Vicious Muslims and the Americans Who Help Them

[dreamingwolf]

Im still trying to find why the handlers of the far left want their feeders to value islam-terrorists over christians or for that matter Islam over Christianity.

My first guess is Islam is so undigestable that they feel if they replace christianity with islam, that they will be able to deprogram new muslims easier than new christians. Another element that might play into the picture, is that islam creates terrorists whose objective is to disrupt commerce and give people fear. Commerce taking a blow is a golden child for the far left, there is no more perfect enviornment for the installation of socialism than one in which there is no money to be made. If Islam becomes the law of the land, the neo-humanists will be exterminated in short order. the few that have use will be kept arround, but for the most part the majority will be destroyed for their inability to conform.

Its not going to be the nice Islam that conquers the world, its gonna be the we want everything Islam that does it. Those people are not nice, and while you will be happy you knocked out the christians I think you will be unhappy with what you replaced them with. Cause it wont be the neo-humanists, they will get faced and probably given a global wedgy.

[chomerics]

Im still trying to find why the handlers of the far left want their feeders to value islam-terrorists over christians or for that matter Islam over Christianity.

Keep looking for that straw man wolf, maybe it's right next to the WMDs.

[dreamingwolf]

maybe its next to the christians, we will see when its all sifted out. Im still not sure you know who your serving, but I will say that you are certainly true to the convictions you adopt yourself to.

[chomerics]

maybe its next to the christians, we will see when its all sifted out. Im still not sure you know who your serving, but I will say that you are certainly true to the convictions you adopt yourself to.

:laugh: coming from you, I'll take it as a compliment

[CurseReversed]

Cornered? Cornered? We were OFFERED Bin Laden, who was IN CUSTODY during the Clinton Administration. PRE 9/11!!!! You can't screw that up! But he did! Again, if you want to equate that to "someone is in this 50 mile region of rugged terrain of mountains and caves that he knows and we don't," fine.

No we had him cornered damnit, he was there helpless... all we had to do was... but we invaded Iraq...its a fact I tell ya....bush lied....tora bora.....No wmd's..... wait did I get off topic, oops :laugh:

[chomerics]

"Then Bush helped their terror campaign by terrorizing the population here in America with his constant fear mongering for political reasons."

People who commit acts of terror are terrorists. If you say someone essentially aided and abetted known terrorists, which the above statement does, and say someone terrorized the American people, which this statement does, you are calling that person a terrorist. And no, that is unequivocally NOT what happened.

It frustrates me to no end that you always play the semantics game when you have no other point to make. I'll point this theme out again later.

Sorry, but did Bush fear Americans into Iraq? Lets look at what his administration said.

He infered that Saddam and Al Qaeda were working together, stated that Saddam had WMDs, said he was rebuilding his nuclear program and then said we have to attack because we don't want a mushroom cloud over NY city. That is what the American public was told, along with pushing up the terror alert every time something bad happened to the party politically. He used fear to scare the American public into BELIEVING Iraq was going to give weapons to Al Qaeda to attack us, and we needed to do this or else he was going to give a suitcase to Bin Laden with some nice fissionable material.

Those are the facts, that is the bill of goods that was sold to the American public. Now, 3 years later, we find out that EVERYTHING was BS. Not just one thing, but EVERYTHING!!! No WMDs, no nukes, no Al Qaeda connection, and in fact he hated Al Qaeda. It was completely opposite what we were told.

So, if you want to use the definition that "terrorizing a population for political gain" is a terrorist, than Bush, Rove & co are terrorists. It is not the definition I would chose, but you are the one that said "terrorizing a population" is being a terrorist, and Bush definitely put the fear of attack on the US population.

Yep, setting up a sovreign government and returning as much control to them as quickly as possible is REAL imperialistic. If we wanted Iraq, it would be ours right now. Period.

Don't look at the picture through American eyes, but how do you think Muslims perceive our actions over there? Do you think the run of the mill person in Syria for instance believes we are in Iraq because of 9-11? I am not saying we are imperialistic, but my opinion doesn't count. I am talking about how Muslims think, and yes, they do perceive us as an imperial nation.

But surprise, when people feel threatened, they're more likely to become defensive. This was a gross underestimation by the administration, I fully admit that. But you and I know that the closer a perceived threat comes to you, the more defensive you get.

That's why the people in Iran are tense right now. Same with Syria. They're thinking, "Hmm...Our governments are a lot like Iraq's. Should we be worried?" If you want to call that the U.S. encouraging Al Qaeda recruitment, fine.

Do you know the difference between citizens and government? You seem to meld the two together at whim to make an argument, but again, you miss the point completely. What do you think the Syrian CITIZEN thinks of America? What did they think of America before Iraq? Did Iraq make their opinion of our country go up or down?

Remember all the good will and sentiment we had in the weeks after 9-11? Remember the world crying with us, and holding out their hand to help us out? The Muslims in the Middle East condemned the attacks and prayed with us. What happened to all that good will? Do you know the Muslims that were praying for us are now telling their children that we are the enemy? Iraqis who watched in horror when the two towers fell are now strapping bombs to their body to kill our soldiers. That is because of what? What made them change their minds? How did they come to hate us?

Cornered? Cornered? We were OFFERED Bin Laden, who was IN CUSTODY during the Clinton Administration. PRE 9/11!!!! You can't screw that up! But he did! Again, if you want to equate that to "someone is in this 50 mile region of rugged terrain of mountains and caves that he knows and we don't," fine.

Clinton was not "offered" Bin Laden, and he tried to get Saudi Arabia to take him, but they wouldn't, but again, that is besides the point. You are trying to blame Clinton because in 1996, a man who wasn't even on his radar screen except for being a terrorism "financier" was not killed. Well, if Clinton went around killing all the terrorism financiers, the entire Saudi Royal family would all be dead. Where does Bush stand on terrorism financing, and the Saudi Family? Why nothing about Saudi Arabia, the place where whabbism is taught, and the hate bred?

To say that Clinton should have been able to see the future, and know that Bin Laden would knock down the 2 towers, yet with Bush, after knowing everything Bin Laden did previously, and doing nothing for 9 months, he deserves no blame. Even though a PDB came across his freaking desk stating Bin Laden determined to attack inside the US, he stayed on vacation for an entire month, he still gets no blame. It is Clinton's fault for not having the foresight to see 9-11, and getting Bin Laden then right :doh:

For 9 months, Bush ignored Bin Laden and did nothing, then when he had the chance to get him AFTER the towers fell, he outsourced the job. He didn't send in OUR fighters to get him, no, he had the Afghani fighters go in and allowed him to escape. Why not send in our troops? Why not get the person who knocked down the 2 towers? Maybe because his eye was already on Iraq, and not on the person who attacked us. :doh: Then, on top of it all, he has the audacity to state, and I will quote. . .

I'm not really that concerned about Osama Bin Laden

Does that not bother you? It bugs the crap out of me, and pisses me off to no end. The person who was responsible for 9-11 is an afterthought s o he can go on his grand nation building exercise in Iraq. Yes, that really pisses me off!!!

We would've shot their missile down had it posed a threat and not crashed. Your party has already made it clear that preemption where WMD's are concerned is unacceptable. But you KNOW N. Korea has nukes right? Funny, I didn't see anyone questioning Saddam's WMD's either...from your UN, to the MAJORITY of your dems in Congress.

Again, what has Bush's policy been to N. Korea? Ignore, deny, ignore. The dems have been out of power for 6 years, what has the republican government done to protect us? They've isolated us from the rest of the world, and allowed both Iran and N. Korea to build up nuclear programs. Seriously, they've done absolutely nothing about those two nations, and it can get really scary if a bunch of piss ant rough nations start getting nukes.

The joke was "I have a plan" but he never explained it. He referred people to a website, which I visited, and ALSO didn't explain it. When he did come up with a plan, it changed depending on his audience.

Man, are you serious? he stated everything he was going to do ad nausea. It DID explain exactly how everything was going to work. It was in fact, a bit too detailed, but to say he didn't explain it leads me to believe you never read his plans. They were all explained, cost analysis was done, and everything else.

I've already admitted Bush has made mistakes. They underestimated the resistance greatly. They're working to correct that. A simple solution would be carpet bombing like we used to in war. But you guys can't hack a single civilian casualty.

Why would we carpet bomb the area? What would that accomplish except for MORE terrorism against our troops, and MORE hatred towards Americans? Seriously, what would carpet bombing accomplish? How do you carpet bomb a person? How do you attack an enemy when you control the country?

There will be increases and decreases in troop level as necessary in Iraq. The President has said this. Troops will also be redeployed more effectively to account for "hot spots" as commanders on the ground see fit. The president has said this. The plan is to "adapt and overcome" in military terms. You're just bitter because it's not "quit and pullout."

No, I am not "bitter" because it is not quit and pullout, I am bitter because Iraq has been an abject failure and NOTHING they said would happen did. They live in bizzaro world where they say one thing will happen and the opposite does.

There are WMDs (when there are not). They will shower us with roses (but the roses were actually bombs). The oil will pay for the war (Joe Taxpayer has shelled out $300Billion so far). Saddam and Osama are in cahoots (they hated each other). Iraq has a nuclear program (the program was defunct in the 80's).

I used this analogy before, but if you have a teenage son who smashes up the car, when do you take away his keys? After the first accident? After the 5th? What about the 10th? At what point do you take the keys away from the kid?

For the record, sir, I haven't listened to Rush since his TV show was cancelled about 15 years ago. Just because I disagree with you doesn't mean I'm a lemming. That's another of your famous tools. "You disagree with me, so some conservative with a bullhorn is telling you what to think." Argue issues. (IF YOU CAN!)

I am glad you know of my "tools" being language, but I don't know if you are a lemming. It depends on how you look at the situation, and if you think for yourself instead of following a party line. For example, your bit about not having a plan is a typical talking point of the RNC, as well as your quip on "pull out and quit", that is an example of lemming-ish in behavior, because there is actually a plan of what the democrats are going to do if they take over the house, and not they don't want to "cut and run" or "Pull out and quit". But as a whole, you seem to stay outside the talking points and can formulate your own opinion quite well, so there is hope for you

It's non-existent. I listen to C-SPAN RADIO for a MINIMUM of 2-hours a day to and from work. Ya know, only broadcasting what the leaders say with NO commentary. Not only do they have no plan and constantly criticize republicans, your answer is "listen to them instead of the pundits" which is what I do EVERYDAY.

I called you on it. You have no answer. I've listened to them. They have no answer. That answers my question.

Ummm. . . i don't know if you are being facetious, or if you are ignorant to the dems plans, but it took me all of 2 seconds to get a plan from the democrats and their platform. . .

Honest Leadership & Open Government

We will end the Republican culture of corruption and restore a government as good as the people it serves, starting with real ethics reform.

Real Security

We will protect Americans at home and lead the world by telling the truth to our troops, our citizens and our allies. We believe in a strong national defense that is both tough and smart, recognizing that homeland security begins with hometown security.

Energy Independence

We will create a cleaner, greener and stronger America by reducing our dependence on foreign oil, eliminating billions in subsidies for oil and gas companies and use the savings to provide consumer relief and develop energy alternatives, and investing in energy independent technology.

Economic Prosperity & Educational Excellence

We will create jobs that stay in America and restore opportunity for all Americans, starting with raising the minimum wage, expanding Pell grants and making college tuition tax deductible. We also believe in budget discipline that reduces our deficit.

A Healthcare System that Works for Everyone

We will join 36 other industrialized nations in making sure everyone has access to affordable health care, starting by fixing the prescription drug program and investing in stem cell and other medical research.

Retirement Security

We will ensure that a retirement with dignity is the right and expectation of every single American, starting with pension reform, expanding saving incentives and preventing the privatization of social security.

http://www.dnc.org/agenda.html

I try. But is you, sir, who are wrong.

Please tell me where I am wrong, I will gladly give you a no mas if you can show me where I am wrong. Why don't you go to the web site and listen to Dean talk, you can browse ES while you actually hear what the plan is from the democrats in terms of our government. You can find more in depth articles and ideas the harder you look. Don't worry, you can't catch the "liberal" by visiting a website. . . or maybe you can, and that is my evil plan all along hahahahahahaha (In an evil Vincint Price voice)

[codeorama]

Anyone with a lick of sense in their head can do some research and find out that Hitler and Himmler were pagans.

Not sure about Himmler, but Hitler was Catholic. It's been gone over in the tailgate before.

[Teller]

Sorry, but did Bush fear Americans into Iraq? Lets look at what his administration said.

He infered that Saddam and Al Qaeda were working together, stated that Saddam had WMDs, said he was rebuilding his nuclear program and then said we have to attack because we don't want a mushroom cloud over NY city. That is what the American public was told, along with pushing up the terror alert every time something bad happened to the party politically. He used fear to scare the American public into BELIEVING Iraq was going to give weapons to Al Qaeda to attack us, and we needed to do this or else he was going to give a suitcase to Bin Laden with some nice fissionable material.

Those are the facts, that is the bill of goods that was sold to the American public. Now, 3 years later, we find out that EVERYTHING was BS. Not just one thing, but EVERYTHING!!! No WMDs, no nukes, no Al Qaeda connection, and in fact he hated Al Qaeda. It was completely opposite what we were told.

So, if you want to use the definition that "terrorizing a population for political gain" is a terrorist, than Bush, Rove & co are terrorists. It is not the definition I would chose, but you are the one that said "terrorizing a population" is being a terrorist, and Bush definitely put the fear of attack on the US population.

Hmm...Informing the American public about possible threats to our national security equates to terrorizing the population. Interesting.

There was a UN resolution in place that in no uncertain terms said Iraq WILL allow weapons inspectors in to verify that they are in compliance, and not furthering their WMD program. Saddam expelled the inspectors.

I'm sure you know that Saddam used chemical weapons in the past against his own people, and against our troops in the first Gulf War. When he kicks weapons inspectors out, what is the logical assumption? He's starting the program back up. Had we done nothing, and their HAD been WMD's. You'd have been the first to criticize the current administration for doing nothing.

You say later in your post that Clinton couldn't foresee the future, yet you expect Bush to be able to.

Don't look at the picture through American eyes, but how do you think Muslims perceive our actions over there? Do you think the run of the mill person in Syria for instance believes we are in Iraq because of 9-11? I am not saying we are imperialistic, but my opinion doesn't count. I am talking about how Muslims think, and yes, they do perceive us as an imperial nation.

OK, so certain world populations have an incorrect perception of the U.S.'s role in the world, and what our true intentions are. Sounds like THEY should work harder to understand us. (I know that's not a popular opinion, seeing as I live here in the "Great Satan" and all. But you yourself said that we are not imperialistic. If they believe we are, they should strive to correct their misperception.)

Do you know the difference between citizens and government? You seem to meld the two together at whim to make an argument, but again, you miss the point completely. What do you think the Syrian CITIZEN thinks of America? What did they think of America before Iraq? Did Iraq make their opinion of our country go up or down?

Remember all the good will and sentiment we had in the weeks after 9-11? Remember the world crying with us, and holding out their hand to help us out? The Muslims in the Middle East condemned the attacks and prayed with us. What happened to all that good will? Do you know the Muslims that were praying for us are now telling their children that we are the enemy? Iraqis who watched in horror when the two towers fell are now strapping bombs to their body to kill our soldiers. That is because of what? What made them change their minds? How did they come to hate us?

You're right. All the Muslims in the world loved us and wanted to be our friend until we invaded Iraq. Islamic terrorism didn't exist until we invaded Iraq. They've always been our friends, and it's too bad we screwed it up.

Clinton was not "offered" Bin Laden, and he tried to get Saudi Arabia to take him, but they wouldn't, but again, that is besides the point. You are trying to blame Clinton because in 1996, a man who wasn't even on his radar screen except for being a terrorism "financier" was not killed. Well, if Clinton went around killing all the terrorism financiers, the entire Saudi Royal family would all be dead. Where does Bush stand on terrorism financing, and the Saudi Family? Why nothing about Saudi Arabia, the place where whabbism is taught, and the hate bred?

Tried to get Saudi Arabia to take him? You mean, like unsuccessfully OUTSOURCING the handling of the problem? You mean like you just accused Bush of doing? You're a riot! :laugh:

It's funny. Where Bush has made mistakes, I've fully admitted it. Where Clinton made mistakes, you fail to see through your blue-lensed glasses. It's the same thing. And just for the record, I do wish we'd be more aggressive with the Saudis and other supporters and financiers of terror. This is something President Bush is not doing that I would like to see. I fail to believe the democrats lemming view that he cares more about oil than national security, but he should be more aggressive in spite of whatever negative public opinion would result. (Oops, there I go thinking for myself again!)

Again, what has Bush's policy been to N. Korea? Ignore, deny, ignore. The dems have been out of power for 6 years, what has the republican government done to protect us? They've isolated us from the rest of the world, and allowed both Iran and N. Korea to build up nuclear programs. Seriously, they've done absolutely nothing about those two nations, and it can get really scary if a bunch of piss ant rough nations start getting nukes.

It's funny, he's trying to get WORLD support for sanctions if necessary, and going through the UN and IAEA to determine the best course of action. Not necessarily how I would handle it, but that's a methodology that should certainly appease the democrats.

Why would we carpet bomb the area? What would that accomplish except for MORE terrorism against our troops, and MORE hatred towards Americans? Seriously, what would carpet bombing accomplish? How do you carpet bomb a person? How do you attack an enemy when you control the country?

I didn't actually want to carpet bomb Iraq. I'm just frustrated. However, the way we used to wage war minimized American casualties. Total war works. A "surgical" war does not. Our casualty rate is so high in Iraq, because we're trying to minimize civilian casualties. A prolonged bombing campaign, followed by a "cleanup" effort of sorts by ground troops would have been far safer for our forces.

But in this day and age when one civilian casualty as a result of questionable procedure or an honest mistake leads the evening news, we have to make sure that doesn't happen. I don't have to tell you how much more difficult a lack of support at home makes warfighting. Hence, MY people are dying to save IRAQI civilians. It's like we value Iraqi citizens more than our soldiers, and I have a real problem with that.

No, I am not "bitter" because it is not quit and pullout, I am bitter because Iraq has been an abject failure and NOTHING they said would happen did. They live in bizzaro world where they say one thing will happen and the opposite does.

There are WMDs (when there are not). They will shower us with roses (but the roses were actually bombs). The oil will pay for the war (Joe Taxpayer has shelled out $300Billion so far). Saddam and Osama are in cahoots (they hated each other). Iraq has a nuclear program (the program was defunct in the 80's).

I used this analogy before, but if you have a teenage son who smashes up the car, when do you take away his keys? After the first accident? After the 5th? What about the 10th? At what point do you take the keys away from the kid?

Meanwhile, our Civil War, WWI & WWII, Korea and Vietnam went exactly according to plan. Mistakes are made in war, chom, and where Bush has made mistakes I've pointed them out and agreed with you. Have we adjusted and had success as fast as I'd like? Of course not. Am I going to turn on my country and my president because things are tough? Of course not.

I am glad you know of my "tools" being language, but I don't know if you are a lemming. It depends on how you look at the situation, and if you think for yourself instead of following a party line. For example, your bit about not having a plan is a typical talking point of the RNC, as well as your quip on "pull out and quit", that is an example of lemming-ish in behavior, because there is actually a plan of what the democrats are going to do if they take over the house, and not they don't want to "cut and run" or "Pull out and quit". But as a whole, you seem to stay outside the talking points and can formulate your own opinion quite well, so there is hope for you

Nobody, and I mean nobody hates the concept of "talking points" more than I do. I hate a lot about politics in general, but it's so important, I just can't ignore it. I think what desparately needs to happen in this country is that the country needs to become the priority again. If you listen to most politicians, it seems like the campaigning never ends. The democrats this, the republicans that. Getting in, and staying in power, is more important to BOTH parties than anything else. That's sad.

I'd love to ask 10 republicans and 10 democrats what first pops into their mind when I say "Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid." ALL they have done is criticize Bush. And like I said earlier, that's going to kill them in November. The democrats aren't taking control of anything. I guarantee it.

Just for the record, if in the course of formulating my own opinion, if it happens to coincide with a "talking point," I'm not going to change it for that reason. Heck, you'd probably find an opinion or two of mine that matchup with existing democrat talking points. And THAT is most certainly unintentional.

Ummm. . . i don't know if you are being facetious, or if you are ignorant to the dems plans, but it took me all of 2 seconds to get a plan from the democrats and their platform. . .

http://www.dnc.org/agenda.html

"We will end the Republican culture of corruption and restore a government as good as the people it serves, starting with real ethics reform."

:laugh: I'd be embarassed if that was the first line of my platform. I just got done saying that "the democrats don't have a plan and all they do is criticize republicans." Thanks for confirming that. :laugh:

Please tell me where I am wrong, I will gladly give you a no mas if you can show me where I am wrong. Why don't you go to the web site and listen to Dean talk, you can browse ES while you actually hear what the plan is from the democrats in terms of our government. You can find more in depth articles and ideas the harder you look. Don't worry, you can't catch the "liberal" by visiting a website. . . or maybe you can, and that is my evil plan all along hahahahahahaha (In an evil Vincint Price voice)

Don't worry. I listen to Dean with great pleasure as often as possible. I swear, most of the time he sounds so foolish I almost wonder if he's secretly on our side. :laugh:

[Midnight Judges]

Hmm...Informing the American public about possible threats to our national security equates to terrorizing the population. Interesting.

There was a UN resolution in place that in no uncertain terms said Iraq WILL allow weapons inspectors in to verify that they are in compliance, and not furthering their WMD program. Saddam expelled the inspectors.

I'm sure you know that Saddam used chemical weapons in the past against his own people, and against our troops in the first Gulf War. When he kicks weapons inspectors out, what is the logical assumption? He's starting the program back up. Had we done nothing, and their HAD been WMD's.

I don't want to go into detail about everything you said but I will address these points in order.

Informing the public is one thing, exaggerating the threat is something else entirely. I believe Bush exaggerated in order to gain more power. It was a political play, not a moral one, but a strategic political one.

I read Hans Blix's book and according to him the inspectors were not expelled in 2003 until Bush told them to leave because we were invading. The UN inspectors work was unfinished at the time of the invasion. George W. Bush, not Saddam, was the one who disrupted the latest round of inspections. You are mistaking the 1998 inspections with the 2002-2003 inspections. They are two entirely different rounds of inspections.

It's all in Blix's book, "Disarming Iraq." Sometimes it seems like I'm the only person in the USA who actually read it.

[Cdowwe]

Not sure about Himmler, but Hitler was Catholic. It's been gone over in the tailgate before.

Catholic isnt a race...Hitler was not a Christian.

[chomerics]

Catholic isnt a race...Hitler was not a Christian.

Yet he USED religion and exploited it for his own perverse desires. You can NOT deny that religion was part of Hitlers rise to power, hell he used it in almost every speech he made!!

[chomerics]

Hmm...Informing the American public about possible threats to our national security equates to terrorizing the population. Interesting.

There was a UN resolution in place that in no uncertain terms said Iraq WILL allow weapons inspectors in to verify that they are in compliance, and not furthering their WMD program. Saddam expelled the inspectors.

You are wrong again, Saddam did not expel the inspectors, Bush told them to leave. You keep on saying you are not listening to the right, and you listen to both sides, yet you keep on telling false facts like this one. This is a COMMON misnomer I hear sprouted on Rush, Hannity and Savage all the time, and it pops up here. It is a lie, false information and you profess it as fact. Then you say you do not listen to the right? Well for someone who listens to both sides, you sure have a way of shutting out everything factual and focusing on abject reality the right wants you to believe.

I will reiterate this yet again, Bush was the person who kicked out the weapons inspectors, NOT Saddam. Bush told them to leave.

U.S advises weapons inspectors to leave Iraq

VIENNA, Austria (AP) — In the clearest sign yet that war with Iraq is imminent, the United States has advised U.N. weapons inspectors to begin pulling out of Baghdad, the U.N. nuclear agency chief said Monday.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-03-17-inspectors-iraq_x.htm

I'm sure you know that Saddam used chemical weapons in the past against his own people, and against our troops in the first Gulf War.

Saddam NEVER used WMDs against our troops in the gulf war. Again, another wrong fact you believe.

When he kicks weapons inspectors out, what is the logical assumption? He's starting the program back up. Had we done nothing, and their HAD been WMD's. You'd have been the first to criticize the current administration for doing nothing.

You say later in your post that Clinton couldn't foresee the future, yet you expect Bush to be able to.

The weapons inspectors were IN Iraq and they WERE investigating the WMD claims. They found NOTHING, I repeat, they found NOTHING. They stated that Saddam and Iraq had allowed them almost unlimited access to wherever they asked for. They were agreeing to the sanctions, and all the mumbo jumbo worked.

It is also not saying he should have been omniscient, he should have let the inspectors do their job. Everything was working, but Bush invaded, because he wanted to invade Iraq. Everything was planned for an invasion, we were going in, the fact that he had no WMDs was an afterthought.

OK, so certain world populations have an incorrect perception of the U.S.'s role in the world, and what our true intentions are. Sounds like THEY should work harder to understand us. (I know that's not a popular opinion, seeing as I live here in the "Great Satan" and all. But you yourself said that we are not imperialistic. If they believe we are, they should strive to correct their misperception.)

No, we should make a better effort to improve our standing by not giving them reasons to think the way they do. They see us occupying Iraq, torturing people, killing people, they see dead children on TV all the time, what do you think they perceive our actions to be? It isn't up to them to understand us, it is up to us to not do anything which hampers our opinion and standing. Unfortunately, it is so far gone, there is absolutely nothing that can be done. The genie is out of the bottle, and there is no way to put him back in.

You're right. All the Muslims in the world loved us and wanted to be our friend until we invaded Iraq. Islamic terrorism didn't exist until we invaded Iraq. They've always been our friends, and it's too bad we screwed it up.

You had a very small faction of Islam that hated us, not the belief is almost mainstream. Why is that? How can you completely ignore the fact that Iraqis are now attacking us when they were not before? WE made them more extreme with OUR actions in Iraq. There were only a FEW nutjobs, now there are MANY. WE, with our actions are making matters WORSE.

Tried to get Saudi Arabia to take him? You mean, like unsuccessfully OUTSOURCING the handling of the problem? You mean like you just accused Bush of doing? You're a riot! :laugh:

Please tell me what he was supposed to do with him in 96. He could not kill him, he had no evidence he did anything against us, all he knew about him was that he was financing terrorism. This was before the bombings remember? This was before everything happened, what the heck was he supposed to do? We, as a country can not make people disappear, it is what separates us from the Stalins and Hussens of the world.

It's funny. Where Bush has made mistakes, I've fully admitted it. Where Clinton made mistakes, you fail to see through your blue-lensed glasses. It's the same thing. And just for the record, I do wish we'd be more aggressive with the Saudis and other supporters and financiers of terror. This is something President Bush is not doing that I would like to see. I fail to believe the democrats lemming view that he cares more about oil than national security, but he should be more aggressive in spite of whatever negative public opinion would result. (Oops, there I go thinking for myself again!)

And I have stated numerous times Clinton should have done things better. I will not however, place the entire blame of 9-11 on his shoulders as you implied in your earlier post. I also recognize where Bush has errored, and although you have started to admit some of his misgivings, you did not earlier in your posts. You stated that clinton should have killed him when he had the chance, and absolved any blame concerning Bush and 9-11. Why? Why did you not comment on the PDB?

I didn't actually want to carpet bomb Iraq. I'm just frustrated. However, the way we used to wage war minimized American casualties. Total war works. A "surgical" war does not. Our casualty rate is so high in Iraq, because we're trying to minimize civilian casualties. A prolonged bombing campaign, followed by a "cleanup" effort of sorts by ground troops would have been far safer for our forces.

Total war against who? This Iraqis? How could we ever attack and "carpet bomb" Iraq? Under what notion, or guiding principal could we ever do that? We are a civilized nation, and as much as I like our military superiority, it means squat to insurgence attacks. How did the Soviets fare in Afghanistan? How did that work for them? They invaded the country for the sole purpose to take it over, and it didn;t work. We have our hands tied behind our back, which makes it even MORE difficult, and you think it is possible to accomplish the task? Study the history of the region, see what happened to the Brits and how they handled the situation. Take a look at what possible solutions are, and then formulate an opinion. What we are doing now is not working, and it will continue to fail and make things worse.

But in this day and age when one civilian casualty as a result of questionable procedure or an honest mistake leads the evening news, we have to make sure that doesn't happen. I don't have to tell you how much more difficult a lack of support at home makes warfighting. Hence, MY people are dying to save IRAQI civilians. It's like we value Iraqi citizens more than our soldiers, and I have a real problem with that.

you SHOULD have a real problem with that, I have a real problem with that. What you don't understand is asking for accountability on this mess is NOT hurting the troops. The republicans spew that nonsense because it aids them politically, and they can hide behind the rhetoric, but at what point do you take the keys away?

Meanwhile, our Civil War, WWI & WWII, Korea and Vietnam went exactly according to plan. Mistakes are made in war, chom, and where Bush has made mistakes I've pointed them out and agreed with you. Have we adjusted and had success as fast as I'd like? Of course not. Am I going to turn on my country and my president because things are tough? Of course not.

Questioning both MOTIVES for war, the way it was handled, and the way it is currently being handles is NOT turning on your country, it is called asking for accountability from your leaders. You would think the party of valued could understand the word accountability, but apparently they don't.

Nobody, and I mean nobody hates the concept of "talking points" more than I do. I hate a lot about politics in general, but it's so important, I just can't ignore it. I think what desparately needs to happen in this country is that the country needs to become the priority again. If you listen to most politicians, it seems like the campaigning never ends. The democrats this, the republicans that. Getting in, and staying in power, is more important to BOTH parties than anything else. That's sad.

I agree. . .

I'd love to ask 10 republicans and 10 democrats what first pops into their mind when I say "Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid." ALL they have done is criticize Bush. And like I said earlier, that's going to kill them in November. The democrats aren't taking control of anything. I guarantee it.

No, all they CAN DO is criticize Bush. The republicans will not let them bring about any legislation, they will not allow them to even function as a minority party. They have the mantra either it is our way or not, to bad. We are in power, that is what you have to deal with. All they can do is point out what is going wrong and try to fix it from the inside, but when you have no power, how do you get your bills on the floor?

Just for the record, if in the course of formulating my own opinion, if it happens to coincide with a "talking point," I'm not going to change it for that reason. Heck, you'd probably find an opinion or two of mine that matchup with existing democrat talking points. And THAT is most certainly unintentional.

"We will end the Republican culture of corruption and restore a government as good as the people it serves, starting with real ethics reform."

:laugh: I'd be embarrassed if that was the first line of my platform. I just got done saying that "the democrats don't have a plan and all they do is criticize republicans." Thanks for confirming that. :laugh:

Yes, ignoring the platform completely Why is it you can't actually debate what their platform is? What is different from 94 when the republicans were going to end the corruption? Anything? You ignored what they have, after stating they have no platform. Why is that? At lease have a little bit of honest discourse and debate the platform instead of ignoring it.