PDA

View Full Version : Happy Day! Zarquawi is dead...


Pages : 1 2 3 [4]

memyselfI
06-10-2006, 05:36 PM
This thread is now dominated by the DC Few and as such needs to go to DC. (DC Few is defined as those CP posters who would remain if football and all other topics but politics were removed from the board.)

:deevee:

Calcountry
06-10-2006, 05:38 PM
Because supporting the right of the insurgents to resist is tacit support of their actions. Their actions result in American deaths.

For the sake of the board, I created a thread in DC if you wish to continue this discussion. Let's not continue it here.Why the hell not? They want their cake and eat it too. Might as well give it too them Donger. I suggest serving it raw and cold, with no frosting. Cause the bitches are seditious in their suppositions.

memyselfI
06-10-2006, 05:39 PM
And I see this thread has taken an interesting turn. Now it's about the colonialists/founding fathers. Which is funny.
I think I could go archiving and find nearly the exact posts from the same people regarding this subject. (with the exception of banyon)

I don't think the 'turn' is that unexpected given that the discussion veered to the issues of sovereignty and nationalism.

Calcountry
06-10-2006, 06:11 PM
I understand it which is not the same thing as supporting it. I support our troops in their efforts to stop the insurgents. I would support and be much happier if the administration would get our men and women out of their so they do not need to die for a hopeless situation just like Vietnam was. If anyone is supporting the deaths of our troops it is the administration who for their own unacknowledged reasons are putting these men and women in harms way for no apparent logical reason.I could never sympathise with the enemy.

It is tantamount to Treason.

You don't believe we are at war, do you?

This is just a murky way for Bush to up his approval ratings right? Bush knew them planes were going to fly into the buildings and did nothing right? Yeah, and Iraq didn't have anything to do with 9/11 yada yada yada. Yeah, and Iraq didn't have WMD cause we didn't find them, or did we? Or perhaps they moved them to Iran the way they flew their jets there after Desert storm?

I didn't, and still don't need WMD for a Causus Beli(sp?) to go to war. All I needed, is for the CIC/POTUS to tell me that it was in the US Vital interests to secure a stronghold in the mideast as a staging base with which to launch interdictory attacts on any scum sucking cockroach that has been so much as within 100 feet of any Abu musswab al zowaheerriee osama joe mama mofo.


As far as I am concerned, Iran(yes I know the difference between Iraq and Iran) deserves to have their shit stomped for taking our people hostage for 444 days. I have not forgotten that shit. They still haven't paid for that crap, let alone all this sabre rattling and threatening to build nukes.

WilliamTheIrish
06-10-2006, 06:12 PM
I don't think the 'turn' is that unexpected given that the discussion veered to the issues of sovereignty and nationalism.

It's a 'turn' nonetheless. With the same discussion by (almost) the same participants as I've witnessed many seasons ago.

Now, this doesn't mean I want the thread moved or anything. It's merely an observation. It's actually funny to read this thread and think Groundhog Day.

banyon
06-10-2006, 06:21 PM
I don't believe that Jesus is TC. I don't see a similarity.

Fair enough. My TC Radar has hair trigger sensitivity though. :)

Logical
06-10-2006, 06:23 PM
I'm among those that feel this thread deteriorated to DC quality.
Why? I'll be point-blank honest, speaking as a visitor/guest on your board.

Because it went from a broad-based discussion of the post topic down to the usual 4-5 posters, especially Vlad and meme, spouting the same tired rhetoric with which they fill DC.

In my observation when meme enters a thread the vast majority of CP members are turned off and want her to go away. Her political views, especially as they concern America, are distasteful at best. Meme's presence in a thread can best be described by the picture Big Daddy posts when he refers to her.

This thread is now dominated by the DC Few and as such needs to go to DC. (DC Few is defined as those CP posters who would remain if football and all other topics but politics were removed from the board.)First I have never in my life posted at a political or politics only BB.

Second Donger who no longer posts in DC with 71 posts has posted more on this thread than any other poster but me (and I post on the Lounge more than all but about 5 other posters).

Third we have 20 posters on this thread with more than 10 posts 1/2 of whom pretty much never post in DC.

Finally 83 different posters have posted on this thread so evidently there is a lot more interest in talking on this type of subject than one would think by the way people talk about DC.

banyon
06-10-2006, 06:32 PM
You really should read Chernow's biography of Hamilton. It is eye opening.


I don't think you're giving Jefferson a fair shake. He did a lot more than what you are listing. Like Nixon, who was personally a douche, he accomplished some great things in spite of character flaws.

You've piqued my Interest in a Hamilton Bio, though. Maybe I'll take it up next. I'm currently on Edmund Morris's 2nd volume of Teddy Roosevelt's Bio. It is the best Bio I've ever read.

I'd better read it I guess. Don't want to just have Aaron Burr on my side :)

Calcountry
06-10-2006, 06:33 PM
Note to all you libbies out there: Be assured to expect the full faith and support of the loyal opposition at the waters edge when your guy is in charge.

It had been a tradition in this country, much in the same way as to not use a fillibuster to obstruct an up or down vote on Supreme court nominees.

Well, the rules changed in the past two terms.

Don't expect Gentlemen Republican opposition any more when you guys regain power. It will be a gutter ratfest the like you haven't seen in this country.

Logical
06-10-2006, 06:38 PM
I could never sympathise with the enemy.

It is tantamount to Treason.

You don't believe we are at war, do you?

This is just a murky way for Bush to up his approval ratings right? Bush knew them planes were going to fly into the buildings and did nothing right? Yeah, and Iraq didn't have anything to do with 9/11 yada yada yada. Yeah, and Iraq didn't have WMD cause we didn't find them, or did we? Or perhaps they moved them to Iran the way they flew their jets there after Desert storm?

I didn't, and still don't need WMD for a Causus Beli(sp?) to go to war. All I needed, is for the CIC/POTUS to tell me that it was in the US Vital interests to secure a stronghold in the mideast as a staging base with which to launch interdictory attacts on any scum sucking cockroach that has been so much as within 100 feet of any Abu musswab al zowaheerriee osama joe mama mofo.


As far as I am concerned, Iran(yes I know the difference between Iraq and Iran) deserves to have their shit stomped for taking our people hostage for 444 days. I have not forgotten that shit. They still haven't paid for that crap, let alone all this sabre rattling and threatening to build nukes.

I did not say I sympathize with the enemy, look at what you quoted.

I supported the effort to overthrow Saddam, once that was done we should have got out.

In the classic sense we are now not at war (that ended when we overthrew Saddam and at the very latest when we captured him) we are merely occupying a country and facing the inevitable resistance therein. We should be conducting a War on Terror using special forces and remotely based troops (i.e. Air Force/Navy) support in those missions.

We should not be a country that has imperial goals of running other nations as we are now running Iraq through occupation and coercion. Coercion into forming the type of government we want to see formed.

Finally I would love to see the President say "it was in the US Vital interests to secure a stronghold in the mideast as a staging base ", that would be understandable at least. Not this BS that we are doing it to make Iraq a better place, there were and are shitholes in the world that need help far more than Iraq did and we never cared about them. Or be honest and say "we are in it for big business to make money off the venture and control their oil". Would not be popular around the world but at least it would not be a BS reason like the ones you hear the administration extoll as the lies of convenience.

In short Bush just be frippen honest for a changen and you might regain my support.

Logical
06-10-2006, 06:42 PM
Why the hell not? They want their cake and eat it too. Might as well give it too them Donger. I suggest serving it raw and cold, with no frosting. Cause the bitches are seditious in their suppositions.

I am going to state one more time I do not support them but I understand why they are doing what they do. Jesus get a grip.

Frazod
06-10-2006, 06:53 PM
I don't think you're giving Jefferson a fair shake. He did a lot more than what you are listing. Like Nixon, who was personally a douche, he accomplished some great things in spite of character flaws.

You've piqued my Interest in a Hamilton Bio, though. Maybe I'll take it up next. I'm currently on Edmund Morris's 2nd volume of Teddy Roosevelt's Bio. It is the best Bio I've ever read.

I'd better read it I guess. Don't want to just have Aaron Burr on my side :)

I read the Roosevelt biography and really enjoyed it. The Hamilton biography is better, IMO.

I do intend to read American Sphinx as well. Maybe if I read something specifically about Jefferson I won't think he's such a dick.

Ugly Duck
06-10-2006, 06:57 PM
Well, the rules changed in the past two terms.

Don't expect Gentlemen Republican opposition any more when you guys regain power. It will be a gutter ratfest the like you haven't seen in this country.Gimme a friggin' break! The neocon guard set the tone during the Clinton Witchunt daze. The only reason libs haven't been able follow suit in the same venomous vein is cuz the neocons control all branches of government. The resulting lack of oversight has allowed the WH cabal to run wild.... that coupled with durn near a free pass from the press. The neocon cabal has been on EASY STREET! Dems won't be able to respond in kind unless they take at least ONE branch of government. Until Dems gain any kind of power at all, neocons have absolutely nothing to whimper and whine about.....

Logical
06-10-2006, 07:04 PM
Gimme a friggin' break! The neocon guard set the tone during the Clinton Witchunt daze. The only reason libs haven't been able follow suit in the same venomous vein is cuz the neocons control all branches of government. The resulting lack of oversight has allowed the WH cabal to run wild.... that coupled with durn near a free pass from the press. The neocon cabal has been on EASY STREET! Dems won't be able to respond in kind unless they take at least ONE branch of government. Until Dems gain any kind of power at all, neocons have absolutely nothing to whimper and whine about.....

OK now it is time to move the thread. LOL

banyon
06-10-2006, 07:25 PM
Don't expect Gentlemen Republican opposition any more when you guys regain power. It will be a gutter ratfest the like you haven't seen in this country.

Yeah, because that's how they've always handled themselves. :rolleyes:

Exhibit A:

StcChief
06-10-2006, 07:30 PM
Can we turn it into a Sat Night Live....sacarastic event.
[chevy chase]
General Fernado Franco is still dead comedy....
[/chevy chase]

Al Zarquawee is still dead...... on a daily/weekly report.

jlscorpio
06-10-2006, 07:44 PM
Is this thread ruining your .15 post per day experience. You do realize you wasted 6 days posts with this complaint post.

Oops, i forgot...post count=penis size here, right? About that "new community" you talked about last week? Oh, that must've come out of the other side of your mouth, huh?

__________________

Logical
06-10-2006, 09:14 PM
Is this thread ruining your .15 post per day experience. You do realize you wasted 6 days posts with this complaint post.

Oops, i forgot...post count=penis size here, right? About that "new community" you talked about last week? Oh, that must've come out of the other side of your mouth, huh?

__________________Not at all, I just find it funny that someone who is almost never on ths BB and even more rarely posts is complaining about the BB's content. If you were here all the time I could see how a single thread might bother you. But being as you are almost never participating I found it very, very strange that you would take the trouble to post just to complain. Frankly I don't even recognize your username and have no impression of you as a poster, hell you could be the most knowledge person on this BB in regards to a given subject but as you so rarely post I do not have any opinion of you good or bad.

So my first opinion of you was as someone who made a special effort to post a gripe.

|Zach|
06-10-2006, 09:29 PM
Yeah, because that's how they've always handled themselves. :rolleyes:

Exhibit A:
Wow

sedated
06-10-2006, 09:35 PM
Can we turn it into a Sat Night Live....sacarastic event.
[chevy chase]
General Fernado Franco is still dead comedy....
[/chevy chase]

Al Zarquawee is still dead...... on a daily/weekly report.

"It's been six weeks since Saddam Hussein was killed by a pack of wild boars and the world is still glad to be rid of him."

FAX
06-10-2006, 10:43 PM
There once was a tool named Zarquawi
Then, one day his a$$ went Kabluawi
He caused death and disorder
'Till the General ordered
"Give Zarquawi an Ouawi right Nuawi."

FAX

StcChief
06-10-2006, 11:09 PM
General Fernado Franco is still dead......
and so is al-Zarquawi....

Logical
06-10-2006, 11:30 PM
There once was a tool named Zarquawi
Then, one day his a$$ went Kabluawi
He caused death and disorder
'Till the General ordered
"Give Zarquawi an Ouawi right Nuawi."

FAXNice

ChiefaRoo
06-11-2006, 02:11 AM
I cannot believe I am going to say this, but don't you think our revolutinaries were not considered legitimate by the British, I however think they were legitimate. History will work the same way in Iraq, if the insurgents succeed in getting the governement the way they want it, they will have to be considered legitimate by future generations of Iraq citizens while we will possibly never consider them as such.


Your comparison is completely wrong. It's so wrong that words are difficult to come by that accurately explain the degree of error in your analogy.

Logical
06-11-2006, 02:16 AM
Your comparison is completely wrong. It's so wrong that words are difficult to come by that accurately explain the degree of error in your analogy.Nice try but you will need some rationale. Otherwise you are just making a baseless statement that has no reason to be accepted.

J Diddy
06-11-2006, 02:17 AM
Your comparison is completely wrong. It's so wrong that words are difficult to come by that accurately explain the degree of error in your analogy.


Is this another way of saying "I don't know?"

ChiefaRoo
06-11-2006, 02:19 AM
I think we wish that was true and in the absence of solid communication ties to the people we cannot know so we can only speculate. I don't think anyone knows who the people really support.


It is true log. I mean, you can't den the facts that that over 70% of them have voted repeatedly under threat of death. If they didn't want a representative government and therefore a voice in their countrys future they would of stayed home instead of risking getting blown up or having family members killed in their homes. I give the Iraqis credit in that regard.

Logical
06-11-2006, 02:22 AM
It is true log. I mean, you can't den the facts that that over 70% of them have voted repeatedly under threat of death. If they didn't want a representative government and therefore a voice in their countrys future they would of stayed home instead of risking getting blown up or having family members killed in their homes. I give the Iraqis credit in that regard.90% used to vote for Saddam does that mean Saddam was accepted and the legitimate leader of a legitimate government?

Any chance they were afraid of their occupiers and voted for that reason. Nah we are just the nice guys that invaded their country, killed thousand so their civilians while bombing their infrastructure back to the middle ages. No reason for them to be afraid of us.ROFL

J Diddy
06-11-2006, 02:22 AM
Yeah, because that's how they've always handled themselves. :rolleyes:

Exhibit A:

How the hell do you get so much neg rep one right after another.

Logical
06-11-2006, 02:27 AM
How the hell do you get so much neg rep one right after another.


That indeed is strange, 4 neg reps in two minutes. I cannot give one person more than two reps on two different posts before I am required to give rep to a couple of other people.

ChiefaRoo
06-11-2006, 02:57 AM
There is nothing to retract. Hamas was an insurgent movement AGAINST the PLO.


You know MMI, I will stand next to you and will defend your right to state your opinion about any and all things political eventhough I couldn't disagree with you more. It's your right as an American. It's a right that has taken a long time for both men and then later women to have gotten in this world and I believe it is the right of every human being regardless of their cuture, ethnicity or location on the globe. That being said when I read your stuff it's obvious to me that your really just stating a point of view that at it's core is Anti George Bush. You dislike/hate the guy and that's fine, but realize this - Bush is going to be President for two more years and he's not going anywhere unless god forbid something physical were to happen to him. I would suggest that you put the 2000 and 2004 elections behind you, change your avatar and breath a deep breath of satisfaction knowing W will NEVER run for President again and your candidate may win next time (what a well founded country we have, wouldn't you agree?) If you'll do this I think you'll be able to more easily debate your fellow more conservative Chiefs fans about these other items that are before our nation without having to jump through so many silly mental gymnastics just to tie it all back to George Bush, Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld and their alternately ultra smart and then stupid deeds. You see at the end of the day I believe these three men (who I consider to be great men) are doing their very best in going nose to nose and knee to knee with men and nations that would like to do us serious harm if they had their way. I believe the reason they do these things is not to enrich themselves (they could easily of done that in the private sector), or to help their "oil" buddies or because they have black hearts. I believe they do what they do because they love their country and daily they receive threat information from other parts of the govt. and from other intelligence entities that would keep many of us awake at night worrying about our safety. I'm glad they're there, I respect their resolve and their strength and I want them to continue to hammer any man or nation that plans to damage or destroy our people and our way of life. Finally at the end of two years after they've done all they can, I want to them to then quietly leave office with no gunshots, arguements, bitter comments or threats of violence so we can as a people then go about the business of choosing new leaders for our country. Like I said maybe next time your candidate with a big fat 'D' next to their party affiliation will sit in the big chair. God help us if that happens while were still at war. That's my opinion. ;)

ChiefaRoo
06-11-2006, 03:09 AM
Nice try but you will need some rationale. Otherwise you are just making a baseless statement that has no reason to be accepted.

I could write pages and pages on your comment. Suffice it to say your premise is flat wrong. You can't even compare the two eras much less the motivations, government structure and the reality the two nations exist/existed in these eras.

ChiefaRoo
06-11-2006, 03:10 AM
Is this another way of saying "I don't know?"

No, I don't believe it is J Diddy. Here I'll boil it down to beer and pretzel talk. His premise is f*cked in the head

J Diddy
06-11-2006, 03:13 AM
No, I don't believe it is J Diddy. Here I'll boil it down to beer and pretzel talk. His premise is f*cked in the head


Ummmmmmmm


Beer and pretzels.

:)

Logical
06-11-2006, 03:13 AM
...That being said when I read your stuff it's obvious to me that your really just stating a point of view that at it's core is Anti George Bush. You dislike/hate the guy and that's fine, but realize this -....She does dislike Bush intensely but having posted with her for over 10 years I can tell you these views have nothing to do with Bush it is the way she is. She has many very unique perspectives and her positions are often extremely well thought out and often extremely irritating. Trust that she had many position stated during the Clinton years that would have left you equally puzzled and annoyed.

ChiefaRoo
06-11-2006, 03:13 AM
90% used to vote for Saddam does that mean Saddam was accepted and the legitimate leader of a legitimate government?

Any chance they were afraid of their occupiers and voted for that reason. Nah we are just the nice guys that invaded their country, killed thousand so their civilians while bombing their infrastructure back to the middle ages. No reason for them to be afraid of us.ROFL

Actually it was said that 99% plus voted for Saddam. Surely your not comparing the USA sponsored, UN and Jimmy Carter sanctioned, free elections held in Iraq with the puppet show that Saddam put on? If you are then your well, delusional.

J Diddy
06-11-2006, 03:15 AM
You know MMI, I will stand next to you and will defend your right to state your opinion about any and all things political eventhough I couldn't disagree with you more. It's your right as an American. It's a right that has taken a long time for both men and then later women to have gotten in this world and I believe it is the right of every human being regardless of their cuture, ethnicity or location on the globe. That being said when I read your stuff it's obvious to me that your really just stating a point of view that at it's core is Anti George Bush. You dislike/hate the guy and that's fine, but realize this - Bush is going to be President for two more years and he's not going anywhere unless god forbid something physical were to happen to him. I would suggest that you put the 2000 and 2004 elections behind you, change your avatar and breath a deep breath of satisfaction knowing W will NEVER run for President again and your candidate may win next time (what a well founded country we have, wouldn't you agree?) If you'll do this I think you'll be able to more easily debate your fellow more conservative Chiefs fans about these other items that are before our nation without having to jump through so many silly mental gymnastics just to tie it all back to George Bush, Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld and their alternately ultra smart and then stupid deeds. You see at the end of the day I believe these three men (who I consider to be great men) are doing their very best in going nose to nose and knee to knee with men and nations that would like to do us serious harm if they had their way. I believe the reason they do these things is not to enrich themselves (they could easily of done that in the private sector), or to help their "oil" buddies or because they have black hearts. I believe they do what they do because they love their country and daily they receive threat information from other parts of the govt. and from other intelligence entities that would keep many of us awake at night worrying about our safety. I'm glad they're there, I respect their resolve and their strength and I want them to continue to hammer any man or nation that plans to damage or destroy our people and our way of life. Finally at the end of two years after they've done all they can, I want to them to then quietly leave office with no gunshots, arguements, bitter comments or threats of violence so we can as a people then go about the business of choosing new leaders for our country. Like I said maybe next time your candidate with a big fat 'D' next to their party affiliation will sit in the big chair. God help us if that happens while were still at war.


You had me until the last sentence.

I was rooting you on then you pissed in my cheerios.

Logical
06-11-2006, 03:16 AM
I could write pages and pages on your comment. Suffice it to say your premise is flat wrong. You can't even compare the two eras much less the motivations, government structure and the reality the two nations exist/existed in these eras.People resisting an occupying force goes back to the days before ancient Rome the principle is always the same.

ChiefaRoo
06-11-2006, 03:24 AM
You had me until the last sentence.

I was rooting you on then you pissed in my cheerios.


Hey it's my right to want a conservative in power. I'm not taking a shot. I believe the left has no idea how to beat terrorism.

Sorry 'bout your cheerios. I'm off to bed ;)

Logical
06-11-2006, 03:27 AM
God help us if that happens while were still at war.

Because the Lord knows that Roosevelt and Truman had no idea how to lead a war effort.

ChiefaRoo
06-11-2006, 03:33 AM
Because the Lord knows that Roosevelt and Truman had no idea how to lead a war effort.

Both of those men knew that you had to stand up to aggressors and not appease them. They understood that you had to defeat evil and not appease it. There is NO ONE who is popular in the Dem. party knows how to fight terror. Unfortunately. Hell Howard Dean said we can't win in Iraq.

memyselfI
06-11-2006, 08:27 AM
God help us if that happens while were still at war. That's my opinion. ;)


Thank you for your thoughts. Paragraphs would be appreciated as my little brain can't handle all those thoughts at one time without a break... ;)

That being said, I think you misunderstood my statement. I don't know how much you know about the I/P conflict but I certainly was not trying to offer Hamas any type of glory or kudos for their resistance to the PLO by pointing out they were an insurgency but by the definition of the word, they were.

Hamas was 'an organized rebellion aimed at overthrowing a constituted government through the use of subversion and armed conflict.'* Their efforts were targeted at the PLO who was the governing party within the P territories.

My point to Mr. Kotter was that he used a incorrect example in his attempt to define insurgency. Correction, his IDEA of insurgency. My point was that Hamas did, as an organized rebellion (insurgency) become a popular movement and did gain support and now is part of the official government within the P territories...and that is not a good thing, IMO.

*see Dictionary.com definition

Mr. Kotter's quote:
No. Wrong.

An insurgency is a revolt against a government. Period.

A legitimate insurgency has popular support; an illegitimate insurgency does NOT have popular support. Either may engage in terrorists actions.

stevieray
06-11-2006, 09:51 AM
She does dislike Bush intensely but having posted with her for over 10 years I can tell you these views have nothing to do with Bush it is the way she is. She has many very unique perspectives and her positions are often extremely well thought out and often extremely irritating. Trust that she had many position stated during the Clinton years that would have left you equally puzzled and annoyed.


Camelot! CAMELOT!

Logical
06-11-2006, 10:03 AM
Camelot! CAMELOT!What has John and Jaqueline Kennedy got to do with it?

stevieray
06-11-2006, 10:05 AM
What has John and Jaqueline Kennedy got to do with it?

protect guinevere at all costs!

patteeu
06-11-2006, 10:20 AM
You had me until the last sentence.

I was rooting you on then you pissed in my cheerios.

LOL, those are the best kinds of posts.

banyon
06-11-2006, 10:54 AM
That indeed is strange, 4 neg reps in two minutes. I cannot give one person more than two reps on two different posts before I am required to give rep to a couple of other people.


Eh. He just had to pos rep two other people in between each neg rep. If you're inclined to handle criticism like a 6 year old girl like bunnytdr, then it's no problem.

banyon
06-11-2006, 11:17 AM
Both of those men knew that you had to stand up to aggressors and not appease them. They understood that you had to defeat evil and not appease it. There is NO ONE who is popular in the Dem. party knows how to fight terror. Unfortunately. Hell Howard Dean said we can't win in Iraq.

FDR stayed out of the War Until Pearl Harbor...

primarily to appease the isolationist Republican Senators...

This "intervening wherever evil appears Superman rhetoric is basically a new invention over the last 6 years to cover their political a**"

Bush actually campaigned opposite of what he has done in this respect (of course 9-11 certainly changed that a bit)

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/vDh3WZ-R5Hg"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/vDh3WZ-R5Hg" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

Ari Chi3fs
06-11-2006, 11:25 AM
Is it bad that I had no idea who this guy was?

penchief
06-11-2006, 01:14 PM
FDR stayed out of the War Until Pearl Harbor...

primarily to appease the isolationist Republican Senators...

This "intervening wherever evil appears Superman rhetoric is basically a new invention over the last 6 years to cover their political a**"

Bush actually campaigned opposite of what he has done in this respect (of course 9-11 certainly changed that a bit)

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/vDh3WZ-R5Hg"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/vDh3WZ-R5Hg" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

Are you talking about "nation-building?"

If you are, that is certainly one of the most magnificent covert tranformation's any political ideology has ever made.

Republicans and conservatives went from "nation-building" being one of their ultimate sins to their ultimate justification.

Then they use the ends of that justification to justify betraying one of their other ultimate sins; fiscal irresponsibility. Even though this administration's free-spending corporate welfare ways have nothing to do with the war, national defense will always play well when searching for justification.

ChiefaRoo
06-11-2006, 02:21 PM
FDR stayed out of the War Until Pearl Harbor...

primarily to appease the isolationist Republican Senators...

This "intervening wherever evil appears Superman rhetoric is basically a new invention over the last 6 years to cover their political a**"

Bush actually campaigned opposite of what he has done in this respect (of course 9-11 certainly changed that a bit)

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/vDh3WZ-R5Hg"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/vDh3WZ-R5Hg" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>


That's pretty much all true. However, remember that FDR signed the lend lease act to give thee Brits war material and ships before Pearl Harbor, he greatly increased the military budget prior to PR and he banned the selling of scrap steel to the Japanese prior to PR.

Once the Japanese attacked us he was committed to total victory and that kind of strength and fortitude is almost completely missing in the Dem. party right now. In fact it's so bad that the Dems have taken a pretty solid guy in Joe Lieberman and have marginalized him since the elections.

I wish the USA could be an isolationist state but in the modern world it would be a recipe for disaster.

banyon
06-11-2006, 02:27 PM
Once the Japanese attacked us he was committed to total victory...

There's your key right there.

If Iraq had attacked us, 90% of people would support it, like they did Afghanistan.

StcChief
06-11-2006, 02:40 PM
There's your key right there.

If Iraq had attacked us, 90% of people would support it, like they did Afghanistan.Indirectly they did.....though 9/11 wasn't officially
found to be Iraq/Saddam involved

The $25K/ per human bomber for whatever event. that Sadam paid to their families. Put Iraq on the U.S.A. complete S-List.

Marines in Lebanon etc.

Adept Havelock
06-11-2006, 02:57 PM
Indirectly they did.....though 9/11 wasn't officially
found to be Iraq/Saddam involved.You wouldn't know that from the administration or it's mouthpieces over at Faux News...
The $25K/ per human bomber for whatever event. that Sadam paid to their families. Put Iraq on the U.S.A. complete S-List.Last time I checked, they were attacking Israel. Not the United States. BTW- Was Saddam paying those bounties when we were providing him with weaponry, intelligence, and chemical weapons in the 1980's?
Marines in Lebanon etc.Are you referring to the Marines that were stuck out at the Beruit airport with horrific ROE's by the Reagan administration, who then cut and ran like a little bi**h after they were attacked and 200+ were killed? :hmmm:

patteeu
06-11-2006, 04:39 PM
You wouldn't know that from the administration or it's mouthpieces over at Faux News.

Please. Let's not continue to perpetuate that myth.

patteeu
06-11-2006, 04:43 PM
BTW- Was Saddam paying those bounties when we were providing him with weaponry, intelligence, and chemical weapons in the 1980's?

No, I don't believe he did.

Are you referring to the Marines that were stuck out at the Beruit airport with horrific ROE's by the Reagan administration, who then cut and ran like a little bi**h after they were attacked and 200+ were killed? :hmmm:

It was Iran and their Hezbollah proxies who blew up the barracks, not Iraq. You'd think we'd learn our lesson after cutting-and-running like that wouldn't you?

Logical
06-11-2006, 05:21 PM
There's your key right there.

If Iraq had attacked us, 90% of people would support it, like they did Afghanistan.Exactly and frankly had we just left Iraq only providing aid after we captured Saddam Bush would still have at minimum over 50% approval ratings probably more like 60 or 70%.

StcChief
06-11-2006, 07:29 PM
You wouldn't know that from the administration or it's mouthpieces over at Faux News...Last time I checked, they were attacking Israel. Not the United States. BTW- Was Saddam paying those bounties when we were providing him with weaponry, intelligence, and chemical weapons in the 1980's?Are you referring to the Marines that were stuck out at the Beruit airport with horrific ROE's by the Reagan administration, who then cut and ran like a little bi**h after they were attacked and 200+ were killed? :hmmm:

Saddam was involved passively or actively in terror against USA, Isreal,
and anyone else he didn't like....

So as an enemy and problem for all he needed to go....Would have been
nice if the internals in Iraq could have killed him (they tried), but we had to complete the job.

Don't care what you think, the world is a better place with out him harbouring terrorist or funding them with old-for-food money that he didn't deliver to his starving people.

The Pedestrian
06-12-2006, 04:33 PM
Damn, they just mentioned that Zarquawi had lived 52 minutes after the airstrike. A forensic pathologist they were interviewing said that it's sometimes possible to survive being damaged by two 500 lbs bombs that hit the same house you're inside, but damn! :eek:

I guess this means that LOST fans can have a little hope for Locke being found alive next season....

chagrin
06-12-2006, 04:56 PM
Damn, they just mentioned that Zarquawi had lived 52 minutes after the airstrike. A forensic pathologist they were interviewing said that it's sometimes possible to survive being damaged by two 500 lbs bombs that hit the same house you're inside, but damn! :eek:

I guess this means that LOST fans can have a little hope for Locke being found alive next season....


Hey dude, where have you been?

BIG_DADDY
06-12-2006, 04:58 PM
Good to see he had to live in pain for an hour before kicking it.

FAX
06-12-2006, 05:15 PM
Good to see he had to live in pain for an hour before kicking it.

Agreed, Mr. BIG_DADDY. Hopefully, they had time to get a bacon MRE down him before he passed.

FAX

banyon
06-12-2006, 06:00 PM
Damn, they just mentioned that Zarquawi had lived 52 minutes after the airstrike. A forensic pathologist they were interviewing said that it's sometimes possible to survive being damaged by two 500 lbs bombs that hit the same house you're inside, but damn! :eek:

I guess this means that LOST fans can have a little hope for Locke being found alive next season....

I haven't seen that episode yet! :cuss:

BIG_DADDY
06-12-2006, 06:33 PM
Agreed, Mr. BIG_DADDY. Hopefully, they had time to get a bacon MRE down him before he passed.

FAX

NICE!!!!!

Raiderhader
06-12-2006, 06:48 PM
There's your key right there.

If Iraq had attacked us, 90% of people would support it, like they did Afghanistan.


The nation of Afghanistan did not attack us.

StcChief
06-12-2006, 06:56 PM
isn't this ready for DC yet....

General Fernado Franco is still dead...

And so is this Islamofacist murdering thug.

banyon
06-12-2006, 06:59 PM
The nation of Afghanistan did not attack us.

True, but the people who did were headquartered there and they were being harbored by the government of Afghanistan.

penchief
06-12-2006, 08:57 PM
True, but the people who did were headquartered there and they were being harbored by the government of Afghanistan.

The invasion of Aghanistan was warranted for that reason alone. The invasion of Iraq was not warrented, IMO. The only reason we went into Iraq was becasue it was a preconceived neocon masterplan.

Adept Havelock
06-12-2006, 09:02 PM
The invasion of Aghanistan was warranted for that reason alone. The invasion of Iraq was not warrented, IMO. The only reason we went into Iraq was becasue it was a preconceived neocon masterplan.
Well, that and a personal grudge, which is historically a wonderful basis for policy.. :rolleyes:

"After all, this is the guy who tried to kill my dad."

Brock
06-12-2006, 09:06 PM
True, but the people who did were headquartered there and they were being harbored by the government of Afghanistan.

Where was Abu Nidal?

Adept Havelock
06-12-2006, 09:10 PM
Where was Abu Nidal?

Dead, as of 2002, from multiple gunshot wounds. There is a large body of opinion this was done on the orders of Saddam Hussien over a personal grudge. The Iraqi Govt. at the time claimed it was suicide.

Brock
06-12-2006, 09:14 PM
Dead, as of 2002, from multiple gunshot wounds. There is a large body of opinion this was done on the orders of Saddam Hussien over a personal grudge. The Iraqi Govt. at the time claimed it was suicide.

I personally think Saddam had other reasons for (finally) killing Nidal. In any case, he was living in a villa owned by the Iraqi secret service, and probably for a long time. This isn't harboring?

Adept Havelock
06-12-2006, 09:20 PM
I personally think Saddam had other reasons for (finally) killing Nidal. In any case, he was living in a villa owned by the Iraqi secret service, and probably for a long time. This isn't harboring?Yes. Then why didn't Reagan/Bush Sr. invade Libya in the 1980's and earl 1990's when Nidal had his HQ and training facilities South of Tripoli if harboring terrorists is all that is required to justify invasion? Especially as he had ties to the Marine Barracks bombing in Beruit in 1982?

Ironic, isn't it? Reagan/Bush support Saddam, who plagues Bush jr. Bush Jr. plays "all is forgiven" with Khadaffi, who plagued Reagan and Bush Sr. Funny place, this world. :shrug:

go bowe
06-12-2006, 09:30 PM
The nation of Afghanistan did not attack us.no they did not, you're absolutely right...

the government of afghanistan, the taliban, harbored osama...

it was close enough to an attack for me...

go bowe
06-12-2006, 09:38 PM
. . .Ironic, isn't it? Reagan/Bush support Saddam, who plagues Bush jr. Bush Jr. plays "all is forgiven" with Khadaffi, who plagued Reagan and Bush Sr. Funny place, this world. :shrug:yes, it is ironic...

but saddam didn't "plague" just bush jr., he was pretty much a pain in the ass to bush sr. too, what with kuwait and all...

ChiefaRoo
06-12-2006, 09:50 PM
The invasion of Aghanistan was warranted for that reason alone. The invasion of Iraq was not warrented, IMO. The only reason we went into Iraq was becasue it was a preconceived neocon masterplan.


Yes, yes, the incredibly stupid and perpetually bungling Bush administration executed their "preconceived neocon" plan to perfection.

Iowanian
06-12-2006, 09:55 PM
Its almost hard to smell Zarquawi's rotting corpse over the bullshit in the last half of this thread.

Raiderhader
06-12-2006, 10:04 PM
no they did not, you're absolutely right...

the government of afghanistan, the taliban, harbored osama...

it was close enough to an attack for me...


Ah, but we did not declare war on JUST Osama... we declared war on terrorism, and those countries that support and harbour terrorist. Iraq fit the mold just as Afghanastan did.