MaPoSquid [quote]Skanky slutty chicks??[/quote][/quote]
Speaking of the Bush twins, how are they doing these days? 
[quote=âcableguyâ]pinesay[quote]The part I like most of that article is that it hits the nail on the head. Democrats have painted themselves into the box where they actually hope:
- The economy tanks.
- More soldiers die.
- Bush, our commander in chief stumbles on the world stage.[/quote]
[/quote]
OK ⌠Then, (drum roll please) âŚ
IF the economy soars like an eagle, all soliders come home, no more deaths, Iraq turns out to be wonderful, with children singing in the street, and Bush and Chirac become best buddies ⌠Then do pray-tell would Kerry be running on then?
Oh yea! Four months in Vietnam and Bushâs AWOL conspiracy.
Opps! I just gave the current state of affairs away.
MaPoSquid [quote]Skanky slutty chicks??[/quote]
Speaking of the Bush twins, how are they doing these days? [/quote][/quote]
You are mistaking Kerryâs âliberatedâ daughters, one of which wore that see-through dress. Nice was to support your party.
[quote=âpinesayâ][quote=âcableguyâ]pinesay[quote]The part I like most of that article is that it hits the nail on the head. Democrats have painted themselves into the box where they actually hope:
- The economy tanks.
- More soldiers die.
- Bush, our commander in chief stumbles on the world stage.[/quote]
[/quote]
OK ⌠Then, (drum roll please) âŚ
Why blame the Dems simply because Bush caused the economy to tank, soldiers to die, Iraq to be a mess, etc.
And why blame the Dems for pointing out Bushâs many mistakes? After all, if he would quit making them, there would be nothing for others to point out.
Bush thinks can win/canât win the war on terror, but there isnât any inconsistency in that. The war on terror can be won â but not if heâs president.
Just consider all those âno-goâ areas of Iraq and Afghanistan that have been ceded to the terrorist groups.
Figuring that Afganistan was a big mess before we got there, our main failure has been in losing so much of our victory to the resurgent Taliban and al Qaeda. OBL and Ayman are still cranking out the inspirational videos and making a mockery of the United States â and weâve played right into their hands. We briefly had control of the country but have already lost it â itâs in the hands of independent warlords and, increasingly, the Taliban.
What is inexcuseable is that we went into Iraq, didnât find of the non-existent WMDs, and then promptly managed to hand over large amounts of territory to terrorist groups⌠where there had been no terror movement before.
The only thing that you can find to praise Ted Kennedy (Cable Guy) is that he spent more money on education (programs)? Quâest que vous avez dire? The man may have spent more money on teachers unions and federal and state employees unions but when minimum 52 cents on the $ goes to administration, what exactly has he done but throw good money after bad. You need to break this misperception that spending more money on education is somehow proof of your commitment to education. Do you shop around for gas, groceries, clothes, interest rates on loans, etc.? Then, why is this mistaken assumption that more money is better constantly belabored by the Left. The fact is that REFORM not more moeny is needed. Get a clue and vote for reform if you care about education and that means voting Republican. Now, what else has Kennedy done? I am still waiting? Sheesh! The man is a worthless fat drunk who likes backroom deals. I thought that he would be the perfect hated symbol of a Democrat party that hates Republicans for supposedly being like this. But when you look at the Democrats what do you see? Filthy, corrupt, backroom dealing slime like Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Terry McCauliffe, Daley from Chicago and Ted Kennedy? Talk about fat fers who f the people while smoking cigars but little naifs comme toi will continue to vote for these people because if fits with your brainwashed paradigm of what passes for right, moral and enlightened? Jesus Christ! What college did you go to and how much did your parents spend? I would ask for a refund or a remedial course in critical reading/thinking.
When you get right down to it, the Republicans stand firmly behind the principle that when youâve got Al Qaeda on the run and on the ropes, then is the perfect time to take the pressure off by sending our troops into the middle of Iraq ⌠to create a new terrorist haven where there had been none before.
Iâd like Bush to tell a bit of Midland-Texas-style truth in his speeches:
âWell, down in Texas sometimes we just give up when faced with something kinda hardâŚâ
âThereâs an old Texan saying that sometimes there ainât no good excuse for what we doneâŚâ
âBack in the oil fields, there was an old Texas expression about guys who left work early and went into town to spend money on whores and booze instead of doing what they were supposed to be doinâ. Well, I used to be one of those guys, so I donât know whut they said about us when we left work earlyâŚâ
âItâs an old Texas habit to do whatever you stick your mind to⌠until somebody dangles a shiny object nearby. I guess Iraq is my shiny object.â
MFGR:
Nice try but we believed as did everyone that Saddam would develop wmds. In this scenario, what would we have done if he decided to invade Kuwait again and then threatened to nuke the oil fields if we attacked him? Hmmm? What if he decided to pass these weapons to terrorists and threatened to nuke the oil fields if we tried to stop him? Hmmm? You have a lot of answers but no questions regarding what might have taken place instead. Iraq is not good but it is a hell of a lot better now than what we might have had to face. We need to ensure that Iran is defanged as well. We have seen the European success rate in getting Iran to comply. Why should we vote for a European president like Kerry who will attempt to follow the same failed policies? What is your suggestion? Let Iran go nuclear? Would that be okay with you? Do you doubt that Iran is trying to do so? Do you need greater proof? I mean we were wrong in Iraq right? Perhaps we are wrong about Iran? What do you suggest doing?
As with all diseases, the only effective way to eliminate them is to treat the causes and not the symptoms.
The drive to acquire weapons of mass superiority is a symptom and not a cause. Itâs a foolâs errand to try to keep that genie in the box.
The reason why the amen chorus urging perpetual war with Islam wonât allow a discussion of the causes of the conflict between East and West to take place though is because they know theyâre one of the causes and they canât allow that to become apparent.
So our only option is to be dragooned into this nutterâs crusade of perpetual war with a quarter of the worldâs population.
[quote=âmofangongrenâ]When you get right down to it, the Republicans stand firmly behind the principle that when youâve got Al Qaeda on the run and on the ropes, then is the perfect time to take the pressure off by sending our troops into the middle of Iraq ⌠to create a new terrorist haven where there had been none before.
[/quote]
we have forces hunting osama. the problem is, he is probably hiding out in pakistan. whether we have 1,000 men in afghanistan or 1 million, they STILL canât enter pakistan whenever they want. how would you hunt osama if you were president, mfgr? stick 50,000 soldiers on the afghanistan/pakistan border and have they keep an eye out in case osama comes back across?
Spook:
I agree. The way to treat a disease is to kill it not the body. Therefore letâs kill the virus: terrorism. We are doing that. Are you seriously going to suggest to me that the people of Iraq and Afghanistan are not better off now? or even better that their countries and societies were not sick before? Hmmm?
Itâs a nice analogy, but not very applicable to the present case. Diseases are mindless. Humans have the ability to choose their own course.
True and true, but:
This assumes that the other side has no free will and is merely responding to âthe amen chorusâ. In fact, the other side has its own vision for the future, which can be summed up as âan Islamic world order in which Allah is worshipped as set down in the Koranâ. They also intend for it to be their interpretation of the Koran, not some fluffy Cat Stevens âMoonchildâ interpretation.
Well, that depends. We as a society can either fight or submit. They arenât interested in another option.
[quote=âFlipperâ][quote=âmofangongrenâ]When you get right down to it, the Republicans stand firmly behind the principle that when youâve got Al Qaeda on the run and on the ropes, then is the perfect time to take the pressure off by sending our troops into the middle of Iraq ⌠to create a new terrorist haven where there had been none before.
[/quote]
No, the most effective way to hunt for Osama is to do what Mr. Bush did and send troops to invade a country where everyone knew he was not at. This was a great strategy. 
Imagine if the same troops which have been sent to Iraq had been put to use actually actively searching for bin Lauden? Is there a possiblilty that he would have been caught by now? Or even have been killed? I think it is not only possible but also likely to have happened. Of course, we will never know since the brainless Mr. Bush didnât do that at all.
Speaking of brainless Cable Guy, can you read?
What did George Bush say the motives were for going into Iraq? Did he say a direct connection to 911? Did he say that he would find Osama bin Laden in Baghdad? No. Try to read more carefully and not just follow innuendo as spewed by the liberal biased media.
George Bush said we cannot risk the chance that Iraq might team up with terrorists and we must do something to clean up the Middle East. We have to end sanctions which were resulting in many deaths (from UN and French corruption) and we must stabilize the region to allow for economic development so as to âdrain the swampsâ that spawn terrorists.
Therefore speaking once again of brainless Cable Guy, you cannot seem to manage to digest these very simple facts. Or alternatively, please find me the quote where Bush said we are going into Iraq to get Osama. Bet you cannot find it. hahaha
[quote=âspookâ]
So our only option is to be dragooned into this nutterâs crusade of perpetual war with a quarter of the worldâs population.[/quote]
The 1.5 billion people on earth who practice Islam of course have their own neoMcCarthyite fanatics who live and breath religious warfare to the death. No culture or religion is immune to such fanaticism.
The trick is to keep them out of power over the other 1.49999999999 billion of us who just want to live our own lives and have no interest in:
- Invading and occupying other peoplesâ countries
- Installing and/or propping up corrupt dictatorships in those countries
- Aiding and abetting the subjugation and ethnic cleansing of the inconvenient native populations of our allies
First and foremost, the peoples of the Middle East and Arab and Muslim countries are responsible for their leaders, their culture, their religion, their government, their intolerance, their lack of rights. This was not forced on them by any Western government and certainly not the US. The ignorance, low literacy levels, abuse, oppression and intolerance that find such squeals of outrage by would be liberals in the West, meet with silence in the Middle East because we are not allowed to project our values onto another culture.
Hmmm interesting. Yet, we are all equal but cultures can not be equated and therefore must be protected even when they abuse the individual, except in the West where such cultures take precedence over individual rights and therefore we cannot criticize abuses in Western countries if committed by Muslims and Arabs since we must respect their cultures before we respect them as individuals. Please help me. Did I get that right?
How is our support of Mubarak in Egypt and our previous support of the Shah to be compared with someone like Saddam in Iraq or the mullahs in Iran or Qadaffi (previously) in Iran or Assad in Syria. Was the Shah a threat to his neighbors? Did he savagely abuse his people? I recall with great favor one of his quotes as to why he did not behave like a more enlightened say Scandinavian monarch to which he replied when Iranians start acting like Swedes, I will act like the king of Sweden.
This is just so much more sand being thrown into our eyes. The US supports dictators but we do not keep them in power nor do we willingly allow them to trample on human rights and democratic aspirations. What happened when we stopped supporting the Shah (thanks to our âfailed presidentâ who is now Americaâs âbest ex-presidentâ wonder how much Carter pays to get that public relations message out and out and out?)
We got the mullahs. What happened to rights and womenâs rights then and whoops what happened was not a few hundred political prisoners but a few hundred thousand shot and dead.
Was our support for Turkey wrong? Look at it today. It is set to join the EU, the Holy Grail of ârespect for peoples and cultures.â Is Turkey today a civilized nation because of European influence or primarily American? Hmmm?
Then what replaces Mubarak in Egypt? Should we stop supporting him? Doing so ensured peace between Israel and Egypt and between Egypt and Saudi Arabia and Egypt and Libya and Egypt and the Sudan and Egypt and Yemen. Looks like we did something pretty good or these Arab brethren would still be fighting each other. Perhaps we should let them?
So get off the morally relativist position and think about values Spook. You do not speak for the Arabs of the Middle East nor the Iraqis. I think most Afghans and Iraqis are happier today or why would they have returned in such great numbers to their countries AFTER the US got involved?
We have 2.5 milliion Afghan refugees returning home and 1.5 million Iraqis. Why did this happen now when the US is involved and not before when they were not being oppressed by the Great Satan? hmmm? And if conditions materially, economically and security wise are so bad. Why are they still returning? Why not leave again?
I think that you spend too much time reading the liberal press which as it has repeatedly proven cannot be relied on for objective coverage of the news.
On with your quagmire. I yawn.