster" Degenerates.
You post a troll thread with no redeeming characteristics and then have the audacity to bitch when you get called out on it? And you call us ignorant? :rolleyes:

I have one question.

Who did the US think a Muslim nation would elect with free and fair elections?
It is like expecting the US voters to overwhelmingly support a Satanist.

I have one question.

Who did the US think a Muslim nation would elect with free and fair elections?
It is like expecting the US voters to overwhelmingly support a Satanist.
Well we did in 2004. :D

Sorry. That was too easy. I should be ashamed.

Well, we can either fight it out in the Middle East, or we can ban islam in the West. Because I'm not letting the West be conquered by ****ing sharia law.

...
Hate to get all communist on you, but history needs to go in steps, not leaps. There is no way Iraq can go from a theocentric dictatorship to a democracy in one simple mass killing of civilians (although people like to call it war). There has to be a renaissance and a questioning of values, perhaps a revolution and settling period. Democracy doesn't work when it's just dropped on people.

Worked on Japan and South Korea (provided we are talking about America's example of a Constitutional Republic and not straight Democracy)

...
As for Iraq, how can the Iraqi ever be free if they can't even fight for their own freedom, huh? Freedom, and the strength to protect it, is not something that can be bestowed upon a nation by another nation, it has to be earned the hard way, just as is the case with pretty much everything of value in life.

What do you mean not fighting for their own freedom, that somehow it's not being earned? Aren't you watching the news at all? They are under attack every single stinking day and yet they are moving on and proceeding with their elections in a few days for this write-up to be or not to be their constitution. How the hell is that NOT fighting for their freedom? We’ll see how many vote 'again' under with the threat of violence at the polls and you can again say how they are not fighting for their right to freedom.

Here's an idea: Maybe if the US stopped invading a different country every year or two, terrorists would lose interest and stop running planes into the US government buildings.

EXACTLY!!!!

*high-fives Terrorist Cakes*

And what did the the US, pray tell, do to deserve 9/11?

And what did the the US, pray tell, do to deserve 9/11?

Not a damn thing. But that doesn't give us the right to invade countries that were in no way responsible for or affiliated with the 9/11 atrocity.

Not a damn thing. But that doesn't give us the right to invade countries that were in no way responsible for or affiliated with the 9/11 atrocity.


The only REAL reason the UN wasn't in on this war is because the majority voters in the security council were too busy accepting bribes directly from Saddam to vote against him (See Iraq Oil-for-Food scandal at the UN with Germany, French and Russian profiteering)

Not a damn thing. But that doesn't give us the right to invade countries that were in no way responsible for or affiliated with the 9/11 atrocity.

afghanistan was praising 9/11. Good enough for me.

Iraq is right next to iran, which wants to conquer the world for islam. The US gets a launching pad for an invasion of iran, plus they got rid of a dictator. Good enough for me.

afghanistan was praising 9/11. Good enough for me.

Iraq is right next to iran, which wants to conquer the world for islam. The US gets a launching pad for an invasion of iran, plus they got rid of a dictator. Good enough for me.

Oh i get it now,afghanistan praised '9/11',so it must have been saddam!its all so clear now!

Oh noez,they want to conquer the world for Islam.cos that's sooo much worse than wanting to conquer the world for capitalism.

Oh i get it now,afghanistan praised '9/11',so it must have been saddam!its all so clear now!

That doesn't make sense...

Oh noez,they want to conquer the world for Islam.cos that's sooo much worse than wanting to conquer the world for capitalism.

Of course it's much worse that the world being conquered by capitalism. islam is oppression in a nutshell. At least under "capitalism" (which is a economic model anyway, so your argument is moot) you can do what you want and say what you want.

Not to mention Egypt is as much a democracy as America as far as everyone's suffrage is concerned. All Egyptian citizens can vote as long as they're over 18.
Yeah, but up until a few weeks ago they could only vote for Mubarak. Democracy doesn't mean too much when you have only one option to vote for.

Prove it. That's certainly not what they tell us (http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/29/bin.laden.transcript/).
It's a well known fact among analysts worldwide who have studied Al Quaeda and the radical Islamist movements that preceeded it. Here's the word of a Swedish terrorism expert.

http://theworld.org/latesteditions/10/20051006.shtml
Click the link on that page marked "Bush asserts at least 10 al quaeda attacks foiled"

Anyone who thinks that Osamma is going to be honest enough to announce his plans for conquest to the world is a moron. Anyone who doesn't know his plans for conquest is willfully ignorant.

I have one question.

Who did the US think a Muslim nation would elect with free and fair elections?
It is like expecting the US voters to overwhelmingly support a Satanist.
Well I'd vote for a satanist.

You post a troll thread with no redeeming characteristics and then have the audacity to bitch when you get called out on it? And you call us ignorant? :rolleyes:
When you start you FIRST post with this, I'll call you ignorant all I want.
Kiss my ass.
~EDIT~ BTW Saying that someones opinions have NO redeeming qualities just because you don't agree is the epitomy of ignorance.

When you start you FIRST post with this, I'll call you ignorant all I want.

~EDIT~ BTW Saying that someones opinions have NO redeeming qualities just because you don't agree is the epitomy of ignorance.
Let me return to your first post and explain why you're a nitwit. You posted this quote from an AP article:The United States has obtained a letter from one terrorist leader to another that discusses plans to force a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq, create an Islamic state there and then spread their fight into neighboring countries, Pentagon officials said.
Now, even if we assume that this is accurate, why is this an issue? Let's say, for the sake of argument, that it happens--Osama, Zarqawi, and all the Muslim extremists manage to take over and establish a government. How hard would it then be to send a shitload of cruise missiles over and take them all out, one they were nice and cozy in their new headquarters?

But what's more--and this is where the nitwit part comes in--what the fuck does this have to do with the left-wing? And the answer remains--not a goddamn thing. It's the American right who turned Iraq from a shithole into a fucking shithole full of people who hate us. So save your goddamn disgust for the left wing and turn it on yourself, since it's your people who have done the fucking damage.