Question for the Pro-Iraq War Folks
- Thread starter WhatsHisNuts
- Start date
HaHa ! Back to Weasel. You asked what good would little strikes do? Little strikes would cripple this country. Walk on a subway with a full set of luggage and blow up the car when it hits the financial district, not hard to do. I see people every day with luggage taking the subway to the airport. No checking. Nothing. Zero. You blow up a couple of those places and people will be afraid to go to work. Plus, what does the terrorist have to lose? Yes, there are no attacks because they want Bush to stay. And right now that is the only thing he has going for him.
Stevie little stikes crippled the Dc area a few years ago with that sniper and the kid he had with him. shit i was even looking for the white van when i went to Home Dumpo.
AR, I definitely respect your opinion, and I respect those that say they support the war and give good reasons for it. I just get tired of the hiding behind those that said Saddam was bad, so that makes it ok for everyone, right, crowd. It's just not the same thing.
I really do want to know what you mean by the comment that some of the dems "knew what was going on." Do you think that some of the dems had access to the same intelligence reports that the administration did? All of them? The most secretive administration in our history, fiercely protective of that, and trampling on previously accepted laws and codes of conduct, allowed all of the pertinent info to be passed on to democratic leaders? Do you really believe that? Sorry if this seems like an attack, but I think it's time to really talk about this issue that weasel and Dogs continually harp on - since Spibble and Manson gave up the goose. For the record, I think you are a really good example of a level headed poster here. I enjoy your posts a lot...must have been from your cabbie days that you learned tolerance...
I really do want to know what you mean by the comment that some of the dems "knew what was going on." Do you think that some of the dems had access to the same intelligence reports that the administration did? All of them? The most secretive administration in our history, fiercely protective of that, and trampling on previously accepted laws and codes of conduct, allowed all of the pertinent info to be passed on to democratic leaders? Do you really believe that? Sorry if this seems like an attack, but I think it's time to really talk about this issue that weasel and Dogs continually harp on - since Spibble and Manson gave up the goose. For the record, I think you are a really good example of a level headed poster here. I enjoy your posts a lot...must have been from your cabbie days that you learned tolerance...
I think it's time to wade into one of Weasel's rants...as scary and convoluted as that may be. Despite the tangled web he weaves, I think it's important to call out a few things that he claims as fact that are in fact leaps of faith and/or just plain wrong. So, here I go...
Of course the administration has done a good job of "ratcheting up surveillance." For you, that is not enough. I think that says it all. You might even be right, but I don't share your analysis that it is ok to disregard our constitution (the model of real democracy), break existing laws, and avoid using those laws and safeguards which have proven to be non-intrusive to terroristic monitoring and protected our citizens from both terrorism and unscrupulous administrations throughout our existence as a country. You simply don't have any idea what these people, who have been proven to be deceptive at best, and liars at worst, have done. You are cool with giving them the benefit of the doubt. I'm not. They don't deserve it, as a majority of this country now understands. And have spoken on in the recent elections, for the record.
The dems are not fighting to help the terrorists and their objectives. Period. That's a BS comment that is simply not true, no matter how many times you type it. The dems feel there are other ways to deal with the issue. You can argue that it's not the right way to do it, but your comment is patently false. I don't think anyone with a brain believes democrats want the U.S. to lose to the terrorists. Again...whatever the hell that means...that is your line of commentary, Mr. Bush-supporter.
So, we will have to stay in Iraq forever, now, to beat the terrorists? If we ever pull out our forces, it will be a win for the terrorists? Do you think that most of the people of the world, that are not extremists, would think that the U.S. had lost the war in Iraq - or the war on terra (whatever the hell that is, again), if we pulled out of Iraq in say, six months? A year? I don't. I think the world thinks we kicked the crap out of Saddam and his henchmen, and don't understand why we pulled forces away from the guy that attacked us. Whether it's today, six months from now, or never.
I guess the only smart people now have to suck the jock of this administration, or else they are helping the enemy. We have to sit around and allow this administration, which has yet again proven to be untrustworthy and not worthy of our trust, to do whatever it wants, whenever it wants, and to label anyone outside that smokescreen to be unpatriotic and weak on things that can hurt this country.
I'm tired of it. I'm tired of you and Wayne (the numbers are shrinking, here and elsewhere, if you haven't noticed) continually making it seem that the rest of us - the majority now, by the way - are weak and somehow ignorant to what our country faces.
I worry about what we face in the months and years ahead. But unlike you, I worry about the administration that has in many ways made a mockery of what democracy stands for in its using the word to forward whatever mission it is trying to accomplish. I don't think it's all devious and self-serving, for the record, but I sure as hell think that some of it is, and I think that more and more as time goes by.
I think you are the moonbat-weasel. Tired of you firing it my way. And it's time you flapped around in the minority cave for awhile...I think instead of saying that more Americans are falling asleep to the threats we face, I like to think that just maybe they/we are waking up to some more disturbing threats that some of us put in place a few years ago.
Of course the administration has done a good job of "ratcheting up surveillance." For you, that is not enough. I think that says it all. You might even be right, but I don't share your analysis that it is ok to disregard our constitution (the model of real democracy), break existing laws, and avoid using those laws and safeguards which have proven to be non-intrusive to terroristic monitoring and protected our citizens from both terrorism and unscrupulous administrations throughout our existence as a country. You simply don't have any idea what these people, who have been proven to be deceptive at best, and liars at worst, have done. You are cool with giving them the benefit of the doubt. I'm not. They don't deserve it, as a majority of this country now understands. And have spoken on in the recent elections, for the record.
The dems are not fighting to help the terrorists and their objectives. Period. That's a BS comment that is simply not true, no matter how many times you type it. The dems feel there are other ways to deal with the issue. You can argue that it's not the right way to do it, but your comment is patently false. I don't think anyone with a brain believes democrats want the U.S. to lose to the terrorists. Again...whatever the hell that means...that is your line of commentary, Mr. Bush-supporter.
So, we will have to stay in Iraq forever, now, to beat the terrorists? If we ever pull out our forces, it will be a win for the terrorists? Do you think that most of the people of the world, that are not extremists, would think that the U.S. had lost the war in Iraq - or the war on terra (whatever the hell that is, again), if we pulled out of Iraq in say, six months? A year? I don't. I think the world thinks we kicked the crap out of Saddam and his henchmen, and don't understand why we pulled forces away from the guy that attacked us. Whether it's today, six months from now, or never.
I guess the only smart people now have to suck the jock of this administration, or else they are helping the enemy. We have to sit around and allow this administration, which has yet again proven to be untrustworthy and not worthy of our trust, to do whatever it wants, whenever it wants, and to label anyone outside that smokescreen to be unpatriotic and weak on things that can hurt this country.
I'm tired of it. I'm tired of you and Wayne (the numbers are shrinking, here and elsewhere, if you haven't noticed) continually making it seem that the rest of us - the majority now, by the way - are weak and somehow ignorant to what our country faces.
I worry about what we face in the months and years ahead. But unlike you, I worry about the administration that has in many ways made a mockery of what democracy stands for in its using the word to forward whatever mission it is trying to accomplish. I don't think it's all devious and self-serving, for the record, but I sure as hell think that some of it is, and I think that more and more as time goes by.
I think you are the moonbat-weasel. Tired of you firing it my way. And it's time you flapped around in the minority cave for awhile...I think instead of saying that more Americans are falling asleep to the threats we face, I like to think that just maybe they/we are waking up to some more disturbing threats that some of us put in place a few years ago.
chad..
i have no proof, but i just think that some dems on the intelligence committee knew more than what they are saying...it makes sense to me that's why i'm saying......however i am not saying that the dems have equal responsibility of what's going on....this is bush's folly & the buck stops with him.
i have no proof, but i just think that some dems on the intelligence committee knew more than what they are saying...it makes sense to me that's why i'm saying......however i am not saying that the dems have equal responsibility of what's going on....this is bush's folly & the buck stops with him.
That was nice Chad. it kinda tooks some stress out of me. How you untangled his web was amazing to me. I couldn't do that if i had one of his reply's and sat down for a week disecting it.
Without going through long list of media propaganda--your terrorist rights advocates--ect
I just ask you one simple question
--which party do you think the terrorist are pulling for and why?
I just ask you one simple question
--which party do you think the terrorist are pulling for and why?
Last edited:
I think it is the Neocons they want in power so that we will continue to waste our resources in Iraq while they spread their poison throughout the world and get stronger by the day.
I think the Saudi Arabian terrorists, you know, the ones that actually attacked us, probably prefer the Bush linked administration and hope for some continuity in the future.
But, to address your narrow point, I would agree that most terrorist groups probably would prefer a democrat, along with a majority of Americans and a majority of the world. I know what you are driving at, and you can have this point as far as I'm concerned. I doubt that a terrorist wants someone in power in opposition that thinks much like they do and has proven to both act hastily and irrationally, and lie and hide truths to achieve their personal agendas. That is a scary opponent, to be sure. For terrorists, and non-terrorists alike.
But, to address your narrow point, I would agree that most terrorist groups probably would prefer a democrat, along with a majority of Americans and a majority of the world. I know what you are driving at, and you can have this point as far as I'm concerned. I doubt that a terrorist wants someone in power in opposition that thinks much like they do and has proven to both act hastily and irrationally, and lie and hide truths to achieve their personal agendas. That is a scary opponent, to be sure. For terrorists, and non-terrorists alike.
all you have to do is listen to the terrorist--
some say this war isn't about terrorist--yet the terrorist have made it their primary issue--why is it at top of their primary objectives--but discounted by one party here as non factor on war on terror?
UBL as well as other terrorist have ackowledged the U.S. can not defeat them because america does not have stomach/courage for long term conflict and casualties--who is he referring to here- certainly not the troops if you can look at record enlistments and volunteers for mulitple tours as indicator vs the liberal blogs opinions?
Stevie Your answer will probably be best and only rebutle--by the way did you know americans spent an estimated 17 billion on valentines day this year.
some say this war isn't about terrorist--yet the terrorist have made it their primary issue--why is it at top of their primary objectives--but discounted by one party here as non factor on war on terror?
UBL as well as other terrorist have ackowledged the U.S. can not defeat them because america does not have stomach/courage for long term conflict and casualties--who is he referring to here- certainly not the troops if you can look at record enlistments and volunteers for mulitple tours as indicator vs the liberal blogs opinions?
Stevie Your answer will probably be best and only rebutle--by the way did you know americans spent an estimated 17 billion on valentines day this year.
all you have to do is listen to the terrorist--
some say this war isn't about terrorist--yet the terrorist have made it their primary issue--why is it at top of their primary objectives--but discounted by one party here as non factor on war on terror?
UBL as well as other terrorist have ackowledged the U.S. can not defeat them because america does not have stomach/courage for long term conflict and casualties--who is he referring to here- certainly not the troops if you can look at record enlistments and volunteers for mulitple tours as indicator vs the liberal blogs opinions?
Stevie Your answer will probably be best and only rebutle--by the way did you know americans spent an estimated 17 billion on valentines day this year.
I notice you can't argue with the fact that the terrorst love us being in Iraq. Bush is destroying America for them. Longer we are in Iraq the stronger the terrorist become. Look how large their numbers are now. Even guys like you and Weasel admit that their numbers are growing worldwide. And we sit as helpless targets in Iraq.
I don't give a fk what the terrorists think about anything. ...While your at it, why don't you ask them who they wanted to win Superbowl. For a bunch of people who claim to think so independently and strong, you sure do rely on poll numbers from the enemy a lot. In case you haven't noticed, they hate us have successful attacks against us regardless of which political party is in power or who wins March Madness. How about this concept - we do what we know works well for US instead of guessing what the enemy wants or likes.
Now you got me stumped Smurph--I got Stevies oil and your superbowl to consider as best rebutles --hmmm I'll have to think on that a while
I ask you one simple question. If you attack a country that never threatened you and kill 600,000 of its citizens, does that qualify you as terrorist?
I thought you were just a crazy ass Jew hater....but now you're making a logical argument for Bush being a whack-job. I like it, but I have a feeling your not all there. :shrug:
