Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Colossus_500 on October 15, 2007, 10:16:13 AM
-
Mods, this one's a 'tweener as far as where it could go, so I'll leave it up to you as to whether you want to put it here or move it to the Relig. Board.
Thanks - Colossus
If Bush and the Gop act like Democrats
by Mike Moseley
October 13, 2007 01:00 PM EST
Many people would agree that the Democrats have supported Islamic terrorists by working against and supporting the defeat of the terrorist surveillance program and the money transfer program along with other activities such as John Murtha {D PA} acted as judge and jury in the Haditha killings, to learn that the case has been ruled in favor of the Marines. Dick Durbin {D Il} compared our soldiers to soviet gulag guards and Hitler’s Nazis. Harry Reid {D Ne} said that the war is lost. Nancy Pelosi {D Ca} and newly elected Keith Ellison {D MN} went to Syria, a state terror sponsor during a war against Islamic fascists. Keith Ellison compared the President to Hitler. Hillary Clinton {D NY} recently asked the Pentagon if they had a withdrawal plan ready, adding to enemy propaganda. The Democrats cut the “John Doe” amendment from recent homeland security legislation that would protect a person from being sued if they witnessed and reported suspicious activity involving possible terrorism. The examples go on without end and the picture is clear.
There will never be a war that the Democrats will stand with the soldier on the battlefield again. The anti-war movement owns them. As our country follows the left, we have to remember that this party has advanced failure in many areas. They have been successful in removing GOD from our society and all that comes with Him, family, honor, valor, courage, and most recently virtue, of any kind. They take every opportunity to attack American moral values and virtues. Some of the more liberal Democrat leaders appear to believe that the Bible has no truth and that Christianity is based on lies. They are defeating our moral values just as they are defeating American troops. If the electorate listen to these fools, we will never win a battle again, moral or any other kind. These Democrats will defeat all that is good, moral, virtuous and American.
Radical Islam wants to defeat America because of moral decadence that has been advanced and celebrated by the left. Because radical Islam is 180 degrees opposite of liberalism, Islam wants to attack San Francisco {Pelosi, and Feinstein}, Los Angeles {Boxer}, New York City { Clinton and Schumer}, Las Vegas {Reid}, Chicago { Durbin and Obama} and Hollywood. These cities are Democrat strongholds and always will be. I find it ironic that the man that the left hates the most, President Bush, is the same man that has stopped the attacks COLD and protects the haters from attack..
If Bush and the GOP were to act like the Dems, you would see the pullout of troops from Iraq, the central battle against Islamic radicals. Then an ethnic cleansing would take place with murder and mayhem unmatched since the days of American defeat in Viet Nam. You would see the terrorist surveillance program stopped, and terror would be an everyday event for France, Germany, Italy, Denmark, England, Spain and America. The major Democrat cities would be attacked over and over. You would see Guantanamo close and the terrorist released into the battle field, in great victory. Re-enlistment of United States military would be nonexistent. Our men of honor would leave the military just as they did under President Clinton. Bush in his best John Murtha impersonation would call our men of honor cold-blooded murders, and in his best Harry Reid impersonation would call the war lost. The change would be dramatic and the USA and the world would pay the price. Iran and Syria would gain the 2nd largest oil field and the money and power that goes with it. Victory would be final for the butchers of radical Islam.
With every word from Sen Harry Reid, Rep Nancy Pelosi, Sen. Dick Durbin, Sen Chuck Schumer, Sen. Hillary Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama the next generation of terrorists are born and motivated. The Democrat voice reinforces every word of Al-Qaeda and the terror organizations across the world. If America’s voice spoke of victory and victory alone, this war would be over because radical Islam would NOT have a recruiting tool. The only thing that will save all from radical Islam are American values, Bush, and the GOP. To use the Democrat voice in issues concerning the war is to damn our nation to failure.
-
ya know, everyone would support the GOP if you bastards would just be HONEST.
Seriously.
You insult our fcking intelligence.
It's why we don't support you.
Example:
With every word from Sen Harry Reid, Rep Nancy Pelosi, Sen. Dick Durbin, Sen Chuck Schumer, Sen. Hillary Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama the next generation of terrorists are born and motivated.
George Bush has 300,000 forces in Iraq.
Nancy Pelosi wants to bring them home.
You're saying with a straight face, that Iraqis/AQ/isolamofascists are MORE angry about Pelosi wanting to leave? That 300k men in their yard isn't why they're pissed?
Colossus - it's idiotic and insulting. They're pissed we interfere in their region. Not because we want to stop interfering. Seriously, a little honesty would be appreciated.
-
Note colossus - before crys of "lib" begin -
I am fine with us being in their region. I'm all about controlling the oil so they don't fck with our economy. but I don't blame their anger on "pelosi". I accept that fact that ANY nation will be mad when conquerors enter, remove their govt and police force, and start building a pipeline. Fuck em, sure. But please show the honesty that I am. don't lie to yourself and try to sleep better knowing "I support the good guys" cause there are none in this game. We're assholes, they're assholes. The minute you stop using the Lib crutch to clear your conscience you'll feel a hell of a lot better about your positions.
-
Many people would agree that the Democrats have supported Islamic terrorists by working against and supporting the defeat of the terrorist surveillance program and the money transfer program along with other activities such as John Murtha {D PA} acted as judge and jury in the Haditha killings, to learn that the case has been ruled in favor of the Marines. Dick Durbin {D Il} compared our soldiers to soviet gulag guards and Hitler’s Nazis. Harry Reid {D Ne} said that the war is lost. Nancy Pelosi {D Ca} and newly elected Keith Ellison {D MN} went to Syria, a state terror sponsor during a war against Islamic fascists. Keith Ellison compared the President to Hitler. Hillary Clinton {D NY} recently asked the Pentagon if they had a withdrawal plan ready, adding to enemy propaganda. The Democrats cut the “John Doe” amendment from recent homeland security legislation that would protect a person from being sued if they witnessed and reported suspicious activity involving possible terrorism. The examples go on without end and the picture is clear.
This right here tells just how brainwashed and stupid some people can be.
Democrats aren't against these things in principle they are against these things in their details and to think that translates into "supporting Islamic terrorists" is plain fucking stupid.
::) ::) ::) ::)
People need to wake the fuck up and stop being such brainwashed sheep.
Granted, Lib agenda includes some real stupid stuff but to think they support terrorists is beyond assinine and is really the neo-con Gobble-like propaganda machine succeeding in full effect.
-
I'm really beginning to believe we are the stupidist nation on earth.
P.S. I respect your veiws C-500 and am not intending to critisize you indirectly or directly. I just think that people who truely believe this crap need to have their heads examined.
-
And the biggest problem the Dems have with many of these things are domestic abuses.
Wiretapping - all they want is to be able to examine the records to find abuses. They don't want to release anything to the world. They just want to see if the White House has been wiretapping on it's political enemies. Which is VERY illegal. And since the FBI has admitted there have been abuses in many of the cases already, chances are when it all does come out (and it will, mind you), there will be many more.
Colossus - I admire your blind allegience. Just remember one thing, though. Chances are, in 15 months, Hilary Clinton will be the most powerful president in history. The policy you support now - the infinite presidential power - works both ways.
-
Mods, this one's a 'tweener as far as where it could go, so I'll leave it up to you as to whether you want to put it here or move it to the Relig. Board.
Thanks - Colossus
This is totally fine to post in political, it's up to you since the topic is of value to both forums. Might even post it in both places if you wanted.
-
And the biggest problem the Dems have with many of these things are domestic abuses.
Wiretapping - all they want is to be able to examine the records to find abuses. They don't want to release anything to the world. They just want to see if the White House has been wiretapping on it's political enemies. Which is VERY illegal. And since the FBI has admitted there have been abuses in many of the cases already, chances are when it all does come out (and it will, mind you), there will be many more.
Colossus - I admire your blind allegience. Just remember one thing, though. Chances are, in 15 months, Hilary Clinton will be the most powerful president in history. The policy you support now - the infinite presidential power - works both ways.
It's actually not about allegiance, 240. I'm of the mindset that it's hard to judge the situation as a good or bad thing until time passes. Rather than get caught up in the emotion of it (as you and some of the others obviously have), I'm willing to wait to see how time treats the whole situation. I'd rather try to look at the bigger picture.
You might very well be right about a President Hillary Clinton being the most powerful president in history, but 15 months won't tell us that. It'll be much longer after.
240, Ozmo, the two of you need to lighten up. That being said, it's good to see you back into the thick of it on this board, 240.
-
This is totally fine to post in political, it's up to you since the topic is of value to both forums. Might even post it in both places if you wanted.
I think you're right, Berserker.
Ozmo, I'm going to post it in the Relig board, so you can blast me there too. lol ;)
-
It's actually not about allegiance, 240. I'm of the mindset that it's hard to judge the situation as a good or bad thing until time passes. Rather than get caught up in the emotion of it (as you and some of the others obviously have), I'm willing to wait to see how time treats the whole situation. I'd rather try to look at the bigger picture.
Your article delt almost exclusively WITH the emotion of it all. "Nancy's words embolden the bad guys". Fck that. Put a JDAM in the bad guys and worry naught about their emotions. We must all remember that without the far left voices to even things out - the far right would be declaring 4th and 5th wars to fulfill their very open agenda of a pipeline from sea to sea, and eradicating most muslims, period. Without the far left influence, we'd be pre-emptively taking on a lot of nations.
You might very well be right about a President Hillary Clinton being the most powerful president in history, but 15 months won't tell us that. It'll be much longer after.
She'll start having fun with the power in 15 months. Typically, it's about a year after abuses that word starts to leak. it's 3 or 4 years before hearings.
240, Ozmo, the two of you need to lighten up. That being said, it's good to see you back into the thick of it on this board, 240.
It's nice to be here now that I'm an honest neotaint. :)
-
I think you're right, Berserker.
Ozmo, I'm going to post it in the Relig board, so you can blast me there too. lol ;)
I'm not trying ot blast you C-500. i just found the article appauling and insulting to anyone with any objectivity.
You mention not getting casught up in the emotion of things?
The article start off by tapping into the emotion of the war on terror and makes a false connection with suppoting it.
That's plain manipulation of emotion and is more than obvious if you are truely looking at the "big picture"
-
It's nice to be here now that I'm an honest neotaint.
you sound like my friend who says he's an honest gambler. ;)
-
Mods, this one's a 'tweener as far as where it could go, so I'll leave it up to you as to whether you want to put it here or move it to the Relig. Board.
Thanks - Colossus
If Bush and the Gop act like Democrats
by Mike Moseley
October 13, 2007 01:00 PM EST
Many people would agree that the Democrats have supported Islamic terrorists by working against and supporting the defeat of the terrorist surveillance program and the money transfer program along with other activities such as John Murtha {D PA} acted as judge and jury in the Haditha killings, to learn that the case has been ruled in favor of the Marines. Dick Durbin {D Il} compared our soldiers to soviet gulag guards and Hitler’s Nazis. Harry Reid {D Ne} said that the war is lost. Nancy Pelosi {D Ca} and newly elected Keith Ellison {D MN} went to Syria, a state terror sponsor during a war against Islamic fascists. Keith Ellison compared the President to Hitler. Hillary Clinton {D NY} recently asked the Pentagon if they had a withdrawal plan ready, adding to enemy propaganda. The Democrats cut the “John Doe” amendment from recent homeland security legislation that would protect a person from being sued if they witnessed and reported suspicious activity involving possible terrorism. The examples go on without end and the picture is clear.
There will never be a war that the Democrats will stand with the soldier on the battlefield again. The anti-war movement owns them. As our country follows the left, we have to remember that this party has advanced failure in many areas. They have been successful in removing GOD from our society and all that comes with Him, family, honor, valor, courage, and most recently virtue, of any kind. They take every opportunity to attack American moral values and virtues. Some of the more liberal Democrat leaders appear to believe that the Bible has no truth and that Christianity is based on lies. They are defeating our moral values just as they are defeating American troops. If the electorate listen to these fools, we will never win a battle again, moral or any other kind. These Democrats will defeat all that is good, moral, virtuous and American.
Radical Islam wants to defeat America because of moral decadence that has been advanced and celebrated by the left. Because radical Islam is 180 degrees opposite of liberalism, Islam wants to attack San Francisco {Pelosi, and Feinstein}, Los Angeles {Boxer}, New York City { Clinton and Schumer}, Las Vegas {Reid}, Chicago { Durbin and Obama} and Hollywood. These cities are Democrat strongholds and always will be. I find it ironic that the man that the left hates the most, President Bush, is the same man that has stopped the attacks COLD and protects the haters from attack..
If Bush and the GOP were to act like the Dems, you would see the pullout of troops from Iraq, the central battle against Islamic radicals. Then an ethnic cleansing would take place with murder and mayhem unmatched since the days of American defeat in Viet Nam. You would see the terrorist surveillance program stopped, and terror would be an everyday event for France, Germany, Italy, Denmark, England, Spain and America. The major Democrat cities would be attacked over and over. You would see Guantanamo close and the terrorist released into the battle field, in great victory. Re-enlistment of United States military would be nonexistent. Our men of honor would leave the military just as they did under President Clinton. Bush in his best John Murtha impersonation would call our men of honor cold-blooded murders, and in his best Harry Reid impersonation would call the war lost. The change would be dramatic and the USA and the world would pay the price. Iran and Syria would gain the 2nd largest oil field and the money and power that goes with it. Victory would be final for the butchers of radical Islam.
With every word from Sen Harry Reid, Rep Nancy Pelosi, Sen. Dick Durbin, Sen Chuck Schumer, Sen. Hillary Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama the next generation of terrorists are born and motivated. The Democrat voice reinforces every word of Al-Qaeda and the terror organizations across the world. If America’s voice spoke of victory and victory alone, this war would be over because radical Islam would NOT have a recruiting tool. The only thing that will save all from radical Islam are American values, Bush, and the GOP. To use the Democrat voice in issues concerning the war is to damn our nation to failure.
Interesting. Some valid points. It is hard for people to hear the plain truth like this sometimes. I wouldn't go quite as far to say that Democrats intentionally support terrorism, but I don't believe people like Hillary, Reid, etc. are sincere. They are running for office and using our troops as political pawns. Some Republicans do this too. But there is no question in my mind that what some of these guys say and do gives aid and comfort to the enemy.
-
Interesting. Some valid points. It is hard for people to hear the plain truth like this sometimes. I wouldn't go quite as far to say that Democrats intentionally support terrorism, but I don't believe people like Hillary, Reid, etc. are sincere. They are running for office and using our troops as political pawns. Some Republicans do this too. But there is no question in my mind that what some of these guys say and do gives aid and comfort to the enemy.
I agree. It's all political jockeying. While I don't agree with the emotion of it (just as Ozmo points out), I think it's a legitimate argument that much of what's done by politicians (particularly the left as pointed out in the article) is purely for political gain. Moseley obviously put some of his heart into this one, thus rendering some of the comments we've seen on the board.
-
That moronic piece only reaffirms what I've always thought.
The demographic for far right conservatives is a group of people with zero ability to think and reason. They're all reactionary troglodytes.
What a load of BS.
-
I agree. It's all political jockeying. While I don't agree with the emotion of it (just as Ozmo points out), I think it's a legitimate argument that much of what's done by politicians (particularly the left as pointed out in the article) is purely for political gain. Moseley obviously put some of his heart into this one, thus rendering some of the comments we've seen on the board.
He put his heart into it?
It's straight up misleading in it's intial assertion which is used as the basis for the article.
-
While I'm sure they didn't wake up with that agenda, i question why they do what they do. Murtha is an asshat. he convicted those Marines in Haditha before any charges, nor any evidence came out...and what do u know...most cases have been dropped. These guys take the other side of almost every issue. The Democratic attacks on the President make us look divided. It gives the terrorists hope that if they just hold out a little longer they can win, or if they do a spectacular attack they can easily destroy our will. Pelosi and Reid have been the worst. The dems have sold their souls to the far left Amercan haters. I don't think Hil is as bad, but to appeal to her base to get the Nom, she'll have to say some crazy shit.
-
Let's all act united in are immorality just in case the other side cares. ::)
-
Just beginning? :D Dude, ...I'm sooooo way ahead of you. ;D
I know, I couldn't get past the first sentence of that article either. :-\
And those who don't, ...but pay it lip service just the same, need to find their balls.
I may not agree with Robs fascist like approach to the situation, ...but dammit, at least he's really thought it through, and I can at least respect his honesty while at the same time I forgive his admited hypocrisy.
Party's over everbody. :( Jag just walked in the door. ::)
-
It’s this kind of pontificating that is ruining this country.
"Many people would agree that the Democrats have supported Islamic terrorists by working against and supporting the defeat of the terrorist surveillance program and the money transfer program..."
I hate to remind the author of this garbage that the US Constitution--not GW Bush--governs our political lives and that Bush’s spying program was Unconstitutional and a felonious violation of FISA.
The money transfer program? I wonder if that’s in reference to the anti-money laundering bill introduced by Carl Levin after 9/11 but opposed by republicans b/c it threatened off-shore tax havens.
Here’s something for the author to pin his hopes and dreams on: The war in Iraq (not all wars) is illegitimate b/c it is a crime against the peace and humanity--it is a war of aggression.
Here are some facts for us to consider:
Ethnic cleansing is well under way in Iraq. Iraq is disintegrating as ethnic cleansing takes hold http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article548945.ece
The Iraq war started by President Bush has caused terrorist acts to swell in Iraq. U.S. Cites 91 Percent Rise In Terrorist Acts in Iraq http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/30/AR2007043001663.html
“…the report acknowledged, the invasion "has been used by terrorists as a rallying cry for radicalization and extremist activity that has contributed to instability in neighboring countries."”
World-wide deaths from terrorist acts has grown 40%
Iraq blamed for 2006 terrorism increase
http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Top_News/2007/04/30/iraq_blamed_for_2006_terrorism_increase/
The only truth the author of this nonsense is in touch with is that propaganda works.
-
It’s this kind of pontificating that is ruining this country.
Not it isn't. It's this kind of pontificating that makes this country great. The fact people can express opinions like this without becoming Salman Rushdie is one of the beauties of this place. This is guy is no different than those who call Bush a terrorist and those who accuse the U.S. of "stealing oil."
-
Not it isn't. It's this kind of pontificating that makes this country great. The fact people can express opinions like this without becoming Salman Rushdie is one of the beauties of this place. This is guy is no different than those who call Bush a terrorist and those who accuse the U.S. of "stealing oil."
I agree and it's equally appalling on both ends of the spectrum at times.
However with the oil; We may not be stealing it.....but we are indirectly controlling it, so it depends on if your definition of stealing is the same or not.
-
I agree and it's equally appalling on both ends of the spectrum at times.
However with the oil; We may not be stealing it.....but we are indirectly controlling it, so it depends on if your definition of stealing is the same or not.
I think it depends on your definition of "we." By "we" you mean the private companies working with foreign countries? [This conversation feels like deja vu all over again. :)]
-
I think it depends on your definition of "we." By "we" you mean the private companies working with foreign countries? [This conversation feels like deja vu all over again. :)]
lol :)
-
I think it depends on your definition of "we." By "we" you mean the private companies working with foreign countries? [This conversation feels like deja vu all over again. :)]
you don't understand much about corporations and how they're tied to other interests.
Hell, you read Sam Walton's book, and in a conversation about Walmart, you muttered that you had no idea who the Waltons were.
-
you don't understand much about corporations and how they're tied to other interests.
Hell, you read Sam Walton's book, and in a conversation about Walmart, you muttered that you had no idea who the Waltons were.
lol. :) You really do have a Beach Bum crush. lol . . .
-
Not it isn't. It's this kind of pontificating that makes this country great. The fact people can express opinions like this without becoming Salman Rushdie is one of the beauties of this place. This is guy is no different than those who call Bush a terrorist and those who accuse the U.S. of "stealing oil."
No. Where I'm from, one obviously foolish and stupid viewpoint does not balance out with another.
That's the type of thinking that keeps Ann Coulter, Bill O'Reilly and Rush in the limelight.
There are informed opinions, then there are uniformed Archie Bunker type opinions.
When I see ad hominem attacks and no fact-based arguments, I'm inclined to think that the person spouting this stuff is a moron blowing his own horn. Fish in a barrel my friend.
-
Every time Reid and pelosi open their mouth they embolden our enemies. They are doing it to make political hay, but the consequences of their actions are global. Trips to Syria and meetings with known terror supporters don't help the situation. They are making things worse all the time. The enemy was shocked that we pulled out of Somalia, they took notes. They thought we'd roll over on Afghanistan, they fucked with Bush and they were very surprised. Saddam never thought we'd invade. All the resolute action, right or wrong, all the momentum we've gained will be lost if the Dems don't stop their shit. Nobody overseas thinks for one minute that they are championing the cause of "pulling out the troops" to save those troops. They could care less. Decker ur democratic party is being led by the nose from the Moveon.org folks. If Hil gets in, she'll see that she just can't pull out. They have already attacked her because of her stances on the war. While I'm a conservative first, I also realize that the repubs have at times been led by the Christian right. Several have a very narrow world view. Both sides are equally dangerous.
-
Every time Reid and pelosi open their mouth they embolden our enemies.
How do you know this? Did you ask Al Qaeda members if they feel emboldened after a Pelosi or Reid speech?
They are doing it to make political hay, but the consequences of their actions are global. Trips to Syria and meetings with known terror supporters don't help the situation. They are making things worse all the time. The enemy was shocked that we pulled out of Somalia, they took notes. They thought we'd roll over on Afghanistan, they fucked with Bush and they were very surprised. Saddam never thought we'd invade. All the resolute action, right or wrong, all the momentum we've gained will be lost if the Dems don't stop their shit. Nobody overseas thinks for one minute that they are championing the cause of "pulling out the troops" to save those troops. They could care less. Decker ur democratic party is being led by the nose from the Moveon.org folks. If Hil gets in, she'll see that she just can't pull out. They have already attacked her because of her stances on the war. While I'm a conservative first, I also realize that the repubs have at times been led by the Christian right. Several have a very narrow world view. Both sides are equally dangerous.
Frankly, I don't care one bit about how Bush's use of the military might appear to other countries.
He attacked the wrong country for the wrong reasons. That's it. The Iraq war was illegitimate from the start.
Worldwide terrorism has grown exponentially b/c of this. What exactly has Bush accomplished?
Bush's military/foreign policy has been huge advantage to Al Qaeda recruitment. Iraq war 'helped al-Qaeda recruit' http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3756650.stm
This momentum you speak of is an illusion. As long as the US occupies Iraq, there will be insurgents and Al Qaeda will grow. That's been the trend.
Terrorism is growing b/c of the US's occupation of Iraq.
Yeah, Hillary doesn't want to pull out Iraq entirely and she helped designate a part of the Iranian military as a terrorist group. She seems like a continuation of Bush in many respects.
I don't know what moveon.org's views on IRaq are, but I believe all but one of the democratic candidates do not want a complete troop withdrawal from Iraq.
-
I'm not tackling the illiegal war thing ever. We put that one to rest.
AQ has stated on-line throught their very extensive PR machine that they praise the efforts of those two. Pelosi's visit to Syria has made the rounds on jihadist websites. They make mention every time Shawn Penn or that idiot Ramsey Clark attack the US. Bin Laden gave an interview to one of our big 3 after Somalia and he was very surprised, even shocked that we'd pull out so quickly. He thought we'd fight very much like the Russians. AQ has also studied TET and its aftermath. They are very very very very media savy. Its another front on this war that we have not done a very good job on.
Based on media reports and everything i get to see, it would appear we have put a major dent in AQ. Whether that means groups like Al Sadr will continue to fight, remains to be seen. We are doing a better job inside Iraq of getting the message out about AQ. We show their atrocities on TV and their media, even Al Jezeera, (which I'm watching at the moment) is showing what the foreigners (AQ) are doing to iraqi civilians. The military feels that AQ went to far. They killed to many religious leaders, upset to many people. Every battle has its one miscalculation, this could be it.
As far as mommnetum, if States feel that that the US will seek real retribution for acts, they won't support organizations who will carry out those acts. Things are quieter in Iraq. The media will make twice as much noise every time a bomb goes off now, but things are getting better. We are setting the stage to allow us to withdraw. the quieter it is, the easier it will be for Iraqi forces to take over.
The Dems do not want us to win. The libs don't want us to win.
-
I'm not tackling the illiegal war thing ever. We put that one to rest.
AQ has stated on-line throught their very extensive PR machine that they praise the efforts of those two. Pelosi's visit to Syria has made the rounds on jihadist websites. They make mention every time Shawn Penn or that idiot Ramsey Clark attack the US. Bin Laden gave an interview to one of our big 3 after Somalia and he was very surprised, even shocked that we'd pull out so quickly. He thought we'd fight very much like the Russians. AQ has also studied TET and its aftermath. They are very very very very media savy. Its another front on this war that we have not done a very good job on.
Based on media reports and everything i get to see, it would appear we have put a major dent in AQ. Whether that means groups like Al Sadr will continue to fight, remains to be seen. We are doing a better job inside Iraq of getting the message out about AQ. We show their atrocities on TV and their media, even Al Jezeera, (which I'm watching at the moment) is showing what the foreigners (AQ) are doing to iraqi civilians. The military feels that AQ went to far. They killed to many religious leaders, upset to many people. Every battle has its one miscalculation, this could be it.
As far as mommnetum, if States feel that that the US will seek real retribution for acts, they won't support organizations who will carry out those acts. Things are quieter in Iraq. The media will make twice as much noise every time a bomb goes off now, but things are getting better. We are setting the stage to allow us to withdraw. the quieter it is, the easier it will be for Iraqi forces to take over.
The Dems do not want us to win. The libs don't want us to win.
I read the same thing you did about OBL's statements on somalia. I also read this:
"He (OBL) told me personally that he can't go and fight the Americans and their country. But if he manages to provoke them and bring them to the Middle East and to their Muslim worlds, where he can find them or fight them on his own turf, he will actually teach them a lesson," Atwan said. "It seems the invasion of Iraq fulfilled Osama bin Laden's wish. That's why the Americans are losing in Iraq." http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Author_claims_US_invasion_of_Iraq_0824.html
His Somalia statement was baiting the US so that it would act on OBL's terms. The strategy worked perfectly. George "Goober" Bush played right into his hands. B/c no one questions the courage of the US....not even OBL.
Violence is not down in Iraq. Experts Doubt Drop In Violence in Iraq http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/05/AR2007090502466_pf.html
Others who have looked at the full range of U.S. government statistics on violence, however, accuse the military of cherry-picking positive indicators and caution that the numbers -- most of which are classified -- are often confusing and contradictory. "Let's just say that there are several different sources within the administration on violence, and those sources do not agree," Comptroller General David Walker told Congress on Tuesday in releasing a new Government Accountability Office report on Iraq.
The GAO doesn't think violence is down in Iraq.
http://www.data360.org/graph_group.aspx?Graph_Group_Id=1032
This steady stream of misinformation about the successes in Iraq only underscores the point that we are failing there and it's time to go home.
-
I's argue that u should consider the source. Clinton policy experts agrue..thats enough for me right there. But even still that article was from 6 Sept...its 16 Oct. That really makes a big difference. I could be saying things are getting better and 3 weeks from now we loose 2000 guys. Things change so rapidly. The best way to judge is in US deaths and then by what we are able to get accomplished as far as rebuilding efforts. The media is not reportimng success and will and continues to make things seem worse.
OBL did fight on our turf. 911 was his attack. But I understand ur point. They never thought we'd come after him as we did. Look what he has to base that on. We did nothing after 1993..nothing after somalia...Clinton did very little. We crushed him in Afghanistan....but i will whole heartedly admit that Iraq and OBL had very little in common to begin with. If we stopped after Afghanistan/Philippines then folks would have a very different view of the war on terror.
-
No. Where I'm from, one obviously foolish and stupid viewpoint does not balance out with another.
That's the type of thinking that keeps Ann Coulter, Bill O'Reilly and Rush in the limelight.
There are informed opinions, then there are uniformed Archie Bunker type opinions.
When I see ad hominem attacks and no fact-based arguments, I'm inclined to think that the person spouting this stuff is a moron blowing his own horn. Fish in a barrel my friend.
I didn't say one foolish viewpoint balances another, I said the fact people are free to express these opinions is good for the country, contrary to your view that "It’s this kind of pontificating that is ruining this country."
An "informed" opinion is still an opinion. I have an "informed" opinion that Democrats are equally as responsible for starting the war as Bush. Your "informed" opinion is just the opposite. Who is right? Regardless, the fact we can both express our opinions is wonderful. The fact this guy can speak his mind, and that someone can write an editorial calling him an idiot, is part of our country's fabric.
-
I didn't say one foolish viewpoint balances another, I said the fact people are free to express these opinions is good for the country, contrary to your view that "It’s this kind of pontificating that is ruining this country."
An "informed" opinion is still an opinion. I have an "informed" opinion that Democrats are equally as responsible for starting the war as Bush. Your "informed" opinion is just the opposite. Who is right? Regardless, the fact we can both express our opinions is wonderful. The fact this guy can speak his mind, and that someone can write an editorial calling him an idiot, is part of our country's fabric.
You engage in sophistry. One stupid opinion does not balance out the other yet all opinions, informed or not, are still the same thing: opinions.
Don't confuse the right to speak with the right to speak stupidly. This is not a free speech issue. This is an object lesson in what happens when fact-based analysis and conclusions are jettisoned for unsupported, misguided bar-room speculation.
-
You engage in sophistry. One stupid opinion does not balance out the other yet all opinions, informed or not, are still the same thing: opinions.
Don't confuse the right to speak with the right to speak stupidly. This is not a free speech issue. This is an object lesson in what happens when fact-based analysis and conclusions are jettisoned for unsupported, misguided bar-room speculation.
Beach Bum won't understand a word of this.
-
You engage in sophistry. One stupid opinion does not balance out the other yet all opinions, informed or not, are still the same thing: opinions.
Don't confuse the right to speak with the right to speak stupidly. This is not a free speech issue. This is an object lesson in what happens when fact-based analysis and conclusions are jettisoned for unsupported, misguided bar-room speculation.
Yes, all opinions, informed or not, are just opinions. That isn't sophistry. It's fact.
So there is no right to speak stupidly? That's actually what free speech is all about. We don't need the First Amendment to protect popular speech. It's unpopular speech and opinion that needs protection.
And no this isn't a free speech issue from the standpoint that the government is not trying to preclude the guy from expressing his opinion. But to say this kind of opinion is ruining the country implicates free speech IMO. You simply disagree with the guy's opinion. I happen to think he made a couple valid points. As did Headhunter and Colossus.
-
Yes, all opinions, informed or not, are just opinions. That isn't sophistry. It's fact.
So there is no right to speak stupidly? That's actually what free speech is all about. We don't need the First Amendment to protect popular speech. It's unpopular speech and opinion that needs protection.
And no this isn't a free speech issue from the standpoint that the government is not trying to preclude the guy from expressing his opinion. But to say this kind of opinion is ruining the country implicates free speech IMO. You simply disagree with the guy's opinion. I happen to think he made a couple valid points. As did Headhunter and Colossus.
By your rationale, a Beavis and Butthead debate would be worthwhile--after all, it is in print and there are opinions being proffered.
I was only trying to point out that the article does not elevate discourse, it diminishes it. I don't think we need to address that point of it any more. Let's get to the issues.
Please point out the valid points this guy makes. And not the the Murtha point (I don't have an opinion on Mr. Abscam).
B/c from where I sit, the article is largely baseless attacks and misinformed opinion. Fire away.
-
By your rationale, a Beavis and Butthead debate would be worthwhile--after all, it is in print and there are opinions being proffered.
I was only trying to point out that the article does not elevate discourse, it diminishes it. I don't think we need to address that point of it any more. Let's get to the issues.
Please point out the valid points this guy makes. And not the the Murtha point (I don't have an opinion on Mr. Abscam).
B/c from where I sit, the article is largely baseless attacks and misinformed opinion. Fire away.
If people will pay for and read a Beavis and Butthead debate, then more power to them. :)
Since when does someone need our approval to write an opinion piece? Have you read any opinion pieces advocating the impeachment of the president? I think that is patently ridiculous. I think that kind of opinion is baseless and misinformed. We don't have to debate that issue, but the fact someone express an opinion you or I think is "stupid" or "misinformed" or "baseless" doesn't lower discourse any more than someone giving the opinion that Bush should be impeached. The fact is some people agree with the guy. IMO, the appropriate response is to write an opinion responding to whatever the guy said.
Re the valid points in the article, see my first post in this thread:
"Interesting. Some valid points. It is hard for people to hear the plain truth like this sometimes. I wouldn't go quite as far to say that Democrats intentionally support terrorism, but I don't believe people like Hillary, Reid, etc. are sincere. They are running for office and using our troops as political pawns. Some Republicans do this too. But there is no question in my mind that what some of these guys say and do gives aid and comfort to the enemy."
For example, I believe when a member of Congress goes to a foreign country and refuses to meet with the troops and calls the war illegal, he is emboldening the enemy.
-
If people will pay for and read a Beavis and Butthead debate, then more power to them. :)
Since when does someone need our approval to write an opinion piece? Have you read any opinion pieces advocating the impeachment of the president? I think that is patently ridiculous. I think that kind of opinion is baseless and misinformed. We don't have to debate that issue, but the fact someone express an opinion you or I think is "stupid" or "misinformed" or "baseless" doesn't lower discourse any more than someone giving the opinion that Bush should be impeached. The fact is some people agree with the guy. IMO, the appropriate response is to write an opinion responding to whatever the guy said.
Re the valid points in the article, see my first post in this thread:
"Interesting. Some valid points. It is hard for people to hear the plain truth like this sometimes. I wouldn't go quite as far to say that Democrats intentionally support terrorism, but I don't believe people like Hillary, Reid, etc. are sincere. They are running for office and using our troops as political pawns. Some Republicans do this too. But there is no question in my mind that what some of these guys say and do gives aid and comfort to the enemy."
For example, I believe when a member of Congress goes to a foreign country and refuses to meet with the troops and calls the war illegal, he is emboldening the enemy.
Certainly it is my prerogative to comment on the inanity of any written piece submitted for view and that's what I have done. So I pointed out why the article is bull feathers in my first post here.
Exactly which part of the equation is the trigger for the emboldening of the enemy? Is it the Congress person criticizing the war or criticizing the war on foreign soil? How does that embolden the enemy?
I mean Al Qaeda's ranks are growing and terrorist attacks worldwide are growing and that's been attributed to the failed Iraq war. I posted this before:
The Iraq war started by President Bush has caused terrorist acts to swell in Iraq. U.S. Cites 91 Percent Rise In Terrorist Acts in Iraq http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/30/AR2007043001663.html
“…the report acknowledged, the invasion "has been used by terrorists as a rallying cry for radicalization and extremist activity that has contributed to instability in neighboring countries."”
World-wide deaths from terrorist acts have grown 40%
Iraq blamed for 2006 terrorism increase
http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Top_News/2007/04/30/iraq_blamed_for_2006_terrorism_increase/
Criticism of Bush's fiasco in Iraq is worldwide. "Emboldening" the enemy is a synonym for treason. That's nonsense.
Bush made his Iraq bed and now he has to sleep in it. Criticism on foreign soil by a Congress person isn't going to change the fact that Bush's invasion of Iraq has emboldened the enemy: Al Qaeda's ranks are up and terrorist attacks have flourished.
That's due to Bush and not some vapid criticism....on foreign soil....by a congressman.
-
Certainly it is my prerogative to comment on the inanity of any written piece submitted for view and that's what I have done. So I pointed out why the article is bull feathers in my first post here.
Exactly which part of the equation is the trigger for the emboldening of the enemy? Is it the Congress person criticizing the war or criticizing the war on foreign soil? How does that embolden the enemy?
I mean Al Qaeda's ranks are growing and terrorist attacks worldwide are growing and that's been attributed to the failed Iraq war. I posted this before:
The Iraq war started by President Bush has caused terrorist acts to swell in Iraq. U.S. Cites 91 Percent Rise In Terrorist Acts in Iraq http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/30/AR2007043001663.html
“…the report acknowledged, the invasion "has been used by terrorists as a rallying cry for radicalization and extremist activity that has contributed to instability in neighboring countries."”
World-wide deaths from terrorist acts have grown 40%
Iraq blamed for 2006 terrorism increase
http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Top_News/2007/04/30/iraq_blamed_for_2006_terrorism_increase/
Criticism of Bush's fiasco in Iraq is worldwide. "Emboldening" the enemy is a synonym for treason. That's nonsense.
Bush made his Iraq bed and now he has to sleep in it. Criticism on foreign soil by a Congress person isn't going to change the fact that Bush's invasion of Iraq has emboldened the enemy: Al Qaeda's ranks are up and terrorist attacks have flourished.
That's due to Bush and not some vapid criticism....on foreign soil....by a congressman.
Depends on what the member of Congress says. A member of Congress can speak to the entire country, or even the entire world, from just about anywhere. They always have the media at their beck and call. In the case of Kucinich, it was making the comments on foreign soil I found appalling. How does that embolden the enemy? Come on. An insurgent watching and listening to clips of a member of Congress who is running for president condemning the war, calling for an immediate pullout, and refusing to meet with the troops will not be encouraged to continue their fight? I think so.
Then there are these (from the article): "Dick Durbin {D Il} compared our soldiers to soviet gulag guards and Hitler’s Nazis. Harry Reid {D Ne} said that the war is lost. Nancy Pelosi {D Ca} and newly elected Keith Ellison {D MN} went to Syria, a state terror sponsor during a war against Islamic fascists. Keith Ellison compared the President to Hitler." I believe this kind of nonsense definitely encourages our enemies. Comparing the president to Hitler? ::)
I can't speak for others, but I'm not accusing these folks of treason. If I believe someone committed a treasonous act, I'll just come out and say it, like Kerry's post war conduct and "Lt." Watada sending his boys off to war while he sits behind a freakin desk (blood pressure rising).
Why don't you find out where this guy's commentary was published and write a response?
-
Depends on what the member of Congress says. A member of Congress can speak to the entire country, or even the entire world, from just about anywhere. They always have the media at their beck and call. In the case of Kucinich, it was making the comments on foreign soil I found appalling. How does that embolden the enemy? Come on. An insurgent watching and listening to clips of a member of Congress who is running for president condemning the war, calling for an immediate pullout, and refusing to meet with the troops will not be encouraged to continue their fight? I think so.
Then there are these (from the article): "Dick Durbin {D Il} compared our soldiers to soviet gulag guards and Hitler’s Nazis. Harry Reid {D Ne} said that the war is lost. Nancy Pelosi {D Ca} and newly elected Keith Ellison {D MN} went to Syria, a state terror sponsor during a war against Islamic fascists. Keith Ellison compared the President to Hitler." I believe this kind of nonsense definitely encourages our enemies. Comparing the president to Hitler? ::)
I can't speak for others, but I'm not accusing these folks of treason. If I believe someone committed a treasonous act, I'll just come out and say it, like Kerry's post war conduct and "Lt." Watada sending his boys off to war while he sits behind a freakin desk (blood pressure rising).
Why don't you find out where this guy's commentary was published and write a response?
Nowhere in my research have I found any study, survey or anecdotal piece of evidence that has attributed terrorist attacks or Al Qaeda recruitment to the emboldening effect of Kucinich's criticism of the war.
This "emboldening" is not really quantifiable, is it?
I just can't find it referred to anywhere but on right wing propaganda web sites.
Personally, since I don't support the war or the troops in executing the war, I find their (democrats) critiques mild.
I won't write a response b/c I don't want to. I've spoken my piece here and it's more fun talking to you than floating some response out in cyberspace.
-
Nowhere in my research have I found any study, survey or anecdotal piece of evidence that has attributed terrorist attacks or Al Qaeda recruitment to the emboldening effect of Kucinich's criticism of the war.
This "emboldening" is not really quantifiable, is it?
I just can't find it referred to anywhere but on right wing propaganda web sites.
Personally, since I don't support the war or the troops in executing the war, I find their critiques mild.
I won't write a response b/c I don't want to. I've spoken my piece here and it's more fun talking to you than floating some response out in cyberspace.
I don't think emboldening is quantifiable. It's really just a matter of opinion.
Comparing Bush to Hitler is mild?
It's good talking with you. Nice to have a smart person who can stick to the issues. I always enjoy our exchanges.
-
Enough of the love. Look if things are going south for nu on the battlefield but the enemies people or media machine are saying the exact opposite, it keeps u going. If u can destroy the will of the enemy or its people, u don't need to win on the battlefield because nobody will believ the military or its government. Case in point TET. I bring up TET becasue Bin Laden and his guys have made mention of it and its outcomes many times. The North sent 70,000 troops south to fight. That included NVA and mostly Viet Cong. Initially they had surprise and took some real estate. By the end..they lost ground, about 50,000 guys and they no longer had the VC. They could not mount an effective offensive campaign for 4 years. Giap thought about asking for terms. Then the Leftist media machine began to spin. We say pictures of the Embassy, we say Hue burnt out. Then Kronkite says the war is lost. That got the anti-draft/war folks even more fired up. The North could not believe it. Westmoreland knew that we had the North on the ropes and asked Washington to allow for a final offensive to finish the war. After all the media spin and the protests etc, they caved.
The media is doing the same thing here. Many reporters never leave the Green Zone. They use stringers whoi report only the latest IED/car bomb attacks. Thats what gets back to us. Thats why I think Reid and Pelosi and alike are treasonous scumbags. Look at Murtha, same thing. They are really giving the enemy motivation to continue. Arguments can be made about Illiegal etc..but we're there and we need to finish. If we can walk away from Iraq with a stable government, this will make other nations rethink their support of organizations like AQ. All major terror networks need Stae support or a blind eye. If rogue governments know that the US will not only crush the terror groups but will do serious damage to the state's infrastructure, then they will be more reluctant to support them. These groups will go back to hijacking the odd airplane. No major spectatctular attacks and hopefully no WMD attacks.
-
Thats why I think Reid and Pelosi and alike are treasonous scumbags.
Funny. These two spend their life serving their country. because they believe this war (based on lies and something that the admin REALLY wanted to do) is BS, they are "treasonous"?
That's a big word to throw around. Sad.
-
Enough of the love. Look if things are going south for nu on the battlefield but the enemies people or media machine are saying the exact opposite, it keeps u going. If u can destroy the will of the enemy or its people, u don't need to win on the battlefield because nobody will believ the military or its government. Case in point TET. I bring up TET becasue Bin Laden and his guys have made mention of it and its outcomes many times. The North sent 70,000 troops south to fight. That included NVA and mostly Viet Cong. Initially they had surprise and took some real estate. By the end..they lost ground, about 50,000 guys and they no longer had the VC. They could not mount an effective offensive campaign for 4 years. Giap thought about asking for terms. Then the Leftist media machine began to spin. We say pictures of the Embassy, we say Hue burnt out. Then Kronkite says the war is lost. That got the anti-draft/war folks even more fired up. The North could not believe it. Westmoreland knew that we had the North on the ropes and asked Washington to allow for a final offensive to finish the war. After all the media spin and the protests etc, they caved.
The media is doing the same thing here. Many reporters never leave the Green Zone. They use stringers whoi report only the latest IED/car bomb attacks. Thats what gets back to us. Thats why I think Reid and Pelosi and alike are treasonous scumbags. Look at Murtha, same thing. They are really giving the enemy motivation to continue. Arguments can be made about Illiegal etc..but we're there and we need to finish. If we can walk away from Iraq with a stable government, this will make other nations rethink their support of organizations like AQ. All major terror networks need Stae support or a blind eye. If rogue governments know that the US will not only crush the terror groups but will do serious damage to the state's infrastructure, then they will be more reluctant to support them. These groups will go back to hijacking the odd airplane. No major spectatctular attacks and hopefully no WMD attacks.
I understand your resolve. But the enemy that is attacking us, for the most part, is the Iraqi people.
HH, it is their country that we occupy. If the shoe were on the other foot and Iraq occupied the US after overthrowing our government, I'm certain you would be on the front lines with me killing as many Iraqis as we could.
As long as we occupy Iraq, our soldiers will be attacked and violence will prevail.
I mean, forget about the legality of the invasion itself, the dynamic of occupation is a loser. The British machine couldn't beat the farmers in the US b/c the british were occupiers and the farmers had their hearts invested in their land.
We can't beat that kind of motivation.
-
Well we're not seeing everybody attacking us and the brits weren't putting up power plants and wells. I understand ur point. I think things are shifting there. We're trying to get out of the fighting Iraqi business and more into the killing AQ business. I think its working. It took us almost 10 years to figure out Vietnam and how to fight there, so I think we're seeing the same thing in Iraq. From a historical perspective, I think we're seeing the same thing.
Now 240. What Reid and Pelosi have said and done. A Congressman did the same things as they did during the Civil War. Lincoln had him deported. I'm not sure how u deport a US citizen but anyway. U don't visit a state sponser of terror and say that they are the road to peace. As far as a life long calling etc. U can do alot of things ur whole life and be wrong. They are doing a disservice to us while we have troops in the field.
-
Now 240. What Reid and Pelosi have said and done. A Congressman did the same things as they did during the Civil War. Lincoln had him deported. I'm not sure how u deport a US citizen but anyway. U don't visit a state sponser of terror and say that they are the road to peace. As far as a life long calling etc. U can do alot of things ur whole life and be wrong. They are doing a disservice to us while we have troops in the field.
The problem is that Lincoln had a leg to stand on.
Can you even estimate the credibility - domestically and worldwide - of the Bush admin at this point?
I'm not even going to wager a guess - but I'm guessing no one here can provide ANY polling data to show the US has any credibility at this point.
Now, back to Reid / Pelosi - talking to the enemy is an odd topic. Remember that old adage-
Avoidance/ Negotiation / Contact.
The 3 things to do in sticky situations. Some Tae Kwan Do mantra or soemthing. Anyway, Bush is about to bomb Iran - but won't even speak to them. Isn't that silly? Americans will lose their lives as a result, even if only by expanded proxy fighting in iraq. Tens of thousands of Iranians will die, right? And maybe they could reach an agreement, maybe not. Point is - we're not trying.
The reason we avouided WWIII with the Ruskies in the 60s is that we held talks. We were in a bitter fight worldwide for resources - but we still talked. It averted a nuclear war too.
I don't understand the stubbornness of us not willing to tlak to them. pelosi showed diplomacy. And correct me if i'm wrong - but didn't the white house APPROVE APPROVE APPROVE Pelosi's trip FIRST? Then when she went, Tony Snow acted all shocked. Someone check that.
-
Well we're not seeing everybody attacking us and the brits weren't putting up power plants and wells. I understand ur point. I think things are shifting there. We're trying to get out of the fighting Iraqi business and more into the killing AQ business. I think its working. It took us almost 10 years to figure out Vietnam and how to fight there, so I think we're seeing the same thing in Iraq. From a historical perspective, I think we're seeing the same thing.
...
America was a British colony and they had a lot of pounds invested in the infrastructure.
I'm not sure you have the time for this, but here's a link that compares the British/american colony with America/Iraq. http://www.cceia.org/resources/transcripts/1033.html
Here are some excerpts:
There are three fundamental differences between American power and British power a century ago, and they explain not only why the United States has had problems in the past in imposing its will in foreign countries but also why it is experiencing problems today in imposing its will on its two present colonies of Afghanistan and Iraq.
The first is what might be called the manpower deficit. The proportion of the American population which is enlisted in the armed forces has been declining steadily since certainly the mid-1980s, arguably since the time of the Korean War.
The United States has yet to work out a way of making other people fight its wars in the way that the British made the Indians provide a very large part of their armed forces in the 19th—and indeed in the 20th—century.
...An empire in the end, no matter how much technology can deliver, is about footprints on the ground. The United States imports people; it doesn't export them. Its manpower deficit is, therefore, one of its characteristic weaknesses and one of the reasons why, by comparison with the much smaller British Empire of a century ago, it has more difficulty in making its institutions stick when it tries to plant them overseas.
The second, economic deficit is one I hardly need to tell you about. It is a fiscal deficit, a balance of payments of deficit, and, according to some economists, a generational deficit of mind-boggling proportions.
...In economic and fiscal terms, the United States is not quite the empire it seems when first we consider its resources because it is primarily an empire of consumption, and not of development. Its indifference, even to the Middle East as an area for investment, is very striking when one considers the statistics for U.S. foreign direct investment [FDI].
...There is one final difference between British and American empire. The most important deficit, which lames American power, is an attention deficit. ...Until American politicians, opinion formers, and voters grasp that undertakings, whether they are called "colonization" or "nation building," take time—that they cannot be accomplished within a two-year election cycle, that they may not even be accomplished within a decade—the United States should desist from such activities.
________________________ __________________
The discussion from that link is not anti-US imperialism. On the contrary, the author concludes that the US is just doing it wrong.
-
Great article...we have a very short attention span. I think drafting leveies like that is impossible in the 21st century. I think the contractor is the new levy. Plus its very easy to chew up ur army and conduct invasions if they are not anglo's as the Brits did.
-
Enough of the love. Look if things are going south for nu on the battlefield but the enemies people or media machine are saying the exact opposite, it keeps u going. If u can destroy the will of the enemy or its people, u don't need to win on the battlefield because nobody will believ the military or its government. Case in point TET. I bring up TET becasue Bin Laden and his guys have made mention of it and its outcomes many times. The North sent 70,000 troops south to fight. That included NVA and mostly Viet Cong. Initially they had surprise and took some real estate. By the end..they lost ground, about 50,000 guys and they no longer had the VC. They could not mount an effective offensive campaign for 4 years. Giap thought about asking for terms. Then the Leftist media machine began to spin. We say pictures of the Embassy, we say Hue burnt out. Then Kronkite says the war is lost. That got the anti-draft/war folks even more fired up. The North could not believe it. Westmoreland knew that we had the North on the ropes and asked Washington to allow for a final offensive to finish the war. After all the media spin and the protests etc, they caved.
The media is doing the same thing here. Many reporters never leave the Green Zone. They use stringers whoi report only the latest IED/car bomb attacks. Thats what gets back to us. Thats why I think Reid and Pelosi and alike are treasonous scumbags. Look at Murtha, same thing. They are really giving the enemy motivation to continue. Arguments can be made about Illiegal etc..but we're there and we need to finish. If we can walk away from Iraq with a stable government, this will make other nations rethink their support of organizations like AQ. All major terror networks need Stae support or a blind eye. If rogue governments know that the US will not only crush the terror groups but will do serious damage to the state's infrastructure, then they will be more reluctant to support them. These groups will go back to hijacking the odd airplane. No major spectatctular attacks and hopefully no WMD attacks.
Well said. I agree.