Be careful, Hayes. Say anything bad about Mr. Bush and you're likely to be lumped into the "wacko, unpatriotic, hating our brave troops, rabid Liberal" crowd, regardless of your views on Iraq. Actually, I'd love for you to start a thread vilifying Bush re the issues you have problems with. It would be a pleasure to have one from a "pro-Iraq, anti-Bush (fill in what you disagree about) " member. Might make for some interesting discussion. Keep D&D Civil!!
So are we winning the war on terror then? Could it be that these attacks indicate that global "war" on terrorism is not the only possible solution, and may actually increase the terrorist threat? The pendulum swings both ways. Put that way, I would choose afgansitan. But it is not that simple and you know it basso. Terrorism is not as one-sided as neocons attempt to portray it. The extremists on the terrorist side are not only driven by rabid hatred and islamic fanatisicm. We would be wise to evaluate how to fight terrorism by understanding what drove us to be the target in the first place. Just jumping into every country we feel is threatening is not a smart way to reduce anti-americanism. One could argue that philosophy resulted in the terrorism we see now.
i think the problem many of us who are at least somewhat "pro-bush" is that many of us have started threads critisizing bush. i've started several. i've never seen any of the libs start one that compliments him. it'd be nice to see.
Well, of course I expected an increase in the short run but a decrease in the long run. It's easy to be a zealot when you don't really know the price of your zeal. They will run out of zealots.
Well here in another story about the troops. I know it is unpatirotic to mention their sacrifice. CNN is in league with the terrorists and so am I for reposting it. All those who don't immediately do a Jorge are also pro-terrorist. In the mind of Jorge and fellow travellers like Hayes and the Bu****es, we are a great democracy so we should all sit back while we have a war. No need to be told true facts about the reasons for the war, nor the money needed to fight the war, nor the number of troops needed for the measure, how long the troops will be there. the number of wounded, the number killed, , the number of foreigners killed (of course) etc. etc. The only true patriots are those who insist on knowing none of the above. ********* Nine American troops killed in Iraq Militant Web sites say al-Zarqawi wounded Tuesday, May 24, 2005 Posted: 4:07 PM EDT (2007 GMT) U.S. forces secure the area after a bomb exploded next to their convoy in Baghdad. Image: BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- Insurgent attacks during the past 24 hours have killed nine U.S. troops in Iraq, the military said Tuesday. Three soldiers died in a car bombing in central Baghdad on Tuesday and a fourth -- who was manning an observation post -- was killed by a drive-by gunman, Task Force Baghdad spokesman, Maj. Darryl Wright said. Four other American soldiers were killed by a bomb on Monday, the military said. They were assigned to the 155th Brigade Combat Team, 2nd Marine Expeditionary Force. The explosive "detonated near their vehicle" in fighting in Haswa, south of Baghdad. A ninth American -- a Marine -- died Monday after an "indirect fire attack" on Camp Blue Diamond in Ramadi,...... link
God damn so is Fox News: Fourteen U.S. Soldiers in Iraq Killed in 3 Days TJ, texx, and company, go screw Fox News for reporting negatives out of Iraq.
Hayes, no chance! We could be similar. You are a fanatic who resorts to screwier and screwier theories to avoid confronting what a mess this war has become. What is your latest reason for why the war was necessary? I am exlcuding the old reliable: ""eventually" or is it "inevitably Sadam would have become a threat". That is a good one, since it can never really be disputed in a contempory time frame and is immune from continuing developing facts. Are you back to a love of Muslim feminism (despite a dislike for Muslims in general). After all, after a period of absence, Laura Bush has rediscovered a love for feminism-- in Muslim countries that is. Otherwise she is the anti-Hiliary and spends all her time baking cookies and advocating no abortion for poor women who have children even if life threatening and who her husband is determined to not help support. No need to state her lack of concern for lesbian feminists.
glynch, i'm pretty sure laura bush is pro-choice. i've read about her disagreeing with her husband on that issue.
fair question. did i step into that one?? i should have just kept quiet!!! i'm not sure how history will judge it. i reserve the right to amend my answer in about 20 years. but right now...i'd say no. maybe if it had been done a different way, i might think differently. but i'm afraid we've done some real damage to the notion that we're not some crusading state out to get the Muslims of the world. whether that's justified or not.
I don't think my rationale for intervention in Iraq has changed since the beginning of the conflict. If you'd like to point out where my posts are dissimilar pre and post then please do so.
Umm..Wasn't that the point of this thread? Lets post threads that we find interesting and we will think will start good discussion. This thread is an example of why we shouldn't be posting threads just to prove we're balanced or patriotic. Although now that Batman has responded to Trader Jorge's challenge perhaps he or Big Texx could post a thread critical of the President or the US military and then we can call it even.
I don't think my rationale for intervention in Iraq has changed since the beginning of the conflict. If you'd like to point out where my posts are dissimilar pre and post then please do so. Hayes, I explicitly ruled out your perennial "inevitable threat" some day some time. Of course this can't be contested with facts, though nothing that has developed since the start of the war would tend to go with the big threat to us from Iraq theory. Centrifuge?? Of course, I have some in laws that think the wmd's are still hidden somewhere or were moved to Syria or is it Iran? Other theories you have put forward have been Iraqi feminism and the evils of sanctions, which you were a fan of till the war. Perhaps some others can think of some of the other theories you have put forward. To be fair to you at least as far as I remember, you haven't tried to justify the war after the fact by the love of Iraqi democracy theory, which seem to be the administrtions current theory. Effective rhetoric for sure-- since who isn't for democracy-- except for you and them if it doesn't lead to current geopolitical advanatage for the neocons.
You did? Well isn't that special. Of course it can't. Mainly because it was a highly probable outcome that inevitably Saddam would have acquired WMDs. Its unfortunate that the tabs you gulped in the 60s have affected your memory, but for I'll refresh your memory for old times sake. These aren't 'theories' but advantages to intervention that I've listed since the beginning. If you doubt it then go back and you'll see that I've been consistent since the beginning. I always denied the AQ link to Iraq and the 'imminent' threat of WMDs. I pointed out that (a) Saddam was an inevitable WMD threat [even failing to have a delivery mechanism to hit the continental US still poses the threats from nuclear blackmail, accidental launch, miscalculation etc), (b) he was a despot and we had the power to remove him, (c) we have an obligation to stop a genocidal dictator if we can, (d) sanctions [according to YOU] were killing millions of Iraqis and the intervention removed sanctions, (e) 'containment' - the most advocated policy by yourself and the anti-war crowd - not only killed millions of iraqis [sanctions are THE main component of 'containment'] but more importantly led directly to 9/11 [US troops in SA to contain Saddam - bin Laden names said troops as numero uno reason for war with the west and 9/11]. Removing the artificial impediment to self determination is certainly an advantage to the intervention, although I personally did not advocate a greater democratic effect on the rest of the ME pre-intervention. That being said, however, I do feel there is certainly the possibility of there being such a said effect and that it would be/is a good thing. In fact, with your usual doomsaying you claimed that the entire ME would blow up, governments would fall, and the whole place would be ruled by fundamentalists as the populations rose up in a fiery response to our intervention. Instead we've seen the Lebanese kick out the Syrians, the Syrians move toward democratic reform (along with Egypt and others), and a noticable absence of a worldwide conflagration between the US and the EU/Russia/China[list country here]. Maybe you'd be better off heckling Haliburton employees. On the other hand your ad hoc policy included both supporting containment and criticising sanctions, allowing Saddam to prolif and abandoning the Iraqi people to his rule, keeping US troops in SA and not invading Afghanistan after 9/11. Good luck convincing someone to follow you, lol.
