Obama's War: No Exit Strategy????

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Calm down grampa. True democracies are organic first of all. You cant go into a country full of "rag heads" who have a wholesale different world view than the west, blow up a ton of their shit, kill hundreds of thousands of them displace millions more, and shove the barrel of your gun in their faces and say now VOTE! YAY! Democracy, FREEDOM ISN'T FREE!!!1!

After we toppled the Hussein regime in Iraq, the PEOPLE of Iraq held national elections and voted in a parliament and elected a president, then they fashioned a constitution similar to our own, with respect for their Muslim faith. Iraq's constitution is not exactly like our own, but we didn't demand they adopt a carbon copy of our constitution, precisely because we do understand they have a different world view. Thus far, the government is functioning without a glitch, the military and security are in control of the country for the most part, and I would consider our mission a complete success in Iraq, regardless of what left-wing nitwits like you claim to the contrary. 70% of the people are participating in Democracy in Iraq, that is just a fact you can't dispute. Instead of having a rogue tyrant dictator who we can't trust, and who was an admitted devout enemy of the US in power, we have a democratically elected government who are our allies now. Another fact you simply can't deny.

If you knew anything about history, you would know that ideology runs deeper than anything, and it can't be undone through some misguided, violent, shoot first and ask questions later foreign policy. I would have figured you would have learned something from Vietnam, and even if not, at least you should have learned something by now from Iraq.

What I learned from Vietnam is, Democrats don't know how to win wars! Our mistake in Vietnam was NOT WINNING IT! As I have already pointed out, Iraq is in monumentally better shape now than under the Hussein dictatorship. If you will read what I posted again, you will see where I say, we can't change an ideology with guns and bombs, it takes a counter-ideology that is better... democracy is better than despotism. There was nothing about Iraq that was ever "shoot first, ask questions later" and that is easily proven by looking at the 1998 Iraqi Liberation Act, signed into law by none other than Bill Clinton, long before Bush ever took office. The objectives in Iraq had been debated for YEARS before Bush, so there was never a question to be asked when the shooting began, we knew exactly what we planned to do.

In the Middle East, they have a different culture, religious convictions, different ideas of freedom, many feel that they are truly freed through their religion and that the West is oppressed by its own culture. You should know this shit. We're trying to change a deep seated culture over there (or so we claim, the reality is that Bush's neat little demonstration of power turned into the biggest pigfuck in 35 years thanks to you), and we're not going to succeed. How do you win a civil war when you're the referee?

You are wrong, and 50 million liberated people in Afghanistan and Iraq disagree with you on that. As I said, 70% of Iraq participated in democratic elections. If they were opposed to western democracy, that number would have been considerably smaller. Especially since they defied threats of death to vote. You are just flat out WRONG on this. The VAST majority of the people in this world, want and desire freedom! Again, you've allowed your opinion to be guided by fools and idiots, which is fitting, given your condition.

Yeah, we've been leaving them alone since 1948. In fact, carving up the middle east after WWI has nothing to do with anything. In fact those rag heads are pretty geometrically savvy, what with making their border consist of a bunch of straight lines! Yep, no hint of imperialism there, none at all. And since 1948, we've been arming Israel to the teeth, and they've been occupying foreign lands for decades with out money, our tanks and our missiles. That's not a fact that gets lost on me fool.

Now you are spewing the rhetoric of radical Islamic terrorists. I guess you'll just buy into whatever anyone says, as long as it's not a right wing conservative, huh?

Yeah, we've left them alone since 1948. We had nothing to do with the Shaw, or Mossadeq, or the iran/iraq thing..... We were just standing on the corner all these years....

We didn't intervene militarily, we supported the Shaw, because it was him or radical Islamic fundies... we see which one was more of a threat to the US on 9/11.

You don't get it. Its your ideas that are throwing fuel on the fire. Let me ask you this, do you think radical islamist interest in harming the united States has grown or declined since your beloved war policies have been implemented? Do you think there are more or les radicals out there today, than 10 years ago.

Be honest now, try it sometimes.

I think radical Islamic fundies are fighting for their lives. Naturally, their intensity has increased in this fight, we understood this from the start. What you need to understand is, not everyone over there is a radical jihadist, most of them are peaceful people who have put their faith in the US to help them overcome this adversity. You want to pull the rug out from under the MAJORITY of them, and pacify the terrorist radicals! That is just plain insanity.

 

[Billy the Great Khan]

You know what? After thinking about it for a long time, I've decided I'm in favor of pulling out of Afghanistan, but only if we pull out of Iraq, Germany, Turkey, Iceland, Japan, Cuba, the Pacific islands, Etc. Might as well go whole hog. We're not needed in any of those places, so just pull them all back. It'll save money and world image.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

You know what? After thinking about it for a long time, I've decided I'm in favor of pulling out of Afghanistan, but only if we pull out of Iraq, Germany, Turkey, Iceland, Japan, Cuba, the Pacific islands, Etc. Might as well go whole hog. We're not needed in any of those places, so just pull them all back. It'll save money and world image.

You know what? If democrats are going to remain in charge, and not resource the efforts because of their liberal base, I agree... bring them home now! Fuck it! Let the whole goddamn world go to hell in a handbasket, and we can just withdraw into our own socialist communist borders, which are wide open for anyone who wants to come in. That's the ticket!

...And like you say, everybody will love us then!

//sarcasm

 

[belme1201]

And what was stated in the original post, which you chose to respond to, was candidate O'Bama's position on Afganistan. It was in contrast to President Bush's at the time:

YouTube - Barack Obama on Afghanistan and Pakistan


YouTube - Obama visits Afghanistan

But the 1st post talked most vociferouly about no "exit strategy", I replied.
Almost everybody supported the Afghan war, it was bush that shifted the emphasis to Iraq and began his great failure. The correct answer 8 years ago would be more easily arrived at than today had bush not complicated it. A General gives advice, the Sec. of Defense and President have the responsibility of making the final decision. It is the wiseness of the Constitutuin that makes it so and with good reason. Generals are often wrong, one in every battle, the Constitution recognized this. Because McChrystal thinks the way he does does not make it correct and the President is correct to search for the right answer before he commits more Americans to die in a nation building experiment doomed to failure.
That said, it is my belief that Afghanistan was the primary reason for the demise of the Soviet Union. Might we not be going in the same direction? I would be happy to take a vote of the Afgan People and if they say we should go, I'd have our boys on the next flight, train, truck, out

 

[Annie]

But the 1st post talked most vociferouly about no "exit strategy", I replied.
Almost everybody supported the Afghan war, it was bush that shifted the emphasis to Iraq and began his great failure. The correct answer 8 years ago would be more easily arrived at than today had bush not complicated it. A General gives advice, the Sec. of Defense and President have the responsibility of making the final decision. It is the wiseness of the Constitutuin that makes it so and with good reason. Generals are often wrong, one in every battle, the Constitution recognized this. Because McChrystal thinks the way he does does not make it correct and the President is correct to search for the right answer before he commits more Americans to die in a nation building experiment doomed to failure.
That said, it is my belief that Afghanistan was the primary reason for the demise of the Soviet Union. Might we not be going in the same direction? I would be happy to take a vote of the Afgan People and if they say we should go, I'd have our boys on the next flight, train, truck, out

Then why didn't you answer that way, instead of trying to switch to Bush? Implying that Obama was different, when the obvious difference now is that many agree with you?. :smoke:

 

[Beefy]

After we toppled the Hussein regime in Iraq, the PEOPLE of Iraq held national elections and voted in a parliament and elected a president, then they fashioned a constitution similar to our own, with respect for their Muslim faith. Iraq's constitution is not exactly like our own, but we didn't demand they adopt a carbon copy of our constitution, precisely because we do understand they have a different world view. Thus far, the government is functioning without a glitch, the military and security are in control of the country for the most part, and I would consider our mission a complete success in Iraq, regardless of what left-wing nitwits like you claim to the contrary. 70% of the people are participating in Democracy in Iraq, that is just a fact you can't dispute. Instead of having a rogue tyrant dictator who we can't trust, and who was an admitted devout enemy of the US in power, we have a democratically elected government who are our allies now. Another fact you simply can't deny.

Okay, so you see Iraq as a total success. I'll disagree with that point.

What I learned from Vietnam is, Democrats don't know how to win wars! Our mistake in Vietnam was NOT WINNING IT! As I have already pointed out, Iraq is in monumentally better shape now than under the Hussein dictatorship. If you will read what I posted again, you will see where I say, we can't change an ideology with guns and bombs, it takes a counter-ideology that is better... democracy is better than despotism. There was nothing about Iraq that was ever "shoot first, ask questions later" and that is easily proven by looking at the 1998 Iraqi Liberation Act, signed into law by none other than Bill Clinton, long before Bush ever took office. The objectives in Iraq had been debated for YEARS before Bush, so there was never a question to be asked when the shooting began, we knew exactly what we planned to do.

No hackery here at all.... Jesus I can't tell if you're praising Bill Clinton or not, are you?

You are wrong, and 50 million liberated people in Afghanistan and Iraq disagree with you on that. As I said, 70% of Iraq participated in democratic elections. If they were opposed to western democracy, that number would have been considerably smaller. Especially since they defied threats of death to vote. You are just flat out WRONG on this. The VAST majority of the people in this world, want and desire freedom! Again, you've allowed your opinion to be guided by fools and idiots, which is fitting, given your condition.

Actually, i have let fools and idiots influence my opinion. The more you spout, the more I know I'm right, thanks fool. You have no sense of reality. You are a true, in its worst form, idealogue who will never, EVER let history or the facts influence your predisposed position. Ever. That's nothing to be proud of by the way, in case that wasn't self evident.

Now you are spewing the rhetoric of radical Islamic terrorists. I guess you'll just buy into whatever anyone says, as long as it's not a right wing conservative, huh?

I guess Pat Buchanan is a radical leftist in your eyes. That dude has been right all along in terms of foreign policy. And he is a conservative, who gets it. Unlike a certain big government "conservative" who started this thread.

We didn't intervene militarily, we supported the Shaw, because it was him or radical Islamic fundies... we see which one was more of a threat to the US on 9/11.

Okay, i got it, "leaving them alone since 1948" really means "not bombing the shit out of their cities, but just focing political hands and perpetrating coup d' etats, funding enemies and such. Yes, strong case. You should litigate with this kind of rebuttal, really. You don't even want to believe that we've had our hand in ME affairs in a strong way for the last 90 YEARS. Christ, what the fuck is wrong with you?

I think radical Islamic fundies are fighting for their lives. Naturally, their intensity has increased in this fight, we understood this from the start. What you need to understand is, not everyone over there is a radical jihadist, most of them are peaceful people who have put their faith in the US to help them overcome this adversity. You want to pull the rug out from under the MAJORITY of them, and pacify the terrorist radicals! That is just plain insanity.

Suicide bombers don't fight for their lives Dix. You have had the erroneous position for the last 9 years that we can wage war on a tactic of war, by blowing up one jihadists along with 11 innocent families daily. That's the way to win this.

You don't even know what the end goal is. It changes like the seasons, it even makes you invoke the ghost of Bill Clinton over a decade ago. So put your blindness behind you and try to be reasonable.

 

[Beefy]

After we toppled the Hussein regime in Iraq, the PEOPLE of Iraq held national elections and voted in a parliament and elected a president, then they fashioned a constitution similar to our own, with respect for their Muslim faith. Iraq's constitution is not exactly like our own, but we didn't demand they adopt a carbon copy of our constitution, precisely because we do understand they have a different world view. Thus far, the government is functioning without a glitch, the military and security are in control of the country for the most part, and I would consider our mission a complete success in Iraq, regardless of what left-wing nitwits like you claim to the contrary. 70% of the people are participating in Democracy in Iraq, that is just a fact you can't dispute. Instead of having a rogue tyrant dictator who we can't trust, and who was an admitted devout enemy of the US in power, we have a democratically elected government who are our allies now. Another fact you simply can't deny.

Okay, so you see Iraq as a total success. I'll disagree with that point.

What I learned from Vietnam is, Democrats don't know how to win wars! Our mistake in Vietnam was NOT WINNING IT! As I have already pointed out, Iraq is in monumentally better shape now than under the Hussein dictatorship. If you will read what I posted again, you will see where I say, we can't change an ideology with guns and bombs, it takes a counter-ideology that is better... democracy is better than despotism. There was nothing about Iraq that was ever "shoot first, ask questions later" and that is easily proven by looking at the 1998 Iraqi Liberation Act, signed into law by none other than Bill Clinton, long before Bush ever took office. The objectives in Iraq had been debated for YEARS before Bush, so there was never a question to be asked when the shooting began, we knew exactly what we planned to do.

No hackery here at all.... Jesus I can't tell if you're praising Bill Clinton or not, are you?

You are wrong, and 50 million liberated people in Afghanistan and Iraq disagree with you on that. As I said, 70% of Iraq participated in democratic elections. If they were opposed to western democracy, that number would have been considerably smaller. Especially since they defied threats of death to vote. You are just flat out WRONG on this. The VAST majority of the people in this world, want and desire freedom! Again, you've allowed your opinion to be guided by fools and idiots, which is fitting, given your condition.

Actually, i have let fools and idiots influence my opinion. The more you spout, the more I know I'm right, thanks fool. You have no sense of reality. You are a true, in its worst form, idealogue who will never, EVER let history or the facts influence your predisposed position. Ever. That's nothing to be proud of by the way, in case that wasn't self evident.

Now you are spewing the rhetoric of radical Islamic terrorists. I guess you'll just buy into whatever anyone says, as long as it's not a right wing conservative, huh?

I guess Pat Buchanan is a radical leftist in your eyes. That dude has been right all along in terms of foreign policy. And he is a conservative, who gets it. Unlike a certain big government "conservative" who started this thread.

We didn't intervene militarily, we supported the Shaw, because it was him or radical Islamic fundies... we see which one was more of a threat to the US on 9/11.

Okay, i got it, "leaving them alone since 1948" really means "not bombing the shit out of their cities, but just focing political hands and perpetrating coup d' etats, funding enemies and such. Yes, strong case. You should litigate with this kind of rebuttal, really. You don't even want to believe that we've had our hand in ME affairs in a strong way for the last 90 YEARS. Christ, what the fuck is wrong with you?

I think radical Islamic fundies are fighting for their lives. Naturally, their intensity has increased in this fight, we understood this from the start. What you need to understand is, not everyone over there is a radical jihadist, most of them are peaceful people who have put their faith in the US to help them overcome this adversity. You want to pull the rug out from under the MAJORITY of them, and pacify the terrorist radicals! That is just plain insanity.

Suicide bombers don't fight for their lives Dix. You have had the erroneous position for the last 9 years that we can wage war on a tactic of war, by blowing up one jihadists along with 11 innocent families daily. That's the way to win this.

You don't even know what the end goal is. It changes like the seasons, it even makes you invoke the ghost of Bill Clinton over a decade ago. So put your blindness behind you and try to be reasonable.

Okay, so you see Iraq as a total success. I'll disagree with that point.

What I learned from Vietnam is, Democrats don't know how to win wars! Our mistake in Vietnam was NOT WINNING IT! As I have already pointed out, Iraq is in monumentally better shape now than under the Hussein dictatorship. If you will read what I posted again, you will see where I say, we can't change an ideology with guns and bombs, it takes a counter-ideology that is better... democracy is better than despotism. There was nothing about Iraq that was ever "shoot first, ask questions later" and that is easily proven by looking at the 1998 Iraqi Liberation Act, signed into law by none other than Bill Clinton, long before Bush ever took office. The objectives in Iraq had been debated for YEARS before Bush, so there was never a question to be asked when the shooting began, we knew exactly what we planned to do.

No hackery here at all.... Jesus I can't tell if you're praising Bill Clinton or not, are you?

You are wrong, and 50 million liberated people in Afghanistan and Iraq disagree with you on that. As I said, 70% of Iraq participated in democratic elections. If they were opposed to western democracy, that number would have been considerably smaller. Especially since they defied threats of death to vote. You are just flat out WRONG on this. The VAST majority of the people in this world, want and desire freedom! Again, you've allowed your opinion to be guided by fools and idiots, which is fitting, given your condition.

Actually, i have let fools and idiots influence my opinion. The more you spout, the more I know I'm right, thanks fool. You have no sense of reality. You are a true, in its worst form, idealogue who will never, EVER let history or the facts influence your predisposed position. Ever. That's nothing to be proud of by the way, in case that wasn't self evident.

Now you are spewing the rhetoric of radical Islamic terrorists. I guess you'll just buy into whatever anyone says, as long as it's not a right wing conservative, huh?

I guess Pat Buchanan is a radical leftist in your eyes. That dude has been right all along in terms of foreign policy. And he is a conservative, who gets it. Unlike a certain big government "conservative" who started this thread.

We didn't intervene militarily, we supported the Shaw, because it was him or radical Islamic fundies... we see which one was more of a threat to the US on 9/11.

Okay, i got it, "leaving them alone since 1948" really means "not bombing the shit out of their cities, but just focing political hands and perpetrating coup d' etats, funding enemies and such. Yes, strong case. You should litigate with this kind of rebuttal, really. You don't even want to believe that we've had our hand in ME affairs in a strong way for the last 90 YEARS. Christ, what the fuck is wrong with you?

I think radical Islamic fundies are fighting for their lives. Naturally, their intensity has increased in this fight, we understood this from the start. What you need to understand is, not everyone over there is a radical jihadist, most of them are peaceful people who have put their faith in the US to help them overcome this adversity. You want to pull the rug out from under the MAJORITY of them, and pacify the terrorist radicals! That is just plain insanity.

Suicide bombers don't fight for their lives Dix. You have had the erroneous position for the last 9 years that we can wage war on a tactic of war, by blowing up one jihadists along with 11 innocent families daily. That's the way to win this.

You don't even know what the end goal is. It changes like the seasons, it even makes you invoke the ghost of Bill Clinton over a decade ago. So put your blindness behind you and try to be reasonable.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Okay, so you see Iraq as a total success. I'll disagree with that point.

You can disagree all you like, you just can't present anything to support your opinion Iraq is a failure. They are a democracy, with a constitution, a parliament, and free open elections. They are also our ally and not an enemy, as they were before under Hussein, so where is your evidence Iraq is a failure? This is a typical baseless opinion, made because you didn't agree with the mission, but the mission was a success.. by all accounts.

No hackery here at all.... Jesus I can't tell if you're praising Bill Clinton or not, are you?

Not praising anyone, just stating a fact, in 1998 the US adopted a foreign policy plan to liberate Iraq and replace the regime with democracy. It was never a "shoot first, ask questions later" situation, as you stated. See... this is how it works, you state an opinion, and I present EVIDENCE to refute your opinion. My viewpoint is based on FACTS, not my emotional reactions.

Actually, i have let fools and idiots influence my opinion. The more you spout, the more I know I'm right, thanks fool. You have no sense of reality. You are a true, in its worst form, idealogue who will never, EVER let history or the facts influence your predisposed position. Ever. That's nothing to be proud of by the way, in case that wasn't self evident.

No, as I just demonstrated, I do use facts, you use emotion. History shows that America has liberated more people around the world than any nation, and when liberated, the people do better than when they are oppressed. That is what history has shown over and over again. Your viewpoint is based on the idea that people are better off if we leave them in an oppressed condition, and again, you have no history to back that assertion. It is again, a position made by your emotive opposition to military action, not history or facts.

I guess Pat Buchanan is a radical leftist in your eyes. That dude has been right all along in terms of foreign policy. And he is a conservative, who gets it. Unlike a certain big government "conservative" who started this thread.

I actually voted for Pat once, when he was sane. Now, he is a pathetic washed-up joke, who can only garner media attention by being bombastic toward republicans. The liberal media eats it up, he gets air time, and possibly sells a book or two... it's sad really. He's not "right" about anything, he says what he does to invoke controversy and get attention... he sells books that way, as I said! Problem is, stupid people like you, think he is serious and makes sense!

Okay, i got it, "leaving them alone since 1948" really means "not bombing the shit out of their cities, but just focing political hands and perpetrating coup d' etats, funding enemies and such. Yes, strong case. You should litigate with this kind of rebuttal, really. You don't even want to believe that we've had our hand in ME affairs in a strong way for the last 90 YEARS. Christ, what the fuck is wrong with you?

Nothing is wrong with me, we allowed the Shaw to be toppled and exiled, we allowed the madrases and mullahs to preach and teach their radical theology, we continued to buy their oil in spite of deplorable human rights abuses, and we allowed Saddam Hussein to murder a million people as dictator of Iraq over the course of 30 years. We had NO hand in any of that, we ignored it and ignored it, until it came back to bite us in the ass on 9/11.

Suicide bombers don't fight for their lives Dix. You have had the erroneous position for the last 9 years that we can wage war on a tactic of war, by blowing up one jihadists along with 11 innocent families daily. That's the way to win this.

Did you ever stop to notice, Osama Bin Laden hasn't strapped on a bomb himself? The people who are instigating this shit, are not the ones losing their lives.

I think your statistics are skewed a bit, where do you get those numbers? 1 jihadist to 11 families? Really? Well, we know we have killed over 100k jihadists, and an average family is 3 people, so we have killed 300k innocent people too? When I see 400k graves or body bags, I might buy that. I think you've been soaking in the koolaid too long.

You don't even know what the end goal is. It changes like the seasons, it even makes you invoke the ghost of Bill Clinton over a decade ago. So put your blindness behind you and try to be reasonable.

Oh, I have always known what the goal and objective is, to establish democracy in that part of the world, so those people can enjoy freedom and learn to be peaceful like the rest of us democracies. So that, when they have these radical religious uprisings, THE PEOPLE can have the political power to reject them, as opposed to despots who embrace them for personal gains.

If anything, you are the one with no end goal. You simply want to get out of there and leave them be. That doesn't resolve the problem of radical Islamics who want to form a Caliphate and rule that half of the world. You have NO idea of how to stop that, and don't seem like you even want to stop it, just let them have it all, and that is not really an option for us, if we want to survive.

 

[Onceler]

No hand in ME affairs?

Dixie...oh, Dixie...

 

[blackascoal]

Okay, so you see Iraq as a total success. I'll disagree with that point.




No hackery here at all.... Jesus I can't tell if you're praising Bill Clinton or not, are you?





Actually, i have let fools and idiots influence my opinion. The more you spout, the more I know I'm right, thanks fool. You have no sense of reality. You are a true, in its worst form, idealogue who will never, EVER let history or the facts influence your predisposed position. Ever. That's nothing to be proud of by the way, in case that wasn't self evident.





I guess Pat Buchanan is a radical leftist in your eyes. That dude has been right all along in terms of foreign policy. And he is a conservative, who gets it. Unlike a certain big government "conservative" who started this thread.



Okay, i got it, "leaving them alone since 1948" really means "not bombing the shit out of their cities, but just focing political hands and perpetrating coup d' etats, funding enemies and such. Yes, strong case. You should litigate with this kind of rebuttal, really. You don't even want to believe that we've had our hand in ME affairs in a strong way for the last 90 YEARS. Christ, what the fuck is wrong with you?




Suicide bombers don't fight for their lives Dix. You have had the erroneous position for the last 9 years that we can wage war on a tactic of war, by blowing up one jihadists along with 11 innocent families daily. That's the way to win this.

You don't even know what the end goal is. It changes like the seasons, it even makes you invoke the ghost of Bill Clinton over a decade ago. So put your blindness behind you and try to be reasonable.

Marvelous, simply marvelous.

 

[blackascoal]

They are a pathetic lot, are they not? Obama follows some of the edicts they squawked about for 8 years, and they still hate him! Liberals critcize Obama, and they still LIE about what liberals are saying. Neocon parrots....I can't wait for them to start saying they are not going to fight for Obama's war!

They are absolutely a pathetic lot .. and ignorant beyond belief.

 

[Canceled2]

You can disagree all you like, you just can't present anything to support your opinion Iraq is a failure. They are a democracy, with a constitution, a parliament, and free open elections. They are also our ally and not an enemy, as they were before under Hussein, so where is your evidence Iraq is a failure? This is a typical baseless opinion, made because you didn't agree with the mission, but the mission was a success.. by all accounts.



Not praising anyone, just stating a fact, in 1998 the US adopted a foreign policy plan to liberate Iraq and replace the regime with democracy. It was never a "shoot first, ask questions later" situation, as you stated. See... this is how it works, you state an opinion, and I present EVIDENCE to refute your opinion. My viewpoint is based on FACTS, not my emotional reactions.



No, as I just demonstrated, I do use facts, you use emotion. History shows that America has liberated more people around the world than any nation, and when liberated, the people do better than when they are oppressed. That is what history has shown over and over again. Your viewpoint is based on the idea that people are better off if we leave them in an oppressed condition, and again, you have no history to back that assertion. It is again, a position made by your emotive opposition to military action, not history or facts.



I actually voted for Pat once, when he was sane. Now, he is a pathetic washed-up joke, who can only garner media attention by being bombastic toward republicans. The liberal media eats it up, he gets air time, and possibly sells a book or two... it's sad really. He's not "right" about anything, he says what he does to invoke controversy and get attention... he sells books that way, as I said! Problem is, stupid people like you, think he is serious and makes sense!



Nothing is wrong with me, we allowed the Shaw to be toppled and exiled, we allowed the madrases and mullahs to preach and teach their radical theology, we continued to buy their oil in spite of deplorable human rights abuses, and we allowed Saddam Hussein to murder a million people as dictator of Iraq over the course of 30 years. We had NO hand in any of that, we ignored it and ignored it, until it came back to bite us in the ass on 9/11.



Did you ever stop to notice, Osama Bin Laden hasn't strapped on a bomb himself? The people who are instigating this shit, are not the ones losing their lives.

I think your statistics are skewed a bit, where do you get those numbers? 1 jihadist to 11 families? Really? Well, we know we have killed over 100k jihadists, and an average family is 3 people, so we have killed 300k innocent people too? When I see 400k graves or body bags, I might buy that. I think you've been soaking in the koolaid too long.



Oh, I have always known what the goal and objective is, to establish democracy in that part of the world, so those people can enjoy freedom and learn to be peaceful like the rest of us democracies. So that, when they have these radical religious uprisings, THE PEOPLE can have the political power to reject them, as opposed to despots who embrace them for personal gains.

If anything, you are the one with no end goal. You simply want to get out of there and leave them be. That doesn't resolve the problem of radical Islamics who want to form a Caliphate and rule that half of the world. You have NO idea of how to stop that, and don't seem like you even want to stop it, just let them have it all, and that is not really an option for us, if we want to survive.

Marvellous, simply marvellous!

 

[Onceler]

Marvellous, simply marvellous!

Well, certainly from the psychiatric perspective...

 

[blackascoal]

i believe dixie is not complaining...rather pointing out yet more of obama's hypocrisy and the dems hypocrisy for supporting obama for doing what they criticized bush for

A. The democrats SUPPORTED the Iraq War.

Would you like to see what the vote was?

B. What hypocrisy?

Obama said he was going to engage the war in Afghanistan .. and unless I'm stupider than Dixie .. he's already sent 17,000 more troops there since he's been in office and will undoubtedly send more.

C. I've already destroyed the bullshit notion that many democrats and democratic organizations who protested against the war in Iraq aren't also protesting the clusterfuck in Afghanistan.

D. In other words, Dixie doesn't have the intelligence to be engaging in this conversation .. as demonstrated throuighout this thread .. and she doesn't have the honesty of a serial killer.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Dixie doesn't have the intelligence to be engaging in this conversation .. as demonstrated throuighout this thread .. and she doesn't have the honesty of a serial killer.

And we see here what the left has adopted as honest intellectual debate of the issues. BAC, these are remarkably brilliant points that I bet no one has considered, and which make all the difference in the world in making your point. You see, it doesn't matter what indisputable facts I present, or how soundly I refute the false assertions of liberals, or the faulty logic they espouse, for I am nothing more than an unintelligent dishonest serial killer! Bravo! Point well made!

 

[TuTu Monroe]

Marvellous, simply marvellous!

Yep, Dixie is one sharp guy.

 

[Annie]

And we see here what the left has adopted as honest intellectual debate of the issues. BAC, these are remarkably brilliant points that I bet no one has considered, and which make all the difference in the world in making your point. You see, it doesn't matter what indisputable facts I present, or how soundly I refute the false assertions of liberals, or the faulty logic they espouse, for I am nothing more than an unintelligent dishonest serial killer! Bravo! Point well made!

I agree with you. I also understand the points that BAC is making, while totally disagreeing with him. In fact, I'll go so far as to say that around the election and after, I agreed with him on his point-of-view. He's certainly not joined on the Obama wagon, but he's pushing hard the very left wing ideas that Obama truly fears. For good reasons.