stay the course?

[Hatfield]

president bush on sunday: "We've never been 'stay the course.'"


and from a recent media briefing w/the great tony snow:


Q Tony, it seems what you have is not "stay the course." Has anybody told the President he should stop calling it "stay the course" then?

MR. SNOW: I don't think he's used that term in a while.

Q Oh, yes, he has, repeatedly.

MR. SNOW: When?

Q Well, in August, because I wrote a story saying he didn't use it — and I was quite sternly corrected.

MR. SNOW: No, he stopped using it.

Q Why would he stop using it?

MR. SNOW: Because it left the wrong impression about what was going on. And it allowed critics to say, well, here's an administration that's just embarked upon a policy and not looking at what the situation is, when, in fact, it's just the opposite. The President is determined not to leave Iraq short of victory, but he also understands that it's important to capture the dynamism of the efforts that have been ongoing to try to make Iraq more secure, and therefore, enhance the clarification — or the greater precision.

Q Is the President responsible for the fact people think it's stay the course since he's, in fact, described it that way himself?

MR. SNOW: No.




remember in the book 1984 when the gov't would change direction and one nation, who formerly was an ally, would become an enemy and the other, an enemy, would become an ally? remember how they'd say "our enemy was never our enemy b/c they've always been our ally, and our ally was always our enemy - anyone who believes otherwise is trying to bring our nation down!"



in other news, with this new development that "stay the course" will no longer be the simplistic, bumpersticker battlecry of those who'd rather install fear in you than fight terrorists, cnn was reporting as i was putting my socks on this morning that the president is having a very important, high-level meeting with...

...right-wing radio hosts.


p.s. for the record, while he is no Ari, I enjoy Tony Snow much much more than Scott "Sweats" McClellen

[picasso]

did you know Dubya had a higher GPA at Yale than Kerry?

scary huh?

[OklahomaTuba]

Where does he say he never said "stay the course"?

BTW, the outcome is still the same and should be the same, a free and stable Iraq. That goal hasn't and should never change.

But this nuancing crap ****es me off. I hate it. I also hate we aren't doing what it takes to win, just enough to not accomplish the end game. ****ing me off big time, cause we have/had a great opportunity to make Iraq a beachhead for change in the middle east. Its slowly slipping away though.

Maybe throwing up the white flag and letting Iran and the Terrorists have the place is a better idea, as the libz suggest.

[JohnnyMack]

BTW, the outcome is still the same and should be the same, a free and stable Iraq. That goal hasn't and should never change.

Good luck with that.

[SoonerProphet]

What a predictable sh!t storm we have found ourselves in.

[IronSooner]

Raise your hand if you honestly thought this would go well, that the Iraquis would welcome us as liberators, or that the country would not fall into civil war.

[OklahomaTuba]

What a predictable sh!t storm we have found ourselves in.

Yup, war sucks.

More a reason to pick a side in Iraq, and fix the problem. (Sadr & Iran).

[JohnnyMack]

Yup, war sucks.

More a reason to not **** with Iraq in the first place, and fix the problem. (Sadr & Iran).

Fixed it for ya.

[Hatfield]

Where does he say he never said "stay the course"?

BTW, the outcome is still the same and should be the same, a free and stable Iraq. That goal hasn't and should never change.

But this nuancing crap ****es me off. I hate it. I also hate we aren't doing what it takes to win, just enough to not accomplish the end game. ****ing me off big time, cause we have/had a great opportunity to make Iraq a beachhead for change in the middle east. Its slowly slipping away though.

Maybe throwing up the white flag and letting Iran and the Terrorists have the place is a better idea, as the libz suggest.

he made the comment on ABC in his talk with George Stephanopoulos

the libz don't suggest that. big difference between not having a plan and not having the power to implement a plan.

but i agree this playing politics with policy right before an election (on both sides) is bullcrap that does nothing but endanger our troops.

[OklahomaTuba]

Raise your hand if you honestly thought this would go well, that the Iraquis would welcome us as liberators, or that the country would not fall into civil war.

I had no doubt the invasion would go well, but I myself really didn't know what to expect from the aftermath.

Unfortunatly, we are fighting so many different things right now. Al Qaeda, Baathists, Iranian supported insurgents, and then the sectarian struggles.

Its a mess thanks to all those elements combined with fighting with way to few troops, but i'd rather have the battles with AQ and Iran played out there than here, again.

[OklahomaTuba]

the libz don't suggest that.
What do they suggest then??

Their solutions all have one theme, get out now, and damn all the consequences.

[OklahomaTuba]

What do they suggest then??

Damn those crickets are loud. :D

[Hatfield]

i know one plan they aren't getting support with is the "strategic redeployment" where they withdraw the troops to other areas of the region where they will still be able to respond to needs in iraq.

that doesn't appear to me that it is saying white flag and runaway

[IronSooner]

I had no doubt the invasion would go well, but I myself really didn't know what to expect from the aftermath.

Unfortunatly, we are fighting so many different things right now. Al Qaeda, Baathists, Iranian supported insurgents, and then the sectarian struggles.

Its a mess thanks to all those elements combined with fighting with way to few troops, but i'd rather have the battles with AQ and Iran played out there than here, again.

I'd rather fight this over there too, but it's hard to see where anybody really prepared for all the possible scenarios. You have to figure someone thought about it, but that's not quite obvious. I'd have put money on a civil war back in '02. I wasn't really pumped about invading, but once you make that commitment, you have to win and win big. Since then I think we've just muddled through things and tried to keep the roof from caving in. It's the seeming lack of preparation and direction that bothers me most.

[Hatfield]

here are some more for you to digest

Kerry/Feingold Plan: Mostly intent of setting up a timetable I believe.

http://feingold.senate.gov/~feingold.../20060619.html

Biden Plan: The best bet I think.....but it really draws heavily from Peter Galbraith's wiritngs and book.

Biden's Plan: http://biden.senate.gov/newsroom/details.cfm?id=264509&

Galbraith: He has written extensively...but these two will do.

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/arti...ticle_id=17103 (Look it up in the library)

http://www.amazon.com/End-Iraq-Ameri...e=UTF8&s=books (Brilliant book...The Q Source for the "Biden Plan")

[Okla-homey]

Bottomline: Better to snuff jihaadis in Iraq than over here. If I were to design a tagline, it would not be "stay the course." It would be "Keep on Killing":texan:

One more thing, I actually believe the Elephants are going to retain Congress in the upcoming mid-terms.

If that doesn't suck the wind out of the "Its The War, Stupid" donkeys and send them scampering back to their holes, they are dumber than they now sound. The economy is on fire, gas prices are down, and unemployment is vitually non-existent. The party in the White House has never been trounced at the ballot box under those circumstances at any time in our history...despite the best efforts of the donkey-run traditional media industry.

[Hatfield]

after 8 minutes tuba was harping about the crickets on my end....wonder where he is now?

i am not saying you should agree with or support the dem plans, i think you should quit saying the plans don't exist at all.

[KABOOKIE]

I just read Biden's plan. Talk about a ****ing pipe dream. The jihadis would throw a wrench into that plan pretty dang quickly.

[Widescreen]

I heard they're not using "Stay the Course" anymore. They've switched to "Keep a'Goin'". It's more folksy and Texas.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

i know one plan they aren't getting support with is the "strategic redeployment" where they withdraw the troops to other areas of the region where they will still be able to respond to needs in iraq.

that doesn't appear to me that it is saying white flag and runawayFitting that the above was post #13 in this thread. Heh, "strategic redeployment"!

[Widescreen]

By the way, "Strategic Redeployment" is laughable. It's just political-speak for cut-and-run. Politicians love doing this crap. Remember how Clinton's tax increases were "Contributions"?

[WILBURJIM]

I see this mentioned every now and then, "...we're fighting them over there, so we don't have to fight them here..."

Why would we have to fight "them" here if we decided not to fight them there?

Just don't let them into the country.

Oh, they'll sneak in?

Can't they sneak in now?

[OklahomaTuba]

Why would we have to fight "them" here if we decided not to fight them there?

Oh, I dunno, maybe Britian and Spain can tell you.

[JohnnyMack]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=qZE20lzZZF0

Heh.

[OklahomaTuba]

here are some more for you to digest

Kerry/Feingold Plan: Mostly intent of setting up a timetable I believe.

http://feingold.senate.gov/~feingold.../20060619.html

Biden Plan: The best bet I think.....but it really draws heavily from Peter Galbraith's wiritngs and book.

Biden's Plan: http://biden.senate.gov/newsroom/details.cfm?id=264509&

Galbraith: He has written extensively...but these two will do.

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/arti...ticle_id=17103 (Look it up in the library)

http://www.amazon.com/End-Iraq-Ameri...e=UTF8&s=books (Brilliant book...The Q Source for the "Biden Plan")

Cut up then Cut'n Run.

The cut-up doesn't bother me really. I suspect that will happen eventually.

The part of his plan saying we have to leave in a certain date bothers me. That shouldn't ever be considered because its stupid.

[OklahomaTuba]

By the way, "Strategic Redeployment" is laughable.

Redeploy....to VICTORY!

http://blamebush.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/johnkerry.jpg


John Kerry voted for the war in Iraq before he voted against it. It’s a lie invented by the GOP propaganda machine and obediently repeated ad nauseum by the right-wing media in a concerted effort to falsely portray a decorated war hero thrice wounded in Vietnam as a spineless waffler who wouldn’t wipe his own backside without first checking the public opinion polls. But in truth, Kerry has always been opposed to the illegal and immoral war in Iraq. He was simply waiting until the voters had matured enough emotionally to agree with him. Now that all the polls indicate that most Americans believe the entire War on Terror is a complete waste of time, the esteemed senator from Massachusetts feels we’re at last ready to support his call for a complete and unconditional withdrawal of all U.S. forces from Iraq.

Make no mistake, this is NOT a retreat, but merely a phased "redeployment" of our troops back to the States, where they can be reunited with their loved ones and then tried for possible war crimes. There’s no shame is running away and living to fight another day – preferably while wearing a baby blue helmet. Indeed, it takes a strong man to swallow his pride and turn the other cheek in the face of adversity. Think of all the lives that would have been spared if on that sixth day of June, 1944, Gen. Eisenhower had put his enormous ego aside and brought our boys home, rather than force them to storm a silly beach in an illegal and immoral war against a country that never attacked us. Imagine if Jingus Khan had the courage to end his reign of terror and redeploy his troops back to Mongolia, rather than continue to burn and pillage in a fashion reminiscent of the United States Marine Corps. Imagine all the people living life in peace.

Sadly, the chickenhawk-controlled congress doesn’t have the guts to flee like real men, and essentially told Kerry to take his amendment and "redeploy" it to a certain area of his anatomy. However, the measure went over gangbusters with Al Qaeda, a testament to Sen. Kerry’s skill as a diplomat. If John Kerry can find common ground with a sworn enemy of the United States, just think of the kind of president he’ll make.

[Hatfield]

Cut up then Cut'n Run.

The cut-up doesn't bother me really. I suspect that will happen eventually.

The part of his plan saying we have to leave in a certain date bothers me. That shouldn't ever be considered because its stupid.

i thought you said they have no plan...now you say there is a plan. tuba you going flip flopper on us? :)

there is more than one plan there, which "his plan" are you referring to? I also left murtha's plan out because i don't like it.

and the issue isn't do you like the plan...it is more that you look even more foolish when you assert that they have no plans.

[Vaevictis]

If that doesn't suck the wind out of the "Its The War, Stupid" donkeys and send them scampering back to their holes, they are dumber than they now sound.

Yeah, but if it doesn't go down that way? ;)


The economy is on fire, gas prices are down, and unemployment is vitually non-existent. The party in the White House has never been trounced at the ballot box under those circumstances at any time in our history...despite the best efforts of the donkey-run traditional media industry.

Yeah, well, if we're going to appeal to history, we should also take a peek at 6th year mid-terms. In the past 100 years or so, of all the Presidents, only Clinton didn't take a beating in the 6th year mid-terms:

(stolen from electoral-vote.com: )

1998 -- Clinton. Senate net change: 0. House net change: +5
1986 -- Reagan. Senate net change: -8. House net change : -5
1974 -- Ford. Senate net change: -5. House net change: -48
1966 -- Johnson. Senate net change: -4. House net change: -47.
1958 -- Eisenhower. Senate net change: -13. House net change: -48.
1950 -- Truman. Senate net change: -6. House net change: -29.
1938 -- Roosevelt. Senate net change: -6. House net change: -71.
1926 -- Coolidge. Senate net change: -6. House net change: -10.
1918 -- Wilson. Senate net change: -6. House net change: -19.

(FWIW, unemployment for third quarter 2006 was ~4.7%, inflation for third quarter >3%.)

As far as analogs go, I'd just like to point out that in 1966, inflation was 2.7% and unemployment was 4.5%. Gas was cheap, too. And being the history buff that you are, you know the other stuff that was going on at the time.

[Vaevictis]

I see this mentioned every now and then, "...we're fighting them over there, so we don't have to fight them here..."

The only reason that we're able to "fight them there" is because that's how they want it. They think they're getting something out of it.

Otherwise, like every other terrorist or insurgent movement, they'd melt away and strike somewhere else.

The correct question then, is: What are they getting out of it?

[WILBURJIM]

Oh, I dunno, maybe Britian and Spain can tell you.
Are you trying to prove my point? Britain is and Spain was part of the Coalition in Iraq. Both were attacked by jihadists. Them fighting with us in Iraq against the jihad did not protect them now did it?

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

[QUOTE=Vaevictis]
Yeah, well, if we're going to appeal to history, we should also take a peek at 6th year mid-terms. In the past 100 years or so, of all the Presidents, only Clinton didn't take a beating in the 6th year mid-terms:

You really have to point out that Clinton got his as* handed to him in the '94 elections, when there was a massive win by the Repubs in both houses of Congress. The NEW(Republican) status quo was upheld in the '98 mid-term elections.

[Vaevictis]

You really have to point out that Clinton got his as* handed to him in the '94 elections, when there was a massive win by the Repubs in both houses of Congress. The NEW(Republican) status quo was upheld in the '98 mid-term elections.

That's a matter of interpretation. The fact that he didn't get his *** totally handed to him in the 6th year elections (like every other President on the list) might be indicitive that the public didn't like something that the Republicans were doing at the time.

It might also be that the fact that he had it handed to him in 1994 left the voters no *** to hand him ;)

Either way, the point stands: With the exception of Clinton, there's a long trend of Presidents taking a beating in the second term mid-terms.

And I still question Homey's assertion that no president's party with a good economy, low oil prices and low unemployment has had their asses kicked in, given 1966.

[SoonerProphet]

The attacks in Madrid and London were by homegrown folks. Doesn't have anything to do with the naive and pollyanish nonsense about flytraps and "fighting them over there".

[Hatfield]

we really are getting away from the orwellian we were never stay the course lunacy

[JohnnyMack]

we really are getting away from the orwellian we were never stay the course lunacy

<Darth Vader>All too easy</Darth Vader>

[Vaevictis]

we really are getting away from the orwellian we were never stay the course lunacy

Politicians flip-flop like a fish out of water. ALL of them do. No suprise here.

Although it is fun watching people who pilloried Kerry over it do backflips and twist themselves into pretzels trying to justify it when Bush is exposed doing it too.

[Tear Down This Wall]

Look, I've stayed out of these posts for weeks because the real answer will never change.

We had the opportunity to go into guerilla warfare with the Japanese in the waning days of WWII. We chose instead to win the war by causing enough destruction and "collateral damage" to industrial and civilian areas for them to understand it was time to quit.

We did not follow the same path in Korea, so we have six decade now of North Korea. Today, that North Korea is so separated from reality that it believes its a player on the world stage. We could crush them in an instant. Instead, it's people starve and are brutalized by a an insane rule who thinks he has some sort political capital because they launched a rocket that stayed airborn for a mere 40 seconds.

We did not follow the same path in Vietnam, so Vietnam today sits under a nurderous communist regime. Our refusal to take Vietnam down was also a major contributing factor to Pol Pot's murderous regime in Cambodia. Laos and Thailand also suffered civil violence due to our pull out and refusal to end the war by winning it in Vietnam. We had our bootheels on the neck of the Vietcong and let them up, then walked away.

Today, we do the same thing. In the name of not offending people, we send troops off to patrol in a country who will simply wait until someone with less political will to "stay the course" is the president of the U.S. And, believe me, there are enough "p*ssies in both major parties of our political arena that would simply walk away.

There are no more Harry Trumans in American politics. Everyone has a P.R. front and an encumbent warchest full of money. Pleasant lunches and free money mean more to D.C. politicians than actually winning a war so that my 8 month old son won't someday have to fight the damn ragheads again when he's 18 or 19.

As in every conflict since WWII, we have the power to end the conflict in Iraq, the puny threats in North Korea and Iran, and in the joke of a country we call Fidel Castro's Cuba. The only problem is that no one has the stomach to shed the Nagasaki/Hiroshima type of blood it would take to end it.

Pity.

[TexasSooner01]

Clinton could of had Bin Laden killed after BL bombed the USS Cole...But he didnt. He was too busy buying cigars for Monica.

[PhilTLL]

Think of all the lives that would have been spared if on that sixth day of June, 1944, Gen. Eisenhower had put his enormous ego aside and brought our boys home, rather than force them to storm a silly beach in an illegal and immoral war against a country that never attacked us.

Germany declared war on us, unless that's another one of the inconvenient facts that no longer exists.

[OklahomaTuba]

Are you trying to prove my point? Britain is and Spain was part of the Coalition in Iraq. Both were attacked by jihadists. Them fighting with us in Iraq against the jihad did not protect them now did it?

Take a look at France right now, the greatest appeaser of them all. A non-stop intifada is cooking there.

[SoonerProphet]

What the f*ck does WWII have to do with this? Analogy much folks.

[OklahomaTuba]

The attacks in Madrid and London were by homegrown folks.

And by homegrown folks you mean some guys from Pakistan, Sudan, Egypt, etc...

[JohnnyMack]

Look, I've stayed out of these posts for weeks because the real answer will never change.

We had the opportunity to go into guerilla warfare with the Japanese in the waning days of WWII. We chose instead to win the war by causing enough destruction and "collateral damage" to industrial and civilian areas for them to understand it was time to quit.

We did not follow the same path in Korea, so we have six decade now of North Korea. Today, that North Korea is so separated from reality that it believes its a player on the world stage. We could crush them in an instant. Instead, it's people starve and are brutalized by a an insane rule who thinks he has some sort political capital because they launched a rocket that stayed airborn for a mere 40 seconds.

We did not follow the same path in Vietnam, so Vietnam today sits under a nurderous communist regime. Our refusal to take Vietnam down was also a major contributing factor to Pol Pot's murderous regime in Cambodia. Laos and Thailand also suffered civil violence due to our pull out and refusal to end the war by winning it in Vietnam. We had our bootheels on the neck of the Vietcong and let them up, then walked away.

Today, we do the same thing. In the name of not offending people, we send troops off to patrol in a country who will simply wait until someone with less political will to "stay the course" is the president in the U.S. And, believe me, there are enough "p*ssies in both major parties of our political arena that would simply walk away.

There are no more Harry Trumans in American politics. Everyone has a P.R. front and an encumbent warchest full of money. Pleasant lunches and free money mean more to D.C. politicians than actually winning a war so that my 8 month old son won't someday have to fight the damn ragheads again when he's 18 or 19.

As in every conflict since WWII, we have the power to end the conflict in Iraq, the puny threats in North Korea and Iran, and in the joke of a country we call Fidel Castro's Cuba. The only problem is that no one has the stomach to shed the Nagasaki/Hiroshima type of blood it would take to end it.

Pity.

What the **** are you talking about?????

[JohnnyMack]

What the f*ck does WWII have to do with this? Analogy much folks.

Oh. Sorry. Missed your post. Heh.

[PhilTLL]

As in every conflict since WWII, we have the power to end the conflict in Iraq, the puny threats in North Korea and Iran, and in the joke of a country we call Fidel Castro's Cuba. The only problem is that no one has the stomach to shed the Nagasaki/Hiroshima type of blood it would take to end it.

Setting up shop in Iraq of our own volition and then blowing it to bits would literally make us worse than Saddam Hussein. But, if you want to root for nuclear war, be my guest, I'll see you in the mutant ward. The threat of nuclear weapons has taken away large-scale conventional war against comparable powers where their use might actually be justified, like in World War II, so since then we've been reduced to proxy battles, glorified neighborhood watch programs, and "nation-building." None of which exactly scream "legitimate cause for annihilation."

Oh, and the trumped-up threat of "the smoking gun = the mushroom cloud!!!" is one of the reasons we say we went there.

[Vaevictis]

We had the opportunity to go into guerilla warfare with the Japanese in the waning days of WWII. We chose instead to wins the war by causing enough destruction and "collateral damage" to industrial and civilian areas for them to understand it was time to quit.

The parallels in this specific instance are tenuous at best. The only reason that war didn't go guerilla is because the Emporer cared enough about his people to put his foot down, go on the radio, and publicly castrate the military government that was in charge at the time by calling for surrender. Without that act, they would have fought until the bitter end.

Nobody in the anti-American leadership gives a rats *** about how many civilians get killed.

Even if we do somehow manage to bomb them back into the stone age in the Middle East, I think it's pretty clear that they have other bases that they can launch attacks from. Are we willing to bomb western European cities into the stone age? How about our own?

[Fugue]

The parallels in this specific instance are tenuous at best. The only reason that war didn't go guerilla is because the Emporer cared enough about his people to put his foot down, go on the radio, and publicly castrate the military government that was in charge at the time by calling for surrender. Without that act, they would have fought until the bitter end.

Nobody in the anti-American leadership gives a rats *** about how many civilians get killed.

Even if we do somehow manage to bomb them back into the stone age in the Middle East, I think it's pretty clear that they have other bases that they can launch attacks from. Are we willing to bomb western European cities into the stone age? How about our own?

come on, the Emporer surrendered to stay Emporer.

[Tear Down This Wall]

In Korea, Vietnam, and Iraq, we did what Harry Truman declined to do with the stubborn Japanese at the end of WWII. There is no need to fight anyone on the ground when their will to fight can be crushed with the weaponry we have through the air.

I doubt there'd be much of a will to fight by "insurgents" if we simply leveled "Sadr-City", Anbar, and some other well chosen provinces within Iraq. And, I mean leveled, not merely hit "strategic targets." I mean complete and total destruction of the entire city down to the last brick.

It doesn't matter, though, because although we have the power to do it and end the war, we don't have the will.

Therefore, thread after thread of discussion of it is pointless.

[Tear Down This Wall]

come on, the Emporer surrendered to stay Emporer.

The Emporer surrendered because we showed him we could utterly destroy his whole nation and there would be nothing he could do about it if he continued.

Sadly, the Emporer was so stubborn, Truman had to order up two missions to get him to submit. But, submit he did.

[Tear Down This Wall]

Are we willing to bomb western European cities into the stone age? How about our own?

Western Europeans aren't calling for jihad against us. Western Europeans didn't send 20 miscreants over to America to hijack airplanes and fly them into the World Trade Center Towers. Western Europeans aren't threatening to build a nuclear arsenal to use against us. So, your mention of them is pointless.

[Ike]

Even if we do somehow manage to bomb them back into the stone age in the Middle East, I think it's pretty clear that they have other bases that they can launch attacks from.


The thing is...if we bomb the middle east back into the stone age, we only set em back six weeks...

[soonerspiff]

...how can you compare the Emperor of Japan to the suicide bombers, terrorist militias, and sectarian factions in Iraq?


Seriously, what the ****

[Vaevictis]

come on, the Emporer surrendered to stay Emporer.

The Emporer had no power to surrender, which is why it wasn't him that did it.

All he could do was undercut the military. It almost got him killed, too. There was an attempted coup prior to his radio address.

Had that succeeded, they would have installed a more pliable emporer. It wouldn't have been the first time in Japanese history that that had happened.

[Tear Down This Wall]

Setting up shop in Iraq of our own volition and then blowing it to bits would literally make us worse than Saddam Hussein. But, if you want to root for nuclear war, be my guest, I'll see you in the mutant ward. The threat of nuclear weapons has taken away large-scale conventional war against comparable powers where their use might actually be justified, like in World War II, so since then we've been reduced to proxy battles, glorified neighborhood watch programs, and "nation-building." None of which exactly scream "legitimate cause for annihilation."

Oh, and the trumped-up threat of "the smoking gun = the mushroom cloud!!!" is one of the reasons we say we went there.

Your mention of nuclear war is ridiculous. We have weapons below nuclear grade that are capable of the type of destruction needed to end the war. Again, though, the will to use them isn't there in either party.

Also, you forget that the U.N. vote to drive out Saddam Hussein was the reason we got into Iraq. That vote was unanimous. We had only one vote, so to say the actions there were "of our own volition" is simply wrong.

[SoonerProphet]

And by homegrown folks you mean some guys from Pakistan, Sudan, Egypt, etc...

No, I am talking about citizens of the country. A Spaniard is being charged with acquiring the explosives. It is also pretty well known that the UK bombers were born there.

[Fugue]

The Emporer had no power to surrender, which is why it wasn't him that did it.

All he could do was undercut the military. It almost got him killed, too. There was an attempted coup prior to his radio address.

Had that succeeded, they would have installed a more pliable emporer. It wouldn't have been the first time in Japanese history that that had happened.

but it didn't succeed and who remained Emporer even after the war?

[leavingthezoo]

The only problem is that no one has the stomach to shed the Nagasaki/Hiroshima type of blood it would take to end it.

Pity.

it's a pity? are you serious?

so, you're all for ending massive amounts of civilian lives? that sounds vaguely familiar... and if i'm correct, which i am, we condemn people for doing the same.

for the record, those people should be condemned, just as anyone should be. how do you get to that point though? where life God created becomes so invaluable to you that you can justify oblitering many innocent ones. i'm open to be indoctrinated.

[PhilTLL]

Your mention of nuclear war is ridiculous. We have weaponry below nuclear grade that are capable of the type of destruction needed to end the war. Again, though, the will to use them isn't there in either party.

You specified Hiroshima & Nagasaki levels of bloodshed. Stick to the rules of your own argument.


Also, you forget that the U.N. vote to drive out Saddam Hussein was the reason we got into Iraq. That vote was unanimous. We had only one vote, so to say the actions there were "of our own volition" is simply wrong.

Did we bring the issue to the UN? Did we use evidence we haven't been able to substantiate in almost 4 years? Did we form a non-UN group to fight the war when the UN couldn't unify to fight it? Shifting the blame to the UN is a novel argument, just not one that seems valid.

[Vaevictis]

Western Europeans aren't calling for jihad against us. Western Europeans didn't send 20 miscreants over to America to hijack airplanes and fly them into the World Trade Center Towers. Western Europeans aren't threatening to build a nuclear arsenal to use against us. So, your mention of them is pointless.

There's a significant population of Muslims in Western Europe; of that population, there is a minority which is receptive to our enemies' message -- a minority which I suspect would grow if we really unleashed hellfire and damnation in the Middle East.

If what you say is true -- that there is no other option but to bomb these people to kingdom come -- then we'll eventually have to extend our campaign into Western Europe.

We have our own population that's receptive, too. Hence my comment on potentially bombing our own cities.

[JohnnyMack]

Western Europeans aren't calling for jihad against us. Western Europeans didn't send 20 miscreants over to America to hijack airplanes and fly them into the World Trade Center Towers. Western Europeans aren't threatening to build a nuclear arsenal to use against us. So, your mention of them is pointless.

Why are they calling for a jihad against us? Why did they send those 20 miscreants over to America?

[Fugue]

it's a pity? are you serious?

so, you're all for ending massive amounts of civilian lives? that sounds vaguely familiar... and if i'm correct, which i am, we condemn people for doing the same.

for the record, those people should be condemned, just as anyone should be. how do you get to that point though? where life God created becomes so invaluable to you that you can justify oblitering many innocent ones. i'm open to be indoctrinated.

true, we do this everyday to our own unborn.

it's a hard hurdle to hurdle. My worry is that we will get to a battle with some of these countries where all we can do is trade n-bombs.

Maybe we could agree to just trade f-bombs. :D The SO could take out Iran.

[Fugue]

true, we do this everyday to our own unborn.

it's a hard hurdle to hurdle. My worry is that we will get to a battle with some of these countries where all we can do is trade n-bombs.

Maybe we could agree to just trade f-bombs. :D The SO could take out Iran.

thread ruinererer :mad:

[Tear Down This Wall]

...how can you compare the Emperor of Japan to the suicide bombers, terrorist militias, and sectarian factions in Iraq?


Seriously, what the ****

Easily. Those type of tactics were used by the Japanese in WWII. From Kamikazi airstrikes against enemies to the wholesale slaughter of civilians as well as prisoners of war, their tactics were in many cases similar.

Thankfully, Harry Truman didn't allow for factionalism or any other type of "ism" in Japan. When Japan repeatedly refused to stop fighting, he simply chose to show them that we could and would destroy their entire nation, if necessary. After a couple of its cities laid in utter destruction, the Japanese came around and decided it wasn't worth it to continue to fight us.

Yep. Good ol' Harry Truman knew how to end a conflict.

[Tear Down This Wall]

There's a significant population of Muslims in Western Europe; of that population, there is a minority which is receptive to our enemies' message -- a minority which I suspect would grow if we really unleashed hellfire and damnation in the Middle East.

If what you say is true -- that there is no other option but to bomb these people to kingdom come -- then we'll eventually have to extend our campaign into Western Europe.

We have our own population that's receptive, too. Hence my comment on potentially bombing our own cities.

No, here we would simply have to bulldoze the mosques and deport the muslims. I've already suggested that years ago in similar threads. Muslims don't dominate U.S. cities.

[SoonerProphet]

I think "nation" may be the operative word here.

[Tear Down This Wall]

it's a pity? are you serious?

so, you're all for ending massive amounts of civilian lives? that sounds vaguely familiar... and if i'm correct, which i am, we condemn people for doing the same.

for the record, those people should be condemned, just as anyone should be. how do you get to that point though? where life God created becomes so invaluable to you that you can justify oblitering many innocent ones. i'm open to be indoctrinated.

At last check, we weren't at war to convert the muslims to Christianity. They are at war, they say, on behalf of Allah. We are not at war on behalf of any diety.

And, as mentioned, we already have Americans who don't bat an eye at the murder of the unborn or the elderly in the name of convenience, so its hard to believe some appeal to the "life God created" coming from the political wing that doesn't mind murdering the most helpless of its own citizens.

Where American leftists call murder "abortion" and "euthanasia", those at war call murder "killing the enemy." As the Sergeant in The Big Red One said of his enemy, "You don't murder an animal, you kill it."

[Fugue]

:pop:

[Ike]

Easily. Those type of tactics were used by the Japanese in WWII. From Kamikazi airstrikes against enemies to the wholesale slaughter of civilians as well as prisoners of war, their tactics were in many cases similar.

Thankfully, Harry Truman didn't allow for factionalism or any other type of "ism" in Japan. When Japan repeatedly refused to stop fighting, he simply chose to show them that we could and would destroy their entire nation, if necessary. After a couple of its cities laid in utter destruction, the Japanese came around and decided it wasn't worth it to continue to fight us.

Yep. Good ol' Harry Truman knew how to end a conflict.


I don't think that the same solution will work in Iraq however. The Japaneese were a unified enemy. By getting the top dudes to reconsider, the war was winnable. Our enemies in the middle east are not so unified. Baathists, secular death squads, AQ, etc...the non-unified and cellular makeup of the enemies we are fighting over there, IMHO, does not make nukes a viable solution to winning the war. If anything, I think they would quickly escalate the violent factions in the middle east and completely wipe out those who might sympathize with us.

[JohnnyMack]

Easily. Those type of tactics were used by the Japanese in WWII. From Kamikazi airstrikes against enemies to the wholesale slaughter of civilians as well as prisoners of war, their tactics were in many cases similar.

Thankfully, Harry Truman didn't allow for factionalism or any other type of "ism" in Japan. When Japan repeatedly refused to stop fighting, he simply chose to show them that we could and would destroy their entire nation, if necessary. After a couple of its cities laid in utter destruction, the Japanese came around and decided it wasn't worth it to continue to fight us.

Yep. Good ol' Harry Truman knew how to end a conflict.

So Truman's wholesale slaughter of innocent civilians is ok because we won?

[leavingthezoo]

At last check, we weren't at war to convert the muslims to Christianity. They are at war, they say, on behalf of Allah. We are not at war on behalf of any diety.

And, as mentioned, we already have Americans who don't bat an eye at the murder of the unborn or the elderly in the name of convenience, so its hard to believe some appeal to the "life God created" coming from the political wing that doesn't mind murdering the most helpless of its own citizens.

Where American leftists call murder "abortion" and "euthanasia", those at war call murder "killing the enemy." As the Sergeant in The Big Red One said of his enemy, "You don't murder an animal, you kill it."

ok, let's pretend you hold the moral authority over me because i'm "the left wing". would it surprise you that i am agaisnt abortion? i am. so with this argument alone, you are fine with killing innocents while i am not. i'll call your morality and raise it with a bible thumpin'. WHOA! i have a bible, too. scary, ain't it?

killing the enemy (including civilians) makes it ok in your eyes. in mine, it means we are very similar to the enemy. so much so, that we will adopt their mentality and call it ok because we're on the other side.

your diety speak kind of came out of left field, so i don't even know what to say to that.

[Fugue]

nobody likes the f-bomb idea? well then f you guys. :P

[Fugue]

ok, let's pretend you hold the moral authority over me because i'm "the left wing". would it surprise you that i am agaisnt abortion? i am. so with this argument alone, you are fine with killing innocents while i am not. i'll call your morality and raise it with a bible thumpin'. WHOA! i have a bible, too. scary, ain't it?

killing the enemy (including civilians) makes it ok in your eyes. in mine, it means we are very similar to the enemy. so much so, that will adopt their mentality and call it ok because we're on the other side.

your diety speak kind of came out of left field, so i don't even know what to say to that.


Sassy! :D

[leavingthezoo]

nobody likes the f-bomb idea? well then f you guys. :P

i'm f-bombing you repeatedly right now.

[Fugue]

my f-bombing you repeatedly right now.

give it to me baby :texan:

sorry, I'm on some serious meds.

[Tear Down This Wall]

I agree complete, Ike.

That is why I said, you'd only have to destroy a few very radically-charged areas. Sadr-City, Anbar, Tikrit, etc.

What the insurgents have going for them is the fact that Americans do deplore bloodshed. We don't run out into the streets and celebrate the military successes of our nation. We don't take prisoners of war or civilians or journalists and cut their heads off in the name of our "god" and threaten more of the same if our "demands aren't met."

We rightly despise war. It is not in our nature to fight. Remember, we watched Hitler take nearly the entire European continent without much more than some tersely worded letters entreating him not to conquer. We were sitting and watching bombs fall on London without so much as a hint of coming to anyone's aid - until Japan bombed us. A Japan we had sat and watched take nearly every island from it's own shores down to Australia's front door.

We were forced into action. And, we ended that war with action. Then, we had leaders who were willing to shed blood afar quickly and decisively instead of drawing it out in the name of "diplomacy."

We've worn our "diplomacy" hat for long enough with the Middle East. We can end the bloodshed there, but we won't. When they buried Harry Truman and the likes of Patton, they buried our political and military will to win wars.

[Tear Down This Wall]

So Truman's wholesale slaughter of innocent civilians is ok because we won?

You confuse war with concepts of "right" and "wrong", "ok" and "not ok."

That's why we get tied down in places like Korea, Vietnam, and Iraq. Instead of being in the mindset of war, we're in the mindset of "how will this play out in the papers." Or, "Will such and such a country invite us to tea again. I'm so fond of the time I spend with my foreign friends from Harvard and Yale."

You don't war to prove right or wrong, you war to stop an enemy from attacking your own population. Ok or not ok should never enter the equation until your enemy raises the white flag.

[JohnnyMack]

You confuse war with concepts of "right" and "wrong", "ok" and "not ok."

That's why we get tied down in places like Korea, Vietnam, and Iraq. Instead of being in the mindset of war, we're in the mindset of "how will this play out in the papers." Or, "Will such and such a country invite us to tea again. I'm so fond of the time I spend with my foreign friends from Harvard and Yale."

You don't war to prove right or wrong, you war to stop an enemy from attacking your own population. Ok or not ok should never enter the equation until your enemy raises the white flag.

Then don't complain when they fly a plane into some of our buildings.

[Vaevictis]

That is why I said, you'd only have to destroy a few very radically-charged areas. Sadr-City, Anbar, Tikrit, etc.

That's what you believe to be the case. What you believe and what actually end up happening may be totally different things.

An equally likely result (IMO) is that such actions simply export the insurgency out of those cities, and possibly even out of the country.

[Widescreen]

So for those of you ridiculing TDTW, what is your bright idea to win? We as a nation have decided that winning is not as important as sparing innocent lives even if this war goes on for decades thus killing thousands more Americans. While I have real empathy for innocent victims of war overseas (they're moms, dads, wives, husbands too, etc), I have far more concern with American lives. So, while it's not an easy choice, I would choose to end it quickly rather than let it string out forever. We are WAY too concerned with what the media and our "allies" (emphasis on the quotes) would say. We simply have lost our backbone as a nation.

[Tear Down This Wall]

That's what you believe to be the case. What you believe and what actually end up happening may be totally different things.

An equally likely result (IMO) is that such actions simply export the insurgency out of those cities, and possibly even out of the country.

We don't know that. We do know that what we are doing now doesn't seem to work very well all of the time.

We do know that destroying entire cities within the span of a few days convinced Japan that continuing to fight us wasn't worht it.

We've tried patrolling the streets, curfews, checkpoints, "getting everyone involved - Sunni, Shiite, and Kurd - involved in the process", and that hasn't done it. There is another way we have used before and proved very effective.

But, lamentably, Harry Truman is dead, George S. Patton buried as well. And so, our best hopes of fighting and winning a war.

[Veritas]

Man, these threads are SO unpredictable. :rolleyes:

[Tear Down This Wall]

Then don't complain when they fly a plane into some of our buildings.

That doesn't make any sense. We didn't do anything to invite their attack. We've done plenty to defend ourselves, which is what a government is supposed to do in such instances.

Further, we didn't start WWII, but ended it when they hit our interests as well. The difference between our generation and our grandfathers' generation is that they fought to win, we fight until we begin to win, then back off and play "diplomacy."

Our way doesn't work. Our grandfathers' way worked. It wasn't right or wrong to them, it was just survival.

[Vaevictis]

We don't know that. We do know that what we are doing now doesn't seem to work very well all of the time.

I can agree with you on this.


We do know that destroying entire cities within the span of a few days convinced Japan that continuing to fight us wasn't worht it.

Again, the parallels are tenuous at best. The emporer was already attempting to arrange for a negotiated surrender prior to the dropping of the bombs. The bombs just gave us a stronger hand at the negotiating table -- and contrary to our stated policy, we did negotiate the surrender.

Are our enemies in Iraq already attempting to negotiate a surrender? Is there a single figurehead in Iraq that can force a surrender?

[Scott D]

Man, these threads are SO unpredictable. :rolleyes:

aren't they though? :D

I'm embarrassed for all of you that none of you have mentioned that Tuba supports terrorist snipers.

[Vaevictis]

I'm embarrassed for all of you that none of you have mentioned that Tuba supports terrorist snipers.

There's no need. Everybody knows Tuba supports terrorist snipers.

And as a true blue GOPer, he also clearly supports the airing of terrorist propoganda: http://www.gop.com/Multimedia/MediaPlayer.aspx?ID=1136&TypeID=2

[Tear Down This Wall]

Are our enemies in Iraq already attempting to negotiate a surrender? Is there a single figurehead in Iraq that can force a surrender?

No. But, that's my point. Bombing the crap out of the kurds would be pointless. They're not the ones helping and or joining there insurgency. Bombing the crap out of Al-Sadr's people and the various cities where violence continually re-erupts is different.

Our problem is that we are waiting for Iraq's new leaders to try to stop the bloodshed when, in reality, the influence for the insurgency is on the ground in certain particular areas. Iraq's new leaders are worthless. Despite the smell of democracy, the foundation is still muslims who hate each other.

Here, when our candidates loses an election, we don't start bombing his or her denomination's churches until he or she agrees to put a certain percentage of our chosen denomination's people in power.

It's absurd. And, yet, it's what's happened in Iraq.

We went there with the backing of the U.N. to enforce its sanctions against Saddam Hussein. After toppling him, terrorists decided to make Iraq the battle ground.

Fine. They are scattered and weak. We have the power to crush their powerbases. But, we don't use that power to do so...so they take their losses, regroup, and start again. Not fine.

[leavingthezoo]

So for those of you ridiculing TDTW, what is your bright idea to win? We as a nation have decided that winning is not as important as sparing innocent lives even if this war goes on for decades thus killing thousands more Americans. While I have real empathy for innocent victims of war overseas (they're moms, dads, wives, husbands too, etc), I have far more concern with American lives. So, while it's not an easy choice, I would choose to end it quickly rather than let it string out forever. We are WAY too concerned with what the media and our "allies" (emphasis on the quotes) would say. We simply have lost our backbone as a nation.


well, i for one, apologize for rediculing TDTW.

i will also admit i don't know what the answer is. clearly, no one does. but geography does not make one life more valuable than another to me. i won't apologize for that.

i do feel strongly though, that if we threw caution to the wind, and willingly sought to destroy and kill as many people as possible to prove a point, or gain a victory- there is a world of people who would come together collectively for the first time to show us their disapproval in an equally destructive way- also using the same justification we are using.

am i wrong? maybe. it's a volatile subject. and anyone with unquestioning confidence is being naive, IMO.

[JohnnyMack]

That doesn't make any sense. We didn't do anything to invite their attack. We've done plenty to defend ourselves, which is what a government is supposed to do in such instances.

Further, we didn't start WWII, but ended it when they hit our interests as well. The difference between our generation and our grandfathers' generation is that they fought to win, we fight until we begin to win, then back off and play "diplomacy."

Our way doesn't work. Our grandfathers' way worked. It wasn't right or wrong to them, it was just survival.

That you can't get your arms around the "why" concerning 09/11 is what makes them hate us. Your, "We didn't do anything wrong, we're just being Americans" attitude is what perpetuates this conflict. I'm not saying I condone the actions of the terrorists who lashed out on 09/11, just that I can understand them.

Same can be said of our war with Japan. If you think Pearl Harbor was an unprovoked attack against our interests you're naive.

[Veritas]

I'm not saying I condone the actions of the terrorists who lashed out on 09/11, just that I can understand them.
Dude. Seriously? Like how you can understand that Jeff Dahmer got raped when he was a kid so he raped, killed and ate people? Or different than that?

[Vaevictis]

We need to kill Al-Sadr, I think we can both agree on that. Stop *****-footing around with him. Either he's part of the process, or he's a rebel. He can't be both.

In fact, I think we need to assassinate the leadership of both factions, pin the blame on the other, and get the f*ck out from inbetween them. Let the f*cking place devolve into full blown civil war, and then when one side wins and comes out of the woodwork to assume control, bomb *them* to kingdom come if we don't like 'em. Repeat as necessary.

[Vaevictis]

Dude. Seriously? Like how you can understand that Jeff Dahmer got raped when he was a kid so he raped, killed and ate people? Or different than that?

Sympathizing with them is not the answer. Understanding them is quite possibly part of the solution.

To go with your Dahmer analogy, there's a reason why we have psychologists after all.

Sun Tzu was correct when he suggested that knowing your enemy is half the battle ;)

[Tear Down This Wall]

Johnny,

I could care less whether or not they hate us. Believe me, there are parts of the America culture that I'm not pleased about. But, I'm not murdering anyone because of it, or funding the murder of people because of it.

It's not for me or my government to rationalize any faction's hate towards us. And, further, when they choose to make their arguments in a militarisitic way, they invite the full wrath of our military in response.

But, as discussed, we have yet to employ said "full wrath" so we are where we are today - Iraq in control in some areas, and not so much in the same areas as two years ago. Destroy those areas and end it.

[Hatfield]

i ain't ridiculing anyone, but if you are concerned about the loss of american lives it would be helpful if you were also concerned about loss of innocent lives over there. kind of a snake eating its tail.

this thread has gone to crazy town.

[Tear Down This Wall]

Repeat as necessary.

http://www.escentual.co.uk/isroot/Escentual/SiteImages/ProductImages/tisserand/shampoo.jpg

[Vaevictis]

I get all my advice from the back of a shampoo bottle :D

[C&CDean]

That you can't get your arms around the "why" concerning 09/11 is what makes them hate us. Your, "We didn't do anything wrong, we're just being Americans" attitude is what perpetuates this conflict. I'm not saying I condone the actions of the terrorists who lashed out on 09/11, just that I can understand them.

Same can be said of our war with Japan. If you think Pearl Harbor was an unprovoked attack against our interests you're naive.

I've held off on several of your recent posts in this thread because I just figured you were being an average liberal smartass. Now, all I can say is "wow." Seriously.

You think the ****ing POS ragheads who are keeping our country living in mortal fear and ridiculous paranoia are righteous? You think they're somehow justified in their murder and torture? Because we refuse to accept their rendition of how the whole thing went down way back when in Abraham's time that makes us wrong and them right? Suggestion: cop a ****ing clue. And kiss that little baby tonight. If we all thought like you, that kid would be sucking tit off some ugly yainch wearing a rag over her face.

Sometimes you're seriously ****ed up. This would be one of those times.

[Veritas]

Sun Tzu was correct when he suggested that knowing your enemy is half the battle ;)
This is a tangent here, but since the wheels have come clean off this thread...

The kingdom of Wu only managed to last 9 years before it got owned. I'm thinking following Sun Tzu's advice didn't really work out that well. ;) :P

I think knowing where your enemy is is half the battle so that you can drop a laser guided bomb on his ***.

[Vaevictis]

I think knowing where your enemy is is half the battle so that you can drop a laser guided bomb on his ***.

It is good to know where your enemy is. It is better to decide where your enemy will be ;)

As far as that whole Wu thing goes, that had nothing to do with Sun Tzu. Clearly they had lost the mandate of heaven ;)

[Veritas]

It is good to know where your enemy is. It is better to decide where your enemy will be ;)

As far as that whole Wu thing goes, that had nothing to do with Sun Tzu. Clearly they had lost the mandate of heaven ;)
Heh... Didn't he basically fall off the planet after Wu defeated Chu or whatever the province was?

I'm still a big fan of laser guided bombs.

[Vaevictis]

Heh... Didn't he basically fall off the planet after Wu defeated Chu or whatever the province was?

I have no frakkin' idea.


I'm still a big fan of laser guided bombs.

So am I. It's just that, imo, bombs ain't enough.

Frankly, I generally agree with the idea of a Marshall Plan for the Middle East, I just think the execution is lacking.

[swardboy]

That you can't get your arms around the "why" concerning 09/11 is what makes them hate us. Your, "We didn't do anything wrong, we're just being Americans" attitude is what perpetuates this conflict. I'm not saying I condone the actions of the terrorists who lashed out on 09/11, just that I can understand them.

Same can be said of our war with Japan. If you think Pearl Harbor was an unprovoked attack against our interests you're naive.


Wow....America had just given unprecedented aid to Japan for some natural catastrophe....there was NO provocation involved. Japan just saw our involvement in Europe as an open door to taking the Pacific rim...raw aggression. Even their diplomats in Washington were ashamed of the situation.

[C&CDean]

**** lasers. That **** is way too expensive. I'm a fan of carpet bombing. Line up B-52s wing-to-wing and have them drop 500-pounders first. Follow that up with B-1s over select cities. Then bring in the B-2s - followed by the next round of B-52s. All conventional weapons. Burn up all that leftover Vietnam stock. Napalm. WP. HE. All of it.

**** the ****ers. I'm sick of being controlled by them. I'm sick of listening to Americans go "gee, I feel so much safer now that they're checking my shoes and making me bag up my 2 ounces of shampoo at the airport." I'm sick of going to a football game and having an old lady have to throw away her purse.

The terrorists are kicking our asses, and some of you are happy about it. They are beating us down like punks because some of you aren't willing to speak up. Some of you think so much of PC that even when Akbar Muhammad is raping your 12-year old daughter in front of you after beheading your ugly-*** wife with a butter knife you'll be like "please Mr. Middle easterner - did that offend you to call you that? - please do not rape my daughter...." Meh. **** em'. **** em' all.

[Scott D]

Wow....America had just given unprecedented aid to Japan for some natural catastrophe....there was NO provocation involved. Japan just saw our involvement in Europe as an open door to taking the Pacific rim...raw aggression. Even their diplomats in Washington were ashamed of the situation.

certainly the blocking of some aspects of things, not to mention the insistence upon forcing nations into accepting limitations on the size and quantity of their military had absolutely nothing to do with it ;)

[OklahomaTuba]

There's no need. Everybody knows Tuba supports terrorist snipers.

And as a true blue GOPer, he also clearly supports the airing of terrorist propoganda: http://www.gop.com/Multimedia/MediaPlayer.aspx?ID=1136&TypeID=2

Again, since you didn't seem to understand it the first time, I don't see much in the way of a terrorist sniping an American soldier in that video, unlike the disgusting video CNN showed.

Of course, those little differences don't seem to register with you or Scott, at all. Very unfortunate.

[OklahomaTuba]

I'm not saying I condone the actions of the terrorists who lashed out on 09/11, just that I can understand them.

Yeah, I mean who doesn't understand the need to fly aircraft into tall buildings and kill thousands of innocent people.

What a dumb *** thing to say JohnnyMack.

Wait till these *******s get a nuke or something. Then we can all understand their need to destroy an entire US city and maybe even kill hundreds of thousands of people.

[Scott D]

Again, since you didn't seem to understand it the first time, I don't see much in the way of a terrorist sniping an American soldier in that video, unlike the disgusting video CNN showed.

Of course, those little differences don't seem to register with you or Scott, at all.

Really it's ok that it's been discovered you support terrorism. I mean we're not calling for a jihad on you or anything. Just admit it and move on.

[OklahomaTuba]

Really it's ok that it's been discovered you support terrorism. I mean we're not calling for a jihad on you or anything. Just admit it and move on.

Just remember, the first step is understanding it...

[Scott D]

one day we may be able to cure you :)

[Vaevictis]

Again, since you didn't seem to understand it the first time, I don't see much in the way of a terrorist sniping an American soldier in that video, unlike the disgusting video CNN showed.

Of course, those little differences don't seem to register with you or Scott, at all. Very unfortunate.

Actually, I'm just enjoying sniping at you ;)

Also, I learned something from the Republicans: It doesn't matter what the facts are, if you say something often enough, there are people who will believe it. You are a shining example of this principle.

Tuba supports terrorist snipers.

:D

[PhilTLL]

Again, since you didn't seem to understand it the first time, I don't see much in the way of a terrorist sniping an American soldier in that video, unlike the disgusting video CNN showed.

Of course, those little differences don't seem to register with you or Scott, at all. Very unfortunate.

So because there's not actual footage of a death in the RNC ad means that it wasn't designed to scare people and incite them to vote on base fear? To take the same tack, in that video CNN showed, I didn't see any disgusting highlighted/emphasized quotes from Osama Bin Laden (who is a priority only intermittently, it seems) or gigantic explosions or CGI mushroom clouds with Arabic script in the middle.

[mdklatt]

Is a Bush a flip-flopper or a cut-n-runner now? :confused:

[Scott D]

he's a crocs kind of guy ;)

[KABOOKIE]

certainly the blocking of some aspects of things, not to mention the insistence upon forcing nations into accepting limitations on the size and quantity of their military had absolutely nothing to do with it ;)


Well, I wonder why there was such insistence on those limitations to begin with? Maybe previous experience? I dunno. But, in the case of Japan I'm sure it had to do with their complete disregard with nations like China that caused America to create an embargo. Sheeeew. I guess if understanding that's all it takes to attack us then, I'm sure a few people here would understand when we blow them the **** up....

[OklahomaTuba]

So because there's not actual footage of a death in the RNC ad means that it wasn't designed to scare people and incite them to vote on base fear?

It was designed to remind people of the threat that exists today, and why the cut'n run crowd on the left cannot be trusted with the nations national security.

It wasn't designed to show off the terrorists own propaganda footage of them sniping and killing a US soldier.

Some things are off limits. Again, its sad that some cannot understand this simple concept, but then again this is probably why they are liberal/progressive in the first place.

[OklahomaTuba]

Is a Bush a flip-flopper or a cut-n-runner now? :confused:

I don't think he was actually for cut'n run, before he voted against it.

[PhilTLL]

It was designed to remind people of the threat that exists today, and why the cut'n run crowd on the left cannot be trusted with the nations national security.

It wasn't designed to show off the terrorists own propaganda footage of them sniping and killing a US soldier.

Some things are off limits. Again, its sad that some cannot understand this simple concept, but then again this is probably why they are liberal/progressive in the first place.

Answer a rhetorical question, ignore the rest of the post, then call someone stupid. Your usual great work, A+.

Personally, I think politicizing the threat of terrorism and literally quoting Osama Bin Laden to get votes for your party is fairly off limits, too.


To take the same tack, in that video CNN showed, I didn't see any disgusting highlighted/emphasized quotes from Osama Bin Laden (who is a priority only intermittently, it seems) or gigantic explosions or CGI mushroom clouds with Arabic script in the middle.

[SoonerBorn68]

Without going through the last six pages is it safe to guess that Hatfield started a thread then cut and run, PhilTTL, mdklatt, and Johnny Mack argued with Tuba, ScottD made a few zingers and Tuba made points that Vaevictis is too intellectually weak to understand?

Just checking.

[yermom]

if by points you mean took jabs at liberal/progressives, you are pretty close

[yermom]

It was designed to remind people of the threat that exists today, and why the cut'n run crowd on the left cannot be trusted with the nations national security.

It wasn't designed to show off the terrorists own propaganda footage of them sniping and killing a US soldier.

Some things are off limits. Again, its sad that some cannot understand this simple concept, but then again this is probably why they are liberal/progressive in the first place.

i'm pretty sure that "concept" is that the line is whether or not Tuba agrees with the politics of it

[SoonerBorn68]

if by points you mean took jabs at liberal/progressives, you are pretty close

That too. :D

As long as I could get my smack in without actually contributing to this continous trainwreck, I'm happy. :)

[StoopTroup]

I'm sick of going to a football game and having an old lady have to throw away her purse.
I'm not gonna say that this is the only reason that security has been increased at the Stadium....but...

I think the Kid who blew himself up in front of the Stadium during the K-St. game had more of an impact than any Islamic Terrorist.

Maybe it's just me...but didn't it seem to just fade away as a story.

It was like it was taboo to write about.

Folks who bring weapons onto a School, College or University Campus are of grave concern since that occurance, yet very little was made of that event.

You now see barriers and increased security though.

[OklahomaTuba]

Tuba made points that Vaevictis is too intellectually weak to understand?

Just checking.

Tis usually the case. :D

[OklahomaTuba]

Personally, I think politicizing the threat of terrorism and literally quoting Osama Bin Laden to get votes for your party is fairly off limits, too.
Ahh, I see.

Quotes by Osama = Bad.

Terrorist video showing soldier gettting sniped and killed = OK!

Well, at least they have the moral backbone not to show a carton of Mohammad.

[WILBURJIM]

Take a look at France right now, the greatest appeaser of them all. A non-stop intifada is cooking there.

And that trouble would still be there even if France had joined the Coalition.
The fighting there has little effect on the jihad elsewhere.

The jihad in the US will be kept in check by good intel, little of which comes from Iraq operations, since most of the fighting there is Baathist vs Coalition and Coalition sympathizers(shi'a). Our best intel on jihad operations comes from France, ironically.

[OklahomaTuba]

Well good.

I'd rather they fight it out in France then. :)

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

They don't need to stay the course...they need to stop being pussies and start blowing up anyone that so much as digs their nose aggressively

[Tear Down This Wall]

They don't need to stay the course...they need to stop being pussies and start blowing up anyone that so much as digs their nose aggressively

That's what I said yesterday that blew this thread up. Look, there's a time for words and a time for action. We've talked to these jerk-offs long enough. We've patrolled their streets, we've road blocked their cities, we've helped them with curfews, we've held everyone's hand and played nice as the government tried to get the "right mix" of this or that type of raghead in the cabinet...

The time for talking is done. We know which parts of the country keep flairing up in violence. Waste them. They don't want to be a part of the process anyway. They think they're going to heaven if we waste them. We're actually doing them a favor...in their islamic-twisted minds.

As WWII was winding down the Japs tested us and we gave them a couple of mighty arsewhippings. To me, it's time to either whip arse or go home and let the fackers kill themselves off.

And, hear me now and believe me later...my mindset is the reason I don't think Democrats will take both houses of Congress and may take neither in two weeks. They are misreading the polls about Iraq.

Yes, many are dissatisfied with the situation. But, there are as many people dissatisfied like me who are dissatisfied because we're not kicking arse, not because we're there. I completely fine with us being there. But, since we're there, go ahead a kick arse!

And, finally, I know that electing Democrats isn't going to cure the situation. All they'll do is run up the white flag and come home. No Republican is going to step over the line and vote for that trash.

Level Sadr-City, Anbar, Tikrit, and the other few insurgent "strongholds" and the ragheads will crawl to the negotiating table the same way the Japs did back in the day.

Where, oh, where is this generation's Harry Truman?

[leavingthezoo]

Ahh, I see.

Quotes by Osama = super fantastic, best move ever, i think i might faint from freakin' admiration and awe, RAH RAH RAH!

Terrorist video showing soldier gettting sniped and killed = naughty, naughty. they should go to hell and sizzle and fry- but not me even though i've played that card repeatedly and am doing my best to promote the video by pretending i'm appaulled and offended!

Well, at least they have the moral backbone not to show a carton of Mohammad.

how much mohammad fits in a carton anyway? :D

[JohnnyMack]

I've held off on several of your recent posts in this thread because I just figured you were being an average liberal smartass. Now, all I can say is "wow." Seriously.

You think the ****ing POS ragheads who are keeping our country living in mortal fear and ridiculous paranoia are righteous? You think they're somehow justified in their murder and torture? Because we refuse to accept their rendition of how the whole thing went down way back when in Abraham's time that makes us wrong and them right? Suggestion: cop a ****ing clue. And kiss that little baby tonight. If we all thought like you, that kid would be sucking tit off some ugly yainch wearing a rag over her face.

Sometimes you're seriously ****ed up. This would be one of those times.

I never said they were righteous. I never said they were justified. Nor do I need your chest thumping scare tactics laid out about how lucky I am to live here, I get that. I said that I could understand why those terrorists did what they did on 09/11.

Young, educated men who were unhappy with their situation. Manipulated if not brainwashed by the powers that be (the Ayatollahs who in turn were/are manipulating Bin Laden) into believing that they were being oppressed by the Zionist regime and that the infidels from the west were the evil occupiers of their lands. Promised a place in heaven for taking the war to whitey. Promised they'd be revered as heroes and rewarded in their afterlife. These young men saw themselves as the edge of the sword in the battle for their lands. So while I don't condone or in any way endorse their behavior, I can understand what they were going through in their minds. In their minds they had worked so hard for so long to no avail. The west, with all its excess and debauchery was reaching its sordid arm out to try and grab even more. Those 19 men sought to put an end to what they perceived to be a great injustice. That's what I'm talking about when I say I can understand what they were going through. I can't empathize with their situation, but I can understand where they were coming from.

The question I keep wondering about is, who really benefits? Who really benefits from the attempted destablization of the west? Who really benefits from the destruction of Israel? Who really benefits from our withdrawl from the Middle East? What's the real reason they want us out?

[Tear Down This Wall]

They've already said why they want us out - they want a muslim kingdom that stretches from Spain to Afghanistan. One of the chief ragheads said that a couple of months ago. Our press and politicians are too stupid to take him seriously, though.

I don't care why or whether the ragheads mean what they say. That they believe it and are trying to do it is enough reason for me to fight them until their extremists are dead and gone.

You and me are no different, Johnny. I've got an eight month old boy. I don't want him to have to chose whether or not to go to war when he's 18 or 19. I want peace for his generation.

Eighteen years ago, I was in college and the ragheads were relatively quiet. Throughout the 1990s, their extremism grew to the point where they hit us in 1993 in NYC and six other times abroad. They mean business.

If they mean business, we better meet them head-on. I don't want my son to have to fight them when he grows up. I want them destroyed now before they have the capability to bring the fight to our shores in a more detrimental way than 9/11.

The youngest cousin in our family is in Baghdad now. He dropped out of college to join the fight. I hate it. I don't want him walking around out there and getting blown up by some ragheads fascist who's pis*sed off because he can't force his women to wear some get up and beat the crap out of her or kill her if she doesn't. My cousin's life is better than to have one of those type of sh*theads kill him.

He shouldn't be out there walking around in patrols. The damn Air Force should be leveling whole cities of insurgent activity. To me, it's crazy. I want my family safe. It's not safe if we don't take the muslims at their word. They've said they want to kill and conquer. We've got to take them at their word and destroy them now before my boy has to decide whether or not to go over there.

[C&CDean]

I never said they were righteous. I never said they were justified. Nor do I need your chest thumping scare tactics laid out about how lucky I am to live here, I get that. I said that I could understand why those terrorists did what they did on 09/11.

Young, educated men who were unhappy with their situation. Manipulated if not brainwashed by the powers that be (the Ayatollahs who in turn were/are manipulating Bin Laden) into believing that they were being oppressed by the Zionist regime and that the infidels from the west were the evil occupiers of their lands. Promised a place in heaven for taking the war to whitey. Promised they'd be revered as heroes and rewarded in their afterlife. These young men saw themselves as the edge of the sword in the battle for their lands. So while I don't condone or in any way endorse their behavior, I can understand what they were going through in their minds. In their minds they had worked so hard for so long to no avail. The west, with all its excess and debauchery was reaching its sordid arm out to try and grab even more. Those 19 men sought to put an end to what they perceived to be a great injustice. That's what I'm talking about when I say I can understand what they were going through. I can't empathize with their situation, but I can understand where they were coming from.

The question I keep wondering about is, who really benefits? Who really benefits from the attempted destablization of the west? Who really benefits from the destruction of Israel? Who really benefits from our withdrawl from the Middle East? What's the real reason they want us out?

Very cogent reply.

However, if you can "see how they did what they did" then you really shouldn't have a problem with any other group of ****ing psychopaths who do what they do based on their social/economic/religious/moral upbringing. To take it a step further, it's the equivalent of saying John Wayne Gacy was wrong, but I can understand why he molested all those boys and killed them because he was abused as a child and was constantly rejected by the women in his life.

People that are brainwashed this deep will never be rational. The only way to protect ourselves from them is to help them achieve their stated goal of meeting Allah. The sooner, the better.

[JohnnyMack]

Very cogent reply.

No actually I never cared too much for Telly Savalas.

;)