Pullout talk only encourages ‘maniacs’
Here is a shocking truth for the liberal pundits who want to cut funding and force our troops home. Listen carefully: The terrorists declared war on us! We didn’t start the war with them.
Think back to the Iranian hostage crisis, the bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut, various embassies bombed, the first World Trade Center bombing and, of course, 9/11. Many more attacks have since been thwarted. Since terrorists declared war on America and her values, thousands of innocent lives have been lost ... even more than the attack on Pearl Harbor, which brought us into World War II.
Now, the left-leaning Congress and our state legislature have forced a nonbinding vote to stop troop funding and just retreat home. How very simple.
Unfortunately, this is not a TV show that has a happy ending after the last commercial has aired. Political antics such as this just encourage these maniacs and their terrorist activities. These embarrassing left-wing tirades are shown all over the world and just serve to encourage our enemies.
Conversely, it demoralizes our own troops. If funding is cut, we will definitely need these troops back home, as the terrorists soon will appear in numbers on Main Street USA, taking up where they left off in Baghdad.
Mike Smith, Golden
Another dittohead buffoon heard from.
Posted by Smith Mike on May 18, 2007 12:36 AMMr. Smith is clearly a member of the 30% (or less) of this country who believe in the Bush administrations failed 'war on terror'. I find it very interesting that those people choose to ignore both the human & military costs, because only one group is paying those costs (members of the military).
For others in that group, I have the following questions:
1) Would you still believe if the Mr. Bush believed in it enough to reinstate the draft, for both males & females (most other countries have a draft, including Switzerland, and many include women) - and to get rid of all exclusions except physically or mentally unable to perform? (In other words, no student deferments such as the ones that Mr. Cheney took advantage of 5 times during the Vietnam war. Bush doesn't even believe in the war enough to visit - or have his daughters visit - VA hospitals or funerals of the fallen.). With limited troop numbers, men and women volunteers are being sent back for third and fourth tours of duty there, and while the numbers of dead are lower than in any previous war, the numbers of maimed in body are higher - and there is no counting the number of those maimed in spirit (who often are being found to have 'pre-existing conditions' which didn't prevent the government from sending them over there, but is the ultimate slap in the face when they request help when they get home - or don't you think there is a correlation between the spousal violence when they get back?). The US military is spread so thin at this point that if a REAL attack against the US were to occur, we would be hard pressed to fight it off - so we really need the draft to build up military numbers.
2) Would you still believe if ALL Bush administration federal tax cuts were rescinded to fund the war, instead of putting the costs on the backs of future generations & expecting family & friends of people who are serving in the Middle East to provide appropriate body/truck armor? Why should this war on terror be a method of income for Halliburton, which has just moved corporate HQ to Dubai, UAE , to avoid US taxes (another Republican boondoggle - a no-bid contract forced thru by Cheney, who used to be their CEO) when drafted troops could provide all the services Halliburton provides at lower cost (and without being found to have overcharged the US government to the tune of around a BILLION dollars, last I heard, without anyone going to jail for war profiteering).
3) Does it bother you at all that the architect of 9/11 (Osama bin Laden, in case you forgot) is still thumbing his nose at the US? Post 9/11, when the US went on the original mission to find & arrest him, most of the rest of the world, including moderate members of Islam, was on the side of the US. When Bush got a wild hair & decided to go after Hussein instead, almost every bit of good will was gone - and what was left went when it was found that the US chooses to use torture - something McCain has said is useless (sooner or later, the torture victim confesses to anything to make it stop).
As far as encouraging our enemies, I suggest you read the words of a Republican Senator - 12 days after Pearl Harbor:
"As a matter of general principle, I believe there can be no doubt that criticism in time of war is essential to the maintenance of any kind of democratic government ... too many people desire to suppress criticism simply because they think that it will give some comfort to the enemy to know that there is such criticism. If that comfort makes the enemy feel better for a few moments, they are welcome to it as far as I am concerned, because the maintenance of the right of criticism in the long run will do the country maintaining it a great deal more good than it will do the enemy, and will prevent mistakes which might otherwise occur"
- Senator Robert A. Taft, December 19, 1941
Obviously it is too late to prevent a headlong rush to disaster - perhaps if Mr. Bush had been a better student of ANYTHING - including history, and asked his father why Bush I chose not to go after Hussein in 1991 (you don't suppose knowing that Iraq would devolve into the civil war that the unprovoked Bush II invasion of Iraq caused & which Gen. Petraus has said could take 10-20 years to get out of - had anything to do with it).
As far as criticizing the President, I'd like to quote another Republican (questioning what a Democratic president was doing):
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.” — Theodore Roosevelt.
Finally, I think we should all have a flashback to Bush's criticism of Bill Clinton for not having an exit strategy for Kosovo:
Flashback to 1999, when George W. Bush was governor of Texas. Then, Bush criticized President Clinton for not setting a timetable for exiting Kosovo. (See http://thinkprogress.org/2007/05/01/bush-timetable-2/ for the complete article I am quoting from)
George W. Bush, 4/9/99, Houston Chronicle:
“Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the president to explain to us what the exit strategy is.”
And on the specific need for a timetable:
George W. Bush, 6/5/99, Scripps Howard/Seattle Post-Intelligencer:
“I think it’s also important for the president to lay out a timetable as to how long they will be involved and when they will be withdrawn.”
Despite his past statements, Bush now refuses to apply the same standard to his war and smears those who want a similar timetable for Iraq.
Posted by Mary on May 18, 2007 03:36 AMAnd of course all those street fighters from Iraq will get here how? Surely you can see how they will blend into the crowd in America.
Look at the next crowd photo of those men and imagine them, with their non-existant English, poor health, and shabby clothing even getting here. Use your heads people, how do they get weapons here?
The 911 men spoke English, could dress well and blended into the crowds.
Again I ask USE YOUR BRAINS on this, just give us a way all those pathetic, out of work men in the pictures would make it to America to hurt us.
AHHHHHH, nuts.
Posted by Sharon B. on May 18, 2007 04:14 AMHi Sharon,
I see we have another Flying Carpet alert. And of course, we mustn't forget those great bronze horses powered by the Djinn. I guess we should we expect Bush & Co. to add a new color to the list of "terror warnings". Something like a Paisley pattern, perhaps?
Posted by Old Grouch on May 18, 2007 06:06 AMWhy does the RMN continue to publish the same Republican mantra letters over and over and over?
Posted by conservative media on May 18, 2007 07:03 AMMary - Excellent letter.
Posted by on May 18, 2007 07:32 AMshut up and sign up Mikey
Posted by on May 18, 2007 08:08 AMAnother pathetic conflation of 9-11 and Iraq. There goes your premise Mr. Smith.
Posted by Charles B on May 18, 2007 08:26 AMChickenhawk alert
Posted by Warning on May 18, 2007 08:35 AMThe question that always comes to my mind is: just how long do we have to stay in Iraq before the wingnuts" follow us home" scenario would no longer be valid?OK mikey, terrorists attacked us on 9/11 the majority of whom were Saudi Arabians, so tell me once more why we're running an al qaeda recruiting office/ training academy in U.S. military doctrine and tactics in Iraq.
Posted by patrick on May 18, 2007 08:44 AMI want to thank Mike Smith for his letter. Without it, we would not have had the chance to read Mary's excellent reply in which she dispenses with the rhetoric and reminds us of the facts.
Posted by Truth on May 18, 2007 08:51 AMThank you Mary, you did a great job.
Posted by Larry on May 18, 2007 09:10 AMMary,
"Would you still believe if the Mr. Bush believed in it enough to reinstate the draft, for both males & females (most other countries have a draft, including Switzerland, and many include women) - and to get rid of all exclusions except physically or mentally unable to perform?"
That's a bit of red herring, Mary. Yes, I would support a draft if it were needed. But, I don't see why we'd have to draft women and remove other exclusions.
"2) Would you still believe if ALL Bush administration federal tax cuts were rescinded to fund the war, instead of putting the costs on the backs of future generations & expecting family & friends of people who are serving in the Middle East to provide appropriate body/truck armor?"
The tax cuts increased tax revenue. The tax cuts are helping to pay for the war so I think raising taxes would hurt the war effort.
"3) Does it bother you at all that the architect of 9/11 (Osama bin Laden, in case you forgot) is still thumbing his nose at the US?"
OBL was not the architect of 9/11. We already got the architect (Khalid Sheik Mohammed) of 9/11. OBL is either dead or living in a hole somewhere. While emotionally he's a great target, the real target is world-wide Islamofascism.
As for your quote from Theodore Roosevelt, here's the full quote:
"The President is merely the most important among a large number of public servants. He should be supported or opposed exactly to the degree which is warranted by his good conduct or bad conduct, his efficiency or inefficiency in rendering loyal, able, and disinterested service to the Nation as a whole. Therefore it is absolutely necessary that there should be full liberty to tell the truth about his acts, and this means that it is exactly necessary to blame him when he does wrong as to praise him when he does right. Any other attitude in an American citizen is both base and servile. To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or any one else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else."
Of course, we should criticize the president when he's wrong. We should also praise him when he's right. Do you ever praise President Bush for cutting taxes and getting the economy back on track? Or how about the fact that tax revenues have risen every year since the tax cuts? That was very convenient for you to only post a portion of Mr. Roosevelt's quote.
Basically you get the same effect whether you raise taxes or give tax cuts. If you raise taxes, that money goes to help pay for whatever program they are intended to. If you give tax cuts, that money is going to go back into the economy, and whether it actually achieves the goal of paying for something or not is another story. OBL was still the person who came up with the idea of attacking America in that way. He might not have been the guy who worked out all the details, but he is still a very influential target, and should be treated as such. Dismissing him and saying he's not that important is a slap in the face to those who want him brought to justice. I would be more than happy to give bush credit for the good things he has done, but so far, he hasn't done anything. You can't say the economy is getting back on track when you leave out spending that has happened simply because you don't want it to be included. Sure it's a different budget, and a different figurehead who controls it, but it's still coming out of the US. That's great that tax revenues have risen, do you have any idea where that revenue has gone?
Posted by Larry on May 18, 2007 09:38 AMMary you need to pull your head out with that majority crud. Only 40% of the voters voted and of that the dumbocrates barely won. AND IRAQ was NOT the only issue. So pull you head out of the sand and realize the real damage cut and run does to this country and how it tells the terrorists that we give up, you win.
Posted by RealTruth on May 18, 2007 09:46 AMWhy is it that the term "cut and run" has only come out of republicans mouths?
Posted by Larry on May 18, 2007 09:56 AMjohnII: If your going to try to compete with someone like Mary you had better do some homework. First "W"s tax cuts went to the rich and the revenues don't even close to the defeict he's creating. As far as the economy just wait till the poor fool that is in office when all this money comes due and the economy goes in the tank. And of course if it's a democrat it will be all his or her fault. GOOD JOB MARY!!!!!
Posted by larrymc on May 18, 2007 09:58 AM"Why is it that the term "cut and run" has only come out of republicans mouths?"
I could be a smart ass and say for the same reason we only hear "reinstate the draft" or "if you support the war then go enlist" from the left crowd.
But the fact is Larry, it boils down to calling an announced timetable withdrawal what it truly is... cuting and running.
Posted by KW on May 18, 2007 10:10 AMWhew, a lot of "America Haters" in here!!!!! So much for the brain washed leftists. Well written Mike and I hate to say it but the day will come that they will have to eat their liberal words. They are of the Rosie ilk. Everything about America is bad! bad! bad!
Posted by on May 18, 2007 10:12 AMSo when your hero says it, it's great leadership, but when anybody else says it, it's cutting and running?
Posted by Larry on May 18, 2007 10:17 AMThe fact is that when somebody tells you to go enlist, they are not trying to speak for you. When you call a timetable "cutting and running", you are turning the term into something you can use for your own gain.
Posted by Larry on May 18, 2007 10:21 AM>>Basically you get the same effect whether you raise taxes or give tax cuts. If you raise taxes, that money goes to help pay for whatever program they are intended to.
Larry that is the most naive statement I have ever read. You don't get the same effect whether you raise taxes or lower them. Over and over again you see raising taxes almost never collects the money it was supposed to. Back in Bush 1 when he raised taxes, they had to repeal the increases because they didn't raise the money they were projected to and almost destroyed the American Yacht industry (a luxury tax on yachts--American buyer bought them from foreign vendors not subject to the tax).
>>If you give tax cuts, that money is going to go back into the economy, and whether it actually achieves the goal of paying for something or not is another story.
Larry, I don't think you understand economics at all. If you give tax cuts that means the people who made the money get to spend it. Does that achieve things? Yes, it lets them spend the money as they see fit. And that money tends to circulate and more people pay taxes-hence the actual taxes paid goes up even though the rate is lower. So does the government take this additional money and achieve goals? What do you think?
>>OBL was still the person who came up with the idea of attacking America in that way. He might not have been the guy who worked out all the details, but he is still a very influential target, and should be treated as such. Dismissing him and saying he's not that important is a slap in the face to those who want him brought to justice.
Actually OBL didn't come up with the idea. He approved it, but the creation, planning and implementation was done by others. As for wanting him brought to justice, it's been a long time since anyone has seen or heard from him. I don't know if he is dead or alive, but having him out of circulation is fine with me.
>>I would be more than happy to give bush credit for the good things he has done, but so far, he hasn't done anything. You can't say the economy is getting back on track when you leave out spending that has happened simply because you don't want it to be included. Sure it's a different budget, and a different figurehead who controls it, but it's still coming out of the US. That's great that tax revenues have risen, do you have any idea where that revenue has gone?
What a partisan! Bush hasn't done anything? What about "no child left behind." As for your comment on the economy, it doesn't make any sense. You say you can't count the economy getting better because you don't like where the revenue has gone!!!
I'll bet the people who got jobs would argue with you on that. Besides, it appears you seem to consider the economy only tax revenues and you don't like them being used for the military.
Larry, just a suggestion, but take an economics course. I know liberals tend to think of Conservatives as evil, but conservatives think of liberals as ignorant. Your posting is not helping that stereotype.
Posted by Jim on May 18, 2007 10:23 AMManiacs talking to other maniacs...a very interesting conversation with a potentionally lethal outcome. Meanwhile the safety and security of the rest of us are compromised and put at risk.
The enemy within doesn't wear a uniform either.
Posted by Hank on May 18, 2007 10:28 AMThat's why I didn't say lower taxes Jim. I said tax cuts. Big difference, but I know you don't pay attention to such piddly details. Yes, god save the American yacht association. We can now see where your priorities lay. No, I don't think the government uses the money poured back in to pay for anything. But since you know about it, why don't you tell me what it goes to. So just because somebody hasn't been heard from you feel safer because he is somehow "out of circulation"? I know it's all about out of sight out of mind with you, but what makes you think he isn't still planning? And yeah, we can certainly tell how well the "no child left behind" act has done seeing how less than 50% of students in Colorado don't graduate high school. It's pretty funny how I never said I can't count on the economy to get better because I don't like where the revenues are going. That would imply that the government has actually said where the revenue goes. But it's pretty standard of you to try to explain what I'm saying in words that you want to be projected. Who are these people who "got jobs" as you say? Don't you think tax revenues should be included in the treasury? I have taken several economics courses in my time and the fact that you think I'm some brain dead hick is what makes this all the more entertaining. You can think whatever you want of liberals or whoever else you see as a threat to your yachting life. It doesn't change the fact that you just don't want anybody you look up to to be accountable for anything they do.
Posted by Larry on May 18, 2007 10:51 AMExcellent comments, Jim.
I'm not sure it's sinking in to Larry's brain though. It's hard to cram an entire economics lesson into a few posts. But, at least he admitted that tax revenues have gone up since the tax cuts were put in place. Doesn't that kill Mary's little theory that Mr. Bush should not have cut taxes during a war?
Posted by John II on May 18, 2007 11:05 AMMary's letter renders Mike's letter impotent.
Posted by Richard Grimes Risen Ape r22037@yahoo.com (ffrf.org) on May 18, 2007 11:13 AMWow, you guys just can't seem to stop trying to put words in my mouth can you? I never said that tax revenues have gone up. Anyway, I'm done trying to show you a different perspective. Have fun living in your little world where you are the only ones that matter, I'm sure you'll find lots of supporters that don't want to take responsibility for themselves either.
Posted by Larry on May 18, 2007 11:14 AMMr. Grimes,
You said:
"Mary's letter renders Mike's letter impotent."
Not exactly. She was wrong about the tax cuts. She was wrong about the architect of 9/11. She was deceptive with a quote from Teddy Roosevelt. And the line about drafting women into combat was a red herring.
So, aside from the criticism of President Bush's "exit strategy" remark, she didn't say much.
Posted by John II on May 18, 2007 11:36 AMWhen that first nuke goes off, Denver could be ground zero. You people have your heads buried so deeply in the sand that it's a wonder you can still spout this inane crap.
Do you think the pres of Iran isn't listening to your rantings and thanking Allah for the Al Queda cheering section here in America. Old Grouch, your stupid prattle about "flying carpets" reveals that even a man of 70+ years can be devoid of any ability to perceive real threat. Those that follow the teachings of Mohammad understand the directives contained therein.
"I'm sure you'll find lots of supporters that don't want to take responsibility for themselves either"
Like the dems who voted for invading Iraq but now want to absolve themselves from any responsibility for their actions?
Posted by KW on May 18, 2007 11:43 AMExactly KW, except for that little part of being a human and admitting mistakes. Bush wouldn't want any part of that.
Posted by Jerry on May 18, 2007 11:44 AMI thought when the democrats won this last election that the opinion letters from the dems would ease up. But no way. Just more bitching and moaning. Only now they're jeopardizing our country's safety.
Posted by Calvin on May 18, 2007 12:17 PMYes it was so much easier when there was no opposing views. Why can't they all just fall in line like they're supposed to?
Posted by Jerry on May 18, 2007 12:21 PMIt's people like Sharon and Old Grouch and Mary and many more in here that think "we are liberals, we are always right"!!!!!!! Bush is not the only one that won't admit mistakes.
Posted by on May 18, 2007 12:21 PM"Do you think the pres of Iran isn't listening to your rantings and thanking Allah for the Al Queda cheering section here in America." Chisom
What don't you understand about our continuing presence in Iraq being the most potent recruiting tool that Al Qaeda has? Yes, there is a real threat and this idiotic war is making it more real by the day. Osama probably thanks Allah for George Bush every day.
If you want "idiotic prattle" look at the inane statements about our leaving "emboldening the enemy" - I think the enemy is sufficiently "emboldened" as we can see from the body bags coming back from the middle east. It's our presence that's "emboldening" the enemy, not the prospect of leaving.
And Old Grouch's supposed "stupid prattle about flying carpets" was in response to the original poster's statement about about "terrorists soon will appear in numbers on Main Street USA." ie Parroting Bush/Cheney's goofy statements about "terrorists following us home." What are we expecting? An armada of moth eaten fishing boats heading across the Atlantic filled with jihadists and their "weapons of mass destruction?"
What is it about wingnuts that they slavishly have to repeat every stupid soundbite from their leaders like slobbering Pavlov dogs?
Posted by Drew on May 18, 2007 12:23 PMTrue, Bush is not the only one that won't admit mistakes, but he is the only one that has the control to finish or stop what he started.
Posted by Jerry on May 18, 2007 12:32 PMOur military is over in Iraq fighting and killing Al Qaeda terriorists (who kill women and kids) and Drew call it "idiotic war". I guess Drew, you'd rather they were over here so you could stop them, eh?
Posted by Calvin on May 18, 2007 12:40 PMI've never read a KW post that stayed on topic. In fact, I've never read a KW post that added anything to any discussion on any topic. Ever. In true Republican form, though, that doesn't keep him from opening his mouth.
Posted by on May 18, 2007 12:40 PMBush doesn't want to stop what he started until we can let Iraq try to stand on it's own two feet so to him he isn't wrong. Like it or not Bush is the president the majority of the people in this country elected. If you don't like it lump it!!!! I'm not crazy about him either but he's better then any Socialist who the Dems prefer.
All I can say is the Democrats are trying very hard to do away with the Republican party and if all the illegals are made legal that is what will happen. The Dems are an entitlement part so if they "rule" you ain't seen nothing yet as far as taxes are concerned and that my friends includes the price of gas!!!
Will the liberls admit they're wrong when everything we say and do are controlled by the government??? I highly doubt it!
Posted by on May 18, 2007 12:41 PMBush doesn't want to stop what he started until we can let Iraq try to stand on it's own two feet so to him he isn't wrong. Like it or not Bush is the president the majority of the people in this country elected. If you don't like it lump it!!!! I'm not crazy about him either but he's better then any Socialist who the Dems prefer.
All I can say is the Democrats are trying very hard to do away with the Republican party and if all the illegals are made legal that is what will happen. The Dems are an entitlement part so if they "rule" you ain't seen nothing yet as far as taxes are concerned and that my friends includes the price of gas!!!
Will the liberls admit they're wrong when everything we say and do are controlled by the government??? I highly doubt it!
Posted by on May 18, 2007 12:42 PMFunny how there were no Al Qaeda terrorists in Iraq until after we got there, eh Calvin? Funny how their numbers continue to grow while we're there, eh Calvin? Or do you think they were there all along? Maybe they were hiding in Saddam's spider hole with him & we just happened to miss them the first time?
Posted by Drew on May 18, 2007 12:47 PM"Will the liberls admit they're wrong when everything we say and do are controlled by the government??? I highly doubt it!"
Talking about the government controlling everything we say & do - why don't you ask Bush about his illegal wiretaps? Or are liberals responsible for that too?
Posted by Drew on May 18, 2007 12:51 PMRight Drew, no Al Qaeda in Iraq before we got there. Like you were really there. And I'm sure you'd like to buy some swamp land in Florida if that is what you really believe. Why is it idiots like you defend the terrorists?
Posted by Calvin on May 18, 2007 12:52 PMDrew wrote
What is it about wingnuts that they slavishly have to repeat every stupid soundbite from their leaders like slobbering Pavlov dogs?
Do you mean to suggest that your postings represent your own original thought?
WAIT!
Before you answer..............consider that your postings are insane.
You are one who compensates for your own inability to make sense of life by looking to the mindless media for an answer.
Posted by [Live] amazed on May 18, 2007 12:57 PM"I've never read a KW post that stayed on topic."
Way to stay on topic there bud!
Posted by KW on May 18, 2007 12:57 PMCalvin
Saddam was a SECULAR dictator who never countenanced any religious organizations - never mind religious terror cells in his country - look it up. If you don't know the most basic facts about Iraq why don't you get a book to educate yourself. But wait, your buddy Bush doesn't know anything about the Middle East either - that's why we're in this mess!
And where exactly did I "defend the terrorists?" Are you getting even more confused?
Posted by Drew on May 18, 2007 12:57 PMLive,
Actually, yes, my postings do represent original thought. Obviously I don't go there in person - but I get info from media, books, journals, etc, weigh it up and decide on what my position is. You cons should try it sometime - it's called thinking. Or shall I just email you the text of Cheney's latest speech?
Posted by Drew on May 18, 2007 01:04 PMDrew, I think that's why he's calling you an idiot, you just don't understand that you are defending the terrorists when you call the war "idiotic" and want to pull our troops out giving the terrorists a victory.
Posted by RealTruth on May 18, 2007 01:08 PMSomehow doing the opposite of what the terrorists want is supporting them, and doing what they want is fighting them.
Posted by Jerry on May 18, 2007 01:35 PMRealTruth
How is wanting to get our troops out of the middle of a civil war "defending the terrorists?" Al Quaeda is a small part of the conflict and they are there because we are.
When Islamists attacked the Marine barracks in Beirut in 1982 & killed a lot of marines the US pulled out straight away. By your guys logic then Ronald Reagan is a cut-and runner who "defended the terrorists" - not so?
Posted by Drew on May 18, 2007 01:38 PMOh no! Terrorists on Main Street USA! It's enough to make a contard crap himself.
Posted by Boo-gah boo-gah! on May 18, 2007 02:07 PMRight, you call al quaeda killing innocent women and children a civil war. The liberal response. We need to stay until the Iraqi governments asks us to go.
Posted by RealTruth on May 18, 2007 02:07 PMDrew - Do you think al Qaeda will leave Iraq if we pull out?
Posted by KW on May 18, 2007 02:20 PMLet's see: Al Qaeda is fighting Sunnis and Sunnis are fighting Shias (and they're all fighting us). And every day we get reports of between 12 and 100 civilians killed in the factional fighting. But according to realTruth I call "al quaeda killing innocent women and children a civil war." Are you guys dense or are you just too embarrassed to admit that you made a mistake?
KW - Al Qaeda has become part of the civil war, so they probably won't leave. Shall we make Bush responsible for that or is that Nancy Pelosi's fault as well?
Posted by Drew on May 18, 2007 02:31 PMDont worry the terrorists wont attack the US until some time in 2009, Iran will attack Isreal once it has the atomic weapon created and tested but again not until 2009. Any big attack on US soil will provoke Bush to retaliate.
Once the Dems are in full power in 2009, we will see the full peace process working. Wonder if there are any aspirin factories to bomb in BFE?
Yes Saddam was considered a Secular. He also found out that the best way of dealing with other terrorist minded groups and countries was to pander and play the muslim card. Seems to me there were al Quada reps in Iraq before the US attack. NO by me referencing Iraq, al Quada, and now 9/11 do they all fit together nicely.
Drew the author is not saying Iraq had anything to do with 9/11. He does say terrorists had something to do with 9/11
al Quade is here. Is operating. Will attack and dont need fishing boats to get here. Enough money that they could fly first class if they chose to.
But dont worry Liberals. I have full confidence that the current admin has done enough damage for you to blame all of the ills for generations to come. Heck you should throw the Admin a party. They have given you all a lifetime of "get out of jail cards"
Both the Democrats and Republicans are to blame here but if you think if you can "Love them enough" that they will lay down their arms and we will all just get along. Keep those thoughts and sweet dreams
Posted by bwr on May 18, 2007 02:36 PMincidentally, RealTruth I'm still waiting for your answer as to whether Ronald Reagan was a cut and runner who "defended the terrorists."
Posted by Drew on May 18, 2007 02:37 PMSo if al Qaeda is there, and won't leave just because we leave, what was the point when you said:"Funny how there were no Al Qaeda terrorists in Iraq until after we got there, eh Calvin? Funny how their numbers continue to grow while we're there"
Do you understand that the powers fighting for control of Iraq have an agenda? And if the wrong people take over, do you have any idea how that will not only affect the US but the entire world?
Posted by KW on May 18, 2007 02:38 PMDoes Barnes and Noble sell the Koran? Better hone up as this their only belief. To negotiate is to accept the Koran. Nothing else is negotiable unless beheadings is your thing. Even if we abandon Isreal, we will not get out of the crosshairs. This is not new.
Posted by bwr on May 18, 2007 02:45 PMYour letter is right on target, Mike. Thank you for writing.
Posted by B Stuckey on May 18, 2007 02:48 PM"if you think if you can "Love them enough" that they will lay down their arms and we will all just get along."
No, actually we don't want to love them, we want to eradicate them. Funnily enough one does that by attacking them where they are holed up - how about Afghanistan and Pakistan? One doesn't do it by attacking a third country that had nothing to do with the original attack on 911. Novel idea, eh?
Yes and I know they're here & recruiting quite nicely thanks to Bush. Oh, and the impoverished locals fighting in Iraq would have "Enough money that they could fly first class if they chose to?" Interesting - never knew all those rabble rousers were millionaires. Guess they could just take their weapons as hand luggage. You must have a lot of faith in the TSA and US customs!
Posted by Drew on May 18, 2007 02:50 PMJohn II,
"The tax cuts increased tax revenue. "
Most economists disagree. They say that revenue would be higher if the tax-cuts hadn't occurred. By your overly simplified logic, the 1993 tax hike should have caused an economic slow-down and resulted in a revenue decrease. It didn't . You're making a cause/effect mistake here.
"OBL was not the architect of 9/11. We already got the architect (Khalid Sheik Mohammed) of 9/11. OBL is either dead or living in a hole somewhere. While emotionally he's a great target, the real target is world-wide Islamofascism."
That's like saying Bush wasn't the architect of his tax-cuts because he didn't write the legislation. And then to conflate world-wide Islamofascism with the Iraq war? She probably should have said the "inspiration for 9-11" or "the man who created and largely funded the organization that attacked the US" or some such, but this is illustrative of how you try to divert attention from the larger issues by picking at the inconsequential nits. Are you really arguing that apprehending the nuts and bolts planner of 9-11 was more important than apprehending the man who inspires new planners to hatch ever-more deadly attacks?
I suspect that you're just defending Bush as all cost despite the fact that you know he's a lout because he is currently acting as a (perhaps unwitting) conduit for your hegemonic goals. As you've made clear, you favor the wholesale slaughter of those you have deemed inferior in the Middle East and the apprehension of their land for the sake of your material wealth and security.
"Of course, we should criticize the president when he's wrong. We should also praise him when he's right. Do you ever praise President Bush for cutting taxes and getting the economy back on track? Or how about the fact that tax revenues have risen every year since the tax cuts?"
The fact that someone does or does not praise the President when he does something good is irrelevant to the validity of their criticism. I think you'll find a lot of people, including myself, gave the President the benefit of the doubt for a period of time when crisis warranted it, but "fool me once, shame on me, fool me---- won't get fooled again!"
Posted by Charles B on May 18, 2007 02:53 PM"I'm not sure it's sinking in to Larry's brain though. It's hard to cram an entire economics lesson into a few posts. But, at least he admitted that tax revenues have gone up since the tax cuts were put in place. Doesn't that kill Mary's little theory that Mr. Bush should not have cut taxes during a war?"
No.
Posted by Charles B on May 18, 2007 02:58 PMSharon do you think we would be hunting down OBL at all if we did not act on any of the 3+ confirmed opportunities we had to get him? Or did you approve of not getting him with one of the Princes of Saudi because Saudi was spending Billions getting "new" fighter jets? What did we do to push for action by the UN on any of the Resolutions defined in the UN? Not so much.
Different world people. Differerent battles. Different wars. We dont use Nepoleon style warfare now. Why? it doesnt work. We need to adapt. The terrorists have.
Sorry to dissappoint also, but do not support Bush. Just looking at current situation and letting it fly
Posted by bwr on May 18, 2007 03:00 PMDrew - Do you think it would have been more advised to just believe Saddam when he said he didn't have any weapons that could harm the US? Even though he had violated 17 UN resolutions and was blocking the inspectors from verifying he wasn't armed?
Posted by KW on May 18, 2007 03:00 PMbecause, KW, I'm pointing out what the end result of Bush's war has been. And our continuing presence there is the best recruiting tool they have - why do I seem to be repeating myself?
Do you ever expect Iraq to stabilize, KW, now that Bush has screwed up the whole region? Shall we just keep our troops there in perpetuity? After all they can "wait us out" forever, since the vast majority of insurgents LIVE IN IRAQ.
And as for your comment: "do you have any idea how that will not only affect the US but the entire world?" Don't you think that is a question Bush should've considered before his ill-conceived adventure?
Posted by Drew on May 18, 2007 03:02 PMCharles B - Can you name these economists, cite statements from them and show specifically why they disagree?
I'd be interested to see what logic they use.
Posted by KW on May 18, 2007 03:07 PMReal Truth,
"Right, you call al quaeda killing innocent women and children a civil war. The liberal response. We need to stay until the Iraqi governments asks us to go."
They have Real Truth:
http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/51624/
You guys are really grasping at straws now.
Posted by Charles B on May 18, 2007 03:09 PMIf the "terrorists" are already here (and apparently living in Cherry Hills as they are so flush with cash), it would seem to me that the prudent thing would be to fully fund our first responders/law enforcement, make sure all baggage and cargo is screened and secure the boarder, among other things. Instead, we spend billions policing a civil war where are troops are nothing but inviting targets for destruction.
People with an agenda, KW, will use any tool (and you should know because you are one) to further that agenda. Then, they are discarded when their usefullness is gone.
If Al-Quida's aim is to kill Americans, why would they stay in Iraq if we weren't there? Do you really think whatever side eventually "wins" (doubtful that will happen anytime soon given the history of that region) , they're not going to turn on the outsiders the first chance they get?
I seriously doubt that you even know what the various factions in Iraq are really fighting for and how Al Quida fits into it.
Posted by Geez... on May 18, 2007 03:09 PM"Do you think it would have been more advised to just believe Saddam when he said he didn't have any weapons that could harm the US?"
No one believed Saddam when he said anything, KW - however, he was contained by NATO airpower in a portion of his country - and had no capacity to do anything. Don't you think the primary objective would've been to go after Al Qaeda in Afghanistan (and FINISH the job) and Pakistan?
How come Bush goes after Saddam on the suspicion he has bad weapons but that weird little dude in N. Korea shouts to the rafters that he has nukes & tests them too - & Bush hardly even bats an eyelid? Weird stuff.
Posted by Drew on May 18, 2007 03:11 PMGoing back to OL (original letter ), lets force our troops to come home. Yes let us grab them( kicking and screaming that they want to stay), and shove them on planes back to America.
The people who declared war on America are not a country, but a movement. Waging war upon a movement means we have to be very careful who we hit along the way. Hit the wrong people and the movement grows faster then ever.
When the land locked Iraqis get to the ocean ,enmass, then we should worry. Maybe our spy planes can warn us when they start marching to the sea.
So , KW, what do we do now and in the future to keep the wrong people from running Iraq. You know that may happen no matter what we do. You know that, don`t you?
Dems want to destroy the Republilcan party?
From your keyboard to Gods ear.
All terrorists rich NO. But they have a lot of money behind them. Not all terrorists are poor dregs in Iraq. You have Iraq on the brain. Yes the poorer the better but when you have terrorist countries behind them that are footing the bill then you have a problem
Keep the thought that they are not nor will not come here poor or not. There are quite a few that will pay for that............Saudi, Iran, Syria, etc But the only terrorists are in Iraq......Right.........sheesh Dont limit your thoughts of Iraq just because we are there now................Hopefully we can get out, but again.....gives the Libs all the power in the world by Blaming Bush for the next upteen yrs
Posted by bwr on May 18, 2007 03:22 PMDestroy Republicans. What a kinder and gentler Liberal you are. Should we get a restraining order or not Sharon???
Landlocked Iraq? Mmmm Look at Google please? Keep focusing on Iraq. Just as bad as the Admin in my mind.
Follow the funding. Glad you have such a low confidence or respect for terrorists. If Anderson were here he would call you a bigot or racist
Posted by bwr on May 18, 2007 03:28 PMWe Americans are statistically more likely to be killed by a close family member than we are killed by a terrorist.
All this fear-mongering about how much in danger we Americans are if we don't defeat terrorism is an extreme OVER-REACTION to the problem. It is way out of proportion to the apparent danger. It's time we Americans stiffen our backbone and be less "terrorized". It is our reaction that has their tactic actually work. The quickest way to defeat terrorism is to be fearless in the face of it.
The "law-and-order" crowd, however, can only use a metaphorical hammer as their tool for fixing everything.
The saying goes "What you resist, persists."
Iraq demonstrates this idea. The more we fight terrorism, the worse it gets.
Posted by Todd on May 18, 2007 03:28 PMSharon B - What if Iran takes over Iraq after we leave (or facillitates another power to do so)? Then Iran would control the entire gulf. Would that be reason enough for us to then be worried?
I'd rather keep the wrong people from ever getting that power in the first place rather than wait until the problem escalates.
Posted by KW on May 18, 2007 03:30 PMWhy do people become terrorists? Crushing poverty and lack of hope or a better tomorrow are a primary reason. So they turn against those they see as causing those problems. They see us as the problem because we've been sticking our nose in their business for quite some time. All for oil and to line the pockets of the few...
If you want to de-fund them, it is a law enforcement issue, not a military one. We know the Saudi's are the ones funding everything.
"Blaming Bush for the next upteen (sic) yrs"? That's rich! Like the right isn't STILL blaming Clinton for everything. HA!
Posted by on May 18, 2007 03:34 PMWe are statistically more likely to be killed in a lot of things. But take your thought with you to Ground Zero and we can do statistics on how many teeth you have intact in a couple of hours.
You are howvever correct in the tool of terrorism. Over reaction can cause more problems for us. But then again, it could be a great statistical analysis on how many terrorist caused deaths are acceptable... to the limits of gun deaths, automobile deaths.
I again am not worried about terrorism until 2009, months after Dem party takes full control(just trying to make Sharon happy so she doesnt want us destroyed)
Posted by bwr on May 18, 2007 03:38 PMIran is the closest thing to a stable, quasi-democratic society in the ME. A young, growing, educated, middle-class pro-American population--unless we, in our stupidity, push them the other way. Don't judge a country by their leader...
Honest to God KW, my ficus knows than you.
Posted by Don't Buy the Fear on May 18, 2007 03:45 PM03:34 PM
My point exactly about blaming Bush and Clinton. Does it make it right to blame Clinton for everything? NO But resorting to grade school rules. He called me a name so I can call him a name.............. That is an argument that will win all the Debate awards.
Yes Saudi and other rich countries are funding the terrorists. The rich are funding the poor to do their religious bidding............ but not sure how much any state police or the FBI can do about it. Guess we could give it to the UN to police
Posted by [Middle aged hippie] bwr on May 18, 2007 03:46 PMBut their leader is looking to fund Nuclear weapons, going to destroy Isreal and other Western societies and is supported by the radical factions within Iran. Yes true there is a large group of pro-american Iranians but they are not the power structure. Wish they were but hell I wish I was good looking too. Hopefully thier leadership is just bluffing for Power sake and have no intentions of escalating
Posted by [Middle aged hippie] bwr on May 18, 2007 03:54 PMFunny, I don't recall calling anyone names. Just calling a spade a spade, my friend. Politicians (and their enablers) are all looking out for #1, they've long since stopped caring about the people. Party before people, party before country. I got mine, so screw you guys...
I also don't recall saying anything about a POLICE STATE...
Posted by 3:34 on May 18, 2007 03:54 PM"If funding is cut to Iraq, the terrorists will appear on main street. " Well, excuse the hell out of me for thinking that meant Iraqis terrorists.
KW, now that is a question for another day, when we all have some time to think of how to keep Iran from taking over Iraq or part of it.
Which part is the same religion?
Two points: (1) that might bog down Iran for decades as they try to stabalize the country. (2) It might give them an advantage in the area, but I really don`t know.
Destroy the Republican "party". Not destroy Republlicans.
334 I was not referring to YOU specifically for calling names.....Both parties do it all the time (BUSHY, BRUSH, BUBBA, SLICK WILLY, etc) It does happen in the blame game in kicking the previous Administrations once they are gone. Reps blame Clinton and the Libs will blame GWB and do blame Reagon, etc.
You did say it was Law enforcement issue not a military issue. What law enforcement do we send to Saudi to solve the funding issue(state police, fbi all fall into the law enforcement category) STATE POLICE and POLICE STATE are 2 completely different terms (do not trust either :-)) How is any law enforcement going to go into a foreign country to solve based upon your paragraph
"If you want to de-fund them, it is a law enforcement issue, not a military one. We know the Saudi's are the ones funding everything."
Posted by Middle aged hippie on May 18, 2007 04:03 PMAnd our 'leader" is any different?
Posted by on May 18, 2007 04:04 PMCharles B.,
"Most economists disagree. They say that revenue would be higher if the tax-cuts hadn't occurred. By your overly simplified logic, the 1993 tax hike should have caused an economic slow-down and resulted in a revenue decrease. It didn't . You're making a cause/effect mistake here."
Bravo Charlie! You managed to see my cause/effect argument. Pretty nifty, huh?
Of course, Clinton's tax hike initially raised revenue. He managed to raise taxes during one of the biggest economic booms in American history. Some may argue that his tax hikes actually caused the slowdown that eventually occurred.
But, as we see in this chart, tax revenues have soared far higher after the 2003 tax cut then any level achieved by Clinton's multiple tax hikes.
Either way you look at it, tax revenues increased, so how can you fault Mr. Bush? Are you saying that even though the government is collecting record revenues, you still want to raise taxes higher?
"She probably should have said the "inspiration for 9-11" or "the man who created and largely funded the organization that attacked the US" or some such, but this is illustrative of how you try to divert attention from the larger issues by picking at the inconsequential nits."
So, in other words, Mary was mistaken when claiming that we did not get the architect of 9/11. Words have meanings, Charles B. You may feel that words are simply "inconsequential nits", but I strongly disagree with that assessment.
"The fact that someone does or does not praise the President when he does something good is irrelevant to the validity of their criticism."
That may be true, but the irrelevancy was introduced by Mary, not me. She took a Teddy Roosevelt quote out of context and attempted to pass it off as his sole point. He was making a larger point and I simply pointed that out.
Posted by John II on May 18, 2007 04:05 PMSharon a significant percentage of the true terrorists in Iraq are not Iraqis. Yes there are Iraqi terrorists and there is a Civil war. But we can not lump them all into 1 category as it seems people do.
Posted by [Middle aged hippie] bwr on May 18, 2007 04:15 PMThe original letter put cutting funds to troops in Iraq and terrorists invasion together.
So if we continue funding troops in iraq that will keep "terrorists of all kinds" from comming to America?
Cutting funds=terrorists come here
Continue funds=terrorists stay out.
Now if that doesn`t win the prize for simplistic thinking, do you have something better?
Posted by Sharon B. on May 18, 2007 04:34 PMWith the democratically elected Iraqi parliment poised to ask U.S. troops to withdraw, America may be forced to finally clarify what the hell we are doing over there.
The reponses on this board are representative of pundits/politicians of both parties...and are honestly but fundamentally confused. If our current war is about 'democracy' such a request should be honored and it gives the GOP a conveniently timed excuse to declare 'victory' and withdraw well before the 2008 election season.
However if it is about control (read 'privatization') of oil, America has good reason to balk: the same parliment who asks America to leave can later ask any other government for assistance in putting down the 'terrorism' boogy man America has been so adept at conjuring. And it would make perfect sense for them to request such assistance from Iran.
Iran could help "stamp out" terrorism, while gaining effective control over the bulk of M.E. oil, all by adhering to the wishes of the democratically elected government. I'm sure Iran could score some easy victories and dramatic executions of Al Queda leaders, in ways U.S. can't. How could U.S. complain, if they do a better job keeping those terrorists from 'following us back to America'?
These artifically created democracies are tricky...just as America can manipulate them, so too can other powers, and our own self-serving hypocracy is exposed as soon as we refuse to share our democratic toys with the other kids in the neighborhood.
Neo-conservative's fetish over the terrorism boogey-man blinds them to the fundamental struggle for power and control...tactics are chosen for the desired outcome: terrorism might be needed one day, but economic leverage might be more effective another day. Which do you think an enemy of America would prefer...a one-off attack that kills 3000 people or effective control over the natural resource that all 300 million Americans depend?
We haven't even begun to appreciate the extent of America's blunders in Iraq -- the current quagmire is just a start.
Posted by on May 18, 2007 04:36 PM"But take your thought with you to Ground Zero and we can do statistics on how many teeth you have intact in a couple of hours."
You justify vigillante justice as reason not to see the true cost of our reaction to aggression against us.
But then I guess that's to be expected. This whole "war on terror" is just one giant mob reaction. "String 'em up.!" "Might makes right." The rule of passion over reason.
This demagoguery is becoming the downfall of our democracy.
Posted by Todd on May 18, 2007 05:31 PMSomeone posted a graph of total national revenues, giving credit to Bush's tax cuts. In the interest of full disclosure, here is a chart of the national debt.
http://web.whittier.edu/academic/math/jmiller/United%20States%20National%20Debt_files/usdebt1.gif
It's all well and good that revenues have increased in Bush's watch. Anyone care about the debt?
Todd, To clarify my point of
"But take your thought with you to Ground Zero and we can do statistics on how many teeth you have intact in a couple of hours."
That is NOT vigilante justice. Making your statistical comment in Denver Colorado means something different than it would in NYC. They would react to it differently there th/an here. While statistically correct, in sensitivity terms would be a no-no. You statistically have a better chance of mentioning your stats to someone who knew a 9/11 victom.
Would you not agree?
Sharon in the context of your statement
"So if we continue funding troops in iraq that will keep "terrorists of all kinds" from comming to America?
Cutting funds=terrorists come here
Continue funds=terrorists stay out.
Now if that doesn`t win the prize for simplistic thinking, do you have something better?"
You are making the assumption I think that is a wholly complete and accurate account. I am not convinced of that either. Do I think it is a possible deterrent. Possibly I truly think that is hard to prove either way. But there are those on here that state that if we leave and we negotiate with the terrorists we will be free from terrorism. Do I think that possible? Not likely. It goes much further than that. Whether or not posters on here fully find that to be accurate, could also be over simplistic. Do you agree?
I am at times Guilty of overstating one side without leveling the field to help better paint a full picture. It is times hard to do on this type of forum.
You and other posters have taken liberty with statements as fact when not so. Heck I may have inadvertantly done so but hopefully I have redacted or modified my statement when shown differently
Examples
Iraq is a landlocked country ( not fact. Iraq even has its own navy)
Evolution is Fact (Not FACT, but if I were a betting man that is where I would put my piddly paycheck)
"But, as we see in this chart, tax revenues have soared far higher after the 2003 tax cut then any level achieved by Clinton's multiple tax hikes."
Come on John II, showing total revenues means nothing. Showing revenue's as a percentage of GDP would be more telling, and the chart does nothing to prove a correlation between tax cuts and economic growth.
"Either way you look at it, tax revenues increased, so how can you fault Mr. Bush? Are you saying that even though the government is collecting record revenues, you still want to raise taxes higher?"
I fault Mr. Bush for running a deficit during a time of record revenues. Had he left the tax rates alone (not raised as you stated, but left alone) the economy likely would have recovered just fine and we wouldn't be running a deficit. Economic growth is spurred largely by worker productivity, which is continually rising in the USA, despite the fact that the little guy has been stuck on 1970's wages for decades.I haven't seen any evidence that the tax cuts spurred the economic growth we've had. The economy boomed for almost six years after Clinton's tax increase, so recent evidence suggests otherwise despite your "Some may argue that his tax hikes actually caused the slowdown that eventually occurred." song and dance.
Since you make all your decisions about policy economic and otherwise based on your prospects for personal material enrichment, I guess it makes sense for you to argue these points.
But it is fun to type about innit?
Posted by Charles B on May 18, 2007 08:34 PMSorry, that last post was to John II.
Posted by Charles B on May 18, 2007 08:38 PMbwr,
"But take your thought with you to Ground Zero and we can do statistics on how many teeth you have intact in a couple of hours."
You are so wrong about New Yorkers. They understand better than anyone how badly the response to 9-11 was botched.
Just curious, have you ever been to New York? I can't think of more tolerant people. How would they survive together if they were all so hot-headed that they'd bust you in the teeth if you invoked a reasonable argument about the prudence of living in fear or not?
Posted by Charles B on May 18, 2007 08:43 PMDeficit spending, depending upon when it is done, can have a Keynesian objective to stimulate the economy through job creation. But the economic conditions over the past 6 years haven't required it, and yet we've had an effective government jobs program as federal spending has ballooned under Bush and the GOP controlled Congress. And sadly, much of this spending and job creation (at least the attempt) has been in a foreign country and even the firms getting the lions share of the Iraq military and rebuilding contracts are not necessarily American companies anymore (i.e.Haliburton). Not surprising there is some postive short-term uptick in the overall tax receipts...given the massive amount of gov't spending, but this is a mere burp as America binge-eats its way through its seed corn. It will take a long time to mop this mess up, and it would be helpful if conservatives could wrest back control over the GOP from the poseurs who have been running the show for the past 6 years. We could use their discipline and restraint, but the incompetence and corruption of this administration and the prior Congress likely will sour a couple of generations worth of voters from the GOP, and the current batch of fringe deadenders will probablly hold sway with their 30% of true believers, some of whom continue to carry a torch for Bush on this very discussion board.
Posted by on May 18, 2007 10:24 PMYes Charles they are tolerant people (some more than others) but do you know people who were killed in 9/11? To tell them that they were statistacally more likely to be killed of other means is a bit callous? It hit a nerve for me. AND I did contact my friend who lives in NJ but works in NYC. His comment..........Well I cant put on this forum without being deleted........That is just 1 person from the area. Take from it what you will. Charles you constantly accuse me of being something I am not or trying to put me in a category. While you can call me big and ugly and you would be right, I am not on here to decieve. Sorry to dissappoint.
As I agreed with a poster that we are statistically are more likely to be killed by a lot of things other than terrorism. You took 1 piece of the conversation without the entire context.
Posted by bwr on May 18, 2007 10:28 PMTo a survivor of the 9/11 tragedy, such a statement is callous, yes. To the Chickenhawks like the original letter writer it is not. Their fear-mongering rhetoric must be challenged in the same way the nastiness of the KKK was confronted 50 years ago. Same fascist bigotry, different era. I mean really, compare the drivel the original letter contains with the rants of the KKK about the "black threat" 50 years ago. It's pathetic how similar these fear-mongering bigots can be.
We need a rational perspective, people. There have been 100 times the number of innocent lives killed in Iraq than have been killed on 9/11 and Iraq HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH 9/11. How many must die before we have satisfied our need for vengence?
Posted by todd on May 18, 2007 11:10 PMbwr,
"Charles you constantly accuse me of being something I am not or trying to put me in a category. While you can call me big and ugly and you would be right, I am not on here to decieve."
I did no such thing.
Posted by Charles B on May 19, 2007 07:29 AMSharon B.
How about over 2000 miles of unprotected southern border? How do you think all of these illegal aliens(oops, I mean UNDOCUMENTED workers) get into the US now? Do you really think that a terrorist of any kind is going to catch a flight from Baghdad to JFK? No they are going to get in via Mexico - that government encourages their citizens to sneak across our borders, and they do nothing to stop anybody from crossing, they may even help depending on who you believe. Did you know that of those apprehended on our southern border 30% are OTM - other than Mexican? Like Quatamalan's, Hundurans, how about also Syrian, Pakistanis & Iranian?
bwr, Iraq has no outlet to the ocean, forgot the river but don`t think we can stop calling colorado landlocked because of Colorado river. If the terrorists are all over the middle east then what we do in Iraq won`t effect them. This "they will follow us home " if we (fill in the blanks) thinking is nutty.
And how do they get to and into Mexico.? And since they are already doing it, while we fund the troops in Iraq, why will there be more if we stop?
Posted by Sharon B. on May 19, 2007 09:33 AM"bwr, Iraq has no outlet to the ocean,"
Are you sure about that?
Posted by Really? on May 19, 2007 01:51 PMSharon
You might want to rethink and or research Iraqi coastline.
There are terrorists all over the world. You make the assumption I am for the war in Iraq.
You have made repeated remarks regarding the poor Iraqis and how they would take fishing boats to come fight us here. MY points are that there are more than Iraqis fighting in Iraq. If we were to leave Iraq tomorrow would they all head here? NO Would some? Maybe, but how many is some and what is that threat? We dont know. Maybe none
To think that if we leave Iraq, the terrorism will die down towards the western world is just as nutty. Iraq did not start the terrorism nor will it be ended there.
To recap:
Do I think "they will follow us home" No
Will more effort be put to US interest terrorism if and when we leave Iraq? Most likely. Significant activity? Who knows.
Do others believe differently? Yes
Do I think we should be in Iraq? No but for very different reasons than most