PDA

View Full Version : Let's say Bush wins. Will another country get invaded in the ME, and which one?


Braincase
10-16-2004, 09:42 AM
Just seeking opinions. I am of the opinion that if our troops continue to be targeted along the Syrian border, we may very well go in there, and the search for missing WMD's will be a cornerstone argument. We could also engage the Iranian military as well. The Sudan has been asking the world to kick it's ass for a few years now, and North Korea is still North Korea.

What's the next stop on the world tour, if there is going to be one?

memyselfI
10-16-2004, 09:57 AM
Just seeking opinions. I am of the opinion that if our troops continue to be targeted along the Syrian border, we may very well go in there, and the search for missing WMD's will be a cornerstone argument. We could also engage the Iranian military as well. The Sudan has been asking the world to kick it's ass for a few years now, and North Korea is still North Korea.

What's the next stop on the world tour, if there is going to be one?

Nope. As long as the US is bogged down in a quagmire in Iraq the other countries in the ME are safer from US invasion. That is probably the only reason they hope for a DUHbya win.

Jenson71
10-16-2004, 10:27 AM
I don't think we'll see another country invaded by us on the supposition that they had weapons of mass destruction.

beavis
10-16-2004, 10:28 AM
Nope. As long as the US is bogged down in a quagmire in Iraq the other countries in the ME are safer from US invasion. That is probably the only reason they hope for a DUHbya win.
I know. Regime change in places like Iran and Syria would be a truely horrific thing.

Taco Bell
10-16-2004, 11:28 AM
Afghanistan and Iraq will be a nice start to democracy in the Middle East. I know many are skeptical, but if it happens...imagine how GW will look in retrospect.

Boozer
10-16-2004, 11:36 AM
Afghanistan and Iraq will be a nice start to democracy in the Middle East. I know many are skeptical, but if it happens...imagine how GW will look in retrospect.

That skepticism is well deserved. I have yet to have anyone explain why they think democracy can be successful given the demographics of both countries. When pressed, all I've ever gotten out of a Bush backer is "Racist!!! What makes you think brown people can't have a democracy?"

People don't understand that it's not because they're brown, it's because there are huge wealth disparities, deep-seated distrust and animosity between (armed) ethnic groups. That's not a successful recipe for a stable democracy.

Calcountry
10-16-2004, 11:45 AM
Nope. As long as the US is bogged down in a quagmire in Iraq the other countries in the ME are safer from US invasion. That is probably the only reason they hope for a DUHbya win.
But they are not safe from cruise missiles.

stevieray
10-16-2004, 11:56 AM
That skepticism is well deserved. I have yet to have anyone explain why they think democracy can be successful given the demographics of both countries. When pressed, all I've ever gotten out of a Bush backer is "Racist!!! What makes you think brown people can't have a democracy?"

People don't understand that it's not because they're brown, it's because there are huge wealth disparities, deep-seated distrust and animosity between (armed) ethnic groups. That's not a successful recipe for a stable democracy.

funny, that last paragraph reminds me of the birth of our country.

Taco John
10-16-2004, 12:02 PM
Yeah? Which armed ethnic groups were being buggy bombed?

It's a cute thing to say, but nowhere close to reality. Not to mention, the catalyst for our revolution came from within... Not forced on us from the outside.

Boozer
10-16-2004, 12:06 PM
funny, that last paragraph reminds me of the birth of our country.

ROFL ROFL ROFL What history books are you reading? Please tell me you're not trying to pass off slavery and the American Indian conflicts as somehow analogous to modern-day Iraq.

stevieray
10-16-2004, 12:09 PM
ROFL ROFL ROFL What history books are you reading? Please tell me you're not trying to pass off slavery and the American Indian conflicts as somehow analogous to modern-day Iraq.

snas the ethnic reference, how is it different?

Taco John
10-16-2004, 12:13 PM
snas the ethnic reference, how is it different?



ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL


Unbelievable...

Boozer
10-16-2004, 12:14 PM
snas the ethnic reference, how is it different?

Well, other than that Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?

Boozer
10-16-2004, 12:16 PM
snas the ethnic reference, how is it different?

Actual, in terms of wealth distribution, Iraq is better situated than most countries for being amenable to democracy. It's a relatively developed country. But the whole "religious minority ruling country for 40 years with iron fist, another ethnic minority effectively having home rule for the past ten years" thing is a pretty big sticking point.

Taco John
10-16-2004, 12:16 PM
How was it different?

How about you give me some figures on how many women and children the French wounded, maimed, and killed, and I'll go searching for those figures with regards to Iraqi casualties that the US has been responsible for...

Taco John
10-16-2004, 12:22 PM
Plus, how do you just subtract the point about the violent ethnic differences... It seems to me that was half the point that Boozer was making. Of course there are wealth disparities. Of course there were wealth disparities in Colonial America. But we didn't have nearly the hate for our neighbor that they seem to share over there.

Taco John
10-16-2004, 12:24 PM
Oh, and the other thing... We HAD to come together against a common foe. Who is the common foe that the Iraqi ethnic groups want to come together against?

There's your answer...

stevieray
10-16-2004, 12:28 PM
Well, other than that Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?

I'm reminded of Carl Eller's HOF induction speech.

Winners look at a challenge and say it will be difficult, but possible...while losers say it's possible, but too difficult.

winners find answers to the problem, losers find problems with the answer.

I said it reminds me, not that it was exactly the same...Besides, you can only force something on people who are against it. it's called liberation for those who crave it.

Maybe a better reference would be afghanistan, who are holding elections while we speak.

KCWolfman
10-16-2004, 12:28 PM
Oh, and the other thing... We HAD to come together against a common foe. Who is the common foe that the Iraqi ethnic groups want to come together against?

There's your answer...
Well recently there was an article on how they came together against foreign led terrorists and are running them out of their nation.

I guess they aren't as stupid as you ascribe them to be.

stevieray
10-16-2004, 12:30 PM
Oh, and the other thing... We HAD to come together against a common foe. Who is the common foe that the Iraqi ethnic groups want to come together against?

There's your answer...

Those who oppose a Democratic Iraq....

RINGLEADER
10-16-2004, 12:33 PM
Saddam was a unique case. He had used WMDs. He had invaded (to varying degrees) three of his neighbors within the preceeding 20 years. He actively supported terrorism. He was openly defying a cease-fire agreement he signed a decade earlier. He was defying more than a dozen UN resolutions.

There may be other countries deserving of action (Iran and North Korea are obvious, but also Syria, Sudan, and Ethiopia come to mind), but I don't think you'd see us doing more than hitting a nuclear research facility here or there and only if diplomacy fails to contain the threat. I don't think we'll let Iran get nukes and, if we don't, the Israelis certainly won't.

mlyonsd
10-16-2004, 12:34 PM
Plus, how do you just subtract the point about the violent ethnic differences... It seems to me that was half the point that Boozer was making. Of course there are wealth disparities. Of course there were wealth disparities in Colonial America. But we didn't have nearly the hate for our neighbor that they seem to share over there.

You must really be old to remember what colonial life was like.

unlurking
10-16-2004, 12:35 PM
So, out of all the nations the US has invaded/occupied/etc. over the years, how many became a democrcacy.

RINGLEADER
10-16-2004, 12:41 PM
Plus, how do you just subtract the point about the violent ethnic differences... It seems to me that was half the point that Boozer was making. Of course there are wealth disparities. Of course there were wealth disparities in Colonial America. But we didn't have nearly the hate for our neighbor that they seem to share over there.


You bring up a really interesting point Taco. I said before that Bush's plan in Iraq could ultimately prove beneficial not only to Iraqis but also to neighboring states that have populations (like in Iran) that want freedom but are denied it by a small group of fanaticals or despots. I was talking to a friend the other day who had a relative visiting who works for the IDF. I told him that freedom in Iraq could spread and he was VERY pessimistic. I asked why and he explained (with a touch of the vitriol that is, alas, also part of the problem over there) that the arab countries are so backward that you and I just wouldn't understand how little their culture values freedom. He gave me all kinds of examples of how women are treated as property in their culture and equal rights is not something most arab men want (if it extends to women). Maybe this guy was jaded, but he's also probably right to some extent. Does that mean we shouldn't try to change the dynamic? Of course not. But in the arab countries it's probably helpful to understand why some of the people over there are fighting this change. This guy did say that the possibility of change in Iran was VERY good because they are persian and, while they have their own problems they are at least desirous of the kind of change that we're working to export to Iraq.

As I've said before, if freedom and democracy take root in Iraq it will be a massive change in that part of the world. It could still fail, but if it does work out if will be worth everything we've sacraficed to make it happen.

KCWolfman
10-16-2004, 12:43 PM
You must really be old to remember what colonial life was like.
Yeah, after all, they festered all that hate up in just a couple of years to fight the Civil War.

Calcountry
10-16-2004, 01:23 PM
Oh, and the other thing... We HAD to come together against a common foe. Who is the common foe that the Iraqi ethnic groups want to come together against?

There's your answer...
Dude, you are like just so fuggin smart I cannot sit here and type in the presence of such genious.

Taco John
10-16-2004, 02:33 PM
Prime examples of what I'm talking about when I use the term "herd"

You must really be old to remember what colonial life was like.


Dude, you are like just so fuggin smart I cannot sit here and type in the presence of such genious.



Nothing there to advance the discussion. They are incapable of it. They aren't, in fact, smart enough *to* advance the discussion. They are smart enough, however, to make a snide remark and hope that they get some rep for it from another her member for going after teh Taco.

mylyonsd, the Revolutionary War is one of my favorite topics and I've made it a point in my adult life to dig in deeper to understand the challenges that our forefathers faced in creating this great nation.

Bunnyturdherder, you are absoluetely correct.

Taco John
10-16-2004, 02:37 PM
I'm reminded of Carl Eller's HOF induction speech.

Winners look at a challenge and say it will be difficult, but possible...while losers say it's possible, but too difficult.

winners find answers to the problem, losers find problems with the answer.

I said it reminds me, not that it was exactly the same...Besides, you can only force something on people who are against it. it's called liberation for those who crave it.

Maybe a better reference would be afghanistan, who are holding elections while we speak.


The rhetoric tha anybody who is doubtful of our success in Iraq is an unpatriotic loser is so overplayed...

The fact is, winners win. So far, we haven't done that. And it's my opinion that the reason we haven't yet is because Rumsfeld, miscalculated so much over there, and sold his miscalculations to a gullible Bush.

I think there is more to this war than meets the eye. I don't think it's merely about oil, and I don't think that it's really about WMDs. I think it's about land. Certainly, that's what the civil war that breaks out will be about.

I don't believe that we are going to secure Iraq. I do believe that a true international coalition would have had a better time doing so. I do believe that Bush made a grave error that will cost the US thousands more lives because he listened to Rumsfeld instead of Powell. I do believe that if we have went in with overwhelming force and secured the public infrastructure, Iraqis at large would be a lot more trusting of us and convinced that our intentions there were anything but impure.

We didnt' do it like that. We went in with a small coalition that put the largest burden on us, and therefore we went in with the idea that we'd cut as many costs as we could. We went in with a small strike force that was good enough to protect the US interests in Iraq, but too small to protect the Iraqi citizens from the chaos that broke out. We went in with complete disregard for the message that was going to be put out in Arab media. In other words, Bush hasn't run a very thoughtful war. Of course, every two bit spinner here is ready to jump on me and throw us the term "sensitive war" while raping the context and meaning of what I just said here. So be it. Context raping isn't going to bring back a single iraqi kid who got killed. Context raping isn't going to grow back blown off legs on a soldier coming home to meet his family a different man.

Abu Grhaib is an icon of the kind of war Bush runs: A slack and thoughtless war that doesn't ask about the consequences of our actions.

I would have never gone into this war without the full support of NATO Allies. Unless, of course, I had one thing: the intelligence that could lead me directly to the nuclear weapons and WMD stockpiles that were the cause for the war.

Is the world a better place without Saddam Hussein in charge in Iraq? Hell if I know. It didn't change my life one bit. I guess the people to ask would be Iraqis considering they are the ones who have to live with the consequences. I think the jury is still out on that one.

This war is not about the security of America, as it's advertised. There isn't a case that has been presented yet that can stand up to the test to make it so... No WMDs. No 45-minute capability. None of it. America would be more secure if our troops were in our homeland protecting our borders, and no matter how you attempt to spin it, Occams razor will make this simple statement superior to whatever you can present.

|Zach|
10-16-2004, 02:42 PM
There is a big difference between a group of people banding together to take drastic steps to fight for what they want for themselves and an outside force coming and telling a group what they should want for themselves.

Joe Seahawk
10-16-2004, 02:43 PM
Now that other countries know we will not hesitate to use military force if necessary, we'll probably have better sucess with diplomacy.

That is if Bush is re-elected.

Calcountry
10-16-2004, 02:48 PM
Prime examples of what I'm talking about when I use the term "herd"








Nothing there to advance the discussion. They are incapable of it. They aren't, in fact, smart enough *to* advance the discussion. They are smart enough, however, to make a snide remark and hope that they get some rep for it from another her member for going after teh Taco.

mylyonsd, the Revolutionary War is one of my favorite topics and I've made it a point in my adult life to dig in deeper to understand the challenges that our forefathers faced in creating this great nation.

Bunnyturdherder, you are absoluetely correct.
I mean, you must not have any mirrors in your house, because in the awesomeness of your presence, even you could not stand up to.

|Zach|
10-16-2004, 02:49 PM
I mean, you must not have any mirrors in your house, because in the awesomeness of your presence, even you could not stand up to.
Well it seems as though you just proved him right.

Calcountry
10-16-2004, 02:49 PM
I mean, you must not have any mirrors in your house, because in the awesomeness of your presence, even you could not stand up to.
That is how you come off, butt munch. Both in football and politics.

RINGLEADER
10-16-2004, 02:51 PM
There is a big difference between a group of people banding together to take drastic steps to fight for what they want for themselves and an outside force coming and telling a group what they should want for themselves.


The Iraqis had about as much of a chance of overthrowing Saddam as the North Koreans do of overthrowing Dear Leader...Your logic is not entirely off-base (the Iraqis won't be free unless they decide to put down insurgents), but Iraq would NEVER have had the chance to hold elections in a couple months without our intervention. Just because most people value life over freedom doesn't mean they don't want freedom.

RINGLEADER
10-16-2004, 02:51 PM
I mean, you must not have any mirrors in your house, because in the awesomeness of your presence, even you could not stand up to.

They have mirrors in Washington state?

|Zach|
10-16-2004, 02:54 PM
The Iraqis had about as much of a chance of overthrowing Saddam as the North Koreans do of overthrowing Dear Leader...Your logic is not entirely off-base (the Iraqis won't be free unless they decide to put down insurgents), but Iraq would NEVER have had the chance to hold elections in a couple months without our intervention. Just because most people value life over freedom doesn't mean they don't want freedom.
I think you are right...I don't think the Iraqi's had a good chance at all of overthrowing Saddam themselves. Even so when you are doing something like attempting to implement democracy.

There is such a large difference between an outside group coming in and getting it done for you...and a group doing what it needs to for themselves.

Sometimes I am beginning to lean twords TJ's view that the demographics just dont work for democracy in the ME. I hope I am wrong.

RINGLEADER
10-16-2004, 03:02 PM
I think you are right...I don't think the Iraqi's had a good chance at all of overthrowing Saddam themselves. Even so when you are doing something like attempting to implement democracy.

There is such a large difference between an outside group coming in and getting it done for you...and a group doing what it needs to for themselves.

Sometimes I am beginning to lean twords TJ's view that the demographics just dont work for democracy in the ME. I hope I am wrong.


Taco could end up being 100% right. I've said before that people on the right who gave Kerry the business for saying he didn't know yet if the war in Iraq was worth it or not were wrong. But the benchmark also shouldn't be whether there are American troops there or not. That's where the terrorists are. That's where I want American troops. If the Iraq war ushers in democracy and it takes hold then it will be worth it. If it fails then it will not have been worth it. So far in this campaign John Kerry hasn't given me a lot of reasons to believe he understands the stakes in Iraq. But that's just one of the reasons I'm voting for Bush and against Kerry. If the Dems lose this one and then nominate someone like Joe Biden I would feel comfortable that there is someone in the White House - even if it is a Dem - who at least "gets it". I don't think Kerry does. If he's elected I'll hope I'm wrong, but it won't surprise me if he reflexively pulls troops out of Iraq and gives the bad guys space to operate. It's just who he is and who he has always been. I think that's dangerous, but I don't fault him for believing what he believes (although I DO fault him for not having the testicular fortitude to admit that's what he believes...that's half the reason things like "global test" slip out and then he has to go back and say that he really meant a global test is getting the support of Americans...:rolleyes: )

stevieray
10-16-2004, 03:14 PM
[QUOTE=Taco John]

We went in with a small coalition that put the largest burden on us, QUOTE]

The burden is on us. 9/11 dictated that.

stevieray
10-16-2004, 03:30 PM
There is a big difference between a group of people banding together to take drastic steps to fight for what they want for themselves and an outside force coming and telling a group what they should want for themselves.

Apply that logic to our own Civil War.

Calcountry
10-16-2004, 03:31 PM
I wonder if Kerry ever has been in a fight where someone bloddied his nose?

He would answer as he reaches for his hankie , "my God, you are SUCH a barbarian. Heavens, Bascomb, see to it that this ruffian is dealt with. "

the Talking Can
10-16-2004, 03:41 PM
I wonder if Kerry ever has been in a fight where someone bloddied his nose?

He would answer as he reaches for his hankie , "my God, you are SUCH a barbarian. Heavens, Bascomb, see to it that this ruffian is dealt with. "

aside from fighting in Vietnam, I think you're right....

the Talking Can
10-16-2004, 03:42 PM
http://www.freewayblogger.com/ffsd_images/notinIraq_tn.JPG

Boozer
10-16-2004, 03:42 PM
Apply that logic to our own Civil War.

And you see what happened with that. At least 12 years before it washed out. Is that satisfactory to you if it took 12 years of US presence in Iraq?

|Zach|
10-16-2004, 04:23 PM
Comparing the wars from dfifferent ages is shaky enough but I think the American Civil War is just way to different to hold any reasonable comparison.

Calcountry
10-16-2004, 05:47 PM
aside from fighting in Vietnam, I think you're right....
Are you trying to say that he is a "war hero" becuase he did 4 months in Nam? He then comes back and stabs everyone in the back for political expediency, 8mm film in tow.

By his own words he is a fuggin war criminal, he killed babies in free fire zones. Why doesn't the penitant mother fugger go turn himself in at the Hague and say, "now the US really wants to be a part of the world court, and I want to set an example".


:shake:

jettio
10-16-2004, 10:27 PM
The rhetoric tha anybody who is doubtful of our success in Iraq is an unpatriotic loser is so overplayed...

The fact is, winners win. So far, we haven't done that. And it's my opinion that the reason we haven't yet is because Rumsfeld, miscalculated so much over there, and sold his miscalculations to a gullible Bush.

I think there is more to this war than meets the eye. I don't think it's merely about oil, and I don't think that it's really about WMDs. I think it's about land. Certainly, that's what the civil war that breaks out will be about.

I don't believe that we are going to secure Iraq. I do believe that a true international coalition would have had a better time doing so. I do believe that Bush made a grave error that will cost the US thousands more lives because he listened to Rumsfeld instead of Powell. I do believe that if we have went in with overwhelming force and secured the public infrastructure, Iraqis at large would be a lot more trusting of us and convinced that our intentions there were anything but impure.

We didnt' do it like that. We went in with a small coalition that put the largest burden on us, and therefore we went in with the idea that we'd cut as many costs as we could. We went in with a small strike force that was good enough to protect the US interests in Iraq, but too small to protect the Iraqi citizens from the chaos that broke out. We went in with complete disregard for the message that was going to be put out in Arab media. In other words, Bush hasn't run a very thoughtful war. Of course, every two bit spinner here is ready to jump on me and throw us the term "sensitive war" while raping the context and meaning of what I just said here. So be it. Context raping isn't going to bring back a single iraqi kid who got killed. Context raping isn't going to grow back blown off legs on a soldier coming home to meet his family a different man.

Abu Grhaib is an icon of the kind of war Bush runs: A slack and thoughtless war that doesn't ask about the consequences of our actions.

I would have never gone into this war without the full support of NATO Allies. Unless, of course, I had one thing: the intelligence that could lead me directly to the nuclear weapons and WMD stockpiles that were the cause for the war.

Is the world a better place without Saddam Hussein in charge in Iraq? Hell if I know. It didn't change my life one bit. I guess the people to ask would be Iraqis considering they are the ones who have to live with the consequences. I think the jury is still out on that one.

This war is not about the security of America, as it's advertised. There isn't a case that has been presented yet that can stand up to the test to make it so... No WMDs. No 45-minute capability. None of it. America would be more secure if our troops were in our homeland protecting our borders, and no matter how you attempt to spin it, Occams razor will make this simple statement superior to whatever you can present.

That is about the size of it.

Difference between TJ and most others who believed the pre-war hype is that he can still think independently.

And also, TJ has enough regard and empathy for people in other countries that he realizes that it does matter what the USA does and how it would be viewed.

There have been so many separate instances of scandal and incompetence that were very preventable and that will damage our country's chances to meet any goals of improving other countries for a long time.

Afghanistan's election was only for one office and the incumbent Karzai had such a large incumbent advantage that even though he could not really campaign because of fear of assassination, he still will likely win easily.

Still, Afghanistan is in better shape than Iraq and that may be due to the fact that there is a real coalition there with more countries and NATO onboard.

And as to the thread's premise. The experts who have had full access to the weapons program personnel and facilities have not concluded that there were any WOMDs to be smuggled out to neighboring countries.

the Talking Can
10-16-2004, 10:37 PM
Are you trying to say that he is a "war hero" becuase he did 4 months in Nam? He then comes back and stabs everyone in the back for political expediency, 8mm film in tow.

By his own words he is a fuggin war criminal, he killed babies in free fire zones. Why doesn't the penitant mother fugger go turn himself in at the Hague and say, "now the US really wants to be a part of the world court, and I want to set an example".


:shake:

you are so very stupid, and John Kerry could stomp a mudhole in your ass...when did you give up what small amount of conscience you may of had to spend your life typing such flagrantly dishonest statements?

the purposefully moronic readings republicans provide of Kerry's words have reached a new high (low?)....I used to think wolfman was the master, but now I bow to you....a bronze plaque with an image of Karl Rove's balls resting on your chin is hanging in the RNC headquarters...

the Talking Can
10-16-2004, 10:38 PM
The rhetoric tha anybody who is doubtful of our success in Iraq is an unpatriotic loser is so overplayed...

The fact is, winners win. So far, we haven't done that. And it's my opinion that the reason we haven't yet is because Rumsfeld, miscalculated so much over there, and sold his miscalculations to a gullible Bush.

I think there is more to this war than meets the eye. I don't think it's merely about oil, and I don't think that it's really about WMDs. I think it's about land. Certainly, that's what the civil war that breaks out will be about.

I don't believe that we are going to secure Iraq. I do believe that a true international coalition would have had a better time doing so. I do believe that Bush made a grave error that will cost the US thousands more lives because he listened to Rumsfeld instead of Powell. I do believe that if we have went in with overwhelming force and secured the public infrastructure, Iraqis at large would be a lot more trusting of us and convinced that our intentions there were anything but impure.

We didnt' do it like that. We went in with a small coalition that put the largest burden on us, and therefore we went in with the idea that we'd cut as many costs as we could. We went in with a small strike force that was good enough to protect the US interests in Iraq, but too small to protect the Iraqi citizens from the chaos that broke out. We went in with complete disregard for the message that was going to be put out in Arab media. In other words, Bush hasn't run a very thoughtful war. Of course, every two bit spinner here is ready to jump on me and throw us the term "sensitive war" while raping the context and meaning of what I just said here. So be it. Context raping isn't going to bring back a single iraqi kid who got killed. Context raping isn't going to grow back blown off legs on a soldier coming home to meet his family a different man.

Abu Grhaib is an icon of the kind of war Bush runs: A slack and thoughtless war that doesn't ask about the consequences of our actions.

I would have never gone into this war without the full support of NATO Allies. Unless, of course, I had one thing: the intelligence that could lead me directly to the nuclear weapons and WMD stockpiles that were the cause for the war.

Is the world a better place without Saddam Hussein in charge in Iraq? Hell if I know. It didn't change my life one bit. I guess the people to ask would be Iraqis considering they are the ones who have to live with the consequences. I think the jury is still out on that one.

This war is not about the security of America, as it's advertised. There isn't a case that has been presented yet that can stand up to the test to make it so... No WMDs. No 45-minute capability. None of it. America would be more secure if our troops were in our homeland protecting our borders, and no matter how you attempt to spin it, Occams razor will make this simple statement superior to whatever you can present.

that's about the best summation I've read, you've got my vote.....rep

stevieray
10-16-2004, 10:39 PM
"herd mentality"

The Pedestrian
10-16-2004, 11:47 PM
There are two reasons that we would attack another ME country:

1) They attack Iraq.

2) They openly threaten other countries with their nuclear program (this mostly goes for Iran)

Taco Bell
10-16-2004, 11:50 PM
There are two reasons that we would attack another ME country:

1) They attack Iraq.

2) They openly threaten other countries with their nuclear program (this mostly goes for Iran)

R U drinkin'?

Logical
10-16-2004, 11:54 PM
http://www.freewayblogger.com/ffsd_images/notinIraq_tn.JPG

I love the misguided belief that the only terrorist threat is from Al Quaida, it is so naive.:rolleyes:

ChiefsCountry
10-17-2004, 12:00 AM
And you know what, basically are soliders we have in Iraq are just national guard, we don't have that many actual soliders there.

The Pedestrian
10-17-2004, 12:13 AM
And you know what, basically are soliders we have in Iraq are just national guard, we don't have that many actual soliders there.

:LOL: I'd like to see ya tell a national guardsman that he's not an actual soldier...

Ash
10-17-2004, 12:21 AM
:LOL: I'd like to see ya tell a national guardsman that he's not an actual soldier...

Actually ask a full time soldier what kind of derogatory statement they use to describe them before the war.Also the contract they sighn says that the guard will be used for national emergencys not nation building.Bush promised he would never use our military for nation building in the 2000 debates. so I guess he just a, whats the word Im looking for?Oh ya a flip flopper.

The Pedestrian
10-17-2004, 12:46 AM
....Bush promised he would never use our military for nation building in the 2000 debates. ....

And the American people on September 10, 2001 would've claimed that the chances of three major terrorist attacks happening within 36 hours were slim to nill...so what's your point?

Taco John
10-17-2004, 05:56 AM
We went in with a small coalition that put the largest burden on us,


The burden is on us. 9/11 dictated that.





What does an Iraqi civil war have anything to do with 9/11?

The mentality that "we can't elect Kerry because he doesn't understand the war" doesn't ring true when the people making the criticism don't understand the war themselves.

The focus and purpose of this war has moved from Point A to Point Z.

These people don't even have a common desire for freedom at any cost... Their desire for freedom is to be rid of the Americans from their homeland. That's about the only thing the different ethnic groups there share in common.


A recent poll of 3,500 Iraqis by the Iraq Center for Research and Strategic Studies found that the number of Iraqis who say they are "very likely" to vote in the elections has dropped to 67 percent, from 88 percent in June. About 25 percent say they will "probably" vote. More than 52 percent of those polled said they would not vote for a candidate who was not from their ethnic, religious or linguistic group.


It's almost like a set-up. What happens if when January rolls around and they all start declaring war on eachother because they don't like the outcome of the election?

How does that have anything to do with 9/11? Seriously.

the Talking Can
10-17-2004, 06:51 AM
I love the misguided belief that the only terrorist threat is from Al Quaida, it is so naive.:rolleyes:

you used the :rolleyes:

devastating


http://www.freewayblogger.com/ffsd_images/yeha_small_tn.jpg

Taco John
10-17-2004, 11:54 PM
No response from any "conservatives"?

I'm finding some of my best points are dropping unanswered a lot lately...

stevieray
10-18-2004, 01:18 AM
[QUOTE=Taco John]What does an Iraqi civil war have anything to do with 9/11?

The mentality that "we can't elect Kerry because he doesn't understand the war" doesn't ring true when the people making the criticism don't understand the war themselves.

The focus and purpose of this war has moved from Point A to Point Z.

These people don't even have a common desire for freedom at any cost... Their desire for freedom is to be rid of the Americans from their homeland. That's about the only thing the different ethnic groups there share in common.

QUOTE]


Your specualtion isn't fact, never has been.

You assume and validate the opposition's task while speaking for and dismissing the rest of the country that wants to be free.

OldTownChief
10-18-2004, 09:07 AM
That is about the size of it.

Difference between TJ and most others who believed the pre-war hype is that he can still think independently.

And also, TJ has enough regard and empathy for people in other countries that he realizes that it does matter what the USA does and how it would be viewed.

And maybe when TJ pulls his snake out of your a$$, you will have the capacity to think independently as well.