Say Anything Blog

I’ve been trying to cut through your namecalling and blind hatred to discover exactly what your point is, but it turns out you don’t have one.

It is undeniable that the best thing that ever happened to al Qaeda is George W. Bush. Bush has allowed them to retake Afghanistan and hide in Pakistan while invading a completely unrelated nation.

Why do we give a shit what terrorist think?

...a completely unrelated nation.

Wrong.  All terrorists are dedicated to the destruction of freedom in the world, especially the United States.  Sorry you don’t know that, “Jack”.
I guess you don’t know that the first Allied offensive in Europe in WWII was in North Africa, which didn’t invade us, either.  In case you forgot, we won that one.

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

bob:

During WWII we went after Hitler and defeated him. We didn’t let him go. Bush let Bin Laden go. That’s simply a fact. Deny reality all you want.

Bush has allowed them to retake Afghanistan

Well, this will come as news to Hamid Karzai.

What, did Kabul fall or something in the 20 minutes or so? It’s news to me.

The Talibs can’t even hold on to Helmand and Kandahar and so on, let alone ‘retaking’ the country.

And yeah, the Taliban must really prefer hiding in caves in Pakistan to having their own nation, according to you.

Wanna buy some Florida swampland, cheap?

Ken:

Hamid Karzai is fully aware that the Taliban controls at least 1/2 to 2/3s of Afghanistan.

source

source

source

During WWII we went after Hitler and defeated him. We didn’t let him go. Bush let Bin Laden go. That’s simply a fact. Deny reality all you want.

The war against terrorism isn’t over yet, “Jack”.  Are you really trying to sell that old leftie fairy tale that if we had just ignored all the other terrorists and gone after OBL only, that the war on terrorism would have been over as soon as we “got” him?  Nice fantasy, but completely wrong.
Striking in the heart of the ME was a brilliant move; the only mistake was not going there first, IMO.  OBL is nothing but a distraction.  The head of the snake is in Iraq and Iran, not Afghanistan.

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

Hamid Karzai is fully aware that the Taliban controls at least 1/2 to 2/3s of Afghanistan.

The part with nothing in it.  Are you familiar with the geography and topography of Afghanistan, “Jack”?

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

Jack, perhaps you should actually read some of your sources before you cite to them as evidence of anything.

Did you even notice that two of those articles use scare quotes to describe the Taliban’s less-than-impressive ‘retaking’ of Afghanistan?

Jack:

Hamid Karzai is fully aware that the Taliban controls at least 1/2 to 2/3s of Afghanistan.

What a load of shit.

Bush let Bin Laden go. That’s simply a fact.

No, Bush didn’t catch bin Laden after 9/11. Clinton was the one who let him go before 9/11! Those are the facts!
But, thanks for playing!

A troll is someone who only wants to stir up trouble, not have an honest debate.  Some signs that a poster is a troll:
* Dodges questions from other posters * Refuses to give sources
* When one of its arguments is shown to be false, either ignores the proof or moves the goalposts.  Heh. (From the LGF faq)

Ken:

I assumed that you wouldn’t be able to assimalate facts outside your right-wing bubble. Thanks for proving me right.

Jack, your own sources undercut your own argument.

The Taliban have not, in fact, retaken Afghanistan.

"During WWII we went after Hitler and defeated him. We didn’t let him go. Bush let Bin Laden go.”

Strange you use that example, Jack, because it was Japan that attacked the U.S., NOT Japan… Why did we go after Germany first then??  I know the answer, but I don’t that an ignorant (and I mean that from the objective sense, not as an insult) such as yourself does.

BTW, we “let” Hirohito go and Hilter committed suicide while Tojo took the fall for the Emporor

Clinton was the one who let him go before 9/11! Those are the facts!

That’s actually a lie to.  Our intelligence agencies determined that the Sudan could not deliver what they said.

Ken:

*shrug*

If you want to stay divorced from reality, go ahead. No skin off my nose.

That’s an interesting cite, Lestat… can you point to a source for that?

That’s actually a lie to. (sic)

Funny! Because I heard Bill Clinton admit that very thing in a speech he made! Now if you want to say that Bill Clinton is a liar, I guess you know him better than I!

A troll is someone who only wants to stir up trouble, not have an honest debate.  Some signs that a poster is a troll:
* Dodges questions from other posters * Refuses to give sources
* When one of its arguments is shown to be false, either ignores the proof or moves the goalposts.  Heh. (From the LGF faq)

Our intelligence agencies determined that the Sudan could not deliver what they said.

Irrelevant.  Clinton said “no”, not “I’ll take him if you can get him.” Nice try.

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

I believe Clinton’s reasoning for refusing to take custody of bin Laden was along the lines of “not having legal grounds to hold him”, declaration of war notwithstanding.

A troll is someone who only wants to stir up trouble, not have an honest debate.  Some signs that a poster is a troll:
* Dodges questions from other posters * Refuses to give sources
* When one of its arguments is shown to be false, either ignores the proof or moves the goalposts.  Heh. (From the LGF faq)

That’s an interesting cite, Lestat… can you point to a source for that?

Actually my memory was not entirely accurate.  What actually happened was that the Sudan offered to arrest him and turn him over to the Saudis where we could extradite him from the Saudis. However to extradite him from the Saudis we would have to be able to charge him with a crime.  Since this was before the embassy bombings, the US Cole ahd 9-11 we had not charges.  The Saudis backed out because it would of been very unpopular for them.

Clinton latered admitted he should of tried harder, but that is hindsight.  Bin Laden was not a particularly a big figure on the stage back than.

I believe Clinton’s reasoning for refusing to take custody of bin Laden was along the lines of “not having legal grounds to hold him”, declaration of war notwithstanding.

Al Quaed’s declaration of war was made in August 1996, the Sudanes offer to Saudi Arabia was made earlier in the year.

Lestat: The Clinton excuse was actually an extension of the mistake made about the ‘93 WTC bombing, which was to treat it as a law enforcement matter.  He denied the terrorism connection, and failed to connect the dots with Al Qaeda in that matter.  It’s a domino thing.
Wrong premise, a whole series of wrong conclusions, leading to 9/11.

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

Lestat: The Clinton excuse was actually an extension of the mistake made about the ‘93 WTC bombing, which was to treat it as a law enforcement matter.  He denied the terrorism connection, and failed to connect the dots with Al Qaeda in that matter.  It’s a domino thing.
Wrong premise, a whole series of wrong conclusions, leading to 9/11.

Bin Laden was never implicated in the 93 WTC bombing.  The lynch pin in the Sudanese offer was Saudi Arabia, they wouldn’t go along.

Bin Laden was never implicated in the 93 WTC bombing.

Not at the time, because Clinton refused to dig into the terrorism connection, as I already said.  He treated it as a law enforcement problem.  Al Qaeda was, and still is, far more than OBL.  You lefties are stuck on him, but the terrorism problem with radical Islam is much larger than one guy, and has been for about 1300 years.

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

Lestat, this is what bothers me about most left of center argumests.  Instead of disagreeing with a point of view, YOU immediately call it a LIE!  A person may make a statement of fact that is untrue, or a person can be wrong with a conclusion, but to call it a lie is offensive to me.

Lestat, this is what bothers me about most left of center argumests.  Instead of disagreeing with a point of view, YOU immediately call it a LIE!  A person may make a statement of fact that is untrue, or a person can be wrong with a conclusion, but to call it a lie is offensive to me.

You need to pay more attention to Robert108’s arguments.  It is his favorite word.  I mainly just do it to him.

I mainly just do it to him.

Exactly; no content, just reflexive reactivity.  I use the word when it applies.  If you don’t want to be called on a lie, tell the truth.

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

JFH: Actually, lefties do that because they are relativists, and so don’t recognize the difference between a lie and the truth.  In addition, since they think everything is only about opinion, and that all opinions are essentially equal, they think they must attack the source to win.  In their minds, if they can say something nasty about a conservative, that wins for them.

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

Congrats on being the 9000th neo con blog to repeat the ww2 metaphor (you guys are so proud of this argument!)

Seriously, explain how continuing the Iraq war makes the US any safer.  You guys think your hero Bush (the first functionally retarded president) is some kind of military genius i.e. Napoleon, wake up and realize Bush’s Iraq adventure was a terrible idea, doomed from the start, that the founding fathers never intended our soldiers to engage in nation building, and that our troops would be far better used defending our own borders.  You’re so caught in the neo con echo chamber with its repetition of talking points and sloganeering you’re unable to think for yourselves.

LLP: Thanks for giving a perfect example of the leftie form of “debate”: no content, all personal attack.

Seriously, explain how running away from the terrorists will make us safer.

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

neo con echo chamber

LLP: Congratulations on folding and wearing your 9000th tinfoil hat!

A troll is someone who only wants to stir up trouble, not have an honest debate.  Some signs that a poster is a troll:
* Dodges questions from other posters * Refuses to give sources
* When one of its arguments is shown to be false, either ignores the proof or moves the goalposts.  Heh. (From the LGF faq)

LLP: for just a minute, suspend your anger at neo-cons and Bush. Consider the following items.
* American Muslim woman arrested in Riyad for sitting with a man at Starbucks.
* Saudi woman sentenced to prison and lashing for being raped.
* Dutch woman in hiding after accidentally killing a Muslim teen who was tring to rob her.
* Muslims in England declare “no go” zone against British Christians.
* Muslim father in Texas kills his two teen daughters for being too American.
* Afghan girls flogged for attending school.
* French boy in UAI arrested for being raped by Muslim men.
* 70 year old man arrested in Tehran for walking his ‘unclean’ dog.
* Muslim Kosovo declares independence from Christian Serbia.
* Danish flag burned by Pakistanis over Mohammed cartoons. Death threats issued.
* French Muslims riot frequently and at will against secular government.
* Pro-western Madam Bhutto assassinated in Pakistan.
* Iran continues to build nuclear reactors.

The list goes on and on…

Now, consider the strategic location of Iraq: To its north lies Afghanistan, Iran to the East, Saudi Arabia to the South and Syria to the West. Our invasion has paramount importance there.

Islamic jihad, after nearly a thousand years, is on the march again. THEY ARE COMING.

"Here lies, in honored glory, an American soldier, known but to God.”

The stakes are high. Whether the issue is the economy, or energy, or the federal courts or national security, the right answers are coming not from the Democrats, but from the Republicans. The surge of operations that began a year ago is succeeding. The only way to lose this fight is to quit. Richard M. Cheney, Vice President, 30 May, 2008

pp:  Good points!  For the record, I think 9/11 was a huge mistake on the part of the jihadis.  They were doing just fine with their stealth immigration tactic, especially in Europe.  Now that the idiot OBL has blown their cover, and now that President Bush is killing them in the heart of the ME, all the rest of the crazies are coming out of the woodwork, instead of hiding in sleeper cells all over the world, gaining strength in obscurity and the lefties’ tendency to ignore the threat posed by radical Islam.

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

Thanks, robert108:  If you do not already do so, start visiting GATES OF VIENNA, a European web site which follows the slow, steady re-invasion of Europe by Islamic jihad.

I am astonished that folks like LLP don’t get it. They have swallowed the “neo-con/Bush” propaganda hook, line and sinker. It reminds me of the anger and hatred directed by the British populace against Winston Churchill when he tried to warn them what was coming.

“Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it”.

I never realized how true that is.

"Here lies, in honored glory, an American soldier, known but to God.”

The stakes are high. Whether the issue is the economy, or energy, or the federal courts or national security, the right answers are coming not from the Democrats, but from the Republicans. The surge of operations that began a year ago is succeeding. The only way to lose this fight is to quit. Richard M. Cheney, Vice President, 30 May, 2008

I am astonished that folks like LLP don’t get it.

Actually, I think they get it, but just don’t want to have to implement the necessary actions; so they anger on those who carry the message.  In their world, there is no right and wrong, good and evil, so when something so obviously wrong and evil as Islamic jihad rears its ugly head, they want to look away, go back to their comfortable lives and just forget about it.  I think this is the real root of BDS; he just won’t let them go back to sleep.

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

You guys need to read this article, documenting the enormous strain this war has placed on our volunteer army.  Our home defenses are weaker because of this war, and we can’t defend our own borders.  This war has literally made us less safe.

And really, I don’t give a crap about white Europe losing out to the population bomb the Muslims are planting or whatever, this conspiracy garbage is better suited to the forums at stormfront.org (and you realize how crazy you sound to joe blow voter, right?)

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2007/0712.tilghman.html

“For several years now, we’ve been hearing alarming warnings about the strain that the Iraq War has placed on the military. Since the conflict began, around 40 percent of the Army and Marine Corps’ large-scale equipment has been used, worn out, or destroyed. Last year, the Army had to grant waivers to nearly one in five recruits because they had criminal records. There are no more combat-ready brigades left on standby should a new conflict flare.

These problems are of vital concern, and are reasonably well understood in newsrooms and on Capitol Hill. But the top uniformed and civilian leaders at the Pentagon who think hardest about the future of the military have a more fundamental fear: young officers—people like Matt Kapinos—are leaving the Army at nearly their highest rates in decades. This is not a short-term problem, nor is it one that can simply be fixed with money. A private-sector company or another government agency can address a shortage of middle managers by hiring more middle managers. In the Army’s rigid hierarchy, all officers start out at the bottom, as second lieutenants. A decline in officer retention, in other words, threatens both the Army’s current missions in Iraq and Afghanistan, and its long-term institutional future. And though many senior Pentagon leaders are quite aware of the problem, there’s only so much they can do to reverse the decline while the United States maintains large numbers of troops in Iraq.

In the last four years, the exodus of junior officers from the Army has accelerated. In 2003, around 8 percent of junior officers with between four and nine years of experience left for other careers. Last year, the attrition rate leapt to 13 percent. “A five percent change could potentially be a serious problem,” said James Hosek, an expert in military retention at the RAND Corporation. Over the long term, this rate of attrition would halve the number of officers who reach their tenth year in uniform and intend to take senior leadership roles.

But the problem isn’t one of numbers alone: the Army also appears to be losing its most gifted young officers. In 2005, internal Army memos started to warn of the “disproportionate loss of high-potential, high-performance junior leaders.” West Point graduates are leaving at their highest rates since the 1970s (except for a few years in the early 1990s when the Army’s goal was to reduce its size). Of the nearly 1,000 cadets from the class of 2002, 58 percent are no longer on active duty.”

Also Pparets, I agree with your points that the jihadists are disgusting savages.  That is why we shouldn’t be in the middle east at all, it’s a disgusting cess pit, let them kill each other.  You realize the Sunnis and Shiites have been fighting each other for centuries?  The neo con academic theory that we can convert the middle east to secular democracy makes no sense, it’s a fantasy and it’s not going to work.  And frankly it’s sick you want to use our brave soldiers as pawns in an attempt to prove Bush’s stupid academic theory.

Our home defenses are weaker because of this war, and we can’t defend our own borders.

This is pure hogwash.  I hope you are aware that it’s not the proper job of our military to defend our borders in peacetime.  Furthermore, we can defend our borders, but the political class simply won’t implement the policies to do so.
Nice defeat rhetoric, btw.  We’re not buying it.

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

I don’t give a crap about white Europe losing out to the population bomb the Muslims are planting or whatever, this conspiracy garbage

Conspiracy? Demographics are considered conspiracy on your planet?
It’s plain you don’t “give a crap” about logic or reasoning, either! Be a nice dhimmi and go back to your Playstation!

A troll is someone who only wants to stir up trouble, not have an honest debate.  Some signs that a poster is a troll:
* Dodges questions from other posters * Refuses to give sources
* When one of its arguments is shown to be false, either ignores the proof or moves the goalposts.  Heh. (From the LGF faq)

There’s no point in debating with you guys at all - I posted statistics and facts explaining how the Iraq war was a poorly conceived idea, how it has made us less safe, and all you do is call me a defeatist and accuse me of surrendering...it’s not surrender if you think the war itself is a mistake.

...it’s not surrender if you think the war itself is a mistake.

Of course it is; your rationalizations won’t ever win a war, neither will your agendized statistics.  We need to defeat the terrorists, and running away from them isn’t the way to do it.
Study WWII some time, especially the early part.  All the statistics would have “proved” the same thing as you are preaching, but we defeated Hitler and Tojo anyway, much to the world’s benefit.  There’s no substitute for victory.

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

LLP, you came to the wrong blog if you expected anything other than a debate over the issues you raised.  You should feel complimented, at least people thought you were interesting enough to take seriously.  Hell if you came into this with a slightly open mind, you might even learn something in the process.

The issue about the strain on the military has been discussed here before.  I don’ think we have total agreement on that one.  I see it as more of a consequence of Rumsfeld’s “downsizing” the military, and see that in turn as ill conceived.

Robert108 is correct about the border security.  You’re completely full of crap on that one.

Trying to pin everything negative that has happened in recent history on the decision to invade Iraq is certainly an overly strained theory in any case, and you should expect a tough road trying to prove that one to any reasoning audience.

You guys just repeat the same world war 2 metaphor over and over; Iraq is not Nazi Germany.  Germany and Japan attacked us; Iraq itself never attacked us.  The 9/11 hijackers were Saudi.

Surrender means you gave up on something you once believed in.  If you were always against the war, continuing to be against it doesn’t mean you are surrendering, it means you disagree with it.  By your logic…

A) “I say we need to build a moon base!  Moon base!”

B) “I think that’s a bad idea because...”

A) “Surrender!  Surrender!  You are a defeatist.”

But yeah, keep repeating yourselves and the talking points instead of addressing the substantive arguments.

But yeah, keep repeating yourselves and the talking points instead of addressing the substantive arguments.

LLP,

Perhaps if managed to make a substantive argument one of the grownups here would take the trouble to address it.

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

keep repeating yourselves and the talking points instead of addressing the substantive arguments.

LLP’s autobiography in 13 words!

A troll is someone who only wants to stir up trouble, not have an honest debate.  Some signs that a poster is a troll:
* Dodges questions from other posters * Refuses to give sources
* When one of its arguments is shown to be false, either ignores the proof or moves the goalposts.  Heh. (From the LGF faq)

Surrender means you gave up on something you once believed in.

Wrong.  Surrender means you run away from the fight, and leave the field to the enemy.  Japan attacked us, Germany didn’t; but we went to war with Germany as well, because they were part of the threat against our way of life.  Duh.
All radical Islamic terrorists share the same goal, and are all our enemies, no matter which country they reside in at the time.

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

So we should invade every country where Islamic terrorists reside, as we did with Iraq?  We don’t have enough troops… It makes no sense.

So we should invade every country where Islamic terrorists reside, as we did with Iraq

Maybe we should rename the argument “reductio ad absurdum” to “reductio ad liberalum”?

A troll is someone who only wants to stir up trouble, not have an honest debate.  Some signs that a poster is a troll:
* Dodges questions from other posters * Refuses to give sources
* When one of its arguments is shown to be false, either ignores the proof or moves the goalposts.  Heh. (From the LGF faq)