13rin
Member
+977|6477

sergeriver wrote:

Neoconservatives have devised their brilliant plan to combat "terrorism" ... "NEVER LISTEN" to the 1.4 billion Muslims, never try to UNDERSTAND their problems, and never provide solutions to ALLEVIATE their grievances.  Instead, invade their countries, keep helping Israel and make generalizations about all Muslims being extremists.

Pretty much what I have been saying all along.  Islamophobia is the neoconservative answer.  How about that.
Yea.  And the dems vote for it...

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/05/washi … nted=print
I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something.  - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.
usmarine
Banned
+2,785|6760

So it is just conservatives?   Sigh...



"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998


"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998


"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002


"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002


"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002



"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
^^^^^
------------>>>>> "He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members" <-----------------



"Every nation has to either be with us, or against us.  Those who harbor terrorists, or who finance them, are going to pay a price." 

   Senator Hillary Clinton (Democrat, New York)
   September 13, 2001




"Saddam Hussein certainly has chemical and biological weapons.  There's no question about that." 

   Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi (Democrat, California)
   During an interview on "Meet The Press"
   November 17, 2002



And just for you Serge....


"In the next century, the community of nations may see more and more the very kind of threat Iraq poses now -- a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, drug traffickers or organized criminals who travel the world among us unnoticed. 

If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity, even in the face of a clear message from the United Nations Security Council and clear evidence of a weapons of mass destruction program." 

   President Clinton
   Address to Joint Chiefs of Staff and Pentagon staff
   February 17, 1998
Catbox
forgiveness
+505|6714

Kmarion wrote:

G3|Genius wrote:

dude, their religion is ass-backward.

Your a good dude from what i have read in here Kmarion... my question is with the religion video... Why do they bother to make those videos?
It won't change the minds of religous people...  It almost seems like they take delight in trying to falsify religion... They need a hobby... lol...

I listened to Penns show on the radio a couple of times... very short periods of time... he is the cure for insomnia... somebody told him he was interesting... they lied... lol
Love is the answer
Harmor
Error_Name_Not_Found
+605|6547|San Diego, CA, USA
What about Foreign-to-Foreign Wiretaps?  The Democrats are stopping that.  Also the American phone companies that willingly complied with CIA requests for wireless wiretaps from Foreign-to-Foreign (i.e. phone calls from Pakistan to Iraq), will be sued for billions of dollars now thanks to trial lawyers who have the Democrats in their back pocket.

Thanks to Democrats the FISA court has to appove all Foreign-to-Foreign wiretaps from 'known' terrorists.  If you 'suspect' someone being a terrorists from Pakistan calling someone who is 'suspected' to be a terrorist in Iraq (the building that rocket/sniper fire has come from), you cannot get a wiretap with the laws the Democrats have in place right now.


What Bush needs to do is strip the FISA court's authority to require Foreign-to-Foreign wiretaps and take it upon the Executive branch to decide this under the War Powers Act. 

Now what's going to stop the Bush Administration from wiretapping domestically is that they don't want to be another Nixon (bugged Democrats' office).  The possible political fallout of such will stop them from doing that.
HunterOfSkulls
Rated EC-10
+246|6278
Hey, second page and we've all ready gotten around to quoting those nasty surrender monkey appeaser Democrats as they speak in favor of administration policy and the Iraq war.

Honestly, sometimes I wonder why some of you people don't just suddenly and violently stop functioning like the androids from the old Star Trek episode when confronted by a logical paradox. "Al Gore and Bill Clinton want America to be defeated by terrorists! The only way to defeat terrorists is to fight a war against them! But Al Gore and Clinton support the war against terrorists... *bzzt* ...they want America to be defeated by terrorists... *pop* *fizzle* ... by fighting a war that's the only way to defeat terrorists *crackleBOOM*"

Seriously, doesn't anyone ever look at shit like that and get the feeling you're being monumentally fucked with by people who don't give a rat's ass for you except for what they can get out of you?
Eugefunk84
Member
+48|6532
u started this topic in the BF2s forum? haha, good luck not being raped by "extremists" of both sides
Eugefunk84
Member
+48|6532
OK, heres my thought on all of this, being a democrat. Democrats canNOT fix this problem now, they just cant, because all of their measures will end up hurting american beliefs and values. BUT, I think that if the country was ruled my democratic philosophy from the start, we'd never be where we are now, which is a point of no return or repair.



Mostly, I just think we should mind our own business and not interfere with other countries. What do you think got us into this mess in the first place?
Harmor
Error_Name_Not_Found
+605|6547|San Diego, CA, USA
What are the Democrat's solution from where we are now?

If we pull out of Iraq immediately then all the people who are supporting our troops will be killed.  How many thousands or hundred of thousands of people should we allow die?

If we pull out of Iraq then who will fill in the vacuume?  Will Turkey attack the Kurds in the North?  Will Iran take over a third of Southeaster Iraq?  Will the Saudi attack Iraq to keep it from falling into the Iranian hands?

This war is about oil as well...we want the oil to be controlled by the Iraqis.  Its a natural resource they can sell that will help them establish themselves, but the politics in Iraq is such that they can't even agree how to split the profits from the oil.


The administration was naive to think that Iraq was just 3x Afghanistan.  For the most part the Kurds have been this administration expected from Iraqis, but the other two-thirds of the country is so enraged with each other (antagonized by al-Qaeda that sparked this civil war).

Iraq IS a front in the War on Terrorism. 

Additionally we cannot invade Pakistan...to do so would topple Marshariff (25% of the country are Extremist Muslims).  Pakistan is 110 million people, Iraq is 25 million...invading Pakistan would be 4-5x as worst as Iraq.  But what's worst is the Extremist Muslims could control the nuclear missiles...and I guarantee if they got a hold of a few they would immediately launch them at India to start a nuclear war exchange.

How many people do you think would be killed in that exchange?
Harmor
Error_Name_Not_Found
+605|6547|San Diego, CA, USA

Eugefunk84 wrote:

Mostly, I just think we should mind our own business and not interfere with other countries. What do you think got us into this mess in the first place?
We did in the 80's and 90's but they still attacked us.  Since we do business all around the world we have interests, embassies, and tourists that have been attacked by Extremist Muslims.

Ideally if we had all our troops out of Japan, out of Korea, out of Germany and out of the Middle east and NOT retaliated when Bin la din attacked us on 9/11, I believe that they would STILL continue to attack us.

I agree with you that less people would probably be dead, but the people who died because as a result of our actions are terrorists killing thousands of innocent civilians.  Are we responsible when a terrorist blows a car bomb in downtown Baghdad?  Remember Saddam killed thousands of people (350,000 Kurdish men, women and children in 1992), and thousands each year to keep his people repressed. 

If you believe we are responsible when a terrorist blows a car bomb and kills innocent civilians then what if that terrorists then blew up our citizens?  Am I suggesting that Americans are 'worth more' than Iraqis.  Yes I am. 

Look what they do in Europe?  The Spanish train bombings were successfully to get Spain to pull out of Iraq.  The bombings in the UK (7-7 bombings), have a less of an effect because I believe the Brits are used to all the IRA bombings.  The Islamification of Europe is happening at an increasing alarming rate...how soon should we expect Sharia law to be the law of the land?

I believe we were justified in attacking Afghanistan.  We attacked Iraq because we believed they would ally with the terrorists.  Also the fact that Saddam was being an ass and not cooperating with the U.N.  If Saddam cooperated with the U.N. he would still be in power and we would still be enforcing the No-Fly-Zone.  Every major intelligence service at the time believed that Saddam was working on WMDs - in retrospect we could not find those weapons (I believe they went into Syria), but part of that was Saddam was probably giving disinformation to foreign governments to prop-up the effectiveness of their military.


If we don't disrupt their financial networks or fight them wherever they are then we will loose this battle of civilizations.  We might as well put the Cresent-Star flag over the White House right now if we don't fight them.

Can you reason with a terrorist?  No.  You kill them just like you would a rat or a cockroach.  To do anything less than that means you just prolong your demise.
Smitty5613
Member
+46|6525|Middle of nowhere, California
you know, if you add NEO- as a prefix, it can make almost anything sound bad.... y dont you just say conservatives.... or are you a NEOliberal...
usmarine
Banned
+2,785|6760

Smitty5613 wrote:

you know, if you add NEO- as a prefix, it can make almost anything sound bad.... y dont you just say conservatives.... or are you a NEOliberal...
lol
Harmor
Error_Name_Not_Found
+605|6547|San Diego, CA, USA
https://stupidjuice.net/wp-content/uploads/2007/07/convert_or_die_america.gif
Harmor
Error_Name_Not_Found
+605|6547|San Diego, CA, USA

usmarine2005 wrote:

Smitty5613 wrote:

you know, if you add NEO- as a prefix, it can make almost anything sound bad.... y dont you just say conservatives.... or are you a NEOliberal...
lol
The Matrix.... Neo-neo?
sergeriver
Cowboy from Hell
+1,928|6756|Argentina

usmarine2005 wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

usmarine2005 wrote:


Never helped them?  Albania anyone?
Which neocon helped them?
The people who actually went over there to fight.
I meant politicians.
sergeriver
Cowboy from Hell
+1,928|6756|Argentina

usmarine2005 wrote:

So it is just conservatives?   Sigh...



"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998


"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998


"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002


"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002


"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002



"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
^^^^^
------------>>>>> "He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members" <-----------------



"Every nation has to either be with us, or against us.  Those who harbor terrorists, or who finance them, are going to pay a price." 

   Senator Hillary Clinton (Democrat, New York)
   September 13, 2001




"Saddam Hussein certainly has chemical and biological weapons.  There's no question about that." 

   Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi (Democrat, California)
   During an interview on "Meet The Press"
   November 17, 2002



And just for you Serge....


"In the next century, the community of nations may see more and more the very kind of threat Iraq poses now -- a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, drug traffickers or organized criminals who travel the world among us unnoticed. 

If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity, even in the face of a clear message from the United Nations Security Council and clear evidence of a weapons of mass destruction program." 

   President Clinton
   Address to Joint Chiefs of Staff and Pentagon staff
   February 17, 1998
There's a difference between political statements and fucking things up.  That's the difference between Clinton and GWB.
sergeriver
Cowboy from Hell
+1,928|6756|Argentina

Harmor wrote:

Iraq IS a front in the War on Terrorism.
It IS now.  Was it 4 years ago?
Cybargs
Moderated
+2,285|6714
Malaysia is going to kill us all?
https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png
m3thod
All kiiiiiiiiinds of gainz
+2,197|6669|UK

cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:

Malaysia is going to kill us all?
https://www.theodora.com/flags/new13/malaysia_flag.gif

LOL

Last edited by m3thod (2007-08-05 07:49:43)

Blackbelts are just whitebelts who have never quit.
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6599|132 and Bush

[TUF]Catbox wrote:

Your a good dude from what i have read in here Kmarion... my question is with the religion video... Why do they bother to make those videos?
It won't change the minds of religous people...  It almost seems like they take delight in trying to falsify religion... They need a hobby... lol...

I listened to Penns show on the radio a couple of times... very short periods of time... he is the cure for insomnia... somebody told him he was interesting... they lied... lol
The show is called Bullshit and they have fives seasons under their belt. Somebody must think they are interesting.
They talk about much more than religion. Examples.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6403|North Carolina

Harmor wrote:

Eugefunk84 wrote:

Mostly, I just think we should mind our own business and not interfere with other countries. What do you think got us into this mess in the first place?
We did in the 80's and 90's but they still attacked us.  Since we do business all around the world we have interests, embassies, and tourists that have been attacked by Extremist Muslims.
True, and we've been attacked by more than just extremist Muslims.  I don't think many people are naive enough to think that all attacks would end if we became more isolationist -- there would just be less attacks.

Harmor wrote:

Ideally if we had all our troops out of Japan, out of Korea, out of Germany and out of the Middle east and NOT retaliated when Bin la din attacked us on 9/11, I believe that they would STILL continue to attack us.
Agreed, but 9/11 could have been prevented if our intelligence agencies had been cooperating with each other.  The fact that such a complex plan succeeded on almost every level shows that we need to improve the synergy our intelligence agencies.

Harmor wrote:

I agree with you that less people would probably be dead, but the people who died because as a result of our actions are terrorists killing thousands of innocent civilians.  Are we responsible when a terrorist blows a car bomb in downtown Baghdad?  Remember Saddam killed thousands of people (350,000 Kurdish men, women and children in 1992), and thousands each year to keep his people repressed.

If you believe we are responsible when a terrorist blows a car bomb and kills innocent civilians then what if that terrorists then blew up our citizens?  Am I suggesting that Americans are 'worth more' than Iraqis.  Yes I am.
You'll get no argument from me on this one.  I don't think we're responsible for the actions of the insurgency.  We may have created a situation where an insurgency now exists in Iraq, but it's not our fault that so many extremists flood Iraq right now.  That's mostly the fault of Saudi Arabia and Iran.

Harmor wrote:

Look what they do in Europe?  The Spanish train bombings were successfully to get Spain to pull out of Iraq.  The bombings in the UK (7-7 bombings), have a less of an effect because I believe the Brits are used to all the IRA bombings.  The Islamification of Europe is happening at an increasing alarming rate...how soon should we expect Sharia law to be the law of the land?
Now this is just fearmongering.  The U.K. has stood up very admirably to the terrorism of a few nutcases.  Sharia law will not be imposed, not by a longshot.

It won't happen in Spain either, but they deal with terrorism in a different way from the U.K....

Harmor wrote:

I believe we were justified in attacking Afghanistan.  We attacked Iraq because we believed they would ally with the terrorists.  Also the fact that Saddam was being an ass and not cooperating with the U.N.  If Saddam cooperated with the U.N. he would still be in power and we would still be enforcing the No-Fly-Zone.  Every major intelligence service at the time believed that Saddam was working on WMDs - in retrospect we could not find those weapons (I believe they went into Syria), but part of that was Saddam was probably giving disinformation to foreign governments to prop-up the effectiveness of their military.
Afghanistan was justified, I agree.  Iraq was the mother of all bad ideas.  The Democrats can be blamed for lobbying hard for war in the late 90s, and the Republicans can be blamed for doing the same in the years leading up to the war.

Harmor wrote:

If we don't disrupt their financial networks or fight them wherever they are then we will loose this battle of civilizations.  We might as well put the Cresent-Star flag over the White House right now if we don't fight them.

Can you reason with a terrorist?  No.  You kill them just like you would a rat or a cockroach.  To do anything less than that means you just prolong your demise.
I'm all for preventing terrorists from entering our country and executing the ones we find here, but we must move away from the Middle East.  It's nothing but trouble for us.  This a fight that Muslims must figure out for themselves.  The two exceptions to this are Afghanistan and Pakistan.

We're making progress in Afghanistan, and we could make a lot more if we weren't tied down in Iraq.  Pakistan is a nation that must be watched closely.  In the event of Musharraf's fall, we have no choice but to invade.
Harmor
Error_Name_Not_Found
+605|6547|San Diego, CA, USA
I agree, if Musharraf falls we would have to invade so that country's Extremist Muslims don't get control of their nuclear weapons.  It would be messy and probably require the draft.  You are right that if we didn't have Iraq we could have at least 3x more troops in Afghanistan and Afghanistan would be a much more stable/safe country.

We must do whatever we can to support Musharraf so he doesn't fall.  Invading his country would only make his life worst...we have to cooperate with him.

Yes we know Bin Ladin is most likely inside his country, but we can't invade.
usmarine
Banned
+2,785|6760

sergeriver wrote:

There's a difference between political statements and fucking things up.  That's the difference between Clinton and GWB.
Wrong.  They are mad at US troops in the ME, and that goes back a long way, way before 9/11.  Yet bubba kept troops there anyway, despite terrorist attacks on many US targets.  So again, how did clinton not anger them?
G3|Genius
Pope of BF2s
+355|6624|Sea to globally-cooled sea
actually, usmarine, i think that Clinton emboldened them by not doing anything after the 3 terrorist attacks against americans during his administration.  Sure, he lobbed a few missiles at some empty buildings, but seriously, he did nothing.

Bin Laden seriously underestimated America when he ok'ed the 9-11 attacks.
sergeriver
Cowboy from Hell
+1,928|6756|Argentina

G3|Genius wrote:

actually, usmarine, i think that Clinton emboldened them by not doing anything after the 3 terrorist attacks against americans during his administration.  Sure, he lobbed a few missiles at some empty buildings, but seriously, he did nothing.

Bin Laden seriously underestimated America when he ok'ed the 9-11 attacks.
At least he didn't fuck the Middle East up even more invading Iraq.
jonsimon
Member
+224|6493

G3|Genius wrote:

actually, usmarine, i think that Clinton emboldened them by not doing anything after the 3 terrorist attacks against americans during his administration.  Sure, he lobbed a few missiles at some empty buildings, but seriously, he did nothing.

Bin Laden seriously underestimated America when he ok'ed the 9-11 attacks.
No, Osama gauged America very well. As a terrorist, his only real power lies in the ability to bait nations into taking unwarranted action. I think he has done that very well.

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard