Democrats keep putting their foot in their mouths

[Cc]

OK.

Ya...'Wishy washies'.

Everyone who doesn't agree with you is a 'Wishy Washie'.

Like I said,there is a reason Bush is loosing support.

It's because his policies suck.He simply can't compromise.He thinks he is right no matter what.

He's letting Carl do his thinking.

[Cc]

quote:

---

Then if that's the case, every U.N. inspector knew about the oil-for-food scam. What other things did they miss.

---

Their job was looking for weapons.

And the few missiles they found,they destroyed.

Didn't find anything else,because there was nothing else to find.

[John Prezioso]

It never fails. Every argument about Bush's policy on fighting terror and the war in Iraq always comes back to the dreaded 'WMD'. Well, I am going to debunk this myth as well so you can no longer use the WMD argument as a rock to scurry under whenever you are confronted with truth and facts.

Bush's ultimatum to Saddam Hussein prior to the invasion had 7 key points. WMD was number 5. If these were in order of precedence, that would mean there were 4 more important points than the WMD issue, all of which contributed equally to Bush's decision to invade. For argument's sake, let us assume that they were NOT in order of precedence. That still leaves the WMD issue as 1/7th of the full reason as to why we invaded Iraq. Number one and two, as I'm sure you conveniently forgot were that 1)Saddam Hussein had a history of unprovoked and brutal agression against his neighbors and in fact his own people, and 2) not only allowed terrorists to operate and train freely within his country's borders, but also had consistently provided support to terrorists. How much was he paying the families of the suicide bombers in Israel? Don't tell me you forgot this little tidbit. How many terrorist strongholds and training camps were found and are still being found today throughout Iraq?

To say definitively that Saddam Hussein possessed no WMD following the first war is dubious, as he had plenty of time to disperse them amongst his terrorist buddies while the UN sheepishly pumped out meaningless resolution after meaningless resolution, all the while completely lacking the collective spine to lift a finger to actually DO anything. But for argument's sake let's say that Bush was 100% wrong about the level of WMD in Iraq. (Something I find increasingly amusing is that every now and then CNN does a story on huge caches of missing weapons to point out how incompetent Bush is. How can they come up missing if they never existed? Sorry guys, you can't have it both ways.} But, I'll play your game. Let's say Bush was flat-out wrong. If Bush was wrong, then the collective intelligence of 11 different international agencies was wrong. In other words, bad data, very little of which was collected soley by the U.S. Simply put, not Bush's fault. And, please, all you Mike Moore-a-likes, don't make me start laughing until I cry with the tired "Bush lied to get us in to war!" melarchy. It is a worn out argument that never held any water, only proved the extent to which you REALLY hate Bush.

"But wait!" I hear all you libs cry, "Why did I only hear about WMD? It was all I heard about prior to the invasion!" Yup. And you know why? Because the other six reasons were unimpeachable fact that could not be disputed by the extremist leftists in the media who desperately wanted Bush to be wrong about something. So all they could do was to hang their hopes on the one issue that Bush had the highest possibility of being wrong about. Intelligence is a dodgy issue under the best of circumstances, and Bush made a decision based on the best information at the time. To hold him accountable for making a decision based on what info he was given is ludicrous. I bet all you libs would have understood if Bush had not acted and an Iraqi WMD had been used on a U.S. city. Nah, you wouldn't have been calling for his head, right. Not like you did after 9/11. Please. Your blantant inconsistencies are pathetic. But, you watch the evening news, because its a good way to fill up on that Bus-bashing pasttime you seem to enjoy so much. You listen to CNN and BBC if you want to. Go ahead and be force-fed elitist's agendas. Suck it all up if you want. Just don't come crying to me when you are woefully misinformed and in the dark, as so many of you obviously are.

Which brings me back to my original question. Whose side are you on? Do you realize that the only time something good happens for you Bush-haters is when something bad happens for America?

"Oh look! Four U.S. Marines were killed today by a coward's road-side bomb! Yippee! When we reach 2000 dead soldiers, we can really let Bush have it!" Is this really the stance you want to take?

We are at WAR people. It is the time for solidarity as Americans, and universal support and appreciation for the men and women in uniform fighting against the single gravest threat you will ever know in your lifetime. But instead, you hate-blinded liberals want to bicker and whine about the country club known as Gitmo and the awful treatment terrorist murderers are receiving, all because it advances your own agenda. Did you argue so vehemently when Nick Berg got his head sawed off for your viewing pleasure? Of course not. Until I see videos of U.S. troops sawing the heads of innocent Muslims off like they were animals, I will continue to laugh at your petty definition of "torture".

So? WHOSE SIDE ARE YOU ON? It is a simple question, but one that no liberal will answer, because, it might implicate them as to being on the same side has Satan re-incarnate, also known to the as G.W. Bush. So instead, round and around we go! Bickering until we're blue in the face! Fun, isn't it?

[Cc]

Item 1: Saddam Hussien is not the only regiem to be brutal.Why are we not invading them.North Korea for example.Why not China? Does 'tiananmen square' ring a bell?

2: There are now more terrorists in Iraq then there ever were before the war,and also there is NO proof Iraq had anything to do with 9/11.And don't tell me any camps now in Iraq existed before the war.That is just BOGUS.

3: Don't see a 3. Just more rant and rave.The UN could have keep Iraq in check if given the chance.Bush just wanted to invade because he could.

4: Don't see a 4 either.The truth of the matter,Bush sold the Congress and the people of United States on the war using weapons of mass destruction as an argument.An argument that was BOGUS at best.He made up his mind to invade Iraq the day he walked into the White House.Probably before.

5: et al.

6: This war was UNNECCESARY.The UN cound have kept Iraq in check until HELL froze over.

7: Keep up with the personal attacks.Sorry,55 % of the American people don't agree with you.

8: This war was BOGUS.Afghanistan was legit,Iraq wasn't.

[John Prezioso]

It's a good thing being wrong isn't a crime - you might end up with your 'friends' in Gitmo. I find it the height of arrogance that you would presume to speak for 55% of Americans. You offer no substantial proof, just unsubstantiated conjecture. And I'm not sure why you think I was going to go over all 7 points -if you had paid attention to more than left-leaning media you would know them. I pointed out the ones relevant to the debate.

I also don't see where I personally attacked anyone. Liberals to me are sad, hate-blinded people. This is not an attack as I would consider it. I find liberal arguments to be ludicrous - this is also not an attack. I said liberals like to whine and bicker. Where are these attacks you speak of? Stop trying to make yourself a victim. I have the right to disagree with you because YOU ARE WRONG. There is room for debate in many issues, but not in this one. Not to me.

Admit it - you hate Bush. Never mind that Bill Clinton said during his administration that Saddam Hussein most likely had WMD and would have to be forcefully disarmed. And don't pretend you don't know what I am talking about. You are inconsistent. If Clinton would have had the guts to do what he said while he was in office, you would have had NO COMPLAINTS at all. And you never answered my other question. Why didn't you cry foul when old Bill launched hundereds of Tommys into Iraq? Where was your fake outrage then? Inconsistent. But it seems to be par for the course with liberals. If that is an attack, I'm sorry, but I call 'em like I see 'em.

As a side note, I have not lost respect for you, as I said, I don't have to agree with you to respect you. I always tell people that I don't argue, I debate. When it becomes an argument, tempers flare and people lose respect for one another. I will not do that. But I will debate passionately about topics I feel are important.

[ 06-24-2005, 03:03 AM: Message edited by: Prez ]

[Cc]

Wow,going to send me to 'Gitmo' just because I am wrong(In your opinion).

Now what does that say?

Anyway, the 55 % was a poll reference.Per this article:http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...5060700296.html.

Ok...maybe 52 %.

And I only speak for myself.

[John Prezioso]

quote:

---

Wow,going to send me to 'Gitmo' just because I am wrong(In your opinion). Now what does that say?

---

Actually, it says you don't recognize sarcasm when you see it. Either that or my poor attempt at lightening the mood a bit failed.

Anyway, people's opinions change over time. That is assuming that this was not a typical leftist bogus poll, as many of them are.

I'll give you and the post the benefit of the doubt and say that the poll is legit. All it tells me is that many Americans lack the fortitude to do what is necessary and stay the course when things get a little rough. The first sign of trouble, and it's "oh no! What a mistake!" Thus the effects of liberalism are felt. Nothing I didn't really know already anyway.

[John Prezioso]

Well, with all due respect to my foreign friends, of which I hope you are one, Nomad, I don't care what the rest of the world thinks of America's success in the war on terror.

I remember clearly the horrors I woke up to on that morning in September, and I know that not a single American civilian has been murdered by terrorists here stateside since our war on Terror commenced. That is the only success I care about.

[Eclipse]

quote:

---

Originally posted by nomad:

Taleban's yes. An uniform isn't defined by exclusive western standards. It can be a beard and a black turban

---

You are correct, it isn't. however with the nature of their regieme, I would submit that a beard and black turban are too general. The sign has to be distinctive with member of the organization. Also remember that they have to meet the second criteria as well: "conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war" I'm not talking accidental civ casulaties here(that will always happen), I'm talking about purposful targeting of civs or placing them at unnecessary risk to complete their objectives.

[John Prezioso]

These cowards are dressed like civilians, and in fact try to blend in with the populace when avoiding U.S. and Iraqi forces. They are TERRORISTS, not soldiers. If they were soldiers, they would receive odrers. Where is their chain of command?

[street228]

quote:

---

These cowards are dressed like civilians, and in fact try to blend in with the populace when avoiding U.S. and Iraqi forces. They are TERRORISTS, not soldiers. If they were soldiers, they would receive odrers. Where is their chain of command?

---

Same could be said of ANY gorrilla warfare resistance group.....throughout history.

Since when, is Fighting a superior force, with inferior weapons and an inferior strategic position, from behind enemy lines, REQUIRED to follow traditional warfare techneque.

I suppose that would be what their oppositiion would prefer...easy identifiable targets...to be eliminated with overwhelming military advantage.

I would not call them Cowards... maybe misaligned, in their ideals, beliefs and methodologies....but FAR from cowards.

I see a brave resistance being waged...by a group which FEARS nothing, not even DEATH.

I hope we can put a stop to this calloused massacre we started in Iraq, but that is neither here nor there.

It is not a COWARD, who stands against a foe of surpreme number of military personel and firepower for nearly 3 years, and remains a foe to be reckoned with.

Underestimating the situation, by an idiot president got us here in the first place....I would hope Americans would learn to ignore the lynch Mob patriotism, enough to judge rationally, what we are truly up against.

I wont hold my breath, as propaghanda spewed, is regurgitated and re-spewed on a continuous basis..with-in this and other forums I watch.

makes me want to puke...but oh well. I will just keep watching to see the ironic continue to unfold

[John Prezioso]

Sorry, posted in wrong thread

[John Prezioso]

quote:

---

Since when, is Fighting a superior force, with inferior weapons and an inferior strategic position, from behind enemy lines, REQUIRED to follow traditional warfare techneque.

---

It is not required, unless you wish to be protected by the Geneva Convention. In Vietnam , the Vietcong were a well organized militia who wore recognizable uniforms and had a discernible chain of command. They also happened to be superb guerilla warriors. The Vietnamese civilians who murdered U.S. soldiers through hit and run grenade tactics and under the guise of the wired shoe shine box, however, were NOT soldiers. I hope this points out the difference.

Furthermore, supposedly you consider innocent Iraqi civialians as a "Superior fighting force", seeing as how they have born the major brunt of this so-called insurgency.

[street228]

NO, i do not suppose the INNOCENT iraqi, who brunts the most harm from the situation, as a superior force; However, I DO consider, (53% of iraqi which are U.S. aligned ),tens of thousands iraqi alligned with tens of thousands of U.S.& allied forces....Pitt against approx 40% of the iraqi population(active insurgency : aprox 20% of the total population ) as a VERY obvious imbalace of battling forces.

ALL of which is under military occupation by an even larger military and political force(U.S. and its allies)

And regardless of what the media proclaims...It is NOTHING but a civil war, instigated and pursued by the United States...and those who oppose us, are an intelligent, tactically advanced, brave and formidable foe.

The SOONER, we get our swollen pideful, blind heads out of the clouds and recognize this FACT....the SOONER we will find the intellect to evaluate our REAL position and find a REASONABLE resolve, which does not CAUSE death to the (so called) INNOCENT iraqi.

you know....INNOCENTS is realitive to perspective.

If the majority of the U.S. populatiion would ally itself with a conquoring military force....I think those who cooperated with that conquoring force would NOT be Innocent of anything, but TREASON, for NOT doing anything to help repel the invader.

So innocents or GUILT is really defined by those ACTIVELY AFFECTED within the conflict, rather than by a bunch of lazy couch potatoes;100lbs over weight and half way around the world...who are mostly too chicken-pooped to put their life on the line for ANYTHING.

[John Prezioso]

Your comparisons are woefully misguided. The U.S is clearly no longer in the role of occupier. Where have you been for the last 2 or so years? The U.S is in a support role, albeit with an extremely high exposure rate due to the relative inexperience of the Iraqi forces. This will change.

And never once did I underestimate the enemy. Your numbers on the active insurgency are however laughable. If there were anywhere near the number of insurgents your 20% number suggests, there would be no need for cowardly roadside bombs and terror tactics. It is the classic model of terrorism. An extremely small number of murderous fanctics trying to control a population through fear.

We don't have "swollen prideful heads", but we just don't feel the need to submit to your "nothing is possible, everyhting will fail" doom and gloom defeatist attitude.

One serious look at what the U.S. has accomplished since 9/11 is all it takes for an optimistic view for the future, imo.

[street228]

quote:

---

Your comparisons are woefully misguided. The U.S is clearly no longer in the role of occupier. Where have you been for the last 2 or so years? The U.S is in a support role, albeit with an extremely high exposure rate due to the relative inexperience of the Iraqi forces. This will change.

---

LOL, not hardly. I see your swallowing the white house BS hook line and sinker. Ill wager, you believe Saddam was an immediate threat to the U.S. prior to the invasion too....lol

quote:

---

And never once did I underestimate the enemy. Your numbers on the active insurgency are however laughable. If there were anywhere near the number of insurgents your 20% number suggests, there would be no need for cowardly roadside bombs and terror tactics. It is the classic model of terrorism. An extremely small number of murderous fanctics trying to control a population through fear.

---

They been saying that for 3 long years...and they not all dead yet?...now that is laughable!!

Again, your perception, that a well placed bomb is the act of cowardness...lol I will tell that one to my old Navy Seal buddies...they should get a laugh out of that!!! considering, that was what WE did during PEACE TIME!!!!!!!!! for the US GOVERNMENT while NOT under any declarations of war.

This generation has NO idea how twisted their perspective is proving to be; Nor, how corrupt our government is...much less, how small the amount of TRUTH there is in information released to the people. I DO!

quote:

---

We don't have "swollen prideful heads", but we just don't feel the need to submit to your "nothing is possible, everyhting will fail" doom and gloom defeatist attitude.

---

I think you misunderstand my stance. I have NO doom / gloom perspective. I see the unfolding of events, which could have been handled with intelligence, rather than some lynch mob mentality of ignorance.

Just because you are allied with the NEO-CONs (does that mean similar to a CON? lol ...I think so) does NOT negate the rationale of EVERYONE who is'nt.

FACT: we screwed up royal, listening to this administrations exaggerated presentation of REASON, concerning this whole excapade.

FACT: We are so influenced through pride, and self rightiousness, we have yet to publicly admit we ARE WRONG.

FACT: the whole situation concerning WORLD TERROR, has expanded exponentially since our SCREW UP.

FACT: through FALSE patriotic reason, and media hype, there are those who will follow Bush to HELL, rather than admit they are. IN FACT, GUILTY of supporting; thus causing, the DEATHS of THOUSANDS upon THOUSANDS of human lives;

Blame the TERRORIST( which dont exist- by the way ) for the deaths of iraqi civilians...it allows us to operate without a national concience for our IMMORAL, and down right Criminal acts, as a nation of brain-washed, merciless, uninformed, scared little sheep.

quote:

---

One serious look at what the U.S. has accomplished since 9/11 is all it takes for an optimistic view for the future, imo.

---

I suppose, one would have an optimistic view of a future, which denies the reality of today.

so-be-it

someone else pick it up, ive said enuff.

later

[John Prezioso]

quote:

---

someone else pick it up, ive said enuff.

---

Yes you certainly have. Going to spread your anti-American propaganda somewhere else, I gather?

[LostInSpace]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cc:

OK.

Ya...'Wishy washies'.

Everyone who doesn't agree with you is a 'Wishy Washie'.

---

I didn't say that. This phrase was not used in reference to me being right or wrong. The people I'm calling Wishy Washie are the ones that get a punch on the nose and run away and the ones that stood to fight for a little bit but because the fight was taking longer than their 5 min console mentality would allow wanna quit.

Personally, I don't care if anyone agrees with me or not. I call 'em as I see 'em and as you say they are just my opinions based on alternative sources of information (including personal sources)and not just from the main stream sources.

[John Prezioso]

What it comes right down to it, the war on terror detractors come in basically two flavors.

1) People like the near-lunatic Street, who have the nerve to call themselves Americans while, through their hate and vitriol, extrapolate some sort of moral equivalency between the terrorists and the U.S., putting us in the same category as brutal murderers. Of course, they always have unimpeachable "facts" to dazzle you with, all the while blind to the undeniable truth that terrorism is the single-most dangerous threat this country has faced since nuclear annihilation. They actually want you to believe that if we ignore terrorism overseas, it will not come calling on us, as if 9/11 never happened.

2) People who simply lack the spine to do what is necessary. Yes, war is unsavory and horrible. Innocent people will die. On both sides. There is no such thing as a "sanitary" war. This does not mean that you don't fight when the cost of inaction is multitudes worse than any war could be.

Say what you want about Bush. About Gitmo. About the Iraq war. The fact that you are entitled to your opinion is inheritantly obvious to all Americans. Regardless, you will NOT go unchallenged when you put forth lies aimed at bringing shame to the U.S. Keep it coming, America-bashers. I'm not going anywhere.

[Shadow5731]

A topic like this just feeds fuel to the fire, really folks...

I'm not saying anything on this one but:

A majority voted him into that position for the United States...so live with your decision and be done with it.

[John Prezioso]

LOL! Lies. I'm a liar now. Well, you libs are psychic enough to get into G.W.'s head and know for a fact that he delibarately and maliciously lied to the American people, so I guess you can do the same with me.

Notice, I didnt say "Anyone who doesn't like Bush" falls into one of the above categories. Or "If you disagree with our reason for going to war in Iraq, you're either 1 or 2 above..." It's these people who use the most ridiculous comparisons to Nazi Germany, and accuse the U.S. of the most vile crimes imaginable, and bought every line of "Farhenheit 911", hook, line, and sinker. And then they tell me I'M gullible and naive...

Hell, truth be told, I'm not a big fan of G.W. Bush. To me, he's not near the president Reagan was. But he IS my president. And he has my loyalty in a time when the U.S. is at war and under fire by vicious enemies who would destroy her just for existing.

I still have to laugh when I think back to 9/11, when for the first time in my life, for a few days, there was no such thing as a Democrat and a Republican, a Liberal and a Conservative, a hard-liner or a Moderate... yeah, we were all one country for a while. Remember? Flags everywhere, people were unified, patriotism was at an all-time high...

Yeah, THAT couldn't last, right? NO WAY we could stay united for something as silly as defending the nation, right?

"BUT I DON"T AGREE WITH THE WAR IN IRAQ! IT WAS UNNECESSARY!" Blah-blah-blah. On and on. Well, we ARE at war, whether you like it or not.

And you know what? You can stop quoting the same ridiculous polling data to me. I don't care. We have a president who is interested in doing what is right and is not driven by popular opinion to make foreign and domestic policy like Bill Clinton was. The election in November was all the popular opinion Bush needed to do what he needs to do.

[John Prezioso]

Edit to above: Nomad, I re-read your post and I think I misunderstood what you wrote at first. My sincerest apologies if I misrepresented your point.

But my point about polling data still stands. It it inconsequential at this point what Americans feel about the war. Popular opinion could drop to 10%- that doesn't change that there IS a war going on. You can't just leave the job unfinished.

[Grizzle]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Prez:

... the undeniable truth that terrorism is the single-most dangerous threat this country has faced since nuclear annihilation.

---

Unsubstantiated bullcrap.

[John Prezioso]

quote:

---

Unsubstantiated bullcrap.

---

Ask the families of the 3000 or so people who had their loved ones taken from them how "unsubstantiated" it is. If your blindness to reason wasn't so sad, it would be almost funny.

[John Prezioso]

quote:

---

We all suffer from insufficient attention span from times to times.

---

LOL!

quote:

---

as long these forces aren't under autochton command or as long local authorities can't veto operations (and they actually can't), it's an occupation force, not a support one...

---

See, this is why we can have a discussion Nomad, because you post reasonable and ratonal points and don't go off the deep end when someone disagrees with you.

However, it is MY understanding that if the legally and democratically elected Iraqi government were to ask us to leave, we would have no choice but to comply. This to my knowledge has not happened yet. Furthermore, I somehow don't think it's going to happen anytime soon, at least not within the next 12 months.

Imo, the current situation is similar to that of post-WW2 berlin, where the U.S. was an occupier until such time that it was secure enough to leave, with no threat of Fascist takeovers. Change "Berlin" for "Bagdhad", and "Fascist" to "Islamo-Fascist", and the situations appear nearly identical.

We have no quarrel with peace-loving Muslims (Well, I don't, anyway). And I can even respect the fervor of the Iraqi loyalists who don't like us being there, as it is never pleasant to have a foreign armed force on your soil, whatever the reason. This is why the terrorists need to be routed - so that we can leave quicker and let the Iraqi's (hopefully) live in peace.

EDIT: Oh, and about your point about being in the minority, I was an Italian kid growing up in a poor, predominantly black inner-city neighborhood in NY, and now I am a Yankee living in MEMPHIS, Tennessee, pride of the South, of all places. Seems like I like it in the minority, doesn't it?