Liberal confessional here.

[KevinthePRF]

Originally posted by Art

Yes. That's precisely what we do. If a government with friendly ties to terrorists has such weapons, you're absolutely right, we'd have to take those countries out next. Iran has an advancing nuke program but hasn't arrived there with full success. Syria has ties to terrorists, but no known WMDs. North Korea is a liberal boondoggle as they are a xenophobic country with no ties to terrorism so the threat is different than the one we're fighting.

My guess is Israel will take out Iran's nuclear capacity before it is finalized. And democracy may well take out the threats in Iran or Syria before either country develops those threats more completely.

We did finish in Afghanistan. We toppled the government, removed the open base of operations for the terrorist group, enabled free elections for the first time in 5,000 years of existence and WE'RE still there helping out.

We're not shooting at one target here, Renegade. The United States had stood and destroyed the greatest threats to humanity from Communism to fascism to imperialism. Now we're fighting muslim fundamentalism. It's a grave threat. And it is a fight that will take generations to win.

We're not done by a long shot. You do a disservice to think the battle we're waging is a one-stop shopping place. Though terrorists have made Iraq the key area in the war on terror, it won't stop there either. It can't. And you shouldn't wish that it would.

Come on Art, I think your selling one axis continually short with your money in the bank xenophobic quote:

http://www.cfrterrorism.org/sponsors/northkorea.html

North Korea in '08 baby!

[Art]

Originally posted by KevinthePRF

Come on Art, I think your selling one axis continually short with your money in the bank xenophobic quote:

http://www.cfrterrorism.org/sponsors/northkorea.html

North Korea in '08 baby!

It has not been conclusively linked to a terrorist attack in 15 years is written in the first paragraph. France sells weapons to states that sponsor terrorism as well. Like, say, Iraq. That doesn't mean they've got muslim fundamentalists chilling out in country ready to launch the next attack.

North Korea is not a nice place and in a different time it would deserve our attention. But, the time now is for muslim fundamentalism, of which, North Korea has little or no part. I'm encouraged liberals see the threat of North Korea though, and hope you don't lose site of the ball when their time does come.

[DarkLadyRaven]

Originally posted by Art

This space is meant for liberals to apologize for months of working against our success in Iraq and make mention of how wrong they were that the election would be a mess. On a day when CNN reports the initial "rough estimate" of 72 percent voting (Fox reporting just over 60 percent) and showing just 25 people dead out of 8 million voters, today is a rousing success for Bush and the entire doctrine of freedom that should appeal to liberals in the first place.

Since I dont give a damn about Iraq and Im in it for Bin Laden Only, what do I have to apologize for?

If the Iraqis wanted to be free hold a god darn revolutution--countries do it all the time. Remeber general populations outnumber the gov army and officials all the time ( and not to mention defectors in army).

If you want to be free do it your self- I dont want Americans to die for someone elses freedom. If you want that to happen and make freedom everywhere a goal- then theres Sudan, China, North Korea, and a host of others you can free. But I dont see anyone supporting those too much.

How am I working against sucess in Iraq, I pay my damn taxes which a good portion goes to the troops other that that the troops dont even know me and probably the opinion of one 20 year old wont make them a hell of alot of difference. So my power to undermine is greatly exaggerated.

In my opinion, my opinion makes no difference to our government so it makes you wonder if you are not a great supporter of Bush admin poloicies why even care about the politics of the country as a whole. If you give a different opinion you are shouted down as anit war and liberal and treasonis. As an american it makes me wonder why should I even have a voice at all?

[Art]

Originally posted by Chopper Dave

I think it's as arrogant and pointless as the administration itself to go out of your way and demand an apology from liberals. Just because people voted doesn't change the fact that the war was misguided and unsuccessful in its stated goal. It doesn't change the fact that Iraqis and Americans are STILL dying every day.

Little has changed. Instead of fearing death by insidious tyrant, they fear death by pissed off rebels. Regardless of how many people voted, that country is so divided on such a basic level that it would take a miracle and a ridiculously extended American military presence to stop it from descending into civil war.

Meanwhile, North Korea has nukes, and Iran will probably have them soon. Funny thing is, Iraq never had them to begin with.

So rejoice. Rub the 72% turnout in our faces. Fine. Your holier-than-thou invitation to apologize (thanks for that, by the way, because honestly, before you asked us to apologize, I was sitting in a corner scratching my head as to what to do) is declined. As I said before, just because people voted doesn't mean anything is different.

Seriously, in your mind, I hope such a high voter turnout justifies the 1400+ American dead, not to mention the 10000+ American injured, along with the 15000+ Iraqi casualties. Because in mine, it doesn't. And it shouldn't.

Dave,

Those Iraqis standing in long lines, walking to vote, dancing and telling all the cameras they didn't fear the terrorists, was that them fearing pissed off rebels, or is that a liberal giving them a fear they don't actually seem to possess?

Saddam killed HUNDREDS of thousands and ran hundreds of thousands more out of Iraq. You can't be so lost in liberal philosophical spew that you'd equate the relatively mild level of terrorism going on now in Iraq with life under Saddam.

Please tell me even you, a fine, young, deluded liberal such as yourself can admit THAT is an unreasonable comparison, poorly made, revealing little but one's own foolish pride.

But, let's put it this way, Dave.

Do you really want to be on the side of those against freedom and democracy for millions, or on the side for that. You can only be on the side FOR that by admission of your errors to this point. Or, you can continue to fight against what we're trying to do, which puts you squarely against freedom and democracy for millions.

Come on over for the big win .

[visionary]

Originally posted by DarkLadyRaven

If the Iraqis wanted to be free hold a god darn revolutution--countries do it all the time. Remeber general populations outnumber the gov army and officials all the time ( and not to mention defectors in army).

LOL, they tried that already...it would never work in Iraq...for various reasons.

[Art]

Originally posted by DarkLadyRaven

Since I dont give a damn about Iraq and Im in it for Bin Laden Only, what do I have to apologize for?

If the Iraqis wanted to be free hold a god darn revolutution--countries do it all the time. Remeber general populations outnumber the gov army and officials all the time ( and not to mention defectors in army).

If you want to be free do it your self- I dont want Americans to die for someone elses freedom. If you want that to happen and make freedom everywhere a goal- then theres Sudan, China, North Korea, and a host of others you can free. But I dont see anyone supporting those too much.

How am I working against sucess in Iraq, I pay my damn taxes which a good portion goes to the troops other that that the troops dont even know me and probably the opinion of one 20 year old wont make them a hell of alot of difference. So my power to undermine is greatly exaggerated.

In my opinion, my opinion makes no difference to our government so it makes you wonder if you are not a great supporter of Bush admin poloicies why even care about the politics of the country as a whole. If you give a different opinion you are shouted down as anit war and liberal and treasonis. As an american it makes me wonder why should I even have a voice at all?

What you have to apologize for is being in it for Bin Laden only. You have to apologize long, hard, convincingly and consistently for having such a narrow, wretchedly foolish and HIGHLY dangerous view of the fight.

Islamic terrorists killed thousands of innocent civilians on 9/11. And ALL you want to do is narrowly fight the one group believed to be responsible? You can't get your mind around fighting muslim fundamentalism as a general statement?

Do you disagree that freedom of a people an democracy among a people leads to a healthier, more secure world? I doubt you do. Therefore you realize that while giving freedom and democracy to tens of millions we've begun remaking the world into a better, safer place.

And we've begun the process of marginalizing militant islamic terrorism.

We're not in it JUST for Bin Laden.

We're in it for muslim fundamentalism everywhere.

If you don't understand that and can't get behind fighting for that, it makes me wonder, too, why you should even have a voice at all.

[DarkLadyRaven]

Originally posted by Art

What you have to apologize for is being in it for Bin Laden only. You have to apologize long, hard, convincingly and consistently for having such a narrow, wretchedly foolish and HIGHLY dangerous view of the fight.

Islamic terrorists killed thousands of innocent civilians on 9/11. And ALL you want to do is narrowly fight the one group believed to be responsible? You can't get your mind around fighting muslim fundamentalism as a general statement?

Do you disagree that freedom of a people an democracy among a people leads to a healthier, more secure world? I doubt you do. Therefore you realize that while giving freedom and democracy to tens of millions we've begun remaking the world into a better, safer place.

We're not in it JUST for Bin Laden.

We're in it for muslim fundamentalism everywhere.

How is Saddam , a secularist that allowed, booze and basically maginalized the extreme religious right in his own country, impacting Fundamentalism? That does not make a lick of sense?

If you want freedom... go for it on your own and create YOUR OWN system- if they go for a more islamic state - theres not **** we can do about it.

Im still in it for Bin Laden, the master mind , for if you kill the head the body will die.

Im not suprised that some muslims do believe its an attack on thier religion, its just going to make them more pissed and become more extreme and possibly terroist.

I will never apologize for trying to avoid the above situation.

Hell we live in a nation where if you say take out a line in a pledge people willt thinks its an attack on religion:rolleyes:

[Akhhorus]

Originally posted by Art

What you have to apologize for is being in it for Bin Laden only. You have to apologize long, hard, convincingly and consistently for having such a narrow, wretchedly foolish and HIGHLY dangerous view of the fight.

Islamic terrorists killed thousands of innocent civilians on 9/11. And ALL you want to do is narrowly fight the one group believed to be responsible? You can't get your mind around fighting muslim fundamentalism as a general statement?

Do you disagree that freedom of a people an democracy among a people leads to a healthier, more secure world? I doubt you do. Therefore you realize that while giving freedom and democracy to tens of millions we've begun remaking the world into a better, safer place.

And we've begun the process of marginalizing militant islamic terrorism.

We're not in it JUST for Bin Laden.

We're in it for muslim fundamentalism everywhere.

If you don't understand that and can't get behind fighting for that, it makes me wonder, too, why you should even have a voice at all.

Art, do you honestly think that the United States can destroy Islamic Fundamentalism? And do you further think that the best way is to invade Islamic countries and install pro-US regiemes(whether Democratic or not)?

And furthermore, if its about bringing freedom to oppressive Islamic regiemes, how come we're not going after Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Indonesia, Jordan, Syria, Turkey(where the Military gets involves whenever they feel like it in overthrowing the government), Turkmenistan, Uzbechastan, Kazhakastan, etc etc. It seems like we're carving as many exception to the "bringing freedom to the Islamic world" rule as there are targets. If freedom from tyranny is the goal, then the policy has to be consistant. It isnt.

And the Election in Iraq is a great thing, but before patting ourselves on the back and a semi-self serving thread calling on "all liberals to apologize" over it, lets see who won, lets see who won and lets see if the people of Iraq consider it legit. If a ProBaathist party wins...is it a success? If a radical Shia party wins....is it a success? If any sort of Anti-US party wins....is it a success? If Zarquawi wins...is it a success? If a pro-US party wins, but no Shia or no Sunnis consider it legit...is it a success? You're declaring victory LONG before the game is over. We're not even in the second half and you've already called the game over.

[SkinsHokieFan]

Originally posted by DarkLadyRaven

How is Saddam , a secularist that allowed, booze and basically maginalized the extreme religious right in his own country, impacting Fundamentalism? That does not make a lick of sense?

Thats one of the fallacies of those opposed to deposing Saddam. And I am not particularly calling you out DLR, but I am calling this idea out because I have heard it so many times, and it is quite frankly absurd.

According to liberals, just about every Muslim leader had terrorist ties EXCEPT Saddam Hussien.

That is quite honestly one of the most absurd ideas I have ever heard, considering his anti-Isreali stand which resonates very highly with radical Muslims.

Paying the family of suicide bombers 25,000 dollars each was just the start. If anything, he marginilized Islam by supporting suicide (which is forbidden in the Quran and Hadith) and continued our path of self destruction as a civilized people.

However to say he had no terrorist ties is an absurd idea, which I think needs to be squashed

[Johnny Punani2]

I think this might be your best thread ever Art. lmao...

[SkinsHokieFan]

Originally posted by Chopper Dave

I think it's as arrogant and pointless as the administration itself to go out of your way and demand an apology from liberals. Just because people voted doesn't change the fact that the war was misguided and unsuccessful in its stated goal. It doesn't change the fact that Iraqis and Americans are STILL dying every day.

I do find it ironic that our resident Zionist finds this war misguided

[DarkLadyRaven]

Originally posted by SkinsHokieFan

According to liberals, just about every Muslim leader had terrorist ties EXCEPT Saddam Hussien.

That is quite honestly one of the most absurd ideas I have ever heard, considering his anti-Isreali stand which resonates very highly with radical Muslims.

Have we ever seen a Muslim leader thats pro-isreal.. and not just doing it to be on the good sides of the United States?

[Chopper Dave]

Originally posted by SkinsHokieFan

I do find it ironic that our resident Zionist finds this war misguided

I find it ironic that... well, nevermind, I don't want to get myself banned. Just know that I find your bringing my feelings towards Israel up highly ironic too.

Moreover, I've explained my position on both the war in Iraq and the situation in Israel many times. SHF, you're acting petty in bringing Israel into this. But it always does come down to Israel, doesn't it?

And Art, that post before was more a criticism of your high-and-mighty request for an apology than anything. I understand that we're taking on Muslim fundamentalism as a whole, and I understand that attacking a worldwide concept as opposed to a tangible enemy is ridculous. Maybe you don't. Either way, I have just as much of a say as you do (or at least I will in about a month), and I'm glad that there's one of me to counteract one of you, because the last thing we need is a country of drones just gobbling up everything the administration says.

[SkinsHokieFan]

Originally posted by DarkLadyRaven

Have we ever seen a Muslim leader thats pro-isreal.. and not just doing it to be on the good sides of the United States?

No Muslim leader will be "pro-Isreal", ever. Not even Musharraf who toyed with the idea of recognizing Isreal.

But Musharraf is not paying the families of suicide bombers 25,000 dollars like Saddam was

[SkinsHokieFan]

Originally posted by Chopper Dave

I find it ironic that... well, nevermind, I don't want to get myself banned. Just know that I find your bringing my feelings towards Israel up highly ironic too.

Moreover, I've explained my position on both the war in Iraq and the situation in Israel many times. SHF, you're acting petty in bringing Israel into this. But it always does come down to Israel, doesn't it?

My point being, as I am showing in my comments in this thread, Saddam was one who encouraged suicide bombings through economic means. 25,000 for a family of a suicide bomber that killed Isreali's?

If you ever get a chance to sit down with a poor would be suicide bomber, that is a lot of money. Not only has he been brainwashed into thinking he is going to get 72 virgins as soon as he enters Paradise, he also believes his family will be taken care of on Earth, because Saddam Hussien will give them 25,000 dollars, because of his actions.

Now, all he has is this misguided hope of 72 virgins. His family is left with nothing but pain and sorrow. You think that makes a difference in the lives of Isreali's?

People wanted a connection, some proof of Saddam and international terrorism.

There it is RIGHT IN FRONT OF EVERYONE's FACE, and we conviently ignore it.

[Chopper Dave]

Originally posted by SkinsHokieFan

My point being, as I am showing in my comments in this thread, Saddam was one who encouraged suicide bombings through economic means. 25,000 for a family of a suicide bomber that killed Isreali's?

If you ever get a chance to sit down with a poor would be suicide bomber, that is a lot of money. Not only has he been brainwashed into thinking he is going to get 72 virgins as soon as he enters Paradise, he also believes his family will be taken care of on Earth, because Saddam Hussien will give them 25,000 dollars, because of his actions.

Now, all he has is this misguided hope of 72 virgins. His family is left with nothing but pain and sorrow. You think that makes a difference in the lives of Isreali's?

Yes, I do, but I can also differentiate between the two situations. Yes, I'm Jewish. Yes, I love Israel and believe in it. But I'm also an American. And when I think about the situation as a whole, and this is from any aspect, and almost everytime I think about it, it always comes down to the same question;

At what cost?

[DarkLadyRaven]

Originally posted by SkinsHokieFan

Now, all he has is this misguided hope of 72 virgins. His family is left with nothing but pain and sorrow. You think that makes a difference in the lives of Isreali's?

Its kinda hard to be sympathatic to either side of the Isrealie Palestinian issue- I mean if you cant share the land then neither of you deserve the land. Keep on fighting and let Darwinism settle this one off (ie eleminate each other if you cant reasonably live)

[Art]

Originally posted by Akhhorus

Art, do you honestly think that the United States can destroy Islamic Fundamentalism? And do you further think that the best way is to invade Islamic countries and install pro-US regiemes(whether Democratic or not)?

And furthermore, if its about bringing freedom to oppressive Islamic regiemes, how come we're not going after Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Indonesia, Jordan, Syria, Turkey(where the Military gets involves whenever they feel like it in overthrowing the government), Turkmenistan, Uzbechastan, Kazhakastan, etc etc. It seems like we're carving as many exception to the "bringing freedom to the Islamic world" rule as there are targets. If freedom from tyranny is the goal, then the policy has to be consistant. It isnt.

And the Election in Iraq is a great thing, but before patting ourselves on the back and a semi-self serving thread calling on "all liberals to apologize" over it, lets see who won, lets see who won and lets see if the people of Iraq consider it legit. If a ProBaathist party wins...is it a success? If a radical Shia party wins....is it a success? If any sort of Anti-US party wins....is it a success? If Zarquawi wins...is it a success? If a pro-US party wins, but no Shia or no Sunnis consider it legit...is it a success? You're declaring victory LONG before the game is over. We're not even in the second half and you've already called the game over.

The policy is consistent, Ak.

Unfortunately, though, liberals seem to think the policy should be immediate. I wonder if liberals felt when Kennedy called for American ideals to oppose the spread of communism that he meant overnight.

Why is it you think it's appropriate to openly express the thought that when Bush spoke of spreading and fostering freedom and democracy throughout the world that if he doesn't do it by the next afternoon, that he's not doing it the right way.

Do any liberals in the world understand it takes time to set forth a doctrine of change this sweeping?

Even in 50 years when we know how successful it's been, it won't wipe out all remnants of the evil we're trying to rid. Just as we haven't gotten rid of Nazism or communism entirely. We've just made it ineffective and limited in scope.

It goes without saying that Zarqawi isn't running for office, but you know that and yet bring up the possibility that he'd win as plausible. Why do you limit the discussion by asking false hypotheticals that aren't at play here?

While liberals continue to keep hope for failure alive by constantly shifting dates to achieve success, the rest of us will continue asking, "How about simply admitting the obvious. Today was good. And right. And great. And how about you get that?"

Why is it that liberals continue to pose things in the, "Yeah, but, what happens if....." as a method of limiting the success we've seen all along and was confirmed for us today? Is it THAT difficult to just shrug your shoulders and say, "Hey, I thought it'd be terrible. Guess it wasn't. That's great. I hope it continues going well."

Why is there NEVER any hope for success in what liberals say, but consistent expressions of the failure not yet realized but potentially yet to come?

[Chopper Dave]

Originally posted by DarkLadyRaven

Its kinda hard to be sympathatic to either side of the Isrealie Palestinian issue- I mean if you cant share the land then neither of you deserve the land. Keep on fighting and let Darwinism settle this one off (ie eleminate each other if you cant reasonably live)

That's probably the most misguided, non-chalant-to-a-fault opinion I've ever heard. Maybe you should actually take a look at the situation rather than just decide that neither is deserves the land.

[Chopper Dave]

Originally posted by Art

"How about simply admitting the obvious. Today was good. And right. And great. And how about you get that?"

Today was great. Fine. I'll go along with that. You know what would be greater? Not having 1500 dead American soldiers.

[Art]

Originally posted by Chopper Dave

I find it ironic that... well, nevermind, I don't want to get myself banned. Just know that I find your bringing my feelings towards Israel up highly ironic too.

Moreover, I've explained my position on both the war in Iraq and the situation in Israel many times. SHF, you're acting petty in bringing Israel into this. But it always does come down to Israel, doesn't it?

And Art, that post before was more a criticism of your high-and-mighty request for an apology than anything. I understand that we're taking on Muslim fundamentalism as a whole, and I understand that attacking a worldwide concept as opposed to a tangible enemy is ridculous. Maybe you don't. Either way, I have just as much of a say as you do (or at least I will in about a month), and I'm glad that there's one of me to counteract one of you, because the last thing we need is a country of drones just gobbling up everything the administration says.

I had no idea JFK was ridiculous when he wanted to fight the spread of communism. No. I guess I don't know idealism is ridiculous. I do know liberals USED to have idealism and hope and optimism for change. And I know when liberals can't get behind the call for freedom and democracy in the world, there's something VERY wrong. I know THAT is ridiculous.

[Tarhog]

Originally posted by Chopper Dave

I find it ironic that... well, nevermind, I don't want to get myself banned. Just know that I find your bringing my feelings towards Israel up highly ironic too.

Moreover, I've explained my position on both the war in Iraq and the situation in Israel many times. SHF, you're acting petty in bringing Israel into this. But it always does come down to Israel, doesn't it?

And Art, that post before was more a criticism of your high-and-mighty request for an apology than anything. I understand that we're taking on Muslim fundamentalism as a whole, and I understand that attacking a worldwide concept as opposed to a tangible enemy is ridculous. Maybe you don't. Either way, I have just as much of a say as you do (or at least I will in about a month), and I'm glad that there's one of me to counteract one of you, because the last thing we need is a country of drones just gobbling up everything the administration says.

Now heres where YOUR condescension and arrogance reveals itself. Anyone who disagrees with our policies is a revolutionary free-thinking genuis. Those that support said policies are 'drones'.

Who's arrogant Dave?

[DarkLadyRaven]

Originally posted by Chopper Dave

That's probably the most misguided, non-chalant-to-a-fault opinion I've ever heard. Maybe you should actually take a look at the situation rather than just decide that neither is deserves the land.

Why does the peace process never seem to even get off the ground.. it seems there is too much mistrust to even try? Its been going on for so long that very few people want to listen to reason.

[Art]

Originally posted by Chopper Dave

Today was great. Fine. I'll go along with that. You know what would be greater? Not having 1500 dead American soldiers.

So, today would be greater with no dead Americans, but Saddam in power, than with 1,500 dead Americans and the first election in 50 years?

I fear you don't recognize the value of freedom.

[SkinsHokieFan]

Originally posted by Chopper Dave

Yes, I do, but I can also differentiate between the two situations. Yes, I'm Jewish. Yes, I love Israel and believe in it. But I'm also an American. And when I think about the situation as a whole, and this is from any aspect, and almost everytime I think about it, it always comes down to the same question;

At what cost?

Freedom and security are always at a high cost. Like I said, my point in bringing up Saddam and suicide bombers is that there was a connection and now that connection no longer exists.

In the long run if one of the sources for terrorism against Isreali's is eliminitated it makes the citizens of Isreal more secure and more able to lead normal lives.

If the citizens of Isreal are secure, and more importantly FEEL secure, it helps lead to a long term solution to the Isreali-Palestinan conflict, and thus nips in the bud the source of all sorts of terrorism.

Originally posted by DarkLadyRaven

Its kinda hard to be sympathatic to either side of the Isrealie Palestinian issue- I mean if you cant share the land then neither of you deserve the land. Keep on fighting and let Darwinism settle this one off (ie eleminate each other if you cant reasonably live)

Like I said, I am just trying to show Saddam and terrorism had a clear, unambigous connection. There are many other examples, this is the easiest to point out