Iraq in a Civil War? Yes or no?

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

No where did I say they are a zero threat. Obviously they should be dealt with because they have unlawfully killed people. That is reason enough to deal with them.

And how do you propose we "deal with them" if we are not going to go after them with the military, and kill them? How can we "deal with them" when the liberals in this country, won't even let us listen to their phone calls or detain them for questioning without an ACLU attorney present?

However the Hitler comparison is not appropriate.

It's not given as a "direct comparison" because, of course, it's apples and oranges. The comparison of how we deal with threats, is relevant.

Yes it is true Hitler got as far as he did because nothing was done.

Exactly! Which was my point! This is why it's imperative, we do something, and not continue to ignore the threat, or pretend like it's not a big deal.

But Hitler had a greater ability to be a threat than Al Queda or those like them. Hitler controlled a modern and techologically and socially advanced nation. He had industry and the economic might of Germany at his disposal.

I'm sorry, but Hitler didn't start with this ability. The concepts and ideals of Nazism, were not formed after Hitler gained power in Germany. Take a good look at the governments of Iran and Syria, maybe even Lebanon... do you really think the radical Islamofascists don't have state sponsorship? Take a listen to what Armagedongoneinsane is spewing, you honestly don't think the bastard would arm alQaeda with a nuke? He doesn't give a fuck about reprisal! This is "The End Game" for him! Don't you understand this?

Terrorism is not as powerful a weapon as a strong military or economy. Terrorisms purpose is to facilitate asymetric negotiation in which the weaker side has greater leveredge against a democratic nation that has lost its appetite for more death.

Let's be clear about what Islamofascist terrorism is about, it has nothing to do with negotiating. What they seek, can't be offered in negotiation. You do understand this, correct? The purpose is to kill Infidels and Jews, and motivate and inspire other wacko Islamists to do the same.

While I would never suggest that we do not retaliate when we are attacked I must disagree with the idea that our enemies do not at least in some part want us to attack them. Do you honestly think that Bin Laden believed that in the aftermath of the 911 attacks that their would not be an American military response?

He wanted a fight so that he could begin his jihad against the US. He had been trying to do so for years with the embassy bombings and the cole attack he kept raising the ante until we called. Once again I am not saying we should not have responded as we did but I also think Bin Laden wanted this struggle. To think he thought the US would not retalliate after an attack on our capital is to suggest he is retarded.

Well, let's take a look... how exactly, did we respond to the Cole or Embassy bombings? How did we respond the last time they bombed the WTC? OBL probably anticipated us throwing a few missiles into Afghanistan, like we did in the Sudan, and he could have Aljazeera show dead babies in civilian neighborhoods, thus yielding him more potential recruits. Worst case scenario, he realized the liberal tittie babies in America would start screaming and crying as soon as they blew up a few soldiers, and that we didn't have the stomach to engage in a protracted war. They laugh at how pathetic and weak we are, how we are always trying to be politically correct and wage a humane battle with our enemies. The strategies endorsed by western civilization, are translated as 'weakness' to them, they simply don't understand or respect anything other than brutal relentless force.

But the IslamoFascists aren't even anywhere close to the equivalent of remilitarizing the Rhineland or seizing the Sudetenland. If they do I will show concern at the level you currently have.

Let me ask you an honest and objective couple/few questions here... What do you think their objective is? What is going to stop them from achieving it? Will fewer people die, if we wait until later to defeat them? I know that there is no immediate national security risk of being overthrown by alQaeda as a nation. I realize if we immediately withdraw from Iraq, Chicago will likely not awake to a mushroom cloud in the morning. I can see your point about not being particularly overly concerned at this time, but my question is... if you are driving toward a cliff, when do you become concerned enough to alter your course? I mean, if we know and understand the enemy, their objectives, and the fact that they will eventually have to be stopped... why do we want to wait any longer? What is the motivation for that strategy?

 

[maineman]

there can never be a strictly military solution to the problem of Islamic extremism. I say again: We cannot expect that killing muslims as a way of convincing them not to kill us will work unless we are prepared to kill every last one of them....and quite frankly, the world will not stand by and let us do that.

 

[IHateGovernment]

And how do you propose we "deal with them" if we are not going to go after them with the military, and kill them? How can we "deal with them" when the liberals in this country, won't even let us listen to their phone calls or detain them for questioning without an ACLU attorney present?

We can deal with them by attacking their strongholds and crippling their means to make money. We can defeat them while still getting warrants for tapping American's phones and giving them a right to legal counsel. I don't think we will succumb to terror by the acts of defense attorneys.

I'm sorry, but Hitler didn't start with this ability. The concepts and ideals of Nazism, were not formed after Hitler gained power in Germany. Take a good look at the governments of Iran and Syria, maybe even Lebanon... do you really think the radical Islamofascists don't have state sponsorship? Take a listen to what Armagedongoneinsane is spewing, you honestly don't think the bastard would arm alQaeda with a nuke? He doesn't give a fuck about reprisal! This is "The End Game" for him! Don't you understand this?

Do you think Hitler should have been imprisoned or eliminated because of the ideas he espoused before becoming chancellor of Germany? I don't although I would have kept him in prison longer then they did when he tried to take over Bavaria. But thats the thing you have to wait for an attempted takeover of Bavaria or the equivalent before you can act against these guys. You can't target them for their ideas. Now keeping an eye on them and working to stifle their cause is good but arresting them I disagree with.

As for Ahmadinejad frankly my estimation of him leads me to believe he is bluffing there are many reasons that such things are in his favor. He is not a madman who desires being incinerated within a 10 megaton nuclear explosion. Its nice to have power and men who have achieve it because they have sought it and will not reliquish it by dying in a suicidal blaze. That is the path taken by those who do not have power.

Throughout history you can see that those who have led movement that appear insane are not so quick to put themselves at risk. This applies to people like Bin Laden and Ahamdinejad. They want to use people so that they can have more power. Dying is not a good route to power.

Let's be clear about what Islamofascist terrorism is about, it has nothing to do with negotiating. What they seek, can't be offered in negotiation. You do understand this, correct? The purpose is to kill Infidels and Jews, and motivate and inspire other wacko Islamists to do the same.

Thats not the only purpose in their attacks. You can see by the nature of the attacks in London and Madrid that they were designed to alter the political process of those countries. Killing Infidels was secondary. Organizations like Al Queda are using terrorism to try to get us off their backs so that they can try to subvert nations like Afghanistan which can be a base to work with in order to build the means to actually begin to control instead of simply kill people. These fanatics do not wish simply to kill people en masse but rather convert them.

If we look at history we can see this was done before during the original caliphate and then the Ottoman empire. During this time the middle east, northern africa, northern india, the balkans and central asia were converted to Islam often by the sword.

However in order to do this the Muslims had to build a powerful military machine. They could never accomplish such a thing through only fear and terror or mass killings.

Terrorism is the first step in their goals to have a free hand to build an Islamic state. However they are aware a war cannot be won through terrorism alone and subjugation of your enemies requires the projection of power.


Well, let's take a look... how exactly, did we respond to the Cole or Embassy bombings? How did we respond the last time they bombed the WTC? OBL probably anticipated us throwing a few missiles into Afghanistan, like we did in the Sudan, and he could have Aljazeera show dead babies in civilian neighborhoods, thus yielding him more potential recruits. Worst case scenario, he realized the liberal tittie babies in America would start screaming and crying as soon as they blew up a few soldiers, and that we didn't have the stomach to engage in a protracted war. They laugh at how pathetic and weak we are, how we are always trying to be politically correct and wage a humane battle with our enemies. The strategies endorsed by western civilization, are translated as 'weakness' to them, they simply don't understand or respect anything other than brutal relentless force.

The response of Al Queda indicates that they were not satisfied with the results of their attacks. Do you honestly think that al queda wished to conduct these attacks ad infinitum with only a few cruise missles as a response. What could al queda gain from such a thing? Its obviously not for simply killing us it is very inefficient to kill people this way. Less people die in terrorist attacks than lightning strikes. No they wanted to create fear and anger within the west. The best way to accomplish this is a massive attack designed to draw us out. Bin Laden is working with his experience. What he hoped to do is defeat us in a similar way he helped defeat the Soviets decades ago. So far his forces are winning simply by virtue of not losing.

Let me ask you an honest and objective couple/few questions here... What do you think their objective is?

It depends but the most likely objective of at least the upper echelons of leadership in groups like Al-Queda appear to want a return to the glory and prestige of the caliphate at its zenith of power when it was the most powerful empire in the world. It appeared then that this thirst is unquenchable and was only kept in check by military reversals.

After the fall of the Ottoman empire no Islamic nation was a major player in world affairs. Thus IslamoFascism is somewhat akin to nationalism in the desire to return to having power in the world and to be a powerful, respected, and feared civilization.

What is going to stop them from achieving it?

By not succumbing to the fear tactics they use. You and I are much more likely to be killed by a car or a dog mauling than a terrorist attack. Terrors power lies in convincing you otherwise.

We can deny them the logistical support they need by isolating them from the nations that help them and cutting them off from the profit making ventures. Counter propaganda is also helpful.

Will fewer people die, if we wait until later to defeat them?

I don't suggest we wait only that we don't need to be afraid of them as some indicate we should be.

I realize if we immediately withdraw from Iraq, Chicago will likely not awake to a mushroom cloud in the morning. I can see your point about not being particularly overly concerned at this time, but my question is... if you are driving toward a cliff, when do you become concerned enough to alter your course? I mean, if we know and understand the enemy, their objectives, and the fact that they will eventually have to be stopped... why do we want to wait any longer? What is the motivation for that strategy?

If such preparedness only required concern alone I would say we should all be concerned. However this pursuit is not free it costs us a lot in various ways. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. However I would not say a ton of prevention is worth a pound of cure. We have to realistically evaluate the risk that these groups pose.

Their ability to harm us in such a manner is certainly possible however it is not inevitable either. I look at our current efforts against terror as an insurance policy. It is done so that we don't face bigger problems later. Sound idea. However I would not pay beyond a certain insurance premium for that protection. I would not pay 1000 dollars a month to ensure I don't die from a bolt of lightning. Likewise I won't pay 1000 dollars a month to ensure I don't live under an Islamic Caliphate. Not because I don't think such a thing is bad but because I don't think the risk to dollar ratio makes it worth paying.

BTW don't take this just to be a money thing. I use money as an example but obviously these opeations cost us in more than that namely: lives, time and detract from other concerns.

Bird flu is a much larger threat than terrorism and is at least far more likely to suceed in resulting in more deaths than Al Queda taking over the world. Yet we spend far more on fighting the war in Iraq than preparing for bird flu. The reason is because of public perceptions of thing. The image of the burning towers is a vision that will be forever etched in the minds of americans who witnessed it. You see it and you see terror and you see what they can do to us and it makes you scared. We don't see influenza the same way because most were not alive during the last pandemic which killed millions.

These are reactions based on feelings and not practical and logical cost to benefit analysis.

 

[Prakosh]

No where did I say they are a zero threat. Obviously they should be dealt with because they have unlawfully killed people. That is reason enough to deal with them.

And how do you propose we "deal with them" if we are not going to go after them with the military, and kill them? How can we "deal with them" when the liberals in this country, won't even let us listen to their phone calls or detain them for questioning without an ACLU attorney present?

However the Hitler comparison is not appropriate.

It's not given as a "direct comparison" because, of course, it's apples and oranges. The comparison of how we deal with threats, is relevant.

Yes it is true Hitler got as far as he did because nothing was done.

Exactly! Which was my point! This is why it's imperative, we do something, and not continue to ignore the threat, or pretend like it's not a big deal.

But Hitler had a greater ability to be a threat than Al Queda or those like them. Hitler controlled a modern and techologically and socially advanced nation. He had industry and the economic might of Germany at his disposal.

I'm sorry, but Hitler didn't start with this ability. The concepts and ideals of Nazism, were not formed after Hitler gained power in Germany. Take a good look at the governments of Iran and Syria, maybe even Lebanon... do you really think the radical Islamofascists don't have state sponsorship? Take a listen to what Armagedongoneinsane is spewing, you honestly don't think the bastard would arm alQaeda with a nuke? He doesn't give a fuck about reprisal! This is "The End Game" for him! Don't you understand this?

Terrorism is not as powerful a weapon as a strong military or economy. Terrorisms purpose is to facilitate asymetric negotiation in which the weaker side has greater leveredge against a democratic nation that has lost its appetite for more death.

Let's be clear about what Islamofascist terrorism is about, it has nothing to do with negotiating. What they seek, can't be offered in negotiation. You do understand this, correct? The purpose is to kill Infidels and Jews, and motivate and inspire other wacko Islamists to do the same.

While I would never suggest that we do not retaliate when we are attacked I must disagree with the idea that our enemies do not at least in some part want us to attack them. Do you honestly think that Bin Laden believed that in the aftermath of the 911 attacks that their would not be an American military response?

He wanted a fight so that he could begin his jihad against the US. He had been trying to do so for years with the embassy bombings and the cole attack he kept raising the ante until we called. Once again I am not saying we should not have responded as we did but I also think Bin Laden wanted this struggle. To think he thought the US would not retalliate after an attack on our capital is to suggest he is retarded.

Well, let's take a look... how exactly, did we respond to the Cole or Embassy bombings? How did we respond the last time they bombed the WTC? OBL probably anticipated us throwing a few missiles into Afghanistan, like we did in the Sudan, and he could have Aljazeera show dead babies in civilian neighborhoods, thus yielding him more potential recruits. Worst case scenario, he realized the liberal tittie babies in America would start screaming and crying as soon as they blew up a few soldiers, and that we didn't have the stomach to engage in a protracted war. They laugh at how pathetic and weak we are, how we are always trying to be politically correct and wage a humane battle with our enemies. The strategies endorsed by western civilization, are translated as 'weakness' to them, they simply don't understand or respect anything other than brutal relentless force.

But the IslamoFascists aren't even anywhere close to the equivalent of remilitarizing the Rhineland or seizing the Sudetenland. If they do I will show concern at the level you currently have.

Let me ask you an honest and objective couple/few questions here... What do you think their objective is? What is going to stop them from achieving it? Will fewer people die, if we wait until later to defeat them? I know that there is no immediate national security risk of being overthrown by alQaeda as a nation. I realize if we immediately withdraw from Iraq, Chicago will likely not awake to a mushroom cloud in the morning. I can see your point about not being particularly overly concerned at this time, but my question is... if you are driving toward a cliff, when do you become concerned enough to alter your course? I mean, if we know and understand the enemy, their objectives, and the fact that they will eventually have to be stopped... why do we want to wait any longer? What is the motivation for that strategy?

In spite of your long windedness most of what you say comes from a very simplistic and rather imagintively constrained world view that is Manachean and unimpressive in practice.

Imagining that there are only two choices in how we deal with the terrorist threat, and it is just that--a threat--not the end of the world, not a world conflagration, or even something that requires a huge military outlay and a lot of war rhetoric, but a threat that should be treated like any other dangerous threat in the world, carefully, with respect, with reason and mental clarity, is short-sighted, wrong-headed and inept.

The British have demonstrated in their own, seemingly only slightly more competent than the US, way, that the way to handle the terrorist threat is not with fighting a series of increasingly dangerous and disatrous wars in every country in the middle east so that "we don't have to fight them here" but rather to use the tools of smart police work to mind the terrorists and their plots, and bring them to justice when their actions warrent such treatment. This doesn't mean trampling all over everyone's civil and Constitutional rights nor does it mean that such rights need to be given up or ignored.

9-11 could have been prevented with the information that the police had prior to the event.

The FBI workers in the field had sent over 70 emails back to Washington warning of the 9-11 hijackers and their possible targets and suspicious actions in the months drectly preceeding 9-11 yet no action was taken to stop them or to even answer those emails or evaluate the threat they signalled. The sad fact that you administration and war mongering supporters fail to admit is that 9-11 could have easily been prevented with the tools available at the time, if people in poitions of authority in the Bush government had been paying attention. Unfortunately they weren't. And so we were given a statement that (the first part of at least) would be repeated every time the administration got caught with thetir pants down, "Nobody could have imagined that the terrorists would fly planes into buildings." When in fact it was well-known that there terrorists were planning to do just that. Your overblown and ardent support for a failed policy, no matter how passionate, is misguided, thoughtless and inept.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

We can deal with them by attacking their strongholds and crippling their means to make money.

And this is being done, wherever it can be done. We can't disregard the wishes of Pakistan and put troops in there to search for OBL. To do that, would compromise our relationship with them, and give us one more enemy in the region, one with nukes to boot. We also don't control the banks in other nations, we can't tell them to freeze AQ assets unless we have some means to force them to comply. So, you are proposing things that we should do, which we really can't do... it would be great, it would be nice, but we simply can't defeat them this way.

We can defeat them while still getting warrants for tapping American's phones and giving them a right to legal counsel. I don't think we will succumb to terror by the acts of defense attorneys.

No we can't. They fully understand our system of fairness and freedom, they fully comprehend what the ACLU does, and how we go out of our way to infer Constitutional rights on people who aren't part of this country... they laugh at how pathetic and stupid we are. We can't wage war against a group we are going to give Constitutional Civil Rights to! What the fuck is wrong with you?

Do you think Hitler should have been imprisoned or eliminated because of the ideas he espoused before becoming chancellor of Germany? I don't although I would have kept him in prison longer then they did when he tried to take over Bavaria. But thats the thing you have to wait for an attempted takeover of Bavaria or the equivalent before you can act against these guys. You can't target them for their ideas. Now keeping an eye on them and working to stifle their cause is good but arresting them I disagree with.

Wait for who? France? Wait for what? Another 9/11? As for Hitler before he became Chancellor of Germany, we had no reason to be concerned with him, in fact, we waited almost too late to do anything about Hitler. I raised the point about how Hitler began, because you compared a fully empowered Hitler with an AQ who is trying to become fully empowered. If we could have spent a few billion dollars and lost a few thousand soldiers, eliminating an upstart Hitler, it would have been more desirable than what we endured in WWII, and we would have been wise to do it, if we had the opportunity. Again, don't mistake this for a direct comparison, it's the strategy involved that I am illustrating with the example. AQ is religiously rooted and based, and spread across the middle east, and will be much more difficult to defeat than Hitler's nationalism. So, there is no comparison of the enemies here, only the strategies. Waiting for Hitler to take over Europe was not a great and wonderful idea, and caused more loss of American lives, than if we had taken him out early, like we are attempting to do here. If we allow Islamofascism to spread through Europe, we can hang it up, there will be no defeating it.

As for Ahmadinejad frankly my estimation of him leads me to believe he is bluffing there are many reasons that such things are in his favor. He is not a madman who desires being incinerated within a 10 megaton nuclear explosion. Its nice to have power and men who have achieve it because they have sought it and will not reliquish it by dying in a suicidal blaze. That is the path taken by those who do not have power.

He is a fanatical madman! He believes we are in the End Times, and he has been called to battle by Allah, to make way for the hidden Imam, and with the elimination of Israel, will make way for this, which in turn, will make way for the Caliphate and return of the Islamic Saviour. He is trying to develop a nuke, which he will use to annihilate Israel, probably in conjunction with mass terror attacks on us as well. You can use your "life-loving" western liberal logic to ponder all you like, you really don't know how this man thinks, and what his motivations are. He is not interested in power, he has power.

Organizations like Al Queda are using terrorism to try to get us off their backs so that they can try to subvert nations like Afghanistan which can be a base to work with in order to build the means to actually begin to control instead of simply kill people. These fanatics do not wish simply to kill people en masse but rather convert them.

Well now, one minute you are telling me that AQ wanted us to attack them, expected a military response, and then you tell me that AQ is trying to get us off their backs. You are being lied to by them! Do you not realize this? Are you one of the Pinheads who thinks this is all about us occupying Arab lands, and if we just leave, everything will be fine? Yes, of course they want to establish a base... in Afghanistan, in Iraq, in Pakistan, in Syria, in Saudi Arabia, and in Iran. That's the whole freakin point! They want to do this, and we want to stop them from it. Or at least, we should! So far, you've not given me a logical reason or conventional rationale for why we wouldn't want to stop them now. The only people they deem worthy of conversion, are Muslims who will adopt their perversion of Islam. They kill as many Muslim people as anyone, particularly if they are assisting us in defeating them.

If we look at history we can see this was done before during the original caliphate and then the Ottoman empire.

Spare me, I know the history. Besides, unless there is a strategical point to demonstrate, we have already established, there is no historic comparison.

Terrorism is the first step in their goals to have a free hand to build an Islamic state. However they are aware a war cannot be won through terrorism alone and subjugation of your enemies requires the projection of power.

Uhm.. hello? Armagedongoneinsane... nukes? Bringing down the WTC? Worst attack on US soil in history? Turning Iraq into a "civil war quagmire" that we have to turn tail, and run away from? You don't think Islamofascists have projected power?

The response of Al Queda indicates that they were not satisfied with the results of their attacks. Do you honestly think that al queda wished to conduct these attacks ad infinitum with only a few cruise missles as a response. What could al queda gain from such a thing? Its obviously not for simply killing us it is very inefficient to kill people this way. Less people die in terrorist attacks than lightning strikes. No they wanted to create fear and anger within the west. The best way to accomplish this is a massive attack designed to draw us out. Bin Laden is working with his experience. What he hoped to do is defeat us in a similar way he helped defeat the Soviets decades ago. So far his forces are winning simply by virtue of not losing.

Now, we are back to AQ wanting us to fight them, instead of wanting us off their backs. The more you talk, the more pinheaded you get with the convoluted views. In the publicity from the Cole and Embassy bombings, AQ got recruitment, credibility within the region, and deep pocketed state sponsorship from other like-minded nut jobs in the region. They declared war against us a long time ago, terror is their military tactic of choice, because of the terroristic effect it has on the general public, particularly, the limp-wristed liberal spoiled crybaby American and European public. Not playing by the conventional rules of war, is to their advantage and they know this, they are not stupid people.

When you speak of "fear", yes, terrorism is designed to evoke fear, but the fear is manifested in viewpoints of appeasement, capitulation, retreat, negotiation, diplomacy, sticking our heads in the sand and not being vigilant in our resolve to defeat them. Recognizing them for what they are, understanding that we have to kill them before they kill us, and there is no compromise, and going after them with our full force, is not "fear" at all, it should be their worst nightmare.

However this pursuit is not free it costs us a lot in various ways. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. However I would not say a ton of prevention is worth a pound of cure. We have to realistically evaluate the risk that these groups pose.

I realize it's expensive, I realize American troops are being killed. I also realize, a terror attack is something most Americans will never experience, but I don't want most Americans to be concerned with it at all, which is why it has to be defeated. This has been going on for the past 25 years, and it isn't fizzling out, the people aren't uprising against it over there, they are embracing the fanaticism, and we are headed down a destiny that is clear. My question is still in play, what would be the strategic advantage to wait any longer to wage war against them? Do we have to repeat history again? Is that what it will take to get you to understand and comprehend the threat?

Likewise I won't pay 1000 dollars a month to ensure I don't live under an Islamic Caliphate. Not because I don't think such a thing is bad but because I don't think the risk to dollar ratio makes it worth paying.

What? You would rather live under an Islamic Caliphate and 5th century Muhammad Law, than to part with some money? Are you out of your mind? You don't see the risk because you don't acknowledge reality! You refuse to comprehend that these people are at war with us, and have no intentions of stopping until they have defeated us. We can pull out, stay, philosophize, pontificate, gyrate, wiggle and squirm, defend Israel, not defend Israel, it doesn't matter... they are at war, they have an objective, and they aren't going to stop.

I don't suggest we wait only that we don't need to be afraid of them as some indicate we should be.

The reason some are indicating you should be afraid, is because you perceive 'fear' as being the same as 'confrontation' and mistake them for one another as synonymous. I am not afraid of them, I would be less fearful if I knew the entire country was on the same page and resolved to their demise, but that is not the case at all. Most Americans, unfortunately, have your lackadaisical attitude about terrorism, mostly because it hasn't effected our everyday lives yet. You're not comprehending it, you're not understanding it because you have no point of reference, nothing to relate it to in your life. To you, it's a minor issue, something you don't think we should concern ourselves with, that would show "fear" to actually pay attention to them. Again, we have an enemy who has vowed to their God to kill us all, they are in a Holy War to do that, and dominate the world through a Caliphate. Your approach, is the Neville Chamberlain approach. Your ideas have been considered before, and you were as wrong then as you are now. The enemy we face, must be confronted now, before they gain access to nuclear weapons. There is no logic or reason to wait, there is no rationale to ignore the threat or treat it as a minor hindrance. Wars are not conducted by popular poll, if they were, we would have never won the first one.

 

[Prakosh]

We can deal with them by attacking their strongholds and crippling their means to make money.

And this is being done, wherever it can be done. We can't disregard the wishes of Pakistan and put troops in there to search for OBL. To do that, would compromise our relationship with them, and give us one more enemy in the region, one with nukes to boot. We also don't control the banks in other nations, we can't tell them to freeze AQ assets unless we have some means to force them to comply. So, you are proposing things that we should do, which we really can't do... it would be great, it would be nice, but we simply can't defeat them this way.

We can defeat them while still getting warrants for tapping American's phones and giving them a right to legal counsel. I don't think we will succumb to terror by the acts of defense attorneys.

No we can't. They fully understand our system of fairness and freedom, they fully comprehend what the ACLU does, and how we go out of our way to infer Constitutional rights on people who aren't part of this country... they laugh at how pathetic and stupid we are. We can't wage war against a group we are going to give Constitutional Civil Rights to! What the fuck is wrong with you?

Do you think Hitler should have been imprisoned or eliminated because of the ideas he espoused before becoming chancellor of Germany? I don't although I would have kept him in prison longer then they did when he tried to take over Bavaria. But thats the thing you have to wait for an attempted takeover of Bavaria or the equivalent before you can act against these guys. You can't target them for their ideas. Now keeping an eye on them and working to stifle their cause is good but arresting them I disagree with.

Wait for who? France? Wait for what? Another 9/11? As for Hitler before he became Chancellor of Germany, we had no reason to be concerned with him, in fact, we waited almost too late to do anything about Hitler. I raised the point about how Hitler began, because you compared a fully empowered Hitler with an AQ who is trying to become fully empowered. If we could have spent a few billion dollars and lost a few thousand soldiers, eliminating an upstart Hitler, it would have been more desirable than what we endured in WWII, and we would have been wise to do it, if we had the opportunity. Again, don't mistake this for a direct comparison, it's the strategy involved that I am illustrating with the example. AQ is religiously rooted and based, and spread across the middle east, and will be much more difficult to defeat than Hitler's nationalism. So, there is no comparison of the enemies here, only the strategies. Waiting for Hitler to take over Europe was not a great and wonderful idea, and caused more loss of American lives, than if we had taken him out early, like we are attempting to do here. If we allow Islamofascism to spread through Europe, we can hang it up, there will be no defeating it.

As for Ahmadinejad frankly my estimation of him leads me to believe he is bluffing there are many reasons that such things are in his favor. He is not a madman who desires being incinerated within a 10 megaton nuclear explosion. Its nice to have power and men who have achieve it because they have sought it and will not reliquish it by dying in a suicidal blaze. That is the path taken by those who do not have power.

He is a fanatical madman! He believes we are in the End Times, and he has been called to battle by Allah, to make way for the hidden Imam, and with the elimination of Israel, will make way for this, which in turn, will make way for the Caliphate and return of the Islamic Saviour. He is trying to develop a nuke, which he will use to annihilate Israel, probably in conjunction with mass terror attacks on us as well. You can use your "life-loving" western liberal logic to ponder all you like, you really don't know how this man thinks, and what his motivations are. He is not interested in power, he has power.

Organizations like Al Queda are using terrorism to try to get us off their backs so that they can try to subvert nations like Afghanistan which can be a base to work with in order to build the means to actually begin to control instead of simply kill people. These fanatics do not wish simply to kill people en masse but rather convert them.

Well now, one minute you are telling me that AQ wanted us to attack them, expected a military response, and then you tell me that AQ is trying to get us off their backs. You are being lied to by them! Do you not realize this? Are you one of the Pinheads who thinks this is all about us occupying Arab lands, and if we just leave, everything will be fine? Yes, of course they want to establish a base... in Afghanistan, in Iraq, in Pakistan, in Syria, in Saudi Arabia, and in Iran. That's the whole freakin point! They want to do this, and we want to stop them from it. Or at least, we should! So far, you've not given me a logical reason or conventional rationale for why we wouldn't want to stop them now. The only people they deem worthy of conversion, are Muslims who will adopt their perversion of Islam. They kill as many Muslim people as anyone, particularly if they are assisting us in defeating them.

If we look at history we can see this was done before during the original caliphate and then the Ottoman empire.

Spare me, I know the history. Besides, unless there is a strategical point to demonstrate, we have already established, there is no historic comparison.

Terrorism is the first step in their goals to have a free hand to build an Islamic state. However they are aware a war cannot be won through terrorism alone and subjugation of your enemies requires the projection of power.

Uhm.. hello? Armagedongoneinsane... nukes? Bringing down the WTC? Worst attack on US soil in history? Turning Iraq into a "civil war quagmire" that we have to turn tail, and run away from? You don't think Islamofascists have projected power?

The response of Al Queda indicates that they were not satisfied with the results of their attacks. Do you honestly think that al queda wished to conduct these attacks ad infinitum with only a few cruise missles as a response. What could al queda gain from such a thing? Its obviously not for simply killing us it is very inefficient to kill people this way. Less people die in terrorist attacks than lightning strikes. No they wanted to create fear and anger within the west. The best way to accomplish this is a massive attack designed to draw us out. Bin Laden is working with his experience. What he hoped to do is defeat us in a similar way he helped defeat the Soviets decades ago. So far his forces are winning simply by virtue of not losing.

Now, we are back to AQ wanting us to fight them, instead of wanting us off their backs. The more you talk, the more pinheaded you get with the convoluted views. In the publicity from the Cole and Embassy bombings, AQ got recruitment, credibility within the region, and deep pocketed state sponsorship from other like-minded nut jobs in the region. They declared war against us a long time ago, terror is their military tactic of choice, because of the terroristic effect it has on the general public, particularly, the limp-wristed liberal spoiled crybaby American and European public. Not playing by the conventional rules of war, is to their advantage and they know this, they are not stupid people.

When you speak of "fear", yes, terrorism is designed to evoke fear, but the fear is manifested in viewpoints of appeasement, capitulation, retreat, negotiation, diplomacy, sticking our heads in the sand and not being vigilant in our resolve to defeat them. Recognizing them for what they are, understanding that we have to kill them before they kill us, and there is no compromise, and going after them with our full force, is not "fear" at all, it should be their worst nightmare.

However this pursuit is not free it costs us a lot in various ways. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. However I would not say a ton of prevention is worth a pound of cure. We have to realistically evaluate the risk that these groups pose.

I realize it's expensive, I realize American troops are being killed. I also realize, a terror attack is something most Americans will never experience, but I don't want most Americans to be concerned with it at all, which is why it has to be defeated. This has been going on for the past 25 years, and it isn't fizzling out, the people aren't uprising against it over there, they are embracing the fanaticism, and we are headed down a destiny that is clear. My question is still in play, what would be the strategic advantage to wait any longer to wage war against them? Do we have to repeat history again? Is that what it will take to get you to understand and comprehend the threat?

Likewise I won't pay 1000 dollars a month to ensure I don't live under an Islamic Caliphate. Not because I don't think such a thing is bad but because I don't think the risk to dollar ratio makes it worth paying.

What? You would rather live under an Islamic Caliphate and 5th century Muhammad Law, than to part with some money? Are you out of your mind? You don't see the risk because you don't acknowledge reality! You refuse to comprehend that these people are at war with us, and have no intentions of stopping until they have defeated us. We can pull out, stay, philosophize, pontificate, gyrate, wiggle and squirm, defend Israel, not defend Israel, it doesn't matter... they are at war, they have an objective, and they aren't going to stop.

I don't suggest we wait only that we don't need to be afraid of them as some indicate we should be.

The reason some are indicating you should be afraid, is because you perceive 'fear' as being the same as 'confrontation' and mistake them for one another as synonymous. I am not afraid of them, I would be less fearful if I knew the entire country was on the same page and resolved to their demise, but that is not the case at all. Most Americans, unfortunately, have your lackadaisical attitude about terrorism, mostly because it hasn't effected our everyday lives yet. You're not comprehending it, you're not understanding it because you have no point of reference, nothing to relate it to in your life. To you, it's a minor issue, something you don't think we should concern ourselves with, that would show "fear" to actually pay attention to them. Again, we have an enemy who has vowed to their God to kill us all, they are in a Holy War to do that, and dominate the world through a Caliphate. Your approach, is the Neville Chamberlain approach. Your ideas have been considered before, and you were as wrong then as you are now. The enemy we face, must be confronted now, before they gain access to nuclear weapons. There is no logic or reason to wait, there is no rationale to ignore the threat or treat it as a minor hindrance. Wars are not conducted by popular poll, if they were, we would have never won the first one.

So much drivel and I have such a small shovel, and it's late and I'm feeling so tired and not a little torn and frayed. But I was struck by this statement just before I quit reading because I have encountered you before, but you didn't know it. In fact, it appears I am the only one who knows we've already met. But that's for another time. You say here in referring to Mr. Ahmadinejad, "You can use your 'life-loving' western liberal logic to ponder all you like, you really don't know how this man thinks, and what his motivations are. He is not interested in power, he has power." My question prompted by your hint at some kind of intimate knowledge of the inner workings of the mind of Mr. Ahmadinejad is this: How is it that such a one as you would have this intimate knowledge exactly???

 

[Care4all]

The reason I have asked this question regarding whether a civil war is going on in Iraq now or not, is because IF our military is over there to help prevent the civil warring between the shiite and sunni, so they can stablize the region from total civil war havock, then Congress is required BY LAW to vote on a NEW war resolution. Decribing the new mission of our military. This is what I heard on c-span in a Senate hearing.

I think THIS IS THE REASON our administration REFUSES to describe the situation over there as civil war conditions.

They don't think they can win a new vote to keep us there....imo.

 

[Prakosh]

We can deal with them by attacking their strongholds and crippling their means to make money.

And this is being done, wherever it can be done. We can't disregard the wishes of Pakistan and put troops in there to search for OBL. To do that, would compromise our relationship with them, and give us one more enemy in the region, one with nukes to boot. We also don't control the banks in other nations, we can't tell them to freeze AQ assets unless we have some means to force them to comply. So, you are proposing things that we should do, which we really can't do... it would be great, it would be nice, but we simply can't defeat them this way.

We can defeat them while still getting warrants for tapping American's phones and giving them a right to legal counsel. I don't think we will succumb to terror by the acts of defense attorneys.

No we can't. They fully understand our system of fairness and freedom, they fully comprehend what the ACLU does, and how we go out of our way to infer Constitutional rights on people who aren't part of this country... they laugh at how pathetic and stupid we are. We can't wage war against a group we are going to give Constitutional Civil Rights to! What the fuck is wrong with you?

Do you think Hitler should have been imprisoned or eliminated because of the ideas he espoused before becoming chancellor of Germany? I don't although I would have kept him in prison longer then they did when he tried to take over Bavaria. But thats the thing you have to wait for an attempted takeover of Bavaria or the equivalent before you can act against these guys. You can't target them for their ideas. Now keeping an eye on them and working to stifle their cause is good but arresting them I disagree with.

Wait for who? France? Wait for what? Another 9/11? As for Hitler before he became Chancellor of Germany, we had no reason to be concerned with him, in fact, we waited almost too late to do anything about Hitler. I raised the point about how Hitler began, because you compared a fully empowered Hitler with an AQ who is trying to become fully empowered. If we could have spent a few billion dollars and lost a few thousand soldiers, eliminating an upstart Hitler, it would have been more desirable than what we endured in WWII, and we would have been wise to do it, if we had the opportunity. Again, don't mistake this for a direct comparison, it's the strategy involved that I am illustrating with the example. AQ is religiously rooted and based, and spread across the middle east, and will be much more difficult to defeat than Hitler's nationalism. So, there is no comparison of the enemies here, only the strategies. Waiting for Hitler to take over Europe was not a great and wonderful idea, and caused more loss of American lives, than if we had taken him out early, like we are attempting to do here. If we allow Islamofascism to spread through Europe, we can hang it up, there will be no defeating it.

As for Ahmadinejad frankly my estimation of him leads me to believe he is bluffing there are many reasons that such things are in his favor. He is not a madman who desires being incinerated within a 10 megaton nuclear explosion. Its nice to have power and men who have achieve it because they have sought it and will not reliquish it by dying in a suicidal blaze. That is the path taken by those who do not have power.

He is a fanatical madman! He believes we are in the End Times, and he has been called to battle by Allah, to make way for the hidden Imam, and with the elimination of Israel, will make way for this, which in turn, will make way for the Caliphate and return of the Islamic Saviour. He is trying to develop a nuke, which he will use to annihilate Israel, probably in conjunction with mass terror attacks on us as well. You can use your "life-loving" western liberal logic to ponder all you like, you really don't know how this man thinks, and what his motivations are. He is not interested in power, he has power.

Organizations like Al Queda are using terrorism to try to get us off their backs so that they can try to subvert nations like Afghanistan which can be a base to work with in order to build the means to actually begin to control instead of simply kill people. These fanatics do not wish simply to kill people en masse but rather convert them.

Well now, one minute you are telling me that AQ wanted us to attack them, expected a military response, and then you tell me that AQ is trying to get us off their backs. You are being lied to by them! Do you not realize this? Are you one of the Pinheads who thinks this is all about us occupying Arab lands, and if we just leave, everything will be fine? Yes, of course they want to establish a base... in Afghanistan, in Iraq, in Pakistan, in Syria, in Saudi Arabia, and in Iran. That's the whole freakin point! They want to do this, and we want to stop them from it. Or at least, we should! So far, you've not given me a logical reason or conventional rationale for why we wouldn't want to stop them now. The only people they deem worthy of conversion, are Muslims who will adopt their perversion of Islam. They kill as many Muslim people as anyone, particularly if they are assisting us in defeating them.

If we look at history we can see this was done before during the original caliphate and then the Ottoman empire.

Spare me, I know the history. Besides, unless there is a strategical point to demonstrate, we have already established, there is no historic comparison.

Terrorism is the first step in their goals to have a free hand to build an Islamic state. However they are aware a war cannot be won through terrorism alone and subjugation of your enemies requires the projection of power.

Uhm.. hello? Armagedongoneinsane... nukes? Bringing down the WTC? Worst attack on US soil in history? Turning Iraq into a "civil war quagmire" that we have to turn tail, and run away from? You don't think Islamofascists have projected power?

The response of Al Queda indicates that they were not satisfied with the results of their attacks. Do you honestly think that al queda wished to conduct these attacks ad infinitum with only a few cruise missles as a response. What could al queda gain from such a thing? Its obviously not for simply killing us it is very inefficient to kill people this way. Less people die in terrorist attacks than lightning strikes. No they wanted to create fear and anger within the west. The best way to accomplish this is a massive attack designed to draw us out. Bin Laden is working with his experience. What he hoped to do is defeat us in a similar way he helped defeat the Soviets decades ago. So far his forces are winning simply by virtue of not losing.

Now, we are back to AQ wanting us to fight them, instead of wanting us off their backs. The more you talk, the more pinheaded you get with the convoluted views. In the publicity from the Cole and Embassy bombings, AQ got recruitment, credibility within the region, and deep pocketed state sponsorship from other like-minded nut jobs in the region. They declared war against us a long time ago, terror is their military tactic of choice, because of the terroristic effect it has on the general public, particularly, the limp-wristed liberal spoiled crybaby American and European public. Not playing by the conventional rules of war, is to their advantage and they know this, they are not stupid people.

When you speak of "fear", yes, terrorism is designed to evoke fear, but the fear is manifested in viewpoints of appeasement, capitulation, retreat, negotiation, diplomacy, sticking our heads in the sand and not being vigilant in our resolve to defeat them. Recognizing them for what they are, understanding that we have to kill them before they kill us, and there is no compromise, and going after them with our full force, is not "fear" at all, it should be their worst nightmare.

However this pursuit is not free it costs us a lot in various ways. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. However I would not say a ton of prevention is worth a pound of cure. We have to realistically evaluate the risk that these groups pose.

I realize it's expensive, I realize American troops are being killed. I also realize, a terror attack is something most Americans will never experience, but I don't want most Americans to be concerned with it at all, which is why it has to be defeated. This has been going on for the past 25 years, and it isn't fizzling out, the people aren't uprising against it over there, they are embracing the fanaticism, and we are headed down a destiny that is clear. My question is still in play, what would be the strategic advantage to wait any longer to wage war against them? Do we have to repeat history again? Is that what it will take to get you to understand and comprehend the threat?

Likewise I won't pay 1000 dollars a month to ensure I don't live under an Islamic Caliphate. Not because I don't think such a thing is bad but because I don't think the risk to dollar ratio makes it worth paying.

What? You would rather live under an Islamic Caliphate and 5th century Muhammad Law, than to part with some money? Are you out of your mind? You don't see the risk because you don't acknowledge reality! You refuse to comprehend that these people are at war with us, and have no intentions of stopping until they have defeated us. We can pull out, stay, philosophize, pontificate, gyrate, wiggle and squirm, defend Israel, not defend Israel, it doesn't matter... they are at war, they have an objective, and they aren't going to stop.

I don't suggest we wait only that we don't need to be afraid of them as some indicate we should be.

The reason some are indicating you should be afraid, is because you perceive 'fear' as being the same as 'confrontation' and mistake them for one another as synonymous. I am not afraid of them, I would be less fearful if I knew the entire country was on the same page and resolved to their demise, but that is not the case at all. Most Americans, unfortunately, have your lackadaisical attitude about terrorism, mostly because it hasn't effected our everyday lives yet. You're not comprehending it, you're not understanding it because you have no point of reference, nothing to relate it to in your life. To you, it's a minor issue, something you don't think we should concern ourselves with, that would show "fear" to actually pay attention to them. Again, we have an enemy who has vowed to their God to kill us all, they are in a Holy War to do that, and dominate the world through a Caliphate. Your approach, is the Neville Chamberlain approach. Your ideas have been considered before, and you were as wrong then as you are now. The enemy we face, must be confronted now, before they gain access to nuclear weapons. There is no logic or reason to wait, there is no rationale to ignore the threat or treat it as a minor hindrance. Wars are not conducted by popular poll, if they were, we would have never won the first one.

I was also struck as I read this "He is a fanatical madman! He believes we are in the End Times, and he has been called to battle by Allah" Change Allah to God, and some people might say this describes President Bush as well...

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

They don't think they can win a new vote to keep us there....imo.

So far, every vote that has been taken regarding staying, funding, continuing to stay the course, or redeploying, the Administration has won. Not by just a couple of votes, but by a vast majority. I don't think this is the problem. I think there IS a problem in clearly identifying a "civil war" in a country like Iraq. I don't think it helps America or Iraq to concede they are in a civil war, so it's important that we have determined this is an undeniable fact before we declare that's what it is. Just because two sides are fighting and killing each other, doesn't make it a civil war. It's rather disturbing that so many political adversaries of the president, are rushing to call it civil war, because they think this somehow hurts Bush politically. There is absolutely no regard for the people or nation of Iraq, and what is best for them, or our troops on the battlefield. There is no objectivity, no consideration for ramifications or consequences, just uncontrolled flailing and blustering and false alarm, over-blowing everything that happens for political advantage.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Prickish, you can save your keystrokes if you aren't going to engage the debate here. I don't respond to drive-by trolls. Others here do, and you will be able to goad them into joining you in a flame fest, if that's what you're after. I frankly don't have the time, and don't really care to play the game with you.

 

[maineman]

"Just because two sides are fighting and killing each other, doesn't make it a civil war."

hahahahahahahahaha

I have a hard time understanding how the people in Iraq have any different "consequences" or "ramifications" if we call this a "civil war" or a "sectarian squabble" or "Breakfast at fucking Tiffany's". People are killing one another regardless of what we call it.

And someone should remind Dixie of all of his predictions regarding this conflict.... and all of the predictions of his neocon idols....from "statues of Bush in public squares" to "rose petals thrown at our feet" to "only 500 more casualties" to the end of the insurgency in the aftermath of Zarqawi's death.

Dixie reminds me of some cheesy version of a TV Psychic.... he keeps making thousands of predictions and only crows about the three that come true.... but in Dixie's case....NONE of them have come true.

Take the keys away from these inept corrupt incompetent incurious fools.

 

[Care4all]

Well, IF BY LAW, Congress has to define a new mission for our Military positioned in Iraq, you are probably right Dixie, they would approve that too....but that vote won't come up UNTIL AFTER the Election because it could hurt the President's chance of getting more bipartisan support, and it would hurt the Republican's chance of winning their seats because it would draw attention to Iraq and the flub ups...along with some of the good, but you know the BAD always OUTWEIGHS the good, even if there are not more in number.

I think a NEW RESOLUTION is necessary, to redefine America's position and purpose and mission in Iraq.

And Hopefully, this time, there will be a precisely defined mission with tangiable goals.....

care

 

[Immanuel]

Well, IF BY LAW, Congress has to define a new mission for our Military positioned in Iraq, you are probably right Dixie, they would approve that too....but that vote won't come up UNTIL AFTER the Election because it could hurt the President's chance of getting more bipartisan support, and it would hurt the Republican's chance of winning their seats because it would draw attention to Iraq and the flub ups...along with some of the good, but you know the BAD always OUTWEIGHS the good, even if there are not more in number.

I think a NEW RESOLUTION is necessary, to redefine America's position and purpose and mission in Iraq.

And Hopefully, this time, there will be a precisely defined mission with tangiable goals.....

care

Few, if any, in Congress have the bal.. err guts, to stand up for what they believe in this case. Even if they feel that Bush screwed up royally and have a decent idea on how to prosecute the war on terrorism, a vote against Bush's War will be politically spun to be an Anti-American/Anti-Troop vote and at the very least will lead to a tough battle in the next re-election campaign for any who "oppose" Bush's War. They are not yet willing to risk their careers on what they believe is right. Bush's War Machine is strong in America and greed for power is still alive and well in Congress.

Yes, even your precious Democrats are corrupt cowards who won't take a stand for what they believe when push comes to shove.

Immie

 

[uscitizen]

Yes, even your precious Democrats are corrupt cowards who won't take a stand for what they believe when push comes to shove.
//

A big amen on that Immie.
wussy assed politicos...

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

You guys are too much, you keep going to this line about "Bush screwed up" in Iraq. What evidence do you have, that proves this to be historic fact? As I see it, we have to wait and look at this through the prism of history, not current political tempo or public opinion. If wars were judged by that criteria, FDR screwed up by invading Normandy and getting us bogged down in that Quagmire known as the Battle of the Bulge! There were certainly a number of people who were disgruntled during WWII, and did not like the policy we embarked on. In retrospect, history doesn't view our involvement in WWII as a mistake or screw up at all, and FDR is a freakin liberal Saint! Go figure?

 

[Jarod]

You guys are too much, you keep going to this line about "Bush screwed up" in Iraq. What evidence do you have, that proves this to be historic fact? As I see it, we have to wait and look at this through the prism of history, not current political tempo or public opinion. If wars were judged by that criteria, FDR screwed up by invading Normandy and getting us bogged down in that Quagmire known as the Battle of the Bulge! There were certainly a number of people who were disgruntled during WWII, and did not like the policy we embarked on. In retrospect, history doesn't view our involvement in WWII as a mistake or screw up at all, and FDR is a freakin liberal Saint! Go figure?

hahaha, I love how when a politian screws up he always says, just wait 20 years and look "through the prism of history"!

Translation... Wait 20 years till noone cares or will be alive then ill be vendicated...

Proof Bush Fucked UP...

1) Sold a war based on WMD.
2) Sold a war with the idea that it would be easy, "mission accomplished style."
3) Admited there are no WMD.
4) Lost the lives of 2500 plus American Heros.

ALL FACTS!

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Even if they feel that Bush screwed up royally and have a decent idea on how to prosecute the war on terrorism, a vote against Bush's War will be politically spun to be an Anti-American/Anti-Troop vote and at the very least will lead to a tough battle in the next re-election campaign for any who "oppose" Bush's War.

You Pinheads keep claiming that a vast majority of America disagrees with Bush on Iraq, doesn't like his handling of it, wants a new direction, blah blah blah... So, why would opposing Bush on this, lead to anything but improved poll numbers for those on the side of the American people? I don't get it! Either you are lying out your ass about what the American people think, or you believe Congress is purposely and intentionally going against the will of the people out of fear that doing what the people want, will be negatively spun against them, even though it was what they wanted. Which one is it?

 

[Immanuel]

Sure Dixie... you may be right... in the long run Bush's War may turn out to be a fabulous victory for America and a free republic in Iraq. It would be wonderful if that were the case.

However, I will not bet a single dollar on it let alone my salary for a year.

I hate like hell to see America in the position it is. But, then in the long run, we might come out smelling like roses.

Immie

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

1) Sold a war based on WMD.

WMD's were an issue.

2) Sold a war with the idea that it would be easy, "mission accomplished style.

Administration never stated any such thing, in fact, stated the exact opposite.


3) Admited there are no WMD.

Never did this either, in fact, have found over 700 WMD munitions in Iraq.

4) Lost the lives of 2500 plus American Heros.

2,500 American soldiers have given their lives for this, only to have you and your ilk, spit in their face, protest at their funerals, call them murderers, and disgrace them on a daily basis while claiming you support them. I can't say for sure, but I firmly believe over half of America has no intentions of allowing you and the liberals to turn Iraq into Vietnam 2.

 

[uscitizen]

You guys are too much, you keep going to this line about "Bush screwed up" in Iraq. What evidence do you have, that proves this to be historic fact? As I see it, we have to wait and look at this through the prism of history, not current political tempo or public opinion. If wars were judged by that criteria, FDR screwed up by invading Normandy and getting us bogged down in that Quagmire known as the Battle of the Bulge! There were certainly a number of people who were disgruntled during WWII, and did not like the policy we embarked on. In retrospect, history doesn't view our involvement in WWII as a mistake or screw up at all, and FDR is a freakin liberal Saint! Go figure?

ummm WMD's , Mushroom clouds, etc....
I guess we will jsut have to wait and see if abolishing slavery was a mistake too ?