Ghost of Posted June 16, 2005 Share Posted June 16, 2005 Originally posted by SkinsHokieFan What I find kind of funny is how people really think that invading caused terrorist numbers to swell. What people don't think about is just what lack of chivalry these thugs have. They jump on bandwagons basically and like to be part of a winner, if it makes sense. 9/11 was seen by extremists over there as a victory against the US. You don't think that didn't inspire a whole generation of terrorists? Ish, You're dealin with people who place ideology and election politics over reality. You're from Pakistan, you've been there. You're a Muslim for liberty and peaceful co-existence with your neighbors. You've been through the middle east. But you don't know anything nor do all those other people who could relate similar stories despite all being from different perspectives from yours. :doh: :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted June 16, 2005 Share Posted June 16, 2005 Originally posted by NoCalMike Well your probably correct, because in 2004 getting Bush re-elected was as easy as raising the terror level and putting Tom Ridge's mug on TV every other day when Bush's opponent would go up in percentage. So if the american people are as easily duped in 2008, then we get what we deserve I suppose. That and electronic voting machines without a paper trail will certainly help.(Which ironically, Arnold is trying to bring to CA) As long as those on the left continue believing that they are losing because of whacked out conspiracy theories, they will continue to have their butts handed to them at the ballot box. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ross3909 Posted June 16, 2005 Share Posted June 16, 2005 Ok Liberals...Did the Bush administration plan too much for the war or not plan enough? Even your critisizms flip flop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoCalMike Posted June 16, 2005 Share Posted June 16, 2005 Originally posted by Kilmer17 As long as those on the left continue believing that they are losing because of whacked out conspiracy theories, they will continue to have their butts handed to them at the ballot box. "whacked out conspiracy" theories? So Tom Ridge on TV daily was an optical illusion? Voting Machines without paper trails, are imaginary? Thanks for clearing that up for me. :cool: Look, I am not saying those were sole reasons for Bush re-election, but they surely helped the cause. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted June 16, 2005 Share Posted June 16, 2005 Originally posted by NoCalMike "whacked out conspiracy" theories? So Tom Ridge on TV daily was an optical illusion? Voting Machines without paper trails, are imaginary? Thanks for clearing that up for me. :cool: Look, I am not saying those were sole reasons for Bush re-election, but they surely helped the cause. Yes, the cries about voting machines without paper trails having any affect whatsoever on the elction is completely imaginary. And I hope people on the left continue believing in it. It makes them that much easier to defeat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hooper Posted June 16, 2005 Share Posted June 16, 2005 We have nowhere to go but up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoony Posted June 16, 2005 Share Posted June 16, 2005 Somehow I think that if Clinton had invaded Iraq, the NoCal Mike, Chomerics, etc. would be defending the invasion to the last. Sarge and Mad Mike would be on Clinton like stink on :pooh:. And somehow I think that all of you reading this know I'm right, and also know deep down how transparent your point of views are. I'm ducking out now. :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of Posted June 16, 2005 Share Posted June 16, 2005 It may sound nuts, but I would defend Clinton to some degree. The problem people had with the Tomahawk missiles was the convenient timing, the dismissal of contradictory evidence about the aspiring plant and that we know we could have had Osama delivered to us but turned it down. So, invading Iraq would have shown massive stones and a real desire to shift the situation. But the former pres was too worried about living off 'his domestic achievements' and his legacy with the farcical 'peace talks' in the middle east. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoCalMike Posted June 16, 2005 Share Posted June 16, 2005 Originally posted by zoony Somehow I think that if Clinton had invaded Iraq, the NoCal Mike, Chomerics, etc. would be defending the invasion to the last. Maybe if I was a Democrat, because that is usually how it works when you have party affiliation, defending your guy till the end, but I am an independent, and have no loyalty to a specific party or politician. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoony Posted June 16, 2005 Share Posted June 16, 2005 n/m take back the hijack attempt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ross3909 Posted June 16, 2005 Share Posted June 16, 2005 I wonder what the Liberals will say their part was in this war if in 10 years we are living in a safer world because we decided to take our heads out of the sand and stand up to the growing problem of Islamo-facism. Just pretend that Iraq does develop into a democracy where people are free to practice their religion and Government is actually answerable to the population again. Next thing you know the neighboring states like Syria and Iran which already have ground swells of support for the freedom movement start to move to forms of democracy also. The truth would be that Bush against the "good advice" of Democrats defused this ticking bomb that was the Middle East and made the world a much safer place for everyone in it. Would Liberals accept that they were on the wrong side of history and tell their children that if it were up to them, the US would have continued to just respond to each terrorist attack with the equivilent of an international police investigation with the sole mission just to find the 2 or three persons responsible? Ignoring the problem that is much larger than Al Qaida, Iraq, Kuwait, Iran, and Syria alone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted June 16, 2005 Share Posted June 16, 2005 "pretend" Great word choice. Fits perfectly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ross3909 Posted June 16, 2005 Share Posted June 16, 2005 So Codeorama, You are saying that there is no way that this could ever happen? I guess if I was that pesemistic I would prefer to ignore the problem as long as possible too hoping to enjoy a few more days before someone set off a bomb in my neighborhood. I guess I am different in that I believe it is NOT too late and something can be done to reverse this trend of leaders and dictators hijacking the religion of Islam to manipulate populations into hating and attacking the West. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cdowwe Posted June 16, 2005 Share Posted June 16, 2005 Im glad we had plans to invade Iraq after 911. Im sure we had plans for almost any country that had a nuclear past and was willing to use it on its own citizens. The problem with Clinton is he never had any plans for anything so when problems came up, USS Cole, Somalia, etc, he stuck his head between his legs and made America look like a bunch of panzies. Good for Bush. Ill guess in about week someone will post that there was also a plan to invade Iran. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luckydevil Posted June 16, 2005 Share Posted June 16, 2005 Originally posted by zoony Somehow I think that if Clinton had invaded Iraq, the NoCal Mike, Chomerics, etc. would be defending the invasion to the last. Sarge and Mad Mike would be on Clinton like stink on :pooh:. And somehow I think that all of you reading this know I'm right, and also know deep down how transparent your point of views are. I'm ducking out now. :laugh: Well as Nocal stated, he is not a Dem. I am not even sure he is a fan of Clinton. He is a genuine greenie. Mad Mike might be a partisan supporter of the Iraq war/war on terrorism, but he doesn't strike me as a partisan republican. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted June 16, 2005 Share Posted June 16, 2005 Some people said from day one that the intell that would be accepted would be hand picked to fit in with plans for war. It seems that they are proven more and more right every day. Now will any of this impact the next election? No. There is no such thing as holding people responsible in politics today. It's an image battle more like high school elections based on popularity then anything else. Right now the GOP is winning the image battle, that could change if the Democratic party would stop ****ing and start doing a little demonizing of their own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomerics Posted June 17, 2005 Share Posted June 17, 2005 Originally posted by Ghost of Nibbs McPimpin Ish, You're dealin with people who place ideology and election politics over reality. You're from Pakistan, you've been there. You're a Muslim for liberty and peaceful co-existence with your neighbors. You've been through the middle east. But you don't know anything nor do all those other people who could relate similar stories despite all being from different perspectives from yours. :doh: :laugh: Ghost, Do you ever read what you write? Lets examine your sentence again. . . You're dealin with people who place ideology and election politics over reality. It looks like a perfect quote for the Bush administration and you know it. They put their ideology above OUR COUNTRY, yet we are somehow the bad guys for calling him on it :doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomerics Posted June 17, 2005 Share Posted June 17, 2005 Originally posted by zoony Somehow I think that if Clinton had invaded Iraq, the NoCal Mike, Chomerics, etc. would be defending the invasion to the last. I can speak for myself and say that I would NOT be for going into Iraq. This isn't an ideological difference, but a moral one. Pre-emptive attack on a target who poses absolutely no threat to the US, and there is no crisis going on in the country is not a reason to attack. I look at it like this. . . Afghanistan, Osama Bin Laden, Taliban, Mullah Omar = good place to attack Iraq, Saddam Hussen = moronic place to attack, and it has turned not only our deficit, but our country's economic future upside down. Sarge and Mad Mike would be on Clinton like stink on :pooh:. I agree with you here And somehow I think that all of you reading this know I'm right, and also know deep down how transparent your point of views are. I'm ducking out now. :laugh: You can be absolutely critical of the Bush Administration, the military Industral Complex, Hedgemony, Oil conglomerations making windfall profits while ripping off the public and the entire Neo-Conservative movement while not be an ideolog. It just means you can think for yourself and you don't let others think for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomerics Posted June 17, 2005 Share Posted June 17, 2005 Originally posted by Cdowwe Im glad we had plans to invade Iraq after 911. Im sure we had plans for almost any country that had a nuclear past and was willing to use it on its own citizens. The problem with Clinton is he never had any plans for anything so when problems came up, USS Cole, Somalia, etc, he stuck his head between his legs and made America look like a bunch of panzies. Good for Bush. Ill guess in about week someone will post that there was also a plan to invade Iran. RIF. . . Reading Is Fundamental. . . learn it, know it, live it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of Posted June 17, 2005 Share Posted June 17, 2005 Originally posted by chomerics Ghost, Do you ever read what you write? Lets examine your sentence again. . . It looks like a perfect quote for the Bush administration and you know it. They put their ideology above OUR COUNTRY, yet we are somehow the bad guys for calling him on it :doh: I read what I write all the time. I may be known as an arrogant prick, but its pretty well-known I'm nowhere near the partisan party man of this board. For examples, see my exchanges with skinsfan51 in evolution threads, my drug war and asset posts, and my beliefs about Bush's alleged 'conservatism'(which doesnt exist except in a social sense on a couple of issues) But my bona fides have been established on that. As for the Bush administration "ideology" please clue me in on what that is--other than trying to drain the swamp of terrorism. You can argue they're placing too much value on their analysis of the global situation, but they aren't the ones embracing the idea of freeing terrorists or who at every step of the journey evince a complete lack of anything resembling connection to reality and what we are facing. Bush and that leadership may have been wrong on Iraq or they may not. But I don't see that point as being representative of ideology except in the most broad sense of the term. Again, if Clinton had decided to combine a ground attack in Desert Fox, I wouldn't have criticized him at all. So long as there weren't any frontal infantry charges into heavy machine guns or the like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomerics Posted June 17, 2005 Share Posted June 17, 2005 Originally posted by Ghost of Nibbs McPimpin I read what I write all the time. I may be known as an arrogant prick, but its pretty well-known I'm nowhere near the partisan party man of this board. For examples, see my exchanges with skinsfan51 in evolution threads, my drug war and asset posts, and my beliefs about Bush's alleged 'conservatism'(which doesnt exist except in a social sense on a couple of issues) I never said you were partisain, and it was not my intention to lean the post that way. I was only referring to placing an ideology before anything else in this country. As for the Bush administration "ideology" please clue me in on what that is--other than trying to drain the swamp of terrorism. You can argue they're placing too much value on their analysis of the global situation, but they aren't the ones embracing the idea of freeing terrorists or who at every step of the journey evince a complete lack of anything resembling connection to reality and what we are facing. Do you have all day??? Here are but a few examples I can come up with off the top of my head. Trying to change the Senate fillibuster rules and completely changing the Senate structure. Invading Iraq and ignoring Bin Laden. Funny how we haven't heard about him in a while huh. Terry Schaivo (you weren't around for this, but the consensus of the board was about 70-30 for letting her die. SSI. . . completely ignoring the debt and trying to force a bad plan down the throats of Americans. Eliminating any minority voice from politics. Trying to turn our country into more of a plutocracy. Ignoring and stonewalling any and all attempts to secure the country by saying chemical and oil companies don't need security. Look at some of the nuclear plants in urban areas, NYC has one a few miles away on LI for instance and nothing has been done t secure it. Placing the intrest of the top .001% of income earners above the rest of the 99.999% Placing the tax burden solely on the middle class and saying it's best for the country. Causing an increase of terrorism everywhere in the world. Ignoring everything prior to 9-11 pertaining to Bin Laden. Having the Justice Dept. not arrest his buddy Kenny Boy and allowing corporate theives to rip off the American tax payer to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars. Do you want me to go on? I can do this all night. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brown 43 Posted June 17, 2005 Share Posted June 17, 2005 Answer this question? Did Bush really need to cook the books to invaid Iraq. Answer is: No Saddam broke about 50 jillian Un resolutions and we could have marched on in at any time. End of story! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted June 17, 2005 Share Posted June 17, 2005 Originally posted by Brown 43 Answer this question? Did Bush really need to cook the books to invaid Iraq. Answer is: No Then why did he? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cdowwe Posted June 17, 2005 Share Posted June 17, 2005 Originally posted by chomerics RIF. . . Reading Is Fundamental. . . learn it, know it, live it. doesnt really respond well Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ironmic Posted June 18, 2005 Share Posted June 18, 2005 i have the jamison memo that says we are invading BANG**** Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.