"“We cannot deceive ourselves that we live in safety today and the war is over...." [Archive]

Tear Down This Wall

8/10/2006, 03:04 PM

The only Democrat with a brain, on the stump, now campaigning as an independent, said this today:

“I’m worried that too many people, both in politics and out, don’t appreciate the seriousness of the threat to American security and the evil of the enemy that faces us — more evil, or as evil, as Nazism and probably more dangerous than the Soviet Communists we fought during the long Cold War,” Mr. Lieberman said.

“We cannot deceive ourselves that we live in safety today and the war is over, and it’s why we have to stay strong and vigilant,” he added.

Amen, Joe!

Okla-homey

8/10/2006, 03:08 PM

That is precisely why I could vote for the guy. He gets it. This war is is job #1 and there's no backing off without uneccesarily exposing ourselves to great risk.

Tear Down This Wall

8/10/2006, 03:09 PM

And, there was more...

“I’m not saying we shouldn’t have healthy disagreement and discussion about national security, but to make it into a partisan political football, it’s just unacceptable and in my opinion un-American,” he said.

“How the heck can we be in a battle in which we are fighting as Democrats and Republicans against each other, when these terrorists certainly don’t distinguish based on our party affiliation?” Mr. Lieberman said. “They want to kill any and all of us.”

Joe Lieberman gets it. He so gets it. No wonder the Dems don't want him.

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!

8/10/2006, 03:16 PM

Okla-homey

8/10/2006, 03:25 PM

They keep saying 60%
of the American people are against the war in Iraq. I think we are screwed as far as security goes, if the dims are correct.

First, polls are polls. Depends on the questions and how they're constructed.
I bet you could get poll results that say 60% of folks don't like puppies if you constructed the question a certain way. Along those lines, if you ask "Are you in favor of war?" you're going to get a negative response rate. Extreme example I admit, but I'm trying to make a point and stuff.

What really matters is how the issues are framed and how the folks who vote feel. Heck, only about 20% of the eligible folks vote right?

yermom

8/10/2006, 03:26 PM

perhaps you should attack idiots and not "dims"

i'd imagine 60% includes people that aren't registered Democrats

being in Iraq sucks, but we are pretty much stuck there. what should be debated now is how to deal with setting up something stable there

i can't help but think that this **** in Lebanon will drag some of the Jihadis away from Iraq to fight the Isrealis. i wonder what else it will take before Isreal decides they want some of Iran

Widescreen

8/10/2006, 03:26 PM

OklahomaTuba

8/10/2006, 03:26 PM

The GWOT is the #1 issue. Its sad that the dims ate him alive for the sin of supporting this nation while its at war.

A sin that obviously cannot be forgiven.

The far left wackos want to cover thier ears and stick their heads in the sand and play isolationists.

Its to bad that one of the few dims of the partys good old days got kicked out of the party. I know I would vote for the guy in a heartbeat.

yermom

8/10/2006, 03:29 PM

and yeah, i don't trust polls and statistics all that much, i've taken too many surveys and heard too much on methods. if you don't see the questions/data, etc... it doesn't really tell you anything

things like "largest tax cut in history" and "higher health care benefits" are usually good examples of this

OklahomaTuba

8/10/2006, 03:30 PM

I saw that 60% figure too. That tells me nothing. Does that mean that 60% don't approve of the way the war is being executed? Or does it mean that 60% want us to pack up and leave today? There is a big difference.

You know, if I was asked the question "do I approve of the war?" I would say no. I hate war and I hate that our men and women are there putting their lives on the line, getting killed and all that stuff. I hate it! I get depressed seeing my coworker break down at work after losing her son in 2003 in Iraq and seeing all the kids on the news. It F'ing sucks and I want it to end NOW!

But if they asked me if we should cut and run, I would say HELL NO! Even the blind can see that leaving now would be a disaster to us and to the middle east, causing even MORE pain.

But the dims don't care. They want to hurt Bush no matter what, even at the expense of millions of Iraqis we have tried to give a better future to and at the expense of this nations national security. They hate Bush more than they hate the terrorist *******s who kill thousands of innocent people, and that is just disgusting.

Its disgusting that you have the largest web community for these people asking questions like this, and half of them think its Bush fault!

The thwarted U.K. plot

1. was legit. 520 votes - 50 %
2. was more drama from BushCo to keep us all afraid. 513 votes - 49 %
http://www.dailykos.com/poll/1155215117_JSWnibHe

yermom

8/10/2006, 03:31 PM

yeah, they hate Bush more, you are right, i'm sure that is true

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!

8/10/2006, 03:39 PM

Personally, I tend not to believe that a majority wants us to cut and run from Iraq. I think more and more people are A) beginning to believe there REALLY ARE lots of Islamists in many counrties that want to kill us, and B)We are a heck of a lot better off taking it to them halfway round the world than right here at home. Just a gut feeling, and also a hope.
The dims are trying to recreate the "Vietnam experience", their glory days,when conditions are VASTLY different. If they get their way, we've got BIG troubles ahead.

C&CDean

8/10/2006, 03:39 PM

yeah, they hate Bush more, you are right, i'm sure that is true

Dude, just because the people being ignorant here happen to be democrats doesn't mean all democrats are bad. Does it?

OklahomaTuba

8/10/2006, 03:44 PM

yeah, they hate Bush more, you are right, i'm sure that is true

Yeah, you're right. I guess all their words are just empty rhetoric and we should just forget the anti-war rallies, the moveon.org commericals and groups like codepink, ANSWR, etc.

Howzit

8/10/2006, 03:45 PM

I have nothing to add, aside from you guys should go vote for Czar. (http://www.soonerfans.com/forums/showthread.php?t=74275)

Tear Down This Wall

8/10/2006, 03:47 PM

I saw that 60% figure too. That tells me nothing. Does that mean that 60% don't approve of the way the war is being executed? Or does it mean that 60% want us to pack up and leave today? There is a big difference.

This is exactly what the Dems don't get. If someone asked me if I liked the way the war was going, I'd say, 'no' but not because I don't support the war. I'd say no because I want the thing being fought harder and tougher!

I want bombs, lots of bombs falling into the "Sunni Triangle." I want Al-Sadr's militia destroyed and him imprisoned. I want more insurgents captured and sent to Gitmo to stay until they rot.

So, while I'd be in the 60%, I'd not be there for there reasons Dems fantasize about. I support the war, but war should be war. Victory, not negotiation.

Can you imagine if the Allies had negotiated with the Axis powers instead of destroying them in WWII? The Axis powers got a heaping spoonful of our own brand of "disproportionate response" about 61 years ago this week. War is all about disproportionate response - the side with the most disproportionate response claims victory. The other side is rightfully destroyed.

OklahomaTuba

8/10/2006, 03:47 PM

Dude, just because the people being ignorant here happen to be democrats doesn't mean all democrats are bad. Does it?

Of course not.

But again, I am speaking of the party, not the people. And the party is becoming firmly in control of the extreamist left-wing that favors redeployment (retreat) and impeaching Bush for what ever.

I still believe there is a silent majority that would overcome this, but they don't seem to care anymore.

yermom

8/10/2006, 03:56 PM

they learned it by watching you guys ;)

mdklatt

8/10/2006, 04:13 PM

Iraq War != GWOT

SicEmBaylor

8/10/2006, 05:37 PM

Who is Lieberman going to caucus with if he wins as an indy?

Gandalf_The_Grey

8/10/2006, 05:45 PM

Well maybe after the Republicans harpoon McCain and Guillani for not being "tough" enough. Those 3 can start the Common Sense Party!

Okla-homey

8/10/2006, 05:49 PM

Well maybe after the Republicans harpoon McCain and Guillani for not being "tough" enough. Those 3 can start the Common Sense Party!

I think a Lieberman - Guilliani ticket would be awesome.

It would also be great to watch Al Gore's head explode when Lieberman won!

mdklatt

8/10/2006, 05:50 PM

I think a Lieberman - Guilliani ticket would be awesome.

[Mel Gibson]I disagree.[/Mel Gibson]

SicEmBaylor

8/10/2006, 05:52 PM

I think a Lieberman - Guilliani ticket would be awesome.

It would also be great to watch Al Gore's head explode when Lieberman won!

Yeah it'd be fantastic except for that whole domestic policy thing.

Harry Beanbag

8/10/2006, 05:53 PM

Iraq War != GWOT

I find it hard to believe that people are still incapable of drawing any connection between Iraq and the GWOT. Bush lied! Bush lied! :rolleyes:

Okla-homey

8/10/2006, 05:55 PM

I find it hard to believe that people are still incapable of drawing any connection between Iraq and the GWOT. Bush lied! Bush lied! :rolleyes:

...you forgot the "and people died" part.:rolleyes:

mdklatt

8/10/2006, 05:56 PM

I find it hard to believe that people are still incapable of drawing any connection between Iraq and the GWOT. Bush lied! Bush lied! :rolleyes:

There are probably a lot more terrorists in Iraq now than there used to be. If Lebanon and "Palestine" are any indication, spreading democracy in the Middle East may not be the best idea.

Okla-homey

8/10/2006, 06:00 PM

Yeah it'd be fantastic except for that whole domestic policy thing.

That carp is just details. We gotta war to win bubba. If we don't, none of that other stuff is gonna matter. First things first. I say vote for the guy who says he'll stay the course and take it to the bad guys on their turf. That will separate the statesmen from the politicians in '08 IMHO.

One ought never to turn one's back on a threatened danger and try to run away from it. If you do that, you will double the danger. But if you meet it promptly and without flinching, you will reduce the danger by half.
-- Sir Winston Churchill

TopDawg

8/10/2006, 06:00 PM

I find it hard to believe that people are still incapable of drawing any connection between Iraq and the GWOT. Bush lied! Bush lied! :rolleyes:

Were you trying to give us an example of how things can be deceiving based on their wording? I mean there's a connection between OU and Texas, but very few of us wear burnt orange.

Okla-homey

8/10/2006, 06:02 PM

There are probably a lot more terrorists in Iraq now than there used to be. If Lebanon and "Palestine" are any indication, spreading democracy in the Middle East may not be the best idea.

I don't think democracy-spreading should be our principle aim in the region in any case. Our principle aim should be killing jihaadis.

Gandalf_The_Grey

8/10/2006, 06:05 PM

Remember in Fahrenheit 9/11 when Moore was trying to sign up Senator's kids to serve in the army... Well I guess McCain took him up on it ;)

mdklatt

8/10/2006, 06:06 PM

I don't think democracy-spreading should be our principle aim in the region in any case.

Don't you gather that this is the neo-cons principle aim, though? At least that's what they say. I used to think that was a good idea, but now not so much.

Our principle aim should be killing jihaadis.

We'll never be able to kill all of them fast enough, and trying to do so just makes more of them. It's like trying to kill a starfish by cutting off all its legs.

Or like trying to kill a Gremlin by drowning it in water. :D

Harry Beanbag

8/10/2006, 06:09 PM

I don't think democracy-spreading should be our principle aim in the region in any case. Our principle aim should be killing jihaadis.

Exactly. This war needs to be fought right now, stop *****-footing around.

I suppose it's gonna take a nuke going off in London, New York, Phoenix, or Oklahoma City to wake this people up and realize what the **** is happening right in front of them.

mdklatt

8/10/2006, 06:15 PM

Exactly. This war needs to be fought right now, stop *****-footing around.

But what does this have to do with Iraq? I don't know if the pubz believe this or not, but they sure are implying that Iraq is the linchpin to the GWOT. I no longer understand how that can be. Sure it's great have done away with Saddam...but now what? His imprisonment certainly hasn't curtailed global terrorism. Having Osama bin Laden dead or on the run doesn't seem to be having a definitive effect, either. Do we have a plan other than killing all the brown people we can?

Blue

8/10/2006, 06:23 PM

I suppose it's gonna take a nuke going off in London, New York, Phoenix, or Oklahoma City to wake this people up and realize what the **** is happening right in front of them.

I think that is exactly what is going to have to happen. Even then, you won't convince everybody.

mdklatt

8/10/2006, 06:24 PM

I think that is exactly what is going to have to happen. Even then, you won't convince everybody.

To do what?

Blue

8/10/2006, 06:29 PM

To do what?

To stop fighting these crazy ****s with one hand tied behind our back. Or to fight them at all.

Harry Beanbag

8/10/2006, 06:29 PM

But what does this have to do with Iraq? I don't know if the pubz believe this or not, but they sure are implying that Iraq is the linchpin to the GWOT. I no longer understand how that can be. Sure it's great have done away with Saddam...but now what? His imprisonment certainly hasn't curtailed global terrorism. Having Osama bin Laden dead or on the run doesn't seem to be having a definitive effect, either. Do we have a plan other than killing all the brown people we can?

I haven't been invited to any war strategy meetings at the Pentagon lately, but I'll give you my opinion of what I think was supposed to happen. I think Iraq was supposed to be a base for further operations, probably against Iran, Syria, and whoever else wanted some. But weak kneed Europeans backed out when it came time to put up or shut up and this administrations domestic enemies with the complicit media have successfully succeeded in undermining the entire battle plan so we have ourselves a stalemate. Not enough global support to continue pursuing the enemy and obviously the U.S. can't do it alone, in both the military and political sense.

It really seems pretty obvious to me. Saddam and his history of UN violations and otherwise scurrilous behavior was low hanging fruit and made an easy sell to get the operation going. Some people are really holding a grudge because of the whole perceived lying thing, but are we really supposed to broadcast our entire war strategy to the entire world?

Of course this is JMHO. It appears we may be in a holding pattern until the next big terrorist hit, sad as it seems. These Islamofascists aren't going to suddenly be our friends when Bush leaves office. That's what they want.

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!

8/10/2006, 06:31 PM

To do what?Hard to say, but I don't think I would be letting people know I was a Moslem after that happened.

jk the sooner fan

8/10/2006, 06:52 PM

did i hear the news right this evening......that the first fallen domino that resulted in the arrests and thwarted plot was the discovery of a wire transfer of money from Pakistan to Great Britain?

hellooooooooooo patriot act........yeah, mark me down as being all for that

GottaHavePride

8/10/2006, 07:01 PM

jk the sooner fan

8/10/2006, 07:06 PM

But the Patriot Act had nothing to do with that - it didn't even happen in this country! ;)

no **** sherlock?

the principle remains the same....

Mongo

8/10/2006, 07:06 PM

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1225453,00.html

Thwarting the Airline Plot: Inside the Investigation
Exclusive: U.S. picked up the suspects' chatter and shared it with British authorities; new federal alert warns that peroxide-based explosives could also be employed in future attacks in the U.S.

I think we had a hand in it

Okla-homey

8/10/2006, 07:21 PM

my comments imbedded

Don't you gather that this is the neo-cons principle aim, though? At least that's what they say. Sure, they say that, but if anyone has any sense up there, and I honestly believe there are some smart people in and around the administration, they know better. The thing is, you gotta have a marketable mission, "Spreading democracy" sounds better than Jihaadi Death Machine

We'll never be able to kill all of them fast enough, and trying to do so just makes more of them. It's like trying to kill a starfish by cutting off all its legs.

I disagree. We don't have to kill them all. IMHO we need to remain engaged on the ground to keep them off-balance. Right now, we have the initiative. They must react to us, not the other way 'round. That means their best and brightest are constantly distracted and more easily thwarted and caught or ideally, killed. It takes time to develop effective terrorist leaders. Eventually, all that will be left are the dumbarses.

Think about WWII. By late 1944, the equally fanatical Japanese military had no experienced tactical level leaders left. Our pilots and boat skippers were able to smoke the n00bs who were left with no trouble. Sure, there were dead-enders and hold-outs, but those guys were'nt able to resieze the initiative or organize offensive campaigns.

I acknowledge they were'nt ready to surrender, but they couldn't do crap about regaining the upperhand. At that point, we faced an invasion of Japan, but Harry Truman obviated that with a couple of well-placed bombs. At that point, even the dead-enders cried the Japanese equivalent of 'Uncle.'

I see no reason why the same approach won't work in this war with an equally whacked-out but asymmetric threat. Without solid leadership, they can't do anything but blow-up cafes which is a dang sight better than large scale coordinated attacks a-la 9-11.

If we kill enough of them, they'll peter out like an offense down to its third-stringers :D

Harry Beanbag

8/10/2006, 07:26 PM

my comments imbedded

Yep. And on the homefront we need to be feverishly working on an alternative to fossil fuels.

Gandalf_The_Grey

8/10/2006, 07:26 PM

But what if Dubya finds out about me ordering a pizza!!!! DON'T YOU RESPECT THE CONSTITUTION!!!!

;)

Okla-homey

8/10/2006, 07:32 PM

Yep. And on the homefront we need to be feverishly working on an alternative to fossil fuels.

and more efficient internal combustion engines too please.

Gandalf_The_Grey

8/10/2006, 07:35 PM

and a Margarita as well please

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!

8/10/2006, 07:51 PM

and more efficient internal combustion engines too please.And, of course, pull out the stops to domestic drilling and refining.

Harry Beanbag

8/10/2006, 07:54 PM

And, of course, pull out the stops to domestic drilling and refining.

Now you're just getting crazy. :)

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!

8/10/2006, 08:34 PM

Now you're just getting crazy. :)So sayeth Algore and friends.

SoonerBorn68

8/10/2006, 08:45 PM

And, of course, pull out the stops to domestic drilling and refining.

I'll second that. ;)

sooner n houston

8/10/2006, 09:26 PM

According to a poll by CNN and Opinion Research Corporation, Sixty-one percent say some U.S. troops should be withdrawn by the end of the year.

Starr also reported that the poll asked whether respondents "favor the
withdrawal of all troops"--the Angry Left position. Only 26% said yes.

Hatfield

8/10/2006, 09:47 PM

the principle remains the same....

http://membres.lycos.fr/sironimo/belding02.jpg

mdklatt

8/10/2006, 11:12 PM

my comments imbedded

D'oh!

Sure, they say that, but if anyone has any sense up there, and I honestly believe there are some smart people in and around the administration, they know better.

I want to believe that. I used to believe that. There may be smart people, but is Bush listening to them?

The thing is, you gotta have a marketable mission, "Spreading democracy" sounds better than Jihaadi Death Machine

I agree completely. Which is why the fact that people started thinking Saddam had something to do with 9/11 wasn't pooh-poohed too vigorously by the administration, even though Rumsfeld officially denied it at least once. Still, I don't remember banner headlines like "IRAQ WAR IS NOT ABOUT 9/11", even in the "liberal media".

WE'RE AT WAR FOR THE CHILDREN!

You've got to be careful that the public doesn't discover the truth behind your marketing plan until after the deed is done though

It's possible that W and co. took, er, poetic license with the WMD evidence and the aforementioned Saddam-9/11 connection. We won't know the truth for awhile.

Aside: What do you think about the theory that FDR let Peal Harbor happen to get support for us entering WW II?

Think about WWII. By late 1944, the equally fanatical Japanese military had no experienced tactical level leaders left. Our pilots and boat skippers were able to smoke the n00bs who were left with no trouble. Sure, there were dead-enders and hold-outs, but those guys were'nt able to resieze the initiative or organize offensive campaigns.

I'm guessing the Japanese Army was very regimented and inflexible, going by how their society is. Sure they're going to fold when you take their leadership structure away. Terrorists are used to operating on their own with a very loose command structure. How much structure would it take for isolated WMD attack?

Gandalf_The_Grey

8/10/2006, 11:16 PM

This is funny just because Colbert did it to the MoveOn.org guy... He was like if you hate Lieberman, that means you hate jews and support Hitler...do you support Hitler sir!!

And also the classic, You think gays should be allowed in the military but that we should leave Iraq, so you are saying the gays should be left in Iraq while everyone else gets to come home?

mdklatt

8/10/2006, 11:33 PM

mdklatt

8/11/2006, 12:10 AM

I haven't been invited to any war strategy meetings at the Pentagon lately, but I'll give you my opinion of what I think was supposed to happen. I think Iraq was supposed to be a base for further operations, probably against Iran, Syria, and whoever else wanted some. But weak kneed Europeans backed out when it came time to put up or shut up and this administrations domestic enemies with the complicit media have successfully succeeded in undermining the entire battle plan so we have ourselves a stalemate. Not enough global support to continue pursuing the enemy and obviously the U.S. can't do it alone, in both the military and political sense.

In Iraq or the Middle East? I don't see how the Europeans are holding us back in Iraq.

Okla-homey

8/11/2006, 02:21 AM

:hot:

Aside: What do you think about the theory that FDR let Peal Harbor happen to get support for us entering WW II? I think that's bunk from looney conspiracy buyer-into-ers.

I'm guessing the Japanese Army was very regimented and inflexible, going by how their society is. So? Remember, they invented kamikaze...which is what these jihaadis often do. Regimentation and inflexibility of a society doesn't matter much when we're talking aircrews and battalion-level leaders. What matters is their overall level of training and combat experience. If you kill off the experienced tactical-level leaders, the n00bs who are left usually get their a$$es handed to them.

Sure they're going to fold when you take their leadership structure away. Terrorists are used to operating on their own with a very loose command structure. How much structure would it take for isolated WMD attack? A lot actually. Especially in the area of acquisition and delivery. I don't think a dozen twenty-something y/o guys living more or less on the run would be able to pull-it off.

SicEmBaylor

8/11/2006, 04:15 AM

But the Patriot Act had nothing to do with that - it didn't even happen in this country! ;)

The British have a similar version. Considerably tougher than ours.

swardboy

8/11/2006, 06:21 AM

The British have a similar version. Considerably tougher than ours.

The Brits can actually sneak in a suspect's house/apt. and search, then continue to surveil the suspect...this was a major factor in thwarting the plane-bombing plan. I love that.....

As to your earlier question...I believe Lieberman has said he'd caucus with the Dems....nothing really changes.

picasso

8/11/2006, 08:51 AM

Don't you gather that this is the neo-cons principle aim, though? At least that's what they say. I used to think that was a good idea, but now not so much.

We'll never be able to kill all of them fast enough, and trying to do so just makes more of them. It's like trying to kill a starfish by cutting off all its legs.

Or like trying to kill a Gremlin by drowning it in water. :D
so what's your solution then? we've got to fight them in one way or another.