Question for War Supporters

[Hugh Lincoln]

What would a "victory" in Iraq look like?

(Please note that I am not a liberal. I don't like Pelosi, Hillary, Obama and the gang. I have voted exclusively for Republicans all my life. But I am also not a "neocon" by any stretch - I prefer the Reagan right, the paleocons, the hard-core right, Pat Buchanan, etc. Just for the record so folks know where I'm coming from.)

[Dilloduck]

What would a "victory" in Iraq look like?

(Please note that I am not a liberal. I don't like Pelosi, Hillary, Obama and the gang. I have voted exclusively for Republicans all my life. But I am also not a "neocon" by any stretch - I prefer the Reagan right, the paleocons, the hard-core right, Pat Buchanan, etc. Just for the record so folks know where I'm coming from.)

I think a US victory in Iraq would be represented by a sovereign Iraq that setted its' internal differences wthout resorting to killing each other, saw the US as an ally and the expulsion of all foreign influences dedicated to keeping Iraq as a chaotic radical Islamic arena.

What would a defeat look like ?

[Hugh Lincoln]

Fair enough answer... I just don't think that's much of a military goal or even a legitimate political one. How can soldiers settle the tribal differences? Soldiers kill people. The only solution there would be to kill all the Sunnis and just let the Shiites take over. But then... the Shiites still have radical Islamic tendencies.

And I guess I don't know what a defeat would look like, since I think "victory" and "defeat" are the wrong terms here.

Whole thing's a huge mess. Personal opinion is the military should be used to defend our territory where the defense requires securing land and driving out enemies. Not humanitarian missions, etc.

[LiberalNation]

I don't know what "victory" in Iraq would look like. It'll probably be what we declare when we pull out though it wont look much like a victory. Hopefully the PR people can think of something good so we don't look to bad when the inevitable happens.

[musicman]

I think that victory in Iraq would look much like victory in Vietnam would have looked, had we - and the Vietnamese - not been rescued from that unthinkable fate by American liberals.

The parallels evident in the two conflicts speak volumes about the American political scene of recent history. Democratization of the respective regions would prove (or, have proven) advantageous to us (and infinitely preferable to the enslaved residents of the regions). However, to think democratization of the regions is/was the sole aim of the conflicts is to overlook the context in which they're fought.

Like Vietnam, Iraq is but a single, strategic battle in a far larger war - a war we must win. And, again, we find some of our most treacherous enemies on the home front - in the person of the American Left.

[Dilloduck]

Fair enough answer... I just don't think that's much of a military goal or even a legitimate political one. How can soldiers settle the tribal differences? Soldiers kill people. The only solution there would be to kill all the Sunnis and just let the Shiites take over. But then... the Shiites still have radical Islamic tendencies.

And I guess I don't know what a defeat would look like, since I think "victory" and "defeat" are the wrong terms here.

Whole thing's a huge mess. Personal opinion is the military should be used to defend our territory where the defense requires securing land and driving out enemies. Not humanitarian missions, etc.


You're the one who came up the word ! Ya--soldiers kill people who are in the way of victory. The more they kill the better chance for victory (unless of course polticians snatch it away from them).

[darin]

Whole thing's a huge mess. Personal opinion is the military should be used to defend our territory where the defense requires securing land and driving out enemies. Not humanitarian missions, etc.


If we lose, Al Qaeda gets control of Iraq's resources. Winning in Iraq IS defending our borders.

[Hugh Lincoln]

If we lose, Al Qaeda gets control of Iraq's resources. Winning in Iraq IS defending our borders.

So how would you achieve this victory?

I don't know about the al Qaeda connection. Saddam Hussein would have crushed al Quada without mercy... how was removing him from power a path to this?

[SassyLady]

Fair enough answer... I just don't think that's much of a military goal or even a legitimate political one. How can soldiers settle the tribal differences? Soldiers kill people. The only solution there would be to kill all the Sunnis and just let the Shiites take over. But then... the Shiites still have radical Islamic tendencies.

And I guess I don't know what a defeat would look like, since I think "victory" and "defeat" are the wrong terms here.

Whole thing's a huge mess. Personal opinion is the military should be used to defend our territory where the defense requires securing land and driving out enemies. Not humanitarian missions, etc.

You make it sound as if the only mission a solider has is to kill. You need to get a wider perspective on what soldiers do. Yes, they are trained to kill when NEEDED, however, their main mission is to provide a forum for freedom to flourish.

The military is to defend our homeland and to protect national interests, both here and abroad. Those who think the military is to only be stationed within the US borders is shortsighted and dangerous.

The US cannot be self-supporting in all areas. We need other countries for receiving our goods and for producing goods we need. Humanitarian efforts are ultimately in our best interests.

[trobinett]

Fair enough answer... I just don't think that's much of a military goal or even a legitimate political one. How can soldiers settle the tribal differences? Soldiers kill people. The only solution there would be to kill all the Sunnis and just let the Shiites take over. But then... the Shiites still have radical Islamic tendencies.

This ISN'T a war of "kill them all, and let God sort it out", its a war about eliminating the Islamic radicals.

War, however, IS about KILLING PEOPLE, always has been, always will be.

I'm on board with the elimination of the radical Islamic players. It's what has to happen.


And I guess I don't know what a defeat would look like, since I think "victory" and "defeat" are the wrong terms here.

Well, YOU are the one that asked what VICTORY would look like. Defeat would look ugly, sorta like Bully.:D


Whole thing's a huge mess. Personal opinion is the military should be used to defend our territory where the defense requires securing land and driving out enemies. Not humanitarian missions, etc.

Sorry Hugh, this WOT isn't a humanitarian mission, its a mission of survival, OUR survival.

[LiberalNation]

I'm on board with the elimination of the radical Islamic players. It's what has to happen.
lol you think that'll fix the problem. Leaders just lead the people behind them. Everyone you kill there will be another to replace him. You can't beat an ideology like this with guns and bombs. It's a propaganda war, a war of hearts and minds, one we're loosing pretty badly right now IMO.

[SassyLady]

any idea how we won previous wars?

[darin]

lol you think that'll fix the problem. Leaders just lead the people behind them. Everyone you kill there will be another to replace him. You can't beat an ideology like this with guns and bombs. It's a propaganda war, a war of hearts and minds, one we're loosing pretty badly right now IMO.

Yup - Just like Nazism and Communism right? There's NO WAY we could win against the Soviet Union's SUPERIOR NUMBERS!! we can't win!! Let's just cower to the bullies!

You're weak. Ya know that? Weak. :(

[manu1959]

lol you think that'll fix the problem. Leaders just lead the people behind them. Everyone you kill there will be another to replace him. You can't beat an ideology like this with guns and bombs. It's a propaganda war, a war of hearts and minds, one we're loosing pretty badly right now IMO.

not if you kill them all......

it is dificult to beat a propagand civil war waged by your own media.....

[jillian]

it is dificult to beat a propagand civil war waged by your own media.....

You mean like the one the Times did by letting Judy Miller post all the admin's propaganda in the run up to the Iraq war?

Might be true. :poke:

[LiberalNation]

any idea how we won previous wars?
We won conventional wars like WW1/2 because that's something we are good at. We can destroy shit. Now Vietnam we didn't do to well on, it wasn't a conventional war and was a mistake. We should not have supported the French and been against a people’s rebellion just because they chose communism as their government system.

I think will win this war just like we one the cold war. Our ideology will last and the Islamists will fail because when you get down to it theirs isn't a good system that anyone outside the ME would want to live under.

[OCA]

lol you think that'll fix the problem. Leaders just lead the people behind them. Everyone you kill there will be another to replace him. You can't beat an ideology like this with guns and bombs. It's a propaganda war, a war of hearts and minds, one we're loosing pretty badly right now IMO.

LMFAO! Another jackass who thinks you can sit down over a falafel and tea and change their minds. Shit, even a couple of Pakistani guys here that I know say that you have to kill every single one of them, there is no negotiating, its fanaticism on a scale never seen before.

Pull your head out of your ass!

[LiberalNation]

Not negotiate let them kill themselves off and protect yourself from them.

[manu1959]

You mean like the one the Times did by letting Judy Miller post all the admin's propaganda in the run up to the Iraq war?

Might be true. :poke:

all media are scum.....all means all.....

[stephanie]

You mean like the one the Times did by letting Judy Miller post all the admin's propaganda in the run up to the Iraq war?

Might be true. :poke:

Here's some more propaganda...

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." --President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." --President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." --Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." --Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by: -- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." -- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." Letter to President Bush, Signed by: -- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them." -- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." -- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." -- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" -- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." -- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..." -- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

[Bonnie]

Fair enough answer... I just don't think that's much of a military goal or even a legitimate political one. How can soldiers settle the tribal differences? Soldiers kill people. The only solution there would be to kill all the Sunnis and just let the Shiites take over. But then... the Shiites still have radical Islamic tendencies.

And I guess I don't know what a defeat would look like, since I think "victory" and "defeat" are the wrong terms here.

Whole thing's a huge mess. Personal opinion is the military should be used to defend our territory where the defense requires securing land and driving out enemies. Not humanitarian missions, etc.

Generally but there are advantages to having a friendly country like Iraq when and if it comes to putting boots on the ground in Iran or Syria. Free financially sucessful countries inhabited by happy citizens who actually have a steak in their own governments and futures are less likely to fall prey to the zealotry and brainwashing of terrorism.

Ps to me a victory looks like the US standing united even when wars get messy, take long, Hollywood and Jane Fonda weigh in, and when the US MSM is promoting thier own lets defeat Bush instead of the terrorists, so we can install Hillary and her annointed one into power ..propaganda.

[Bonnie]

Not negotiate let them kill themselves off and protect yourself from them.

Sounds good but that wasn't working on 9/11

[Hugh Lincoln]

You make it sound as if the only mission a solider has is to kill. You need to get a wider perspective on what soldiers do. Yes, they are trained to kill when NEEDED, however, their main mission is to provide a forum for freedom to flourish.

Whose damn freedom?

And who's standing in the way of it?

If the Shiite population wants an Islamic government in Iraq, well, U.S. soldiers sure as FUCK aren't "provingd a forum" for their freedom. If the Sunnis want Saddam back, same thing. The Kurds, maybe? Some seem to be defining "freedom" or "democracy" for Iraq in a way that just doesn't make a lick of sense. They imagine this amorophous "Iraqi people" that just doesn't exist. "Iraq" isn't even a real nation... it was drawn up by the British and ropes in wildly differing ethnic and tribal groups usually at odds with each other. Saddam kept it together by terrorizing Kurds and Shiites, best I can tell.

The truth is that the military mission was never to create a stable Iraq with a different leader. It was to create chaos for a nation that threatened Israel, and possibly set off a conflagration of the middle east that would see the U.S. destroying most of it so that Israel wouldn't have to launch one of its nukes... or could at least launch one with good reason, maybe at Iran.

None of which has anything to do with America's interests.

http://www.amconmag.com/03_24_03/cover.html

[SassyLady]

Whose damn freedom?

And who's standing in the way of it?

If the Shiite population wants an Islamic government in Iraq, well, U.S. soldiers sure as FUCK aren't "provingd a forum" for their freedom. If the Sunnis want Saddam back, same thing. The Kurds, maybe? Some seem to be defining "freedom" or "democracy" for Iraq in a way that just doesn't make a lick of sense. They imagine this amorophous "Iraqi people" that just doesn't exist. "Iraq" isn't even a real nation... it was drawn up by the British and ropes in wildly differing ethnic and tribal groups usually at odds with each other. Saddam kept it together by terrorizing Kurds and Shiites, best I can tell.

The truth is that the military mission was never to create a stable Iraq with a different leader. It was to create chaos for a nation that threatened Israel, and possibly set off a conflagration of the middle east that would see the U.S. destroying most of it so that Israel wouldn't have to launch one of its nukes... or could at least launch one with good reason, maybe at Iran.

None of which has anything to do with America's interests.

http://www.amconmag.com/03_24_03/cover.html


My statement was about the primary function of the military which you tried to say was to KILL. I pointed out to you that soldiers are trained to kill when NEEDED as opposed to your theory that their primary function is to kill.

Their primary function is to protect the interests of their country....both domestically and nationally, and at times this necessitates killing.

And I can tell from your post that you must hate Israel.

As for what our soldiers are doing in Iraq --- Shite, Kurd, Sunni and others should be given a chance to decide, by vote and not by dicatorship, what type of freedoms they want.

American interests - do you really think we have no interests in the ME?

[Dilloduck]

Whose damn freedom?

And who's standing in the way of it?

If the Shiite population wants an Islamic government in Iraq, well, U.S. soldiers sure as FUCK aren't "provingd a forum" for their freedom. If the Sunnis want Saddam back, same thing. The Kurds, maybe? Some seem to be defining "freedom" or "democracy" for Iraq in a way that just doesn't make a lick of sense. They imagine this amorophous "Iraqi people" that just doesn't exist. "Iraq" isn't even a real nation... it was drawn up by the British and ropes in wildly differing ethnic and tribal groups usually at odds with each other. Saddam kept it together by terrorizing Kurds and Shiites, best I can tell.

The truth is that the military mission was never to create a stable Iraq with a different leader. It was to create chaos for a nation that threatened Israel, and possibly set off a conflagration of the middle east that would see the U.S. destroying most of it so that Israel wouldn't have to launch one of its nukes... or could at least launch one with good reason, maybe at Iran.

None of which has anything to do with America's interests.

http://www.amconmag.com/03_24_03/cover.html

I'm damn intersted in sticking it to the crazy Islamists and damn intersested in protecting our oil supply until we can find a replacement

[Abbey Marie]

...
And I can tell from your post that you must hate Israel.
...



IMO, that is the crux of it.

[LiberalNation]

Sounds good but that wasn't working on 9/11
We weren't doing it. The terrorists can't swim the oceans ya know. One good way to stop them would be not letting them in first place and stradegy wouldn't even involve starting a war with a country none of the 9-11 terrorists came from.

[stephanie]

We weren't doing it. The terrorists can't swim the ocean one good way to stop them would be not letting them in sand that doesn't involve starting a war with a country none of the 9-11 terrorists came from.

Read post #20..
Funny how those quotes just gets passed on by...

I guess they don't fit into the lies that people are spreading so they can make President Bush look bad....

[Gaffer]

Victory is the defeat of the democrats and the media.

[LiberalNation]

WTF I don't care about a bunch of quotes from dem politicians. Has nothing to do with what I'm talking about.

[LiberalNation]

Victory is the defeat of the democrats and the media.
Yes, down with free press. only right wingers have a right to free speech/press in this country. And you all claim the terrorists want to take away our freedom.

[stephanie]

WTF I don't care about a bunch of quotes from Dem politicians. Has nothing to do with what I'm talking about.

I didn't think you would have a reasonable answer...:uhoh:

[LiberalNation]

I didn't think you would have a reasonable answer...:uhoh:
What answer do you want, you posted a bunch of quotes that have nothing to do with the subject or my opinion on this subject.

[Gaffer]

Yes, down with free press. only right wingers have a right to free speech/press in this country. And you all claim the terrorists want to take away our freedom.

I just want the media to do their job. Unbiased reporting on the facts of a story not the usual liberal slant they have been doing for the last 40 years.

That wasn't a quote, that was MY answer to the question of this thread. If the media would report without bias and the democrats would pull together with the administration everything else would take care of itself and the iraq problem would be solved quickly.

[Birdzeye]

Yes, down with free press. only right wingers have a right to free speech/press in this country. And you all claim the terrorists want to take away our freedom.

The neocons here who show such an irrational hatred for anyone to the left of Attila the Hun have no true respect for freedom. They would stifle the freedom of those who are conservatively incorrect.

[Dilloduck]

The neocons here who show such an irrational hatred for anyone to the left of Attila the Hun have no true respect for freedom. They would stifle the freedom of those who are conservatively incorrect.

Actually I'd settle for you taking responsibilty for what you say.

[Birdzeye]

Actually I'd settle for you taking responsibilty for what you say.

At least I don't go around calling another poster "Birdshit" and hurling other mindless personal attacks like one of our MODERATORS does.

[Dilloduck]

At least I don't go around calling another poster "Birdshit" and hurling other mindless personal attacks like one of our MODERATORS does.

no---that's NOT how taking responsibilty works. Pointing what others say is a no no. Try again !

[Hugh Lincoln]

And I can tell from your post that you must hate Israel.

America's interests should come before Israel's.

If you don't agree, then we really have nothing to discuss.

[Gunny]

We won conventional wars like WW1/2 because that's something we are good at. We can destroy shit. Now Vietnam we didn't do to well on, it wasn't a conventional war and was a mistake. We should not have supported the French and been against a people’s rebellion just because they chose communism as their government system.

I think will win this war just like we one the cold war. Our ideology will last and the Islamists will fail because when you get down to it theirs isn't a good system that anyone outside the ME would want to live under.

What you aren't old enough to remember is from the 1945 to 1980-something, the free world lived in fear of communist aggression. As late as the mid 70s, the USSR invaded Afghanistan. It was a real fear we lived under just like the fear of nuclear anihilation. It was no less a fear for us just because the fears never materialized and you were born after they were gone.

You can't just sit back and "let them kill themselves" when they want to kill us first.

[OCA]

At least I don't go around calling another poster "Birdshit" and hurling other mindless personal attacks like one of our MODERATORS does.


Tough shit. Start backing up your wild statements with facts and that will stop...until then I don't have any other use for you other than to fuck with you.

[Gunny]

America's interests should come before Israel's.

If you don't agree, then we really have nothing to discuss.

And if the US's and Israel's interests are the same, then there should be no problem with supporting Israel without having to listen to the Jewish conspiracy theory bullshit from racists.

[manu1959]

America's interests should come before Israel's.

If you don't agree, then we really have nothing to discuss.

unless you are not from america.....

[SassyLady]

America's interests should come before Israel's.

If you don't agree, then we really have nothing to discuss.

What makes you think they are mutually exclusive?

[jillian]

What makes you think they are mutually exclusive?

Because the KKK'er, white supremacist hates Jews, and anyone else he thinks isn't lily white.

[LiberalNation]

I just want the media to do their job. Unbiased reporting on the facts of a story not the usual liberal slant they have been doing for the last 40 years.

The medias job is to make money, they are a business. There are plenty of conservative leaning outlets. Fox new, newsmax, tons of talk radio shows.

[Dilloduck]

The medias job is to make money, they are a business. There are plenty of conservative leaning outlets. Fox new, newsmax, tons of talk radio shows.

You're so right----People need to learn not to expect to get the truth there and what used to be called "News" is pure propaganda.

[Grumplestillskin]

At least I don't go around calling another poster "Birdshit" and hurling other mindless personal attacks like one of our MODERATORS does.

You don't get it do you? That's all he has. Check out his posts. Nothing but rants and ravings with nothing to back them up - let alone the plethora that are just flamming/trolling. Mind you, it's quite good to have somebody to laugh at...heh.

[Gunny]

Because the KKK'er, white supremacist hates Jews, and anyone else he thinks isn't lily white.

That about sums it up.

[darin]

Victory is the defeat of the democrats and the media.

http://www.d-mphotos.com/images/applause.gif

HOOAH

[darin]

Because the KKK'er, white supremacist hates Jews,



...and Liberals hate america...and Freedom...and capitalism...and white Christian males...

[Gaffer]

The medias job is to make money, they are a business. There are plenty of conservative leaning outlets. Fox new, newsmax, tons of talk radio shows.

The job of the media is to report the news. ALL the news and not selected parts of the news and editorialized news. Or, as in a number of cases lately, making up the news. I don't want a liberal or conservative slant, I want just the news. I will determine myself what I think about it.

They make just as much money reporting the news as they do making shit up. The made up shit belongs on sitcoms not the news. Opinions belong on news analysis shows and editorial pages.

[LiberalNation]

They must not, people don't like boring news. A little sensation makes things more interesting. Watch C-span it's pretty boring, don't know if it's biased or not though. Don't watch it.

[Yurt]

lol you think that'll fix the problem. Leaders just lead the people behind them. Everyone you kill there will be another to replace him. You can't beat an ideology like this with guns and bombs. It's a propaganda war, a war of hearts and minds, one we're loosing pretty badly right now IMO.

You're being naive. You should also get some info on muslims and islam. Before Muhammad and his false religion there were lots of pagens, jews, christians in Saudi arabia. He went to war against them with "guns and bombs" and pray tell how many pagens are in SA today?

[Yurt]

They must not, people don't like boring news. A little sensation makes things more interesting. Watch C-span it's pretty boring, don't know if it's biased or not though. Don't watch it.

Then how do you know if it is boring? Another "won't click the link" uninformed opinion?

[LiberalNation]

You're being naive. You should also get some info on muslims and islam. Before Muhammad and his false religion there were lots of pagens, jews, christians in Saudi arabia. He went to war against them with "guns and bombs" and pray tell how many pagens are in SA today?

We can't fight that kinda war. The treaties we signed and beliefs we claim to hold prevent it. Unless we should change those beliefs and viod those treaties.

Then you have the democracy problem with people who don't like bloody wars.

[LiberalNation]

Then how do you know if it is boring? Another "won't click the link" uninformed opinion?
Nope, I've tried to watch it several times. A snore fest.

[jillian]

...and Liberals hate america...and Freedom...and capitalism...and white Christian males...

You can fantasize that's the case. Or... Maybe it's just you?

[Hugh Lincoln]

And if the US's and Israel's interests are the same, then there should be no problem with supporting Israel without having to listen to the Jewish conspiracy theory bullshit from racists.

How in God's name do they have "the same interests"?

[Birdzeye]

You can fantasize that's the case. Or... Maybe it's just you?


I don't understand that attitude. I think it's sick to demonize people whose opinions differ from yours.

We're going to disagree on what's best for this country, but that doesn't mean that those who disagree with us are evil traitors.

[manu1959]

I don't understand that attitude. I think it's sick to demonize people whose opinions differ from yours.

We're going to disagree on what's best for this country, but that doesn't mean that those who disagree with us are evil traitors.

this coming from the group that called every voter in America that voted for bush an idiot....in return the other side is calling all yall traitors.....

now how was it saying they could dish it but not take it.....or was it take it but not dish it....:bye1:

[OCA]

You don't get it do you? That's all he has. Check out his posts. Nothing but rants and ravings with nothing to back them up - let alone the plethora that are just flamming/trolling. Mind you, it's quite good to have somebody to laugh at...heh.


:suck: :suck: :suck: :lol: :lol: :lol: :trolls:

[trobinett]

Another thread down the tubes.......................

[Grumplestillskin]

:suck: :suck: :suck: :lol: :lol: :lol: :trolls:

Oh - OFA starts regressing even further...now, he's back to being an infant...who'd a thought!

[darin]

Another thread down the tubes.......................

indeed.