Where Do They Stand?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
61

[quote]JeffR wrote:
MisterAmazing wrote:
JeffR wrote:
MisterAmazing wrote:
jumper wrote:
What people will say for a vote. The democratic party has no principal. They just oppose the other side no matter what it stands for as long as it gets votes.

And that differs from Republican strategy how? I’m assuming you forgot the lapse on the ‘National Contract’ from the 1994 off-year elections, where the Republicans took 27 seats by running under a generalized criteria and then in 2000 shit on it. I’m not trying to say I’m a democrat either, but don’t make a dumbass remark like that.

MisterAmazing (great name!!!)

The difference is war. The difference is the fact that our enemies look to the very waffling being shown by the democrats in order to sustain their war effort.

I can’t say it any plainer than that.

JeffR

The war effort for ‘the enemy’ is fueled by a bunch of hyped up religious fanatcism that has these assholes blowing themselves up to kill a bunch of innocents, not supporting a war that has been drawn out due to ignorant strategizing and miniscule force and has cost the lives of thousands of our brave men and women is not unpatriotic, this isn’t the fuel for their fire. I have the utmost love and respect for everybody fighting over there for us, and I know that we’ve gotten ourselves into something we must finish. So because I disagree with the war’s so called ‘principles’, the way we we went in half assed and got caught with our pants down and now decide to send more troops, and the fact that we really do have bigger fish to fry and now’s the time to move on, I’m the enemy’s war effort?

ma,

Thanks for the time it took to write your response.

Let me make sure I understand you, are you saying that you and your party’s opposition to the war effort isn’t being used as propaganda to keep up the fight?

In advance, what sources do you consider reliable. I want to make sure I respond with a source that YOU find unimpeachable.

As food for thought, imagine a United country circa December 8th, 1941. Are you telling me that that wouldn’t take some of the starch out of the Iraqi resistance.

Thanks in advance,

JeffR

[/quote]

Firstly, I don’t have a ‘party’, I think anybody who aligns themselves with a particular party for better or worse is a moron, I support individuals based on their pricniples and what I see them doing for our nation, which would put a lot better people in high positions. Like I said, these assholes are fanatics, they think their ‘Allah’ is going to help them win against a country five hundred times their strength, they’re going to stop at nothing. This isn’t up for compairson to 1941, this isn’t WWII, we’re not fighting a country, we’re fighting a global network of assholes that are parasites to a multitude of nations. To say that people disagreeing with a drawn out, largely unsuccessful, badly planned, understimated, highly expensive war are supporting the enemy is just a dumbass statement. People are beginning to realize that things aren’t going so smooth over there, that progress isn’t going as planned, that we aren’t in control, so they argue for a change, maybe not a complete eradication fo involvement in the country, but a modification in how we’re going about things; but yeah, that’s just supporting the enemy.

62

[quote]MisterAmazing wrote:

Firstly, I don’t have a ‘party’, I think anybody who aligns themselves with a particular party for better or worse is a moron, I support individuals based on their pricniples and what I see them doing for our nation, which would put a lot better people in high positions. Like I said, these assholes are fanatics, they think their ‘Allah’ is going to help them win against a country five hundred times their strength, they’re going to stop at nothing. This isn’t up for compairson to 1941, this isn’t WWII, we’re not fighting a country, we’re fighting a global network of assholes that are parasites to a multitude of nations. To say that people disagreeing with a drawn out, largely unsuccessful, badly planned, understimated, highly expensive war are supporting the enemy is just a dumbass statement. People are beginning to realize that things aren’t going so smooth over there, that progress isn’t going as planned, that we aren’t in control, so they argue for a change, maybe not a complete eradication fo involvement in the country, but a modification in how we’re going about things; but yeah, that’s just supporting the enemy.
[/quote]

The catalyzing event for them was the fall of the Soviet Union. In their view, they won the cold war and knocked off a super power. One down, one to go. The US didn’t directly train or finance bin Laden, but an unintended consequence of supporting the mujahadeen was that we gave them all the confidence that fearless/suicidal resistance based on faith and such can carry the day even in the face of an elite, high tech military machine. This message has been repeated by bin Laden himself since the 90s and has been taken up by many groups unrelated to al quaeda.

Put in context, it at least makes some sense.

63

[quote]MisterAmazing wrote:
This isn’t up for compairson to 1941, this isn’t WWII, we’re not fighting a country, we’re fighting a global network of assholes that are parasites to a multitude of nations.[/quote]

Exactly. This is why the real motives behind Washington’s plan to wage war against Iraq has come under such minutious scrutiny. Terrorism experts couldn’t believe the US government could be so stupid as to think this was in any way like WWII.

In every country, you’ll end up with assholes who espouse Al-Qaeda’s principles. This is where it gets scary. At the rate things are going, you end up killing a thousand innocent civilians for every terrorist.

Bush believes money and sledgehamers can solve any problem provided they’re in sufficient quantity. The only thing he’s achieving by that strategy, is making more enemies and radicalizing even the moderate seculars.

It’s the 21st century. Anyone can make a bomb. And Murphy’s law ensures one will be made.
The way things are going, Osama&co don’t need training camps to indocrinate US hatred anymore. Bush does the job for them.

64

jumper,

you do realize that Bush admitted he had bad intel on weapons in Iraq, and that Iraq does not now, nor has it ever had wmd’s or nuclear capabilities?

65

[quote]lixy wrote:
…Was the removal of Saddam worth 600.000+ Iraqi lives, …
[/quote]

The UN says it is ~ 53,000.

The Lancet study that claims 600,000 is totally false.

I am sure you know this because you have read up on it yet you use the false information.

66

[quote]texasguy wrote:
jumper,

you do realize that Bush admitted he had bad intel on weapons in Iraq, and that Iraq does not now, nor has it ever had wmd’s or nuclear capabilities?[/quote]

Did you say Iraq has never had WMD’s?

Tell that to the Kurds. Or hit some of Jeffs links and see the 400 aging WMD’s that were found post invasion.

67

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
texasguy wrote:
jumper,

you do realize that Bush admitted he had bad intel on weapons in Iraq, and that Iraq does not now, nor has it ever had wmd’s or nuclear capabilities?

Did you say Iraq has never had WMD’s?

Tell that to the Kurds. Or hit some of Jeffs links and see the 400 aging WMD’s that were found post invasion.[/quote]

Regardless, they were no threat to us. It’s not like its terribly easy to sneak a WMD into the US by plane, Especially when you have to make a few stops along the way.

If you (not taling directly to you Zap) truly believe Iraq was a threat to the US…

Anyways, invading Iraq ruined our opportunity to do good in Afghanistan, where the world actually WANTED us to be.

68

[quote]orion wrote:
JeffR wrote:
lixy wrote:
JeffR wrote:
It resolved saddam.

Oh, three free elections. Their first.

Like you care!

When Lebanon and Palestine held their first transparent and free elections, the US backed Israel to bring their governments down on the knees.

Was the removal of Saddam worth 600.000+ Iraqi lives, 3000+ GIs, millions displaced? And don’t tell me any country can sustain an American military “storm”, more than a decade of economic strangulation and still manages to emerge as a threat.

lixy,

I could be wrong. However, I do believe the situations were slightly different.

We don’t care for terrorists post 9/11. I remember something about hamas and the total destruction of Israel. That’s genocide.

We aren’t cool with genocide.

Remind me who the palestinian’s elected again?

JeffR

Terrorists.

Like Washington.[/quote]

A most excellent point. One that never gets addressed by corporate media.