Originally posted by: hokiezilla
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
That's a nice rant. It's a shame you don't see how disconnected it is from reality.
For example, you say you admire Bush because he "has the stones to take a stand against those cowardly goat-humping punks who hit us on 9-11." Unfortunately, those "goat-humping punks" were in Afghanistan, not Iraq. By detouring into Iraq, Bush undermined our ability to aggressively and successfully pursue bin Laden and al-Qaida.
I'm sorry, when did we leave Afghanistan? My cousin is there right now looking for that turd-knocker. So what?s your point? How has it undermined our ability to pursue bin Laden? Do you think if we showed up with 500,000 troops in Afghanistan that the Afghan mountains would somehow magically crap him out because of overwhelming numerical superiority?
We are doing what is correct and proper in Afghanistan. We have partnered with the Afghani?s to find him. They know the country and the people better than we ever will.
The invasion of Iraq divided our attention and stretched our resources. We were no longer able to focus on fighting terrorism as well as we could have, as well as we should have. Iraq became the focus; terrorism became a sidebar. Even worse, by shunning world opinion and invading Iraq, we lost the support and whole-hearted cooperation of many of the countries that could help us fight terrorism -- real terrorism, not the sham "terrorism" in Iraq. Bush's cowboy antics make America and the world more dangerous.
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Once he started beating the drums for Iraq, Bush even stopped referring to bin Laden, effectively reducing pressure on him.
So because Bush stopped talking about him incessantly before the press, we still aren?t trying to pursue him? Gee where did you come by that info? Wow, you?re one to talk about cognitive dissonance.
You are welcome to your opinion, no matter how ill-informed it might be. Half the battle is psychological, both with our targets and with onlookers and potential allies.
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Now, 2 1/2 years later, we still don't have bin Laden. We do have hundreds of dead Americans, thousands of dead Iraqis, $200 billion in reckless spending, alienated former allies, and an inflamed Arab world providing hundreds of new recruits for terror against the western infidels.
Way to go, George! Bring 'em on!!! :roll:
You know, I think the reason that a lot of Americans who are opposed to this war are simply afraid to face the inevitable. One way or another will we have to fight these a**holes. What?s the difference between now and 5 years down the road? Does it take getting hit again like we did on 9-11 for some of you people to understand that you can?t play nice, you can?t negotiate, and you can?t reason with terrorists. The only thing they understand, fear, and respect is brute force. I?m not an internationalist, but I?m sure as hell not an isolationist either. Some things you cannot avoid.
You continue to confuse terrorism and Iraq. I fully supported our efforts in Afghanistan. So did most of the rest of the world. Iraq, on the other hand, did not need to be dealt with now. Even Bush
now admits Iraq posed no imminent threat to America or our allies.
... Thus, the only thing driving Islamic terrorist groups is power, hatred of America, and a COMMON ideal- radical Islamic fundamentalism.
Exactly. By invading Iraq, we poured gasoline on those flames of hatred. We proved everything bin Laden said about the U.S. to be right.
Do you posit that Saddamn had no connections to international terrorism? That?s like saying a bear doesn?t fart in the woods. To say that there exists no possibility that terror groups or terror leaders have no affiliation, and do not assist each other is both preposterous and schizophrenic.
No, Saddam had no significant involvement with international terrorism. You don't have to take my word for, ask your feckless leader in the White House. Even though he constantly connected Iraq to 9/11 through innuendo, when pressed on it directly, he acknowledges there was no connection. If you want to go after countries supporting terrorism, start with Saudi Arabia. Of course they've been in bed with the Bushes years, so that's not going to happen.
The rest of your mini-rant is a red herring. I suspect the tinfoil may be poisoning the blood around your brain.
Saddamn is/was a murdering bastard. He violated sanction after sanction with impunity.
That part is true. That's not sufficient reason to invade another country, especially when the U.N. did NOT support an invasion. (You remember the U.N., right? The guys whose resolutions Iraq violated.)
He sponsored terrorism and he had links to Al Queda. According to the UN, Germany, France, and the U.S. he had WMD. He had the will and intent to produce them. The world is a better place without that pig-eyed sack of sh*t.
This part is standard-issue, Bush apologist tripe.
As for ?former allies?- I think that?s a bit of wishful chicken-little hyperbole.
I'm sure you do, but we've already established reality is not your strong suit.
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
You also claim you "will not vote for the party who has proven over the past 50 years that their ONLY answer is MORE government." You also claim you will vote for Republican Bush. The two comments are contradictory. Both parties have shown an insatiable appetite for expanding government.
Those two comments are not contradictory. I thought I made it plain that I know Republicans are not hell-bent on bringing us smaller government- at least not like they used to. OTOH, when is the last time that the Democrats have offered or actually given us a tax break? I think you have to go back to the era of the real ?JFK? to find that happening.
When's the last time Republicans balanced a budget? Isn't it irresponsible to cut revenue below expenditures? You're the one who claims you support Republicans for something that you then admit they don't do.
Tax breaks are a matter for a different thread. Briefly, however, where is your evidence we need a tax break at all? Americans make
and keep more money than almost anyone else in the world. By international standards, our net incomes make even lower-income Americans fabulously wealthy. Other than naked greed, how do you justify your cries for tax breaks?
My point is you continue to support Republicans even though their elected politicians do the opposite of what the Party claims they'll do. One of the definitions of insanity is continuing to do the same thing yet expecting a different outcome. If you want to change the Republican Party, you (and millions of others) need to change your behavior. You need to stop rubber-stamping their hypocrisy.
That's enough. The rest of your post was more empty party-line rhetoric bearing no resemblance to reality.
.
Facebook
Twitter