Any of you getting that eerie feeling as well?

[Deudalus]

We can argue about who, what, when, where, or why these problems are being created and escalated all we want and all of the points have their merits (except for the ultra left and right wing which are both wackos).

But, when you look at what is going on in the Middle East it is getting wilder by the minute. While I think Bush overstepped his bounds a bit by going to Iraq I have always felt that something drastic had to happen to force Middle Easterners to choose sides in this conflict that has been raging for countless years now.

However, the more I read on P&N and other sites the more I realize that alot of people over here haven't really chosen a side either. Some seem to have some weird appreciation and respect for crackpot Middle Eastern dictators and it almost seems like they haven't taken a side in this conflict either. Admittedly most of this is probably due to Bush hatred and if it was Kerry, Clinton, or whoever else in the White House they would probably be far more accepting of all of this (or at least willing to look the other way).

Either way, it just seems like the Middle Eastern problems continue to escalate and intensify as more people (mainly Iran) act out in aggression or choose sides. Iran acts against us while other European countries (namely France) are starting to back off of their anti-American sentiments a bit.

I personally like to see people choose sides as I feel that its inevitable. But where do you all of you stand? Does anyone here truly believe that we should lose the war on terrorism because we are guilty of some crime? Does anyone really wanna see us dodging bullets and hauling ass out of Iraq like we did in South Vietnam?

Does anyone wanna see America fall and take our chances on what hegemon will take our place in the world stage? While I don't hate China, I don't think they would be anywhere near as peaceful of a hegemon as we are here in the States.

What do you all think?

 

[International Machine Consortium]

The U.S. is the one supporting "crackpot middle eastern" dictators. Saudi Arabia anyone?
Screwing the pooch on Iraq was more than Bush "overstepping his bounds a little". It was a mistake of gigantic proportions we will be paying for over the next several generations.
There was already plenty to make people "choose sides" The Israeli/Palestinian conflict ring any bells?

 

[Deudalus]

Originally posted by: International Machine Consortium
The U.S. is the one supporting "crackpot middle eastern" dictators. Saudi Arabia anyone?
Screwing the pooch on Iraq was more than Bush "overstepping his bounds a little". It was a mistake of gigantic proportions we will be paying for over the next several generations.
There was already plenty to make people "choose sides" The Israeli/Palestinian conflict ring any bells?

Those are some great talking points and I have a funny feeling you fall into that category of "extremist wackos" that I talked about in sentence numero uno.

What I was hoping for is for someone to actually approach the question rather than cut and paste from the Limbaugh Letter or the Huffington Post.

Sadly, you arent quite sharp enough to pick up on that.

But you regurgitate with the best of them. Ill give ya that much.

 

[jpeyton]

While I think Bush overstepped his bounds a bit by going to Iraq I have always felt that something drastic had to happen for Middle Easterners to choose sides in this conflict that has been raging for countless years now.

"Overstepped his bounds" is an interesting term for lying to the American public and using bad intelligence to sell a country on war. I prefer to call it a "criminal offense". A black teenager in Texas is serving 7 years in jail for pushing their hall monitor; how many years do you think Bush deserves for pushing bad intelligence and starting a war that has claimed 3,000+ American lives, 50,000+ Iraqi lives, and cost America taxpayers almost $400 billion so far? When you let the President of the United States get away with murder, you can justify almost anything.

Besides, what "side" do you think people in the Middle East are choosing because of our blunder? They want Americans out of their lands as quick as fvcking possible.

We don't want to see America fail, but I believe some of us are smart enough to realize we're falling from grace while most Americans are playing blind, dumb and deaf. There is no strategy in Iraq; the situation will disintegrate the moment we withdraw, whether that is now or a decade in the future. Civil wars need to be fought internally, and we're only delaying the inevitable.

Lastly, get it through your thick skulls that the war on terror DOES NOT EQUAL the war in Iraq. Period. End of story. The conflict in Iraq is PURELY internal strife. It's civil war. It's Shiites vs. Sunnis vs. Kurds. Comprende? Half of this stupid country still thinks Saddam had something to do with 9/11. Every second we stay in Iraq is another second we waste resources we should be using in the war on terror.

We have two options. Our President likes the option that puts 150,000 troops and hundreds of billions of dollars in a sandbox for playtime. The other option spends that manpower eliminating the Taliban/al-Qaeda from Afghanistan/N.Pakistan and spending that money rooting out terrorist networks across every country on the globe.

The war in Iraq was an absolute fundamental mistake, no question about it. We have gained absolutely nothing so far, and with the country ready for civil war as soon as we pull out, we have no guarantees of anything in the future.

 

[Deudalus]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

While I think Bush overstepped his bounds a bit by going to Iraq I have always felt that something drastic had to happen for Middle Easterners to choose sides in this conflict that has been raging for countless years now.

Besides, what "side" do you think people in the Middle East are choosing because of our blunder? They want Americans out of their lands as quick as fvcking possible.

Who knows, these are the same people who wanted to put diapers on goats to prevent young muslim males from sportin wood from checkin out some goat anus.

I personally think we are better off knowing where we stand though than just letting the majority of Middle Easterners straddle the fence on this issue though. I can't remember what comedian said it but I believe the line was "hrm God? My God gave me a rock and your God gave you a tank. I'm switching sides" comes to mind.

I would think they would eventually realize who is intentionally trying to cause as much collateral damage in Iraq as possible as I would, but then I'm an educated American gettings news from our westernized media not an uneducated Iraqi getting my news from word of mouth and Al Jazeera.

We don't want to see America fail, but I believe some of us are smart enough to realize we're falling from grace while most Americans are playing blind, dumb and deaf. There is no strategy in Iraq; the situation will disintegrate the moment we withdraw, whether that is now or a decade in the future. Civil wars need to be fought internally, and we're only delaying the inevitable.

Yes, but both sides are playing blind and being silly about the whole situation. The same people who are calling Bush a terrorist for Iraq are asking him to send help to Darfour. Do they truly not realize that it will develop into Somalia part two in which our military will have to get involved and people will die?

Civil wars lead to tremendous losses in human life which if your sig truly reflects your feelings on human life rather than just far-left talking points you will realize that civil war is never a good answer.

Lastly, get it through your thick skulls that the war on terror DOES NOT EQUAL the war in Iraq. Period. End of story. The conflict in Iraq is PURELY internal strife. It's civil war. It's Shiites vs. Sunnis vs. Kurds. Comprende? Half of this stupid country still thinks Saddam had something to do with 9/11. Every second we stay in Iraq is another second we waste resources we should be using in the war on terror.

I agree and disagree. Iraq wasn't necessary, but now that we are there it is definitely the focal point of the war on terror both for our cause and theirs.

While it didn't have to be this way, that I will not dispute, any honest person will realize that regardless of what it should be you have to admit what is, and because of our invasion and occupation of it it is the central front in the war on terror.

The war in Iraq was an absolute fundamental mistake, no question about it. We have gained absolutely nothing so far, and with the country ready for civil war as soon as we pull out, we have no guarantees of anything in the future.

It is making people choose sides which is a good thing. It is just far, far too drastic of a move to force people to accomplish that goal of making people Muslim and non-Muslim alike face this problem.

A true statesman could have accomplished the goal of forcing the world to tackle this problem without the Iraqi invasion which sucked everyone else into such a bloody conflict.

Clinton was such a statesman but unfortunately he pretty much chose to ignore it. So we go from someone who likes to cover their eyes and pretend its not there like a child, to someone who responds over aggressively like a child.

So the question here is not what has happened, but what do you think will, should, and can happen from here on out.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Deudalus
We can argue about who, what, when, where, or why these problems are being created and escalated all we want and all of the points have their merits (except for the ultra left and right wing which are both wackos).

But, when you look at what is going on in the Middle East it is getting wilder by the minute. While I think Bush overstepped his bounds a bit by going to Iraq I have always felt that something drastic had to happen to force Middle Easterners to choose sides in this conflict that has been raging for countless years now.

However, the more I read on P&N and other sites the more I realize that alot of people over here haven't really chosen a side either. Some seem to have some weird appreciation and respect for crackpot Middle Eastern dictators and it almost seems like they haven't taken a side in this conflict either. Admittedly most of this is probably due to Bush hatred and if it was Kerry, Clinton, or whoever else in the White House they would probably be far more accepting of all of this (or at least willing to look the other way).

Either way, it just seems like the Middle Eastern problems continue to escalate and intensify as more people (mainly Iran) act out in aggression or choose sides. Iran acts against us while other European countries (namely France) are starting to back off of their anti-American sentiments a bit.

I personally like to see people choose sides as I feel that its inevitable. But where do you all of you stand? Does anyone here truly believe that we should lose the war on terrorism because we are guilty of some crime? Does anyone really wanna see us dodging bullets and hauling ass out of Iraq like we did in South Vietnam?

Does anyone wanna see America fall and take our chances on what hegemon will take our place in the world stage? While I don't hate China, I don't think they would be anywhere near as peaceful of a hegemon as we are here in the States.

What do you all think?

I think you are trapped in a delusional existential dilemma that does not exist. You are filled with nonsensical ideas that paint you into a corner that does not exist. There is no answers for you because you have them all already. What you need to do is take a giant dump and purge yourself of all that sh!t. Your thoughts are a spider spinning a web and you have caught yourself.

What you need is the courage to be a nobody who knows nothing at all because it is who you really are. You know everything because of fear. You can't take the terror of being uncertain. You must know.

 

[jpeyton]

I agree and disagree. Iraq wasn't necessary, but now that we are there it is definitely the focal point of the war on terror both for our cause and theirs.

While it didn't have to be this way, that I will not dispute, any honest person will realize that regardless of what it should be you have to admit what is, and because of our invasion and occupation of it it is the central front in the war on terror.

Someone else tackle this one. I'm tired of wasting my time chatting with AT P&N's version of Tony Snow.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

I agree and disagree. Iraq wasn't necessary, but now that we are there it is definitely the focal point of the war on terror both for our cause and theirs.

While it didn't have to be this way, that I will not dispute, any honest person will realize that regardless of what it should be you have to admit what is, and because of our invasion and occupation of it it is the central front in the war on terror.

Someone else tackle this one. I'm tired of wasting my time chatting with AT P&N's version of Tony Snow.

If Iraq hasn't assumed that role by default, where is the center of the GWOT? Is there one at all?

 

[sandorski]

What are the "sides'?

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: jpeyton

I agree and disagree. Iraq wasn't necessary, but now that we are there it is definitely the focal point of the war on terror both for our cause and theirs.

While it didn't have to be this way, that I will not dispute, any honest person will realize that regardless of what it should be you have to admit what is, and because of our invasion and occupation of it it is the central front in the war on terror.

Someone else tackle this one. I'm tired of wasting my time chatting with AT P&N's version of Tony Snow.

If Iraq hasn't assumed that role by default, where is the center of the GWOT? Is there one at all?

You must have pretty big blinders on to mistake internal strife between feuding parties (Shiites, Sunnis, Kurds) for the battle against terrorism. If the US decides to bomb Costa Rica tomorrow, remove their government, install a White House approved leader and 150,000 troops...and the Costa Ricans start an internal struggle for domestic power, do we automatically label that terrorism?

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: jpeyton

I agree and disagree. Iraq wasn't necessary, but now that we are there it is definitely the focal point of the war on terror both for our cause and theirs.

While it didn't have to be this way, that I will not dispute, any honest person will realize that regardless of what it should be you have to admit what is, and because of our invasion and occupation of it it is the central front in the war on terror.

Someone else tackle this one. I'm tired of wasting my time chatting with AT P&N's version of Tony Snow.

If Iraq hasn't assumed that role by default, where is the center of the GWOT? Is there one at all?

You must have pretty big blinders on to mistake internal strife between feuding parties (Shiites, Sunnis, Kurds) for the battle against terrorism. If the US decides to bomb Costa Rica tomorrow, remove their government, install a White House approved leader and 150,000 troops...and the Costa Ricans start an internal struggle for domestic power, do we automatically label that terrorism?

You didn't really answer my question... You diverted.

A lot of what is happening in Iraq is an internal power struggle. I'm not blind to that fact. But a lot of it is from outside forces as well. Iran and Syria are contributing to the problems there. (Link?!) It doesn't take a genius to see where the arms are coming from. There are pleanty of outside groups that have their hands dirty in this.

I'm not a proponent of this war. But it's hard to say that the focus of the terrorism elite isn't on Iraq right now. And (not to repeat myself) if the focus of most terrorist groups isn't on Iraq now, where is it?

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
Someone else tackle this one.
I'm tired of wasting my time chatting with AT P&N's version of Tony Snow.

It most likely IS Tony Snow or at least a close paid staffer.

 

[Narmer]

What if people don't want to be on either side because both cause hell and mayhem? WTF should we support a democratic belligerant as opposed to a tyrannical belligerant?

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: Deudalus

Originally posted by: International Machine Consortium
The U.S. is the one supporting "crackpot middle eastern" dictators. Saudi Arabia anyone?
Screwing the pooch on Iraq was more than Bush "overstepping his bounds a little". It was a mistake of gigantic proportions we will be paying for over the next several generations.
There was already plenty to make people "choose sides" The Israeli/Palestinian conflict ring any bells?

Those are some great talking points and I have a funny feeling you fall into that category of "extremist wackos" that I talked about in sentence numero uno.

What I was hoping for is for someone to actually approach the question rather than cut and paste from the Limbaugh Letter or the Huffington Post.

Sadly, you arent quite sharp enough to pick up on that.

But you regurgitate with the best of them. Ill give ya that much.

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: jpeyton
Someone else tackle this one.
I'm tired of wasting my time chatting with AT P&N's version of Tony Snow.

It most likely IS Tony Snow or at least a close paid staffer.

As you can see Deudalus the sides were picked here a long time ago. Many of us are pro-militant Islam and anyone not demonizing the west along side them is obviously a paid white house staffer.

You believe, maybe, that they are misguided? I can assure you indoctrination is stronger than that, and that is exactly how our two party system works. Each are devout to their side here, with perhaps a few on the sidelines but you can see for yourself how the guys quoted above view things.

I can assure you no one is changing their mind. The west is evil, but show them a foreign maniacal dictator or theocracy and they flock to that side in droves. They hate us so greatly their allegiances have no regard for their own safety or values.

Originally posted by: sandorski
What are the "sides'?

The west VS militant Islam.

 

[Lemon law]

Now we finally cut to the chase with the Jackalas version---namely---The west VS militant Islam.

Which is the wrong interpretation---when it really is a few nutty extremist born again Christians in the white house hijacking an entire country and trying to wage a war against a few extremist adherents of Islam. While the vast majority of peace loving people in this country and the vast majority of peace loving of Islam looks out in extreme distaste and asks what happened.---and why.

The point is that religion can be a wonderful thing but will always attract the nutty few that will use their religion to justify the most nutty and inhumane acts.----we sadly have a hot bed infestation at 1600 Pernnsylvia ave. Washington DC. ---Islam has a few nuts also.

But its extreme stupidity to assume either Islam or Christianity are religions dedicated to the extermination of any that do not practice that faith. But put a few nuts of either faith in charge and history is littered with brief periods that amounted to orgies of brutality.

But somewhat unmentioned on this thread is the other whopper of an illusion---Iraq may have had a brutal dictator----but its still an Iraqi responsibility to effect regime change---and how would we feel if some other set of countries decided the USA needed a regime change. Or to put it another way---who appointed GWB as a GOD?

 

[steppinthrax]

Originally posted by: Deudalus
We can argue about who, what, when, where, or why these problems are being created and escalated all we want and all of the points have their merits (except for the ultra left and right wing which are both wackos).

But, when you look at what is going on in the Middle East it is getting wilder by the minute. While I think Bush overstepped his bounds a bit by going to Iraq I have always felt that something drastic had to happen to force Middle Easterners to choose sides in this conflict that has been raging for countless years now.

However, the more I read on P&N and other sites the more I realize that alot of people over here haven't really chosen a side either. Some seem to have some weird appreciation and respect for crackpot Middle Eastern dictators and it almost seems like they haven't taken a side in this conflict either. Admittedly most of this is probably due to Bush hatred and if it was Kerry, Clinton, or whoever else in the White House they would probably be far more accepting of all of this (or at least willing to look the other way).

Either way, it just seems like the Middle Eastern problems continue to escalate and intensify as more people (mainly Iran) act out in aggression or choose sides. Iran acts against us while other European countries (namely France) are starting to back off of their anti-American sentiments a bit.

I personally like to see people choose sides as I feel that its inevitable. But where do you all of you stand? Does anyone here truly believe that we should lose the war on terrorism because we are guilty of some crime? Does anyone really wanna see us dodging bullets and hauling ass out of Iraq like we did in South Vietnam?

Does anyone wanna see America fall and take our chances on what hegemon will take our place in the world stage? While I don't hate China, I don't think they would be anywhere near as peaceful of a hegemon as we are here in the States.

What do you all think?

A couple things that I have issue with is the fact that no one ever goes into why we have problems with the middle east or Why do these people hate us so much as they do. These people certainly hated us before we went into the war and I can tell you they hate us even more now. But I think we also underestimate the strenth of these people. We went into war thinking it would be easy like vietman. I think Americans are also generally selfish and conceted. We feel the way we do things are the way everybody in the world should do things. The fact that those people have a dictatorship is the way things are. We had no fvucking right to go in there and dismantle their form of govt just because it's not inline with ours.

Also a lot of people think the suicide bombers and extremest that are in Iraq killing the soldiers everyday are wrong. But, think of this for a sec. If someone came in and invaded the United States overthrew the govt and tried to put their own form of "Democracy" in place would you (for the love of your country) do whatever is necessary to impeed progress of these people.

The middle east is also little understood by us. We again are very ethnocentric and don't understand their many customs and ways. We find much of their beliefs to be backwards and neg. You have to understand they these people formed their own belifs by themselves with out interferance from other cultures.

 

[DealMonkey]

What are you talking about? Those who said going to war with and occupying Iraq was a bad idea in 2003 (myself included) *still* think it's a bad idea. If anything, the last four years of failure in Iraq have only proven our point. Thinking it's a bad idea doesn't equate to wanting America to fail, nor that we love ME dictators.

You started off with a certain balance, but then swung to the right just like those extremists you love to hate:

Originally posted by: Deudalus
However, the more I read on P&N and other sites the more I realize that alot of people over here haven't really chosen a side either. Some seem to have some weird appreciation and respect for crackpot Middle Eastern dictators and it almost seems like they haven't taken a side in this conflict either. Admittedly most of this is probably due to Bush hatred and if it was Kerry, Clinton, or whoever else in the White House they would probably be far more accepting of all of this (or at least willing to look the other way).

What a steaming turd that was. :roll:

 

[piasabird]

You guys need to listen to some of the speeches of the Left from 2002 Nancy Pelosi said that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction i.e. chemical and biological weapons, as well as the fact that they were building their nuclear program and we needed to do something about it i.e. go to war. Many of these Democrats were all on the War band wagon and foaming at the mouth about how we needed to fight these people in 2002. So either those people who now are against the war are all a bunch of liars, or they hate America.

Take your pick!

Nancy Pelosi voted to go to war. She is the problem. Now she is trying to Buy Votes. Just more politics. She is just as guilty as Bush. The thing is she is not taking responsiblity for her actions and Bush is. Pelosi is a big fake.

 

[feralkid]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: jpeyton

I agree and disagree. Iraq wasn't necessary, but now that we are there it is definitely the focal point of the war on terror both for our cause and theirs.

While it didn't have to be this way, that I will not dispute, any honest person will realize that regardless of what it should be you have to admit what is, and because of our invasion and occupation of it it is the central front in the war on terror.

Someone else tackle this one. I'm tired of wasting my time chatting with AT P&N's version of Tony Snow.

If Iraq hasn't assumed that role by default, where is the center of the GWOT? Is there one at all?

You must have pretty big blinders on to mistake internal strife between feuding parties (Shiites, Sunnis, Kurds) for the battle against terrorism. If the US decides to bomb Costa Rica tomorrow, remove their government, install a White House approved leader and 150,000 troops...and the Costa Ricans start an internal struggle for domestic power, do we automatically label that terrorism?

You didn't really answer my question... You diverted.

A lot of what is happening in Iraq is an internal power struggle. I'm not blind to that fact. But a lot of it is from outside forces as well. Iran and Syria are contributing to the problems there. (Link?!) It doesn't take a genius to see where the arms are coming from. There are pleanty of outside groups that have their hands dirty in this.

>>>Iran is funding their Shia brethren to prevent a massacre by the Sunni.
>>>Syria is funding their Sunni brethren to prevent a massacre by the Shia.
>>>We get shot at by both.

I'm not a proponent of this war. But it's hard to say that the focus of the terrorism elite isn't on Iraq right now. And (not to repeat myself) if the focus of most terrorist groups isn't on Iraq now, where is it?

>>>You mean like Al Qaida? Probably biding time, watching with glee as the U.S. bleeds itself dry.

>>>The Muslim Brotherhood? Enjoying their rising influence in the Eqyptian Parliament while the U.S. has abandoned calls for Democracy, since they need Mubarek's support for OIF.

The list goes on and on, but I'd wager most are enjoying fantastic recruiting opportunities, patiently waiting, happy as clams, laughing at our incessant blundering.

We need to fight them effectively, precisely and thoroughly.

NOT throw all our resources into the slow, relentless meat-grinder of Iraq.

 

[magomago]

What i find interesting when it comes to groups like the Muslim Brotherhood is that they essentially offer two key things to the people: the CONCEPT of freedom (doesn't mean they will necessarily get it. Hamas ended up banning a book of compilations of Folktales becuse of "Suggestive Language" but after many protests by the people they stepped down) that the government does not offer; and lastly, some kind of solution to the Israel Palestinian situation. Obviously in the case of the Muslim Brotherhood's the solution of "Kill all Israelis" is just as extreme as the Isreali Position of keeping the Palestinians in a Limbo in order to build more settlements to "push the Arabs out to the sea" if I may use an a modified version of an oft quoted phrase by many who are Pro Israeli and don't realize the reality is the total opposite.

To the OP though: to that degree I think you are correct when you say that most people simply have not "picked sides". But there is VERY little reason to pick - the sides you seem to advocate are the extremist positions: you are with us, or against us. And in both regions in the world people prefer not to take either of these options because its pretty stupid. But you have extremists on both sides trying to FORCE everyone to take a side, trying to FORCE people to mobilize with their ridiculous ideology.

What I find interesting is that you speak as if we "fail" in the Middle East, then we will lose our Global Power. Not really - the day we support an even handed approach in the middle east~ ie: we don't plant a single tree with a history of dumping toxic chemicals everywhere and later complaining how the soil isn't fertile. Those Chemicals will kill anything - including many native plants that would have otherwise sprouted We reap what we sow, or in this case we are getting a lack of things.

 

[sierrita]

Originally posted by: piasabird
You guys need to listen to some of the speeches of the Left from 2002 Nancy Pelosi said that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction i.e. chemical and biological weapons, as well as the fact that they were building their nuclear program and we needed to do something about it i.e. go to war. Many of these Democrats were all on the War band wagon and foaming at the mouth about how we needed to fight these people in 2002. So either those people who now are against the war are all a bunch of liars, or they hate America.
........................................................

Not many Democrats were "foaming at the mouth" to go to war.

Based on the (now known to be false) intel at the time, most reluctantly approved measures that would allow the use of American military force in Iraq.

Now that they know it was false, they refuse to further support this ill-conceived invasion.

Who are the liars?





Take your pick!

Nancy Pelosi voted to go to war. She is the problem. Now she is trying to Buy Votes. Just more politics. She is just as guilty as Bush. The thing is she is not taking responsiblity for her actions and Bush is. Pelosi is a big fake.

Hardly. Pelosi sees that she was given false and doctored intel prior to the war...she now intends to rectify the situation.

 

[manowar821]

Two sides? What the hell is it about people and thinking there are only two sides? Black and white. Good and bad. Etc.
Where do the anarchists fit in here? You know, the people like me, who don't give a flying @#$% about your problems, or the problems with islam anymore? Honestly, both islamic extremists and the US government can both collapse and burn. You're both assholes.

Just do me a favor, stop trying to run peoples lives with your religions and policies.

Wow... I'm pissed today. :\

 

[Deudalus]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

I agree and disagree. Iraq wasn't necessary, but now that we are there it is definitely the focal point of the war on terror both for our cause and theirs.

While it didn't have to be this way, that I will not dispute, any honest person will realize that regardless of what it should be you have to admit what is, and because of our invasion and occupation of it it is the central front in the war on terror.

Someone else tackle this one. I'm tired of wasting my time chatting with AT P&N's version of Tony Snow.

You are missing the point because you are such a zealot I'm afraid.

Iraq is the focal point of the war on terror much like Vietnam during the late 60's was the focal point of The Cold War. It isn't because I agree with the administration in any way, it is simply because it is. They invaded and occupied a country right in the middle of all the problems in the Middle East.

You are unfortunately much like the other extremeists in our country today. You are so caught up in what should be that you can't see what truly is.

It is easy to play the idealist role that you play and say "we should do this, we shouldn't do that" but unfortunately there are reprocussions to all of these things which you don't even bother to consider because you aren't really worried about the outcome as much as you are worried about doing something wonderfully extravagant.

In that sense, you and Bush have alot in common actually.

 

[Deudalus]

Originally posted by: sierrita

Originally posted by: piasabird
You guys need to listen to some of the speeches of the Left from 2002 Nancy Pelosi said that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction i.e. chemical and biological weapons, as well as the fact that they were building their nuclear program and we needed to do something about it i.e. go to war. Many of these Democrats were all on the War band wagon and foaming at the mouth about how we needed to fight these people in 2002. So either those people who now are against the war are all a bunch of liars, or they hate America.
........................................................

Not many Democrats were "foaming at the mouth" to go to war.

Based on the (now known to be false) intel at the time, most reluctantly approved measures that would allow the use of American military force in Iraq.

Now that they know it was false, they refuse to further support this ill-conceived invasion.

Who are the liars?





Take your pick!

Nancy Pelosi voted to go to war. She is the problem. Now she is trying to Buy Votes. Just more politics. She is just as guilty as Bush. The thing is she is not taking responsiblity for her actions and Bush is. Pelosi is a big fake.

Hardly. Pelosi sees that she was given false and doctored intel prior to the war...she now intends to rectify the situation.

Really?

They all harped on that same intel, and they all thought the same things under Clinton but I'll bite anyways.

What exactly is she doing to get us out of Iraq? Is she pushing some legislation that would force us to pull out in the immediate future?

I haven't seen any, I sure have heard some talk though.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Deudalus

Originally posted by: sierrita

Originally posted by: piasabird
You guys need to listen to some of the speeches of the Left from 2002 Nancy Pelosi said that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction i.e. chemical and biological weapons, as well as the fact that they were building their nuclear program and we needed to do something about it i.e. go to war. Many of these Democrats were all on the War band wagon and foaming at the mouth about how we needed to fight these people in 2002. So either those people who now are against the war are all a bunch of liars, or they hate America.
........................................................

Not many Democrats were "foaming at the mouth" to go to war.

Based on the (now known to be false) intel at the time, most reluctantly approved measures that would allow the use of American military force in Iraq.

Now that they know it was false, they refuse to further support this ill-conceived invasion.

Who are the liars?





Take your pick!

Nancy Pelosi voted to go to war. She is the problem. Now she is trying to Buy Votes. Just more politics. She is just as guilty as Bush. The thing is she is not taking responsiblity for her actions and Bush is. Pelosi is a big fake.

Hardly. Pelosi sees that she was given false and doctored intel prior to the war...she now intends to rectify the situation.

Really?

They all harped on that same intel, and they all thought the same things under Clinton but I'll bite anyways.

What exactly is she doing to get us out of Iraq? Is she pushing some legislation that would force us to pull out in the immediate future?

I haven't seen any, I sure have heard some talk though.

So show us where she says we should stay and fight? I won't hold my breath waiting for the link.