So...if the war in Iraq was wrong then....

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,337
136
Originally posted by: cwjerome
ohhhh man... let's validate their anger... because it's SO legit. Anyone who thinks that by giving in to the demands of evil, ignorant, racist, totalitarian, theocratic, thugs they will somehow become nice little people is so deluded they should have their frontal lobes removed. Which is worse, the murdering despots or those that cave, appease, and allow it? 'Bout the same to me....
Who said anything about giving in? Or are you just assuming that? How 'bout just the approach less brainless? Or less full of corruption?
 

b0mbrman

Lifer
Jun 1, 2001
29,470
1
81
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: cwjerome
ohhhh man... let's validate their anger... because it's SO legit. Anyone who thinks that by giving in to the demands of evil, ignorant, racist, totalitarian, theocratic, thugs they will somehow become nice little people is so deluded they should have their frontal lobes removed. Which is worse, the murdering despots or those that cave, appease, and allow it? 'Bout the same to me....
Who said anything about giving in? Or are you just assuming that? How 'bout just the approach less brainless? Or less full of corruption?
Exactly my point
 

NJDevil

Senior member
Jun 10, 2002
952
0
0
Originally posted by: ntdz
Originally posted by: jpeyton
What about Clinton's policies? I mean, we didn't have any attacks on our soil from February 1993 to September 2001. That was over 8 years without al-Qaeda attacking us on our soil.

So far, Bush policies have only been tested for 3 years, and half of that time wasn't spent in Iraq.

true, but they did hit embassies, supposed to be soverign, but not truly American soil, and they hit the USS Cole.

They hit us almost everyday in Iraq. The number of terror attacks worldwide has skyrocketed since the invasion. I was for it initially because I thought that Saddam possessed weapons, and giving those to terrorists was a real possibility. Now, I think differently, but in no way did our actions in Iraq "stop" terrorism.
 

her209

No Lifer
Oct 11, 2000
56,336
11
0
Originally posted by: cwjerome
ohhhh man... let's validate their anger... because it's SO legit. Anyone who thinks that by giving in to the demands of evil, ignorant, racist, totalitarian, theocratic, thugs they will somehow become nice little people is so deluded they should have their frontal lobes removed. Which is worse, the murdering despots or those that cave, appease, and allow it? 'Bout the same to me....
Yes, by forcing our democratic value down their throat at gunpoint, blowing up their moms/dads/sons/daughters in the process, that will eliminate terrorists.
 

3chordcharlie

Diamond Member
Mar 30, 2004
9,859
1
81
So there have been no terrorist attacks since Bush invaded Iraq... has it occurred to anyone that this might be to do with the legitimate and (initially) successful campaign in Afghanistan, and have nothing to do with Iraq at all?

That's certainly my interpretation.
 

jpeyton

Moderator in SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones
Moderator
Aug 23, 2003
25,375
142
116
Originally posted by: ntdz
Originally posted by: jpeyton
What about Clinton's policies? I mean, we didn't have any attacks on our soil from February 1993 to September 2001. That was over 8 years without al-Qaeda attacking us on our soil.

So far, Bush policies have only been tested for 3 years, and half of that time wasn't spent in Iraq.

true, but they did hit embassies, supposed to be soverign, but not truly American soil, and they hit the USS Cole.

We're getting attacked by terrorists everyday in Iraq. Not truly American soil...

...those terrorists weren't there when we invaded...
 

cwjerome

Diamond Member
Sep 30, 2004
4,346
26
81
Her209: If you say so.

Bomberman says, "The only way to stop terrorists is to maybe listen to their demands a bit and adjust our foreign policy accordingly....I'm not saying we should negotiate...but obviously something makes terrorists mad (i.e. support of Israel, use of oil) and we as voters have the power to change that "

Vic: That's what I'm talking about. Stupidity meet stupidity... k, thx.
 

element

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
4,635
0
0
Who said anything about giving in? Or are you just assuming that? How 'bout just the approach less brainless? Or less full of corruption?

The only way to stop terrorists is to maybe listen to their demands a bit and adjust our foreign policy accordingly....

pwnt
 

her209

No Lifer
Oct 11, 2000
56,336
11
0
Originally posted by: cwjerome
Her209: If you say so.
Are you agreeing with me that invading Iraq has created more terrorists ultimately making us less safe?
 

b0mbrman

Lifer
Jun 1, 2001
29,470
1
81
How is that giving in? At least Kerry wouldn't have invaded Iraq and lost over 1000 lives, killed several thousand innocent Iraqis, and generated more terrorists out of some Iraqis....but I guess those aren't important anymore, are they?
 

zzzz

Diamond Member
Sep 1, 2000
5,498
1
76
Originally posted by: zzzz
Cheney says we will be attacked if Kerry is elected. That means removing Saddam didnt make US safer?

what OP? no response?
 

b0mbrman

Lifer
Jun 1, 2001
29,470
1
81
Originally posted by: b0mbrman
How is that giving in? At least Kerry wouldn't have invaded Iraq and lost over 1000 lives, killed several thousand innocent Iraqis, and generated more terrorists out of some Iraqis....but I guess those aren't important anymore, are they?
Yup...no response?
 

CycloWizard

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
12,348
1
81
Originally posted by: Todd33
What does Iraq have to do with an al Queda attack in the US? How long between 911 and the previous attack?

Do your homework on al Qaeda, learn about how patient they are. They plan and sit, they never strike the same place twice and always try to make the next attack bigger.
So who pulled off the first WTC bombing?
Originally posted by: her209
So if the administration is doing such a good job, then what's the deal with the terror alert system?
Another example. Someone who wants to criticize the mechanism but would criticize just as much if another attack happened. That's known as 'hypocrisy' in some circles.
Originally posted by: Sudheer Anne
Are you conservatives stupid? Do you really think that Al Qaeda hasn't been able to attack us because of what Bush has done?
:cookie:
If anything we've thrown more wood on the fire with this Iraq debacle. Their numbers are no doubt increasing and the animosity and hatred for the US is very high. Now, the planning required for the Sept. 11th attack was no doubt extremely sophisticated and I'm sure it took them many years of planning. Even the Bush administration acknowledges that another attack is coming, and it's not a matter of IF it's a matter of WHEN. Please tell me how Bush will stop a suicide bomber with dynamite strapped to his chest from blowing himself in the middle of Times Square. If they wanted to attack us they no doubt could have already, maybe not on the scale of Sept. 11th however but no doubt deadly. John Kerry makes an excellent point when he said you cannot stop all terrorism, but as President we have to make America as safe as possible and this president just hasn't done that.
I could have carried out 9/11 with two weeks' advanced notice with any 19 Joe Schmoes from my high school class, and half of them couldn't read at a fourth grade level. The idea that it's so sophisticated or difficult to pull off such an attack is ignorant in the extreme. Pretending that Kerry can somehow magically make it more difficult to pull it off is naive. No president can protect you from terrorism.

As for why I think we haven't been attacked since 9/11, that is another topic for another thread. Maybe tomorrow...
Originally posted by: NJDevil
They hit us almost everyday in Iraq. The number of terror attacks worldwide has skyrocketed since the invasion. I was for it initially because I thought that Saddam possessed weapons, and giving those to terrorists was a real possibility. Now, I think differently, but in no way did our actions in Iraq "stop" terrorism.
What if he did pass off his weapons to terrorists and we were too late? Would you change your mind?
Originally posted by: her209
Yes, by forcing our democratic value down their throat at gunpoint, blowing up their moms/dads/sons/daughters in the process, that will eliminate terrorists.
Yes, by forcing our democratic value down their throat at gunpoint, blowing up their moms/dads/sons/daughters in the process, that will eliminate Hitler's regime.

Or should we have done nothing in the 1940's? Remember - we were in Germany and Japan for around 10 years post-WW II performing active rebuilding.
 

element

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
4,635
0
0
Originally posted by: zzzz
Originally posted by: zzzz
Cheney says we will be attacked if Kerry is elected. That means removing Saddam didnt make US safer?

what OP? no response?

1. I have other things to do
2. take it up with Cheney, I didn't say that.
3. I have enough of a time backing up my own statements not Cheney's
4. Oh what the heck I might as well answer it now. Saddam's removal was a step in the right direction not the end of the war on terror. It may or may not have made us safer I guess we'll never know since we won't now know what would have happened had we not removed Saddumb.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,584
6,713
126
Most of Cockroach's greatest historians agree that the Sword of God that destroyed the human race and lead to the glorious emergence of our own was precipitated by the Preemptive Strategy of The Stupid One as has been adduced from ancient human texts.
 

element

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
4,635
0
0
Originally posted by: b0mbrman
Originally posted by: b0mbrman
How is that giving in? At least Kerry wouldn't have invaded Iraq and lost over 1000 lives, killed several thousand innocent Iraqis, and generated more terrorists out of some Iraqis....but I guess those aren't important anymore, are they?
Yup...no response?

bleat bleat bleat. What those are is untrue not unimportant.
 

element

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
4,635
0
0
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Most of Cockroach's greatest historians agree that the Sword of God that destroyed the human race and lead to the glorious emergence of our own was precipitated by the Preemptive Strategy of The Stupid One as has been adduced from ancient human texts.

You see? Progress under Bush. Got to go extinct sometime. Nothing lasts forever. (thank God)

How boring if the dinosours still ruled the earth.
 

umbrella39

Lifer
Jun 11, 2004
13,816
1,126
126
Originally posted by: element
Why haven't we been attacked again?

I mean if Iraq had nothing to do with 911, and we failed to catch Bin Laden, then why has terrorism on our soil stopped? Why is Bush's war working?

Nice try. Come back on the 3rd and ask if we care then either.
 

umbrella39

Lifer
Jun 11, 2004
13,816
1,126
126
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: ntdz
liberals will try to tell you there is always a long lag time between attacks. They don't like to admit anything bush does works. They hate him more than they hate Bin Laden.
I have to admit, I would hate you with your frequent trolling, but then I remind myself that arrogant neocons with attitudes just like yours are why so many people hate Bush and your ilk.

To point out: you establish no point. You provide no proof. You simply make some blanket statement about "liberals" (a group that is typically left undefined except to make sure that they are to be demeaned) that may or may not be how some people really think, but you accuse them in advance with the most assinine idiotic argument anyone could ever possibly make, and then think you made some big funny.

There is a reason I left the Republican party to become a Libertarian. I was afraid of being associated with people like you.

Good for you. Their kind will go the way of the dinosaur soon enough. The people needed someone like Bush to see just how hideous the neocon agenda really is. I am happy he came along when he did.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,337
136
Originally posted by: cwjerome
Vic: That's what I'm talking about. Stupidity meet stupidity... k, thx.
No, what you said was stupid. You inserted a false agenda that you think your political opponent might have in order to suppress debate and democratic process and advance your own agenda. If you did it consciously, I might give you credit. But you do it on reflex, and believe that is your opponent's agenda without asking them, simply because someone on the radio or TV told you so. Sad. Lowest common denominator mob thinking.
 

Engineer

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
39,230
701
126
It hasn't......the Bush administration including the likes of Cheney and Ashcroft are terrorizing the citizens of this country everyday. :roll:

This is another troll thread.....you're on a roll.

This is a complete theory. Prove that the Iraq war WAS the reason that we have not been attacked by the terrorists over the last 3 years? Not spin, solid proof. Not hypothesis or even uneducated guesses (both are guesses). If you're so sure, give the proof.
 

chess9

Elite member
Apr 15, 2000
7,748
0
0
Since Bush invaded Iraq I haven't died of cancer. I hope Bush keeps killing Iraqis so I can go on living.

-Robert
 

joshw10

Senior member
Feb 16, 2004
806
0
0
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
I could have carried out 9/11 with two weeks' advanced notice with any 19 Joe Schmoes from my high school class, and half of them couldn't read at a fourth grade level. The idea that it's so sophisticated or difficult to pull off such an attack is ignorant in the extreme. Pretending that Kerry can somehow magically make it more difficult to pull it off is naive. No president can protect you from terrorism.

I nominate this for dumbest post of the week. It's just hysterical.

P.S. - thanks for telling us you're still in high school