Breaking News... We'll see
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
"Chemical Ali" Dead
The left is on the wrong side of history once again.
outandup
The gloom and doom talk, as you call it, mostly refers to the fact that we have now given everyone in the world that hates us one more reason to attack. I don't think that many of the anti-war crowd here think or have suggested that Iraq will retaliate. The "gloom and doom talk" refers to the increased threat world wide.
The gloom and doom talk, as you call it, mostly refers to the fact that we have now given everyone in the world that hates us one more reason to attack. I don't think that many of the anti-war crowd here think or have suggested that Iraq will retaliate. The "gloom and doom talk" refers to the increased threat world wide.
Kaya, the people that hate America, are going to hate America. This war didn't sway those nuts one way or the other. What America has done is show these fukn zealots is that there will be a price for their actions. To the countries that would harbour these terrorists, I think the message is a lot clearer since Afganistan and Iraq. I much prefer this message to one that would have had us take it up the ass on 9/11 and do nothing.
>I don't think there was provocation enough to hit Iraq.
But many did...
But many did...
Yep, Bush, his goons, and just over have of the U.S. public. Then after enough propaganda they got up to what was it like a whole 60% of the country, then of course in war time as is custom, several more jumped on the band wagon all the way up to what, like 70-73%, it is now. That of course while, what would it be, like 80-90% of the world disagreeing.
This war didn't sway those nuts one way or the other.
You cannot say this. Its too early to tell. What is for sure is that there are powerful people somewhere that are plotting something.
To the countries that would harbour these terrorists, I think the message is a lot clearer since Afganistan and Iraq.
To an American in the suburbs, this would be reasonable...to anyone else, its an absurd and false assumption.
You cannot say this. Its too early to tell. What is for sure is that there are powerful people somewhere that are plotting something.
To the countries that would harbour these terrorists, I think the message is a lot clearer since Afganistan and Iraq.
To an American in the suburbs, this would be reasonable...to anyone else, its an absurd and false assumption.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by kaya man:
We attacked Bin Laden in respone to 9/11.
I don't think there was provocation enough to hit Iraq.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I agree with you on the response to 9/11. On the second part, we probably could have some colorful arguments on the justifaction (or lack thereof) to "hit" Iraq. My response was to your previous post's assertion that this war in Iraq somehow made the U.S. a bigger target in the eyes of those that hate us. To the contrary, I think that certain governments will have second thoughts about using or aquiring WMD, or harbouring those willing to use them. I also think that we will find out pretty soon about this as there is no doubt the U.S. will pursue some of the Saddam's leadership into Syria since that seems to be the most friendly nation (besides France) to the current regime. While Syria has so far had a hardline against the U.S., I don't think they will resist much. If they do, it will be at their own peril.
We attacked Bin Laden in respone to 9/11.
I don't think there was provocation enough to hit Iraq.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I agree with you on the response to 9/11. On the second part, we probably could have some colorful arguments on the justifaction (or lack thereof) to "hit" Iraq. My response was to your previous post's assertion that this war in Iraq somehow made the U.S. a bigger target in the eyes of those that hate us. To the contrary, I think that certain governments will have second thoughts about using or aquiring WMD, or harbouring those willing to use them. I also think that we will find out pretty soon about this as there is no doubt the U.S. will pursue some of the Saddam's leadership into Syria since that seems to be the most friendly nation (besides France) to the current regime. While Syria has so far had a hardline against the U.S., I don't think they will resist much. If they do, it will be at their own peril.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by radiofreecostarica:
You cannot say this. Its too early to tell. What is for sure is that there are powerful people somewhere that are plotting something.
To an American in the suburbs, this would be reasonable...to anyone else, its an absurd and false assumption.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>The only absurd and false assumption I see is the one that says if we all become pacifists and "turn the other cheek", then the U.S. is no longer a target of these "religious" freaks.
You cannot say this. Its too early to tell. What is for sure is that there are powerful people somewhere that are plotting something.
To an American in the suburbs, this would be reasonable...to anyone else, its an absurd and false assumption.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>The only absurd and false assumption I see is the one that says if we all become pacifists and "turn the other cheek", then the U.S. is no longer a target of these "religious" freaks.
Razz,
I disagree with you on this...
"I think that certain governments will have second thoughts about using or aquiring WMD, or harbouring those willing to use them. "
.... at least as far as descreasing risk to the States because when I think of terrorist attacks, I think of sects and fringe groups with nothing to loose rather than governments.
Anyway thanks for rational discussion, that doesn't go on much between libs and conservs here.
I disagree with you on this...
"I think that certain governments will have second thoughts about using or aquiring WMD, or harbouring those willing to use them. "
.... at least as far as descreasing risk to the States because when I think of terrorist attacks, I think of sects and fringe groups with nothing to loose rather than governments.
Anyway thanks for rational discussion, that doesn't go on much between libs and conservs here.
even if we didnt invade Iraq, we still would be having terrorist attacks. The reason, is that terrorists hate cristians and jews. The USA is probably Isreal's only friend and therefore an enemy of the muslim world.
Anyways, after 9/11 the US government learned that it is better to annihilate the enemy while he is a threat before the enemy committs another 9/11 like atrocity.
Remember, Pres. Bill Clinton and his dealing with Osama Bin Laden. 9/11 could and should have been avoided. Luckily, we have a republican President who is a true leader by acting on what he thinks is right, rather then kissing all the leaders of the worlds asses and then passing the buck to the next administration.
Anyways, after 9/11 the US government learned that it is better to annihilate the enemy while he is a threat before the enemy committs another 9/11 like atrocity.
Remember, Pres. Bill Clinton and his dealing with Osama Bin Laden. 9/11 could and should have been avoided. Luckily, we have a republican President who is a true leader by acting on what he thinks is right, rather then kissing all the leaders of the worlds asses and then passing the buck to the next administration.
what Bush is connecting the dots. After Clintoons run in office these terrorist and terrorist states saw America as weak.
Saddam and OBL are hero's in their parts of the world and both of their days are numbered.
I believe the US message is loud and clear. Remember these people only understand strengh.
You doom and gloomers will be wrong again just like you've been wrong the last two weeks.
Saddam and OBL are hero's in their parts of the world and both of their days are numbered.
I believe the US message is loud and clear. Remember these people only understand strengh.
You doom and gloomers will be wrong again just like you've been wrong the last two weeks.
outandup,
You really either need to get a new expression or comprehend what the "doomers and gloomers" are talking about.
We haven't talked about the U.S. winning the war or not as having anything to do with this being wrong or not. We haven't talked about how long the war lasts as to the correctness of the strike or not.
We have talked about the increased threat of terrorism and that is still valid. We are giving everyone that dislikes us a reason and we're attacking someone that has not posed any threat in 12 since we phucked his country up the first time. I don't think anybody rational means Saddam when we talk of increased risk
If the U.S. wins the war tomorrow, that doesn't change our view of Bush or that it was wrong to strike. I think what all of us against the war (Americans any way) is that this end as soon as possible, that the casualities be held down as much as possible, and that the country get rid of Bush to start to repair our image as well as horribly damaged international ties.
Remember he's the President by Accident, he took us into a war, made us look bad to the world, and embarrasses us with his stupidity, more than anything else we want him gone.
So you talk on and on about us being wrong. Please try to understand, you are missing the point of our views. When the U.S. inevitably wins the war we will not be wrong, that's not the issue we've been talking about. If chemical weapons, nukes whatever are found in Iraq we still won't be wrong, again that's not the issue we've been talking about. If you don't understand what's being said you can hardly go around calling people wrong.
You really either need to get a new expression or comprehend what the "doomers and gloomers" are talking about.
We haven't talked about the U.S. winning the war or not as having anything to do with this being wrong or not. We haven't talked about how long the war lasts as to the correctness of the strike or not.
We have talked about the increased threat of terrorism and that is still valid. We are giving everyone that dislikes us a reason and we're attacking someone that has not posed any threat in 12 since we phucked his country up the first time. I don't think anybody rational means Saddam when we talk of increased risk
If the U.S. wins the war tomorrow, that doesn't change our view of Bush or that it was wrong to strike. I think what all of us against the war (Americans any way) is that this end as soon as possible, that the casualities be held down as much as possible, and that the country get rid of Bush to start to repair our image as well as horribly damaged international ties.
Remember he's the President by Accident, he took us into a war, made us look bad to the world, and embarrasses us with his stupidity, more than anything else we want him gone.
So you talk on and on about us being wrong. Please try to understand, you are missing the point of our views. When the U.S. inevitably wins the war we will not be wrong, that's not the issue we've been talking about. If chemical weapons, nukes whatever are found in Iraq we still won't be wrong, again that's not the issue we've been talking about. If you don't understand what's being said you can hardly go around calling people wrong.
>Remember he's the President by Accident
Explain this statement with facts... If you cannot then you're just a typical lying liberal.
Explain this statement with facts... If you cannot then you're just a typical lying liberal.
fatboy
Ok I'll waste just a little bit more time on you.
Hello, can you say rigged election in Florida. Of course I'll get bashed now as just being anti-Bush not anti-war, while the truth is I am both. But I was never a Gore supporter. The election in Florida was so riddled with irregularities that it should have been thrown out and re-done. I mean come on, it even leaked to the press that when the news first reported Gore as having taken the state, Barbara was on the phone reaming Jeb a new one even before the mistake could be corrected. That aside from everything else that went on down there. How about the people turned away from the polls as closed before it was time. The Spanish speakers that were not provided with proper assistence to vote, just a legal right. The whole impregnated chad b.s.. A gentlemen I worked with here in Costa Rica even spoke of it being such a cluster phuck that he left believing he had voted the way he wanted but not completely sure and also found assistence from the staff to be little to none. He's first language English speaker and couldn't get any help.
Anyone that can't see that the whole thing is suspicious, to say the least, is blind.
BTW no I don't have the specific reports of all of that, most of it was on CNN, USA Today, etc. I don't have time to go looking it all up now, but everybody remembers it. Lastly I don't want to hear the every re-count found him a winner bla bla because I'm talking about people that weren't allowed to vote or that were not provided proper instructions as well as that chad crap that caused the need to throw votes out.
Ok I'll waste just a little bit more time on you.
Hello, can you say rigged election in Florida. Of course I'll get bashed now as just being anti-Bush not anti-war, while the truth is I am both. But I was never a Gore supporter. The election in Florida was so riddled with irregularities that it should have been thrown out and re-done. I mean come on, it even leaked to the press that when the news first reported Gore as having taken the state, Barbara was on the phone reaming Jeb a new one even before the mistake could be corrected. That aside from everything else that went on down there. How about the people turned away from the polls as closed before it was time. The Spanish speakers that were not provided with proper assistence to vote, just a legal right. The whole impregnated chad b.s.. A gentlemen I worked with here in Costa Rica even spoke of it being such a cluster phuck that he left believing he had voted the way he wanted but not completely sure and also found assistence from the staff to be little to none. He's first language English speaker and couldn't get any help.
Anyone that can't see that the whole thing is suspicious, to say the least, is blind.
BTW no I don't have the specific reports of all of that, most of it was on CNN, USA Today, etc. I don't have time to go looking it all up now, but everybody remembers it. Lastly I don't want to hear the every re-count found him a winner bla bla because I'm talking about people that weren't allowed to vote or that were not provided proper instructions as well as that chad crap that caused the need to throw votes out.
>I don't want to hear the every re-count found him a winner bla bla
Just as I thought... We would not want facts to get in our way now would we?
Just as I thought... We would not want facts to get in our way now would we?
