And Obama would have invaded Afghanistan and possibly Pakistan. You remember, the places where are enemies were before we drew them into places they weren’t before.
Our enemies were in Iraq before the war. Even if one chooses not to look at the Saddam/Zawahiri link...there was still clearly Saddam. Zarquai was also in Iraq before we invaded, not after.
How do you “work things out” with a bunch of people who regard death as an honorable thing to die for when fighting for God and country?
Saying our troops are on par with Islamists is a disgusting and cowardly position. But of course you “support the troops”.
Kenny - 07:05pm on 05/07/2008
How do you “work things out” with a bunch of people who regard death as an honorable thing to die for when fighting for God and country?
You give them their wish, from long range, and say “Yippee Ky Yea” mother f’er.
Mohair Sam - 07:05pm on 05/07/2008
Our enemies were in Iraq before the war. Even if one chooses not to look at the Saddam/Zawahiri link...there was still clearly Saddam. Zarquai was also in Iraq before we invaded, not after.
Just a question, but, how many Al Qaeda members were in US before we invaded Afghanistan? How many are here now? Why is Bush allowing them to stay and not arresting them?
You keep bringing up insignificant details that don’t mean anything, as Saddam was going to know and approve. How many AQ snuck over the Iraqi border since we had “control” of Iraq?
You just keep ignoring the 9/11 commission, on purpose. For what reason, I don’t know?
Saying our troops are on par with Islamists is a disgusting and cowardly position. But of course you “support the troops”.
I didnt say our troops are on par with fundamentalists. That is your republican translation software at work there, buddy.
I was merely pointing out that their idiots, think like our idiots and guess what happens when you put two idiots in a room together?
If you need another break down, here you go;
Their idiots are the people who worry that they can’t deal with us because we will fight for God and country.....so they want to kill us all.
Our idiots are the people who worry that we can’t deal with them because they will fight and die as a reward.....so we want to kill them all.
But if it makes your tummy feel warm to mischaracterize my statement. By all means, feel warm and fuzzy inside. You are only fooling yourself.
Hannitized - 07:05pm on 05/07/2008
How do you “work things out” with a bunch of people who regard death as an honorable thing to die for when fighting for God and country?
Yeah, because U.S. soldiers and Islamic terrorists are pretty much the same thing, NOT!!! You are pathetic hannitized.
dougee - 08:05pm on 05/07/2008
However, there are a lot of people who don’t and who in fact think there is a chance we could iron things out. We did it with the evil commies after all.
H,
Your convoluted view of history aside for the moment, I’d be curious to know exactly how those on your distant side of the aisle would propose to “iron things out” as you so euphemistically put it, with the Iranians? What would you be willing to give up (and how many people’s new-found freedom!) and what would you expect to get in return?
Barack Obama obviously has no national or international experience at all, and by his own admission “despairs” of confrontation. And though he is clearly an ambitious individual, he has yet to demonstrate any real strength of character, determination, or will power (the man still smokes, for heaven’s sake!) His “threat” to invade Pakistan is laughable, and the only people who even pretend to take him seriously as a potential Commander-in-Chief are those, like you, who babble and drone about “supporting the troops” while drawing spiteful analogies between Islamist terrorists eager to kill and be killed in the name of their god, and American troops who “die for god and country.” That is an egregious bit of moral equivalence that is both reprehensibly foul and impractically dangerous as well. (Even a flaming liberal like Oscar Wilde knew that “the fact that a man is willing to die for a cause, does not make that cause right.")
As for the history lesson, your implication that we “ironed things out” with “the evil commies” is absurd. Soviet communism imploded under the cumbersome weight of its own slothful, socialist ineptitude, after a bold US president, Ronald Reagan, and determined little Polish priest and a few close associates defied conventional, nuanced and “reasonable” wisdom and pressured the Evil Empire into collapse.
Liberals, on the other hand, were content to sit around and disparage the “dangerous” former actor, while continuing to leave hundreds of millions of people enslaved.
Here endeth the lesson!
Bat One - 10:05pm on 05/07/2008
...those, like you, who babble and drone about “supporting the troops” while drawing spiteful analogies between Islamist terrorists eager to kill and be killed in the name of their god, and American troops who “die for god and country.” That is an egregious bit of moral equivalence that is both reprehensibly foul and impractically dangerous as well.
Im headed out, so I don’t have time to respond to all of this.
But what I was doing, and I will explain it again, is viewing our soldiers from their perspective. It’s what you guy lack in ability, that we must.
Because “we” see our troops as good guys, doesn’t mean “they” see our troops as good guys. How can you not understand that. I was merely trying to illustrate what happens when you have twits, judging twits who would be expected to reason with each other.
You guys will never be able to engage in meaningful dialogue until you understand that basic principle.
It is why Hamas says Obama has principles and “like him”. This doesn’t mean Obama is going to talk to them, but at least when he does get a message through to them, by proxy through Iran....they might listen.
They tend to doubt juvenile cowboy types who can’t understand those that are not like them.
This is why you assume I was morally comparing the two, instead of viewing things from someone else’s perspective. No imagination, and not too much smarts either.
Hannitized - 10:05pm on 05/07/2008
It doesn’t matter how “they” see our soldiers. I don’t know about you cupcake but I don’t much care about how terrorists view me. They are pathetic thugs who will sacrifice innocent women and children to advance their sick murdering cause. You can’t understand crazy people like that. They have no shred of rational in their brains and only understand brute military force.
And going to a counseling session to “understand” the murdering psychopaths isn’t going to do a damn thing.
dougee - 11:05pm on 05/07/2008
I didnt say our troops are on par with fundamentalists. That is your republican translation software at work there, buddy.
Yes, you did. You rewrote the original statement to include our troops. And your further parsing is just reiterating that. We and they are the same thing!
Just a question, but, how many Al Qaeda members were in US before we invaded Afghanistan? How many are here now? Why is Bush allowing them to stay and not arresting them?
Irrelevant. We’ve caught many trying to do terrorist plots. There are 300 million people in America. Expeting GWB to know exactly who the terrorists are is absurd.
You keep bringing up insignificant details that don’t mean anything, as Saddam was going to know and approve. How many AQ snuck over the Iraqi border since we had “control” of Iraq?
The details aren’t irrelevant as they deliberately contradict your assertions. You said we had no enemies in Iraq. That’s bunk. Saddam was our enemy. Even if you ignore the other stuff...that alone makes your childish rant wrong.
You just keep ignoring the 9/11 commission, on purpose. For what reason, I don’t know?
Because their (speculative) findings have been largely used to say what they didn’t say. “Al Quida and Saddam didn’t collaborate” has become “Al Quida had no links to Saddam” (which teh 9/11 commission itself shoots down).
That Iraq was sheltering Yasin (original WTC bomber) was proven by 60 minutes, when they interviewed him IN BAGHDAD, set up by the Iraqi government. That was back in 2002, after Bush had named him a top terrorist. But before the march to war with Iraq.
Far from being irrelevant, this gets to the bottom of the matter. Saddam directly financed EIJ, which was a subsidiary of al Quida. And it was not the only subsidiary of al Quida he worked with.
Sorry, a charge of dishonesty doesn’t mean much coming from you.
Kenny - 01:05am on 05/08/2008
Yalta was considered a diplomatic disaster that enslaved millions in Eastern Europe. Roosevelt, who called Stalin, “Uncle Joe,” failed to recognize the evil that would lead to the deaths of 15 to 20 million Soviet citizens -- Time Magazine (13 April 1998) (Some estimates as large as 52 million with 30 million being the median estimate).
Truman lead the UN into Korea and frankly I can’t recall when Truman talked to our enemies, other then perhaps their surrender after he dropped the atomic bomb .
As a matter of fact Truman has his own Doctrine (The Truman Doctrine) that supported our allies financially and militarily against Soviet (our enemies) influence. This lead to what was known as the Domino Theory and formed much of the Cold War doctrine that lasted for decades (a variation of which Bush uses to push democracy).
Along with The Marshall Plan The Truman Doctrine helped feed the Soviet reaction that led to the Berlin Blockade. It was only the show of determination and strength—redeployment of B-29’s to England, the same bombers that dropped atomic weapons on Japan— that prevented escalation of the conflict during the 11 months of the airlift.
Kennedy escalated Vietnam as a part of Truman’s doctrine and while he did speak to Kruschev during the Vienna Summit it was considered a failure that caused the players (Kennedy and Kruschev) to push the world toward the most dangerous nuclear stand off in history—The Cuban missile Crisis.
(About Vienna, Kennedy later claimed of Khrushchev, “He beat the hell out of me.")
If this is what Obama has in mind, getting the hell beat out of him by Kim and Mahmoud I don’t want anything to do with it! I should just start digging the shelter now!
Right Of The Star
DKK
LifeTrek - 02:05am on 05/08/2008
Hey, we have just finished two terms where the “commander in chief” couldn’t give a speech to a bunch of girl scouts, let alone conduct any type of foreign diplomacy. Let’s get the current moron out of office and get someone in that has their brain stem intact.
Any of the three candidates will be far better than what we currently have.
Our enemies were in Iraq before the war. Even if one chooses not to look at the Saddam/Zawahiri link...there was still clearly Saddam. Zarquai was also in Iraq before we invaded, not after.
Saying our troops are on par with Islamists is a disgusting and cowardly position. But of course you “support the troops”.
How do you “work things out” with a bunch of people who regard death as an honorable thing to die for when fighting for God and country?
You give them their wish, from long range, and say “Yippee Ky Yea” mother f’er.
Just a question, but, how many Al Qaeda members were in US before we invaded Afghanistan? How many are here now? Why is Bush allowing them to stay and not arresting them?
You keep bringing up insignificant details that don’t mean anything, as Saddam was going to know and approve. How many AQ snuck over the Iraqi border since we had “control” of Iraq?
You just keep ignoring the 9/11 commission, on purpose. For what reason, I don’t know?
I didnt say our troops are on par with fundamentalists. That is your republican translation software at work there, buddy.
I was merely pointing out that their idiots, think like our idiots and guess what happens when you put two idiots in a room together?
If you need another break down, here you go;
Their idiots are the people who worry that they can’t deal with us because we will fight for God and country.....so they want to kill us all.
Our idiots are the people who worry that we can’t deal with them because they will fight and die as a reward.....so we want to kill them all.
But if it makes your tummy feel warm to mischaracterize my statement. By all means, feel warm and fuzzy inside. You are only fooling yourself.
Yeah, because U.S. soldiers and Islamic terrorists are pretty much the same thing, NOT!!! You are pathetic hannitized.
H,
Your convoluted view of history aside for the moment, I’d be curious to know exactly how those on your distant side of the aisle would propose to “iron things out” as you so euphemistically put it, with the Iranians? What would you be willing to give up (and how many people’s new-found freedom!) and what would you expect to get in return?
Barack Obama obviously has no national or international experience at all, and by his own admission “despairs” of confrontation. And though he is clearly an ambitious individual, he has yet to demonstrate any real strength of character, determination, or will power (the man still smokes, for heaven’s sake!) His “threat” to invade Pakistan is laughable, and the only people who even pretend to take him seriously as a potential Commander-in-Chief are those, like you, who babble and drone about “supporting the troops” while drawing spiteful analogies between Islamist terrorists eager to kill and be killed in the name of their god, and American troops who “die for god and country.” That is an egregious bit of moral equivalence that is both reprehensibly foul and impractically dangerous as well. (Even a flaming liberal like Oscar Wilde knew that “the fact that a man is willing to die for a cause, does not make that cause right.")
As for the history lesson, your implication that we “ironed things out” with “the evil commies” is absurd. Soviet communism imploded under the cumbersome weight of its own slothful, socialist ineptitude, after a bold US president, Ronald Reagan, and determined little Polish priest and a few close associates defied conventional, nuanced and “reasonable” wisdom and pressured the Evil Empire into collapse.
Liberals, on the other hand, were content to sit around and disparage the “dangerous” former actor, while continuing to leave hundreds of millions of people enslaved.
Here endeth the lesson!
Im headed out, so I don’t have time to respond to all of this.
But what I was doing, and I will explain it again, is viewing our soldiers from their perspective. It’s what you guy lack in ability, that we must.
Because “we” see our troops as good guys, doesn’t mean “they” see our troops as good guys. How can you not understand that. I was merely trying to illustrate what happens when you have twits, judging twits who would be expected to reason with each other.
You guys will never be able to engage in meaningful dialogue until you understand that basic principle.
It is why Hamas says Obama has principles and “like him”. This doesn’t mean Obama is going to talk to them, but at least when he does get a message through to them, by proxy through Iran....they might listen.
They tend to doubt juvenile cowboy types who can’t understand those that are not like them.
This is why you assume I was morally comparing the two, instead of viewing things from someone else’s perspective. No imagination, and not too much smarts either.
It doesn’t matter how “they” see our soldiers. I don’t know about you cupcake but I don’t much care about how terrorists view me. They are pathetic thugs who will sacrifice innocent women and children to advance their sick murdering cause. You can’t understand crazy people like that. They have no shred of rational in their brains and only understand brute military force.
And going to a counseling session to “understand” the murdering psychopaths isn’t going to do a damn thing.
Yes, you did. You rewrote the original statement to include our troops. And your further parsing is just reiterating that. We and they are the same thing!
Irrelevant. We’ve caught many trying to do terrorist plots. There are 300 million people in America. Expeting GWB to know exactly who the terrorists are is absurd.
The details aren’t irrelevant as they deliberately contradict your assertions. You said we had no enemies in Iraq. That’s bunk. Saddam was our enemy. Even if you ignore the other stuff...that alone makes your childish rant wrong.
Because their (speculative) findings have been largely used to say what they didn’t say. “Al Quida and Saddam didn’t collaborate” has become “Al Quida had no links to Saddam” (which teh 9/11 commission itself shoots down).
Furthermore, they weren’t right.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/014/889pvpxc.asp
That Iraq was sheltering Yasin (original WTC bomber) was proven by 60 minutes, when they interviewed him IN BAGHDAD, set up by the Iraqi government. That was back in 2002, after Bush had named him a top terrorist. But before the march to war with Iraq.
Far from being irrelevant, this gets to the bottom of the matter. Saddam directly financed EIJ, which was a subsidiary of al Quida. And it was not the only subsidiary of al Quida he worked with.
Sorry, a charge of dishonesty doesn’t mean much coming from you.
Yalta was considered a diplomatic disaster that enslaved millions in Eastern Europe. Roosevelt, who called Stalin, “Uncle Joe,” failed to recognize the evil that would lead to the deaths of 15 to 20 million Soviet citizens -- Time Magazine (13 April 1998) (Some estimates as large as 52 million with 30 million being the median estimate).
Truman lead the UN into Korea and frankly I can’t recall when Truman talked to our enemies, other then perhaps their surrender after he dropped the atomic bomb .
As a matter of fact Truman has his own Doctrine (The Truman Doctrine) that supported our allies financially and militarily against Soviet (our enemies) influence. This lead to what was known as the Domino Theory and formed much of the Cold War doctrine that lasted for decades (a variation of which Bush uses to push democracy).
Along with The Marshall Plan The Truman Doctrine helped feed the Soviet reaction that led to the Berlin Blockade. It was only the show of determination and strength—redeployment of B-29’s to England, the same bombers that dropped atomic weapons on Japan— that prevented escalation of the conflict during the 11 months of the airlift.
Kennedy escalated Vietnam as a part of Truman’s doctrine and while he did speak to Kruschev during the Vienna Summit it was considered a failure that caused the players (Kennedy and Kruschev) to push the world toward the most dangerous nuclear stand off in history—The Cuban missile Crisis.
(About Vienna, Kennedy later claimed of Khrushchev, “He beat the hell out of me.")
If this is what Obama has in mind, getting the hell beat out of him by Kim and Mahmoud I don’t want anything to do with it! I should just start digging the shelter now!
Right Of The Star
DKK
Hey, we have just finished two terms where the “commander in chief” couldn’t give a speech to a bunch of girl scouts, let alone conduct any type of foreign diplomacy. Let’s get the current moron out of office and get someone in that has their brain stem intact.
Any of the three candidates will be far better than what we currently have.