So let me guess.

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: jrenz

Originally posted by: Craig234
Why do so many righty posters come across as frat boy mentalities?

Originally posted by: Harvey
...Asshole In Chief ...

...war of LIES...

Originally posted by: PrevaricatorJohn
Personally, I have no clue...

QFT! :laugh:

ASSHOLE IN CHEIF

FUCK GEORGE W. BUSH AND HIS ENTIRE CRIMINAL ADMINISTRATION! :thumbsdown: :| :thumbsdown:

Prick and Vice Prick...

...Asshole In Chief...

What were you saying Craig?

PS - I guess mods are above the law when it comes to the language filter.

I'm not saying that the lefties don't have our own issues in some posts.

But that's not what I mean by "frat boy". There's a special sort of attitude which treats issues and human beings as nothing but objects for playing games in policy debates, whether it's who can 'win' a nuclear war because they have more people left at the end, to playing board games around wars in regions of the world to increase our own power there, but notably with a sort of sneering sarcasm.

Two examples really hit the issue I mean - the expression that William Kristol always wears, with a sort of sneering smile on the verge of a boyish laugh no matter what he's saying, and the 'hehe' snicker of George Bush after whatever policy statement that Jon Stewart satirizes.

Another classic example is the Wall Street Journal editorial board, who is filled with these frat boys, not only calling the poor 'lucky duckies', but taking pleasure in the anger it caused. It's the same sneer that they take when Ann Coulter calls another democrat a 'lovely human', or with getting away with the false story claiming the Clinton administration trashed te White House when leaving. It's that sort of 'getting away with something wrong as long as it hurts the other side' immaturity.

It's the same syndrome seen by the Karl Rove crowd, going back to their days in the college republicans, pulling similar 'pranks' (it's the same mentality that led him to later 'dirty tricks' like planting a microphone and accusing the opponent of doing it; it worked, his candidate then won); the same mentality that has led the Dartmouth Review newspaper to say outrageous things against gays or pull stunts like offering a white-only scholarship, and snicker at the outrage they cause - not really serious, but enjoying the hostility.

I see this in the 'right wingers', not the real conservatives like the Barry Goldwater types, who are properly contemptuous of these foolish, mean-spirited people.

They seem to have a special arrogance that leads them to treat issues that affect people as a game for their amusement.

There were stories of George Bush at Harvard, he'd say something outrageous in class about Viet Nam to offend people and snicker, and then in a cowardly way deny saying it.

In fact, I'll use that as an example of this 'frat boy right-wing mentality', excerpting an article about Bush at Harvard:

"I don't remember all the students in detail unless I'm prompted by something," Tsurumi said in a telephone interview Wednesday. "But I always remember two types of students. One is the very excellent student, the type as a professor you feel honored to be working with. Someone with strong social values, compassion and intellect -- the very rare person you never forget. And then you remember students like George Bush, those who are totally the opposite."

One of Tsurumi's standout students was Rep. Chris Cox, R-Calif., now the seventh-ranking member of the House Republican leadership. "I typed him as a conservative Republican with a conscience," Tsurumi said. "He never confused his own ideology with economics, and he didn't try to hide his ignorance of a subject in mumbo jumbo. He was what I call a principled conservative."...

Bush, by contrast, "was totally the opposite of Chris Cox," Tsurumi said. "He showed pathological lying habits and was in denial when challenged on his prejudices and biases. He would even deny saying something he just said 30 seconds ago. He was famous for that. Students jumped on him; I challenged him." When asked to explain a particular comment, said Tsurumi, Bush would respond, "Oh, I never said that."

In 1973, as the oil and energy crisis raged, Tsurumi led a discussion on whether government should assist retirees and other people on fixed incomes with heating costs. Bush, he recalled, "made this ridiculous statement and when I asked him to explain, he said, 'The government doesn't have to help poor people -- because they are lazy.' I said, 'Well, could you explain that assumption?' Not only could he not explain it, he started backtracking on it, saying, 'No, I didn't say that.'"

Bush once sneered at Tsurumi for showing the film "The Grapes of Wrath," based on John Steinbeck's novel of the Depression. "We were in a discussion of the New Deal, and he called Franklin Roosevelt's policies 'socialism.' He denounced labor unions, the Securities and Exchange Commission, Medicare, Social Security, you name it. He denounced the civil rights movement as socialism. To him, socialism and communism were the same thing. And when challenged to explain his prejudice, he could not defend his argument, either ideologically, polemically or academically."

Students who challenged and embarrassed Bush in class would then become the subject of a whispering campaign by him, Tsurumi said. "In class, he couldn't challenge them. But after class, he sometimes came up to me in the hallway and started bad-mouthing those students who had challenged him. He would complain that someone was drinking too much. It was innuendo and lies. So that's how I knew, behind his smile and his smirk, that he was a very insecure, cunning and vengeful guy."

"I used to chat up a number of students when we were walking back to class," Tsurumi said. "Here was Bush, wearing a Texas Guard bomber jacket, and the draft was the No. 1 topic in those days. And I said, 'George, what did you do with the draft?' He said, 'Well, I got into the Texas Air National Guard.' And I said, 'Lucky you. I understand there is a long waiting list for it. How'd you get in?' When he told me, he didn't seem ashamed or embarrassed. He thought he was entitled to all kinds of privileges and special deals. He was not the only one trying to twist all their connections to avoid Vietnam. But then, he was fanatically for the war."

Tsurumi told Bush that someone who avoided a draft while supporting a war in which others were dying was a hypocrite. "He realized he was caught, showed his famous smirk and huffed off."

Tsurumi's conclusion: Bush is not as dumb as his detractors allege. "He was just badly brought up, with no discipline, and no compassion," he said.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: marincounty

Originally posted by: palehorse74
I think everyone here, regardless of party and political motivation, should pray every day that we do not go to war with Iran. Not because we couldnt win, but because the war is absolutely unnecessary.

Small black operations to destroy their nuclear facilities should do the trick nicely... going to "war" would be a big mistake.

Kind of like how GWB invaded an entire country to remove one person. His own father knew better than to try and occupy Iraq. Why not a black bag operation against Saddam instead?
Mission accomplished, complete failure.

are you real, or are you another propaganda-spitting spambot? if you're the latter, please leave, as we have plenty of those already.

Let's TRY to keep this thread on the subject of Iran, shall we?

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: senseamp
What makes you think our black ops are capable of destroying Iran's nuke facilities? And, also we are much more vulnerable to Iran's black ops funding, supplying and training insurgents in Iraq against our troops then they are to us destroying their nuclear facilities. We could be in the same position as Russians were in Afghanistan with a well supplied insurgency slowly bleeding us dry.

I think you're a little off target here. There are several crucial distinctions.

(1)- We wouldn't need to occupy Iran, to do so would be counterproductive to the point of insanity.

(2)- The black ops should easily be capable of destroying Iran's nuclear assets. The great thing about this situation is the resources are so finite that they are extremely hard to replace after being damaged/destroyed. The attrition ratio of our ability to destroy them vs. their ability to replace them heavily favors us.

(3)- What does Iranian attacking troops in Iraq have to do with this? If things escalate in the region, it would be easy to close all traffic between Iraq/Iran with a few armored divisions with apache/f16/f15/awacs air coverage.

(4)- Profit.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: senseamp
What makes you think our black ops are capable of destroying Iran's nuke facilities? And, also we are much more vulnerable to Iran's black ops funding, supplying and training insurgents in Iraq against our troops then they are to us destroying their nuclear facilities. We could be in the same position as Russians were in Afghanistan with a well supplied insurgency slowly bleeding us dry.

I think you're a little off target here. There are several crucial distinctions.

(1)- We wouldn't need to occupy Iran, to do so would be counterproductive to the point of insanity.

(2)- The black ops should easily be capable of destroying Iran's nuclear assets. The great thing about this situation is the resources are so finite that they are extremely hard to replace after being damaged/destroyed. The attrition ratio of our ability to destroy them vs. their ability to replace them heavily favors us.

(3)- What does Iranian attacking troops in Iraq have to do with this? If things escalate in the region, it would be easy to close all traffic between Iraq/Iran with a few armored divisions with apache/f16/f15/awacs air coverage.

(4)- Profit.

You are simply naive if you think you can stop traffic between Iraq and Iran, or that destroying their nuclear assets would be easy. If it was easy to do with just black ops, Israel would have done it already. These are well defended, well protected assets, that are kept deep underground.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: senseamp
What makes you think our black ops are capable of destroying Iran's nuke facilities? And, also we are much more vulnerable to Iran's black ops funding, supplying and training insurgents in Iraq against our troops then they are to us destroying their nuclear facilities. We could be in the same position as Russians were in Afghanistan with a well supplied insurgency slowly bleeding us dry.

I think you're a little off target here. There are several crucial distinctions.

(1)- We wouldn't need to occupy Iran, to do so would be counterproductive to the point of insanity.

(2)- The black ops should easily be capable of destroying Iran's nuclear assets. The great thing about this situation is the resources are so finite that they are extremely hard to replace after being damaged/destroyed. The attrition ratio of our ability to destroy them vs. their ability to replace them heavily favors us.

(3)- What does Iranian attacking troops in Iraq have to do with this? If things escalate in the region, it would be easy to close all traffic between Iraq/Iran with a few armored divisions with apache/f16/f15/awacs air coverage.

(4)- Profit.

You are simply naive if you think you can stop traffic between Iraq and Iran, or that destroying their nuclear assets would be easy. If it was easy to do with just black ops, Israel would have done it already. These are well defended, well protected assets, that are kept deep underground.

have you seen the sites? or perhaps you're privy to some target packages thoroughly describing the sites? Or perhaps you are former SOF and therefore have intimate knowledge of US and Israeli SOF capabilities?

Or maybe, just maybe, you stayed in a Holiday Inn Express last night?

Which is it? do tell!

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: senseamp
What makes you think our black ops are capable of destroying Iran's nuke facilities? And, also we are much more vulnerable to Iran's black ops funding, supplying and training insurgents in Iraq against our troops then they are to us destroying their nuclear facilities. We could be in the same position as Russians were in Afghanistan with a well supplied insurgency slowly bleeding us dry.

I think you're a little off target here. There are several crucial distinctions.

(1)- We wouldn't need to occupy Iran, to do so would be counterproductive to the point of insanity.

(2)- The black ops should easily be capable of destroying Iran's nuclear assets. The great thing about this situation is the resources are so finite that they are extremely hard to replace after being damaged/destroyed. The attrition ratio of our ability to destroy them vs. their ability to replace them heavily favors us.

(3)- What does Iranian attacking troops in Iraq have to do with this? If things escalate in the region, it would be easy to close all traffic between Iraq/Iran with a few armored divisions with apache/f16/f15/awacs air coverage.

(4)- Profit.

You are simply naive if you think you can stop traffic between Iraq and Iran, or that destroying their nuclear assets would be easy. If it was easy to do with just black ops, Israel would have done it already. These are well defended, well protected assets, that are kept deep underground.

have you seen the sites? or perhaps you're privy to some target packages thoroughly describing the sites? Or perhaps you are former SOF and therefore have intimate knowledge of US and Israeli SOF capabilities?

Or maybe, just maybe, you stayed in a Holiday Inn Express last night?

Which is it? do tell!

Well why don't you tell us what your qualifications are for claiming that

Small black operations to destroy their nuclear facilities should do the trick nicely...

Let me guess you probably thought that Iraqis would welcome us with flowers too :roll:

 

[jhbball]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: jrenz

Originally posted by: Craig234
Why do so many righty posters come across as frat boy mentalities?

Originally posted by: Harvey
...Asshole In Chief ...

...war of LIES...

Originally posted by: PrevaricatorJohn
Personally, I have no clue...

QFT! :laugh:

ASSHOLE IN CHEIF

FUCK GEORGE W. BUSH AND HIS ENTIRE CRIMINAL ADMINISTRATION! :thumbsdown: :| :thumbsdown:

Prick and Vice Prick...

...Asshole In Chief...

What were you saying Craig?

PS - I guess mods are above the law when it comes to the language filter.

I'm not saying that the lefties don't have our own issues in some posts.

But that's not what I mean by "frat boy". There's a special sort of attitude which treats issues and human beings as nothing but objects for playing games in policy debates, whether it's who can 'win' a nuclear war because they have more people left at the end, to playing board games around wars in regions of the world to increase our own power there, but notably with a sort of sneering sarcasm.

Two examples really hit the issue I mean - the expression that William Kristol always wears, with a sort of sneering smile on the verge of a boyish laugh no matter what he's saying, and the 'hehe' snicker of George Bush after whatever policy statement that Jon Stewart satirizes.

Another classic example is the Wall Street Journal editorial board, who is filled with these frat boys, not only calling the poor 'lucky duckies', but taking pleasure in the anger it caused. It's the same sneer that they take when Ann Coulter calls another democrat a 'lovely human', or with getting away with the false story claiming the Clinton administration trashed te White House when leaving. It's that sort of 'getting away with something wrong as long as it hurts the other side' immaturity.

It's the same syndrome seen by the Karl Rove crowd, going back to their days in the college republicans, pulling similar 'pranks' (it's the same mentality that led him to later 'dirty tricks' like planting a microphone and accusing the opponent of doing it; it worked, his candidate then won); the same mentality that has led the Dartmouth Review newspaper to say outrageous things against gays or pull stunts like offering a white-only scholarship, and snicker at the outrage they cause - not really serious, but enjoying the hostility.

I see this in the 'right wingers', not the real conservatives like the Barry Goldwater types, who are properly contemptuous of these foolish, mean-spirited people.

They seem to have a special arrogance that leads them to treat issues that affect people as a game for their amusement.

There were stories of George Bush at Harvard, he'd say something outrageous in class about Viet Nam to offend people and snicker, and then in a cowardly way deny saying it.

In fact, I'll use that as an example of this 'frat boy right-wing mentality', excerpting an article about Bush at Harvard:

"I don't remember all the students in detail unless I'm prompted by something," Tsurumi said in a telephone interview Wednesday. "But I always remember two types of students. One is the very excellent student, the type as a professor you feel honored to be working with. Someone with strong social values, compassion and intellect -- the very rare person you never forget. And then you remember students like George Bush, those who are totally the opposite."

One of Tsurumi's standout students was Rep. Chris Cox, R-Calif., now the seventh-ranking member of the House Republican leadership. "I typed him as a conservative Republican with a conscience," Tsurumi said. "He never confused his own ideology with economics, and he didn't try to hide his ignorance of a subject in mumbo jumbo. He was what I call a principled conservative."...

Bush, by contrast, "was totally the opposite of Chris Cox," Tsurumi said. "He showed pathological lying habits and was in denial when challenged on his prejudices and biases. He would even deny saying something he just said 30 seconds ago. He was famous for that. Students jumped on him; I challenged him." When asked to explain a particular comment, said Tsurumi, Bush would respond, "Oh, I never said that."

In 1973, as the oil and energy crisis raged, Tsurumi led a discussion on whether government should assist retirees and other people on fixed incomes with heating costs. Bush, he recalled, "made this ridiculous statement and when I asked him to explain, he said, 'The government doesn't have to help poor people -- because they are lazy.' I said, 'Well, could you explain that assumption?' Not only could he not explain it, he started backtracking on it, saying, 'No, I didn't say that.'"

Bush once sneered at Tsurumi for showing the film "The Grapes of Wrath," based on John Steinbeck's novel of the Depression. "We were in a discussion of the New Deal, and he called Franklin Roosevelt's policies 'socialism.' He denounced labor unions, the Securities and Exchange Commission, Medicare, Social Security, you name it. He denounced the civil rights movement as socialism. To him, socialism and communism were the same thing. And when challenged to explain his prejudice, he could not defend his argument, either ideologically, polemically or academically."

Students who challenged and embarrassed Bush in class would then become the subject of a whispering campaign by him, Tsurumi said. "In class, he couldn't challenge them. But after class, he sometimes came up to me in the hallway and started bad-mouthing those students who had challenged him. He would complain that someone was drinking too much. It was innuendo and lies. So that's how I knew, behind his smile and his smirk, that he was a very insecure, cunning and vengeful guy."

"I used to chat up a number of students when we were walking back to class," Tsurumi said. "Here was Bush, wearing a Texas Guard bomber jacket, and the draft was the No. 1 topic in those days. And I said, 'George, what did you do with the draft?' He said, 'Well, I got into the Texas Air National Guard.' And I said, 'Lucky you. I understand there is a long waiting list for it. How'd you get in?' When he told me, he didn't seem ashamed or embarrassed. He thought he was entitled to all kinds of privileges and special deals. He was not the only one trying to twist all their connections to avoid Vietnam. But then, he was fanatically for the war."

Tsurumi told Bush that someone who avoided a draft while supporting a war in which others were dying was a hypocrite. "He realized he was caught, showed his famous smirk and huffed off."

Tsurumi's conclusion: Bush is not as dumb as his detractors allege. "He was just badly brought up, with no discipline, and no compassion," he said.

Excellent post, and interesting read.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: senseamp
Well why don't you tell us what your qualifications are for claiming that

Small black operations to destroy their nuclear facilities should do the trick nicely...

I actually am intimately familiar with target packages and allied SOF capabilities; given that working with both is what I do every day of my life and all... 😀

Let me guess you probably thought that Iraqis would welcome us with flowers too :roll:

Many Iraqis did, in fact, greet us with "flowers" during, and immediately following, the initial invasion. Our reception during the initial stages of the campaign has never been an issue... only later did the grapes turn sour.

your turn.

 

[Lemon law]

That small black box op was exactly how Japan viewed Pearl Harbor back on 12/7/41. But seems ole Uncle Sammy took it a little personal---and didn't get over the snit until he had dropped the first two A-bombs in human history. Of course Iran could take it personal also---an fly off the handle by shutting down the Persian Gulf. And bring us the $30.00 gasoline GWB&co. so want.

Its what happens when one engages in unwarranted sneak attacks---best be ready to pay the piper.

And Palehorse74---given the bangup job you and your ilk are doing in Iraq to control terrorism and bring about a more civilized Union among the various insurgent groups, pardon me if I regard you as a not very credible fellow. And I really shudder when you seek new worlds to conquer in Iran---with the cry its gonna be SO EASY.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
That small black box op was exactly how Japan viewed Pearl Harbor back on 12/7/41. But seems ole Uncle Sammy took it a little personal---and didn't get over the snit until he had dropped the first two A-bombs in human history. Of course Iran could take it personal also---an fly off the handle by shutting down the Persian Gulf. And bring us the $30.00 gasoline GWB&co. so want.

Its what happens when one engages in unwarranted sneak attacks---best be ready to pay the piper.

And Palehorse74---given the bangup job you and your ilk are doing in Iraq to control terrorism and bring about a more civilized Union among the various insurgent groups, pardon me if I regard you as a not very credible fellow. And I really shudder when you seek new worlds to conquer in Iran---with the cry its gonna be SO EASY.

I guess you missed the following statement I made earlier in this thread...

I think everyone here, regardless of party and political motivation, should pray every day that we do not go to war with Iran.

good game genius.

ps: just what exactly did you mean by the obviously patronizing "your ilk"? you almost ready to start spitting on the troops? i thought so...

 

[jrenz]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
That small black box op was exactly how Japan viewed Pearl Harbor back on 12/7/41. But seems ole Uncle Sammy took it a little personal---and didn't get over the snit until he had dropped the first two A-bombs in human history.

Do you even know what you're talking about anymore?

Of course Iran could take it personal also---an fly off the handle by shutting down the Persian Gulf. And bring us the $30.00 gasoline GWB&co. so want.

Apart from your inane ramblings... you seem to think that A) The US is the only person who's be pissed at Iran if they did something like that, and B) nomatter what happens, it will be Bush's fault.

Its what happens when one engages in unwarranted sneak attacks---best be ready to pay the piper.

What would warrant a "sneak attack" then? Waiting until Iran has a functioning nuclear weapon? Or should we wait until they use it? You're letting a mismanaged war cloud your judgment on a real threat to the world.

And Palehorse74---given the bangup job you and your ilk are doing in Iraq to control terrorism and bring about a more civilized Union among the various insurgent groups, pardon me if I regard you as a not very credible fellow.

"Blame our troops! Blame our troops!"

Classic.

And I really shudder when you seek new worlds to conquer in Iran---with the cry its gonna be SO EASY.

so you're an idiot AND illiterate.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Craig234
I'm not saying that the lefties don't have our own issues in some posts.

Some? :laugh:

This thread is a shining example.

Dick Cheney warned nearly 3 years ago that Iran was next on the radar and would have to be dealt with. Apparently, the sheep are just now waking up to the reality. It isn't IF, it is when we are forced to strike Iran and deal with them.

 

[Lemon law]

I see I really struck a nerve when I used the word ilk--but its not an insult to our troops---its an intended insult to those managing the Iraqi occupation---the very folks palehorse74 brags about being thick as thieves with.

And I hope no one is citing Dick Cheney and his insane greed as something to pay any heed to either. He is the ilk central---and could not implement in Iraq either. Cheney understands power and how to use it---but knows nothing about people.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
I see I really struck a nerve when I used the word ilk--but its not an insult to our troops---its an intended insult to those managing the Iraqi occupation---the very folks palehorse74 brags about being thick as thieves with.

I've never bragged about any such thing. You are so FOS, I can smell you from here. You're just a troop-hating bigot who places everyone who disagrees with you in the same category. In truth, I disagree with the majority of this Admin's policies, decisions, and actions - and I've said as much many times. But what do you care? Instead of arguing the facts, you simply dismiss me as some sort of Bush-lover. I guess that helps you feel better about yourself...

You also love to talk out of both sides of your mouth when it comes to our troops - which makes me sick.

Go hug another suicide bomber.

 

[Lemon law]

I certainly don't hate our troops---I want them out of Iraq and out of harms way---which now won't be as easy---because we have to worry about what happens to Iraq when we leave---something that we would not have to worry about if GWB&co. had never invaded in the first place.

And no I don't like suicide bombers either---or thieves like Cheney or GWB---but of the two groups---the suicide bomber is far more principled and courageous than GWB or Cheney. And since GWB&Cheney are the root cause of the Iraqi suicide bomber---I go after the root cause.

And sadly, our troops are going to be the one who pays the price so GWB can play at being a war time President.

Maybe that is what you want for your country---but it sure is not what I want my country doing.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
And no I don't like suicide bombers either---or thieves like Cheney or GWB---but of the two groups---the suicide bomber is far more principled and courageous than GWB or Cheney.

Unbelievable. And you wonder why those like yourself are so oft accused of aiding the enemy.

 

[Lemon law]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Lemon law
And no I don't like suicide bombers either---or thieves like Cheney or GWB---but of the two groups---the suicide bomber is far more principled and courageous than GWB or Cheney.

Unbelievable. And you wonder why those like yourself are so oft accused of aiding the enemy.

I am merely making an observation---and saying GWB&Cheney are what causes suicide bombers.

And rather than even attempt to refute the statement--you accuse me of aiding the enemy?
Please explain how an observation after the fact can be a cause?

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
I am merely making an observation---and saying GWB&Cheney are what causes suicide bombers.

Right, because there were never any suicide bombers prior to the current Administration. 😕

You can duck from your words now, but the fact that you find a brainwashed islamofascist with a bomb strapped to himself to be more "courageous" than those running this country pretty much speaks for itself.

 

[jrenz]

Originally posted by: Lemon law

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Lemon law
And no I don't like suicide bombers either---or thieves like Cheney or GWB---but of the two groups---the suicide bomber is far more principled and courageous than GWB or Cheney.

Unbelievable. And you wonder why those like yourself are so oft accused of aiding the enemy.

I am merely making an observation---and saying GWB&Cheney are what causes suicide bombers.

And rather than even attempt to refute the statement--you accuse me of aiding the enemy?
Please explain how an observation after the fact can be a cause?

Islam and the leaders who preach it cause suicide bombers.

Try and refute that. Better yet, try to make the case that your statement is more correct than mine.

 

[Sinsear]

Originally posted by: senseamp
What makes you think our black ops are capable of destroying Iran's nuke facilities? And, also we are much more vulnerable to Iran's black ops funding, supplying and training insurgents in Iraq against our troops then they are to us destroying their nuclear facilities. We could be in the same position as Russians were in Afghanistan with a well supplied insurgency slowly bleeding us dry.

Don't need black ops at all really; tactical air strikes and cruise missiles should do the job.

 

[alchemize]

And another new low reached by a moonbat on P&N!

 

[jrenz]

Originally posted by: alchemize
And another new low reached by a moonbat on P&N!

This forum is like a never ending game of limbo.

 

[Lemon law]

The question is who is more brainwashed----the islamofascist----or you for believing anything GWB&co says?

And please explain how courageous GWB was in ducking his cush reserve slot his daddy had to pull string to get him in---or ole five deferment Cheney who never
served at all?

 

[Sinsear]

Originally posted by: jrenz

Islam and the leaders who preach it cause suicide bombers.

Precisely; all the preaching and brainwashing about the righteousness and rewards of jihad and living forever in martyrdom is what causes suicide bombers.

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
The question is who is more brainwashed----the islamofascist----or you for believing anything GWB&co says?

And please explain how courageous GWB was in ducking his cush reserve slot his daddy had to pull string to get him in---or ole five deferment Cheney who never
served at all?

Yes, because holding political beliefs contrary to yours is the moral equivalent of mass murdering innocent civilians :roll:

Keep going, this is fun to watch!