Nice, getting your historical information from an ABC sitco-ImeandocumentaryStingray24 wrote:
Billy already accomplished that when we had the chance.IRONCHEF wrote:
Hell, i bet if we captured Osama bin Laden alive, our government would fuck that up too.
I'd like to wish the Republican party well with their continued success in Iraq. You're doing a hell of a job. Those darn Iraqi terrorists won't be planning any more 911s now!!
Last edited by CameronPoe (2006-11-07 13:41:38)
What do I think that man will do? He'll keep his family away from insurgent hideouts in the first place. You must think the Iraqi people are pretty stupid by your statement. Do you think they want Saddam back? Do you think they didn't want elections? They know it's going to take blood and sweat to get terrorists out of their country.Spearhead wrote:
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.
Here's what I want from you and/or the Democratic Party. A viable alternative. Simple, yet I haven't heard one yet, though I keep asking. All I get is more "the US sucks, we create terrorists, we must really be the great Satan". Ideas, alternatives please! Not more tired criticism of what we're doing now! If the Democrats will do such an amazing job compared to GWB, what's the plan? Not one Democrat is proposing a plan that could work besides being pussies and letting the terrorist do what they want!
Huh, I didn't watch it. Must've gone in through the data link implanted in my skull by my Neo-Con leaders. GWB has made big mistakes in Iraq, but we're there now. Billy screwed up, too. If you can only admit one side of the equation Spearhead, I have to believe you were unconscious during the Clinton administration. So what's the plan Dems? If you win today and in 08, criticizing GWB isn't going to be enough. So again, what realistic idea has been proposed by any Democratic party candidate. I don't care if it's for county sheriff, post an idea that makes sense.Spearhead wrote:
Nice, getting your historical information from an ABC sitco-ImeandocumentaryStingray24 wrote:
Billy already accomplished that when we had the chance.IRONCHEF wrote:
Hell, i bet if we captured Osama bin Laden alive, our government would fuck that up too.
Really? Militias that proudly proclaim to shoot immigrants on sight are legal? And supported by our government? News to me.
And I compared militias to terrorists since they are doing something they deem as necessary to right a wrong. They WILL stop if their demand is met (in the militia's case, it's not so easy to picture).
As for homocidal terrorists, we're just as "homocidal" as they are. Image for a second if we were NOT a super power. Some country (to name one easy to picture, Russia) starts to back certain religious nuts for president of our country just because we agree to sell our oil reserves (also assuming we are OPEC) to them. Now, this billions of money made by the sale of oil is given only to previously mentioned nutjob to allow him to live in rediculous luxury (even compared to Russia), while we are oppressed by the whacko's personal army.
Now the above country (Russia) is starting to sell very superior weaponry to our religious mortal enemy, (canada). They are allowed to occasionally make military strikes at us and our closest friends, with no chance of retaliation (because the world likes Russian money, and because our army sucks), in the name of peace. Their border soldiers harrass our everyday citizens going about their business, they claim the whole top 100-mile border of our country as theirs, and the people there constantly have to get bullied by their army.
Now, some of us are beginning to feel very pissed and upset. How can they keep getting away with all these injustices? Some very few start taking the bible very literally (I dunno, maybe looking at the Crusades here) and proclaiming that we should be in power. We were mandated by God. So we must do anything we can to get power back (and right some wrongs), and that God will forgive us (he wants us to do it anyway). The whole of the country doesn't exactly support the attacks on the (Moscow) trade center, but am secretly pleased that someone had the balls to at least slightly strike back.
Ya know, I could keep this hypothetical situation all day. Going into the war in Iraq (which we previously SUPPORTED said regime) and relating that to ourself, but I'm starting to get mighty sick of the US, and must calm down. I've seen such marvelous ideals that started this country be twisted to mean support of the country itself, rather than the idea. People are free. Not just our own, but all people!
And I compared militias to terrorists since they are doing something they deem as necessary to right a wrong. They WILL stop if their demand is met (in the militia's case, it's not so easy to picture).
Actually, if anything, claiming that WE were ultimately responsible for terrorist attacks on ourself IS taking responsibility. Osama had demands that the US stop backing repressive regimes. The 9/11 hijackers asked us to stop helping Israel kick their butts. Claiming it is entirely THEIR fault is not taking responsibility, which is one thing a lot of adults in this country are seriously lacking (Jack Thompson is what I really am referring to).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! roll 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.
As for homocidal terrorists, we're just as "homocidal" as they are. Image for a second if we were NOT a super power. Some country (to name one easy to picture, Russia) starts to back certain religious nuts for president of our country just because we agree to sell our oil reserves (also assuming we are OPEC) to them. Now, this billions of money made by the sale of oil is given only to previously mentioned nutjob to allow him to live in rediculous luxury (even compared to Russia), while we are oppressed by the whacko's personal army.
Now the above country (Russia) is starting to sell very superior weaponry to our religious mortal enemy, (canada). They are allowed to occasionally make military strikes at us and our closest friends, with no chance of retaliation (because the world likes Russian money, and because our army sucks), in the name of peace. Their border soldiers harrass our everyday citizens going about their business, they claim the whole top 100-mile border of our country as theirs, and the people there constantly have to get bullied by their army.
Now, some of us are beginning to feel very pissed and upset. How can they keep getting away with all these injustices? Some very few start taking the bible very literally (I dunno, maybe looking at the Crusades here) and proclaiming that we should be in power. We were mandated by God. So we must do anything we can to get power back (and right some wrongs), and that God will forgive us (he wants us to do it anyway). The whole of the country doesn't exactly support the attacks on the (Moscow) trade center, but am secretly pleased that someone had the balls to at least slightly strike back.
Ya know, I could keep this hypothetical situation all day. Going into the war in Iraq (which we previously SUPPORTED said regime) and relating that to ourself, but I'm starting to get mighty sick of the US, and must calm down. I've seen such marvelous ideals that started this country be twisted to mean support of the country itself, rather than the idea. People are free. Not just our own, but all people!
So what's your bright idea? The current plan isn't working, so what are the Republicans plans to fix the major fuckup they created?Stingray24 wrote:
What do I think that man will do? He'll keep his family away from insurgent hideouts in the first place. You must think the Iraqi people are pretty stupid by your statement. Do you think they want Saddam back? Do you think they didn't want elections? They know it's going to take blood and sweat to get terrorists out of their country.Spearhead wrote:
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.
Here's what I want from you and/or the Democratic Party. A viable alternative. Simple, yet I haven't heard one yet, though I keep asking. All I get is more "the US sucks, we create terrorists, we must really be the great Satan". Ideas, alternatives please! Not more tired criticism of what we're doing now! If the Democrats will do such an amazing job compared to GWB, what's the plan? Not one Democrat is proposing a plan that could work besides being pussies and letting the terrorist do what they want!
I would sincerely love to believe that we wouldn't be in this mess in the first place if it were Dems, but I cannot say for sure. I do know that it is unfair to start a mess, make it worse through sticking to and not pursuing any other alternative, then claiming that nobody else can make it better. Now, the democrats may not have a PLAN, so to speak for Iraq, but they can hardly come up with one unless they are in power to do so. Still, they're willing to pursue something other than "stay the course" which has done nothing but made an already bad situation WORSE.Here's what I want from you and/or the Democratic Party. A viable alternative. Simple, yet I haven't heard one yet, though I keep asking. All I get is more "the US sucks, we create terrorists, we must really be the great Satan". Ideas, alternatives please! Not more tired criticism of what we're doing now! If the Democrats will do such an amazing job compared to GWB, what's the plan? Not one Democrat is proposing a plan that could work besides being pussies and letting the terrorist do what they want!
Edit: Darn, beat to the point.
Last edited by [RDH]Warlord (2006-11-07 13:54:59)
Still waiting for an alternative proposed by a Democratic candidate . . . . "they might not have a plan, so to speak, until they get in power" . . . aren't you supposed to come up with one to get elected? I have no plan, Vote for me!
Last edited by Stingray24 (2006-11-07 13:56:38)
I asked the question, you answer it first, from your party's platform. I'd rather stick with what we're doing now than just leave with no plan. That's my idea. Now let's here yours. Your party is saying they're better., so prove it. You can't even tell me what your party wants to do in Iraq.Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:
So what's your bright idea? The current plan isn't working, so what are the Republicans plans to fix the major fuckup they created?
Last edited by Stingray24 (2006-11-07 13:59:15)
Exactly. Dems aren't responsible and haven't been for the most part of 12 years, and definately for the last 5. Their plan? If it's withdrawal, it will be better than at present. If it's to add to the forces, then it's better than at present. Basically, the worst democrat can come up with a better "plan" than the present plan..or lack thereof.[RDH]Warlord wrote:
I would sincerely love to believe that we wouldn't be in this mess in the first place if it were Dems, but I cannot say for sure. I do know that it is unfair to start a mess, make it worse through sticking to and not pursuing any other alternative, then claiming that nobody else can make it better. Now, the democrats may not have a PLAN, so to speak for Iraq, but they can hardly come up with one unless they are in power to do so. Still, they're willing to pursue something other than "stay the course" which has done nothing but made an already bad situation WORSE.Here's what I want from you and/or the Democratic Party. A viable alternative. Simple, yet I haven't heard one yet, though I keep asking. All I get is more "the US sucks, we create terrorists, we must really be the great Satan". Ideas, alternatives please! Not more tired criticism of what we're doing now! If the Democrats will do such an amazing job compared to GWB, what's the plan? Not one Democrat is proposing a plan that could work besides being pussies and letting the terrorist do what they want!
Edit: Darn, beat to the point.
And to back the notion that we would probably not be where we are today if dems were in charge, it's easy to say that nobody has the stubborn, unrelenting, close minded resolve that George Bush has. If John Kerry were president, if he was in that school house, he'd have gotten up right away calmly telling the kids he'll have to come back another time. He'd have assembled a meeting..as dems do..and at the worst, debated responses as they learned who and what just happened.
He would have probably done what Clinton did and drawn up plans for attacking Taliban and Al Qaeda members in Afghanistan. He probably wouldn't have given the lead time Bush gave, and he'd probably do it without UN support..who knows. He probably would have put in a large ground force after having bombed the hell out of it indiscrimenently. And he would possibly still be there today building infrastructure. There would still be a Saddam in power, along with that decent balance of regional stability. And Pakistan would probably have a base because Kerry wouldn't be forcing Musharraf into submission like Bush obviously did.
In short, the difference would be simple people skills. Diplomacy, and warfare.
But I know that's hard to believe..after all Kerry really didn't "earn" the multiple purple hearts he got SERVING HIS COUNTRY HONORABLY IN VEITNAM while other pussies hid in the ANG of Texas because daddy was a senator.
Sorry to say, but the 'War on Terror' is not 'the only issue this election day.' If it were, then there would be no local initiatives dangled under voters' noses, and Democrats and Republicans wouldn't be incessantly picking at eachother.
Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2006-11-07 14:11:24)
" Hell of a job" Sound familiar anyone. Here's a hint Katrina. Another hint: Brownie. HA HA +1 for Poe.CameronPoe wrote:
I'd like to wish the Republican party well with their continued success in Iraq. You're doing a hell of a job. Those darn Iraqi terrorists won't be planning any more 911s now!!
Last edited by GATOR591957 (2006-11-07 14:13:31)
John Kerry is not running, he torpedoed himself a long time ago. I don't care what he would've or might've done.
Current candidates that are running now, state from their platform what they want to do. No generalities (it's better than what we're doing now), no I think so, no I don't knows. What . . . is . . . the . . . plan? Can I ask this question any clearer?
Current candidates that are running now, state from their platform what they want to do. No generalities (it's better than what we're doing now), no I think so, no I don't knows. What . . . is . . . the . . . plan? Can I ask this question any clearer?
Ok, heres one right now. Sounds awefully like cut and run, but without the negative spin.
LETS REVIEW IRAQ. Unlike now, I propose to stop "staying the course" which is doing nothing but making it worse. I will look at all alternatives. However, since I am not in power, all data on the war is classified as TOP SECRET and is not available to me, so I cannot tell if there is any alternative to pull out.
The Iraqis want us out. The terrorists want us out (as much as people like to joke that they like us being there for recruitment). We want us out. Why are we still in there? Iraq WANTS to deal with this situation by themself, and us sticking around are making the true democracy seekers come up against a big wall of plain old anti-US resentment.
LETS REVIEW IRAQ. Unlike now, I propose to stop "staying the course" which is doing nothing but making it worse. I will look at all alternatives. However, since I am not in power, all data on the war is classified as TOP SECRET and is not available to me, so I cannot tell if there is any alternative to pull out.
The Iraqis want us out. The terrorists want us out (as much as people like to joke that they like us being there for recruitment). We want us out. Why are we still in there? Iraq WANTS to deal with this situation by themself, and us sticking around are making the true democracy seekers come up against a big wall of plain old anti-US resentment.
Stingray, I wasn't answering your question of what is the plan. I was just talking in general about plans and the lack thereof.Stingray24 wrote:
John Kerry is not running, he torpedoed himself a long time ago. I don't care what he would've or might've done.
Current candidates that are running now, state from their platform what they want to do. No generalities (it's better than what we're doing now), no I think so, no I don't knows. What . . . is . . . the . . . plan? Can I ask this question any clearer?
As for democratic plans, jsut turn on the TV and you'll see plans like redeployment, various withdrawal time tables, and even some to add troops. What this represents is democracy. For once, there might be some ideas stimulating the halls of congress and then the peoples' representatives will vote on a plan for them. They'll present it to the senate for approval, then after that, it'll get vetoed or rejected by Bush. Then in '08, when ANYONE else gets into office (Romney, Clinton, Biden, McCain, Obama, etc), we will likely have a president who observes that there's 3 branches of government and that they must agree on foreign policy and then make a decision...that, or there willhopefully be a mass mutiny.
THAT is a better plan than at present.
I'd love to hear the ideas, you must be watching different tv than I do. I don't have cable, so it's just the regular networks. I've heard redeployment (come on, that means we're leaving, whatever fancy word we want to use), withdrawal time tables (again, leaving), but I haven't heard a Democrat say add troops and not suggest leaving at the same time. So leaving is the concensus.
On a separate note, I think Obama seems more thoughtful than the others. I think he could win for the Dems, has charisma like Bill Clinton. Agree?
On a separate note, I think Obama seems more thoughtful than the others. I think he could win for the Dems, has charisma like Bill Clinton. Agree?
Yeah, with the government as it currently is, there is only one mind-set. Too often the "republicans" do what is good for the "republican party", rather than thinking for themself. No matter how dumb-*** the candidate does, the republicans back the "republicans". Do what you can to get "republicans" to keep power. If so, then whoever controls the party controls the US, since the government is designed to work by what congress votes on, and since all of congress is dominated by one guy who owns the majority, it's no longer a democracy. And if the "republicans" own all 3 parts of the lawmaking (any 2 is needed to pass something) then there's no possibility to get what you want, only what the "republicans" want.
It's like some guy owns 51% of stock in a company. Even though people own shares, they have a say in the matter, it all boils down to who has control, and nothing at all about you. If he does what you want, all the better for you, but you have no say otherwise. Very depressing fact.
It's like some guy owns 51% of stock in a company. Even though people own shares, they have a say in the matter, it all boils down to who has control, and nothing at all about you. If he does what you want, all the better for you, but you have no say otherwise. Very depressing fact.
And what is wrong with leaving Iraq anyway? It's a friggin plan! It's better by far than "stay the course"! Why do you keep saying we have no plan when an acceptable one is being presented?
Great topic going here, but I may have to drop out soon (work is ending, and BF calls when I get home)
See, now first off you've already made your first mistake. I'm not a Democrat or a Republican. I have no party affiliation. My problem is with this administration's current policy on Iraq because it isn't working, and GWB has nothing to say but "stay the course", when it has become quite obvious that the current course isn't working; his own military staff (current and former) have tried to tell him as much. My problem is that he won't even explore other means of addressing the problem, much of this I blame on Donald Rumsfeld; he seems to have an axe to grind, like he's trying to prove things would have been different in Viet Nam.Stingray24 wrote:
I asked the question, you answer it first, from your party's platform. I'd rather stick with what we're doing now than just leave with no plan. That's my idea. Now let's here yours. Your party is saying they're better., so prove it. You can't even tell me what your party wants to do in Iraq.Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:
So what's your bright idea? The current plan isn't working, so what are the Republicans plans to fix the major fuckup they created?
You want my suggestions.
1. Donald Rumsfeld must go. He's made Iraq and following the current path a personal agenda like he's holding a grudge.
2. Properly supply the troops we have. What kind of bullshit statement is it that you go to war with what you have now. We have been there for years, we have thrown billions of dollars into this war, and we have improperly supplied troops, all the while civilian contractors have raked in millions upon millions of dollars in war profit.
3. You have to put a stop to the major civil fighting going on before you can weed out terrorists. They are using this to their advantage. Until these people are more concerned about having their country back than killing each other, terrorists will continue to have nearly free reign.
4. Split up the country. Give the Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds their own area. They can set up their own local governments for control of their area. Baghdad will remain neautral and be the place where the national government resides; not really that much different than how we have state and federal government. For this to work it would require that each 1/3 of the country have access to food, water, power, etc. A plan for each segment to receive oil profits would be devised, and then each section can use the money to develop their area as they see fit.
5. Finish the investigations of those prisoners in Gitmo and formally charge them. Then let them stand trial in Iraqi courts.
6. Stop unilaterally backing Israel.
Don't you guys understand. You have to stay the course. Millions of Iraqis want you there. Especially the Mehdi army. Their very popular leader (potential future president maybe?) Moqtada Al-Sadr has great relations with the US administration. It's only a matter of time before these insignificant and few-and-far-between acts of violence subside.
Yeah, I'm a no-party affiliated American too.
Hey dung_bomb, do me a favor and go to Litza's Pizza and eat a calzone for me. I miss that place! (4th and 7th).
Hey dung_bomb, do me a favor and go to Litza's Pizza and eat a calzone for me. I miss that place! (4th and 7th).
I've heard lots of things about Iraq, and none of it sounds like these violent acts are few-and-far-between. A murder in Utah is few-and-far-between. 600,000+ deaths since the war began is not few-and-far-between.
The entire post was sarcasm. Look up Moqtada Al-Sadr.[RDH]Warlord wrote:
I've heard lots of things about Iraq, and none of it sounds like these violent acts are few-and-far-between. A murder in Utah is few-and-far-between. 600,000+ deaths since the war began is not few-and-far-between.
Last edited by CameronPoe (2006-11-07 14:52:10)
My bad. Chock this up to another one of the 75% of online conversations mis-interpreted.