NationStates Jolt Archive

In the midst of all the celebration, all the drinking, all the partying, and all the insanity which ensued upon hearing of the victory of the Democrats in both houses of Congress, a dangerous omen failed to be properly observed. Through the rosy, optimistic eyes of liberals, this election was a step in the right direction, and they didn't fail to jubilate at the result. Unfortunately, they weren't the only ones who were happy with what transpired. Our enemies abroad were heartened at this news, and they openly admitted their happiness. In fact, Khamenei even went so far as to say that "this defeat is actually an obvious victory for the Iranian nation" (source (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061110/pl_nm/usa_elections_iran_dc)). This represents a great step backwards for our nation -- the once-glorious neo-conservative movement has been transformed into a smoldering heap of rubble. Our once-great military might has now been reduced to smithereens -- it is something to be scoffed and sneered at. Our national resolve, our united front presented by the cohesive Republican-controlled legislative and executive branches, is fractured. Our enemies are aware that our citizens are opposed to taking severe and necessary armed action against those individuals, organizations, and countries which pose a threat to freedom; Khamenei remarked that "America's threats are empty threats on an international scale." A dark shadow has fallen across our country -- we have "switched horses in midstream" and are now an object of ridicule. When we should have shown strength, we have shown only weakness and inconsistency. While the Democrats are in power, some failures of their foreign policy will become increasingly more obvious. Iran will flout the world's will and pursue their nuclear programme; the insurgents in Iraq will step up attacks in an effort to break our will and ultimately the Democrats will surrender to the "inevitable"; Iraq will inexorably descent into a bloody civil war; terrorists will launch new attacks against the US in an effort to turn the US against Israel, too; our coalition will become increasingly more fractured; the Taliban will be encouraged by our withdrawal from Iraq and step up attacks; other Middle Eastern nations will become increasingly hostile to the US as the power of Iran grows and Iraq plummets into anarchy. These ominous possibilities are slowly approaching their realization, and there is little than can be done to stop them. While many Democrats are raucously enjoying their victory, a more somber look needs to be taken at the situation, because it is anything but joyous. Congratulations on your victory, Democrats; you deserved it. It's a victory for the Democrats, for Iraq, for Al Qaeda, for the Taliban, but it's a loss for America; you should be ashamed.

Hey! There hasn't been a single terrorist attack on the United States since the Democrats won the election. So obviously, they're doing something right! :)

When none of this shit happens in the next two years, will you shut up?

Actually, Rumsfelds resignation, and the person who was chosen to replace him, holds far more significance than does the Democratic victory in the House and the Senate. It would seem to be the final act in a major repudiation of previously existing neo-conservative ideology in foreign policy. Instead, with the nomination of Bob Gates, we can clearly see that US foreign policy will be switching from the more military track it's been on for some time, to a more conservative and cautious intelligence based track. In my opinion this is a very good thing.

The Congress changing seats, on the other hand, is pretty much irrelevant. Congress has virtually no control over foreign policy.

One word, MTAE: paragraphs. The "enter" key is your friend. :)

When none of this shit happens in the next two years, will you shut up?

I will gladly shut up if none of this happens; in fact, not only will I celebrate, but I'll also break open a bottle of champagne, imported from the surrender capital of the world. Unfortunately, however, we are clearly going down the wrong track. Too many Democrats want a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq, which is a recipe for failure. Also, even the leader of Iran said that he considered a Democratic victory a victory for Iran; his words, not mine.

Yeah, now that Democrats are in office you will see Democrats shaking hands with Osama bin Laden. :rolleyes:

In the midst of all the celebration, all the drinking, all the partying, and all the insanity which ensued upon hearing of the victory of the Democrats in both houses of Congress, a dangerous omen failed to be properly observed. Through the rosy, optimistic eyes of liberals, this election was a step in the right direction, and they didn't fail to jubilate at the result. Unfortunately, they weren't the only ones who were happy with what transpired. Our enemies abroad were heartened at this news, and they openly admitted their happiness. In fact, Khamenei even went so far as to say that "this defeat is actually an obvious victory for the Iranian nation" (source (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061110/pl_nm/usa_elections_iran_dc)). This represents a great step backwards for our nation -- the once-glorious neo-conservative movement has been transformed into a smoldering heap of rubble. Our once-great military might has now been reduced to smithereens -- it is something to be scoffed and sneered at. Our national resolve, our united front presented by the cohesive Republican-controlled legislative and executive branches, is fractured. Our enemies are aware that our citizens are opposed to taking severe and necessary armed action against those individuals, organizations, and countries which pose a threat to freedom; Khamenei remarked that "America's threats are empty threats on an international scale." A dark shadow has fallen across our country -- we have "switched horses in midstream" and are now an object of ridicule. When we should have shown strength, we have shown only weakness and inconsistency. While the Democrats are in power, some failures of their foreign policy will become increasingly more obvious. Iran will flout the world's will and pursue their nuclear programme; the insurgents in Iraq will step up attacks in an effort to break our will and ultimately the Democrats will surrender to the "inevitable"; Iraq will inexorably descent into a bloody civil war; terrorists will launch new attacks against the US in an effort to turn the US against Israel, too; our coalition will become increasingly more fractured; the Taliban will be encouraged by our withdrawal from Iraq and step up attacks; other Middle Eastern nations will become increasingly hostile to the US as the power of Iran grows and Iraq plummets into anarchy. These ominous possibilities are slowly approaching their realization, and there is little than can be done to stop them. While many Democrats are raucously enjoying their victory, a more somber look needs to be taken at the situation, because it is anything but joyous. Congratulations on your victory, Democrats; you deserved it. It's a victory for the Democrats, for Iraq, for Al Qaeda, for the Taliban, but it's a loss for America; you should be ashamed.


...Are you the Anti-Christ?
Or,at least,is your name Damien?
Your predicting all this Armageddon because Democrat's won Congress.
Ooo,run for the fecking hills.

Yeah, now that Democrats are in office you will see Democrats shaking hands with Osama bin Laden. :rolleyes:

I am not saying that they are friends with the terrorist; I'm sure they despise the terrorists, just like any honest American does. Unfortunately, they are playing right into their hands by wanted to withdraw from areas which are cesspools of terrorist activity and allow them to indulge in their perversity because the Democrats are unwilling to stomach a couple thousand casualties.

I will gladly shut up if none of this happens; in fact, not only will I celebrate, but I'll also break open a bottle of champagne, imported from the surrender capital of the world. Unfortunately, however, we are clearly going down the wrong track. Too many Democrats want a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq, which is a recipe for failure. Also, even the leader of Iran said that he considered a Democratic victory a victory for Iran; his words, not mine.

Yes...because the Iraq war is going superbly to plan!Everyone has accepted Democracy and a couple of thousand Americans haven't died in an insurgency,along with now over 100 British soldiers.

I am not saying that they are friends with the terrorist; I'm sure they despise the terrorists, just like any honest American does. Unfortunately, they are playing right into their hands by wanted to withdraw from areas which are cesspools of terrorist activity and allow them to indulge in their perversity because the Democrats are unwilling to stomach a couple thousand casualties.

Abuuh?!
Tell that to the families of the dead,I dare you.

Don't you realize that most of the Democrats who got elected are conservative anyway? There's very few real liberals in the whole party. They just LOOK so liberal because the Republican Party is controlled by Christian fundamentalists who are just as bad as the Islamic terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Personally, I believe that the Democrats won't take a major swing at every issue like some neo-cons are projecting. The best thing to happen is that our once brave Secretary of Defense had to cut and run. We'll wait a few months to see if the new one can change anything, before anything happens in Iraq.

I'd love to see the Democrats start assaulting the problems that uncontrolled capitalism have caused for our middle-class. The minimum wage should be at least $8.50.

Then there's social issues. Gay marriage, especially.

Yep, the country is definately going to hell. [/sarcasm]

Also, even the leader of Iran said that he considered a Democratic victory a victory for Iran; his words, not mine.

What he thinks doesn't matter. You don't listen to what every crazy has to say. I bet if he said that he loves oxygen then you would think that obviously oxygen must be evil. After all our enemy loves it so much, it must be bad, huh?

imported from the surrender capital of the world

It was at this point, that I lost all respect for you and your opinions. If you're going to make your political opinions known, at least have the common decency to keep from insulting an entire nation of people.

Yes...because the Iraq war is going superbly to plan!Everyone has accepted Democracy and a couple of thousand Americans haven't died in an insurgency,along with now over 100 British soldiers.

No, the war in Iraq, in hindsight (which is, needless to say, 20/20) has suffered from some rather poor judgment. We have been derailed in our course. But when you fall down, do you stay down or get back up again? In this case, if we stay down, the casualties so far will look like child's play. There will be rampant, completely unchecked death squads terrorizing Iraq. Even with US troops there, we cannot totally curtail the level of violence. Without us, there will be nothing holding back the tide of maniacal, sectarian slaughter and Iraq will be inundated by it and submerged beneath a river of blood and broken dreams.

It was at this point, that I lost all respect for you and your opinions. If you're going to make your political opinions known, at least have the common decency to keep from insulting an entire nation of people.

You had respect for him and his opinions before that?!? :eek:

Abuuh?!
Tell that to the families of the dead,I dare you.

I'd rather tell it to 3,000 American families rather than 650,000 Iraqi families, I'll tell you that much.

Enemies? Iran? I thought you where at peace :confused:

And who is this great enemy America has to fight the cold war is over now sit down and act like the flag bearer of the world or at the very least maybe cut your outrages military budget and start trying to look like a first world country for everyone not just the rich

Also you mentioned this is a victory for Iraq well I guess it is…

No, the war in Iraq, in hindsight (which is, needless to say, 20/20) has suffered from some rather poor judgment. We have been derailed in our course. But when you fall down, do you stay down or get back up again? In this case, if we stay down, the casualties so far will look like child's play. There will be rampant, completely unchecked death squads terrorizing Iraq. Even with US troops there, we cannot totally curtail the level of violence. Without us, there will be nothing holding back the tide of maniacal, sectarian slaughter and Iraq will be inundated by it and submerged beneath a river of blood and broken dreams.

And who broke those dreams?Who did nothing to dam that river of blood?
America.
There isn't much it can do now,it's gone so badly down the shitter there's not much people can do.
I'm not saying Iraq is a lost cause,but I definitely never supported what we were doing there.It's because of us that there is manic sectarian slaughter-I know there was under Sadaam,but we haven't done anything to change it.
I'm not sure if all that post made sense..I'm tired.

After all our enemy loves it so much, it must be bad, huh?

Just because Hitler was a vegetarian doesn't mean that all vegetarians are evil, genocidal maniacs. What you are proposing is a logical fallacy. Also, while Khamenei may be somewhat on the wrong side of sanity, he is a rational man when it comes to foreign policy. He realizes that Iran's nuclear ambitions will be much easier to realize while the Democrats are in power than while the Republicans are, and he said as much.

I'd rather tell it to 3,000 American families rather than 650,000 Iraqi families, I'll tell you that much.

True.However,both figures are going to rise if we don't pull out sometime.

You had respect for him and his opinions before that?!? :eek:

Sure. I don't necessarily agree with them, or the reasoning behind them, but I respect everybody's opinion and their right to make them known. But when people fail to do the same, it makes it harder to do so...

Well, not yours, but everybody elses... :p

And who broke those dreams?Who did nothing to dam that river of blood?
America.
There isn't much it can do now,it's gone so badly down the shitter there's not much people can do.
I'm not saying Iraq is a lost cause,but I definitely never supported what we were doing there.It's because of us that there is manic sectarian slaughter-I know there was under Sadaam,but we haven't done anything to change it.
I'm not sure if all that post made sense..I'm tired.

Instead of complaining about who shattered the glass, it's best to repair the glass before too many people get cut. Whether you agree with our decision to go to war or not in the first place is tangential to this discussion; it's utterly irrelevant. Stop thinking in the past and start living in the present. We have invaded, and we now have the option of leaving Iraq to the dogs or staying to help out. And if Iraq does to the dogs, it's not coming back out until widespread ethnic cleansing has taken place, and millions of people have died at the hands of sectarian butchers.

That OP block of text is far too much for me to take in at this time of night. Give me the gist of it.

Was it by any chance:

Democrat win - boo! boo! - we'll all die now - boo! boo! - Bush great! - Yay Yay!

?

True.However,both figures are going to rise if we don't pull out sometime.

Do you think Iraq will magically correct itself if we live? Will the sectarian slaughterers simply put down their arms and agree to co-exist peacefully? That's a ridiculous and hopelessly naive assessment of the situation. One sect will be purged by the other before there is stability, and Iraq will be worse off than it was under Saddam.

Democrat win - boo! boo! - we'll all die now - boo! boo! - Bush great! - Yay Yay!

Not exactly. I simply pointed out how the leader of Iran was ecstatic upon hearing of the Democratic victory, and called it an obvious victory for Iran. I also discussed how our foreign policy will be irredeemable under the Democrats and we will lose ground to our enemies.

Do you think Iraq will magically correct itself if we live? Will the sectarian slaughterers simply put down their arms and agree to co-exist peacefully? That's a ridiculous and hopelessly naive assessment of the situation. One sect will be purged by the other before there is stability, and Iraq will be worse off than it was under Saddam.

No,Iraq will not magically correct itself,but we're not correcting it is all I'm saying.I'm also saying I don't know the answer.And George Bush certainly doesn't.

I am not saying that they are friends with the terrorist; I'm sure they despise the terrorists, just like any honest American does.

you despised the Taliban when they helped resist Soviet invasion? What about CIA agents dressed as civilians?

Unfortunately, they are playing right into their hands by wanted to withdraw from areas which are cesspools of terrorist activity and allow them to indulge in their perversity because the Democrats are unwilling to stomach a couple thousand casualties.

On the other hand, maybe there tackling the source instead of the symptoms?

-SNIP-
And George Bush will fail to do anything worthwhile about it.

Seriously though...this has got to be a good time for Busheviks. Now they can finally open their eyes and criticise the obvious. Just a week ago MTAE would've flat-out refused the possibility that Iraq would never fully be repaired, he'd have to close his eyes and make up all sorts of things instead.

Now the neocons can finally stop disagreeing with reality...now it's all the Dems' fault!

Just because Hitler was a vegetarian doesn't mean that all vegetarians are evil, genocidal maniacs. What you are proposing is a logical fallacy. Also, while Khamenei may be somewhat on the wrong side of sanity, he is a rational man when it comes to foreign policy. He realizes that Iran's nuclear ambitions will be much easier to realize while the Democrats are in power than while the Republicans are, and he said as much.

It's not going to make a difference either way. All we are going to do is talk tough where Iran is concerned. They are another overblown threat like Iraq is and Bush even with a Republican Congress wouldn't have the ability to do anything direct. All the Democrats will do is put sanity back into politics instead of fear. The sky is not falling and Bush and his cronies saying that it is doesn't make it true.

you despised the Taliban when they helped resist Soviet invasion? What about CIA agents dressed as civilians?

The mujahideen were a legitimate resistance movement when they were fighting against the Soviets. When they turned around and started butchering their own people and condoning and supporting terrorism, however, the whole paying field changed. Also, how do you want CIA operative to dress up? With a big sign that says "shoot me, I work for the CIA"?

Now the neocons can finally stop disagreeing with reality...now it's all the Dems' fault!

Well, it sounds somewhat ridiculous when you put it that way, but it's true. However, I have never disagreed with reality, nor have any high-ranking neo-conservatives. They may have disliked reality and actively sought to change it, yes, but they never disregarded it.

On the other hand, maybe there tackling the source instead of the symptoms?

Nah, why try to treat the reason that extremists hate us when we can simply shoot people and do nothing else? It is direct and uncomplicated and the fact that when you kill one the extremist is simply replaced by another is simply ignored. I fail to see how this "war on terror" can succeed without some effort to win over the Muslim world. Bush isn't even trying, all he can do is invade a country and install American values on the people whether they like it or not.

That OP block of text is far too much for me to take in at this time of night. Give me the gist of it.

Was it by any chance:

Democrat win - boo! boo! - we'll all die now - boo! boo! - Bush great! - Yay Yay!

?

More like "Dems love Osama, they will pull out of Iraq before the US is done fucking it over(like the play on words? pull out, fuck. haha) And the Us is gonna face nonstop terror attack because Dems hate America"

I didn't read the OP either, but I assume thats what it is.

All we are going to do is talk tough where Iran is concerned.

Is this (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1162378366509&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull) just talking tough? The Israeli Deputy Minister of Defense stated that "I am not advocating an Israeli preemptive military action against Iran, and I am aware of all of its possible repercussions. I consider it a last resort. But even the last resort is sometimes the only resort." Who controls Congress could make the difference between actively aiding Israel in its pursuits as an ally or turning our backs on them.

Well, it sounds somewhat ridiculous when you put it that way, but it's true. However, I have never disagreed with reality, nor have any high-ranking neo-conservatives. They may have disliked reality and actively sought to change it, yes, but they never disregarded it.

Perfect. :)

Sure. I don't necessarily agree with them, or the reasoning behind them, but I respect everybody's opinion and their right to make them known. But when people fail to do the same, it makes it harder to do so...

Well, not yours, but everybody elses... :p

Well, of course, I agree with the sentiment. But when an opinion is either: A) An act or B) Used to blatantly and intentionally to raise ire in others, I don't consider it an opinion anymore. It's an entertainment. And to be completely frank, it's a pretty crappy one. :p

The mujahideen were a legitimate resistance movement when they were fighting against the Soviets. When they turned around and started butchering their own people and condoning and supporting terrorism, however, the whole paying field changed. Also, how do you want CIA operative to dress up? With a big sign that says "shoot me, I work for the CIA"?

They were engaging in acts of terror and slaughtering their own people while they were fighting the Soviets.

The Mujahideen("strugglers" in Arabic) are people engaged in a Jihad, the same people as the Taliban and Al-Qaeda. The same people were fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan right now. Actually Osama Bin Laden was an anti-soviet Mujahideen, funded and trained by the ISI and the CIA, his Arab group turned into Al-Qaeda.

I didn't read the OP either, but I assume thats what it is.

Then you should read a little; it might help you learn. I clearly stated that Democrats generally despise terrorists. Of course, that would conflict with your view of me as an insane troll, wouldn't it, so you can't have that, can you?

Then you should read a little; it might help you learn. I clearly stated that Democrats generally despise terrorists. Of course, that would conflict with your view of me as an insane troll, wouldn't it, so you can't have that, can you?

Nope. Can't change my mind about that one sir trolls-a-lot. :)

They were engaging in acts of terror and slaughtering their own people while they were fighting the Soviets.

To what extent were they slaughtering their own people? They were definitely the least of two evils. The Soviets would have been much worse for the people of Afghanistan than the mujahideen. In either case, they fought a guerrilla war quite effectively, even if they stooped down to terrorist attacks on the Soviets. They deserved it.

Well, of course, I agree with the sentiment. But when an opinion is either: A) An act or B) Used to blatantly and intentionally to raise ire in others, I don't consider it an opinion anymore. It's an entertainment. And to be completely frank, it's a pretty crappy one. :p

Well if it's not really his/her opinion, I fail to see the point in him/her expressing it at all... but, whatever makes him/her happy.

I hate how you can't call people 'it' without offending them... and if you guess their gender wrong you still offend them! But, that's another discussion topic.

Nope. Can't change my mind about that one sir trolls-a-lot. :)

Ironically enough, many liberals call neo-conservatives obdurate and bigoted. It's nice to know that we don't have a monopoly on being socially backwards. :)

Well, it sounds somewhat ridiculous when you put it that way, but it's true. However, I have never disagreed with reality, nor have any high-ranking neo-conservatives. They may have disliked reality and actively sought to change it, yes, but they never disregarded it.
I suspect you should read one of the Neoconservative movement's major bibles. It's called "The End of History" by former Neocon thinker Francis Fukuyama.

I'd say that the premise on which neoconservatism was created was disregarding reality. Freedom and Democracy are not default states of society, they cannot be created by removing obstacles and they cannot be created by foreign intervention.

It's these ridiculous ideological assumptions that led Bush & co to disregard realpolitik (against the teachings of all the old diplomats from Kissinger to Brezinsky), and the result of that was that the US Military is not a threat to anyone at the moment and that Bush decided to include Iran of all places in a made-up "axis of evil" - despite the fact that the Iranians were extremely thankful and happy for the removal of the Taliban, and relations were on a high.

Let's be honest here: Iran could have been a valuable partner in combatting violent Islamic extremism precisely because it has a history and the credibility in that area. They wouldn't have needed a bomb if we had given them trade and respect.

But neocon ideology simply tells us "we don't deal with that sort of people", ignoring necessity and ultimately political realities.

Is this (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1162378366509&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull) just talking tough? The Israeli Deputy Minister of Defense stated that "I am not advocating an Israeli preemptive military action against Iran, and I am aware of all of its possible repercussions. I consider it a last resort. But even the last resort is sometimes the only resort." Who controls Congress could make the difference between actively aiding Israel in its pursuits as an ally or turning our backs on them.

The United States will only talk tough and you know that is what I meant. What Israel would do is a completely different issue. I would hardly consider not joing them in an attack on Iran to be "turning our backs on them". Israel would do good to cut back on their outragous military attacks that only inflame the situation with their enemies. Killing a bunch of civilians is not going to give them peace.

Well if it's not really his/her opinion, I fail to see the point in him/her expressing it at all... but, whatever makes him/her happy.

I hate how you can't call people 'it' without offending them... and if you guess their gender wrong you still offend them! But, that's another discussion topic.

Yes, I also heartily despise our rampant politically correct culture. Instead of saying "he/she," you can use "one" to great effect. For example, you can say "if it's not really one's opinion, I fail to see the point of one expressing it at all...but whatever makes one happy." That said, "one" does believe in his opinions.

I would like to know what sort of drunken perspective you were in that led you to write that paragraph.

The mujahideen were a legitimate resistance movement when they were fighting against the Soviets. When they turned around and started butchering their own people and condoning and supporting terrorism,

so as long as there killing communists/occupation supporters its okay?

however, the whole paying field changed.

how?

Also, how do you want CIA operative to dress up? With a big sign that says "shoot me, I work for the CIA"?

nope CIA (or for me MI5) act like terrorist and do terrorist things hell the SAS attacked Iraqi police dressed as civilians so no I’m saying I do not despise terrorists I may disagree with some but if a group of Soldiers dress as civilians and blow up a prison to save British lives I do not know if I disagree with the action

Let's be honest here: Iran could have been a valuable partner in combatting violent Islamic extremism precisely because it has a history and the credibility in that area. They wouldn't have needed a bomb if we had given them trade and respect.

Yes, we could sell our soul to the devil in exchange for an increased ability to combat Islamic extremism. We could hold our noses while dealing with disgusting regimes. However, it would be better if our image was untarnished by shady deals with countries like Iran. We can still effectively fight against such Islamic fanaticism as long as we keep our promise to Iraq and transform it into an oasis of stability in the Middle East, whose wealthy will slowly fertilize its neighbors. Let's be honest here: all we could achieve diplomatically is a choice between two different types of poison. Military, we could destroy the poison altogether and replace it with freedom and democracy. I salute the altruistic people who made the decision to bring democracy to the whole Middle East instead of opting to fight extremism at the expense of freedom. We cannot allow freedom to become a casualty of war, and that needs to be reflected in our foreign policy.

We cannot allow freedom to become a casualty of war, and that needs to be reflected in our foreign policy.

I find this quite ironic given that we desperately need remember the same should be done with our domestic policy. Freedom always coming first.

-snip-
See, now you're ignoring reality again.

Don't you realise that Iraq cannot become a beacon for freedom and democracy like you imagine? It doesn't matter how many soldiers you send there and what they do - the place will not become such a paradise. It won't.

Deal with it.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,436607,00.html
http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,379165,00.html

I find this quite ironic given that we desperately need remember the same should be remembered with our domestic policy.

It is. What freedom has been taken away from you, domestically? What can you do in, say, 1995 that you can no longer do today? No freedom of yours has been taken away, but you have been given additional security. That's a winning proposition.

The Soviets would have been much worse for the people of Afghanistan than the mujahideen.

the Soviets built schools and hospitals that’s actually what caused the support for the militants (they felt this as an attack on there nomadic life)

also you can note that it was only the mountain communities that where the problem for the Soviets not the cities so you could say the Soviets did a better job then the U.S!

In either case, they fought a guerrilla war quite effectively, even if they stooped down to terrorist attacks on the Soviets. They deserved it.

so under that logic America deserves a terrorist attack for invading Iraq...

Don't you realise that Iraq cannot become a beacon for freedom and democracy like you imagine? It doesn't matter how many soldiers you send there and what they do - the place will not become such a paradise. It won't.

Sure it can; don't be such a defeatist. All that is required is an added influx of troops to maintain order before the Iraqis are capable of assuming all the stability-related tasks themselves. If we can adequately train an army composed of Iraqis, then we will have won. Once they can hold the goodness of freedom in their own hands, they will never go back, regardless of how many terrorist attacks there are. Iraq can very easily become a beacon of freedom if we are willing to devote our energies to making it so.

so under that logic America deserves a terrorist attack for invading Iraq...

No, the US delivered freedom and democracy to the Iraqi people, not a brutal communist government where freedom was outlawed.

We can still effectively fight against such Islamic fanaticism as long as we keep our promise to Iraq and transform it into an oasis of stability in the Middle East, whose wealthy will slowly fertilize its neighbors. Let's be honest here: all we could achieve diplomatically is a choice between two different types of poison. Military, we could destroy the poison altogether and replace it with freedom and democracy. I salute the altruistic people who made the decision to bring democracy to the whole Middle East instead of opting to fight extremism at the expense of freedom. We cannot allow freedom to become a casualty of war, and that needs to be reflected in our foreign policy.

I completely agree with all of those runon sentences. We must be like Copernicus who, when imprisoned in the Bastille for sodomy, managed to escape from there by bribing the guards with wood carvings painted by his bloood and feces. He then lived on liberated Jamaica from the British and Hindu invaders. He spread freedom to Zaire and Monte Carlo and never read Faulkner because Willy hated the black folk. So now we go to 1973 and Nixon is in the whitehouse about to become Queen or Moravia and that's why Virginia Woolf is dead.

Yes, we could sell our soul to the devil

never stopped America before... (or every society ever for that matter)

Also we don’t live in an ideal world and as such your going to have to use allot more than goodwill and rules to survive

never stopped America before... (or every society ever for that matter)

Also we don’t live in an ideal world and as such your going to have to use allot more than goodwill and rules to survive
Aber wir haben Jesus!

Ironically enough, many liberals call neo-conservatives obdurate and bigoted. It's nice to know that we don't have a monopoly on being socially backwards. :)

Who says Zil is a "liberal" eh?

Oh, as for this thread:

Meh. http://www.freesmileys.org/emo/score003.gif

I completely agree with all of those runon sentences.

I'm sorry, I'm still slightly drunk. I drank quite a lot in the aftermath of the Democratic victory.

Who says Zil is a "liberal" eh?

Oh, as for this thread:

Meh. http://www.freesmileys.org/emo/score003.gif

As I previously stated, I am toning down my threads from now on because too many people think I'm a troll, especially you. If you're looking for some wacky views, don't click on my threads anymore, because you'll only find a mainstream viewpoint.

Sure it can; don't be such a defeatist. All that is required is an added influx of troops to maintain order before the Iraqis are capable of assuming all the stability-related tasks themselves. If we can adequately train an army composed of Iraqis, then we will have won. Once they can hold the goodness of freedom in their own hands, they will never go back, regardless of how many terrorist attacks there are. Iraq can very easily become a beacon of freedom if we are willing to devote our energies to making it so.

So, if we can create a government strong enough to militarily impose its existence on its citizens, it will become a beacon of freedom?

All America has done is to remove a dictator and take the lid off of a whole mess of sectarian disputes. Now, we're simply trying to create a government with the same stability Saddam had so that it can survive without our help. Basically, we're trading one militaristic government for another. It doesn't matter that it's a democracy, it doesn't matter that they oppose terrorists. We're showing them how to fight so that our government stays in power, not how to govern a free representative democracy that can solve internal disputes without violence.

No, the US delivered freedom and democracy to the Iraqi people,

Iraq asked for there national sovereignty to be violated? spreading freedom and democracy is a justifiable reason to go to war? as a communist would say you also spread the shackles of capitalism so maybe your actually an oppressor (what I’m basically saying is maybe freedom and democracy might not actually be good for the Iraqi people!!!)

not a brutal communist government where freedom was outlawed.

Stalin was long dead when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan along with the fact that the war started because the government banned the communist party

So, if we can create a government strong enough to militarily impose its existence on its citizens, it will become a beacon of freedom?

That obviously depends on the type of government. Given that Iraq's is democratically elected, the answer to that is a resounding "yes." However, it doesn't need to "impose" its military will upon its citizens so much as bring peace and stability by curbing crime.

It doesn't matter that it's a democracy

Sure it does. It makes all the difference in the world, in fact.

I think my little experiment can be safely concluded now.

We NSers willingly and readily feed the trolls, and this thread proves it.

I've been sitting on a rational and logical response since wednesday afternoon, just waiting for the MTAE thread to show up, and I knew that once it arrived, I had to post it in the first three posts for the experiment to work. So I did, I wrote a rational, coherent statement on my opinion on the matter, and it got bulldozed under by the troll feeding.

Yes, NSG, we are troll crazy.

Sure it does. It makes all the difference in the world, in fact.

bollocks democracy a brutal dictatorship is what stops China from going ape shit across Asia, a brutal dictatorship kept Iraq together, totalitarian methods helped the allies win WWII, support for dictators stooped the spread of communism and hell even the name is wrong

not that I don't like democracy of course but it is no perfect government

That obviously depends on the type of government. Given that Iraq's is democratically elected, the answer to that is a resounding "yes." However, it doesn't need to "impose" its military will upon its citizens so much as bring peace and stability by curbing crime.

The government wasn't elected, it was pushed onto the Iraqi people by the occupying American forces. They only got to choose the people that filled the government posts.

And "curbing crime"? This isn't a matter of a few street gangs, it's a matter of sharp internal divisions along religious, political, and ideological lines between internal dissidents. Peace and stability has cost the Iraqis 150,000 people already, with no progress towards either goal. Obviously, very many Iraqis feel that the current government isn't the one they want.


Sure it does. It makes all the difference in the world, in fact.
Not really. All a proper democracy will do is to reflect the morals and beliefs of its citizens in law. Given that we've put this democracy in the Middle East, take a guess as to the code of morals that many Iraqis will vote from. Extra points for pointing out the vast differences between the values of that code and the values of our moral code.

I think my little experiment can be safely concluded now.

We NSers willingly and readily feed the trolls, and this thread proves it.

I've been sitting on a rational and logical response since wednesday afternoon, just waiting for the MTAE thread to show up, and I knew that once it arrived, I had to post it in the first three posts for the experiment to work. So I did, I wrote a rational, coherent statement on my opinion on the matter, and it got bulldozed under by the troll feeding.

Yes, NSG, we are troll crazy.
No one is going to reply to it. Come on, let's go to the Asian strip club.

Blah blah blah. Democrats = Terrorist Win. Republicans = Jesus wins. Oh, and Bush = Jesus. And slavery = good. These are the equations I've learned from MTAE, and since I've already learned them, threads like this do nothing but reiterate MTAE's main point, which is that he wants attention. Bad.

I will gladly shut up if none of this happens; in fact, not only will I celebrate, but I'll also break open a bottle of champagne, imported from the surrender capital of the world. Unfortunately, however, we are clearly going down the wrong track. Too many Democrats want a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq, which is a recipe for failure. Also, even the leader of Iran said that he considered a Democratic victory a victory for Iran; his words, not mine.

I am going to hold you to that promise. I am going to so hold you to that promise that I shall quote the relevant part of this in my signature for the next two years regardless of whatever else I may wish to put into it.

which is that he wants attention. Bad.

I don't mind its always fun to completely tear apart someone’s beliefs

Of course he never learns but still when I go to bed every night I feel good in the fact that maybe just maybe MTAE would of learnt something today

No one is going to reply to it. Come on, let's go to the Asian strip club.

Sounds like a plan, let's roll.

Obviously, very many Iraqis feel that the current government isn't the one they want.

No, an extremist minority dislikes democracy and freedom and wished to live according to Islamic law. You can't let a few bad apples spoil the bunch, however.

No, an extremist minority dislikes democracy and freedom and wished to live according to Islamic law. You can't let a few bad apples spoil the bunch, however.

I doubt that the rest of the Iraqis are that dissimilar.

I'll reiterate my last point from the post you quoted, since it was left out. All a proper democracy will do is to reflect the morals and beliefs of its citizens in law. Given that we've put this democracy in the Middle East, the majority of Iraqis are likely Muslim and will vote from Muslim values. They aren't separated from the violent factions by beliefs, they are only separated by the will to use violence. If we leave that democracy in place in Iraq, it will inevitably turn into a democratic variant of an Islamic state.

Sure it can; don't be such a defeatist. All that is required is an added influx of troops to maintain order before the Iraqis are capable of assuming all the stability-related tasks themselves.
The troops are actually involved in the ethnic cleansing in some areas. Not to mention that the government that's supposed to be in control of the army isn't unified itself.

If we can adequately train an army composed of Iraqis, then we will have won.
Saddam had an adequately trained army composed of Iraqis. In fact, the security situation was for the most part excellent.

Hardly brought the people freedom though, did it.

Hello all,

I have come into this thread late in the discussion so I may have missed this point. Wasn't MTAE on this past Tuesday reprimanding those of us that voted? Weren't we to be ashamed for voting and speaking our voices? Now we should be ashamed for voting the wrong people in?

MTAE,
I understand that you want attention and have to dig at people to get that attention and that's your right in the US. But please, if you are going to bitch about people voting and choose not to vote, then turn around a bitch that the people who voted, voted the wrong side into office, then grow a pair and vote!

If we leave that democracy in place in Iraq, it will inevitably turn into a democratic variant of an Islamic state.

If that will be the case, then so be it. However, I doubt that most Iraqis prefer regressing to a state of Islamic law, and their will will be reflected in a democratic nation.

Also, while Khamenei may be somewhat on the wrong side of sanity, he is a rational man when it comes to foreign policy. He realizes that Iran's nuclear ambitions will be much easier to realize while the Democrats are in power than while the Republicans are, and he said as much.

If Khamenei is a "rational man" in your words than why do you worry about him getting nuclear weapons? I thought we were worried about Islamic extremist getting nuclear weapons not Islamic rationalist's

There will be rampant, completely unchecked death squads terrorizing Iraq. Even with US troops there, we cannot totally curtail the level of violence. Without us, there will be nothing holding back the tide of maniacal, sectarian slaughter and Iraq will be inundated by it and submerged beneath a river of blood and broken dreams.

You should write scripts for movies.

I'm sorry, I'm still slightly drunk. I drank quite a lot in the aftermath of the Democratic victory.

Does this mean that most of your postings are made in periods of sobriety?

If Khamenei is a "rational man" in your words than why do you worry about him getting nuclear weapons? I thought we were worried about Islamic extremist getting nuclear weapons not Islamic rationalist's

He suffers from the Islamic delusion -- namely, he values what he feels is the "righteous" course of action over his own self-interest, in some cases. He believes that rewards will be heaped at his feet in heaven, so this life is more inconsequential for him. He may be willing to massacre Israelis if he feels it will earn him a bed with 72 virgins. That is the problem with all fundamentalists -- their rationality is based upon a faulty premise.

Does this mean that most of your postings are made in periods of sobriety?

It depends. In recent days, I have had a lot to drink about due to changes in the political climate. I'd say that I'm sober the majority of the time, however. I do tend to have a greater inclination to post when inebriated than when I'm not, though.

He suffers from the Islamic delusion -- namely, he values what he feels is the "righteous" course of action over his own self-interest, in some cases. He believes that rewards will be heaped at his feet in heaven, so this life is more inconsequential for him. He may be willing to massacre Israelis if he feels it will earn him a bed with 72 virgins. That is the problem with all fundamentalists -- their rationality is based upon a faulty premise.

So you are saying all people who are religous have a rationality based upon faulty premise?

So you are saying all people who are religous have a rationality based upon faulty premise?

If they believe in a marginal benefit (heaven) which can outweigh many potential marginal costs in this world, then yes. They may not act based upon intelligent self-interest if that is the case.

It depends. In recent days, I have had a lot to drink about due to changes in the political climate. I'd say that I'm sober the majority of the time, however. I do tend to have a greater inclination to post when inebriated than when I'm not, though.

This is a great relief and insight to me and I am sure to other posters.

This is a great relief and insight to me and I am sure to other posters.

Indeed it is

I will gladly shut up if none of this happens; in fact, not only will I celebrate, but I'll also break open a bottle of champagne, imported from the surrender capital of the world.Champagne is made exclusively in Champagne and not in Île-de-France.

This is a great relief and insight to me and I am sure to other posters.

While I may go a bit far sometimes, I always agree with the general premise and I defend it while sober. It shouldn't come as too much of a relief.

If they believe in a marginal benefit (heaven) which can outweigh many potential marginal costs in this world, then yes. They may not act based upon intelligent self-interest if that is the case.

Why do you propose a war against Islamic delusion and not Christian delusion? If some one is delusional they should not have control of nuclear weapons do you not agree? Why do you not fear the delusional Christian Americans having thousands of nukes that can blow the world up 7 times but are terrified of the Iranians having a few nukes that can not even reach your country? Does your position not sound a little irrational?

Why do you propose a war against Islamic delusion and not Christian delusion? If some one is delusional they should not have control of nuclear weapons do you not agree? Why do you not fear the delusional Christian Americans having thousands of nukes that can blow the world up 7 times but are terrified of the Iranians having a few nukes that can not even reach your country? Does your position not sound a little irrational?

That, my friend, is a massive oversimplification, and you know it. Don't make such absurd arguments.

Sure it can; don't be such a defeatist. All that is required is an added influx of troops to maintain order before the Iraqis are capable of assuming all the stability-related tasks themselves. If we can adequately train an army composed of Iraqis, then we will have won. Once they can hold the goodness of freedom in their own hands, they will never go back, regardless of how many terrorist attacks there are. Iraq can very easily become a beacon of freedom if we are willing to devote our energies to making it so.
I thought you said that you were a realist?

I am not saying that they are friends with the terrorist; I'm sure they despise the terrorists, just like any honest American does. Unfortunately, they are playing right into their hands by wanted to withdraw from areas which are cesspools of terrorist activity and allow them to indulge in their perversity because the Democrats are unwilling to stomach a couple thousand casualties.

You do realize that before we invaded these areas were not "cesspools of terrorist activity"?
It is all well and good to say "we must fight them over there or we will be fighting them here" but what if it were your country that someone decided to do the fighting in?
What if it were your loved ones dying?

There will be rampant, completely unchecked death squads terrorizing Iraq.
Hello?
Reality check time!
There are already rampant, completely unchecked, death squads in Iraq!

Even with US troops there, we cannot totally curtail the level of violence.

This is exactly why we should not be there in the first place!

Without us, there will be nothing holding back the tide of maniacal, sectarian slaughter and Iraq will be inundated by it and submerged beneath a river of blood and broken dreams.
So we are supposed to stay in Iraq forever?
Is this why we are building permanent bases and the largest Embassy in the world there?

I'd rather tell it to 3,000 American families rather than 650,000 Iraqi families, I'll tell you that much.

Weren't you one of the Bushbots arguing that this figure was made up?

The mujahideen were a legitimate resistance movement when they were fighting against the Soviets.?
I see, when someone is fighting against an invader that you do not like they are freedom fighters.
When someone is fighting the U.S. invasion of their country they are terrorists.

Do you think Iraq will magically correct itself if we live? Will the sectarian slaughterers simply put down their arms and agree to co-exist peacefully? That's a ridiculous and hopelessly naive assessment of the situation. One sect will be purged by the other before there is stability, and Iraq will be worse off than it was under Saddam.
I suggest that you take some time to read the words of a young lady that is living the nightmare that is Iraq.
According to Riverbend (http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/) things are already worse than when Saddam was in power!

Once again you are happy to cheerlead for war when it costs you nothing to do so.
Join the fight (http://www.goarmy.com/flindex.jsp) if you think this war is such a noble cause!

I thought you said that you were a realist?

He's a neo-conservative, realists are people like me who think the neo-conservatives are too brash, aggressive and loud. They don't think things through properly, and don't do well with cultural differences.

That, my friend, is a massive oversimplification, and you know it. Don't make such absurd arguments.

No he said that people who believe in heaven are delusional. I am asking him to tell why Christian delusion is worse than Islamic delusion. I am not stating my opinions I am only trying to understand what he believes by asking him questions. I truly do not understand mtae and am asking him questions to figure out what he believes and why he believes it.

If that will be the case, then so be it. However, I doubt that most Iraqis prefer regressing to a state of Islamic law, and their will will be reflected in a democratic nation.

They live in the most predominantly Islamic region in the world, surrounded by theocracies all based upon Islamic laws, many of them very wealthy nations. Mullahs have been traveling to Iraq to preach to the populace now that the secular dictator has been deposed, and the primary source of strife in the country is a schism in Islam, yet all parties to the violence agree upon basic Islamic tenets.

How is it that you think they want anything else besides Islamic law?

Yes, we could sell our soul to the devil in exchange for an increased ability to combat Islamic extremism. We could hold our noses while dealing with disgusting regimes.
However, it would be better if our image was untarnished by shady deals with countries like Iran.
Clearly you do not recall the Iran-Contra affair (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Contra_Affair)?

we americans know all about iraq, the good we've done, the lives we've saved, the genocide we stopped, my bro is in the air force God knows i know what's goin on, so dont sit and rejoice long, becuase the terroists are out to get us the attacks on ny and london and madrid are nothing compared to what's in store for us if we don't step up to the plate and fight terroism

In the midst of all the celebration, all the drinking, all the partying, and all the insanity which ensued upon hearing of the victory of the Democrats in both houses of Congress, a dangerous omen failed to be properly observed. Through the rosy, optimistic eyes of liberals, this election was a step in the right direction, and they didn't fail to jubilate at the result. Unfortunately, they weren't the only ones who were happy with what transpired. Our enemies abroad were heartened at this news, and they openly admitted their happiness. In fact, Khamenei even went so far as to say that "this defeat is actually an obvious victory for the Iranian nation" (source (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061110/pl_nm/usa_elections_iran_dc)). This represents a great step backwards for our nation -- the once-glorious neo-conservative movement has been transformed into a smoldering heap of rubble. Our once-great military might has now been reduced to smithereens -- it is something to be scoffed and sneered at. Our national resolve, our united front presented by the cohesive Republican-controlled legislative and executive branches, is fractured. Our enemies are aware that our citizens are opposed to taking severe and necessary armed action against those individuals, organizations, and countries which pose a threat to freedom; Khamenei remarked that "America's threats are empty threats on an international scale." A dark shadow has fallen across our country -- we have "switched horses in midstream" and are now an object of ridicule. When we should have shown strength, we have shown only weakness and inconsistency. While the Democrats are in power, some failures of their foreign policy will become increasingly more obvious. Iran will flout the world's will and pursue their nuclear programme; the insurgents in Iraq will step up attacks in an effort to break our will and ultimately the Democrats will surrender to the "inevitable"; Iraq will inexorably descent into a bloody civil war; terrorists will launch new attacks against the US in an effort to turn the US against Israel, too; our coalition will become increasingly more fractured; the Taliban will be encouraged by our withdrawal from Iraq and step up attacks; other Middle Eastern nations will become increasingly hostile to the US as the power of Iran grows and Iraq plummets into anarchy. These ominous possibilities are slowly approaching their realization, and there is little than can be done to stop them. While many Democrats are raucously enjoying their victory, a more somber look needs to be taken at the situation, because it is anything but joyous. Congratulations on your victory, Democrats; you deserved it. It's a victory for the Democrats, for Iraq, for Al Qaeda, for the Taliban, but it's a loss for America; you should be ashamed.


everything you say will happen under democrat rule has already happened during republican rule. basically all you are saying is 'nothing will change', no surprise to the rest of us.

I will gladly shut up if none of this happens; in fact, not only will I celebrate, but I'll also break open a bottle of champagne, imported from the surrender capital of the world. Unfortunately, however, we are clearly going down the wrong track. Too many Democrats want a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq, which is a recipe for failure. Also, even the leader of Iran said that he considered a Democratic victory a victory for Iran; his words, not mine.

I never knew Washington, D.C. had a champagne industry...





:p

They were engaging in acts of terror and slaughtering their own people while they were fighting the Soviets.

The Mujahideen("strugglers" in Arabic) are people engaged in a Jihad, the same people as the Taliban and Al-Qaeda. The same people were fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan right now. Actually Osama Bin Laden was an anti-soviet Mujahideen, funded and trained by the ISI and the CIA, his Arab group turned into Al-Qaeda.

ISI?

I am asking him to tell why Christian delusion is worse than Islamic delusion.

Modern Christian delusions do not involve wiping off an entire nation from the face of the world. Unfortunately, Islamic delusions have not yet progressed to that point.

ISI?

Inter Service Intelligence agency, the Pakistani government's intelligence service. It's extremely independent from the Presidency and the military, and runs itself like a mini-statelet. Kinda like the KGB shortly before the collapse of the USSR.

Sounds like a plan, let's roll.

I wanna go, too! :(

Inter Service Intelligence agency, the Pakistani government's intelligence service. It's extremely independent from the Presidency and the military, and runs itself like a mini-statelet. Kinda like the KGB shortly before the collapse of the USSR.

Thanks. :)

Yes, we could sell our soul to the devil in exchange for an increased ability to combat Islamic extremism. We could hold our noses while dealing with disgusting regimes. However, it would be better if our image was untarnished by shady deals with countries like Iran.
Historically, the Americans hold hands, not noses, such as the classic photo of Rumsfeld and Saddam in the 80's. Here's an article on it.
http://www.counterpunch.org/solomon12082005.html
and here's a picture
http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/images/blsaddamrumsfeld.htm

Soaking the American image in 1000 litres of Tarn Off for 2 years wont remove the tarnish from the USAs poisoned silver chalice. {A few mixed metaphors, but you get the idea}

We can still effectively fight against such Islamic fanaticism as long as we keep our promise to Iraq and transform it into an oasis of stability in the Middle East, whose wealthy will slowly fertilize its neighbors. Let's be honest here: all we could achieve diplomatically is a choice between two different types of poison. Military, we could destroy the poison altogether and replace it with freedom and democracy. I salute the altruistic people who made the decision to bring democracy to the whole Middle East instead of opting to fight extremism at the expense of freedom. We cannot allow freedom to become a casualty of war, and that needs to be reflected in our foreign policy.

America freedoms have become a casualty of war. Have a really good read of the U.S.A. P.A.T.R.I.O.T. act.

More soldiers will not solve the problem. It didn't work in Vietnam, it didn't work for the British in Ireland, French in Algiers. History shows it just doesn't work.

If America was actually serious about saving Iraq. If it wasn't about oil, and siphoning tax payer dollars into the bank accounts of the ex-ruling Neo-Cons, then there are alternative solutions. I'll give you one.

Guerilla warfare can not succeed when the populace do not shelter the Guerilla's. As has been said many times, you need to win the hearts and minds of the people.

What's the two biggest obstacle to winning hearts and minds in Iraq? One. All the blood already spilled. Basically the history. This can't be changed. The history is past. All you can do, is show good faith in the future, for long enough, that they will finally trust you. Post WWII relations with Japan and Germany are a good example of this.

The second biggest problem is perception. Rightly or Wrongly, the Iraqis perceived that the US have No interest in making Iraq a better place, it's all about oil and money. This has to be changed.

Step 1. The U.S. government buy all the oil interests in Iraq from private companies and give it to the Iraq government.The money equation is out. The U.S is no longer in it for the money. It shows that the U.S actually is doing this all for democracy. I would suggest there are many checks and balances put in place by the U.N to deal with the corrupton that may stem from this.

Step 2. Public support for the terrorists will drop. This will mean more natives will sell out the terrorists, and it will be harder fro the terrorists to recruit. Over time, the society will become more stable, and the Iraqi's will see hope for the future, and Iraq could become a secular beacon of democracy and freedom in the Middle East.

This will never happen as the Democrats are only slightly worse than the Republicans for lining their own pockets with tax payer dollars, but it is a suggestion that could solve some problems.

In the midst of all the celebration, all the drinking, all the partying, and all the insanity which ensued upon hearing of the victory of the Democrats in both houses of Congress, a dangerous omen failed to be properly observed. Through the rosy, optimistic eyes of liberals, this election was a step in the right direction, and they didn't fail to jubilate at the result. Unfortunately, they weren't the only ones who were happy with what transpired. Our enemies abroad were heartened at this news, and they openly admitted their happiness. In fact, Khamenei even went so far as to say that "this defeat is actually an obvious victory for the Iranian nation" (source (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061110/pl_nm/usa_elections_iran_dc)). This represents a great step backwards for our nation -- the once-glorious neo-conservative movement has been transformed into a smoldering heap of rubble. Our once-great military might has now been reduced to smithereens -- it is something to be scoffed and sneered at. Our national resolve, our united front presented by the cohesive Republican-controlled legislative and executive branches, is fractured. Our enemies are aware that our citizens are opposed to taking severe and necessary armed action against those individuals, organizations, and countries which pose a threat to freedom; Khamenei remarked that "America's threats are empty threats on an international scale." A dark shadow has fallen across our country -- we have "switched horses in midstream" and are now an object of ridicule. When we should have shown strength, we have shown only weakness and inconsistency. While the Democrats are in power, some failures of their foreign policy will become increasingly more obvious. Iran will flout the world's will and pursue their nuclear programme; the insurgents in Iraq will step up attacks in an effort to break our will and ultimately the Democrats will surrender to the "inevitable"; Iraq will inexorably descent into a bloody civil war; terrorists will launch new attacks against the US in an effort to turn the US against Israel, too; our coalition will become increasingly more fractured; the Taliban will be encouraged by our withdrawal from Iraq and step up attacks; other Middle Eastern nations will become increasingly hostile to the US as the power of Iran grows and Iraq plummets into anarchy. These ominous possibilities are slowly approaching their realization, and there is little than can be done to stop them. While many Democrats are raucously enjoying their victory, a more somber look needs to be taken at the situation, because it is anything but joyous. Congratulations on your victory, Democrats; you deserved it. It's a victory for the Democrats, for Iraq, for Al Qaeda, for the Taliban, but it's a loss for America; you should be ashamed.

right....so democrats win the election and now Muslims will destroy the world. nice, real nice:rolleyes:

right....so democrats win the election and now Muslims will destroy the world. nice, real nice:rolleyes:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=re8HIK6V6Pw

:D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=re8HIK6V6Pw

:D

:D maybe mtae is Stephen Colbert:eek:

:D maybe mtae is Stephen Colbert:eek:

http://www.gamestar.de/community/gspinboard/images/smilies/atomrofl.gif