Feel like you are being duped yet?
Are any of you who thought Democratic control of congress would really bring an end to the war pissed off yet?
What is the purpose of non-binding resolutions other than to be able to say in the '08 elections: "I voted against the war in Iraq"?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070212/ap_on_go_co/us_iraq_7
Just another waste of time when they could be spending more time on substantive issues like immigration, reducing spending, or actually coming up with a binding resolution.
It's a joke. Democrats want to have their cake and eat it too. None of the current candidates wants to do anything substantive as it would surely be used against them in a campaign.
If the troop surge turns out to be a success and they take a stance opposing funding or a surge it will destroy any hopes they may have in '08.
As far as the "anti-war" crew goes, a few of these idiots who got reelected standing arm-in-arm with Cindy Sheehan now want nothing to do with her, and I can assure you that they are public enemy #1 now instead of W. They promised things that they aren't delivering to the "W lied" crowd and they are a very vocal and parasitic special interest group. Thanks for taking them off our hands!
Just more of the same, politicians doing what they do best...attempting to get elected/reelected.
What clownish bs from the far right.
"If the troop surge turns out to be a success "
It won't. That's a big if with billions at stake and too many lives in the balance.
"Just another waste of time when they could be spending more time on substantive issues like immigration, reducing spending, or actually coming up with a binding resolution."
I agree up to a point. The repugs are keeping any resolution from binding. How do you reduce spending when those in charge of the executive branch want to spend 10 billion a month on an unwinnable war just to save face?
Anyway, the congress will have a much bigger confrontation soon....
"Number One Job For Congress: Stop Iran War"
http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_rob_kall_070210_number_one_job_for_c.htm
"There they go again.
Bush and company are using the same tactics to drum up war with Iran-- lying about their intentions, using unethical, partisan reporters to raise the stakes with claims of Iranian abuses and dangers to America and American interests."
Conan, you must be directing that message at more delusional people, like altsuffers. [}:)]
It's presumptuous to think that a switch from narrowly leading Republican majority to a narrowly leading Democratic majority would effect big-time changes. The margin is too small.
But it's only February. The debate about Iraq is going to be ongoing, very likely will intensify and probably will go bipartisan, whether Bush likes it or not.
I don't think the surge is going to do anything substantial. It's too late for remedies that should have been performed a long time ago (like firing Rumsfeld). But I hope I'm wrong.
The Bear of the North that we have considered in hibernation has began to stir and awaken. They are furnishing Iran ground-to-air missiles according to reports. It could under their new leadership be to let Iraq test their efficiency. These maybe making their way into Iraq as downing our aircraft has become an increasing threat. The Bear, being an expert in the space age, is converting domestic industries into the preparing for military productions. The Cuban incident of the missiles of October was a tradeoff not a win win situation for us.
The third and last war as predicted by the Christians seems to be at hand. The days of the Gentile may be passing. The conquers of all the great empires has reached their defeat when their supply lines were overextended. The Bear of the North suggest they are equipped to cut the invaiders supply lines with their star wars.
We should make the congress again a part-time job and enforce it, as was the intent at the beginning of forming our government of the people. Our purpose should be converted to securing our own life spans and secure our borders, Make none except trade agreement with the world. And get-to-hell out of inferring in anyway in the politics of the mid-east, like the Romans did England.
^watch that biblical slant. The neo cons here will eat you up and spit you out.....
What if the rapture came and nothing happened?
It would be like a tree falling in the forest.....
"The Bible's blind
The Torah's deaf
The Koran is mute
If you burned them all together
You'd get close to the truth "
unknown
I still don't think English is your first language. I'm only going to respond to the parts I can actuall read.
quote:
The Bear of the North that we have considered in hibernation has began to stir and awaken. They are furnishing Iran ground-to-air missiles according to reports. It could under their new leadership be to let Iraq test their efficiency. These maybe making their way into Iraq as downing our aircraft has become an increasing threat. The Bear, being an expert in the space age, is converting domestic industries into the preparing for military productions. The Cuban incident of the missiles of October was a tradeoff not a win win situation for us.
I think stating that Russia is a space age expert is a bit of a stretch...how was Cuban Crisis not a win for the US?
quote:
The third and last war as predicted by the Christians seems to be at hand. The days of the Gentile may be passing. The conquers of all the great empires have reached their defeat when their supply lines were overextended. The Bear of the North suggest they are equipped to cut the invaiders supply lines with their star wars.
You watch too much Jack Van Impe...people have been predicting the end of times since the beginning of times.
What was Jack Nicholson's line from "As Good As It Gets"?
Something like: "People who speak in metaphors can shampoo my crotch."
Experts in the space age?
FWIW, the Russians are still far behind the U.S. when it comes to technology.
"Iraqi Insurgents Offer Peace for U.S. Concessions"
http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/47857/?comments=view&cID=532489&pID=529229#c532489
"For the first time, one of Iraq's principal insurgent groups has set out the terms of a ceasefire that would allow American and British forces to leave the country they invaded almost four years ago."
Let's see you neo cons stretch an eventual cease fire as the result of "surge" talk.
It's an open invitation to the
US to save face.....
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
What was Jack Nicholson's line from "As Good As It Gets"?
Something like: "People who speak in metaphors can shampoo my crotch."
Experts in the space age?
FWIW, the Russians are still far behind the U.S. when it comes to technology.
That made my day...[}:)]
War Vote?
I vote no.
I won't even play tug of war...
Now, tug of peace...
While I can appreciate your Ghandi-like stance RM, I'm glad you weren't running things in during WWII... I'll take Chamberlain for 50...
^war monger.....KILL KILL KILL!!!!!
(http://b.im.craigslist.org/AE/3V/S67vaxeFU1CJfv5DIAJYbdpr1di1.jpg)
IP Quoted:
I still don't think English is your first language. I'm only going to respond to the parts I can actuall read.
_____________________________________________
I can see by your posts that History is not one of your informed subjects.
Try using your speller before clicking on the post button.
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
(http://b.im.craigslist.org/AE/3V/S67vaxeFU1CJfv5DIAJYbdpr1di1.jpg)
It angers me that you made me laugh.
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
(http://b.im.craigslist.org/AE/3V/S67vaxeFU1CJfv5DIAJYbdpr1di1.jpg)
That was funny as hell....heh....
It angers me that you made me laugh.
quote:
Originally posted by shadows
I can see by your posts that History is not one of your informed subjects.
So says the Great Bear...ooggie boogieee
quote:
Try using your speller before clicking on the post button.
Touche...
A speller...what is that, like a cipher'n machine for words?
Quote: Experts in the space age?
______________________________________________
Russia had a satellite circling the earth while we were saying that we were going to in the future..
We dropped our astronauts in the water while they landed theirs on the land.
They developed engines that were more powerful than ours thus they could move larger items into space.
They built the first working space station in space.
They sent a space ship to rescue our astronauts on the international space station under construction when they were stranded there.
I would assume when a nation is 1st they would be experts.
Our problem stems from the big white hat we are trying to wear. It falls down over our ears and eyes thus we see nothing, hear nothing and speak nothing for fear of critics.
Don't tell me you will buy me a ticket to go there because they have closed borders under their control while we have uncontrolled open border.
quote:
Russia had a satellite circling the earth while we were saying that we were going to in the future..
We dropped our astronauts in the water while they landed theirs on the land.
They developed engines that were more powerful than ours thus they could move larger items into space.
The caveman invented the wheel, does that make him the master of the steel belted radial? Let's move our discussion into the 21st century could we?
quote:
They built the first working space station in space.
Yes, that hunk of space garbage that's destined to become an interatmospheric missle...
quote:
They sent a space ship to rescue our astronauts on the international space station under construction when they were stranded there.
My brother-in-law picked me up in his 92 Honda Civic when my 325i was in the shop, so what?
quote:
I would assume when a nation is 1st they would be experts.
And you would have been right 40 years ago.
Ever notice how some posties drag the thread down with self serving comments at the expense of those of us who continue to try to be informative, provoking, and productive. At least they are consistent. What poltical force does that type behavior remind you of?
And to steer us back on topic, http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070209/pl_afp/iraqstrategyus_070209140225
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
It's presumptuous to think that a switch from narrowly leading Republican majority to a narrowly leading Democratic majority would effect big-time changes. The margin is too small.
So why was that argument never valid when the GOP had a narrow majority? It seems to be a valid excuse only now for those who are carrying the water for the Democrat party.
I think it proves the point that the only reason Democrats banded together to oppose the war only did so to gain seats in the House and Senate. They had no intentions of doing anything substantive about the war.
This has resulted in half-truths to downright lies for the sake of political expediency being crammed down our throats from party operatives on both sides.
Problem is, no one in Washington seems to care anymore about what is truly best for America. All they seem to be interested in is who has the most seats in Congress and who is going to wind up as President in '08.
has anyone seen my left shoe? Did I leave it in this room??
There's a resolution about Iraq today. More are coming.
Let's face it -- change in Washington at the legislative level moves at the speed of mud. The de-funding of the Vietnam War took many months and tons of debate, and even then, Nixon headed it off at the pass and decided to compromise on th issue.
The new Congress has barely gotten started on the issue.
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
There's a resolution about Iraq today. More are coming.
Let's face it -- change in Washington at the legislative level moves at the speed of mud. The de-funding of the Vietnam War took many months and tons of debate, and even then, Nixon headed it off at the pass and decided to compromise on th issue.
The new Congress has barely gotten started on the issue.
A NON-BINDING resolution- which does absolutely nothing but waste time in "officially" telling the president what he already knows.
A non-binding resolution and the hours of debate leading up to it are nothing but a pure waste of time. Why are they not utilizing this time to work on binding resolutions.
Nothing is going to happen, period. It's too close to a presidential election for the libs to be making waves.
We'll see. There's still stuff coming through committee.
I think a bunch of politicians -- on both sides -- are waiting to see what the so-called "surge" produces. If it fails to do much, watch the binding war resolutions start coming in earnest.
Sorry Im late for the show, I didnt think it was worth responding. What, with the rapture coming and all. Actually, maybe the point is moot. Who cares about the war in Iraq? The rapture should pretty well end any questions about should we be there or not.
Back in the real world... the Democratically controlled Congress will do the same thing the Republican controlled Congress did. They will primarily do their best to stay in power by doing what they think is popular and paying no attention to either their stated ideology nor what is best for the Nation in the long run.
Per the war in Iraq, this means they will do nothing of substance.
"Read my lips, no new wars." (couldn't resist)
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
Sorry Im late for the show, I didnt think it was worth responding. What, with the rapture coming and all. Actually, maybe the point is moot. Who cares about the war in Iraq? The rapture should pretty well end any questions about should we be there or not.
Back in the real world... the Democratically controlled Congress will do the same thing the Republican controlled Congress did. They will primarily do their best to stay in power by doing what they think is popular and paying no attention to either their stated ideology nor what is best for the Nation in the long run.
Per the war in Iraq, this means they will do nothing of substance.
"Read my lips, no new wars." (couldn't resist)
"Yes, please take no action, just tell me what I want to hear and I will re-elect you." [xx(]
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
Sorry Im late for the show, I didnt think it was worth responding. What, with the rapture coming and all. Actually, maybe the point is moot. Who cares about the war in Iraq? The rapture should pretty well end any questions about should we be there or not.
Back in the real world... the Democratically controlled Congress will do the same thing the Republican controlled Congress did. They will primarily do their best to stay in power by doing what they think is popular and paying no attention to either their stated ideology nor what is best for the Nation in the long run.
Per the war in Iraq, this means they will do nothing of substance.
"Read my lips, no new wars." (couldn't resist)
You are wrong. The democrats are binding the executive branch to just $100 billion more and conditions attached to insure that this funding is not flittered away to Haliburton et. al. and earmarked specifically for our brave soldiers. they are taking the lead. The surge will be doa by weekend.
You seem to be fodder for foolery.
Your witty response, while trying to be mildly insulting, is poorly premised.
First, the funding measure is unlikely to pass. Cutting funding has never really been done before, and they are unlikely to begin such a purse war now. They will talk tough, and then back down. Just like the republicans did on the minimum wage bill.
If, by some miracle, the 1 seat majority does manage to cut war funding the president can go ahead and send troops anyway... and congress can sit and watch them starve in the field or fund them. As ****ty as that system may be, that's the way it is.
And again, you want to make sure we punish the evil corporations. How is it that our troops will be transported, fed, or otherwise supplied if Haliburton is not allowed to do it? Essentially they are the entire logistics wing of the United States military, I dont think you understand that. Im not defending their alleged fraud, nor do I have any stake in the company, but they provide essential services that no one else is in a position to do.
Likewise, the corporations are the ones that provide the armor, the vehicles, the ammo, and all the other items that you dont want to see cut off... how will they be supplied if we make sure the et. al gets no funding? Shall we simply appropriate this items or hand the troops cash and let them figure it out themselves? Earmarking money for "our brave soldiers" is a laughable notion unless you mean the massive, inefficient, federal bureaucracy is somehow going to find a way to get inefficiency out the supply system... which is more than unlikely.
Though, at current levels $100 Billion could be enough for as much as 18 months. Hopefully something happens by then that enables us to withdrawal and not leave a giant mess behind. (what a monster our Federal Government has become when $100,000,000,000.00 is referenced with the word "ONLY.")
Quote: has anyone seen my left shoe? Did I leave it in this room??
_______________________________________________
I don't see it but if you place thumbs on your hat below your ears and push it upward you may be able to see the shoe somewhere. Somewhere we extend into the 21 century the illusion that the big hats are sized to fit our big heads,
The prez just finished telling his subjects how he was going to finish this war he has under control. Unless his budget for the war is approved those troops are going to have to use 2x4's clubs to finish reinstalling Iraqi's exiled government.
I read where representatives of Russia are in Iran to sell them tanks. Is it we are blundering into an age old struggle where the Angles would not tread?
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
Your witty response, while trying to be mildly insulting, is poorly premised.
First, the funding measure is unlikely to pass. Cutting funding has never really been done before, and they are unlikely to begin such a purse war now. They will talk tough, and then back down. Just like the republicans did on the minimum wage bill.
If, by some miracle, the 1 seat majority does manage to cut war funding the president can go ahead and send troops anyway... and congress can sit and watch them starve in the field or fund them. As ****ty as that system may be, that's the way it is.
And again, you want to make sure we punish the evil corporations. How is it that our troops will be transported, fed, or otherwise supplied if Haliburton is not allowed to do it? Essentially they are the entire logistics wing of the United States military, I dont think you understand that. Im not defending their alleged fraud, nor do I have any stake in the company, but they provide essential services that no one else is in a position to do.
Likewise, the corporations are the ones that provide the armor, the vehicles, the ammo, and all the other items that you dont want to see cut off... how will they be supplied if we make sure the et. al gets no funding? Shall we simply appropriate this items or hand the troops cash and let them figure it out themselves? Earmarking money for "our brave soldiers" is a laughable notion unless you mean the massive, inefficient, federal bureaucracy is somehow going to find a way to get inefficiency out the supply system... which is more than unlikely.
Though, at current levels $100 Billion could be enough for as much as 18 months. Hopefully something happens by then that enables us to withdrawal and not leave a giant mess behind. (what a monster our Federal Government has become when $100,000,000,000.00 is referenced with the word "ONLY.")
Poor Cannon_Fodder, you actually think rational discourse is going to get you anywhere with Aox? I think you should participate in the ignore the Troll game we are currently playing with Dingus McGee.
quote:
I don't see it but if you place thumbs on your hat below your ears and push it upward you may be able to see the shoe somewhere. Somewhere we extend into the 21 century the illusion that the big hats are sized to fit our big heads,
The prez just finished telling his subjects how he was going to finish this war he has under control.
Really, I remember him saying that the WOT would last far after we were all dead and gone. Forgive me if I think you're pulling that statement either 1) out of context, or 2) out of your a**.
quote:
Unless his budget for the war is approved those troops are going to have to use 2x4's clubs to finish reinstalling Iraqi's exiled government.
Yes, are you for cutting their funding?
quote:
I read where representatives of Russia are in Iran to sell them tanks. Is it we are blundering into an age old struggle where the Angles would not tread?
Oh NO!!! Not ****ty WWII era tanks from Russia, how will we ever stop them...[xx(]
Ipsqueak is a liar. He sez he has me on ignore. Join him in common fodder for liars.
Here it comes.....democracy at work! pigs at bay...
"Gallup: Most Americans Want Congress to Go Beyond Non-Binding Vote on War "
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003545019
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
I don't see it but if you place thumbs on your hat below your ears and push it upward you may be able to see the shoe somewhere. Somewhere we extend into the 21 century the illusion that the big hats are sized to fit our big heads,
The prez just finished telling his subjects how he was going to finish this war he has under control.
Really, I remember him saying that the WOT would last far after we were all dead and gone. Forgive me if I think you're pulling that statement either 1) out of context, or 2) out of your a**.
quote:
Unless his budget for the war is approved those troops are going to have to use 2x4's clubs to finish reinstalling Iraqi's exiled government.
Yes, are you for cutting their funding?
quote:
I read where representatives of Russia are in Iran to sell them tanks. Is it we are blundering into an age old struggle where the Angles would not tread?
Oh NO!!! Not ****ty WWII era tanks from Russia, how will we ever stop them...[xx(]
Please hand Shadows the shampoo, IP. [}:)]
Rinse, Lather, Repeat...
"Leaked letter explains why House Republicans refuse to debate Iraq war"
http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/48020/
"Every time a GOPer would step to the plate, they'd start blabbering about God only knows what."
Wow! That happends here. Must be a universal trait.
"The letter urges GOPers "not to debate the Democratic Iraq resolution on their terms, but rather on ours." Republicans should "broaden the debate to the threat posed to Americans, the world, and all 'unbelievers' by radical Islamists." That's important, according to the letter, because "If [Republicans] let Democrats force us into a debate on the surge or the current situation in Iraq, we lose."
Lots of losers.....
"Republican Doublethink: The Iraq War and a Party Gone Mad"
http://www.progressivedailybeacon.com/more.php?page=opinion&id=1445
"The power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them. ... To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies... . Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to exercise doublethink. For by using the word one admits that one is tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one erases this knowledge; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead of the truth."
"It truly is incredible that Republicans' heads don't simply implode from the sheer force required to keep all the contradictory and hypocritical ideas trapped within their skull. Still, their disengagement from reality becomes stranger yet... . "
So what?
Why would you expect GOP, or any other professional organization, to play a game on their opponents terms? I would expect any one engaged in debate to attempt to change the terms to their favor and engage only when they are sure they can win. That's debate 101. But your spamming of headlines and quotes coupled with your ad hominem attacks are doing tons to sway my opinion on the matter.
Per your second post, would you expect any open minded person to take an article seriously that starts with this graphic:
(http://www.progressivedailybeacon.com/image_opinion.php?..%2Fopinion_pix%2FBush_Embar.jpg)
Not too mention posted by 'freelance internet writers' on a website that works in partnership with organizations entitled Topple Bush and the Liberal Democracy Alliance. The entire premise of the posted article is that Bush wants to be a dictator and his entire party is detached from reality.
No wonder no one takes you serious or responds to your posts. You just spew for crap after skimming it from extremely biased sources and pretend like you made some grand point. If many more of your posts are an equal waste of my time I too shall cease attempting to discuss anything with you.
^"No wonder no one takes you serious or responds to your posts. "
See ...it works! I expose hypocrites!
How much more are you willing to subject yourself to before you put him on ignore? It never ends...
Abscam Murtha Smacked Down:
http://hotair.com/archives/2007/02/18/video-hume-smacks-down-murtha-doesnt-know-what-the-heck-is-going-on-in-the-world/
Quotes: 71
Oh NO!!! Not ****ty WWII era tanks from Russia, how will we ever stop them...
Really, I remember him saying that the WOT would last far after we were all dead and gone. Forgive me if I think you're pulling that statement either 1) out of context, or 2) out of your a**.
________________________________________________
Those tanks stopped one of the most modern armies ever assembled in the 20th century.
The WOT has lasted since the beginning of history. It is with care that should be exercised when our army becomes the terrorist in the ageless civil war in their homeland.
For a government in shambles there seem to be available increasing instrument of war for some ones use in rebelling. The loss of our aircraft is increasing. Videos made by foreign reporters seem to show they are using ground-to-air missiles that were not available in WWll.
I am not in favor of reducing funding, I am in favor of shrinking our big head illusion, get a white hat that fits and get the HELL out of inferring in the wars of the mid-east before the need for WOT spreads to this land,
Our continued provoking those countries, with a chip on our shoulder, will without doubt bring the war of terrorism to this country. Never in history has any amount of time expired without the wars on terrorism. His speech writers seem more informed than he.
While I agree that we have well worn out our welcome in Iraq, how do we get out AND help ensure the WOT (war on terror) doesnt again come to our shores?
Also, with or without our involvement; militant Islam will seek to expand and kill those it disagrees with. It has since 1,000 years before America existed and it will for the foreseeable future. If there is a headline about a war - Sudan, Chechnya, Durfur, the Bosnia, Israel, Iraq, Afghanistan, the Philippines, Kashmir, Sri Lanka, bombings in London, Madrid, Moscow, NYC - odds heavily favor the perpetrator to be an Islamic Extremist. Other than fighting Christians, Jews, Hindus, Secular interests and other forms of Islam... they also dont governments that do not rule by religious doctrine. And when I write dont like - read "want to kill/overthrow."
Calling Islam a religion of peace would be like arguing that poor Timmy McVeigh would have been a peaceful person but the government just wouldn't leave him alone. While it is true that Christianity was spread by the sword up until the 20th Century, I dont think Christian today thinks that was a just or virtuous policy. And to preempt the "bigot" callers, no I dont think most Muslims adhere to the strict Sharia doctrines... but enough of the Islamic world does to cause or be a part of 90% of the conflicts in the world today.
There is no assurance that another terrorism attack won't occur on these shores.
Even with the strictest security, it can still happen.
Even if you close all the borders, it can still happen. Case in point: Timothy McVeigh.
In the 19th and early 20th centuries, the U.S. and Europe were dealing with terrorists. Except they were called "anarchists" then. Those eventually faded away.
As will the Muslim terrorists -- as long we don't have stupid foreign policies. As for extremists in general, never. Nutjobs will always be around.
Yet I can't help but wonder what your opinion would be if a loved one died in a terrorist attack that could have been avoided with added security or a better controlled border...what measures are you for/against?
What stupid foregin policy prompted 9/11?
BTW, the McVeigh issue is a red herring. A single person, or small group of militant anti-government kooks is a far cry from a well connected, financed organization like Hamas, Al-Qaeda or the like. We are in far greater danger from sleeper cell terrorism like 9/11 than Billy Bob the Inbreeder...
QuoteOriginally posted by shadows
Quotes: 71
Oh NO!!! Not ****ty WWII era tanks from Russia, how will we ever stop them...
Really, I remember him saying that the WOT would last far after we were all dead and gone. Forgive me if I think you're pulling that statement either 1) out of context, or 2) out of your a**.
________________________________________________
Those tanks stopped one of the most modern armies ever assembled in the 20th century.
Who?
The WOT has lasted since the beginning of history. It is with care that should be exercised when our army becomes the terrorist in the ageless civil war in their homeland.
We're the terrorists...that's right, I forgot. [xx(]
For a government in shambles there seem to be available increasing instrument of war for some ones use in rebelling. The loss of our aircraft is increasing. Videos made by foreign reporters seem to show they are using ground-to-air missiles that were not available in WWll.
What government is in shambles? We lose a few helicopters and all of a sudden we've proclaimed Russia and Iran as superior military powers...get real.
I am not in favor of reducing funding, I am in favor of shrinking our big head illusion, get a white hat that fits and get the HELL out of inferring in the wars of the mid-east before the need for WOT spreads to this land,
Our continued provoking those countries, with a chip on our shoulder, will without doubt bring the war of terrorism to this country. Never in history has any amount of time expired without the wars on terrorism. His speech writers seem more informed than he.
I'm not much for hats... BTW the WOT spread to this land about 6 years ago...or did you already forget about that?
<iplaw wrote:
Yet I can't help but wonder what your opinion would be if a loved one died in a terrorist attack that could have been avoided with added security or a better controlled border...what measures are you for/against?
<end clip>
I'm for better security and a better-controlled border. The 9/11 attacks exposed a lot of obvious and not-so-obvious weaknesses on that front, of which we've rectified some but not all.
I am against going to war against a country that had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks. If you're truly vigilant about finding the 9/11 perps, you don't start something that will dilute your ability to get bin Laden.
I know myself pretty well. If I had a relative die in the towers, I'd be p*ssed for the president undertaking this folly in Iraq. Bin Laden is not there; he's in Afghanistan. Finish the job in Afghanistan.
quote:
I am against going to war against a country that had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks. If you're truly vigilant about finding the 9/11 perps, you don't start something that will dilute your ability to get bin Laden.
Ugh...It's not my, or Bush's fault that so many people think that Iraq had something to do with 9/11. There are some cryptic quotes regarding Saddam and terrorist ties that Cheney made, but a connection to 9/11, even if it was tacitly made, was the
last reason we went in Iraq. It was 17 violations of Charter 1441, and WMDs. The 17 violations of 1441 were enough without even discussing WMDs...
There are plenty of terrorists in the world who wish the US harm who had nothing to do with 9/11, is that the only litmus test we have?
Lastly, I don't believe that anything going on in the rest of the world precludes us being active in Afghanistan. I don't believe that we are so weak we can only maintain a war on one front. Three may be a stretch, but two, I don't think that's a problem.
quote:
I know myself pretty well. If I had a relative die in the towers, I'd be p*ssed for the president undertaking this folly in Iraq. Bin Laden is not there; he's in Afghanistan. Finish the job in Afghanistan.
I think it's pretty clear at this point that he's no longer in Afghanistan. Don't you think if we had some inclination that he was really there, that we would be all over that country like a cheap suit? That would be a huge win for Bush, and one he needs, it doesn't make sense to assume he's just wandering around alive and we're not trying hard enough...
Hillary was claiming on the campaign trail last weekend (along with John McCain, they missed the Iraq NBR vote because they had more important things to do like getting a jump on an election which is still over a year and a half away) that she has a solution which will end the war in Iraq in 90 days. If she is such a noble states-woman, why doesn't she share that plan with the present administration, instead of baiting voters with something which won't come to pass for another two years if we wait for her to be elected?
Occasionally, I have to watch that train wreck called "Countdown With J.O.". He had a *former* CIA specialist on the show claiming that Al-Qaeda is re-massing and training in Pakistan and Afghanistan.
Seems like these outside "insiders" must know more than active duty intelligence agents, eh?
It's not just former intelligence officials, Conan.
http://www.omaha.com/index.php?u_page=1216&u_sid=2334469
<iplaw wrote:
There are plenty of terrorists in the world who wish the US harm who had nothing to do with 9/11, is that the only litmus test we have?
<end clip>
Jeez. You'd think the 9/11 terrorists would at least be a higher priority. At least get that job done before going off on another rabbit chase. That's common sense.
Instead of pulling every weed out of a small section of my lawn down to the last blade of crab grass; I usually pull out the vast majority of weeds in my ENTIRE lawn. At the end of the day I end up with a driveway littered with hundreds of dead weeds that can no longer interfere with my pretty lawn - which looks pretty damn good... instead of a smaller pile of weeds and on small patch of lawn that is perfect while the rest of the lawn is still infested and looks like crap.
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
<iplaw wrote:
There are plenty of terrorists in the world who wish the US harm who had nothing to do with 9/11, is that the only litmus test we have?
<end clip>
Jeez. You'd think the 9/11 terrorists would at least be a higher priority. At least get that job done before going off on another rabbit chase. That's common sense.
We did clear out the Taliban as best we could. They are making a resurgence, but eliminating any group is a virtual impossibility. The Afghans have to step up and turn them in...sounds like another conflict...
OBL has vanished and there's nothing we can do about it other than keep looking. With the WOT it's not an all or nothing discussion. We can't simply ignore threats because another conflict is still ongoing though...that wouldn't be a good choice would it?
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
<iplaw wrote:
There are plenty of terrorists in the world who wish the US harm who had nothing to do with 9/11, is that the only litmus test we have?
<end clip>
Jeez. You'd think the 9/11 terrorists would at least be a higher priority. At least get that job done before going off on another rabbit chase. That's common sense.
Okay, one more flog on this dead horse- we pretty much did all that could be done other than to spend a few billion dollars to track down and kill the handful of hold-outs we didn't get in the initial strikes on Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan. 9/11 terrorists were the first priority. Unless something has happened I'm not aware of, we still have troops in Afghanistan.
There's nothing I enjoy more than second-guessing officials and leaders who are privy to far more intelligence than I am privy to. [xx(]
<cannon fodder wrote:
Instead of pulling every weed out of a small section of my lawn down to the last blade of crab grass; I usually pull out the vast majority of weeds in my ENTIRE lawn. At the end of the day I end up with a driveway littered with hundreds of dead weeds that can no longer interfere with my pretty lawn - which looks pretty damn good... instead of a smaller pile of weeds and on small patch of lawn that is perfect while the rest of the lawn is still infested and looks like crap.
<end clip>
Let's go with a similar analogy, shall we?
Bush sees a 100-acre field infested with weeds (terrorists). Some of these weeds are choking off the tomato plants in a corner of his small garden that provides his food.
The immediate threat are the weeds in the tomato plants. You have to be careful in taking out the weeds so you don't injure the tomatoes. Once that imminent threat is removed, you then work on the rest of the land. Again, it's priorities.
The way the Bush did it is like this. He started on the weeds in the tomato plants and was doing OK. But, in the middle of his immediate task, he looked around and said, "These other weeds aren't threatening my tomatoes, but I don't like them. I'm going to take them out."
So Bush napalms 20 acres of the land. The smoke and fire pisses off his neighbors. The fire takes out some of the weeds, but new, stronger weeds arise in the scorched ground to take their place.
Farmer Bush keeps battling the weeds on that 20 acres, but never eradicates them. That's because he needs help from his neighbors. But the neighbors think he's an idiot and don't want to help. Meanwhile, the weeds on the rest of the acreage grow bigger and proliferate. That includes the weeds in the mostly-ignored tomato patch, which are threatening again.
And that's where we are.
quote:
So Bush napalms 20 acres of the land. The smoke and fire pisses off his neighbors. The fire takes out some of the weeds, but new, stronger weeds arise in the scorched ground to take their place.
Can someone say hyperbole...[xx(]
Why were the weeds that grew back stronger?
Couldnt the weeds he chose not to kill seed his farmland with weeds?
And arent we doing something about the weeds on the rest of the acreage instead of just letting them grow bigger? If you concentrate just on the weeds in the farmland wouldnt all the other weeds be a forest by the time you were done?
Plus, didnt we kill 90% of the weeds in the farmland before moving on?
Not to mention, I think the weeds in the farmland had already harmed us and we killed the other weeds because they refused to comply with an international order to stop being an assclown.
Lets just roundup the whole damn place and replant.
quote:
assclown
Nominated for word of the day.
Apparently cannon_fodder completely missed some of my symbolic meanings, while unwittingly using new ones that show in full display the stupidity of the neocons and our foreign policy.
[}:)]
BTW, don't call fellow posters crude names. The moderators don't like that.
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
Apparently cannon_fodder completely missed some of my symbolic meanings, while unwittingly using new ones that show in full display the stupidity of the neocons and our foreign policy.
[}:)]
That's pathetic rwarn. You counter propose an analogy that doesn't contain good logic, someone points it out to you, and you resort to ad hominems...great way to get your point across!
What fellow poster did he call a name?
Whoops, my bad. My apologies to cannon fodder.
That's what happens when you're trying to keep track of several TulsaNow threads at once. [:I]
I thought you were thinking he call you an assclown...
I hear Afghani weed is actually pretty good...[8D]
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=assclown
(http://www.joebrower.com/PHILE_PILE/PIX/FR/assclown-UR.jpg)
Wow, I started a whole thing with assclown. [:)]
I hope it made a few people chuckle, and be assured it wasnt directed at anyone here.