Pages: 1 2 3 4

 

2006-11-07 11:28:11
Stingray24
Proud member of the vast right-wing conspiracy
+1,060|6444|The Land of Scott Walker
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articl … ion_d.html

Read and discuss.  EDIT: Read the whole article from the link, not just the except below.  That's just a preview.

Excerpt:

There is only one issue in this election that will matter five or ten years from now, and that's the War on Terror.

And the success of the War on Terror now teeters on the fulcrum of this election.

If control of the House passes into Democratic hands, there are enough withdraw-on-a-timetable Democrats in positions of prominence that it will not only seem to be a victory for our enemies, it will be one.

Unfortunately, the opposite is not the case -- if the Republican Party remains in control of both houses of Congress there is no guarantee that the outcome of the present war will be favorable for us or anyone else.

But at least there will be a chance.

I say this as a Democrat, for whom the Republican domination of government threatens many values that I hold to be important to America's role as a light among nations.

But there are no values that matter to me that will not be gravely endangered if we lose this war. And since the Democratic Party seems hellbent on losing it -- and in the most damaging possible way -- I have no choice but to advocate that my party be kept from getting its hands on the reins of national power, until it proves itself once again to be capable of recognizing our core national interests instead of its own temporary partisan advantages.

To all intents and purposes, when the Democratic Party jettisoned Joseph Lieberman over the issue of his support of this war, they kicked me out as well. The party of Harry Truman and Daniel Patrick Moynihan -- the party I joined back in the 1970s -- is dead. Of suicide.

Last edited by Stingray24 (2006-11-07 12:04:36)

2006-11-07 11:33:44
IRONCHEF
Member
+385|6490|Northern California
What EXACTLY is considered "winning" the war on terror?


This question is the most avoided, least asked, and most important one people need to ask themselves before thinking ANY american political group or candidate can actually accomplish a win or a loss in said war.

Is "winning" to end terrorism?  If so, it's a fantasy..even if you don't accept american aggression as terrorism also.

Is "losing" getting killed by said terrorists?  What is a terrorist, and is it reasonable to assume that terrorists wish to actually kill all non-terrorists? 


Some very simple questions like this can easily difuse this MSM talking point used by both sides (mostly republicans as they suggest voting dem means you are weak on terrorism.. lol).
2006-11-07 11:38:29
Harmor
Error_Name_Not_Found
+605|6547|San Diego, CA, USA

IRONCHEF wrote:

What EXACTLY is considered "winning" the war on terror?
Very good question.  Here's my definition:

All islamofacist groups in the world are rendered flacid.
2006-11-07 11:49:28
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6554

Harmor wrote:

IRONCHEF wrote:

What EXACTLY is considered "winning" the war on terror?
Very good question.  Here's my definition:

All islamofacist groups in the world are rendered flacid.
You want them to develop erectile disfunction?
2006-11-07 11:54:47
Stingray24
Proud member of the vast right-wing conspiracy
+1,060|6444|The Land of Scott Walker

CameronPoe wrote:

Harmor wrote:

IRONCHEF wrote:

What EXACTLY is considered "winning" the war on terror?
Very good question.  Here's my definition:

All islamofacist groups in the world are rendered flacid.
You want them to develop erectile disfunction?
That would help.  Less future jihadists running around.
2006-11-07 12:03:28
Stingray24
Proud member of the vast right-wing conspiracy
+1,060|6444|The Land of Scott Walker

IRONCHEF wrote:

What EXACTLY is considered "winning" the war on terror?


This question is the most avoided, least asked, and most important one people need to ask themselves before thinking ANY american political group or candidate can actually accomplish a win or a loss in said war.

Is "winning" to end terrorism?  If so, it's a fantasy..even if you don't accept american aggression as terrorism also.

Is "losing" getting killed by said terrorists?  What is a terrorist, and is it reasonable to assume that terrorists wish to actually kill all non-terrorists? 


Some very simple questions like this can easily difuse this MSM talking point used by both sides (mostly republicans as they suggest voting dem means you are weak on terrorism.. lol).
Winning means we prevent further attacks by killing them before they can get here or capturing them if they are here already. 

Losing means failing to prevent further attacks by not taking the opportunity to thin their ranks elsewhere in the world before they get here.  Winning may not eliminate attacks by extremist nuts completely, but refusing to fight will ensure more attacks will succeed. 

It is reasonable to assume that some islamic terrorists wish to actually kill as many non-terrorists as possible.  Allowing them to do that would be enough losing for me.
2006-11-07 12:11:42
SpaceApollyon
Scratch where it itches
+41|6519|Finland

Stingray24 wrote:

Losing means failing to prevent further attacks by not taking the opportunity to thin their ranks elsewhere in the world before they get here.
If thinning their ranks is a main objective, you have already lost. There is a wider base for terrorist recruitment now, than there has ever been.
2006-11-07 12:13:56
Stingray24
Proud member of the vast right-wing conspiracy
+1,060|6444|The Land of Scott Walker

SpaceApollyon wrote:

Stingray24 wrote:

Losing means failing to prevent further attacks by not taking the opportunity to thin their ranks elsewhere in the world before they get here.
If thinning their ranks is a main objective, you have already lost. There is a wider base for terrorist recruitment now, than there has ever been.
So quitting is the answer?  Weird.
2006-11-07 12:14:48
Hurricane
Banned
+1,153|6629|Washington, DC

I'd say the biggest issue is that the electronic ballots were probably programmed by DICE programmers.
2006-11-07 12:20:32
Agent_Dung_Bomb
Member
+302|6735|Salt Lake City

Stingray24 wrote:

SpaceApollyon wrote:

Stingray24 wrote:

Losing means failing to prevent further attacks by not taking the opportunity to thin their ranks elsewhere in the world before they get here.
If thinning their ranks is a main objective, you have already lost. There is a wider base for terrorist recruitment now, than there has ever been.
So quitting is the answer?  Weird.
No, but neither is a never ending war.  The extremists are having an easy time recruiting new people.  Our own military has said that very thing, in that our current path has created more terrorists than it has stopped.  Many people in the middle east are poor, unemployed, and disenfranchised.  They see our military presence, and radical leaders have an easy time getting them onboard for the cause.

It's like they say, the true definition of stupidity is doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting a different result.
2006-11-07 12:23:47
Stingray24
Proud member of the vast right-wing conspiracy
+1,060|6444|The Land of Scott Walker
Quitting won't work.  That obvious.  Never ending war?  More effective than quitting, but not a pleasant reality.  Solution? Or are you just criticizing like the elected Democrats who don't have any ideas either.
2006-11-07 12:32:27
Catbox
forgiveness
+505|6715
The people who say that terrorism isnt that a big a deal are fools... Terrorists have repeatedly attacked us
92 Trade Center,Cole,Spain,England,9/11 and it didnt matter if it was a Democrat or Republican in office...

They hate our way of life and would like nothing more than to have the entire world dominated by the muslim
religion...

and people like Shipbuilder who always have some answer like...  Whos the terrorist really... us or them?
or are terrorists really a threat...?  its your story... tell it how you like lol

Getting rid of these people that want to kill us is not easy... and we will see now if something happens on the Democrats watch... god forbid...  then it will be interesting how they respond?    Talking to them and trying to understand the terrorists doesnt work...
Love is the answer
2006-11-07 12:38:01
[RDH]Warlord
Quakecon Attendee
+17|6658|SLC, Utah, USA
They do not, for crying out loud, "hate our way of life".  Each of these terrorists actually have very reasonable demands, for events that should not be if we were a smart country in the first place.  Our stupid continuing support of Israel is the main motivation of the 9/11 hijackers, but we're mindlessly continuing Israel support, invading Islamic countries, and supporting repressive regimes.  All of the above cause terrorists, not the fact that we have nicely manicured lawns in suburbia.

You hear about the militias who plan to shoot on site any immigrant passing the mexican border?  They are taking matters into their own hands, violently if necessary, to fulfill what they believe is an injustice done against them.
2006-11-07 12:40:33
[RDH]Warlord
Quakecon Attendee
+17|6658|SLC, Utah, USA
And as for the idea that to win the war on terror is to eliminate anyone who MIGHT want to hurt us in return?  Then why doesn't the US attack/nuke every other country (assuming we could do so without retaliation)?  The US realizes that we CAN co-exist with others, even if they could "possibly" harm us. 

I don't really see how ignoring terrorists is much different than allowing other countries to do nearly the same.
2006-11-07 12:54:45
13rin
Member
+977|6478

IRONCHEF wrote:

What EXACTLY is considered "winning" the war on terror?


This question is the most avoided, least asked, and most important one people need to ask themselves before thinking ANY american political group or candidate can actually accomplish a win or a loss in said war.

Is "winning" to end terrorism?  If so, it's a fantasy..even if you don't accept american aggression as terrorism also.

Is "losing" getting killed by said terrorists?  What is a terrorist, and is it reasonable to assume that terrorists wish to actually kill all non-terrorists? 


Some very simple questions like this can easily difuse this MSM talking point used by both sides (mostly republicans as they suggest voting dem means you are weak on terrorism.. lol).
Wow! You're right.  We should just cut and run.  Then instead of skyscrapers we could build bunkers and live in them in fear.

Winning against terrorism is when that group is hindered irrelvent.  Shattering Al Quaida to the point where they live in constant fear of someone kicking down the door and hauling them off to prison.

Lets see, how are dems weak on terrorism?  The Dems want to cut and run (sorry "redeploy") out of Iraq.  Where according to many Dems is where the terrorists are.  Dems defeated the Patriot Act -thus hindering the government from rooting them out.  Dems tried to put a stop to the US gov listening in on internation phone tells of suspected terrorists.  Dems want to try enemy combatents in our courts like they are US citizens. The Dems ARE WEAK on terrorism.

I don't accept Americans as being classified as "terrorists".  Hey, we were attacked first -numerous times.
I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something.  - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.
2006-11-07 13:00:40
Spearhead
Gulf coast redneck hippy
+731|6689|Tampa Bay Florida
There's no need for argument, those who have convinced themselves that voting democrat will cause us to lose the war on terror have no hope for themselves.  It's sad, but true.  Not only do Democrats have plans to continue and to win it, whatever your definition is, who knows, but veterans who have knowledge and experience are running with the democratic party.

Right wingers need to get the War on Terror out of their god damn heads.  The REAL issue this election is the War in Iraq.  War in Iraq does not = War on Terror.  Yes, we are killing terrorists, but we are also causing hundreds of thousands of innocent casualties and terrorists weren't in the damn country until after we invaded. 

The reason is so blatantly obvious - if you right wingers would say MAYBE 5 out of 10 times, "Ya, those democrats might have a plan that would work, but who knows for sure?".  But, most of you DON'T.  You are using this war and 9/11 for political gain, and nothing more.  Everytime you say that electing democrats will cause us to lose the war on terror, I think of nothing more than Hitler and the Nazi party, because it's the EXACT SAME FUCKING TACTIC they used to start World War 2.

And you also say it with such smugness, as if you know that Bush is doing the better than anyone else.  Invasion, occupation, severe lack of soldiers, generals and other military leaders calling shit on Rumsfeld, increasing fear and prejudism against Islam, all of our Allies gone... except the Brits, who just decided to replace their Prime Minister next year..

ya, I'm sure we're winning.  /sarcasm LMFAO
2006-11-07 13:05:07
IRONCHEF
Member
+385|6490|Northern California

Stingray24 wrote:

Winning means we prevent further attacks by killing them before they can get here or capturing them if they are here already. 

Losing means failing to prevent further attacks by not taking the opportunity to thin their ranks elsewhere in the world before they get here.  Winning may not eliminate attacks by extremist nuts completely, but refusing to fight will ensure more attacks will succeed. 

It is reasonable to assume that some islamic terrorists wish to actually kill as many non-terrorists as possible.  Allowing them to do that would be enough losing for me.
Winning means we prevent further attacks...
This idea is an impossibility.  You can NEVER know if there will be further attacks, and since we cannot lojack EVERY person who has fundamentalist islamic ideology and track them..or even know who has such ideology, again, it is impossible to know if there will be future attacks.  THis BUSH talking point BS of "fight them over there so they don't attack us over here" is such a contradiction and impossibility, that it is mind boggling that he still uses it..and his parrots use it. 

Obviously this country has piss-poor intelligence abilities..Regardless of how many cronies Bush puts in the intelligence sector, regardless of how many satelites we employ...we still have NO clue how many enemies are against us.  If we had intelligence, there' wouldn't be thousands of kidnapped iraqis filling prisons all over the world being tortured.  We wouldn't have to resort to torture if we knew jack shit about what we were doing.  So fighting them there or having the noting that ANYTHING we do "over there" will reduce potential disaster "over here" is utter nonsense..it's representative of the false reality "bubble" our president lives in...or it's just a distraction type language used to shield their ever secret policy of stealing oil revenue! lol


The true answer came from Warlord, and I quote:

WARLORD wrote:

They do not, for crying out loud, "hate our way of life".  Each of these terrorists actually have very reasonable demands, for events that should not be if we were a smart country in the first place.  Our stupid continuing support of Israel is the main motivation of the 9/11 hijackers, but we're mindlessly continuing Israel support, invading Islamic countries, and supporting repressive regimes.  All of the above cause terrorists, not the fact that we have nicely manicured lawns in suburbia.
When I heard that one report from Osama bin Laden giving the US an option to be free of his terror if we'd do certain, simple things, I wanted to take it.  Because I believe he would have honored it and a cease fire could have happened.  But because of our stupid ass foolish pride as a nation (aka, our leaders and many retards who love war), we wouldn't even consider his offer.

Warlord is right, and I get mad every time I hear Bush and his parrots saying that the 'evil doers' "hate our way of life!  They hate freedom!  They hate democracty!"  I bet the "terrorists" laugh when they hear that shit.  They want us to stop ruining their world which we've done since we put Israel on the map.  THAT ALONE is the reason. 

Even if you watch that masterful "DRAMA" that rightwing ABC put out called "Path to 9/11" you'd see what the motivation is for the terrorists.  Being right wing propaganda, you still don't even see a terrorist feign in disgust as he says, "These freedom loving dogs and their fancy cars and free press!  Down with them!  Allah will slaughter them all!"  Rather, they speak of the wrongs they will right by their "small" infliction of pain at our financial center, etc, etc...
2006-11-07 13:07:35
SpaceApollyon
Scratch where it itches
+41|6519|Finland

Stingray24 wrote:

SpaceApollyon wrote:

If thinning their ranks is a main objective, you have already lost. There is a wider base for terrorist recruitment now, than there has ever been.
So quitting is the answer?  Weird.
No, you say "thin their ranks" -> winning. And I just try to point out, that it ain't going to that direction with the procedure in place at the moment.
2006-11-07 13:17:17
GATOR591957
Member
+84|6626

Stingray24 wrote:

IRONCHEF wrote:

What EXACTLY is considered "winning" the war on terror?


This question is the most avoided, least asked, and most important one people need to ask themselves before thinking ANY american political group or candidate can actually accomplish a win or a loss in said war.

Is "winning" to end terrorism?  If so, it's a fantasy..even if you don't accept american aggression as terrorism also.

Is "losing" getting killed by said terrorists?  What is a terrorist, and is it reasonable to assume that terrorists wish to actually kill all non-terrorists? 


Some very simple questions like this can easily difuse this MSM talking point used by both sides (mostly republicans as they suggest voting dem means you are weak on terrorism.. lol).
Winning means we prevent further attacks by killing them before they can get here or capturing them if they are here already. 

Losing means failing to prevent further attacks by not taking the opportunity to thin their ranks elsewhere in the world before they get here.  Winning may not eliminate attacks by extremist nuts completely, but refusing to fight will ensure more attacks will succeed. 

It is reasonable to assume that some islamic terrorists wish to actually kill as many non-terrorists as possible.  Allowing them to do that would be enough losing for me.
Where is the Republicans plan for that.  Haven't seen it have you? 

When I was in High School in 1971 the same reason for being in  Vietnam is being used today.  To prevent the spread of communism from Vietnam.  We got out of Vietnam and we still aren't Communist.  We need to get out of Iraq because quite simply we never belonged there to begin with.  Bush has said time will tell of his legacy.  I'm afraid of what will be revealed in the coming years.  I agree with those who say leaving Iraq would make the deaths of all our soldiers and those who have been maimed by IED's useless.  However this anger should be directed to it's proper source, President Bush, who gave the lives of those courageous soldiers where they never should have been.  As I've said before, Afghanistan should have been invaded, no doubt.  Iraq, no question was a personal vendetta Bush had with Saddam.
2006-11-07 13:17:17
[CANADA]_Zenmaster
Pope Picard II
+473|6745

Harmor wrote:

IRONCHEF wrote:

What EXACTLY is considered "winning" the war on terror?
Very good question.  Here's my definition:

All islamofacist groups in the world are rendered flacid.
Lawl - what about American terrorism, and its support for said terrorism through military, financial, and political support for "useful" terrorist organizations, terrorist leaders and ensuing crimes? You think islamofacist groups are the only terrorists in the world?

Haw fucking haw, read some books, because that is where fact has been relegated to. Anything you witness in American society is just puppeteering.

I don't even know why I bother making these points; it is like 90% of the American world is too lazy to read or to get a BALANCED education on an issue, before they stick their neck out and make some asinine remark. It is not like the facts aren't out there, the whole world isn't oblivious...

BTW not that some Americans haven't realized by now how fucked up the American machine is - it is just that, there seems to be so many conceited, unsupported viewpoints that America is right regardless of fact, and it is just to be blindly supported in any action it takes, as being for the good of the whole. Like the opinion expressed succinctly in one sentence above. LAFF
2006-11-07 13:19:17
Catbox
forgiveness
+505|6715
The terrorists love us... lol...   they are just a little ticked off because we support Israel...?  Where do you people get this stuff? lmao    and 9/11 was a small infliction of pain...  that statement really sums you up shipbuilder...  pretty pathetic... Im guessing your not an American?     

And to all who loathe the US... move today or dont come here at all...  we will survive without you... lol
Love is the answer
2006-11-07 13:22:35
IRONCHEF
Member
+385|6490|Northern California

DBBrinson1 wrote:

Wow! You're right.  We should just cut and run.  Then instead of skyscrapers we could build bunkers and live in them in fear.

Winning against terrorism is when that group is hindered irrelvent.  Shattering Al Quaida to the point where they live in constant fear of someone kicking down the door and hauling them off to prison.

Lets see, how are dems weak on terrorism?  The Dems want to cut and run (sorry "redeploy") out of Iraq.  Where according to many Dems is where the terrorists are.  Dems defeated the Patriot Act -thus hindering the government from rooting them out.  Dems tried to put a stop to the US gov listening in on internation phone tells of suspected terrorists.  Dems want to try enemy combatents in our courts like they are US citizens. The Dems ARE WEAK on terrorism.

I don't accept Americans as being classified as "terrorists".  Hey, we were attacked first -numerous times.
Holy hell!  So many remarks of sordid relevence..where to begin?

"Cut and Run."  How the HELL do you get that from my asking those questions?  The questions I asked are thought provoking items used to better understand what the war on terror means.  It was in no way a solution or verbal spasm suggesting we cut and run.  YOu have that phrase so stuck in your head from republican talking points, a phrase that baffles dems and other smart individuals who have no idea what you're talking about, and use it as if it means something.  WTF is cut and run?  And how does that have to do with my post?

And you wonder why liberals call you parrots.

And for your comment rulling out americans as terrorists.  I'll refer you to the dictionary definition.  YOu'll notice that terrorists are capable of being from ANY nation, any people, any earthling.  It's not reserved for ragheads, muslims, or whatever clever slandering names you can give people in the middle east and asia.  And as for being attacked first, you must be dilusional to think that they simply just felt like bombing our embassies, our navy ship, and our sky scrapers and the pentagon..just for shits and giggles?  No reason or provocation..they just felt bored and decided to ATTACK US FIRST?  Pllllllease don't tell me you actually believe that.

A truth I will share with you is that our taxes have funded weaponry made in the US and delivered by US forces in a sovereign nation, and those weapons have killed innocents.  Further, our forces have kidnapped people and incarcerated them without formal charges, without red cross visitation, and without representation or habeas corpus.  All of these things are considered illegal in our country.  And by definition, all those things are considered as terrorism.  You simply can't call it so because you're on the side of our terrorism. 



Oh hey, please tell me of one positive thing that's happened because of the patriot act, because of illegal wire tapping, because of suspension of habeas corpus, because of denying detainees their civil rights and geneva protection guarantees, or because of "staying the course?"  Cite for me one instance of how violating everything our country holds as sacred and lawful has made us safer.  For measure, I'll cite for you an instance where those things have failed....the 20th hijacker...he will go free because he can now not be tried in court because of EVERYTHING that occurred surrounding his incarceration, interrogation, torture, and other coerced information he submitted (allegedly).  Yeah, YOUR camp fucked up big time and couldn't even nail the most likely candidate to be prosecuted for the 9/11 event.

Hell, i bet if we captured Osama bin Laden alive, our government would fuck that up too.

Last edited by IRONCHEF (2006-11-07 13:27:23)

2006-11-07 13:29:35
Stingray24
Proud member of the vast right-wing conspiracy
+1,060|6444|The Land of Scott Walker

[RDH]Warlord wrote:

They do not, for crying out loud, "hate our way of life".  Each of these terrorists actually have very reasonable demands, for events that should not be if we were a smart country in the first place.  Our stupid continuing support of Israel is the main motivation of the 9/11 hijackers, but we're mindlessly continuing Israel support, invading Islamic countries, and supporting repressive regimes.  All of the above cause terrorists, not the fact that we have nicely manicured lawns in suburbia.

You hear about the militias who plan to shoot on site any immigrant passing the mexican border?  They are taking matters into their own hands, violently if necessary, to fulfill what they believe is an injustice done against them.
People get all riled up when some people say a vote for a Democrat is a vote for terrorism. You just said that the terrorists have very reasonable demands . . . . interesting.
I'm getting tired of the bs line that we are creating terrorism as if terrorists are robots who are forced to go around killing people because we support Israel.  No one is responsible for anything anymore! It's someone else's fault I shot up my school!  They made fun of me!  It's our fault they blew up thousands of innocent people in New York!  We support Israel! If you want to sign up for giving homocidal terrorists what they want, for whatever reason you think they want it, go right ahead.  And you wonder why your side loses elections.

Militias?  Yes, they're legal, they're protecting themselves.  Comparing that to terrorist actions is ridiculous.

The border patrol has no power in our politically correct society, so the citizens have to protect themselves.  If the border patrol arrests anyone, they're ordered to let them go!!!! WTH??  And it's not any immigrant, they're illegal and 60% violent criminals.  What's the point of having borders if anyone can just come in anytime they want????  If there was some threat of harm or death at our border we wouldn't have a flood coming across it.  We're a country of immigrants, all I ask is do it legally.  Is that too much to ask?
2006-11-07 13:32:22
Stingray24
Proud member of the vast right-wing conspiracy
+1,060|6444|The Land of Scott Walker

IRONCHEF wrote:

Hell, i bet if we captured Osama bin Laden alive, our government would fuck that up too.
Billy already accomplished that when we had the chance.
2006-11-07 13:33:35
Spearhead
Gulf coast redneck hippy
+731|6689|Tampa Bay Florida
Stingray, what do you think a man who just lost his family in a bombing because they were near a few insurgents is going to do?  Do you think he'll say "Ya, well,......... oh well America is still making my life better".

On the contrary, I think that "Invading, occupying, and killing, whether intentional or unintentional, will create more friends than enemies" logic is more absurd.

 

Pages: 1 2 3 4

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard