• SeanRenaud said on Oct 05, 2008....

  Not that I really disagree with that idea (though I think it's deeper and more insideous than simple economics) what option do we have?  It's not like we can raise security without half our nation hating us?  Do we sit back and let them use us as a punching bag?

• bloc said on Oct 06, 2008....

  what we should do is not invade and occupy countries that had nothing to do with 9/11 and not to make poor decisions that turn the world against us. 
  
  
  There is no real coalition helping us in Iraq which is why it's so expensive.

• ALIENated said on Oct 06, 2008....

  
  It is amazing how you under estimate our leaders simply because the man at
  the top is a Republican. Do you think our whole government and military are
  going to suddenly turn over if Borax somehow slips into the White House?
  Liberals are so nieve about the workings of the world it is laughable. I guess
  most Democrats believe the idiocy coming out of Hollywood produced by other
  liberals, so it feeds on itself. Our military even worked when Clinton was in 
  office trying to dismantle it and things will not be that different is Borax
  takes over. He will "suddenly" understand what is going on and everything
  will be alright. Please keep these posts around (maybe I better copy some
  of them off somewhere) so we can revisit this stuff IF Obama does become
  our president (God forbid). Just as the Democrat congres weaseled their
  way into our hearts last year by saying they would end the war in Iraq, we
  will be able to examine all the lies Obama is telling now. That would almost
  be worth seeing him become president, except for all the havoc he will 
  wreak in our lives.
  
  

• curmudgeon said on Oct 06, 2008....

  The Dems had two years to get us out of Iraq and have done zip.

• bloc said on Oct 06, 2008....

  @curm
  
  
  the dems are Bush enablers and have been nothing more the past 8 years.
  
  
  @everyone
  it seems that alien missed my point, or as is more likely, he choose to ignore it. We are going to bankrupt ourselves if we stay in Iraq forever.

• ALIENated said on Oct 06, 2008....

  
  I did not miss your point. You think Obama will magically get us out of
  Iraq, but that is just not true. We are more likely to bankrupt ourselves
  by not developing our own oil and trying to provide free healthcare for
  everyone, by raising taxes, and all the other socialist crap that Obama
  is advocating. The 60s are over. Socialism does not work. Obama is not
  the answer. Do you really think our enemies will respect and fear him.
  Which of our great cities will pay the price just to get a Democrat in 
  the White House?
  
  

• bloc said on Oct 06, 2008....

  "You think Obama will magically get us out of Iraq"
  
  
  I don't think this and have never said such a thing.
  
  
  The rest of your comment was drivel and not worth a response.

• stopmediabias said on Oct 07, 2008....

  I am blown away by the first sentence of this post.  It just shows what a complete ass Sullivan is.

  "On 9/11, Al Qaeda had no expectation of a traditional military victory against the United States"

  How many people were they trying to kill?  They only got close to 3,000 but what if it was a success?  Imagine if the WTC planes first hit at the very bottom of the buildings.  Imagine if the Pentagon plane hit the center of the Pentagon.  Imagine if the plane hit smack dab in the middle of the White House.

  Bottom line Al Qaeda wants to kill us all.  Iraq was 3 years after 9/11 and after 30 years of lies, murder, wars, and every other despicable thing Saddam could come up with, along with 14 UN resolutions. 

  Lets not talk about coalitions, Biden voted against the first gulf war where we had a broad coalition.  Liberals go to war when it is politically beneficial to them.

   

• SeanRenaud said on Oct 07, 2008....

  SMB.  Stop being an idiot.  Really.  Al Qaeda has no expectation of a traditional military victory, they weren't even TRYING.  They attacked (and have by the large continued to) attack soft civillian targets.  They aren't attacking our military.  They have no interest (or prayer) in engaging our military.
   
   

• stopmediabias said on Oct 07, 2008....

  Sean everytime you get into one of bloc's posts you instantly become a retard.  Al Qaeda has attacked our military every chance it gets.  Embassy attacks, Iraq, the USS cole, the list is endless.  What difference does it make!?  They tried to wipe out 100,000 plus people.  They don't engage our military in the sense of traditional warfare because they are weak and can't.  Are you so naive to think if Al Qaeda could kill hundreds of thousands of our people they wouldn't? 

  President Bush was right to go into Iraq because he knew it eventually would have to come down.  By doing it now he brought a lot of terrorists out of the shadows for us destroy.  Al Qaeda has been knocked back decades, they have been demoralized and even had other Arabs (thank to President Bush) unite against them. 

  What would Iraq look like today if we hadn't gone in?  Saddam would still be executing and torturing his own citizens and terrorist training camps would be running at full bore, the oil for food program would continue to starve Iraqis, and Saddam would be making more WMD's.  Read all this bullshit that Bloc posts 20 years from now and we will see who the idiot is. 

• SeanRenaud said on Oct 07, 2008....

  No, I'm inteligent enough to know what you just pointed out.
   
  They are weak and can't engage our military in the traditional sense.  So why are we fighting them in the traditional way?  I mean unless your advocating Total War maybe you need to seriously rethink your strategy.
   
  The only part of your second paragraph that may be true is that other arabs are starting to unit against Al Qaeda because we spent 700 Billion dollars trickig them into blowing shit up and eventually they got tired.
   
  Its unlikely that terrorist camps would be running in Iraq, if they were we could have waited till them.  Saddam would still be torturing his own citizens.  So what?  It's happening around the world.  I dont' see you screaming for us to attack Darfur (which we should have by now)

• stopmediabias said on Oct 08, 2008....

  Has anything about the Iraq conflict been traditional?  Our side said the Geneva Conventions didn't apply (because this isn't a traditional war mainly) and the left savaged us. 

  There was terrorist training camps before we went in, it is logical to suggest in the atomosphere of terrorism back in 2003 if we didn't take down Saddam they would have continued and/or gotten worse, like the oil for food debacle and the WMD's thing.

  None of this makes any difference, taking Iraq out was the right thing to do.  If you research the statements before the war of all these liberals you will find they knew how bad Iraq was and were just as ready as everyone else to go in.  So if we didn't go in, then that would be a Democrat campaign talking point: "Saddam Hussein still is left unchecked, still making WMD's, still torturing and murdering his own citizens, still threatening Israel, etc.. and the Bush administration has done nothing."  This is how would sound.

  If Al Qaeda had the chance (as farfetched as it may seem) to wipe out the entire state of California with a nuclear bomb do you think they would based on their past actions?

• bloc said on Oct 08, 2008....

  "Has anything about the Iraq conflict been traditional?  Our side said the Geneva Conventions didn't apply (because this isn't a traditional war mainly) and the left savaged us. "
  
  
  This was not said with respect to Iraq, it was said about gitmo and afghanistan. 
  
  
  The people that attacked us on 9/11 had nothing to do with Iraq. Iraq did not help or support them in any way.
  
  
  
  

• SeanRenaud said on Oct 08, 2008....

  Actually bloc it was said in respect to Iraq as well.  It dealt with firing on Mosques and Red Cross/Crescent facilities.  Which was a tactic for a while.  It seems to have died off.  It also restricts the weapons that can be used.
   
  Nothing about this war has been traditional SMB.  Well not after Saddam lost, the part with Saddam was pretty text book.  After that all bets have been off and obviously sticking to tradition is going to get us killed. 
   
  Yeah all the liberals were behind the war early.  Course the inteligence that they based their decisions on have since been proven false.  The concept of that this war would be over in months instead of a decade has been proven false. 
   
  We clearly have a new problem here, a new problem that was custom tailored to our old way of thinking.  It's time to think up new strategies.
   
  Oh and btw.  You can cling to the talking point because it LOOKS true, but any idiot can tell you that the Surge didn't work in the fashion it was sold to us to.  It was claimed that a massive surge would supress violence and allow people to get back to their lives.  It didn't, in fact in the early months of the surge we saw some of our bloodiest months.  It just turned out that was the breaking point where the average Iraqi figured out that no matter how much you hate America, they aren't the ones strapping bombs to their chests and running into stores AND if they can stop people from doing that the dirty Americans will go home.  But like so many other things political timing and facts are highly maleable so it will never be discredited officially that the Surge worked.  But it didn't.  Not any more than George Bush being elected caused 9/11.  Same place, same time doesn't make you responsible.

• bloc said on Oct 08, 2008....

  liberals were not behind this war early. I can cite many examples to prove it.

• bloc said on Oct 08, 2008....

  here is an example.
  
  
  http://www.soulcast.com/post/show/31244/Does-being-right-mean-anything%3F
  
  
  Btw, can you show me a source where the Bush admin said that the Geneva Conventions don't apply in Iraq?

• SeanRenaud said on Oct 08, 2008....

  Democrats=Liberals

• bloc said on Oct 08, 2008....

  lol, that's too funny to take seriously. 
  
  
  a dog had 4 legs, therefore something with 4 legs is a dog.

• SeanRenaud said on Oct 08, 2008....

  Cept it's pretty much a fact.  Just like Republicans=Conservatives.  No matter how many examples you can come up with to the contrary we all know when people are conversing about politics (except within a single party situation) that the two terms are interchangable.

  There is a chasm of difference between the definition of a word and what it means.  Webster would claim that you, myself, ALIEN and Sheltercrow constitute a gang.  However that's not what the word gang means.  I could say that my friend was really gay at his wedding.  Again that's not what the word means.

  So if you can prove that most people associate liberals with the Republican Party or that conservative ideas are what people associate with the Democrat Party then carry on.  Otherwise we all know what people mean when they say something.  No point in nit picking at it.

• bloc said on Oct 08, 2008....

  if the democrats are liberals then what is nader?

• SeanRenaud said on Oct 08, 2008....

  He's an independent isn't he?  I mean all stances aside all third parties combine don't equal Republicans or Democrats alone (let alone together)  We have a two party system.
   
  You can argue that McCain is (Was would be more accurate) liberal.  I'm sure you can find Pro-life, anti-gun control, pro-Iraq war Dems and pro-choice, pro gun control, pro gay Republicans.  Does that change what the basic stance of the party is?
   
  Also as an aside have you noticed you've never (to my knowledge) capitalized Sarah Palin, but you usually do Bush.

• bloc said on Oct 08, 2008....

  i don't capitalize often and it's a weird arbitrary thing when I do. I usually try to capitalize Christian and God just to avoid getting in arguments about it. Notice I didn't capitalize nader.
  
  
  The problem is that liberals are very distinct from democrats. Almost all liberals were against this war from the outset. If we use your logic then conservatism means drastic increases in government spending and a move toward theocracy. After all, that's what the republican party did when it had complete control over our government.
  
  
  This would also mean that you, tin, me, silver, and most other rational people are neither liberals or conservatives because you and tin don't believe in the republican status quo, and me and silver don't believe in the democrat status quo. By your definition the vast majority of americans are neither liberals or conservatives.

• stopmediabias said on Oct 08, 2008....

  bloc- "The people that attacked us on 9/11 had nothing to do with Iraq. Iraq did not help or support them in any way"

   We have talked about this before.  This statement is partially untrue.  Mohammed Atta and the others had nothing to do with Iraq.  Osama bin Laden in his search for CBRN weapons spoke with Iraqi officials.  This and the terrorist training camps in Iraq puts a loose affiliation between the two.  bin Laden and Saddam at one time were enemies but agreed on one thing:  destroy America. 

  Certain noteworthy liberals like Hillary Clinton, Al Gore, Joe Biden were for the removal of Saddam.   I thought I read somewhere that the Bush Administration at first said insurgents who were known to be foreign fighters captured in Iraq the Geneva conventions didn't apply, then they changed that and said they did. 

  Sean-"Course the inteligence that they based their decisions on have since been proven false.  The concept of that this war would be over in months instead of a decade has been proven false. "

  Some of the intelligence, not all of it.  And who said this war would be over in months?

  "It was claimed that a massive surge would supress violence and allow people to get back to their lives.  It didn't, in fact in the early months of the surge we saw some of our bloodiest months."

  The concept of the surge was to apply more troops, clean out an area, they ensure the area will stay clean by leaving troops and helping the Iraqis.  In comparison to 2005 today Iraq is far better and this strategy worked.  Are you saying if we didn't apply the surge Iraq would have turned out the same?    

   
   
   

• SeanRenaud said on Oct 08, 2008....

  1.  Yes I do believe that the vast majority of people are neither liberal nor conservative but fall someplace down the middle.  I truly believe that a large number of people who aren't currently independents would be if primary voting was handled differently.  I understand the reasons and risks behind it (Rush Limbaugh's Operation Chaos shows even the controls we have in place, can in theory be bypassed rather easily) of letting everybody vote in everybody's primary.  That said I think many people join a party simply so they can vote in a primary I know that is largely the case for me. 
   
  I would also argue that yes conservatism and Republicans do represent a strong trend towards theocracy when left unchecked.  I get the feeling from both sides that the moderates quietly admire the extremes.  That many 'moderate' Republicans wish they had the kind of faith in their religion that is shown by people the other side deems insane.  Just like I think that many 'moderate' Democrats/liberals envy the people who are so insanely green that most of us wonder how they manage anything. 
   
  It seems odd to me that you could have the extremes often rising to far politically if it were otherwise.
   
  2.  I was just asking about the Palin thing.  I had randomly opened your home page and was curious if it was intentional or not.
   
  3.  There is no way of knowing without a Delorian and a flux capacitor.  SMB.  I am suggesting that the outcome would likely have been the same.  It wasn't a matter of military might that changed things.  It was a change in the populace and their opinion of Al Qaeda and violence.  So yes I believe it would have happened on it's own.  Just like I believe if we had BEGAN drawing down troops and forcing Iraqis to police their own sooner that we would have reached the same destination.  The thing is there is no way to prove it and the Surge certainly appears to have been the cause.  I don't believe there is really evidence to support that it was the cause so much as something that was also going on at the time.
   
  But I won't debate it because I don't have a Delorian, my flux capacitors in the shop and i keep getting pulled over when I reah 87 mph.

• bloc said on Oct 08, 2008....

  Again, Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and al queda. this is hard fact at this point and even the Bush administration concedes this.
  
  "And who said this war would be over in months?"
  
  
  Many people in the Bush administration. Rumsfeld and Cheney immediately come to mind.

• stopmediabias said on Oct 09, 2008....

  Bloc-I don't take youtube clips as any sort of proof of anything.  Nearly everytime I click on one of them it is a let down and is usually a quote taken blatantly out of context. 

  Once again, there are ties to Iraq from Al Qaeda, I'll post my sources later.

  Sean-the Centcom websites have number of deaths from conflict on a day to day basis in Iraq, go and look at the drop in these numbers since this surge started.  I would link them but I don't have two seconds.

• bloc said on Oct 09, 2008....

  i'll let everyone else hear rumsfeld in his own words and make up their minds. The Bush admin claimed repeatedly that this war would be quick, easy, and cheap. 

• stopmediabias said on Oct 09, 2008....

  But you are spinning this.  How long did it take to defeat the Iraqi Army and take down the Saddam regime?  Months.  Actually securing the country, because we are war with Islamo fascism would take longer.  The Bush Administration didn't continue stating it would take months after we were in there, as a matter of fact they said the opposite.

  On the other matter a Clinton appointed Judge ruled that Saddam was at least partially responsible for 9/11 after a lawsuit by 9/11 victim families. 

• bloc said on Oct 09, 2008....

  The american people remember how Bush sold this war. Revisionist history won't help you. Check out the poll numbers.

• stopmediabias said on Oct 10, 2008....

  Check out the Democrat controlled Congress poll numbers.

• SeanRenaud said on Oct 10, 2008....

  They are ugly.  I don't even need to check, are they as high as Bush's approval?
   
  The thing you need to wonder here  SMB about Congress is what is the public belief.  I personally think that the "Big Bad Media" is going to be your best friend here and it's just a matter of if the Media can over come. . .well itself in effect but Bush when it comes to Congress.  See Democrat controlled Congress is a bit of a myth.  In the Senate Dems out number Reps 51-49 (And that's only because both independents caucus with the Dems in reality the sides are tied) in the House its 233 Dems vs 202 Reps.  Again hardly an overwhelming majority.  But the media has been hyping this as a Democrat Congress as if they could do whatever they pleased when not only do some things require more than a majority vote (two thirds or three foruths isn't uncommon) there was always Bush with the Veto pen and then they would have to get significant R assistance to over come it. 
   
  So it comes down to if people think that Democrats are the cause of this problem because they have a majority and thus are "dominating" legislature (which I just demonstrated is hardly the reality) and they should be voted out.  Which is what I think most people think because the Big Bad Media has been picking on the R's and making it seem like they are controlling Congress.
   
  The flip side is that the general public may think the remaining Republicans are digging their heels and keeping anything from being accomplished at all and will move to vote the rest of them out.
   
  If the world was the way it should be we'd flip Congress completely but we both know that too many people vote for a letter first and everything else second that, that shit ain't happening, not in this reality.

• SeanRenaud said on Oct 10, 2008....

  They are ugly.  I don't even need to check, are they as high as Bush's approval?
   
  The thing you need to wonder here  SMB about Congress is what is the public belief.  I personally think that the "Big Bad Media" is going to be your best friend here and it's just a matter of if the Media can over come. . .well itself in effect but Bush when it comes to Congress.  See Democrat controlled Congress is a bit of a myth.  In the Senate Dems out number Reps 51-49 (And that's only because both independents caucus with the Dems in reality the sides are tied) in the House its 233 Dems vs 202 Reps.  Again hardly an overwhelming majority.  But the media has been hyping this as a Democrat Congress as if they could do whatever they pleased when not only do some things require more than a majority vote (two thirds or three foruths isn't uncommon) there was always Bush with the Veto pen and then they would have to get significant R assistance to over come it. 
   
  So it comes down to if people think that Democrats are the cause of this problem because they have a majority and thus are "dominating" legislature (which I just demonstrated is hardly the reality) and they should be voted out.  Which is what I think most people think because the Big Bad Media has been picking on the R's and making it seem like they are controlling Congress.
   
  The flip side is that the general public may think the remaining Republicans are digging their heels and keeping anything from being accomplished at all and will move to vote the rest of them out.
   
  If the world was the way it should be we'd flip Congress completely but we both know that too many people vote for a letter first and everything else second that, that shit ain't happening, not in this reality.

• bloc said on Oct 10, 2008....

  if you look at polls you'll see that the public is far less happy with republicans than they are with democrats. Congress always has terrible numbers. They had terrible numbers during the last election and guess what happened, democrats won new seats.

• SeanRenaud said on Oct 10, 2008....

  But last time the media was hyping a Republican controlled Congress, since they were in control they were percieved to be the problem. Now it is a Democrat controlled Congress hense Democrats must be the problem.

  I'm hoping however that you're right and that basically the stigma of George Bush hanging on Republican's necks is greater than the "fact" that Congress is Democrat controlled.

  Seriously though it shouldn't be called control until you have a 60/40 advantage.  To me that to call this Congress D controlled (or the last one R controlled) is at the very least a misinterpretation of the facts.

• bloc said on Oct 10, 2008....

  Looks like the republican senators are in trouble too.
  source
  

• SeanRenaud said on Oct 11, 2008....

  Wow, we'll see if that's true.  Though I'll admit that I'm a tad bit nervous about a Democrat President and a democrat Congress, but oh well. 

• stopmediabias said on Oct 11, 2008....

  If the media was even close to fair a great majority of Democrats would never stay in power.  The media gives Dems a pass every chance they can.  Who is the speaker of the House? Nancy Pelosi.  She holds the gavel and the Dems have a the majority.  You guys gloated to high heaven in 2006 calling the elections a referendum on the war and President Bush's policies due to the majority.  The media didn't report it as a tiny majority.  Now that they have the lowest approval rating in all of history suddenly the majority doesn't count.

  We hear things like "how Bush sold the war.." this is after 14 resolutions in the UN, years and years of wars, subjugation of people, lies about WMD's, firing at planes in the no-fly zone, oil for food, the list is endless and our whole government voted to take Saddam down.  Now this somehow magical discovery by liberals that war is bad and costly, suddenly it was Bush and the evil Republicans who got us into Iraq.

Comment on "defeating america"

Currently tagged	politics 9/11 bush iraq liberals (Click to add tags below)
Tag this post	(Separate tags using commas, for example: New York, dating, vegetarian)
Your comment