i haven't been able to get to sleep yet HH, so i came lingering around again. thanks for the laugh on this one helen ...so true
Anytime!
The Astoria??? Orgazmic!
Verona??? it's all surmountable
Dublin 23.08.06 "The beauty of Ireland, right there!"
Wembley? We all believe!
Copenhagen?? your light made us stars
Chicago 07? And love
What a different life
Had I not found this love with you
Is your area considered pretty conservative in general? For me it's not hard to figure why I see so many Kerry/Edwards stickers. Seattle is blue through and through.
I'm also curious if you know, how are the people you know who are disillusioned with Bush going to vote in the coming elections? Are they so fed up that they are changing parties?
They're probably going to vote based on the candidate. They won't change parties. As long as neither Jeb nor Cheney decide to run in 2008, they will still vote Republican. They're disappointed with Bush, not the GOP as a whole.
The only way they might vote Democratic in 2008 is if Senator Obama somehow decided to run.
"Of course it hurts. You're getting fucked by an elephant."
consider the human fecal matter we are dealing with in Iraq and that they would do the same to you if they had a chance. Regardless of any war, political action, or President
REGARDLESS OF ANY WAR, POLITICAL ACTION OR PRESIDENT
This war is already won. guess alot of people believe this. explains the 2004 election and the daily failure of American citizens to stand up against this slaughter in their name.
consider the human fecal matter we are dealing with in Iraq and that they would do the same to you if they had a chance. Regardless of any war, political action, or President
REGARDLESS OF ANY WAR, POLITICAL ACTION OR PRESIDENT
This war is already won. guess alot of people believe this. explains the 2004 election and the daily failure of American citizens to stand up against this slaughter in their name.
I will start with you Abuskedti....
If fanatical Muslims groups, peoples, religious leaders had nothing to deal with but an uninterested US, would they still desire to control the world or at least as much of it as possible via Islam? That is a serious question...no joke. Give me an example where they were promoting freedom or human rights somewhere in the world? I will give you ten examples where they are creating conflicts in the world. VIA TERRORISM!
Terrorism is not just a word that dings alarm bells in mind small conservative mind and causes me to vote w/o thought for Republicans. It is a fact of life in modern times.
HOB 10.05.2005, E Rutherford 06.03.2006, The Gorge 07.22.2006, Lolla 08.05.2007, West Palm 06.11.2008, Tampa 06.12.2008, Columbia 06.16.2008, EV Memphis 06.20.2009, New Orleans 05.01.2010, Kansas City 05.03.2010
I think it is both funny and telling that nobody has responded with a simple yes or no that the thread starter asked for.
Granted I haven't read the whole thread, but nobody in the first few pages could boil their answer down to yes, or no.
That's pretty revealing!
Good point, I was thinking the same thing. Hey, I realize it is complicated but anyone should be able to boil it down to yes or no. You can say you want the US to prevail, overcome, succeed and still want the Iraqis to have freedom and peace. Those two are not mutually exclusive.
If you want the US to loose, I think it is more likely to take away Iraqi freedom and peace. I say this with some reservations because obviously it is a cluster @#$# right now if you are an Iraqi wanting freedom. But yet, who is causing security problems in Iraq? Who's has the job of bringing security to Iraq? The terrorists?
HOB 10.05.2005, E Rutherford 06.03.2006, The Gorge 07.22.2006, Lolla 08.05.2007, West Palm 06.11.2008, Tampa 06.12.2008, Columbia 06.16.2008, EV Memphis 06.20.2009, New Orleans 05.01.2010, Kansas City 05.03.2010
Without a clear mission to win, lose is ill-defined.
Lose was defined in the original leading question as more US lives taken, more Iraqi lives surely lost as well.
I was taught there are no stupid questions, just stupid people who don't like the questions
HOB 10.05.2005, E Rutherford 06.03.2006, The Gorge 07.22.2006, Lolla 08.05.2007, West Palm 06.11.2008, Tampa 06.12.2008, Columbia 06.16.2008, EV Memphis 06.20.2009, New Orleans 05.01.2010, Kansas City 05.03.2010
oh i didn't dismiss it cause king george said it. i dismissed it cause it sounded fucking ridiculous. and more so coming out of his mouth. he totally dismissed the US's imperialist agenda. he made absolutely no correlation between terrorist attacks against the US and terrorists attacks the US has been a part of throughout history. maybe like a lot of americans he just doesn't know. state sanctioned terrorism is stll terrorism. the united states is not a peaceful nation.
I don't buy your analysis of state sponsored terrorism. If Iran funds terrorists, that is state sponsored terrorism. If the US goes to war for the removal of a Sadam, that is a military action. If the US tries to establish a free govt, that is nation building. When people try to equate the two I wonder if they understand how the world has defined terrorism vs a govt military. Historically there is a big difference. Just because the IRA has the word Army in it doesn't make it Irelands military.
By the way, this thread was not about GW, but about the US in Iraq. We will continue to go on after GW, he isn't the issue I am focused on. My country is bigger than just one President. If the libs want to assaninate him (figuratively or literally) for political purposes and are using Iraq as the lightening rod, and YOU hate us because of GW (as if he was the source of all policy for the past 50 years) that doesn't help me and my country in the future. It is a 'tear down' vs a 'correction' of my country. Hence the point of this thread.
then you have to find out. you have to know what your government has been doing in your name. you have to make your government accountable. we all do. democracy is about the people. what has your government done for you lately besides make you a terrorist target?
Okay, what else do I need to know about that you think I don't know?
It is obviously easier to be Ireland, which I think is a very cool country and is top of my list of European countries to visit. I just wonder how much of your peaceful lifestyle is directly attributable to the fact that there was this nation called the United States of America that happened to come on the scene during a time when freedom of the common person wasn't really respected or pursued. And who after all these years has tried pretty hard to keep the standard for the rest of the world. Yes, we have mistakes too. But, we are not inherently evil, there are many things we do every day to assist the world, but no one says thank you.
see here's the problem. the united states are so ingrained in the fabric of the world that the changes that occur if they decided to mind their own god damn business could surely be construed as negative. a country's foreign policy should not make the rest of the world beholden to it. a country's foreign policy should not be an economic policy in disguise. a foreign policy is a policy that should spell out how that country deals with the rest of the world. not how it can manipulate the rest of the world in order to be the dominant power. the united states has the power to do so much good in tandem with the rest of the world but they don't want to. they say they do, but their actions say otherwise. they see as a threat any country that tries to adopt a policy contrary to capitalism. they equate democracy with the free market and are so blinded that they either don't see the damage they are doing or they just don't give a shit. that is my problem with the united states.
I agree with that statement in the spirit of how things should be. But we do alot with the rest of the world, you lead others to believe we do nothing with the rest of the world, that part I take issue with.
the business of war
say that three times. does it sound as ridiculous to you as it does to me?
if the united states got out of the 'business of war', their economy would almost likely collapse. but on the plus side we could perhaps move closer to real peace and find some real alternatives for the problems that plague our world.
Our economy would collapse if we had no military at all, no defense contractors, etc is true. Not because of what you say though. We would be taken over by some other nation in the past 200 years, and would no longer exist.
You understimate our economy. We aren't all walking around making money off of the military here. Most people don't have any affiliation with any defense companies or the military, that is a fact.
Later Cate
HOB 10.05.2005, E Rutherford 06.03.2006, The Gorge 07.22.2006, Lolla 08.05.2007, West Palm 06.11.2008, Tampa 06.12.2008, Columbia 06.16.2008, EV Memphis 06.20.2009, New Orleans 05.01.2010, Kansas City 05.03.2010
If fanatical Muslims groups, peoples, religious leaders had nothing to deal with but an uninterested US, would they still desire to control the world or at least as much of it as possible via Islam? That is a serious question...no joke. Give me an example where they were promoting freedom or human rights somewhere in the world? I will give you ten examples where they are creating conflicts in the world. VIA TERRORISM!
Terrorism is not just a word that dings alarm bells in mind small conservative mind and causes me to vote w/o thought for Republicans. It is a fact of life in modern times.
You use the word they loosly. So you really believe "they" are hungry to kill and the violence in Iraq is enough to satisfy them?
How many examples can you come up with of the US creating conflicts in the world.. or France, England or Italy?
Don't we desire to control the world?
I'm sorry but I totally disagree. The only difference between terrorist and the United States is the color of the combatants and the weapons each uses.
I don't think there has been one American killed by a "terrorist" in the United States since 9-11. Nobody believes that is because of beefed up security. They do have guns and knives - and there surely are muslims in America sympathetic to Al Qaeda... If their desire was to kill us - they would do it. Clearly it is not.
You use the word they loosly. So you really believe "they" are hungry to kill and the violence in Iraq is enough to satisfy them?
How many examples can you come up with of the US creating conflicts in the world.. or France, England or Italy?
Don't we desire to control the world?
I'm sorry but I totally disagree. The only difference between terrorist and the United States is the color of the combatants and the weapons each uses.
I don't think there has been one American killed by a "terrorist" in the United States since 9-11. Nobody believes that is because of beefed up security. They do have guns and knives - and there surely are muslims in America sympathetic to Al Qaeda... If their desire was to kill us - they would do it. Clearly it is not.
Sorry, not buying it. We aren't the same. We don't behead, have suicide bombers that target civilians, kill Iraqis that are trying to go forward (not backwards like the terrorists), kidnap, etc.
As for domestic terrorists, well if you honestly think that the only reason they have not attacked again is because they choose not too, that is also incorrect. I would say two things: 1-intellegence and finance have had an impact 2-they will do it again and at their chosing
They tend to try and outdo themselves, so I expect the next big attempt to be on a larger scale than the WTC. So, yeah they aren't bombing our malls and concerts (god forbid), but if they decide to use that as a tactic you won't be able to say no one else has been killed. And if they go BIG, same result.
I have seen for thirty years what a terrorist act is, you don't need to try and undefine it for me. What Al-queda does in Iraq is the same, no freedom fighters here, no minutemen. It (terrorism) is easy to spot, clear what the motives are, has nothing to do with freedom, and has nothing to do with our military. Nope.
HOB 10.05.2005, E Rutherford 06.03.2006, The Gorge 07.22.2006, Lolla 08.05.2007, West Palm 06.11.2008, Tampa 06.12.2008, Columbia 06.16.2008, EV Memphis 06.20.2009, New Orleans 05.01.2010, Kansas City 05.03.2010
Sorry, not buying it. We aren't the same. We don't behead, have suicide bombers that target civilians, kill Iraqis that are trying to go forward (not backwards like the terrorists), kidnap, etc.
As for domestic terrorists, well if you honestly think that the only reason they have not attacked again is because they choose not too, that is also incorrect. I would say two things: 1-intellegence and finance have had an impact 2-they will do it again and at their chosing
They tend to try and outdo themselves, so I expect the next big attempt to be on a larger scale than the WTC. So, yeah they aren't bombing our malls and concerts (god forbid), but if they decide to use that as a tactic you won't be able to say no one else has been killed. And if they go BIG, same result.
I have seen for thirty years what a terrorist act is, you don't need to try and undefine it for me. What Al-queda does in Iraq is the same, no freedom fighters here, no minutemen. It (terrorism) is easy to spot, clear what the motives are, has nothing to do with freedom, and has nothing to do with our military. Nope.
I won't address these issues further.. they've been beaten to death...
However there is no amount of security or lack of funds to stop a terrorist from stabbing an innocent with a knife. If there are 50 terrorists in the US - surely they can all afford knives, and all have the capacity to find an innocent in a secluded area, stab them and leave a note. They can do that often.. but they don't and that is by choice alone.
I'm sure you believe you've thought this through, and surly there are millions that will reinforce your belief... but it is flat wrong.
I won't address these issues further.. they've been beaten to death...
However there is no amount of security or lack of funds to stop a terrorist from stabbing an innocent with a knife. If there are 50 terrorists in the US - surely they can all afford knives, and all have the capacity to find an innocent in a secluded area, stab them and leave a note. They can do that often.. but they don't and that is by choice alone.
I'm sure you believe you've thought this through, and surly there are millions that will reinforce your belief... but it is flat wrong.
lol at his belief being wrong because YOU think its wrong.
Sorry, not buying it. We aren't the same. We don't behead, have suicide bombers that target civilians, kill Iraqis that are trying to go forward (not backwards like the terrorists), kidnap, etc.
You have some valid points, but will you also condemn the use of depleted uranium?
I won't address these issues further.. they've been beaten to death...
However there is no amount of security or lack of funds to stop a terrorist from stabbing an innocent with a knife. If there are 50 terrorists in the US - surely they can all afford knives, and all have the capacity to find an innocent in a secluded area, stab them and leave a note. They can do that often.. but they don't and that is by choice alone.
I'm sure you believe you've thought this through, and surly there are millions that will reinforce your belief... but it is flat wrong.
I guess beating this subject to death is what happens when you have different opinions. I don't wholeheartedly dismiss your opions - just see them as not correctly balanced with facts from each side. If you or anyone else wants to see in black and white, ie the US is bad, then so be it. I am just providing my own brand of resistence to the pervasive left.
HOB 10.05.2005, E Rutherford 06.03.2006, The Gorge 07.22.2006, Lolla 08.05.2007, West Palm 06.11.2008, Tampa 06.12.2008, Columbia 06.16.2008, EV Memphis 06.20.2009, New Orleans 05.01.2010, Kansas City 05.03.2010
Can't say I feel particularly for the soldiers on the other hand; there's no draft, they have a bloody choice.
That is an ignorant statement. They have a choice to join the armed services, they do NOT choose where they are deployed. There are plenty of soldiers who do not agree with this war. As I've said before, hate the war, not the soldier.
I guess beating this subject to death is what happens when you have different opinions. I don't wholeheartedly dismiss your opions - just see them as not correctly balanced with facts from each side. If you or anyone else wants to see in black and white, ie the US is bad, then so be it. I am just providing my own brand of resistence to the pervasive left.
I am not left.. I am apolitical. This is what I consider an extremely important issue, and my opinion only incidentlally coincides with the left. The politicalicizing of this issue is largely the reason we are paralized and continue to act badly. In addition, I'd like to think the US is not bad. But I always figured human lives took president over politics and economics. I have learned that is not only false in our government, it is not even a priority of the will of the people.
I feared we'd act this way beginning precicely on 9-11. On the day we invaded Iraq, I was suprized. On the day we re-elected the man responsible, my faith was distroyed.
my thoughts are growing into what many prematurely judged it to be long ago. We are bad. in addition, apparantly not interested in learning about ourselves or about what we are doing.
Good point, I was thinking the same thing. Hey, I realize it is complicated but anyone should be able to boil it down to yes or no. You can say you want the US to prevail, overcome, succeed and still want the Iraqis to have freedom and peace. Those two are not mutually exclusive.
If you want the US to loose, I think it is more likely to take away Iraqi freedom and peace. I say this with some reservations because obviously it is a cluster @#$# right now if you are an Iraqi wanting freedom. But yet, who is causing security problems in Iraq? Who's has the job of bringing security to Iraq? The terrorists?
Well if the US winning is prevailing, overcoming and succeeding at what they're doing... then yes, my straight answer would be 'I would prefer the US to lose the war'. I would like the Iraqis to have their OWN freedom - not one that's economically linked to YOUR country cos that's not real freedom.
The Astoria??? Orgazmic!
Verona??? it's all surmountable
Dublin 23.08.06 "The beauty of Ireland, right there!"
Wembley? We all believe!
Copenhagen?? your light made us stars
Chicago 07? And love
What a different life
Had I not found this love with you
That is an ignorant statement. They have a choice to join the armed services, they do NOT choose where they are deployed. There are plenty of soldiers who do not agree with this war. As I've said before, hate the war, not the soldier.
And as I'VE said before... nobody can be forced to fight a war. They can be punished for not doing so but the nazis were 'just following orders', weren't they?
I don't fall for that shite! There would be no war if there was nobody to fight it - FACT!
The Astoria??? Orgazmic!
Verona??? it's all surmountable
Dublin 23.08.06 "The beauty of Ireland, right there!"
Wembley? We all believe!
Copenhagen?? your light made us stars
Chicago 07? And love
What a different life
Had I not found this love with you
I don't buy your analysis of state sponsored terrorism. If Iran funds terrorists, that is state sponsored terrorism. If the US goes to war for the removal of a Sadam, that is a military action. If the US tries to establish a free govt, that is nation building. When people try to equate the two I wonder if they understand how the world has defined terrorism vs a govt military. Historically there is a big difference. Just because the IRA has the word Army in it doesn't make it Irelands military.
who said anything about the invasion of iraq being state sanctioned terrorism? i am talking about points in history where the United States has sponsored known dictators. where they have helped overthrow democratically elected governments because they didn't like the politics of those elected. where they have given aid to countries knowing the abuses taking place and dismissing them.
Okay, what else do I need to know about that you think I don't know?
i don't know what it is you don't know. it is up to you to decide what you need to know. but if you are going to argue from a balanced position you at least have to know what is going on and has gone on under the guise of democracy and freedom.
You understimate our economy. We aren't all walking around making money off of the military here. Most people don't have any affiliation with any defense companies or the military, that is a fact.
No. i do not underestimate the US economy.
i didn't say that everyday americans are walking around making money off the military.
know anyone who works for General Electric? NBC? Boeing? Bechtel? Westinghouse? Honeywell?
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Well if the US winning is prevailing, overcoming and succeeding at what they're doing... then yes, my straight answer would be 'I would prefer the US to lose the war'. I would like the Iraqis to have their OWN freedom - not one that's economically linked to YOUR country cos that's not real freedom.
So, we don't want the US to win because the Iraqis would not be able to take credit? I understand that it would always be better for a nation to determine their freedom, but we helped France didn't we? We helped Britian? Was that not valuable to them as a nation?
So, I want to know what the world gains if we fail in Iraq. I just don't see an upside except to fanatical Islam.
HOB 10.05.2005, E Rutherford 06.03.2006, The Gorge 07.22.2006, Lolla 08.05.2007, West Palm 06.11.2008, Tampa 06.12.2008, Columbia 06.16.2008, EV Memphis 06.20.2009, New Orleans 05.01.2010, Kansas City 05.03.2010
So, we don't want the US to win because the Iraqis would not be able to take credit? I understand that it would always be better for a nation to determine their freedom, but we helped France didn't we? We helped Britian? Was that not valuable to them as a nation?
i believe it is up to the iraqis to take control of their own country.
you can see the difference between helping france and britain and the nation building exercise in iraq i hope.
So, I want to know what the world gains if we fail in Iraq. I just don't see an upside except to fanatical Islam.
and if Iraq chooses to become an islamic republic, isn't that their right to self determination?
you seem to be under the false impression that if the US succeeds in their democratic venture that it will somehow last more than 15 minutes.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
who said anything about the invasion of iraq being state sanctioned terrorism? i am talking about points in history where the United States has sponsored known dictators. where they have helped overthrow democratically elected governments because they didn't like the politics of those elected. where they have given aid to countries knowing the abuses taking place and dismissing them.
Well, maybe you didn't say that but I know I have encountered that opinion here. I am just as clear as can be that I don't want my country doing anything underhanded or illegal in the name of 'national interest', so don't think I believe we are lilly white or incapable of evil.
But, it is a weird world. There are countries out there committing genocide and you look at them and they have nothing to fight for. No resources, no valuable land, nothing. And yet they kill and fight for generations. I see people who hate so much they are willing to blow themselves up along with 20 other persons, kids even. WTF? Makes no damn sense to me why so many people are so twisted. Then I see countries who live in relative peace since WWII, and they aren't any more entitled to it than anyone else. They aren't nessessarily better or smarter, just in a position to live this way. I know the world lived under 'fear' of the Soviets for decades, not fear of the US. Hell, Cuba is just a few miles from our coast and have they had no real reason to be fearful for their existence in the past 40 years, despite the bad things Castro did to come into power.
So anyway, I would prefer to clean up my country w/o destroying its fiber, which is still here. The divisiveness I see often in the more radical left leaning world is based on anger, hatred, and a desire to revisit the Viet Nam years because it was cool to hate your country. Whatever. I am rambling I really don't want to politicize the conversations, so if Americans agree to be good, then we will be able to be good in the rest of the world.
I think my point is that we are in a unique position in the world, we can't be Sweden. It is unlikely that we can withdraw from the position we have, we can only handle it wisely. But don't expect us or even desire that we get out of this role we are in. Sweden can be Sweden partially because we are who we are in the world. If we all withdrew, it wouldn't be long before we would have to face some other enemy. Someone always wants to take over the world. G-R-E-E-D.
HOB 10.05.2005, E Rutherford 06.03.2006, The Gorge 07.22.2006, Lolla 08.05.2007, West Palm 06.11.2008, Tampa 06.12.2008, Columbia 06.16.2008, EV Memphis 06.20.2009, New Orleans 05.01.2010, Kansas City 05.03.2010
i believe it is up to the iraqis to take control of their own country.
you can see the difference between helping france and britain and the nation building exercise in iraq i hope.
I don't see a difference in a comparison if Iraqis want a democracy, and we assist them in that goal.
and if Iraq chooses to become an islamic republic, isn't that their right to self determination?
you seem to be under the false impression that if the US succeeds in their democratic venture that it will somehow last more than 15 minutes.
If Iraq chooses the Iran route, it won't be by a free vote. Maybe corruption in the vote, or threats of death to control the people. I am not saying they won't have religious elements in their govt, but a truly Islamic Republic will take away freedoms. Only foolish radical persons want to live under that type of system, so they can dominate other persons. Which is supposedly exactly what liberals should be against, but in this case, it is okay for Iraqis to not have freedoms because it makes GW look bad.
If we were all consistent, we would want freedom for all.
HOB 10.05.2005, E Rutherford 06.03.2006, The Gorge 07.22.2006, Lolla 08.05.2007, West Palm 06.11.2008, Tampa 06.12.2008, Columbia 06.16.2008, EV Memphis 06.20.2009, New Orleans 05.01.2010, Kansas City 05.03.2010
So, we don't want the US to win because the Iraqis would not be able to take credit? I understand that it would always be better for a nation to determine their freedom, but we helped France didn't we? We helped Britian? Was that not valuable to them as a nation?
So, I want to know what the world gains if we fail in Iraq. I just don't see an upside except to fanatical Islam.
No, I'm not talking about them taking credit - but Americans can't define 'freedom' for an Iraqi - how's that so hard to understand.
You may have helped France and Britain and they've never heard the bloody end of it, have they... but ya never helped us and we're doing alright for ourselves. Managed to kick them out with none of your help so Europe would have been fine without yas.
The Astoria??? Orgazmic!
Verona??? it's all surmountable
Dublin 23.08.06 "The beauty of Ireland, right there!"
Wembley? We all believe!
Copenhagen?? your light made us stars
Chicago 07? And love
What a different life
Had I not found this love with you
interesting choice of words. Support it or not......what do you consider a victory. "stopping terrorism".....sorry, not going to happen. Wish it could, but it cant.
The U.S government always needs to convince the American people that they have an enemy. If it's not 'communism', then it's 'drugs' - remember Noriega? - and if it's not drugs, then it's 'terrorism'. It's all bollocks! The Bush administration are the the most dangerous terrorists in the world right now. The illegal occupation of Iraq and the 100% support for the terrorism being committed by israel are just two examples of this. There are many more. Has anyone heard of the Cuban five?
That's another example. The Bush administration were told by top advisors in the U.S that an invasion of Iraq would increase the risk of terrorism in the world. Did this stop them invading? No. Therefore it seems obvious that they don't care about the safety of the American public, but only there own power interests.
And no, I don't care if the U.S loses the illegal war of occupation in Iraq. Just as I wouldn't have shed any tears for the Nazis when they were driven out of the Soviet Union and Europe, and why I wouldn't feel sorry for the Israelis if they were forced to withdraw from the illegally occupied terroritries in the West bank and Gaza.
I am sorry, but no way can you honestly say the US are terrorists in this situation. Sorry. This is Michael Moore stuff, which is just too radical to be good policy. Insurgents = freedom fighters, what? Who lives in freedom under the insurgents rule. ie Taliban, Saudi Arabia. I guess radical Islam is so free that if you write a book that offends you, they lop off your head or stab you will riding your bike in Denmark.
Michael Moore too radical? Really? According to who? Who decides where the bounds of acceptable thought and opinion lie? I personally don't believe Michael Moore is radical at all. As far as im concerned he merely states the obvious whilst injecting some humour into the proceedings, showing those in power as they really are.
Secondly, how does radical Islam differ from radical fundamentalist Christianity in your scheme of things? I'd be interested to know.
Michael Moore too radical? Really? According to who? Who decides where the bounds of acceptable thought and opinion lie? I personally don't believe Michael Moore is radical at all. As far as im concerned he merely states the obvious whilst injecting some humour into the proceedings, showing those in power as they really are.
Secondly, how does radical Islam differ from radical fundamentalist Christianity in your scheme of things? I'd be interested to know.
Maybe I have a short memory, but please refresh me to the last time a group of Christian zealots hijacked four planes and flew them into a few of the most iconic buildings in the world.
And oh yeah, I also don't recall a group of radical Christians mobilzing, uniting and arming themselves into worldwide organizations whose mission it is to kill all who oppose their call to go back to the days before Martin Luther and embrace the Inquisition.
Sorry for the sarcasm, but I'm just saying that of course their are militant, radical Christians. But, they haven't manifested themselves like radical Islamists have.
Comments
Verona??? it's all surmountable
Dublin 23.08.06 "The beauty of Ireland, right there!"
Wembley? We all believe!
Copenhagen?? your light made us stars
Chicago 07? And love
What a different life
Had I not found this love with you
Granted I haven't read the whole thread, but nobody in the first few pages could boil their answer down to yes, or no.
That's pretty revealing!
They're probably going to vote based on the candidate. They won't change parties. As long as neither Jeb nor Cheney decide to run in 2008, they will still vote Republican. They're disappointed with Bush, not the GOP as a whole.
The only way they might vote Democratic in 2008 is if Senator Obama somehow decided to run.
revealing of the lousy question
Without a clear mission to win, lose is ill-defined.
Lose was defined in the original leading question as more US lives taken, more Iraqi lives surely lost as well.
i said i didn't care if the US lost. doesn't that count?
but if you want a more definitive answer, then i say yes.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
REGARDLESS OF ANY WAR, POLITICAL ACTION OR PRESIDENT
This war is already won. guess alot of people believe this. explains the 2004 election and the daily failure of American citizens to stand up against this slaughter in their name.
I will start with you Abuskedti....
If fanatical Muslims groups, peoples, religious leaders had nothing to deal with but an uninterested US, would they still desire to control the world or at least as much of it as possible via Islam? That is a serious question...no joke. Give me an example where they were promoting freedom or human rights somewhere in the world? I will give you ten examples where they are creating conflicts in the world. VIA TERRORISM!
Terrorism is not just a word that dings alarm bells in mind small conservative mind and causes me to vote w/o thought for Republicans. It is a fact of life in modern times.
Good point, I was thinking the same thing. Hey, I realize it is complicated but anyone should be able to boil it down to yes or no. You can say you want the US to prevail, overcome, succeed and still want the Iraqis to have freedom and peace. Those two are not mutually exclusive.
If you want the US to loose, I think it is more likely to take away Iraqi freedom and peace. I say this with some reservations because obviously it is a cluster @#$# right now if you are an Iraqi wanting freedom. But yet, who is causing security problems in Iraq? Who's has the job of bringing security to Iraq? The terrorists?
I was taught there are no stupid questions, just stupid people who don't like the questions
I don't buy your analysis of state sponsored terrorism. If Iran funds terrorists, that is state sponsored terrorism. If the US goes to war for the removal of a Sadam, that is a military action. If the US tries to establish a free govt, that is nation building. When people try to equate the two I wonder if they understand how the world has defined terrorism vs a govt military. Historically there is a big difference. Just because the IRA has the word Army in it doesn't make it Irelands military.
By the way, this thread was not about GW, but about the US in Iraq. We will continue to go on after GW, he isn't the issue I am focused on. My country is bigger than just one President. If the libs want to assaninate him (figuratively or literally) for political purposes and are using Iraq as the lightening rod, and YOU hate us because of GW (as if he was the source of all policy for the past 50 years) that doesn't help me and my country in the future. It is a 'tear down' vs a 'correction' of my country. Hence the point of this thread.
Okay, what else do I need to know about that you think I don't know?
It is obviously easier to be Ireland, which I think is a very cool country and is top of my list of European countries to visit. I just wonder how much of your peaceful lifestyle is directly attributable to the fact that there was this nation called the United States of America that happened to come on the scene during a time when freedom of the common person wasn't really respected or pursued. And who after all these years has tried pretty hard to keep the standard for the rest of the world. Yes, we have mistakes too. But, we are not inherently evil, there are many things we do every day to assist the world, but no one says thank you.
I agree with that statement in the spirit of how things should be. But we do alot with the rest of the world, you lead others to believe we do nothing with the rest of the world, that part I take issue with.
Our economy would collapse if we had no military at all, no defense contractors, etc is true. Not because of what you say though. We would be taken over by some other nation in the past 200 years, and would no longer exist.
You understimate our economy. We aren't all walking around making money off of the military here. Most people don't have any affiliation with any defense companies or the military, that is a fact.
Later Cate
You use the word they loosly. So you really believe "they" are hungry to kill and the violence in Iraq is enough to satisfy them?
How many examples can you come up with of the US creating conflicts in the world.. or France, England or Italy?
Don't we desire to control the world?
I'm sorry but I totally disagree. The only difference between terrorist and the United States is the color of the combatants and the weapons each uses.
I don't think there has been one American killed by a "terrorist" in the United States since 9-11. Nobody believes that is because of beefed up security. They do have guns and knives - and there surely are muslims in America sympathetic to Al Qaeda... If their desire was to kill us - they would do it. Clearly it is not.
Sorry, not buying it. We aren't the same. We don't behead, have suicide bombers that target civilians, kill Iraqis that are trying to go forward (not backwards like the terrorists), kidnap, etc.
As for domestic terrorists, well if you honestly think that the only reason they have not attacked again is because they choose not too, that is also incorrect. I would say two things: 1-intellegence and finance have had an impact 2-they will do it again and at their chosing
They tend to try and outdo themselves, so I expect the next big attempt to be on a larger scale than the WTC. So, yeah they aren't bombing our malls and concerts (god forbid), but if they decide to use that as a tactic you won't be able to say no one else has been killed. And if they go BIG, same result.
I have seen for thirty years what a terrorist act is, you don't need to try and undefine it for me. What Al-queda does in Iraq is the same, no freedom fighters here, no minutemen. It (terrorism) is easy to spot, clear what the motives are, has nothing to do with freedom, and has nothing to do with our military. Nope.
I won't address these issues further.. they've been beaten to death...
However there is no amount of security or lack of funds to stop a terrorist from stabbing an innocent with a knife. If there are 50 terrorists in the US - surely they can all afford knives, and all have the capacity to find an innocent in a secluded area, stab them and leave a note. They can do that often.. but they don't and that is by choice alone.
I'm sure you believe you've thought this through, and surly there are millions that will reinforce your belief... but it is flat wrong.
lol at his belief being wrong because YOU think its wrong.
You have some valid points, but will you also condemn the use of depleted uranium?
I guess beating this subject to death is what happens when you have different opinions. I don't wholeheartedly dismiss your opions - just see them as not correctly balanced with facts from each side. If you or anyone else wants to see in black and white, ie the US is bad, then so be it. I am just providing my own brand of resistence to the pervasive left.
That is an ignorant statement. They have a choice to join the armed services, they do NOT choose where they are deployed. There are plenty of soldiers who do not agree with this war. As I've said before, hate the war, not the soldier.
I am not left.. I am apolitical. This is what I consider an extremely important issue, and my opinion only incidentlally coincides with the left. The politicalicizing of this issue is largely the reason we are paralized and continue to act badly. In addition, I'd like to think the US is not bad. But I always figured human lives took president over politics and economics. I have learned that is not only false in our government, it is not even a priority of the will of the people.
I feared we'd act this way beginning precicely on 9-11. On the day we invaded Iraq, I was suprized. On the day we re-elected the man responsible, my faith was distroyed.
my thoughts are growing into what many prematurely judged it to be long ago. We are bad. in addition, apparantly not interested in learning about ourselves or about what we are doing.
Verona??? it's all surmountable
Dublin 23.08.06 "The beauty of Ireland, right there!"
Wembley? We all believe!
Copenhagen?? your light made us stars
Chicago 07? And love
What a different life
Had I not found this love with you
And as I'VE said before... nobody can be forced to fight a war. They can be punished for not doing so but the nazis were 'just following orders', weren't they?
I don't fall for that shite! There would be no war if there was nobody to fight it - FACT!
Verona??? it's all surmountable
Dublin 23.08.06 "The beauty of Ireland, right there!"
Wembley? We all believe!
Copenhagen?? your light made us stars
Chicago 07? And love
What a different life
Had I not found this love with you
who said anything about the invasion of iraq being state sanctioned terrorism? i am talking about points in history where the United States has sponsored known dictators. where they have helped overthrow democratically elected governments because they didn't like the politics of those elected. where they have given aid to countries knowing the abuses taking place and dismissing them.
i don't know what it is you don't know. it is up to you to decide what you need to know. but if you are going to argue from a balanced position you at least have to know what is going on and has gone on under the guise of democracy and freedom.
No. i do not underestimate the US economy.
i didn't say that everyday americans are walking around making money off the military.
know anyone who works for General Electric? NBC? Boeing? Bechtel? Westinghouse? Honeywell?
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
So, we don't want the US to win because the Iraqis would not be able to take credit? I understand that it would always be better for a nation to determine their freedom, but we helped France didn't we? We helped Britian? Was that not valuable to them as a nation?
So, I want to know what the world gains if we fail in Iraq. I just don't see an upside except to fanatical Islam.
i believe it is up to the iraqis to take control of their own country.
you can see the difference between helping france and britain and the nation building exercise in iraq i hope.
and if Iraq chooses to become an islamic republic, isn't that their right to self determination?
you seem to be under the false impression that if the US succeeds in their democratic venture that it will somehow last more than 15 minutes.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Well, maybe you didn't say that but I know I have encountered that opinion here. I am just as clear as can be that I don't want my country doing anything underhanded or illegal in the name of 'national interest', so don't think I believe we are lilly white or incapable of evil.
But, it is a weird world. There are countries out there committing genocide and you look at them and they have nothing to fight for. No resources, no valuable land, nothing. And yet they kill and fight for generations. I see people who hate so much they are willing to blow themselves up along with 20 other persons, kids even. WTF? Makes no damn sense to me why so many people are so twisted. Then I see countries who live in relative peace since WWII, and they aren't any more entitled to it than anyone else. They aren't nessessarily better or smarter, just in a position to live this way. I know the world lived under 'fear' of the Soviets for decades, not fear of the US. Hell, Cuba is just a few miles from our coast and have they had no real reason to be fearful for their existence in the past 40 years, despite the bad things Castro did to come into power.
So anyway, I would prefer to clean up my country w/o destroying its fiber, which is still here. The divisiveness I see often in the more radical left leaning world is based on anger, hatred, and a desire to revisit the Viet Nam years because it was cool to hate your country. Whatever. I am rambling
I think my point is that we are in a unique position in the world, we can't be Sweden. It is unlikely that we can withdraw from the position we have, we can only handle it wisely. But don't expect us or even desire that we get out of this role we are in. Sweden can be Sweden partially because we are who we are in the world. If we all withdrew, it wouldn't be long before we would have to face some other enemy. Someone always wants to take over the world. G-R-E-E-D.
I don't see a difference in a comparison if Iraqis want a democracy, and we assist them in that goal.
If Iraq chooses the Iran route, it won't be by a free vote. Maybe corruption in the vote, or threats of death to control the people. I am not saying they won't have religious elements in their govt, but a truly Islamic Republic will take away freedoms. Only foolish radical persons want to live under that type of system, so they can dominate other persons. Which is supposedly exactly what liberals should be against, but in this case, it is okay for Iraqis to not have freedoms because it makes GW look bad.
If we were all consistent, we would want freedom for all.
You may have helped France and Britain and they've never heard the bloody end of it, have they... but ya never helped us and we're doing alright for ourselves. Managed to kick them out with none of your help so Europe would have been fine without yas.
Verona??? it's all surmountable
Dublin 23.08.06 "The beauty of Ireland, right there!"
Wembley? We all believe!
Copenhagen?? your light made us stars
Chicago 07? And love
What a different life
Had I not found this love with you
The U.S government always needs to convince the American people that they have an enemy. If it's not 'communism', then it's 'drugs' - remember Noriega? - and if it's not drugs, then it's 'terrorism'. It's all bollocks! The Bush administration are the the most dangerous terrorists in the world right now. The illegal occupation of Iraq and the 100% support for the terrorism being committed by israel are just two examples of this. There are many more. Has anyone heard of the Cuban five?
http://www.canadiannetworkoncuba.ca/Documents/C5-TimBoodOct03.shtml
That's another example. The Bush administration were told by top advisors in the U.S that an invasion of Iraq would increase the risk of terrorism in the world. Did this stop them invading? No. Therefore it seems obvious that they don't care about the safety of the American public, but only there own power interests.
And no, I don't care if the U.S loses the illegal war of occupation in Iraq. Just as I wouldn't have shed any tears for the Nazis when they were driven out of the Soviet Union and Europe, and why I wouldn't feel sorry for the Israelis if they were forced to withdraw from the illegally occupied terroritries in the West bank and Gaza.
Michael Moore too radical? Really? According to who? Who decides where the bounds of acceptable thought and opinion lie? I personally don't believe Michael Moore is radical at all. As far as im concerned he merely states the obvious whilst injecting some humour into the proceedings, showing those in power as they really are.
Secondly, how does radical Islam differ from radical fundamentalist Christianity in your scheme of things? I'd be interested to know.
Maybe I have a short memory, but please refresh me to the last time a group of Christian zealots hijacked four planes and flew them into a few of the most iconic buildings in the world.
And oh yeah, I also don't recall a group of radical Christians mobilzing, uniting and arming themselves into worldwide organizations whose mission it is to kill all who oppose their call to go back to the days before Martin Luther and embrace the Inquisition.
Sorry for the sarcasm, but I'm just saying that of course their are militant, radical Christians. But, they haven't manifested themselves like radical Islamists have.