Really.. Disturbing.

A "hero" is being made out of a serial killer in Baghdad. I found a blog from a kid in Baghdad writing about it. It also has a link to the propaganda video this sniper has made.

http://baghdadtreasure.blogspot.com/2006/01/juba-baghdad-sniper.html

The video is horrific. But it is in english and being professionally made. What does this tell us? What progress have we made when a hero is being made of this person who murders those that are trying to help.

Are we winning? This is just a small piece of the whole picture, but it is a piece. The situation is incredibly complicated with more variables than this. But it is a thing to consider when taking the whole into consideration.

Ugh, that hurt to read. I havent watched the video yet, still not sure if I will to be honest.

Conquer Iraq for your interests, which you believe are being threatened. Conquer it 'cause you can, 'cause you want to, 'cause it fits in with the New Imperialism of the US, but for godsake, don't try and convince us conquering Iraq was for it's own good.

Not a day goes by when a bus of people isn't blown to hell and back.

I fear it won't be long until even the persecuted under him will wish for Saddam's stability back.

That place has turned in to hell's cess-pool.

Yeah, and you get your info from where? The Media that figures it has your attention with the story of widespread chaos in Iraq?
Try and asking the Soldiers and Marines that are there how good things are going. You'll get different answers, but I'm sure the overwhelming response is that we are doing good things.
Is it great we have to kill people over there? No, it's not. But would you rather have to kill people over there, than over here?
Most of your Muslim Fanatics have gotten the idea that to fight Americans, all you have to do is go to Iraq, rather than go to America.
Personally I'd rather take the fight to them, rather than have them hit us here in the US.
Our own American Revolution wasn't such a peaceful undertaking, you might try reading about it sometime.
Of special interest, is how the French aided the "Brittish Insurgents" (American Patriots). There was an "Imperalist" nation aiding the enemy of its enemy.
Sound Familiar?

Sixee wrote
[Full list of Mehlman/Rove talking points that]
We can be "doing good things" while the country spirals into chaos. The two aren't mutually exclusive. Despite Cheney's claims in May that the insurgency was in its last throes, conditions have not improved. Following the Askariyah shrine's destruction, the situation is even worse, and it's up to the Iraqis to pull back from the precipice -- we're just caught in the middle.
Most of your Muslim Fanatics have gotten the idea that to fight Americans, all you have to do is go to Iraq, rather than go to America.
If most Muslim fanatics lived adjacent to the US, they'd be over here. Iraq is far more convenient. But I'm sure the Iraqis appreciate our drawing the increasing number of pro-terror Muslims to their country (though most insurgents are homebrewed).

Also, this "flypaper theory" didn't prevent London from being bombed, nor did it impede the increasing acts of terror worldwide since the war began.

As for troops' views, Zogby recently polled (http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1075) them about a variety of questions.

As for troops' views, Zogby recently polled (http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1075) them about a variety of questions.

I sure would have liked Zogby to ask WHAT Saddam's role in the 9-11 attacks was, since so many (85%)think they are there as retaliation for it.

Most insurgents are home grown?

Got a link for that claim? I've heard various numbers but the latest I heard was that most attacks vs the US were not homegrown insurgents at all.

Fandros

I sure would have liked Zogby to ask WHAT Saddam's role in the 9-11 attacks was, since so many (85%)think they are there as retaliation for it.
Yeah, I noted that, too. I'm wondering -- however the question was asked -- if those respondents answered to, "What was our original reason for the invasion?" or something similar.
Most insurgents are home grown?

Got a link for that claim?
A few (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/16/AR2005111602519_pf.html) links (http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0923/dailyUpdate.html) on this (http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051201/NEWS28/51201002) (the last references statements by Bush, do a find on "most"). Most are Sunnis threatened with a minority position in any new regime, but even many Shiites see our forces as "the Occupiers" and want us out. Foreign elements might be more dedicated to blowing themselves up in their attacks -- I don't know one way or the other -- but they are a significant minority (4-10% of the insurgency in most articles I've read).

So because a minority who formerly held the power seeks to weaken us by threatening Jihad. Whenever a minority seeks to hold the majority hostage by threat of force, it is wrong.
Incidentally, when this was the case in South Africa, the Minority holding the power over the Majority, it was universally considered a bad thing. I never heard anyone say, "Wow, that South Africa sure has things under control." All I ever heard was Apartheid, and how it was a bad thing.
Eventually, South Africa was restored to Majority rule, but you wouldn't want to be a white person living there now.
So why is it such a big deal in Iraq? Why is the minority holding power over the majority a good thing in 1 country, but a bad thing in another?
Or is it the fact that white people were involved, and that somehow makes it worse?

Ya know what Iraq is?

Iraq is Alex in "A Clockwork Orange". What was before was really bad and evil, but what we have now is a country incapable of providing for its own defense and its well being. It will be torn apart on the inside as well as from without. The people of the United States arent going tolerate a permanent US presence in Iraq any more than the people of Iraq will.
You can put lipstick on the proverbial pig, but its still a pig, and along those lines, a conquering army can do all sorts of great things for the people, but in the the end it is to many of the people of that country still a conquering army, occupying their nation. Look at the Romans. They would come to a place, conquer it, do some pretty good things for the people there, but still continously have to put down rebellion after rebellion. The people of Rome were dumbfounded, incredulous that after bringing civilization and peace to an area, the people still wanted to kill them.

Freedom can never be a gift, it has to be earned. And as long as our army is there holding everything together, the democracy is not theirs, it is ours, being paid for with American blood. Not one, NOT ONE, Iraqi unit is capable of acting without US support. Almost 3 years later, that speaks volumes.

The bottom line is that Iraq is a area where 3 distinct ethnicities were artifically forced to live with another. Now the natural feelings of nationalism are being exacerbated by other area powers who want to see a split up Iraq, easily dominated and marginalized.

So why is it such a big deal in Iraq? Why is the minority holding power over the majority a good thing in 1 country, but a bad thing in another?

Where has anyone said that it was "good?" There are a lot of shades of gray within the black & white picture you seem to be attempting to paint. A more apt comparison would be "undesirable state of chaos" vs. "undesirable state of order."

Or maybe Saddam's status as "an ally then" vs "not an ally now." Many of our political allies in the Middle East don't exactly enjoy popular support.

Also, it's less about who holds power than what is done with that power. A minority can succeed in rule if it takes into account the majority (and vice versa -- consider the Bill of Rights).

Freedom can never be a gift, it has to be earned. And as long as our army is there holding everything together, the democracy is not theirs, it is ours, being paid for with American blood. Not one, NOT ONE, Iraqi unit is capable of acting without US support. Almost 3 years later, that speaks volumes.Apparently you're still fixated on a piece of mosaic.

http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060228/NEWS06/602280431/1012
"That crisis is over," U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad declared.

"I think the country came to the brink of a civil war, but the Iraqis decided that they didn't want to go down that path and came together," the ambassador told CNN. "Clearly, the terrorists who plotted that attack wanted to provoke a civil war. It looked quite dangerous in the initial 48 hours, but I believe that the Iraqis decided to come together."
...
The Defense Ministry said Iraqi security forces have killed 35 insurgents and arrested 487 in raids across the country since the bombing Wednesday of the revered Shiite shrine in Samarra.http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-boot1mar01,1,6928789.column?coll=la-util-opinion-commentary
Lt. Col. Thomas Fisher, who commands the Army battalion stationed in Baqubah, a city of 450,000, was forced to deal with the fallout. I spent a day riding in his armored Humvee as he moved around town trying to figure out what was going on (Why were the 47 men killed?) and how he should respond (Should he step up his raids or let Iraqi security forces step forward?).

Trying to calm things, Fisher sought to dispel bizarre rumors that a U.S. bomb, not explosives planted by terrorists, had blown up the Samarra mosque. He told his soldiers not to get in the way of demonstrations but to stand by in case they turned violent. (They didn't.) Then he drove to the heavily barricaded government center to confer with the mayor about what he could do as a "good neighbor" to assist the Iraqis. The answer was that the locals had everything under control.

Given the growing competence of Iraqi security forces, this may not have been sheer bravado. As we drove through town, I saw Iraqi army and police checkpoints everywhere. Not only are more security personnel in the field, but they are also not running away from a fight, as they did in 2004. Fisher told me that when insurgents recently attacked a police checkpoint, the cops chased them down and arrested them. This combination of toughness (withstanding attack) and restraint (bringing back the attackers alive) augurs well for the future of Iraq.

Nor is this an isolated example. A few days later, while visiting the Green Zone in Baghdad, I was briefed on the progress being made in standing up Iraqi forces. A year ago, only three Iraqi battalions controlled their own "battle- space." Today, the total is up to 40 battalions and counting. Those units have achieved impressive results in some rough neighborhoods.http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/64407.htm
The reporting out of Baghdad continues to be hysterical and dishonest. There is no civil war in the streets. None. Period.

Terrorism, yes. Civil war, no. Clear enough?

Yesterday, I crisscrossed Baghdad, visiting communities on both banks of the Tigris and logging at least 25 miles on the streets. With the weekend curfew lifted, I saw traffic jams, booming business — and everyday life in abundance.

Yes, there were bombings yesterday. The terrorists won't give up on their dream of sectional strife, and know they can count on allies in the media as long as they keep the images of carnage coming. They'll keep on bombing. But Baghdad isn't London during the Blitz, and certainly not New York on 9/11.
...
You are being lied to. By elements in the media determined that Iraq must fail.
The media wanted Iraq's Tet Offensive and didn't get it, though it damned near succeeded. This has been a HUGE victory for Iraq.

I do and don't agree with your main point here L2.

Yes, we cannot force freedom on them. It simply won't stick.

But for every story you hear/see on the news about attacks and hate foisted upon us over there you'll find 10's of stories of gratitude and respect from those on the ground.

Which groundswell grassroot emotional effort will pay off in the long run? I'm not sure myself.

But you only win by doing, you never help by sitting back and wondering.

Fandros

"That crisis is over," U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad declared.
I'm glad the administration's ambassador thinks so, but truth is the shrine bombing and its aftermath were a bubble point during a crisis already in progress. The bubble hasn't burst, which is a good thing, but the tension level and violence have risen a notch.
A year ago, only three Iraqi battalions controlled their own "battle- space." Today, the total is up to 40 battalions and counting. Those units have achieved impressive results in some rough neighborhoods.
Just last week the Pentagon downgraded (http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/02/24/iraq.security/index.html?section=cnn_topstories) the one Iraqi battalion held up as an independent fighting force.

I'm glad the Post's op-ed writer didn't run into any hazards during his jaunt through Baghdad, but there are still bombs (http://www.kentucky.com/mld/kentucky/news/special_packages/iraq/13993268.htm) going off there, and elsewhere in the country. Is it "civil war?" Probably depends on how your definition applies to a country like Iraq. At the very least, however, "sectarian violence" and "insurgency" are still day to day threats nearly three years after "Mission Accomplished."

I think what we have here is a failure to see the other's point of view.
Liberals see things in an all or nothing point of view. Even if 1 improvised munition goes off in Iraq, it's a civil war. Either you are living in peace (i.e. the government taking care of you from cradle to grave), or you are living in a state of civil war. Nevermind that it's only 3 provinces out of 18 that are where the bombings, kidnappings and fighting is occuring.
Conservatives believe in looking at how far things have come since we started this war.
Saddam Hussein is no longer in power. His sons cano no longer rape women, nor torture Iraqi citizens. His Generals are scattered across the countryside, no longer living the life of luxury they enjoyed under his rule.
I agree, you cannot force freedom onto anyone, they have to want it for themselves. But they also have to know that freedom exists. You can show them what it is like not to have an egotistical sadist as a leader, and give them a fighting chance against thier neighbors that want so desprately for this whole thing to come crashing down.

I have always considered myself a conservative, but I will be damned if that means I have to label myself as Sixee/Morning Radio talk-show hosts want; it is these attempts to apply these narrow definitions to wide ranges of people that has helped polarize the country on so many issues.

On the issue of Iraq and Civil War, it is obvious that there is going to continue to be Sunni-Shiite conflict, whether as a result of centuries old conflicts or from Saddam's reign or from Syrian/Jordanian/Iranian/Saudi instigation. While they have made great progress in redeveloping and training an army, at this time without us there to provide support they are not going to be able to exert sufficient control of the population to avert an escalation, should it come to that.

Will there be a Civil War? Well, I look at Ireland, and the former Yugoslavia, and I figure the peoples of the region being prodded by their neighbors and some of their religious leaders and the violence which has become a part of daily life now have a very slim chance of not ending up with increasing sectarian violence. And, realizing the culture and history of these people, it is not hard to believe they would be able to keep somewhat of a lid on things until we are no longer there to step in, and then all hell will break loose. There seems to be a stronger sense of "I am Sunni/Shiite/Kurd" than of "I am Iraqi", and there are too many sources that would exploit this for their own ends.

Liberals see things in an all or nothing point of view.
Heh, please, the black or white pov is a hallmark of conservative thought (notice that you've just presented an "all or nothing" pov concerning liberals and conservatives). That said, when one wants to support a point of view, it's a common tactic to point out this or that as incontrovertible proof that one's pov is correct.
Even if 1 improvised munition goes off in Iraq, it's a civil war.
Actually, I've seen very few people claim Iraq is in civil war, and if they do they are clear to state it's a "different kind" of civil war than armies marching head to head (in the same way that the "war on terror" is oft referred to as a different kind of war). Interesting that you say liberals have the all or nothing pov but then add "Either you are living in peace (i.e. the government taking care of you from cradle to grave)..."
Conservatives believe in looking at how far things have come since we started this war.
Saddam Hussein is no longer in power. His sons cano no longer rape women, nor torture Iraqi citizens. His Generals are scattered across the countryside, no longer living the life of luxury they enjoyed under his rule.
All these things are very nice. However, the rosy picture painted by the administration before the war has unfolded in a manner almost entirely its opposite; kidnappings, torture, and the killing of innocents is still rampant; and many necessities have fallen below pre-war conditions. It's easy to cry, "But we deposed Saddam!" when that was never really in question. If we went in, he was going to lose.
I agree, you cannot force freedom onto anyone, they have to want it for themselves. But they also have to know that freedom exists. You can show them what it is like not to have an egotistical sadist as a leader, and give them a fighting chance against thier neighbors that want so desprately for this whole thing to come crashing down.
I agree to a point, but when Western ideals of freedom are utterly alien to a culture, the expectation that they shall suddenly embrace liberal democracy is unwarranted. This is worse in the case of Iraq -- a country comprised of three disparate peoples (and numerous tribes) cobbled together by foreign powers.

So you agree, they have to be exposed to the idea before they can come to embrace it.
So what should we have done? Kidnapped them and brought them to America, Land of the Free, Home of The Brave to live for a certain amount of time, then released them back to thier homeland and hope that the seeds of Democracy would somehow germinate in the Middle East?
I doubt that scenario would be feasible. It's better to give them a chance at thier own.
Another thing to consider is that for most of thier lives, people in the Middle East have been told that America is a land of Evil.
When we say "Freedom", they hear "Evil", because look at who our administration has supported for so long? Israel has long been seen as an advasary by them. Why the heck the United Nations came up with this plan to give Israel back to the Jews is a mystery to me. I mean I understand the guilt after the Holocaust, but who knew that making the Arabs hold to the promise of 1 of thier kings would cause so much trouble?

I think what we have here is a failure to see the other's point of view.
No, what we have here is a failure to see a plan, or WMDs, or any accountability, or reality. Points of view we have plenty.

Liberals see things in an all or nothing point of view.
Someday you'll realize the irony of that statement, and youll be very sad.

Even if 1 improvised munition goes off in Iraq, it's a civil war.
500 Iraqis have died in sectarian clashes since feb 22.
Holy Fuck, Oliver Stone has nothing on you.. He only had a magic bullet that shot 2 men. You, You crazy son of a bitch, have a magic IED that has managed to kill 500 people and counting in a week. I applaud your flexible grasp of reality if nothing else.

Either you are living in peace (i.e. the government taking care of you from cradle to grave), or you are living in a state of civil war.
omgwtfHobbes.
So basically, anything less than Antietam is an acceptable level of random violence, so long as the government isnt giving no free cheese to welfare mommas! Cause THEN we need to be upset.

Nevermind that it's only 3 provinces out of 18 that are where the bombings, kidnappings and fighting is occuring.

Iraqis we can fight all night
But that ain’t getting us nowhere
I told you everything I possibly can
There’s nothing left inside of here
And maybe you can cry all night
But that’ll never change the way that I feel
The IEDs are really piling up outside
I wish you wouldn’t make me leave here

I poured it on and I poured it out
I tried to show you just how much I care
I’m tired of words and I’m too hoarse to shout
But you’ve been cold to me so long
I’m crying icicles instead of tears

And all I can do is keep on telling you
I want you
I need you
But -- there ain’t no way I’m ever gonna love you
Now don’t be sad
’cause three out of Eighteeen ain’t bad
Now don’t be sad
’cause three out of Eighteen ain’t bad

Saddam Hussein is no longer in power.
yay!

His sons cano no longer rape women, nor torture Iraqi citizens.
Hurrah!

His Generals are scattered across the countryside, no longer living the life of luxury they enjoyed under his rule.
Sure, they may be killing Americans, Im just glad they no longer have access to the Jacuzzi.

I agree, you cannot force freedom onto anyone, they have to want it for themselves.
Yes, they have to want you to force it on them.

But they also have to know that freedom exists.
Cable for all Iraqis! Ok lets go home.

You can show them what it is like not to have an egotistical sadist as a leader,
yes, we make those people our Vice Presidents apparently.

and give them a fighting chance against thier neighbors that want so desprately for this whole thing to come crashing down.
Many of them want the whole thing to come crashing down. Independant States for all!

No, what we have here is a failure to see a plan, or WMDs, or any accountability, or reality. Points of view we have plenty.

Bush Bashers of the world, UNITE! Remember, Just because a legion of Democrats have said the same things that GW Bush was saying, dosen't mean we have to hold them accountable for it. After all, all that matters is Bashing Bush!!!

Someday you'll realize the irony of that statement, and youll be very sad.

Not at all. I know if I want to excercise my freedom of speech to show my point of view about a group of people based on the color of thier skin or thier sexual preference, I'm a racist or a homophobe. Unless I'm bashing white men, then it's acceptable.

500 Iraqis have died in sectarian clashes since feb 22.
Holy Fuck, Oliver Stone has nothing on you.. He only had a magic bullet that shot 2 men. You, You crazy son of a bitch, have a magic IED that has managed to kill 500 people and counting in a week. I applaud your flexible grasp of reality if nothing else.

I feel badly for these people, and really, there shouldn't be any joke making at their expense. These people should stop helping the insurgents slaughtering them.

omgwtfHobbes.
So basically, anything less than Antietam is an acceptable level of random violence, so long as the government isnt giving no free cheese to welfare mommas! Cause THEN we need to be upset.

Actually, Free cheese should be handed out by Churches, not the Government.

Iraqis we can fight all night
But that ain’t getting us nowhere
I told you everything I possibly can
There’s nothing left inside of here
And maybe you can cry all night
But that’ll never change the way that I feel
The IEDs are really piling up outside
I wish you wouldn’t make me leave here

I poured it on and I poured it out
I tried to show you just how much I care
I’m tired of words and I’m too hoarse to shout
But you’ve been cold to me so long
I’m crying icicles instead of tears

And all I can do is keep on telling you
I want you
I need you
But -- there ain’t no way I’m ever gonna love you
Now don’t be sad
’cause three out of Eighteeen ain’t bad
Now don’t be sad
’cause three out of Eighteen ain’t bad

Nice bit of Poetry there Meatloaf.

yay!

Glad you agree.

Hurrah!!

Glad again.

Sure, they may be killing Americans, Im just glad they no longer have access to the Jacuzzi.

Whatever. You know they are not happy with the state of affairs. They have the best army in the world out to kill them.

Yes, they have to want you to force it on them.

Typical Liberal play on words.

Cable for all Iraqis! Ok lets go home.

*Sigh*

yes, we make those people our Vice Presidents apparently.

Yeah, Al Gore sure was a meanie

Many of them want the whole thing to come crashing down. Independant States for all!

Actually they just want to see the U.S. fail miserably. Now who else would love to see the current administration fail in this mission? Certainly not the Conservatives.
Remember the enemy of my enemy is my friend. If Liberals and the Islamo-Facists both want the same thing, how long do you think it will be before some left-wing whacko gets it in his head to help some sort of attack on the US all in the name of making G.W. look bad?

So you agree, they have to be exposed to the idea before they can come to embrace it.
So what should we have done? Kidnapped them and brought them to America, Land of the Free, Home of The Brave to live for a certain amount of time, then released them back to thier homeland and hope that the seeds of Democracy would somehow germinate in the Middle East?
I doubt that scenario would be feasible. It's better to give them a chance at thier own.
Forgo the kidnapping aspect, and such a program becomes a small, but feasible step in inciting a push for change. Encouraging the production of an information infrastructure that exposes Iraqis to notions of "freedom" (or, at least, Western political philosophy) is another feasible step; blowing it up strikes me as counterproductive. The chaos of post-invasion encourages radicalism, factionalism, sectarianism and so on -- not the best situation for the dissemination of liberal political thought. We might also try to provide a good example of "freedom;" Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, rendition and the like aren't going to win Middle Eastern hearts and minds.
When we say "Freedom", they hear "Evil", because look at who our administration has supported for so long?
Saddam?
Typical Liberal play on words.
Typical painting with a broad and hypocritical brush, but in keeping with the even more typical "omg liberals!" rhetoric.

Forgo the kidnapping aspect, and such a program becomes a small, but feasible step in inciting a push for change. Encouraging the production of an information infrastructure that exposes Iraqis to notions of "freedom" (or, at least, Western political philosophy) is another feasible step; blowing it up strikes me as counterproductive. The chaos of post-invasion encourages radicalism, factionalism, sectarianism and so on -- not the best situation for the dissemination of liberal political thought. We might also try to provide a good example of "freedom;" Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, rendition and the like aren't going to win Middle Eastern hearts and minds.
.

We've had such a program in place for years Thor. It's called our college system. You'll find that it's brewing a great set of college educated anti-Americans who study here then go home to build smarter bombs.

One has to wonder with the state of our Colleges today , hardleft as many claim they are, aren't helping forment even more hatred of us abroad.

Ask that Colorado prof who just lost his job, ranting as he was, about how his previous job allowed him to build his own agenda.

Fandros

Speaking of our college system Fan, maybe Sixee can get hired to teach a grad course on Self-Marginalization. Lord knows with each of his posts I have less respect for his (or hers) ability to reason and present a thought out argument, since it consistently comes across as regurgitated Fox News and Rush Limbaugh diatribes.

And a clue for Sixee, not all Bush bashers are Democrats. Try paying attention to current events some time. Bush is the poster child for The Peter Principle, and more and more folks are seeing it and distancing themselves from him. He lied to the nation about his compassionate conservatism, he lied to the party about his dedication to Republican ideals (just look at the spiraling deficit and spending he has signed off on), and he has lied to the troops he sends off to war (he has only grudgingly given any increases to vets and active military in terms of pay and benefits).

And that was a nice reworking of Two Out Of Three Ain't Bad, L2. I think the reference to Batboy in another thread might have provoked memories of Bat Out Of Hell, heh.

We've had such a program in place for years Thor. It's called our college system. You'll find that it's brewing a great set of college educated anti-Americans who study here then go home to build smarter bombs.

One has to wonder with the state of our Colleges today , hardleft as many claim they are, aren't helping forment even more hatred of us abroad.

Ask that Colorado prof who just lost his job, ranting as he was, about how his previous job allowed him to build his own agenda.

I'm not sure what colleges claim to be hard left (usually that's a claim made by the hard right), but I doubt they're teaching anything more hate-inducing than the provocating issues mentioned in the quoted text from my post. Also, while there are a few who receive a Western education then come to oppose us, they are very few compared to the full scale of international exchange, and they comprise a very small segment of terrorists. I think it's reaching to claim that exposure to our college system is actually anti-thetical to inculcation of Western political philosophy.

I think the only people paying any attention to Ward Churchill are the conservatives who want to keep attention on him. Claiming that he's somehow emblematic of mainstream liberal thought is like claiming Fred Phelps represents Christianity (given the anti-gay rancor of the influential far right, I'd say the latter is even more representative, but the point stands).

You know, the sad part is I don't like Rush Limbaug, and I don't watch Fox News. These are my own thoughts, believe it or not. They are born of observing people and understanding that a Conservative viewpoint is a better 1 to have in a time of war, rather than a Liberal 1.
A Liberal viewpoint is a great 1 to have when you are not at war.
It's the Pie in the sky ideal of understanding another's viewpoints when you have a disagreement.
Here's the botom line: There is a group of people that don't care if you understand them or not. Because they brand you as Infidels, you are fit for Conversion, slavery by them, death, or all three.
The reason they hate you and want to do these things is because you do not spout "Allah is the only God, and Mohammad is his Prophet", and Bow to Mecca 5 times a day.
I have been to the Middle East. I know these people, and I have witnessed first hand what they are capable of. When I was there in the early 90's, and saw what I did, pales in compairson to what these soldiers are having to endure.
I'm not a Bush lover (I prefer shaven to be honest :) ), but I believe in supporting the Commander in Chief and our troops, and not being devisive during a time of war.
Make no mistake, this is a war. Just as real as the World Wars of the past. Some like Neil Boortz are calling it World War III. He may not be too far off the mark.
The question is, which side are you on? the side that wants to second guess the President on every decision he makes, just because he wasn't your choice for President? Second guessing in a time of war gets people killed, ask any soldier.
I just wonder what the previous World Wars would have been like if we had the Devisiveness we do now. Would California be a Japanese colony? Would the East Coast have a distinctive German Accent?

I'm not a Bush lover (I prefer shaven to be honest :) ), but I believe in supporting the Commander in Chief and our troops, and not being devisive during a time of war.
Make no mistake, this is a war. Just as real as the World Wars of the past. Some like Neil Boortz are calling it World War III. He may not be too far off the mark.
One can support the troops without supporting the President's decisions or use of the troops. This conflation of anti Bush policies with anti-troops is one of the worst rhetorical devices of the right and its policy of divisiveness.

I've seen it called WWV, but whatever.
The question is, which side are you on? the side that wants to second guess the President on every decision he makes, just because he wasn't your choice for President? Second guessing in a time of war gets people killed, ask any soldier.
The last line of this paragraph blows the top off an irony meter already burdened by Sixee's previous posts.

You know, the sad part is I don't like Rush Limbaug, and I don't watch Fox News. These are my own thoughts, believe it or not. They are born of observing people and understanding that a Conservative viewpoint is a better 1 to have in a time of war, rather than a Liberal 1.
A Liberal viewpoint is a great 1 to have when you are not at war.
It's the Pie in the sky ideal of understanding another's viewpoints when you have a disagreement.
Here's the botom line: There is a group of people that don't care if you understand them or not. Because they brand you as Infidels, you are fit for Conversion, slavery by them, death, or all three.
The reason they hate you and want to do these things is because you do not spout "Allah is the only God, and Mohammad is his Prophet", and Bow to Mecca 5 times a day.
I have been to the Middle East. I know these people, and I have witnessed first hand what they are capable of. When I was there in the early 90's, and saw what I did, pales in compairson to what these soldiers are having to endure.
I'm not a Bush lover (I prefer shaven to be honest :) ), but I believe in supporting the Commander in Chief and our troops, and not being devisive during a time of war.
Make no mistake, this is a war. Just as real as the World Wars of the past. Some like Neil Boortz are calling it World War III. He may not be too far off the mark.
The question is, which side are you on? the side that wants to second guess the President on every decision he makes, just because he wasn't your choice for President? Second guessing in a time of war gets people killed, ask any soldier.
I just wonder what the previous World Wars would have been like if we had the Devisiveness we do now. Would California be a Japanese colony? Would the East Coast have a distinctive German Accent?


You should go back and look at history if you think that it was just Vietnam and Iraq that had opposition in this country or had issues with recruiting "goals" per say.

Korea was not a popular war especially after McArthur had pushed to the Yalu river which was one of the reasons the Chinese got involved. That caused a very serious reaction in this country and also created a division along the lines of support for McArthur or support for Truman. It was not long after that the war became a stalemate. This was not in the least a popular thing in the US. That time also saw the McCarthy era which further caused divisions.

There were also issues in WWII as an example when the Marines took Tarawa was the first time that US war dead were shown in the news. This caused a considerable drop in recruitment.

Vietnam brought the actions of our government to light, it caused a questioning of motivation, tactics and ethics. The questioning was rightful and handed us the answer that our involvement had been a misjudgement by those in charge. (misjudgement is a nice way of saying fuck up)

But even to compare, other than it involves killing, general destruction etc.., the Iraq war to WWII or Korea is bordering on comparing apples to chevy malibus.

You say it is better to have a conservative point when war is on. Which version of conservative? Pat Robertson conservative? Dick Cheney conservative? William Buckley conservative? or .... conservative? There is a huge difference in all of their definitions of conservative just as their is a difference in liberals.

You say the question is which side are you on? The side which second guesses everything the president does. Or?

It is not "liberal" to dislike the actions that have taken place which brought us to this. It is simply American.

I would think the lack of second guessing by the Bush administration in the case of Iraq is what has gotten soldiers killed. They guessed we would be welcomed with open arms..we werent...second guessing might have foreseen that as it most likely would have foreseen other issues that have boiled to the surface.

You say any soldier knows that second guessing will get you killed in time of war. Go fight a war and come back and re-think that statement.


One can blindly follow and buy the rhetoric that questioning Bush is tantamount to lack of support for our troops. I don't see any significant lack of support for our troops by those classified as liberals or the majority middle. We want nothing more than the safety of the men and women who serveand find it quite dispariging that they have possibly been placed in harms way due to either poor or manipulated intelligence which either way shows they were placed in the situation for the wrong reasons.

I have fought in a war, but nothing like this 1. I did what I was ordered to do, and I lived.
Now a lot of people say the 1st Gulf war wasn't a real war, but people did get killed. Granted, most of them were Iraqi soldiers, but we did lose some American troops too.
There have been many statements to the fact that Kwuait had been "angle drilling" across it's borders into the Iraqi oil reserves, and this was the reason Saddam Hussein attacked them.
Now some might say that this was "manipulating intelligence" because if it were true, we were fighting for the wrong reasons.
Vietnam was the turning point in American history. Nothing went on in that conflict, that doesn't happen in any other conflict, save, that the American people got to see it in thier living room every night, and they didn't like what they saw along with people starting to spit on returning soldiers and calling them baby killers.
They was a conflict that was winable, but because support dropped for it at home, we lost it.
We are doomed to repeat history if we are not careful.
Second guessing might have won us a mushroom cloud/choking cloud/Smallpox cloud too. If you stop to think about the feeling in the country at the time, you'll see that everyone was on alert for the next attack.
I just think Bush is a medocre President thrown into Extraordinary circumstances. He overreacted to the situation, but with good cause. Id rather have that than a WMD attack any day of the week.

I have fought in a war, but nothing like this 1. I did what I was ordered to do, and I lived.
Now a lot of people say the 1st Gulf war wasn't a real war, but people did get killed. Granted, most of them were Iraqi soldiers, but we did lose some American troops too.
There have been many statements to the fact that Kwuait had been "angle drilling" across it's borders into the Iraqi oil reserves, and this was the reason Saddam Hussein attacked them.
Now some might say that this was "manipulating intelligence" because if it were true, we were fighting for the wrong reasons.
Vietnam was the turning point in American history. Nothing went on in that conflict, that doesn't happen in any other conflict, save, that the American people got to see it in thier living room every night, and they didn't like what they saw along with people starting to spit on returning soldiers and calling them baby killers.
They was a conflict that was winable, but because support dropped for it at home, we lost it.
We are doomed to repeat history if we are not careful.
Second guessing might have won us a mushroom cloud/choking cloud/Smallpox cloud too. If you stop to think about the feeling in the country at the time, you'll see that everyone was on alert for the next attack.
I just think Bush is a medocre President thrown into Extraordinary circumstances. He overreacted to the situation, but with good cause. Id rather have that than a WMD attack any day of the week.


The situation goes far beyond supporting the party line, save that for the Chinese, its not becoming of an American.

Vietnam was not a winnable war as it was fought. It might possibly had been won had there been second guessing as to our strategy. The strategy behind it was doomed to failure. Support wained for the war as the soldiers themselves saw the ridiculous strategies that were used. Things like "Hamburger Hill" were real, they actually happened. Taking ground only to give it up because some politician or general deemed it no longer necessary to hold. Khe Sahn is another good example of young men dieing for no good reason other than to show we could withstand and resupply troops under siege. There are many more valid examples of retarded reasoning by those in charge.

There were many instances of soldiers returning from Vietnam being branded as "baby" killers. There were also many instances in Vietnam that "babies" were killed, most likely accidently or because they were used as shields by the VC. But the fact is they were killed and although one cannot validly judge what was going on in the mind of a 19 year old infantryman on patrol, Mai Lai still happened.

There are similiar things in Iraq. Things like "Bridge that insurgents use is bombed by US Airforce". To what effect? Do you think that there is a bunch of insurgents standing around with no place to attack now that this bridge is gone? That is a repeat of the ridiculous strategies of Vietnam rearing their heads once again.

The situation in Iraq is ultimately militarily untenable. It was obvious from the start and will be obvious for years to come.

So because a situation seems unwinnable, we shouldn't try? How many people said that when Roosevelt said, Ok time to take down Emperor Hirohito after Pearl Harbor?
I agree, we lost a lot of potential support when we moved into this phase with Iraq. But sometimes it's not about doing the popular thing, but doing the right thing.
You only know when something is the right thing to do after the fact. Hindsight is 20/20.
Which party are you referring to? I'm eager to hear what party you think it is that I support.

So because a situation seems unwinnable, we shouldn't try? How many people said that when Roosevelt said, Ok time to take down Emperor Hirohito after Pearl Harbor?
I agree, we lost a lot of potential support when we moved into this phase with Iraq. But sometimes it's not about doing the popular thing, but doing the right thing.
You only know when something is the right thing to do after the fact. Hindsight is 20/20.
Which party are you referring to? I'm eager to hear what party you think it is that I support.


Again you are comparing WWII to the war in Iraq. We were not attacked by Iraq. The Pearl Harbor in this was initiated by Bin Laden who was in Afghanistan.

You only know when something is the right thing to do after the fact. Hindsight is 20/20.

Hindsight is 20/20 but I disagree with your other point. Have you seen anyone really oppose the invasion of Afghanistan as being the wrong thing to do? Was our reasoning for going there steeped in "faulty" or cherry picked intelligence?

The only real opposition I've seen is that we let Bin Laden slip through in Tora Bora.

I really dont care what your political affiliation is, it makes no difference to me.

I am curious. Would doing the right thing have anything to do with fulfilling our pledge to Afghanistan after invading them? We pledged $4.68 billion dollars for humanitarian and reconstruction activities, but have only disbursed $1.42 so far. Maybe if we had not splurged all that money on a war unrelated to our being attacked on 9-11, we could have honored our commitment. We might even have made more of a substantial dent if we had not given tax breaks to the rich.

But to be fair, the European Commision pledged $1.53 billion and has only delivered $386 million so far.

The point is, this administration makes grandiose gestures and promises, but does not deliver. If they had entered Iraq with a fully developed plan for both removing Saddam AND providing a framework for the aftermath, we might not be spending our time on these threads today.

Of course, there are still three years in which Bush may actually learn to listen to his advisors.:rolleyes:

Or perhaps we held up part of the monies promised because we discovered the funds were being misused...

Fandros

It would be nice to hear how a Liberal would have done things differently, rather than tearing down the current administration for what it's attempting to do.
Incidentally, Saddam did have ties to terrorists. There were several training camps found in Iraq, which some of the illegal combatants who were captured in Afghanistan have claimed to have been trained at.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/11/8/80447.shtml

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A32695-2002Oct28?language=printer

Abu Musab Zarqawi: A Jordanian, Zarqawi has traveled extensively in the Arab world since the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, including going to Baghdad for medical treatment after losing a leg.
How would he go to Baghdad without Saddam knowing? Saddam knew everything that was happening in his country.
While Iraq may not have had a had in launching the Sept. 11 attacks, Saddam was certainly sympathetic to thier cause. So far as to provide logistics support for them.
In WWII the Italians did not attack Pearl Harbor, nor did they participate in D-Day, but that were sympathetic to the Nazi and Japanese point of view.
Think of Saddam as a latter day Mussolini, and you'll get the idea.

What a competent person might have done (liberal or conservative doesn't matter, but continue your chanting if you want) is complete the job in Afghanistan, capture or kill bin Laden, and allow stabilization. Our initial successes there are gradually backsliding. We need to reinforce that country's redevelopment.

As for Zarqawi, a President devoted to the "war on terror" might have gone after him in the pre-war period with one of the three plans of attack the military gave him, instead of bypassing the opportunity because killing an actual terrorist might weaken support for going into Iraq.

Strange that, if Zarqawi was such a buddy of Saddam, he lived in the rather vulnerable northern no-fly zone rather than in Baghdad.

What a competent person might have done (liberal or conservative doesn't matter, but continue your chanting if you want) is complete the job in Afghanistan, capture or kill bin Laden, and allow stabilization. Our initial successes there are gradually backsliding. We need to reinforce that country's redevelopment.

As for Zarqawi, a President devoted to the "war on terror" might have gone after him in the pre-war period with one of the three plans of attack the military gave him, instead of bypassing the opportunity because killing an actual terrorist might weaken support for going into Iraq.

Strange that, if Zarqawi was such a buddy of Saddam, he lived in the rather vulnerable northern no-fly zone rather than in Baghdad.

Unbelievable. Do you actually pay attention to what you are writing on the screen?
While I agree with your assessment of Afghanistan, your innane remark about Zarqawi flabbergasts me.
HE WAS IN IRAQ!!! SADDAM KNEW ABOUT EVERYONE COMING IN OR OUT!
I'm not sure how much clearer I can make it.
Saddam knew he was in his country. This means there must have been some sort of permission given for him to seek medical treatment there. Sounds like aiding and abetting a known terrorist to me.
If Saddam wasn't involved, why didn't he hand Zarqawi over to the US? Or tell him, "Hey bud, sorry about your leg, but you'll have to go somewhere else for treatment."
I mean refusing to see this is like refusing to acknowledge that Iran, a country rich in hydrocarbons, is developing nuclear power not for peaceful, cheaper energy alternatives, and not to bake a Nuke, so they can play with the "big boys".

I dont think Sixee knows what the No Fly Zone was.

SADDAM KNEW ABOUT EVERYONE COMING IN OR OUT!
This is an assumption. And poor one. You have no evidence to back this up. Saddam had a very active resistance that he struggled to put down since the Iranian Revolution. He was not able to operate or go in the northern area of his own country which was in complete control of the Kurdish Resistance.

Saddam was so amazingly informed, probably because he was getting his intel from people like:
http://www.papillonsartpalace.com/IRAQI_MINISTER_JPG_OF_INFORMATION_BAGHDAD_BOB.jpg

Al-Queda is NO WHERE NEAR Baghdad!

L2?

I thought Al-qeyda was more of a group of folks rather than a location.

They've been reported in many many many locales, including Iraq.

Fandros

You missed it Fan...

He was quoting Bob there, like when he said "The US forces are no where near Baghdad"...when they were actually rolling into the city.

Al-Queda is NO WHERE NEAR Baghdad!

I think you meant to say Al-Queda ARE NO WHERE NEAR Baghdad.

I know what the no-fly zones were, I helped to enforce the Northern 1 after the 1st Gulf War ended.

You are right, Saddam was not well liked in his own country. People there wanted him dead for the things he did to thier families.
So you think he would let some guy he doesn't know come get medical attention in Baghdad and not know about it?
I've seen Saddam's handiwork up close and personal, When we would fly into Northern Iraq and land in a small village that was 10 miles form the border, the kids would come out and see us.
There was a little girl and a very small little boy in the back of the group that would never come up and say hello.
We were fortunate to have 1 of the Kurdish kids there that spoke pretty good English.
When I asked him about the little girl and boy, he told me her parents were dead, killed by Saddam's troops when the Kurds had taken to the streets in an uprising.
I know about Saddam Hussein, and the man deserves to die. He is a VERY bad man

Ok, I hate to be a grammar nazi Sixee, but if you are going to correct L2's grammar, then you should use correct grammar yourself. If you are going to correct his "is" to "are," then you should use "one" instead of "1." You aren't supposed to use the number version of any number one to ten.

I wasn't being a Grammer Nazi, I was pointing out that in that phrase when you use is rather than are, you are indicating an inanimate object, such as a place, rather than a group of people.
That's where the confusion about Al-Quada being a place rather than a group of people.

I stand abashed and apologetic to muh bruddah L2!

Fandros

Well, Sixee has pretty much convinced me now to just skip past his posts, as they continue to be the same silly drivel time after time.

First, asking what a Liberal would have done differently only exposes your own tunnel vision, Sixee. The issue is Bush and his policies. I am sure we can all speculate on how McCain, Dole, Edwards, Kerry, Gore, etc. might have done things differently, but that is to discuss assumptions.

Second, you continue to say Saddam was aware of everything and everyone within his borders. If Iraq was the size of the District of Columbia, I might give some consideration to allowing you the benefit of the doubt; unfortunately, the sheer size of Iraq precludes anyone being able to have that kind of total all encompassing knowledge, and the fact that Saddam was limited in his access to the NO-Fly zones only further knocks your statement to the mat.

Sixee reminds me of a guy I met in Basic Training who was afraid to sit on the toilet for more than a few minutes. Why, you ask? His mother had told him at a young age (apparently to keep him from spending too much time in the bathroom) that sitting on the toilet for too long could make your insides fall out. He believed this still at 18 years of age, because his mother told him and mothers are always right.

Whoever is feeding Sixee his ideas must be an awfully trustworthy person, but maybe if we keep trying to shed some light on reality he will come along eventually and see there is really more than black or white, liberal or conservative, us or them. A lot more........

Hmm, well I guess that exposes you for who you are.
Somehow you cannot concieve that a person thinks this way on thier own.
Someone must be "feeding" me this information.
Jeesh, so who feeds you your ideas? I'm eager to find out, no....really...

'Now a lot of people say the 1st Gulf war wasn't a real war, but people did get killed. Granted, most of them were Iraqi soldiers

- For those, like myself, who haven't been that active lately, is this Sixee twat a bit of a Yhogurt?

'Now a lot of people say the 1st Gulf war wasn't a real war, but people did get killed. Granted, most of them were Iraqi soldiers

- For those, like myself, who haven't been that active lately, is this Sixee twat a bit of a Yhogurt?

Might be a parallel there at 13 or 14 years of age, when YooGoo was just starting to try to refine his rapier wit.

Ohh. This could be fun then.

Let's take a shot. Camps the forum with witless, repetitive, angry, conservative views that the Pax Americana is all encompassing without being *too* over-arching, never allowing the American Dream to be defiled or hurt by anyone else, and if so will spend his life posting in order to prove it? Already has a hard-core fan-base of One (Fandros), has been a member for all of a few months but has posts in every political thread around, and is included in the Party of One who still believes Saddam master-minded the World Trade Centre bombings. Has the open mind of someone with tunnel-syndrome, and vehemently worships the Leader of the Free World that makes my Buffy-loving look tame and sane?
Eh. Text book.

I give him three months.

Tops.

Halo a ignorant pub smelling twit who couldn't find his way to a bowl full of blood pudding even by following the rotten stench ensuing from it...I haven't a clue who this sixee is and to be quite honest find his posts a lil....harsh.

But do try and keep dragging me into your limp wristed fantasies boyo. I do find it fun that you still think you can form an elitist opinion all the while you're smacking your pud to a full on nekkid photo of the queen..whut whut.

Fandros

Hehee, this could be a fun derail.

And almost 4% of that post was composed of actual words.

Is that a personal best, my dear boy?

My lil jaunt into silliness was too highbrow for your post Pub zone eh?

Asking one of your dart chucking mates for your new political opinions again tonight?

Back to Sixee....why drag me into your spew ya crown wearing drama queen?

Fandros

highbrow?

making jokes about him masturbating sure isn't highbrow.

'My lil jaunt into silliness was too highbrow for your post Pub zone eh?'

- Are you...coming on to me?

Uh Oh, I think this has turned into Brokeback Thread.
Incidentally, I'm me, not someone else. I started on the Ay Ro server 3 years ago under another Character's name.
Since my e-mail account got haxxed on that name, I decided to use this Alt's name on here.
I generally haven't posted on here, because up until a year ago, I didn't know this place existed.
If my posts seem harsh, they come born from the fact I was charged with defending this country against all enemies foreign and domestic.
I thought I had done a good job of that, but on 9/11 I had an epiphany.
We were being attacked despite my best efforts in years past.
I don't agree with Bush on every issue. I didn't agree with Kerry on most issues.
If you want to put a label on me, Civil Libertarian fits the best.
I think less government intrusion into personal lives is a good thing. But I also thing we need a stronger military to keep this country safe.
Anywho, now you know a little more about me, and who I am not.

Wow. I got all teary-eyed.

'If my posts seem harsh,'

- They don't, Susan.
Now be a cute little doll and hush why mummy and daddy talk shop.

'If you want to put a label on me, Civil Libertarian fits the best.'

- I was thinking something more Indian, perhaps "Shuts-The-Fuck-Ups". Either that or Big Paw. I was torn.

Wow, you are a riot.


No, Really.....

Errrr Talespinner...

I said it was too highbrow for him at that time.

I didn't claim it was in and of itself highbrow by anymeans.

tsk tsk...jumped too soon lil cougar.

Fandros

Oh come on.

Is it too highbrow for you, but no i didn't say it's highbrow.

nice attempt at some circular logic.

Failed definition of circular logic Tale , buuuzzzz.

You're missing something here, not going to argue with you about it. Safe to say you jumped and missed your meaty meal.

At the time of my day that Halo was posting it was post pub time for him. His attempt to drag me into his mudpuddle wasn't his best efforts so I fired back a lil triffle.

He was confused and so I begged off thinking perhaps it was beyond him atm.

You jumped ( and subsequently missed) on a chance to ding me along with a few other notables. I attempted to explain it to you and then you misfired again back.

Back off a lil bit there Bardman. No need for you to jump into the fray, unless you want a lil dirt on ya . ;P

Fandros

you mean a little name calling from someone who claims to be mature and above it? I think I can handle it "boyo."

Anytime someone calls you on anything, you resort to petty childish name calling. It's no big surprise that you'd attempt to turn that on someone you at least at one point called a friend. I'm more than prepared to withstand your attempts at some 7th grade level jabs that one would think you'd outgrow by your early 40s.

'He was confused and so I begged off thinking perhaps it was beyond him atm.'

- So, you are coming on to me?

I'm not hearing a 'no'.

Always a hidden lust for you Halo ;P All my angst is clearly driven by the denial for my mad man love for ya.

Never time for a judgemental passerby tho Tale. Gave you more than enough pardon for crimes past. Clearly it's okay to drag me into muck, but if I respond by having fun at the attackers expense in rides Tale to the rescue. Thanks a man gets I tell ya. I won't make that mistake again.

Fandros

I wasn't riding to Halo's rescue, I was just making a comment that it wasn't highbrow. Didn't mean I didn't think it was funny, just meant it wasn't highbrow. You then chose to try and poke fun at me or whatever it was you were attempting to do.

This awkwardly feels like a lover's quarrel. :o

hahaha fil -- though I should give fandros some credit for having the courage to at least sign his negative rep hit. I hadn't given him one (was just having a little fun here), but I sure was happy to oblige.

Ack, It's the return to Brokeback Thread!!!!!
RUN FOR YOUR LIVES!!!!!!!!!

Daddy wants some lovin.

Time for someone to photoshop Tal and Fandros into the Brokeback movie poster.