The Sounds of Silence

[lily]

The Bush administration
prefers talking to nobody unless it finds somebody who thinks more or less
the way it does. And folks like that are fewer and fewer.



http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17986085/site/newsweek/?rf=nwnewsletter


The Sounds of Silence
The Bush administration's refusal to talk to those it deems unworthy is
complicating the mess in the Middle East. No wonder the rest of the world is
now working around Washington.


Web-Exclusive Commentary
By Christopher Dickey
Newsweek
Updated: 7:49 p.m. ET April 6, 2007
April 6, 2007 - "What can you tell us about Iran?" President George W. Bush
asked the Saudi Arabian foreign minister at a meeting in Washington almost a
year ago. "Who are the leaders and who are not? Who are the decision makers
and who are not?"



Those weren't such dumb questions. From the Iran hostage crisis, when U.S.
diplomats were held captive for 444 days before their release in 1981, to
the Iran hostage crisis, when U.K. sailors were held captive for 13 days
before their release on Wednesday, the problem many governments have faced
with Iran is knowing "who are the leaders and who are not."

Does the real power lie with the Iranian president or the Supreme Leader,
with reformers or hard-liners? Are the best interlocutors accredited
diplomats or shady middlemen? Do the Israelis have special insights--and
connections? Do the Europeans? Can the Iranians be bought off? Or
intimidated? And how to measure progress before the final resolution of the
crisis?

The best advice the Saudi foreign minister could offer Bush was to talk to
everybody in Iran, according to Turki al-Faisal, who was then his country's
ambassador to Washington and who witnessed the encounter. But in that
quintessential shadowland that is the Middle East, the Bush administration
prefers talking to nobody unless it finds somebody who thinks more or less
the way it does. And folks like that are fewer and fewer.

Washington seems to believe that by standing back from dialogue with any of
the many forces it deems unsavory and unworthy, it can so frustrate their
desire for recognition that they'll bend to whatever conditions the
administration imposes. But the obtuseness of such obstinacy is, well,
obvious. The American silent treatment is creating more noise all the time.
The world is trying to work around Washington as if it were a stalled
18-wheeler in the middle of a busy highway. You can't just ignore it, but if
you can squeeze by, you do, and a lot of the time you're honking your horn.



The Saudi diplomatic initiative so much in evidence at an Arab summit in
Riyadh last week and laid out for NEWSWEEK by Foreign Minister Saud
al-Faisal is one example. The Saudis are quite consciously talking to just
about everyone on Washington's list to snub: Hamas, Hizbullah and even the
squint-eyed little Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, president of Iran.

Inevitably, there's some confusion. Take this week's Middle East tour by
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. There's been a lot of sniping, second-guessing
and backbiting about her visit to Damascus. Israeli Prime Minister Ehud
Olmert even entrusted her with a message to Syrian President Bashar
al-Assad, then said she delivered the wrong one.

Excuse me, was Olmert at any of the Damascus meetings? No, and Pelosi says
she was perfectly tough in the actual encounter. The Israelis are responding
to Pelosi's public statement afterward, which left out the many
preconditions Israel always puts forward as it pursues its own failed policy
of tight-lipped obduracy.

No doubt the Olmert government and the White House are rattled by the
cacophony in Syria these days, not least because so many Republican
lawmakers are passing through there, too. Assad met with them both before
and after Pelosi. "I don't care what the administration says on this. You've
got to do what you think is in the best interest of your country," said Rep.
Frank Wolf from Virginia. "I want us to be successful in Iraq. I want us to
clamp down on Hizbullah."

Add to all this the many back channels and surrogate spokesmen claiming to
engage in dialogue, and the muddle deepens. Iran's negotiator Ali Larijani
talks to the Europeans about the future of Iran's controversial nuclear
program, but does he really speak for the Iranian leadership? Sometimes it
seems he does, sometimes it seems he doesn't, and many times in the past,
he's
been on the verge of making a deal that, in the end, he couldn't deliver.
After 30 years, this frustrating pattern with Tehran doesn't look like it
will change any time soon.



But there is no longer any good reason for Washington to make the situation
more complicated by refusing to talk. At least then it could put each
interlocutor to the fundamental test: can he deliver? That's how you know,
at the end of the day in Iran, in Syria, among the Palestinians or anywhere
else in the world, "who are the leaders and who are not." As things stand,
thanks to the Bush administration's bad judgments and sullen silences, that
very same question is one being asked about the United States.

[grunt]

:lol: :lol: :lol:

How loud is the cool $58 mil for the Pals??

[stephanie]

So....was this a praise Pelosi....or a bash President Bush article..???

It was hard to tell..

:rolleyes:

[lily]

This coming from someone that holds the worlds record for impeach Pelosi ect. threads.:lame2:

In the meantime, I'll wait for someone that can actually understand the article to come along and discuss with, if you don't mind stephanie..but don't let me stop you from getting that post count up!:salute:

[stephanie]

This coming from someone that holds the worlds record for impeach Pelosi ect. threads.:lame2:

In the meantime, I'll wait for someone that can actually understand the article to come along and discuss with, if you don't mind Stephanie..but don't let me stop you from getting that post count up!:salute:


Well little miss snottie...You can go snip at someone else..

I wasn't speaking to you..


Your really are :lame2:and rude..

[krisy]

So,Bush won't talk to terrorists and terror leaders. Is this news? He said he wouldn't.

Not to mention,what would we possibly gain by talking to that lying,evil piece of crap that runs Iran? Is Bush going to make him cooperate with the world by speaking with him...I doubt it

Oh,and I would love to see proof that Queen Nancy is telling the truth and the Olmert is back peddling.

[CockySOB]

Actually Lily, I remember reading somewhere (it's not that vital to me, so I won't dig for it at the moment) that there have been rifts between the Ayatollah and Ahmadinejad which could indicate an internal power struggle. From what I recall, Ahmadinejad is the one seeming to lack power compared to the Ayatollah when such confrontations occur. So who should a foreign leader talk to in Iran? The "official" head of state, or the religious head of the Islamic nation? And a nice follow up question: by not talking with either party, do we effectively stay out of what would be a REAL civil war in the ME?

[lily]

So,Bush won't talk to terrorists and terror leaders. Is this news? He said he wouldn't.

Not to mention,what would we possibly gain by talking to that lying,evil piece of crap that runs Iran? Is Bush going to make him cooperate with the world by speaking with him...I doubt it

.

There are other countries in the Middle East besides Iran, but that doens't answer your question. Let me ask you one instead......how do we know what will happen, if we don't even try?


Oh,and I would love to see proof that Queen Nancy is telling the truth and the Olmert is back peddling.

You know, after this smear we'll never know will we?I've stated that if she did mis-state Olmert she screwed the pooch. If in fact she didn't will you do the same?

[grunt]

There are other countries in the Middle East besides Iran, but that doens't answer your question. Let me ask you one instead......how do we know what will happen, if we don't even try?



You know, after this smear we'll never know will we?I've stated that if she did mis-state Olmert she screwed the pooch. If in fact she didn't will you do the same?


Like trying to bring peace in Iraq? I agree....


idiot....:poke:

[Gunny]

Well little miss snottie...You can go snip at someone else..

I wasn't speaking to you..


Your really are :lame2:and rude..

Yeah steph ... she's waiting for someone to come along and say it's okay to hold official talks with terrorist organizations and/or an extremist Islamic government because negotiating with pieces of shit is what it's all about.

[Kathianne]

Yeah steph ... she's waiting for someone to come along and say it's okay to hold official talks with terrorist organizations and/or an extremist Islamic government because negotiating with pieces of shit is what it's all about.

Please tell me she is holding her breath...

[lily]

Actually Lily, I remember reading somewhere (it's not that vital to me, so I won't dig for it at the moment) that there have been rifts between the Ayatollah and Ahmadinejad which could indicate an internal power struggle.

Yes, I've also read articles that state he's hanging on by a thread. Also if you read the statement made by Ahmadinejad, he does state that the Ayatollah made the decision, not him.


From what I recall, Ahmadinejad is the one seeming to lack power compared to the Ayatollah when such confrontations occur.

This is what cracks me up when I read statements about how crazy Ahmadinejad is.......he doesn't have the power to do anything really. He's a spokesman.


So who should a foreign leader talk to in Iran? The "official" head of state, or the religious head of the Islamic nation?

I'm not sure of the protocol.


And a nice follow up question: by not talking with either party, do we effectively stay out of what would be a REAL civil war in the ME?

I think the better question and what the article is stating is if we don't start talking, we're going to be left behind in the dust. When Saudi Arabia starts bad mouthing you.......you know you're in trouble.

[Gunny]

Please tell me she is holding her breath...

The formula is simple .... if Bush is for it, she's against it, and vice-versa. Doesn't have to be an rhyme nor reason to it.

[krisy]

There are other countries in the Middle East besides Iran, but that doens't answer your question. Let me ask you one instead......how do we know what will happen, if we don't even try?



You know, after this smear we'll never know will we?I've stated that if she did mis-state Olmert she screwed the pooch. If in fact she didn't will you do the same?

I still will have to agree with Bush...not talking with Iran. They just proved they cannot be trusted in any way,shape or form with their kidnapping of British sailors. These are terrorists...there is no reasoning or truthtelling. I admire Bush for holding his ground.

As far as pelosi goes...well,we may never know. I hold the opinion tho that she shouldn't have gone there withoout backing form the White House. She's overstepping her bounds. She is also playing with fire.

[Gaffer]

This coming from someone that holds the worlds record for impeach Pelosi ect. threads.:lame2:

In the meantime, I'll wait for someone that can actually understand the article to come along and discuss with, if you don't mind stephanie..but don't let me stop you from getting that post count up!:salute:

In other words you only want to discuss it with people that agree with you. That is the safest way to do it.

An article from msnbc does not carry a lot of credibility.

[glockmail]

.... She is also playing with fire. She should be jailed for treason.

[Gaffer]

There are other countries in the Middle East besides Iran, but that doens't answer your question. Let me ask you one instead......how do we know what will happen, if we don't even try?



You know, after this smear we'll never know will we?I've stated that if she did mis-state Olmert she screwed the pooch. If in fact she didn't will you do the same?

As usual you didn't answer the question. Answer what your aksed and then someone will answer you.

[lily]

I still will have to agree with Bush...not talking with Iran. They just proved they cannot be trusted in any way,shape or form with their kidnapping of British sailors. These are terrorists...there is no reasoning or truthtelling. I admire Bush for holding his ground.

We'll never know if they were in Iran's waters or Iraq's waters. Can't talk with Iran, can't talk with Syria, Saudi Arabia is slowly having nothing to do with us. Krisy........we're stuck between a rock and a hard place. Even Patraes (sp) said this couldn't be won militarily. Baker/Hamilton said it couldn't be won militarily. We can't just keep fighting this war by ourselves. Sooner or later we will have to talk to somebody. This may be Bush's only chance for a legacy. If he passes this war on to the next president, without even trying, he's got nothing.


As far as pelosi goes...well,we may never know. I hold the opinion tho that she shouldn't have gone there withoout backing form the White House. She's overstepping her bounds. She is also playing with fire.

You're right, we may never know that either.....both are a shame. I'm not going to argue that 3 Republicans went the day before and had an audience with Olmert, because that argument has been done to death. IF she didn't say what the press says she said, then she had every right to go on a fact finding mission.

[Gaffer]

congressman lantos, pelosi's traveling buddy stated, immediately after she talked with the syrian tryant asshat, that they were pursuing their own democratic foriegn policy. This statement was recorded. Right after Israel rebuffed them he changed his tone. This was a direct attempt by pelosi and crew to undermine the presidents policies. It failed and she got called on it.

This fool also tried to get them permission to go to iran but the iranians refused.

As for talking with these fools I would suggest any one that wants to talk with terror supporting countries be placed in a room with a rabid dog and let them talk to it. If they survive un bitten then they can go talk with any tyrants they want too.

[lily]

As usual you didn't answer the question. Answer what your aksed and then someone will answer you.

Which question am I avoiding, Gaffer? I had to wade through this crap, before I could respond to Krisy.



Like trying to bring peace in Iraq? I agree....


idiot....


Yeah steph ... she's waiting for someone to come along and say it's okay to
hold official talks with terrorist organizations and/or an extremist Islamic
government because negotiating with pieces of shit is what it's all about.


Please tell me she is holding her breath...


The formula is simple .... if Bush is for it, she's against it, and
vice-versa. Doesn't have to be an rhyme nor reason to it.


In other words you only want to discuss it with people that agree with you.
That is the safest way to do it.

An article from msnbc does not carry a lot of credibility.

......oh and the artilce was from Newsweek.

[lily]

congressman lantos, pelosi's traveling buddy stated, immediately after she talked with the syrian tryant asshat, that they were pursuing their own democratic foriegn policy. This statement was recorded. Right after Israel rebuffed them he changed his tone. This was a direct attempt by pelosi and crew to undermine the presidents policies. It failed and she got called on it.

I know we all look alike........but I've stated since day one, if Pelosi said what everyone is claiming......she's fucked.


This fool also tried to get them permission to go to iran but the iranians refused.

:link:

[Baron Von Esslingen]

......oh and the artilce was from Newsweek.

Hey! You don't like Bush. What difference does it make where the article came from? The neocons will all gang up and decry anything that attempts to move them from part of the 32% up to the 68%. They've had that low score for so long and Bush keeps telling them they are winning I swear they think they are playing golf where the low score wins.

[Baron Von Esslingen]

congressman lantos, pelosi's traveling buddy stated, immediately after she talked with the syrian tryant asshat, that they were pursuing their own democratic foriegn policy. This statement was recorded. Right after Israel rebuffed them he changed his tone. This was a direct attempt by pelosi and crew to undermine the presidents policies. It failed and she got called on it.

Caught in another exaggerated lie. If you would bother using actual news articles instead of repeating what you heard some neocon blowhard on the radio scream about, you would be a more credible spokesman for the Bushbots. But you are not.


Lantos, referring to recent congressional votes dictating a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq, agreed that Democrats were pursuing an approach to counter the Bush administration.

"We have an alternative Democratic foreign policy," Lantos said. "I view my job as beginning with restoring overseas credibility and respect for the United States."

The alternative to not talking to our enemies (while the enemies pursue destructive ends that we are unaware of because we are not talking to them) is to talk to them and make them aware that we are on to them. Of course, that means you have to have a modicum of intelligence to do that and this administration fails the test again.

Your problem is that you are happy with a United States with no credibility. You are happy with a United States that has no respect in the world. You are happy with a United States that is known for torturing people in their prisons and holding people for years without trials. You are happy with a United States foreign policy where namecalling is a substitute for diplomacy. You are happy with a United States where disputes are settled with military force instead of negotiation. I am not. (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/04/02/MNGI0P00921.DTL)

[Dilloduck]

Caught in another exaggerated lie. If you would bother using actual news articles instead of repeating what you heard some neocon blowhard on the radio scream about, you would be a more credible spokesman for the Bushbots. But you are not.



The alternative to not talking to our enemies (while the enemies pursue destructive ends that we are unaware of because we are not talking to them) is to talk to them and make them aware that we are on to them. Of course, that means you have to have a modicum of intelligence to do that and this administration fails the test again.

Your problem is that you are happy with a United States with no credibility. You are happy with a United States that has no respect in the world. You are happy with a United States that is known for torturing people in their prisons and holding people for years without trials. You are happy with a United States foreign policy where namecalling is a substitute for diplomacy. You are happy with a United States where disputes are settled with military force instead of negotiation. I am not. (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/04/02/MNGI0P00921.DTL)


talk to them and make them aware that we are on to them
Somehow I think our enemies already know that we are "on to them"

[krisy]

Hey! You don't like Bush. What difference does it make where the article came from? The neocons will all gang up and decry anything that attempts to move them from part of the 32% up to the 68%. They've had that low score for so long and Bush keeps telling them they are winning I swear they think they are playing golf where the low score wins.

Baron. Is it possible that some us just believe in Bush and his causes? It's not a matter of believing everything he says,but just maybe a lot of "neocons" believe in what he is doing. Why should someone stop believing in something because the media has told us that most Americans supposedly don't? SO polls give him a low approval rating. Big deal. I don't change my opinion because everyone else is. Polls are unreliable anyway. At one time,a lot of Americans didn't think balck and white children should go to school together,or blacks should sit in the front of the bus....did that make it right?

I could be wrong,but it seems like you think it's all about who has the highest rating with the American people. The same American people that showed strong support for this war in the beginning.

If you wouldn't throw around so many insults,maybe people may take your posts a little better.

[Gunny]

Hey! You don't like Bush. What difference does it make where the article came from? The neocons will all gang up and decry anything that attempts to move them from part of the 32% up to the 68%. They've had that low score for so long and Bush keeps telling them they are winning I swear they think they are playing golf where the low score wins.

Unlike the fact that you and those of your ilk will believe any bullshit accusation that comes along the pike so long as it's against Bush.

[CockySOB]

I could be wrong,but it seems like you think it's all about who has the highest rating with the American people. The same American people that showed strong support for this war in the beginning.Somethign our wonderful "anyone but GWB" crowd likes to toss out here is the "approval ratings" as if that is the end-all, be-all of the Presidency. And then they cite Pres. Carter as being a true statesman and a voice of reason.

Pres. Carter ended his Presidency with an approval rating of 34% when Pres. Reagan defeated Carter's re-election bid. Pres. Carter's approval rating actually dropped to 29% in 1979 though when Ayatollah Khomeni rose to prominence.


If you wouldn't throw around so many insults,maybe people may take your posts a little better.He doesn't know any better it seems....

[avatar4321]

You don't give evil men any sort of legitimacy in negotiation. Because negotiating with evil always means compromising good. And of course evil men have no problem violating any sort of agreements when the deal is beneficial to break.

[Gunny]

Baron. Is it possible that some us just believe in Bush and his causes? It's not a matter of believing everything he says,but just maybe a lot of "neocons" believe in what he is doing. Why should someone stop believing in something because the media has told us that most Americans supposedly don't? SO polls give him a low approval rating. Big deal. I don't change my opinion because everyone else is. Polls are unreliable anyway. At one time,a lot of Americans didn't think balck and white children should go to school together,or blacks should sit in the front of the bus....did that make it right?

I could be wrong,but it seems like you think it's all about who has the highest rating with the American people. The same American people that showed strong support for this war in the beginning.

If you wouldn't throw around so many insults,maybe people may take your posts a little better.

Oh but you should hear him whine about the unfairness of it all. Just like another lib poster on this board. Both their ideas of "fair" is they get to say whatever they want, as nasty as they want, insult whoever they want, but if a **gasp** conservative responds in kind, that conservative should be banned.

The usual, left-wingnut double-standard.

[krisy]

Oh but you should hear him whine about the unfairness of it all. Just like another lib poster on this board. Both their ideas of "fair" is they get ot say whatever they want, as nasty as they want, insult whoever they want, but of a **gasp** conservative responds in kind, that conservative should be banned.

The usual, left-wingnut double-standard.


I think that is what gets me more p.o.ed are the
6 year old insults and name calling. Disagreeing politically is to be expected,but children,insults are for the steel cage
:lol:

[Baron Von Esslingen]

Baron. Is it possible that some us just believe in Bush and his causes? It's not a matter of believing everything he says,but just maybe a lot of "neocons" believe in what he is doing. Why should someone stop believing in something because the media has told us that most Americans supposedly don't? SO polls give him a low approval rating. Big deal. I don't change my opinion because everyone else is. Polls are unreliable anyway. At one time,a lot of Americans didn't think balck and white children should go to school together,or blacks should sit in the front of the bus....did that make it right?

If you believe in his causes, then merely defend them. I'm not telling you not to believe them, just defend his actions and policies. There are a lot of personal attacks by your comrades here but little in the way of reasoned arguments. I look forward to your defense of the president. I will give it as much respect as I am shown.


I could be wrong,but it seems like you think it's all about who has the highest rating with the American people. The same American people that showed strong support for this war in the beginning.

Until the American people saw how terribly wrong the war went under incompetent leadership. It's not about the polls, it's about the results.


If you wouldn't throw around so many insults,maybe people may take your posts a little better.

Perhaps, but I came here defending another poster who was being attacked and was attacked for my trouble. I respond in kind.

[glockmail]

I think that is what gets me more p.o.ed are the
6 year old insults and name calling. Disagreeing politically is to be expected,but children,insults are for the steel cage
:lol: Well said. I'm tired of having to respond to it.

[Gunny]

If you believe in his causes, then merely defend them. I'm not telling you not to believe them, just defend his actions and policies. There are a lot of personal attacks by your comrades here but little in the way of reasoned arguments. I look forward to your defense of the president. I will give it as much respect as I am shown.



Until the American people saw how terribly wrong the war went under incompetent leadership. It's not about the polls, it's about the results.



Perhaps, but I came here defending another poster who was being attacked and was attacked for my trouble. I respond in kind.

Really Baron, what is it exactly you are defending? The original post criticizes President Bush for not negotiating with criminals, cold-blooded murderers, and a regime that supports both.

I see nothing defensible about that. What I DO see is nothing but another absurd, partisan attack against Bush for doing the right thing.

[shattered]

Well said. I'm tired of having to respond to it.

Given that you travel from board to board specifically LOOKING for it so you CAN respond, and then immediately check for a reply, you really shouldn't talk.

The thing is, you actually KNOW you've intentionally misinterpreted posts, as it's been pointed out to you. Yet, you clearly, and purposely keep going, keep digging, keep looking, and keep firing.

You're the worst kind of idiot. One who doesn't know he's an idiot is often a danger to himself, more than others.

[Gunny]

Given that you travel from board to board specifically LOOKING for it so you CAN respond, and then immediately check for a reply, you really shouldn't talk.

The thing is, you actually KNOW you've intentionally misinterpreted posts, as it's been pointed out to you. Yet, you clearly, and purposely keep going, keep digging, keep looking, and keep firing.

You're the worst kind of idiot. One who doesn't know he's an idiot is often a danger to himself, more than others.

:clap:

:thewave:

:mm:

[shattered]

:clap:

:thewave:

:mm:

NOW can I have my coffee?

[krisy]

If you believe in his causes, then merely defend them. I'm not telling you not to believe them, just defend his actions and policies. There are a lot of personal attacks by your comrades here but little in the way of reasoned arguments. I look forward to your defense of the president. I will give it as much respect as I am shown.



Until the American people saw how terribly wrong the war went under incompetent leadership. It's not about the polls, it's about the results.



Perhaps, but I came here defending another poster who was being attacked and was attacked for my trouble. I respond in kind.



There isn't much to defend. To me,not 'dealing" with terrorists like the leader of Iran is the right thing to do. You can't bargain with evil. How do you explain something that is just wrong? We know murder is wrong,we know stealing is wrong. It's the same with this. Dealing with bad people cannot possibly bring any good. Does anyone honestly believe that talking to Iran would do anything? The guy has declared national nuclear day for Pete's sake. He is pushing buttons and playing games. There will be no honest talks with him. They are NUTS!

As far as how the American people feel about the war. Everyone of us is entitled to our opinion. But how much of that opinion is based on fact coming out of Iraq. The media NEVER has a good story coming out of there. Funny thing,when a soldier is interviewed,we hear all kinds of good things happening. Is the war really a failure? Or is it just what happens in war? Men will die. I think about them every day,and thier families. Don't you think pulling out of Iraq and not finishing the mission,on top of "talking" with terror leaders is a slap in the face to every fallen and injured soldier in this war?

[Gunny]

NOW can I have my coffee?

Please. Before you cut loose on everyone.:coffee:

[Gunny]

There isn't much to defend. To me,not 'dealing" with terrorists like the leader of Iran is the right thing to do. You can't bargain with evil. How do you explain something that is just wrong? We know murder is wrong,we know stealing is wrong. It's the same with this. Dealing with bad people cannot possibly bring any good. Does anyone honestly believe that talking to Iran would do anything? The guy has declared national nuclear day for Pete's sake. He is pushing buttons and playing games. There will be no honest talks with him. They are NUTS!

As far as how the American people feel about the war. Everyone of us is entitled to our opinion. But how much of that opinion is based on fact coming out of Iraq. The media NEVER has a good story coming out of there. Funny thing,when a soldier is interviewed,we hear all kinds of good things happening. Is the war really a failure? Or is it just what happens in war? Men will die. I think about them every day,and thier families. Don't you think pulling out of Iraq and not finishing the mission,on top of "talking" with terror leaders is a slap in the face to every fallen and injured soldier in this war?

It's lowering the drawbridge and letting the enemy into the castle, is what it is.

[shattered]

Please. Before you cut loose on everyone.:coffee:

What ARE you going on about? I'm a bowl of cherries in the morning.

[Gunny]

What ARE you going on about? I'm a bowl of cherries in the morning.

:smoke:

[shattered]

:smoke:

This is where I'd pull your hair. If you had any.

[Gunny]

This is where I'd pull your hair. If you had any.

Guess you're screwed. Fresh shave.:poke:

[shattered]

Guess you're screwed. Fresh shave.:poke:

Figures. :slap:

[Gunny]

Figures. :slap:

:)

[shattered]

:)

Hmph. Leave it to you to deflate and diffuse a perfectly good bad mood.

[krisy]

It's lowering the drawbridge and letting the enemy into the castle, is what it is.[/QUOTE]



Exactly.I'm trying to get that across to Baron. There's really no explaining necessary,even tho I'm tryin!!!:laugh2:

[Gunny]

It's lowering the drawbridge and letting the enemy into the castle, is what it is.



Exactly.I'm trying to get that across to Baron. There's really no explaining necessary,even tho I'm tryin!!!:laugh2:[/QUOTE]

He's so lost in the "Anything Bush does is wrong even if it's contrived BS" sauce I don't think you CAN explain it to him. You can't reason with a brick wall.

[Baron Von Esslingen]

You can't reason with a brick wall.

The same is often said about you.

[Gunny]

The same is often said about you.

Only by extremists, and frankly, you extremists suck and your opinion of me about as well thought out as your political opinions.

In other words ....:fu:

[glockmail]

The same is often said about you.
Nice shot. Right between the eyes, stunning him. Proven by his reaction.

[lily]

The alternative to not talking to our enemies (while the enemies pursue destructive ends that we are unaware of because we are not talking to them) is to talk to them and make them aware that we are on to them. Of course, that means you have to have a modicum of intelligence to do that and this administration fails the test again.


If I may get the topic back on track, seems some think a thread is their own personal PM.

Not only are our eneimes pursuing discussion with Syria and Iran, but our allies are also. The allies that we need most, had and lost. Saudia Arabia, China and Russia. We are as miliarily weak in this country as Iraq was when we first invaded them.

There are not enough American soldiers to properly seal off their borders. Lord knows the Iraqi's wont do it, some of them refuse to even leave their home town. Syria and Iran are not going to do this on their own, this is the main reason we need to at the very least sit down and talk to them. Face it folks, Bush won't do it, the American public know this and unless the next candidate, be it Republican or Democrat doesn't have this option on the table, they will lose the election in '08. The Republicans are slowly realizing what is happening to McCain and want no part of "Stay the Course", if they want to keep their fat cat jobs.

[lily]

Baron. Is it possible that some us just believe in Bush and his causes? It's not a matter of believing everything he says,but just maybe a lot of "neocons" believe in what he is doing. Why should someone stop believing in something because the media has told us that most Americans supposedly don't? SO polls give him a low approval rating. Big deal. I don't change my opinion because everyone else is. Polls are unreliable anyway. At one time,a lot of Americans didn't think balck and white children should go to school together,or blacks should sit in the front of the bus....did that make it right?

Krisy, let me ask you a question....at what point do you stop believing that this war is going just fine? 6 years, 10 years, 4,000 American lives, 500 dead in one week? When do you start changing strategy?


I could be wrong,but it seems like you think it's all about who has the highest rating with the American people. The same American people that showed strong support for this war in the beginning.

Yes, most people did believe in this war when it started....then we started learning the truth. Maybe that's what upsets me the most. I was one of those that believed.

[stephanie]

If I may get the topic back on track, seems some think a thread is their own personal PM.

Not only are our enemies pursuing discussion with Syria and Iran, but our allies are also. The allies that we need most, had and lost. Saudi Arabia, China and Russia. We are as militarily weak in this country as Iraq was when we first invaded them.

There are not enough American soldiers to properly seal off their borders. Lord knows the Iraqi's wont do it, some of them refuse to even leave their home town. Syria and Iran are not going to do this on their own, this is the main reason we need to at the very least sit down and talk to them. Face it folks, Bush won't do it, the American public know this and unless the next candidate, bei it Republican or Democrat doesn't have this option on the table, they will lose the election in '08. The Republicans are slowly realizing what is happening to McCain and want no part of "Stay the Course", if they want to keep their fat cat jobs.

I think you are sorely lacking in knowing what our military is able to do..

And I don't believe for one moment that President Bush isn't up to date on what China, Russia and the rest of the world is up too...
That's just liberal wishful thinking, so they can run him down....:slap:


President Bush is talking to them in the manner that they understand...

Fuck with us and see what will happen...That's the only way you can speak to a lot of these idiot leaders in some of these countries...
Not going around thinking sitting on some rug and having tea and crumpets with them, will make them not hate us..
.But that's the way a liberal thinks....:poke:

[lily]

Somethign our wonderful "anyone but GWB" crowd likes to toss out here is the "approval ratings" as if that is the end-all, be-all of the Presidency. And then they cite Pres. Carter as being a true statesman and a voice of reason.

True statesman....who brokered the peace deal between Israel and Egypt that hasn't been broken? Now that's diplomacy


Pres. Carter ended his Presidency with an approval rating of 34% when Pres. Reagan defeated Carter's re-election bid. Pres. Carter's approval rating actually dropped to 29% in 1979 though when Ayatollah Khomeni rose to prominence.

He doesn't know any better it seems....

Big difference between ending your Presidency with a low approval rating and having your approval rating being the lowest for the longest amount of time in history.

[lily]

I think you are sorely lacking in knowing what our military is able to do..

Well....I'm sure we could argue this day and night, but according to Gates today, we're pretty well streatched thin. That's actual fighting men. Recruitments are waaay down.


And I don't believe for one moment that President Bush isn't up to date on what China, Russia and the rest of the world is up too...
That's just liberal wishful thinking, so they can run him down....:slap:

I'm not sure what this has to do with the jist of my post......diplomacy and losing the allies we once had. Lost allies turn into fresh enemies.



President Bush is talking to them in the manner that they understand...



Fuck with us and see what will happen...That's the only way you can speak to a lot of these idiot leaders in some of these countries...
Not going around thinking sitting on some rug and having tea and crumpets with them, will make them not hate us..

Yes and that has turned out sooooo well.
.

But that's the way a liberal thinks....:poke:

Right back atcha.

[Gunny]

If I may get the topic back on track, seems some think a thread is their own personal PM.

Not only are our eneimes pursuing discussion with Syria and Iran, but our allies are also. The allies that we need most, had and lost. Saudia Arabia, China and Russia. We are as miliarily weak in this country as Iraq was when we first invaded them.

There are not enough American soldiers to properly seal off their borders. Lord knows the Iraqi's wont do it, some of them refuse to even leave their home town. Syria and Iran are not going to do this on their own, this is the main reason we need to at the very least sit down and talk to them. Face it folks, Bush won't do it, the American public know this and unless the next candidate, be it Republican or Democrat doesn't have this option on the table, they will lose the election in '08. The Republicans are slowly realizing what is happening to McCain and want no part of "Stay the Course", if they want to keep their fat cat jobs.

Boo hoo. Nor is a thread your private property once you put it out here.

Dealing with criminals and murderers and islamofascists seems to be your speed, but no matter how you wish to twist it, it's wrong. Simple as that.

[Gaffer]

It's lowering the drawbridge and letting the enemy into the castle, is what it is.



Exactly.I'm trying to get that across to Baron. There's really no explaining necessary,even tho I'm tryin!!!:laugh2:[/QUOTE]

You won't get anything across to baron he's too absorbed in Bush hating. Nothing else matters.

[glockmail]

Exactly.I'm trying to get that across to Baron. There's really no explaining necessary,even tho I'm tryin!!!:laugh2:

Methinks baron = bullypulpit.

[Gaffer]

True statesman....who brokered the peace deal between Israel and Egypt that hasn't been broken? Now that's diplomacy



Big difference between ending your Presidency with a low approval rating and having your approval rating being the lowest for the longest amount of time in history.

The peace deal hasn't been broken because egypt gets 2 billion a year in aid which would be cut off if they break it, And Israel has no intention of breaking it.

Carter was a baffoon and has turned into a nasty little asshole since then.

[Samantha]

The truth is diplomacy is talking to your enemies. Peace talks are done with your enemies. If you only talk to the countries that are cooperating with you, how will you ever achieve peace? We don't have to be big bullies threatening people, name calling, giving ultimatums with no chance for discussion.

Bush is doing that right now with the Democrats. He invited them to come talk about the war bill and said there will be no negotiation. Of course they declined the offer. What's the point?

Bush is doing that right now with Syria and Iran. He finally talked to North Korea and got back Clinton's deal, after letting it disolve after he took office. If he refuses to use diplomacy, all we will get are more enemies. If he keeps declaring war on countries, more will join the jihad. If he keeps name calling and threatening, more will develop nukes to use against us.

1/20/09 can't come soon enough.

[Gunny]

The truth is diplomacy is talking to your enemies. Peace talks are done with your enemies. If you only talk to the countries that are cooperating with you, how will you ever achieve peace? We don't have to be big bullies threatening people, name calling, giving ultimatums with no chance for discussion.

Bush is doing that right now with the Democrats. He invited them to come talk about the war bill and said there will be no negotiation. Of course they declined the offer. What's the point?

Bush is doing that right now with Syria and Iran. He finally talked to North Korea and got back Clinton's deal, after letting it disolve after he took office. If he refuses to use diplomacy, all we will get are more enemies. If he keeps declaring war on countries, more will join the jihad. If he keeps name calling and threatening, more will develop nukes to use against us.

1/20/09 can't come soon enough.

Negotiating with criminals is stupid. It never costs anyone but you, and the criminal will always be back with further demands. Terrorist organizations and the gov't of Iran are nothing if not criminal.

[Samantha]

Negotiating with criminals is stupid. It never costs anyone but you, and the criminal will always be back with further demands. Terrorist organizations and the gov't of Iran are nothing if not criminal.

How did the hostages that Iran held for 444 days get released?

How did Jimmy Carter bring peace that's lasted to THIS day between Egypt and Israel?


An Interview with President Jimmy Carter

Q: What has been the importance of your own faith in your continued interest in peace in the Middle East?
A: As a Christian, I worship the Prince of Peace. One of my preeminent commitments has been to bring peace to the people who live in the Holy Land. I made my best efforts as president and still have this as a high priority.

Q: A common theme in your years of Middle East diplomacy has been that leaders on both sides have often been more open to discussion and change in private than in public. Do you think that's still the case?
A: Yes. This is why private and intense negotiations can be successful. More accurately, however, my premise has been that the general public (Jewish, Christian, and Muslim) are more eager for peace than their political leaders. For instance, a recent poll done by the Hebrew University in Jerusalem showed that 58% of Israelis and 81% of the Palestinians favor a comprehensive settlement similar to the Roadmap for Peace or the Saudi proposal adopted by all 23 Arab nations and recently promoted by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. Tragically, there have been no substantive peace talks during the past six years.

Q: How have the war in Iraq and the increased strength of Iran (and the declarations of their leaders against Israel) changed the conditions of the Israel-Palestine question?
A: Other existing or threatened conflicts in the region greatly increase the importance of Israel's having peace agreements with its neighbors, to minimize overall Arab animosity toward both Israel and the United States and reduce the threat of a broader conflict.

Q: Your use of the term "apartheid" has been a lightning rod in the response to your book. Could you explain your choice? Were you surprised by the reaction?
A: The book is about Palestine, the occupied territories, and not about Israel. Forced segregation in the West Bank and terrible oppression of the Palestinians create a situation accurately described by the word. I made it plain in the text that this abuse is not based on racism, but on the desire of a minority of Israelis to confiscate and colonize Palestinian land. This violates the basic humanitarian premises on which the nation of Israel was founded. My surprise is that most critics of the book have ignored the facts about Palestinian persecution and its proposals for future peace and resorted to personal attacks on the author. No one could visit the occupied territories and deny that the book is accurate.

Q: You write in the book that "the peace process does not have a life of its own; it is not self-sustaining." What would you recommend that the next American president do to revive it?
A: I would not want to wait two more years. It is encouraging that President George W. Bush has announced that peace in the Holy Land will be a high priority for his administration during the next two years. On her January trip to the region, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has called for early U.S.-Israeli-Palestinian peace talks. She has recommended the 2002 offer of the Arab nations as a foundation for peace: full recognition of Israel based on a return to its internationally recognized borders. This offer is compatible with official U.S. Government policy, previous agreements approved by Israeli governments in 1978 and 1993, and with the International Quartet's "roadmap for peace." My book proposes that, through negotiated land swaps, this "green line" border be modified to permit a substantial number of Israelis settlers to remain in Palestine. With strong U.S. pressure, backed by the U.N., Russia, and the European Community, Israelis and Palestinians would have to come to the negotiating table.

http://www.amazon.com/Palestine-Peace-Apartheid-Jimmy-Carter/dp/product-description/0786294086

[loosecannon]

Negotiating with criminals is stupid. It never costs anyone but you, and the criminal will always be back with further demands. Terrorist organizations and the gov't of Iran are nothing if not criminal.

But the criminals are living in the WH! ?!?!

[Baron Von Esslingen]

Negotiating with criminals is stupid. It never costs anyone but you, and the criminal will always be back with further demands. Terrorist organizations and the gov't of Iran are nothing if not criminal.

Even the police negotiate with criminals. That's how they discover what's going on with them because criminals are always eager to boast about their deeds. Look what NOT talking to these clowns has gotten us.

[Gaffer]

How did the hostages that Iran held for 444 days get released?

How did Jimmy Carter bring peace that's lasted to THIS day between Egypt and Israel?

The hostages were released because Reagan took office. No negociating there.

Egypt gets 2 billion a year from the US not to get their ass kicked by Israel again.

[stephanie]

The truth is diplomacy is talking to your enemies. Peace talks are done with your enemies. If you only talk to the countries that are cooperating with you, how will you ever achieve peace? We don't have to be big bullies threatening people, name calling, giving ultimatums with no chance for discussion.

Bush is doing that right now with the Democrats. He invited them to come talk about the war bill and said there will be no negotiation. Of course they declined the offer. What's the point?

Bush is doing that right now with Syria and Iran. He finally talked to North Korea and got back Clinton's deal, after letting it dissolve after he took office. If he refuses to use diplomacy, all we will get are more enemies. If he keeps declaring war on countries, more will join the jihad. If he keeps name calling and threatening, more will develop nukes to use against us.

1/20/09 can't come soon enough.

You have got to be kidding, naive, or just down right stupid..

Those people will look you right in the eye and lie to your face...
And then when you left the room they would spit on the ground you just walked on..And if you turn your back on them they will slit your throat so fast, you wouldn't know what hit you..

Did you see Nick Berg beheaded...Or were you too chicken to watch it.???

Did you see Daniel Pearl beheaded...Or were you too chicken to watch it..??

I made myself watch it, to see if I was wrong in some of my opinions..........My GOD....
I can give you the link if you care to watch it....

I also watched a video of them stoning a poor woman to death...It was the saddest and another disgusting thing...

You saw them drag the bodies of soldiers through Mogadishu..

You saw the four burned up men hanging from a bridge in Iraq...

You all see them everyday all around the world blowing up innocent people for no reason..

You all are nuttier than a fruitcake..

I will say I am sorry for the innocents who happen to be used by these crackpot regimes, who they have no problem sacraficeing...

Thank goodness their aren't more people who think like you...
And if a Democrat becomes President in 08, God help us..

[manu1959]

Even the police negotiate with criminals. That's how they discover what's going on with them because criminals are always eager to boast about their deeds. Look what NOT talking to these clowns has gotten us.

the cole? wtcI? kobar towers? bali? somalia? bosnia? rawanda? those talks must have gone well...

[stephanie]

the cole? wtcI? kobar towers? bali? somalia? bosnia? rawanda? those talks must have gone well...

Yea but but but....
The UN WAS talking to them..

[Gaffer]

I have said it before. I want a liberal locked in a room to hold talks with a big rabid dog. If they can talk the dog into being nice and lying down then I want them to go negociate for us in the middle east. It's a simple test, after all we are dealing with the same type of animal over there.

[Samantha]

The hostages were released because Reagan took office. No negociating there.

Egypt gets 2 billion a year from the US not to get their ass kicked by Israel again.
LOL!!! Reagan traded arms for hostages. Remember Iran/Contra?

[manu1959]

LOL!!! Reagan traded arms for hostages. Remember Iran/Contra?

carter crashed helicopters in the desert...what is your point

[Samantha]

Discussing terrorists beheading people and rooms with a big rabid dog are strawman arguments.

Back to the actual issue. You can't bring peace by name calling (axis of evil) and threatening and refusing to talk. That's what spoiled brat kids do and it doesn't help anything.

Leaders must speak to eachother to solve the world's problems. They must cooperate and negotiate and come up with solutions. We have to wait till 1/20/09 for any of this to happen out of our White House, but it's good to see some of our congress people out there trying.

[Samantha]

carter crashed helicopters in the desert...what is your pointApparently it's going to be hard for you to follow the discussion. Try and concentrate.

[stephanie]

Discussing terrorists beheading people and rooms with a big rabid dog are strawman arguments.

Back to the actual issue. You can't bring peace by name calling (axis of evil) and threatening and refusing to talk. That's what spoiled brat kids do and it doesn't help anything.

Leaders must speak to eachother to solve the world's problems. They must cooperate and negotiate and come up with solutions. We have to wait till 1/20/09 for any of this to happen out of our White House, but it's good to see some of our congress people out there trying.

WELL......I elect you first in line to go TALK...

Happy trails...

[Samantha]

WELL......I elect you first in line to go TALK...

Happy trails...
I support those who are great leaders and will.

I protest against the horrible ones who refuse to.

[manu1959]

Discussing terrorists beheading people and rooms with a big rabid dog are strawman arguments.

Back to the actual issue. You can't bring peace by name calling (axis of evil) and threatening and refusing to talk. That's what spoiled brat kids do and it doesn't help anything.

Leaders must speak to eachother to solve the world's problems. They must cooperate and negotiate and come up with solutions. We have to wait till 1/20/09 for any of this to happen out of our White House, but it's good to see some of our congress people out there trying.

fair enough....who is in charge of the terrorist that you would like us to negotiate with?....obl declared war on the us under clinton did we negotiate then....nah we sent helicopters and not enough men or equipment to somalia and good men died....

negotiating is all that is left .... and once we quit this war ... there will be no point in negotiating as no one will have to negotiate with us ... there is no need ... america is defeating itself .....

[Samantha]

fair enough....who is in charge of the terrorist that you would like us to negotiate with?....obl declared war on the us under clinton did we negotiate then....nah we sent helicopters and not enough men or equipment to somalia and good men died....

negotiating is all that is left .... and once we quit this war ... there will be no point in negotiating as no one will have to negotiate with us ... there is no need ... america is defeating itself .....Defeating itself? I don't understand your post.

I am talking about negotiating with leaders of countries. Iran, Syria, the ones that Bush refuses to talk to. These countries can help secure Iraq. The experts agree. The Iraq report suggests negotiation. Our Prez refuses to do it.

The war on terrorism isn't the war in Iraq. I don't want anyone to negotiate with Bin Laden. Bin Laden needs to be found and killed or put on trial.

But Bush doesn't care about where he is. He doesn't think that much about him anymore.

[stephanie]

fair enough....who is in charge of the terrorist that you would like us to negotiate with?....obl declared war on the us under clinton did we negotiate then....nah we sent helicopters and not enough men or equipment to somalia and good men died....

negotiating is all that is left .... and once we quit this war ... there will be no point in negotiating as no one will have to negotiate with us ... there is no need ... america is defeating itself .....

manu.......talking to an airhead....is useless..
Unfortunaly the thing is.....If a Democrat becomes President, and the Dems. hold onto Congress..in 08

Were just going to have to hold on...
Not only of our money, but for our lives...

[manu1959]

Defeating itself? I don't understand your post.

I am talking about negotiating with leaders of countries. Iran, Syria, the ones that Bush refuses to talk to. These countries can help secure Iraq. The experts agree. The Iraq report suggests negotiation. Our Prez refuses to do it.

The war on terrorism isn't the war in Iraq. I don't want anyone to negotiate with Bin Laden. Bin Laden needs to be found and killed or put on trial.

But Bush doesn't care about where he is. He doesn't think that much about him anymore.

america does not have the stomach for a fight...we go in half hearted and then undercut ourselves....been that way since korea.....

why do you have to convince syria and iran to do the right thing and prevent people from killing thier own people ..... anyway, why would syria and iran wnat to change their course? what are you going to do if they don't agree? invade them? sanction them? say please? write UN resolutions?

[Samantha]

manu.......talking to an airhead....is useless..
Unfortunaly the thing is.....If a Democrat becomes President, and the Dems. hold onto Congress..in 08

Were just going to have to hold on...
Not only of our money, but for our lives...Airhead.

Interesting.

I would think a person who can't discuss the issue and instead laughs in every post in a thread about the troops not having what they need to be protected from losing arms, legs and their lives, and having their tours extended for 15 months instead of 12, would be more of an airhead.

[manu1959]

manu.......talking to an airhead....is useless..
Unfortunaly the thing is.....If a Democrat becomes President, and the Dems. hold onto Congress..in 08

Were just going to have to hold on...
Not only of our money, but for our lives...

the dems in control of the house senate and the pres in 08......

what will their excuse for doing nothing be then? think they will pull all the trops out of the middle east....

[manu1959]

I would think a person who can't discuss the issue and instead laughs in every post in a thread about the troops not having what they need to be protected from losing arms, legs and their lives, and having their tours extended for 15 months instead of 12, would be more of an airhead.

any idea on the length of a tour of duty in WWII?

why do you think all the troops are running around naked with sticks?.....

[Samantha]

america does not have the stomach for a fight...we go in half hearted and then undercut ourselves....been that way since korea.....

why do you have to convince syria and iran to do the right thing and prevent people from killing thier own people ..... anyway, why would syria and iran wnat to change their course? what are you going to do if they don't agree? invade them? sanction them? say please? write UN resolutions?America will never support a war that was waged based on the lies that Iraq had WMD and was a threat to us with a mushroom cloud and had connections to 9/11 and Al Qaeda. America will never support a war based on greed for Exxon/Mobil to get the oil contracts. America will never support a war waged for political gain. Vietnam, Korea, Iraq - all wars that American did not support. All wars where we were not threatened or attacked.

Maybe some day politicians will learn, you can't win a war that the American people will not support.

[Samantha]

any idea on the length of a tour of duty in WWII?

why do you think all the troops are running around naked with sticks?.....The Iraq war has already lasted longer than WWII.

Why do you argue with strawmen and fiction?

[stephanie]

Airhead.

Interesting.

I would think a person who can't discuss the issue and instead laughs in every post in a thread about the troops not having what they need to be protected from losing arms, legs and their lives, and having their tours extended for 15 months instead of 12, would be more of an airhead.

:laugh2: What made you think I was talking about you???:laugh2:
Guilty conscious:cheers2:

[manu1959]

The Iraq war has already lasted longer than WWII.

Why do you argue with strawmen and fiction?

what year did wwII start? end?

why do i argue with straw men and fiction? you mean like the troops not having any equipment? like that type of straw men and fiction? or the allegorical concept of fighting naked with sticks? to represent the lack of equipment and thus make the point they are not without equipment....

[stephanie]

what year did WWII start? end?

why do i argue with straw men and fiction? you mean like the troops not having any equipment? like that type of straw men and fiction? or the allegorical concept of fighting naked with sticks? to represent the lack of equipment and thus make the point they are not without equipment....


Dang it manu...you dang near confused me...
I hope somebodies head don't explode trying to read that...:coffee:

[manu1959]

Dang it manu...you dang near confused me...
I hope somebodies head don't explode trying to read that...:coffee:

bet someone calls me stupid

[stephanie]

bet someone calls me stupid

Sorry that would be a bet I will have to pass on.
I give it 3....2.....1

[SassyLady]

Hey! You don't like Bush. What difference does it make where the article came from? The neocons will all gang up and decry anything that attempts to move them from part of the 32% up to the 68%. They've had that low score for so long and Bush keeps telling them they are winning I swear they think they are playing golf where the low score wins.

If you only ask 100 people what they think and try to extrapolate that to paint a picture of what "everyone" thinks is ridiculous. Everyone knows that surveys and numbers can be manipulated anyway the statistician wants them to look. When you put up 32% and 68% --- what were the parameters of the survey?

Don't buy into the "group think" aspect just because some Zogby poll is giving out numbers. Remember November of 2004 and the exit polls?

[SassyLady]

There isn't much to defend. To me,not 'dealing" with terrorists like the leader of Iran is the right thing to do. You can't bargain with evil. How do you explain something that is just wrong? We know murder is wrong,we know stealing is wrong. It's the same with this. Dealing with bad people cannot possibly bring any good. Does anyone honestly believe that talking to Iran would do anything? The guy has declared national nuclear day for Pete's sake. He is pushing buttons and playing games. There will be no honest talks with him. They are NUTS!

As far as how the American people feel about the war. Everyone of us is entitled to our opinion. But how much of that opinion is based on fact coming out of Iraq. The media NEVER has a good story coming out of there. Funny thing,when a soldier is interviewed,we hear all kinds of good things happening. Is the war really a failure? Or is it just what happens in war? Men will die. I think about them every day,and thier families. Don't you think pulling out of Iraq and not finishing the mission,on top of "talking" with terror leaders is a slap in the face to every fallen and injured soldier in this war?

:salute:

[SassyLady]

The truth is diplomacy is talking to your enemies. Peace talks are done with your enemies. If you only talk to the countries that are cooperating with you, how will you ever achieve peace? We don't have to be big bullies threatening people, name calling, giving ultimatums with no chance for discussion.

Bush is doing that right now with the Democrats. He invited them to come talk about the war bill and said there will be no negotiation. Of course they declined the offer. What's the point?

Bush is doing that right now with Syria and Iran. He finally talked to North Korea and got back Clinton's deal, after letting it disolve after he took office. If he refuses to use diplomacy, all we will get are more enemies. If he keeps declaring war on countries, more will join the jihad. If he keeps name calling and threatening, more will develop nukes to use against us.

1/20/09 can't come soon enough.

Samantha and Lily,

I'm willing to talk peace ......... but only if my enemy has shown a willingness to cease the behavior that started the battle/war in the first place. BUT I WILL NOT TALK from a pacifist position. This nation has worked long and hard to be #1 and we will not retain that position from a pacifist point of view. Carter's policies of weakness and groveling is what gave the jihadist the courage to attack us and then Clinton reinforced our unwillingness to meet terrorism head-on when he wanted to handle previous terror attacks as "legal situations" rather than acts of war.

Bottom line ....... I don't want a president that kow-tows to every tom, dick and harry because he's worried about being seen as aggressive.

[SassyLady]

Even the police negotiate with criminals. That's how they discover what's going on with them because criminals are always eager to boast about their deeds. Look what NOT talking to these clowns has gotten us.

I know........and this has always pissed me off. :slap:

They should just eliminate them on the first offense....don't talk to them to find out what they've got planned for the future or what they did in the past. The world would be a better place if less negotiating were going on! :poke:

[SassyLady]

Defeating itself? I don't understand your post.

I am talking about negotiating with leaders of countries. Iran, Syria, the ones that Bush refuses to talk to. These countries can help secure Iraq. The experts agree. The Iraq report suggests negotiation. Our Prez refuses to do it.

The war on terrorism isn't the war in Iraq. I don't want anyone to negotiate with Bin Laden. Bin Laden needs to be found and killed or put on trial.

But Bush doesn't care about where he is. He doesn't think that much about him anymore.


We don't need to negotiate with them in order for them to take actions to help secure Iraq. They can quit supporting the terrorists and they can close down their borders. Why do they need to talk with us in order to begin this process?????

What it all boils down to is a pissing contest to see if they can break the will of the American people. And it's libs like yourself that will finally bend over and let them kick you in the ass and laugh all the way.........because it's their mission to make us cower and come to them and meet their demands. The first is "talking"; any idea what the second demand will be?

Don't want any part of that process, but you go ahead Samantha.

[Gunny]

How did the hostages that Iran held for 444 days get released?

How did Jimmy Carter bring peace that's lasted to THIS day between Egypt and Israel?

The Iran hostages were released when Reagan took office. Kohmeini knew he was no longer dealing with a bowl of jello at the helm.

Obviously, it was in Egypt's and Israel's best interests to stop fighting, or they'd still be going at it.

All Carter did was offer incentives to get each to the table, so let's don't go giving him more credit than he deserves. I can get a drug dealer to sit down at a table with me if I offer him enough money, and get him to leave me alone as long as I keep giving him stuff.

[Gunny]

Even the police negotiate with criminals. That's how they discover what's going on with them because criminals are always eager to boast about their deeds. Look what NOT talking to these clowns has gotten us.

The police NEVER negotiate with criminals in good faith. They open a dialogue always with taking down the criminal one way or the other in mind.

I'm willing to offer the same deal to terrorists and/or terrorist organizations the police offer domestic criminals .... surrender or else.

[Gunny]

LOL!!! Reagan traded arms for hostages. Remember Iran/Contra?

Please provide evidence ... REAL, CREDIBLE evidence ... that supports your allegation. IIRC, as hard as you libbies tried, nothing was linked to Reagan except in y'all's imaginations.

Not to mention Iran/Contra had nothing to do with the release of the hostages from the Iran Hostage Crisis.

[Gunny]

Discussing terrorists beheading people and rooms with a big rabid dog are strawman arguments.

Back to the actual issue. You can't bring peace by name calling (axis of evil) and threatening and refusing to talk. That's what spoiled brat kids do and it doesn't help anything.

Leaders must speak to eachother to solve the world's problems. They must cooperate and negotiate and come up with solutions. We have to wait till 1/20/09 for any of this to happen out of our White House, but it's good to see some of our congress people out there trying.

Absurd. Leaders of civilized nations should NEVER speak on equal terms with thugs, murderers and religious zealots. In case that basic lesson has skipped over your head, Leaders of Nations like the US that speak officially to another give that organization international credibility and official recognition as an organization.

Let me tell you how to negotiate with snakes ... you kill them. Problem solved.

And you seriously live in a glass bubble if you think a Democrat President is going to do anything more than the last one .... ignore the issue as much as possible and leave it for the next one to deal with.

It's too bad leftwingnuts like you can't see that simple fact.

[Gunny]

Apparently it's going to be hard for you to follow the discussion. Try and concentrate.

The discussion lost you the minute you started thinking you could negotiate with snakes.

[Gunny]

Defeating itself? I don't understand your post.

I am talking about negotiating with leaders of countries. Iran, Syria, the ones that Bush refuses to talk to. These countries can help secure Iraq. The experts agree. The Iraq report suggests negotiation. Our Prez refuses to do it.

The war on terrorism isn't the war in Iraq. I don't want anyone to negotiate with Bin Laden. Bin Laden needs to be found and killed or put on trial.

But Bush doesn't care about where he is. He doesn't think that much about him anymore.

Every President since Reagan has refused to negotiate with Iran and Syria. They're rogue nations.

And the idea they can help secure Iraq is laughable, at best. Syria would immediately defer to Iran and Iran would immediately go about installing a Shia fundamentalist government.

Yeah, THAT's solving the problem. Are you in jr high school?

[Gunny]

Airhead.

Interesting.

I would think a person who can't discuss the issue and instead laughs in every post in a thread about the troops not having what they need to be protected from losing arms, legs and their lives, and having their tours extended for 15 months instead of 12, would be more of an airhead.

Airhead: one who parrots liberal talking points but really has no clue what the Hell she's running her suck about.

[Gunny]

America will never support a war that was waged based on the lies that Iraq had WMD and was a threat to us with a mushroom cloud and had connections to 9/11 and Al Qaeda. America will never support a war based on greed for Exxon/Mobil to get the oil contracts. America will never support a war waged for political gain. Vietnam, Korea, Iraq - all wars that American did not support. All wars where we were not threatened or attacked.

Maybe some day politicians will learn, you can't win a war that the American people will not support.

Your whole argument is leftwing rhetoric, and not worth shit. Been debunked so many times the tread marks are still all over it.

Next .....

[Gunny]

what year did wwII start? end?

why do i argue with straw men and fiction? you mean like the troops not having any equipment? like that type of straw men and fiction? or the allegorical concept of fighting naked with sticks? to represent the lack of equipment and thus make the point they are not without equipment....

Manu ... she's obviously got all of Lily's talking points down. You can argue until the sky turns yellow and she'll just come back and repost the same, baseless drivel.

It is however a perfect example of how lemming libs spread their message. See any difference between hers, LibNat's and Lily's rhetoric?

[shattered]

Manu ... she's obviously got all of Lily's talking points down. You can argue until the sky turns yellow and she'll just come back and repost the same, baseless drivel.

It is however a perfect example of how lemming libs spread their message. See any difference between hers, LibNat's and Lily's rhetoric?

Don't lemmings all jump off a cliff together, too? What are they waiting for?

[shattered]

Hey, Leskank - If you're going to keep neg repping, at least have the ...fortitude to come forth and post the exact reason you're neg repping for, rather than continuing to play Lily's little lap dog and neg rep SIMPLY because she told you to..

(and for every one I get from you, you get two back from me).

[LiberalNation]

Blah, blah, blah. I figure I owe you.

[shattered]

Blah, blah, blah. I figure I owe you.

Remember.. paybacks a bitch. :)The more you do Lily's bidding, the worse SHE gets it. :)

[glockmail]

Remember.. paybacks a bitch. :)The more you do Lily's bidding, the worse SHE gets it. :) I detect a wee bit of feminine malevolence. What is the source of this vitriol?

[glockmail]

.....

Back to the actual issue. You can't bring peace by name calling (axis of evil) and threatening and refusing to talk. That's what spoiled brat kids do and it doesn't help anything.

Leaders must speak to eachother to solve the world's problems. They must cooperate and negotiate and come up with solutions. We have to wait till 1/20/09 for any of this to happen out of our White House, but it's good to see some of our congress people out there trying.

We have talked with Iran through the UN and they gave them the finger. Why would we attempt to circumvent UN authority with direct talks? Besides, "talk" implies "negotiations", meaning "compromise", and we should offer no such compromise.

[shattered]

I detect a wee bit of feminine malevolence. What is the source of this vitriol?

Lily posted stupid shit, got neg repped for it by a couple people, ASSUMED that everyone decided to team up against her, so called in LibNat, and Samantha and asked them to neg rep me at every chance they got. (LibNat has already admitted that she was "asked in", now states that she wasn't, and is suddenly doing it because she wants to).. Bullshit.

Turn about is fair play. For every unwarranted rep LibNat hands me, she gets two back, AND Lily gets two.

[glockmail]

.....

Carter was a baffoon and has turned into a nasty little asshole since then. That's because he sees what his real legacy was: the demonstration of the complete and utter failure of liberal ideas.

[Baron Von Esslingen]

The police NEVER negotiate with criminals in good faith. They open a dialogue always with taking down the criminal one way or the other in mind.

I'm willing to offer the same deal to terrorists and/or terrorist organizations the police offer domestic criminals .... surrender or else.

Thanks for making my point for me. This administration seems to think that by not talking to these rogue nations that they are punishing them. In point of fact, it's like ignoring the class bully while still trying to teach the lesson to the rest of the class: your voice gets louder and louder until you are screaming and the class bully knows you are not talking to him and keeps doing what he was doing. The rest of the class suffers because of it and sees that you are ineffective in dealing with the bully and loses respect for you because you are not dealing with the problem.

That old neocon mantra of ignoring our enemies sure is punishing them real bad, ain't it?

[glockmail]

Lily posted stupid shit, got neg repped for it by a couple people, ASSUMED that everyone decided to team up against her, so called in LibNat, and Samantha and asked them to neg rep me at every chance they got. (LibNat has already admitted that she was "asked in", now states that she wasn't, and is suddenly doing it because she wants to).. Bullshit.

Turn about is fair play. For every unwarranted rep LibNat hands me, she gets two back, AND Lily gets two.

OIC: history. :coffee:

What ever happened for "eye for an eye"?

[shattered]

OIC: history. :coffee:

What ever happened for "eye for an eye"?

Oh, I already told you.. In extreme cases, I'm a little more greedy.. It becomes an arm and a leg for an eye. :)

[Baron Von Esslingen]

The hostages were released because Reagan took office. No negociating there.

Egypt gets 2 billion a year from the US not to get their ass kicked by Israel again.

Wrong. The hostages were released because Carter negotiated to get them out. Reagan had nothing to do with it because he was not the president. Geez. Pick up a history book sometime instead of repeating those RNC talking points or the Newsmax daily bulletins.

Egypt gets their money to maintain the peace, a peace that Carter negotiated almost 30 years ago, a peace that has never been broken.

And Reagan did....what? Nothing.

[glockmail]

Thanks for making my point for me. This administration seems to think that by not talking to these rogue nations that they are punishing them. In point of fact, it's like ignoring the class bully while still trying to teach the lesson to the rest of the class: your voice gets louder and louder until you are screaming and the class bully knows you are not talking to him and keeps doing what he was doing. The rest of the class suffers because of it and sees that you are ineffective in dealing with the bully and loses respect for you because you are not dealing with the problem.

That old neocon mantra of ignoring our enemies sure is punishing them real bad, ain't it?

I don't think that's a legitimate analogy at all.

Again, discussions with a tyrant who has already been given ultimatums by the UN imply that you are willing to negotiate something less that the UN is requiring. Also, as Gunny has clearly demonstrated to both you and I, discussions with a pig headed asshole always end with him claiming false victory or threatening you with physical violence, all supported by his chorus of cheerleaders.

[LiberalNation]

LibNat has already admitted that she was "asked in", now states that she wasn't, and is suddenly doing it because she wants to).. Bullshit.
What now, I never claimed I wasn't asked in. I just also said I'm doing cuss I want to. I'm rather enjoying all this venom I'm getting from your direction. I'd of started sooner if I knew it was gona be this much fun. Total turn on.

[glockmail]

Oh, I already told you.. In extreme cases, I'm a little more greedy.. It becomes an arm and a leg for an eye. :) You may find that the Biblical methodology works better.

[shattered]

You may find that the Biblical methodology works better.

You're barking up the wrong tree re: biblical anything, toots. :)

[glockmail]

What now, I never claimed I wasn't asked in. I just also said I'm doing cuss I want to. I'm rather enjoying all this venom I'm getting from your direction. I'd of started sooner if I knew it was gona be this much fun. Total turn on. Lesbian masochism? :boobies:

[glockmail]

You're barking up the wrong tree re: biblical anything, toots. :) Woof, woof! :laugh2:

[Gunny]

Thanks for making my point for me. This administration seems to think that by not talking to these rogue nations that they are punishing them. In point of fact, it's like ignoring the class bully while still trying to teach the lesson to the rest of the class: your voice gets louder and louder until you are screaming and the class bully knows you are not talking to him and keeps doing what he was doing. The rest of the class suffers because of it and sees that you are ineffective in dealing with the bully and loses respect for you because you are not dealing with the problem.

That old neocon mantra of ignoring our enemies sure is punishing them real bad, ain't it?

Actually, I did not make your point for you at all. You know as well as I that when a nation like the US officially recognizes any nation/organization it gives that nation certain credibility in the international community, and that is the reason the US -- not just President Bush -- has historically refused to negotiate with such nations/organizations.

Since radical islam's stated, non-negotiable goal is world domination, and conversion or killing of all infidels, just what good do you think talking to any of them will do?

It will do NO good. It will cost us, and buy them time to continue going about achieving their goal. And all it will buy us is a temporary and false peace while our enemies go about increasing their ability to destroy us.

[LiberalNation]

Lesbian masochism?
lol

[Gunny]

Wrong. The hostages were released because Carter negotiated to get them out. Reagan had nothing to do with it because he was not the president. Geez. Pick up a history book sometime instead of repeating those RNC talking points or the Newsmax daily bulletins.

Egypt gets their money to maintain the peace, a peace that Carter negotiated almost 30 years ago, a peace that has never been broken.

And Reagan did....what? Nothing.

Ridiculous. Khomeini turned them loose because he knew he was going to have to deal with someone who would actually do something.

And perhaps you should revisit a history book. Reagan had already been elected and the hostages were released within days of his taking office.

Carter negotiated nothing, and basically blew the entire incident out his ass.

[glockmail]

lol
Shattered I suggest that you switch avatars to something less... suggestive. :laugh2:

[shattered]

Shattered I suggest that you switch avatars to something less... suggestive. :laugh2:

Bah. Wouldn't be the first time I've had to deal with such...infatuation. Yech.

[glockmail]

Ridiculous. Khomeini turned them loose because he knew he was going to have to deal with someone who would actually do something.

And perhaps you should revisit a history book. Reagan had already been elected and the hostages were released within days of his taking office.

Carter negotiated nothing, and basically blew the entire incident out his ass. My God, Baron. Do you actually believe what you stated? The Iranians hated Carter, both the moderates and the whackos.

[glockmail]

Bah. Wouldn't be the first time I've had to deal with such...infatuation. Yech.http://smiley.onegreatguy.net/eatout.gif Delicious! :laugh2:

[shattered]

http://smiley.onegreatguy.net/eatout.gif Delicious! :laugh2:

I outta ding you just for being disgusting. :fu:

[glockmail]

I outta ding you just for being disgusting. :fu: But you realize that I'm really a heterosexual masochist. Come over and walk on my back with those heels. :lmao:

[Baron Von Esslingen]

Ridiculous. Khomeini turned them loose because he knew he was going to have to deal with someone who would actually do something.

And perhaps you should revisit a history book. Reagan had already been elected and the hostages were released within days of his taking office.

Carter negotiated nothing, and basically blew the entire incident out his ass.

In fact, they were released the same day in accordance with the agreement that Carter negotiated with the Iranians. Your foolish conjectures about Reagan could lead me to believe that he or members of his campaign were in violation of the International Commerce Acts of 1798, which prohibit any private citizen or party from negotiating with a foreign power in matters of national policy or military action. Is that what you are telling me? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_hostage_crisis)

[shattered]

But you realize that I'm really a heterosexual masochist. Come over and walk on my back with those heels. :lmao:

Geeze. I don't know which is MORE gross. :eek: :lalala: :puke:

[glockmail]

In fact, they were released the same day in accordance with the agreement that Carter negotiated with the Iranians. Your foolish conjectures about Reagan could lead me to believe that he or members of his campaign were in violation of the International Commerce Acts of 1798, which prohibit any private citizen or party from negotiating with a foreign power in matters of national policy or military action. Is that what you are telling me? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_hostage_crisis) This doesn't link to that statement. :wtf:

[glockmail]

Geeze. I don't know which is MORE gross. :eek: :lalala: :puke: "You know you want it, you know you deserve it." :laugh2:

[Samantha]

Lily posted stupid shit, got neg repped for it by a couple people, ASSUMED that everyone decided to team up against her, so called in LibNat, and Samantha and asked them to neg rep me at every chance they got. (LibNat has already admitted that she was "asked in", now states that she wasn't, and is suddenly doing it because she wants to).. Bullshit.

Turn about is fair play. For every unwarranted rep LibNat hands me, she gets two back, AND Lily gets two.You're a liar.

No one asked me to do anything.

Thanks for showing me your true dishonest self right off the bat. We can all remember that shattered makes up stories to suit her agenda.

I'll know now, never to believe a word you say. Once a liar always a liar.

[loosecannon]

You're a liar.

No one asked me to do anything.

Thanks for showing me your true dishonest self right off the bat. We can all remember that shattered makes up stories to suit her agenda.

I'll know now, never to believe a word you say. Once a liar always a liar.


Samantha it is hillarious that folks would get so worked up about neg rep points in the first place.

Neg rep points usually prove that you are winning the argument.

Maybe some of the shattered posters on this board are fragile people who need the self esteem boost of little green boxes to feel good about themselves.

whatever.

[CockySOB]

Samantha it is hillarious that folks would get so worked up about neg rep points in the first place.

Neg rep points usually prove that you are winning the argument.

Maybe some of the shattered posters on this board are fragile people who need the self esteem boost of little green boxes to feel good about themselves.

whatever.

Disagree. While some people will neg rep as they start losing an argument, most of the neg rep I see comes from a difference in ideology. (Liberals neg rep conservatives and vice versa.)

I prefer to use rep as a comment on how well someone posts and supports their position, but I do sometimes ding someone for being trollish....

[loosecannon]

Disagree. While some people will neg rep as they start losing an argument, most of the neg rep I see comes from a difference in ideology. (Liberals neg rep conservatives and vice versa.)

I prefer to use rep as a comment on how well someone posts and supports their position, but I do sometimes ding someone for being trollish....


When you start really winning in a partisan argument neg reps come in large waves.

Neg reps prove you are winning the arguments, positive reps mean you are winning the popularity contest.

[Samantha]

Samantha it is hillarious that folks would get so worked up about neg rep points in the first place.

Neg rep points usually prove that you are winning the argument.

Maybe some of the shattered posters on this board are fragile people who need the self esteem boost of little green boxes to feel good about themselves.

whatever.I could care less about rep points really. I'm new here and I don't even know what it's all about. I read some talk about it and decided to check it out, giving some righties neg ones and lefties postive ones, and then this shattered liar starts saying someone told me what to do.

It's amazing the lies people make up inside their twisted brains to justify their make believe world.

Thanks to the folks who gave me some good points. I'd like to at least have enough to neg rep some more assholes ;)

[stephanie]

I could care less about rep points really. I'm new here and I don't even know what it's all about. I read some talk about it and decided to check it out, giving some righties neg ones and lefties postive ones, and then this shattered liar starts saying someone told me what to do.

It's amazing the lies people make up inside their twisted brains to justify their make believe world.

Thanks to the folks who gave me some good points. I'd like to at least have enough to neg rep some more assholes ;)

:poke: :lame2:

[Samantha]

If I don't have any, I can't give you a negative one for being a giggling knucklehead in threads about our troops arms and legs being blown off, can I?

[stephanie]

If I don't have any, I can't give you a negative one for being a giggling knucklehead in threads about our troops arms and legs being blown off, can I?

You my dear...

Are a very :lame2: person..

[LiberalNation]

But you realize that I'm really a heterosexual masochist. Come over and walk on my back with those heels. :lmao:
lol, you crazy glock.

[LiberalNation]

Oh and nobody told me to neg rep anyone. I chose to do that on my own.

[Samantha]

You my dear...

Are a very :lame2: person..Right back atcha sweetheart.

[stephanie]

Right back atcha sweetheart.

Is that you.......Jilly????:slap:

[lily]

Samantha and Lily,

I'm willing to talk peace ......... but only if my enemy has shown a willingness to cease the behavior that started the battle/war in the first place.

Sorry it took me a while to sort through the shattered whining and lying. I'm not sure what battle/war you are talking about. Syria and Iran were not our enimies before we invaded Iraq, at least not to this degree. If Canada and Mexico were invaded, wouldn't the US look out for their interest? You seem to forget as much as we see Ahmadinejad as a crazy man, they are seeing the same thing about Bush. You don't think that there are other people in different countries sitting on a computer doing the same thing we are doing? We're all the same.


BUT I WILL NOT TALK from a pacifist position. This nation has worked long and hard to be #1 and we will not retain that position from a pacifist point of view.

I'm glad that you have that point of view, but I also would like my point of view respected also. I don't see us holding on to that #1 position much longer the way this administration is bullying every country that it happens to have on it's make believe axis of evil. When Bush came into office, he had Russia and China on his side. Also, keep in mind, just how many of the original coalition of the willing are still willing. He's pissing away this countries credibility, it's wealth and the most terrible loss of all out young men and women. Oh....this war CAN be won, but not with this president.

[manu1959]

Syria and Iran were not our enimies before we invaded Iraq, at least not to this degree.

wrong.......syria funded hezbollah and allowed the train inside their boarders and they killed us military and us citizens and us allies .... iran funds them ...

[Dilloduck]

wrong.......syria funded hezbollah and allowed the train inside their boarders and they killed us military and us citizens and us allies .... iran funds them ...

Don't confuse Lily with the facts again--I guess she still thinks Iran held Americans hostage in 1979 because the liked us so much.

[glockmail]

lol, you crazy glock. Perhaps you would like to try it. You won't be the first lesbian I've pleased to the point where they have panted back to the home team, all sweaty, cross eyed, and happy.

[LiberalNation]

lol, maybe.

[glockmail]

lol, maybe.
I can turn that giggle into a quiver. :coffee:

[LiberalNation]

Pretty big ego right there. Makes me wonder of there are any real skills behind it. :gay: :banana:

[manu1959]

Pretty big ego right there. Makes me wonder of there are any real skills behind it. :gay: :banana:

lol....touche'

[glockmail]

Pretty big ego right there. Makes me wonder of there are any real skills behind it. :gay: :banana: Not any more. But when I was your age I'd go at it 7 times in a night before the object of my affections would ask me to stop before she cramped up. :laugh2: :cry:

[manu1959]

Not any more. But when I was your age I'd go at it 7 times in a night before the object of my affections would ask me to stop before she cramped up. :laugh2: :cry:

uh dude .... 7 strokes is not a lot

[Gaffer]

Wrong. The hostages were released because Carter negotiated to get them out. Reagan had nothing to do with it because he was not the president. Geez. Pick up a history book sometime instead of repeating those RNC talking points or the Newsmax daily bulletins.

Egypt gets their money to maintain the peace, a peace that Carter negotiated almost 30 years ago, a peace that has never been broken.

And Reagan did....what? Nothing.

Since I was around during that period of time I remember it very well. It had nothing to do with carter's negociating skills. It had everything to do with Reagans promise to take military action against iran once he was in office. It was one of the things that got him elected.

[gabosaurus]

The Bush administration prefers talking to nobody unless it finds somebody who thinks more or less the way it does. And folks like that are fewer and fewer.

Fortunately for Bush, there remain a lot of mindless, non-thinking devotees who swallow every word and thought he regurgitates. Read this board for proof.

[Baron Von Esslingen]

Since I was around during that period of time I remember it very well. It had nothing to do with carter's negociating skills. It had everything to do with Reagans promise to take military action against iran once he was in office. It was one of the things that got him elected.

And you have a citation from a main stream media cite that PROVES this? Bring it on. I was around during that time as well.

[stephanie]

And you have a citation from a main stream media cite that PROVES this? Bring it on. I was around during that time as well.

I was around at that time also........
The friggin thing that gets me......Is you would stand and defend a man...who let OUR innocent civilians languish for TWO YEARS in a hostile country.......and still think he was a great President, let alone a great person...

I would bet though, if any of these hostages had been a member of your family......You'd be the first in line.......SCREAMING AND DEMANDING CARTER DO SOMETHING........

You have your priotities all screwed up with hatered...
And you and your liberals buddies are the sheeple(when you can still defend a man who did nothing for those poor American Hostages for over two yrs..) that you accuse us conservatives of.......

You liberals are as nutty as a fruitcake.......and blindly led sheep..

[Baron Von Esslingen]

and every hostage came home alive...

None came home in a box.

[glockmail]

uh dude .... 7 strokes is not a lot
We ain't talking strokes here, dude. :laugh2:

[glockmail]

and every hostage came home alive...

None came home in a box. 444 days that they will never get back. "Live free or Die."

[Baron Von Esslingen]

444 days that they will never get back. "Live free or Die."

But they are alive to enjoy every other day. Sorry if that bums you out.

[Gunny]

and every hostage came home alive...

None came home in a box.

Right. They finally came home because fear works. The Iranians had no respect for Carter, but knew Reagan would do something, one way or the other.

[glockmail]

But they are alive to enjoy every other day. Sorry if that bums you out. That proves that you are willing to give up freedom to appease US enemies. Carter is to blame for that collective imprisonment. Based on the amount of time and number of hostages, that’s a few American lives because of Carter’s incompetence as a leader.

[Baron Von Esslingen]

Right. They finally came home because fear works. The Iranians had no respect for Carter, but knew Reagan would do something, one way or the other.

and if you had more than an opinion on that, we would have already seen the proof...

Yeah, we saw Reagan's true colors in Lebanon and so did the rest of the world. Also in Nicaruagua.

[loosecannon]

Right. They finally came home because fear works. The Iranians had no respect for Carter, but knew Reagan would do something, one way or the other.

So why did Reagan have to trade weapons for the hostages Gunny?

Is thatn what you mean by "Reagan would do something, one way or the other", that Reagan would commit treason to get the hostages released?

And the Iranians respected this?

Cuz it really sounds more like Carter stood his ground and Reagan caved. So the Iranians respected Carter but couldn't work with him. But they knew Reagan was a trash whore who would spread his legs for $10 and that was what they were looking for.

[TheStripey1]

So....was this a praise Pelosi....or a bash President Bush article..???

It was hard to tell..

:rolleyes:

Obviously, it's both... :dance:

[TheStripey1]

That proves that you are willing to give up freedom to appease US enemies. Carter is to blame for that collective imprisonment. Based on the amount of time and number of hostages, that’s a few American lives because of Carter’s incompetence as a leader.

Sooooo... glocky... under bush we have lost over 3200 military, 700+ civilian contractors in Iraq and almost 3000 in New York City... would you say that that constituted incompentency as a leader as well?

ooops... almost forgot Afghanistan... add however many more americans have died there to the total...

that incompetent enough for you?

[Samantha]

Sooooo... glocky... under bush we have lost over 3200 military, 700+ civilian contractors in Iraq and almost 3000 in New York City... would you say that that constituted incompentency as a leader as well?

ooops... almost forgot Afghanistan... add however many more americans have died there to the total...

that incompetent enough for you?Not to mention the incompetency of the Katrina handling.

The reason there is so much incompetency is because of all the cronies Bush has appointed. Brownie, Wolfie, Gonzo, Rummy all did a heck of a job. He never thought of appointing people who are actually qualified for a position. He just appointed his friends and the wackos from the Reagan administration.

[loosecannon]

conservatives sure talk about hate alot... is that one of their core family values?
conservatives hate liberals, Jesus was a liberal, therefore conservatives hate Jesus.


I wonder if Jesus hates conservatives as much as he does oil rich Muslims.

[TheStripey1]

Not to mention the incompetency of the Katrina handing.

The reason there is so much incompetency is because of all the cronies Bush has appointed. Brownie, Wolfie, Gonzo, Rummy all did a heck of a job. He never thought of appointing people who are actually qualified for a position. He just appointed his friends and the wackos from the Reagan administration.


Quite true, sam, quite true... I forgot all about katrina... but... in all fairness, you can't blame those deaths on bush, cuz he didn't actually cause the hurricane...

on the other paw... for an administration and administration apologists here and elsewhere, that pitched such a bitch over the alledged cronyism of Joe Wilson and his wife concerning his trip to Niger... Brownie, Wolfie, Gonzo, Rummy, Meirs constitutes an awful lot of cronyism...

but I bet the righties don't care about cronyism when it's their pals getting the jobs... not that ANY of the righties HERE have pals IN the bush administration... heavens no... none of them HERE do...

:dance:

[TheStripey1]

I wonder if Jesus hates conservatives as much as he does oil rich Muslims.

No... Jesus doesn't hate anyone... He was about LOVE... that's why it's so strange that the right try to claim Him as their own...

[Samantha]

Quite true, sam, quite true... I forgot all about katrina... but... in all fairness, you can't blame those deaths on bush, cuz he didn't actually cause the hurricane...

on the other paw... for an administration and administration apologists here and elsewhere, that pitched such a bitch over the alledged cronyism of Joe Wilson and his wife concerning his trip to Niger... Brownie, Wolfie, Gonzo, Rummy, Meirs constitutes an awful lot of cronyism...

but I bet the righties don't care about cronyism when it's their pals getting the jobs... not that ANY of the righties HERE have pals IN the bush administration... heavens no... none of them HERE do...

:dance:
Do some of them here really have pals in the Bush admin?

Actually about Katrina, Bush didn't cause the hurricane, but his incompetence caused people to die after Katrina that didn't have to.

[TheStripey1]

Do some of them here really have pals in the Bush admin?



hahahahhaa... no...

[Baron Von Esslingen]

No... Jesus doesn't hate anyone... He was about LOVE... that's why it's so strange that the right try to claim Him as their own...

Jesus:

born to an unwed mother

hung out with the dregs of society

threw the fat cats out of the temple

was persecuted by the authorities on trumped up charges

betrayed by one of his own followers

preached the commandment to love one another



There isn't a Republican that I know of that can swallow all of that.

[stephanie]

Jesus:

born to an unwed mother

hung out with the dregs of society

threw the fat cats out of the temple

was persecuted by the authorities on trumped up charges

betrayed by one of his own followers

preached the commandment to love one another



There isn't a Republican that I know of that can swallow all of that.


Maybe you need to involve yourself.....in the real life...

[stephanie]

Do some of them here really have pals in the Bush admin?

Actually about Katrina, Bush didn't cause the hurricane, but his incompetence caused people to die after Katrina that didn't have to.

You forgot this little smilie:dance:

[stephanie]

Quite true, SAM, quite true... I forgot all about Katrina... but... in all fairness, you can't blame those deaths on bush, cuz he didn't actually cause the hurricane...

on the other paw... for an administration and administration apologists here and elsewhere, that pitched such a bitch over the alleged cronyism of Joe Wilson and his wife concerning his trip to Niger... Brownie, Wolfie, Gonzo, Rummy, Meier's constitutes an awful lot of cronyism...

but I bet the righties don't care about cronyism when it's their pals getting the jobs... not that ANY of the righties HERE have pals IN the bush administration... heavens no... none of them HERE do...

:dance:


Isn't it Amazing...
That you post a dancing smilie when you post your post...


You CARE SO MUCH......for those poor people down there...
your :lame2:shows.. And so does all your liberal buddies, laughing and joking and agreeing with you on this...

What a Progressive liberal.bunch..
The ones who will fix all of mankind from them evil Conservatives.....
Yet you..
Make fun of people who are hurting, so you can try to dump the blame on a people who are Conservative.........

Fucking Pathetic....

It's not the first time I've seen this of you all so kind liberal, progressive like minded thinking people......
And I know it wont be the last..sick

[Baron Von Esslingen]

Jesus:

born to an unwed mother

hung out with the dregs of society

threw the fat cats out of the temple

was persecuted by the authorities on trumped up charges

betrayed by one of his own followers

preached the commandment to love one another



There isn't a Republican that I know of that can swallow all of that.

Maybe you need to involve yourself.....in the real life...

I don't take advice from Social Darwinists who hate everything I just mentioned and still go to church on Sunday pretending to follow Him. Sounds of Silence, indeed.

[loosecannon]

Maybe you need to involve yourself.....in the real life...

Maybe you need to involve yourself.....in the real Jesus

[stephanie]

I don't take advice from Social Darwinists who hate everything I just mentioned and still go to church on Sunday pretending to follow Him. Sounds of Silence, indeed.

You a sad little man..:pee:

[loosecannon]

You a sad little man..:pee:

You a bitter little woman..:pee:

[Samantha]

.............There isn't a Republican that I know of that can swallow all of that.Do republicans swallow? ;)

[loosecannon]

I still will have to agree with Bush...not talking with Iran.

The baker hamilton commission disagreed with you. And they included Robert Gates (new DOD head) among their members.

No disrespect intended but between your experience in foreign affairs and the Baker Hamilton's experience with foreign affairs whose opinion rates and whose doesn't?


They just proved they cannot be trusted in any way,shape or form with their kidnapping of British sailors.

They released the hostages unharmed, after a border dispute.

Would you rather they had held those prisoners in jails like Gitmo for 5 years without access to legal assistance, with no charges filed, and tortured them to get confessions like the US does.

The US is the worlds leading terrorist organization. We are state sponsored terrorists in the eyes of the world.

Iran has done absolutely nothing to threaten the US, or harm the US in 30 years.

Meanwhile Bush, whom you tend to trust, is supporting the Sunnis in Iraq who have killed almost 3000 American servicemen.

[Dilloduck]

The baker hamilton commission disagreed with you. And they included Robert Gates (new DOD head) among their members.

No disrespect intended but between your experience in foreign affairs and the Baker Hamilton's experience with foreign affairs whose opinion rates and whose doesn't?



They released the hostages unharmed, after a border dispute.

Would you rather they had held those prisoners in jails like Gitmo for 5 years without access to legal assistance, with no charges filed, and tortured them to get confessions like the US does.

The US is the worlds leading terrorist organization. We are state sponsored terrorists in the eyes of the world.

Iran has done absolutely nothing to threaten the US, or harm the US in 30 years.

Meanwhile Bush, whom you tend to trust, is supporting the Sunnis in Iraq who have killed almost 3000 American servicemen.


Iran has done absolutely nothing to threaten the US, or harm the US in 30 years.

I think that statement is open to debate--hostage taking and preaching "Death to America" to children is sorta mean.

[glockmail]

Sooooo... glocky... under bush we have lost over 3200 military, 700+ civilian contractors in Iraq and almost 3000 in New York City... would you say that that constituted incompentency as a leader as well?

ooops... almost forgot Afghanistan... add however many more americans have died there to the total...

that incompetent enough for you?

How many would we lose if he enacted Carter-style policies?

In this world, its best to be on the offensive.