Thank you all for your freedom fighter support. The full results of the poll can be located here. The ever growing support of your Democratic party in the quest of a withdrawal of imperialist forces from Iraq and a return to the throne of our glorious leader Saddam warrms our hearts to its deepest depths. Please spread these poll results to all of your friends and co-workers so we can garner more and more critical support for radical Islam and cast more and more fear into you government. peoples and your "broken and worn out military" as your Democratic Rep. John Murtha describes it. I am sorry I do not of know of spin but it must indicate your love for Saddam and the good luck you wish to those who fight for paradise daily.
What the hell is a 'Fox News Opinion Dynamics survey'? Sounds like engineered answers if you ask me.
'Fox News Opinion Dynamics survey' ? - LMAO, that's one of the most perfect specimens of 'Things one shouldn't really trust' I ever saw. Oh my sides!
Hey, I can spin too! 78% of Republicans want American troops to die in Iraq while 79% of Republicans support imperialistic foreign policy.
Nope just want our miltary given the tools to wipe out the other side, even it means pressing a terrorist hard for possible important information. If we could only being TR back to handle our politicial and military policy....
Which of course would involve killing everyone in Iraq? Oh wait! Terrorists also come from a number of places like Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Morocco, Germany, and The United States (has everyone forgotten Tomothy McVeigh and his minions?). Guess we have a lot of bombing to do, since we have to act preemptively against every possible terrorist, and since fighting terrorism starts at home...
Our side has been using those hard tactics on Iraqi terrorist, Iraqi insurgents, and some members of the Iraqi general population for more than 2 years now, to this country's shame, and where has it gotten us but deeper into the conflict. If torture, opps I mean pressing the enemy HARD, or to use Rummy's phrase, taking the gloves off, is so great, why hasn't it won the day for us? It has been used liberally, if you excuse the term, on thousands of Iraqi's, where is the great payoff that you seem to believe in?
Good ones! How about 100% of chickenhawks want others to do the fighting for them?
You're so wrong that it's not even funny.
Oh really? How many people do you know in the military?
Chickenhawks aren't in the military. I've got no problem with pro-military people, I'm one of them. But, to me, the lowest form of life is the chickenhawk, someone who desperately wants to go to war (and I mean WANTS to, not just someone who supports the military, cuz these guys really don't), but doesn't want to do their own part. Examples include Dubya (no, his Air Force fantasy camp doesn't count, especially given that he blew off a good portion of it), Rummy, and President/Vice President Cheney, all of whom are ardent hawks, but when called upon to serve had other things to do. Hence the term "chickenhawk."
Ummm Rumsfeld served in the Navy as a pilot and like it or not President Bush served as well.
My bad. But you do get the point, right?
No. All this chickenhawk talk is nothing but leftist rhetoric.
Iraq has become terrorist flypaper, which is not necessary a bad thing. It allows the enemy to push to a closer target and reduce resources to attempt another 9-11. Where do terrorists in the great majority come from Islamic countries?
I have not forgotten McVeigh and the horrible coverup on who was involved in that bomb plot, but there is enough information to point to islamic terrorist support even only in minor role. "Please continue on, there is nothing more to see here." They tried to blame it all on him, which was completely false.
So should be invite those terrorist for tea and scones? They may give up their violence ways afterwards. We are winning and to pull out will doom millions to the next dicator wins after tearing apart Iraq for their new empire.
We are losing something like 200:1 deaths/wounded soldiers compared to our enemies forces, which is close to unheard of in most conflicts. We have unfortunely lost just over 2000 soldiers in two years, but they almost lost that in ONE DAY.
Don't lie about our success in the Iraq war, since it is insulting everyone who has fought or lost a loved one over there. It is a tough course and a high price to pay to allow Iraq to become a terrorist death trap.
Okay, macthulhu,
What would have done after 9-11? Ignore that terrorists struck in your own country and tried to reason with them?
The mastermind and a sizable part of his group were hiding out in a distant country that the Russians had problems invading.
Saddam has supported terrorists over the years, is a horrible person that could have become the next Stalin or Hitler if he could pull it off, and not been following the rules imposed on him after his last attempt to increase his power failed. If you are the Clinton's, talk tough and lobe missles from time to time for politic misdirection from home problems? We had every right to complete the job that Bush's father lacked the guts to finish or Clinton should have done. At least, even armed the Kurds to the teeth and gave them support against him unlike what happened to them after Desert Storm.
So the fact that MOST of the administration uber-hawks never served in the military, is what, leftist rhetoric? If by that you mean factual, I guess I would have to agree. We have Cheney, Wolfowitz, Perle, among others who championed this war, but never served in the military. Or did some "leftist" just make that up?
How about the fact that the guy who knew the most about war, especially war in Iraq, was the odd man out, because he wasn't hawkish enough for the PNAC crowd, is that leftist rhetoric, too?
Seriously, The Baron, you have been spun into a logical quagmire. You keep referring to the Iraqi insurgents as terrorists, completely confusing them with our real al Qaeda enemy.
Let me try to un-spin you. The rationale you just gave for invading Iraq, would be just as valid if used to invade Cuba after the 9/11 attacks. Castro is by most yarksticks a worse bad guy than Saddam, he been at it longer, and Havana is far closer to us than Baghdad. And of course, Cuba has just as much connection to the 9/11 attacks as Iraq.
The whole concept of preventive war only makes sense if the threat is real, and imminent, and if there is no other way to proceed. None of those conditions existed with regard to Iraq. The invasion was a disasterously bad policy that we are all stuck with.The task at hand now is nation building and as every good conservative knows, or at least USED to know when Clinton tried it, the military isn't structured for nation building. It is time for some reality checking and for some real choices.
Oh right, it wasn't cool to protest Clinton's wars on Iraq, Bosnia, Afghanistan and the Sudan. I forgot. My bad!
Clinton's Foreign Policy team
Madeleine Albright, Secretary of State
No military service.
Strobe Talbott, Deputy Secretary of State
No military service.
William Cohen, Secretary of Defense
No military service.
John Hamre, Deputy Secretary of Defense
No military service.
George Tenet, CIA Director
No military service.
Sandy Burglar, National Security Advisor
No military service.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bush's Foreign Policy team
Colin Powell, Secretary of State
US Army, 35-year career, Vietnam, rose to the rank of 4-star general.
Richard Armitage, Deputy Secretary of State
U.S. Navy, Naval Academy, 3 combat tours in Vietnam.
Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense
U.S. Navy, 1954-57, pilot, flight instructor.
Paul Wolfowitz, Deputy Secretary of Defense
No military service.
George Tenet, CIA Director
No military service.
Condoleezza Rice, National Security Advisor
No military service.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not all of us see things only in terms of Democrat and Republican. I was more staunchly opposed to Clinton's wars then I am to Bush's. At least Clinton made it clear that we were going in for so-called 'humanitarian purposes'. The US should not be the world's police. I strongly spoke out against Clinton and his imperialistic endeavours.
I strongly supported Bush going into Iraq because, like everyone else, I was misled to believe Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and was a direct threat to the security of the United States. Now that we know for sure that we fucked up the intelligence, we should pull out as soon as we can before we can continue to shoot ourselves in the foot. We have no place in Iraq. Over 71% of the Iraq populace call us occupiers and close to 80% want us to pull out immediately. (http://zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=957)
[Comment was edited by Kaymaster on December 04, 2005 at 07:48:30 PM]
Will you marry me?
**If you're female we can always move to California or Massachusetts.
No. He's right by definition because a chickenhawk would be a politician that didn't serve in the military but supports war. It's like a warhawk, only chicken.
And quite a few. In fact, one of my good friends from my home town died in the early days of the war.
His name was Ahn.
I would have done much the same, made deals and gone in to Afghanistan. But then I would have made a much greater commitment there. I would not have invaded Iraq, if that's what you are asking, because I knew at the time that they were making that crap up.
::grin::
Insurgents are terrorists using the same tactics that have been used for too many years, plus most of them are NOT even locals. Al Qaeda are just one of the groups that need wiped from the earth and, if I was a truly cruel person, their families should follow. How would they feel if they had no future and their loved ones could be killed for no reason?
I would have wiped out Cuba years ago, but I suspect something went on beyond USSR's support to them. Saddam had an agreement that he signed to get us from not wiping him from the face of the earth back in the Desert Storm and he violated the terms of the agreement, but everyone who was party of the agreement played pussyfoot with each other and turned their head away. Bush had every right to punish him for gross violations of the agreement that everyone else was too busy to take care of business.
The military is not structured for nation building, but we have done it before in WWI and WWII. Terrorists are using us as punching bags due to support from old Saddam thugs, Syria, Iran, and others. Prove the links and crush them like a bug is the proper course of action.
[Comment was edited by thebaron on December 04, 2005 at 08:59:09 PM]
Oh, and nobody has ever demonstrated a link between Iraq and 9-11, so no use bringing that BS up.
There were more important reasons to topple Saddam than the stupid WMD reason that everyone focuses on, but WMD programs have been found or the materials have been shown to be removed from the country.
We all agree that Al Qeada needs a boot up the ass. But there was no link between Al Qeada and Iraq until we allowed them in to the country.
http://www.aim.org/mediamonitorprint/4198020/
This article cover why we have pieced together from many news services over the last few year fairly well.
Another option would be Britain - if it turns out you're both female (and if she said yes)
You are missing the obvious point again. Whatever you may think of Castro and Cuba, they had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks, so using them as an excuse to attack Cuba would be stupid not to mention morally bankrupt.
I have listened closely to military people including the commanders in Iraq. Over 90% of the insurgency is Iraqi. Period. And most of the real foreign terroritsts who are now in Iraq, a few thousand by most counts, were NOT there before the US led invasion in 2003.
When you talk about Iraq, invoking 9/11 every single time, you are perpetuating a link that needs to be disconnected in the public's mind, because it never really existed in the first place.
You ask what should we have done after the 9/11 attacks. We should have gone after the individuals and the organization that attacked us, al Qaeda, and not gotten side tracked in a place that had nothing to do with the attacks.
There seems to be much spinning going on. I do think it is all support of the freedom fighters. One freedom fighter supporter advises that "78% of Republicans want American troops to die in Iraq while 79% of Republicans support imperialistic foreign policy."
You are correct sir in identifying the proper title of the imperialist forces and the impediment to freedom that Republicans truly are. You sir sound as if you might be a fine paradise squad member yourself, if you are not already, I should clarify. Please keep spreading the word to other potential paradsise seeking members so that you and we can eliminate the evils of capitalism, jews, christianilty and republicans from the earth!
"Please keep spreading the word to other potential paradsise seeking members so that you and we can eliminate the evils of capitalism, jews, christianilty and republicans from the earth!"
Don't forget the evils of sugary soft drinks and internet porn.
There's porn on the internet?
So I've heard.
You'll never see him again.
"You are correct sir in identifying the proper title of the imperialist forces and the impediment to freedom that Republicans truly are. You sir sound as if you might be a fine paradise squad member yourself, if you are not already, I should clarify. Please keep spreading the word to other potential paradsise seeking members so that you and we can eliminate the evils of capitalism, jews, christianilty and republicans from the earth!"
I really have absolutely no idea what you are trying to say. I'm sorry.
But, what I was trying to say is that the article presented is just a giant strawman fallacy. No where in the actual poll does it ask if one would support Saddam being put back on the throne. Hence, the term 'spin'.
[Comment was edited by Kaymaster on December 04, 2005 at 06:17:20 PM]
I figured as much. He just came and went.
The come and go type.
I refuse to believe that anyone would use such a valuable resource as the internet for such a purpose! :)
Not to be confused with the "slam, bam, thank you ma'am" type.
I too would like to believe it isn't so but from everything I have heard and read it is.
Please do not encourage the conservatives to agree that only those with military experience should make judgements on the Iraq war. Most of the military experienced type are conservative and would agree to continue the war. If only those with military experience could decide, it would exclude many if those who avoided the draft by going to Canada, and other such true experts on imperialist tactics and freedom fighter supporters. We must eliminate the western military, christianity, and personal weapons ownership in order to crush republicans and conquer the west. Please always keep this in mind. Thank you for your adorations all of you paradise seeking supporters.
natethegreatest