He looks almost as old as you.

Another pronouncement for which you have no evidence, no proof, no personal experience…in other words, the kind of response we’ve come to expect from you! The consummate dullass response!

dallas: First you say this:

We kill one and two take their place.

Then you say this:

As for the war in Afghanistan, our military should be focused there, not to win a culture war, but to kill the fuckers that bombed us on 9/11. If we need to chase them into Pakistan, so be it, if they won’t get them, then we should.

So, a military solution won’t work in Iraq, but we should pursue it in Afghanistan, purely for purposes of revenge?

That’s just stupid.

As I said before, in Iraq it’s a matter of sequence of operations: First, establish order; Second, diplomacy to establish the politics.
Killing OBL out of pique won’t solve anything.

Not with the Defeatocrats in charge,

you had it for 5 years after 9/11 and look at the grand job you republicans did. At least now the president had to acknowledge he needed to “change his course”.

As for personal attacks, you rely on others on this blog to give you credibility, at least I back mine up.

As long as you have the tarzan mentallity of “left goood, right baaad” without backing it up…..I will keep smacking you….moron.

dallas: It’s all about the order of operations. First, the military option must be used to defeat the enemies of a peaceful Iraq; then, the politics can be worked out in an atmosphere free of terrorism. Duh.

Quit being a schmuck and get on the side of America.

Take your own advice. You said that a military campaign in Iraq couldn’t work, but recommend one in Afghanistan. Which is it? Please answer this time, and stop lying and distracting.

Ken (the one who can debate with reason),

You said:

“The more the mullahs and hardliners proclaim that American goods, music, movies and culture are verboten, the more attractive they become. The natural weight of American culture will simply operate on its own to drag Islamic countries kicking and screaming into the 21st century.

Agreed, but we need to promote this as policy and not just let the “natural weight” of it work. Our war on terror would be much more effective if we put as much effort and $ into this endeavor, rather than the misguided military campaign that is Iraq.

you had it for 5 years after 9/11 and look at the grand job you republicans did.

No domestic terrorist attacks since 9/11(which was enabled by Clinton’s non-response to terrorism); you can’t do better than 100% success!

You were “smacking” me? Only in your dreams.

Hitler had nothing to do with Pearl Harbor, either.

This is just too easy. You are living in the past, thinking it has any meaning for today, but your cherry-picking approach, typical of the leftie “mind” is simply inadequate to the task of defending our way of life from those who would destroy it. You benefit from our strong stand against terrorism, and yet continue to complain about it. Shame on you.

Robert,

Just re-read (or read for the first time) my posts in their entirety. The answers to your questions posed to me are there.

It’s all about the order of operations. First, the military option must be used to defeat the enemies of a peaceful Iraq; then, the politics can be worked out in an atmosphere free of terrorism. Duh.

Robert,

Your view of the world is so simplistic and naive that I really question if you were kicked in the head by a mule when you were a boy. Are you retarded….or just slow? You can not win the war in Iraq by military force. Did you ever consider that the Shia want the Sunni dead and the Sunni want the Shia dead and they both want the Kurds dead. Sectarian violence can not be stopped by the U.S. military. That is what Bush failed to see and what Petraeus knows – and you are to dumb to realize (after the commander on the ground explained it).

In order for a democracy to work, each sect needs to compromise and work out their differences at the conference table. That is the only way to have a real democracy that we went over there to establish – and that solution is a long shot to work because those people are crazy.

Those sects will be fighting each other in a “king of the hill” match until one wins and beats the others into submission. They have been doing that for over a thousand years. There is no way for the U.S. military to stop that.

Robert, I applaud the way you can so eloquently use the word “duh”, now go along your mentally challenged way and eat a cookie.

U.S.S. Cole. You lie again.

If you want to go there: the 3500 soldiers killed in Iraq due to terrorism.

put your helmet back on.

“I strongly believe he was trying to reconstitute his nuclear weapons program.”

I repeat: Read the entire Duelfer Report; the President spoke the truth.
Stop lying about the past and get into the present, or move to the ME and see the reality of that which you attempt to minimize with your lies.

Clinton kept this country safe until the end of his term.

U.S.S. Cole. You lie again.

That should be: “The terrorists felt safe to act…”

You still blame that one on Clinton to even though if you apply the same warped logic for 9/11 you would have to blame Reagan and Bush 1.

You must really be insane from your BDS. The fact is that Reagan(bombed Tripoli) and Bush 1(Gulf War, remember that? A US victory), stood up to the terrorists and killed them. The terrorists felt safe act when the cowardly Clinton took office, and continued to gain in strength throughout the Nineties, culminating in 9/11 and the need for us to go into Iraq, thus the Clinton responsibility for the 3500. Had the Dem Congress not prevented total victory, including deposing Saddam, at the end of Gulf One, the evolution of Iraq into a modern, non-terrorist state would already have been a reality for several years. You don’t defeat terrorism by appeasing it or underestimating it(the law enforcement approach).

Al Qaeda came into being and multiplied in strength and influence during the Clinton administration; that’s an historical fact. They were able to operate without interference because of Clinton’s softness and non-response to them. Another historical fact. You are desperate to avoid those facts with a bunch of irrelevant attacks on others. Pathetic.

dallas: Here’s a hint for you: “For lefties, everything is political…” Their analysis of the situation in Iraq is colored by their prejudice toward politics. Get it?

Spewing defeatism.

Tell us, does your mullah allow you to touch your wife or daughters in public? Or has he forbidden you that freedom, as Shari’a requires. Islam. Submission. You feel free and go right ahead. Do not expect me, or any member of my family, to follow you into dhimmitude.

I can see you now, NYT crumbled in your soft, pasty white hands, stamping your diminutive, loafer clad foot upon the floor,”How dare those ungrateful wogs think they can run their own country!”

Spewing defeatism, I am certain that JFK and FDR are so proud of you.

“We urge you, after consulting with Congress and consistent with the US Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions, including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.”….Levin, Kerry, Lautenberg, Dodd, et al., October, 1999

“It is Hussein’s vigorous pursuit of biological, chemical and nuclear weapons, and his present and future potential support for terrorist acts and organizations that make him a danger to the people of the united states.”….Chuck Schumer, October, 2002

“If Saddam rejects peace, and we have to use force, our purpose is clear: We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.”…Bill Clinton, February, 1998

“Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology, which is a threat to countries in the region, and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.”…Pelosi, December, 1998

“[I]f you allow someone like Saddam Hussein to get nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, chemical weapons, biological weapons, how many people is he going to kill with such weapons? He has already demonstrated a willingness to use such weapons…”…Al Gore, December, 1998

So Dallas wants to cherry-pick, huh. There are a million of these lying around out there….and notice the political affiliation. Want to blame Tenet, fine, he’s Clinton’s man. You may want to blame Clinton and every other lefty (we won’t even include the damage done by Jimmy Carter)who thinks national intelligence is only to be used for furthering their political agendas (Leaky Leahy, et al)and for the fact that at one point we had more people in the Office of Diversity at the CIA than we did people on the ground. And if you’re still in the “Clinton did everything he could” denial camp, don’t watch “Targeted” which is currently on the History Channel.

Osama Obama needs to be treated like the policy lightweight that he is.

“Anyway the culture war has been fought perodically over the last 1400 years without success. You can’t win a culture war with something that is so fanatically that it can’t tolerate any other cultures. I’m speaking of Islam, of course.”

Doc,

You are half correct, a culture war has been going on for the last 1400 years. Is the US going to be in Iraq that long? The reason it is still going on is because it has only been fought militarily. To win the war against these fanatics is to make them lose their will to fight. Haven’t you noticed killing them in the manner we have has made MORE willing to die? We kill one and two take their place.

Our strategy needs to focus on westernizing their young. We may need to take out some people as well, but that will not win this culture war. We need to win the “hearts and minds” of the people. Cliché I know, but true. We need to control their media and information, this will be a massive PR invasion. Of course it is more complicated that what I said, but you get the gist.

This will be way more effective than what we are doing now, and that will still take years.

I agree with Obama and General Petaeus “there is no military solution” that will solve the problems in Iraq.

As for the war in Afghanistan, our military should be focused there, not to win a culture war, but to kill the fuckers that bombed us on 9/11. If we need to chase them into Pakistan, so be it, if they won’t get them, then we should. Obama is right on that. We are wasting our resources in Iraq when the Taliban and Bin Laden are running around alive and well.

Hotel,

I am not spewing defeatism, you are promote a policy that is destined for failure. That is not spin or a political statement it is the truth. In five years not one substantial change for the better has happened in Iraq. We are always “6 months” from victory. Get a clue, all we are doing is getting troops killed and maimed for a bad foreign policy blunder. At least half the country sees the truth, evident by last November.

Obviously, that is ok with you.

At least half the country sees the truth, evident by last November.

As for the “dullass” remark, you are no more intelligent that r108. All my previous posts to him were intended to argue with him on his level. I guess I need to do that with you now, because you can only hide the moronic points you make with insults. And not very witty insults at that…you should make them up on your own and not steal goofboy,s material. Do you wipe his ass when you take your nose out of it?

Obama is an idiot. And so are you Dallas.

Click this to jog your memory. We’ll have a test tomorrow.

http://www.freedomagenda.com/iraq/wmd_quotes.html

dallas: Look up the report, if you can read. Do your own work; it’s not my job to educate you. If you aren’t up on the news, it’s not my fault. Duh.

SMACK! BITCH!

That’s not an argument; that’s adolescent stupidity.

31Mike aka “brainless wonder”,

You left these out you fool.

http://www.bushoniraq.com/

Once again with the “because I said so argument”. Just because you say it, doesn’t make it true.

It’s true because it’s factually true, not because I said it. Duh. You just made it up. Check the news before you spew your lies.

DALLAS,

YOU SAID YOU SERVED FROM 91-97.

THEN WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH YOU?

YOU’VE TURNED YOUR BACK ON EVERYTHING YOU SWORE TO DEFEND.

WHEN THE GOING GETS ROUGH IT LOOKS LIKE YOU’RE THE FIRST ONE TO BEAT FEET.

YOU’RE A COWARD, PLAIN AND SIMPLE.

I KNOW A LOT OF MEN THAT HAVE SERVED IN IRAQ AND THEY WOULD SPIT ON YOU IF THEY COULD.

YOU’RE A DISGRACE !!

I’M DONE WITH YOU COWARD !!

For lefties, everything is political, because that is the source of their power; they envision a virtual monarchy with the politicians as the nobility. Guess what all the rest of us will be? Hint: peasants. Of course, they will also own all the gold, just like in the Middle Ages.

WTF?

I thought we were debating about a military solution in Iraq.

Fine, give me a link to the CIA report that states Clinton is lying.

Google it yourself; it’s very recent news.

As for “smack, bitch” call it what you want, but that is what I have been doing to you all day. Bitch.

You continue to prove yourself an ill-mannered adolescent, and nothing more.

31mike,

Hey dumb ass,

I was in the military for six years from ’91-’97, but not that it matters, we are on an anonymous blog. You may as well tell me you are Sgt. York or Colin Powell. Once again you righties rely on assumptions instead of fact.

I does piss me off when I see our resources (the lives and limbs) of our fighting forces squandered in the quagmire that is Iraq. Dust the cobwebs off your brain and use it (if you have one). I agree with Obama and Gen. Petraeus that there is no military solution in Iraq. You know PETRAUS don’t you? I further agree with Obama that to attack Al Qaeda in Pakistan if we have actionable intelligence is the right thing to do. After all, that is were the person who CAUSED 9/11 probably is.

People like you kick the dog when cat pisses you off. That is what Bush did in Iraq. Now the Taliban is back with force in Afghanistan and Bin Laden is still on the loose, while our military is bogged down and in a country that had nothing to do 9/11.

“The fact of the matter is , we are fighting an enemy that will not stop until they have murdered or beheaded every Infidel( you are one ) that will not convert to Islam.”

That is the only intelligent thing you have said, but it is over your head that this is a culture war, not a military one. The culture war may have a military component, but that is not what will win it. Obama and Petraeus get that, but you are too stupid to see it. I don’t blame you, because you were born that way. The only way a military solution will ever work is if we kill every last muslim and anyone who sympathizes with them.

I won’t go into how to win a culture war, your brain couldn’t comprehend it anyway.

And you may want me to go to Canada, apparently you threatened by me and half the country that think like me. We are not going anywhere. If you don’t like this country and the people in it, you get the fuck out.

America, love it or leave it!

As long as you have the tarzan mentallity (SIC) of “left goood, right baaad” without backing it up

Well, dullass, if you keep bringing your cheetah mentality, ol’ Tarzan has nothing to worry about!

“We know he’s got chemicals and biological [weapons] . . .”

Yes we do. He gassed the Kurds. We found artillery shells with chemical weapons. He had warehouses full of castor beans in bags marked “fertilizer”, that could be turned into ricin.

the third most toxic substance known after plutonium and botulism

Have another banana, dullass!

By your logic, when the marine barracks were bombed in ’83 and Reagan pulled out after that, the terrorist must have felt safe to attack in ’93. So that was Reagan’s fault.

Also, by your logic, after the Gulf war, the terrorists were sooo weakend and scared, but when Clinton was elected they “felt safe to attack”. WTF?

Your logic also states that the terrorists gained strength. What strength did they gain that they did not have before? Your cherry-picking arguments fail to mentioned Clinton lobbed a few tomahawks himself.

So by your logic the terrorist must have felt “safe to attack” when Bush II was elected.

You just blamed Bush for 9/11. Nice job

Disclaimer:

This argument makes no sense and it is painful to read. To follow this type of logic, one must think 2 + 2 = 6.

They were able to operate without interference because of Clinton’s softness and non-response to them. Another historical fact.

“Another historical fact” – cite it. Facts can be cited. Just because you say it is a “fact” doesn’t make it so. You listen to too much Rush Limpbaugh. He is the king of circular arguments.

In Regards to the 1993 attack:

The attack was planned by a group of conspirators including Ramzi Yousef, Sheik Omar Abdel-Rahman, El Sayyid Nosair, Mahmud Abouhalima, Mohammad Salameh, Nidal Ayyad, Ahmad Ajaj, and Abdul Rahman Yasin. They received financing from al-Qaeda member Khaled Shaikh Mohammed, Yousef’s uncle.

Yousef and his traveling partner, Mohammed Jamal Khalifa, were arrested for false passports and having bomb manuals in early 1992. But were freed because they claimed to have political asylum – they were just given a hearing date. El Sayyid Nosair was arrested for killing a rabbi in 1991. How did these guys slip through the cracks since Bush I was in power? The INS had been run by the feds for 12 years. Who dropped the ball? It must have been Clinton because he is the devil who had presidential powers both before and after his presidency. Nooooo, that doesn’t seem like the case to a person who has the mental capacity to REASON.

The weaker, more soft-handed approach must have been taken by Reagan and Bush I. Because if Al Qaeda was so weak, how could they hit us in our own borders? – They were not weak. They were strong before Clinton and stronger now during Bush. Reason – Al qaeda is living it up in the mountainous region between the Afgan/Paki border.

Your hatred of the left has voided you of all reason and left you with nothing but weak-ass arguments. I don’t even need to see your name by your post to know it is you. I just see the “you lie” defense and the r108 patented post of “duh” and I know it is robert108.

dallas: Fighting the terrorists who wish to destroy not only our country, but to destroy our entire civilization, is not a “talking point”; it’s a reality you refuse to face.

Only if you take Petraeus’ words out of context.

What the general actually said was that there was no solution in Iraq that included just the military. It must be a military and political solution.

Nice try though.