ProudAmerican
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2005
- Messages
- 2,694
- Reaction score
- 0
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Cookie Parker said:unfortunately, far too many people only want to fight terrorists AFTER they have murdered thousands of innocent civilians.
Proud American. Please provide me proof that Saddam Hussein harbored the terrorists who attacked us.
Thank you.
ProudAmerican said:I never said he did.
But its clear that you fall into the category of wanting to wait untill we are attacked to do something about the problem.
if we had gone into afghanistan before 9-11 you would have yelled....."please provide proof that afghanistan harbors any terrorists that are a direct threat to America"
http://www.perrspectives.com/blog/archives/000311.htm
So I don't know where he is. You know, I just don't spend that much time on him, Kelly, to be honest with you...I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him.
Cookie Parker said:I thinkw e all knew who the terrorists were and where they were located. As of March 2002, here's what Bush said about the known terrorists who attacked us:
I think we need a leader who will follow through with a plan to address the terrrorist issue. Not ignore the terrorist, and the country which supplies all it's funds because he has a personal and business relationship with the families. A president whose agenda is not to secure oil for his Saudi friends and make his vice president rich on guaranteed tax dollars for decades.
I am quite sure you will concede that Bush does not have a plan to get terrorists and under his watch, his close personal and business ties with the terrorists are a jeopardy to our nation.
Cookie Parker said:Proud American.
It is equally clear to me that you are one of those who will just go inot any Muslim nation and attack.
I thinkw e all knew who the terrorists were and where they were located. As of March 2002, here's what Bush said about the known terrorists who attacked us:
HTML:http://www.perrspectives.com/blog/archives/000311.htm
PHP:So I don't know where he is. You know, I just don't spend that much time on him, Kelly, to be honest with you...I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him.
I think we need a leader who will follow through with a plan to address the terrrorist issue. Not ignore the terrorist, and the country which supplies all it's funds because he has a personal and business relationship with the families. A president whose agenda is not to secure oil for his Saudi friends and make his vice president rich on guaranteed tax dollars for decades.
I am quite sure you will concede that Bush does not have a plan to get terrorists and under his watch, his close personal and business ties with the terrorists are a jeopardy to our nation.
***Wow, you couldn't be more wrong about Bush's plan/no plan in addressing the terrorist issue. Saddam himself was perhaps the greatest terrorist of them all. What Bush has done in Iraq with the Democratizing of a nation once run by a tyrant is no small feat in the fight on terrorism. Finding Bin Laden is like looking for a needle in a haystack, and you know it. Meantime, Bush's strategy is to get the masses of people/Muslims to elect Democratic governments--which in turn leaves the terrorist contingent disabled, depleted and non-functional. How many of those televised terrorist camps have you seen on TV lately? Nary a one, I'm sure. Cookie, you (like most liberals) fail to see the bigger picture.
How many years did the former Soviet Union spend in fighting Afghanastan--only to lose and go home humiliated? The record time that Bush is sweeping Democracy through these troubled Mid East countries is simply remarkable. Be patient my dear.
Just think how far along the U.S. would be today on fighting terrorism had Algore or flip-flopper Kerry been president. Not a pretty sight...is it?
__________________
***Wow, you couldn't be more wrong about Bush's plan/no plan in addressing the terrorist issue. Saddam himself was perhaps the greatest terrorist of them all.
What Bush has done in Iraq with the Democratizing of a nation once run by a tyrant is no small feat in the fight on terrorism.
Finding Bin Laden is like looking for a needle in a haystack, and you know it.
ow many years did the former Soviet Union spend in fighting Afghanastan--only to lose and go home humiliated?
First, ‘either your with us or your against us’. I have seen nothing to suggest that a liberal (any liberal) is on America’s side with our fight with terrorism. They are what I would call AINO (American in name only) especially with our war on terrorism. We are at war, so any comments, plans, ideas or military acumen to help us win the war should come from those in the administration together with our military troops and brass. These are the people giving the orders, planning the military strategies, i.e. fighting terrorism on ‘their’ terms.
Cookie, everything you said in response to me had come from a negative point of view or perspective. Granted, there isn’t much to cheer about during wartime, and there certainly is plenty to grieve about, but I have always looked at the bigger picture that almost always shines a brighter light by having long term insight and viable strategic planning. You will not hear about all the good things that have and are happening with the people of Iraq, because a liberal will not dig to find those stories; that would go directly against the liberal’s agenda to lose the war i.e. so as to bring Bush down, and to make it look like another Vietnam.
There is nothing to suggest that America is fighting in the MidEast so as to take over the oil fields. Wouldn’t we have taken over the oil fields by now if that was our objective? You seem to have contempt for Haliburton because of Cheney’s former ties to it. Do you also have contempt for the Texas Rangers baseball team because George Bush once owned it? My point here is Haliburton is an American corporation. They have a contract to do work in the MidEast. Would you prefer a foreign country like China, Cuba, or Venezuela get the contract over an American company? America’s success in business is a liberal’s nightmare. America’s success in war is also a liberal’s nightmare.
I look at the progress America is making with the reduction in terrorism, and with the free elections and outing of a murdering tyrant in Iraq as positive accomplishments. You look at successful American businesses (Haliburton) with contempt, and at America’s resolve to fight terrorism with a contemptible eye and with a dangerous alternative.
ptsdkid said:I see that I’ll have to go back to basic ‘politics 101’ in order to properly debunk your illogical and damning rhetoric.
I’ll start with liberal interference to this war:
First, ‘either your with us or your against us’. I have seen nothing to suggest that a liberal (any liberal) is on America’s side with our fight with terrorism. They are what I would call AINO (American in name only) especially with our war on terrorism. We are at war, so any comments, plans, ideas or military acumen to help us win the war should come from those in the administration together with our military troops and brass. These are the people giving the orders, planning the military strategies, i.e. fighting terrorism on ‘their’ terms.
These fine committed people do not need a Cookie Parker, Michael Moore, or a Cindy Sheehan spreading propaganda and detrimental rhetoric while our committed troops fight a war. Plenty of time for negative nabobs of gloom and doom once the war is over.
Cookie, everything you said in response to me had come from a negative point of view or perspective. Granted, there isn’t much to cheer about during wartime, and there certainly is plenty to grieve about, but I have always looked at the bigger picture that almost always shines a brighter light by having long term insight and viable strategic planning. You will not hear about all the good things that have and are happening with the people of Iraq, because a liberal will not dig to find those stories; that would go directly against the liberal’s agenda to lose the war i.e. so as to bring Bush down, and to make it look like another Vietnam.
About your Haliburton comments:
There is nothing to suggest that America is fighting in the MidEast so as to take over the oil fields. Wouldn’t we have taken over the oil fields by now if that was our objective? You seem to have contempt for Haliburton because of Cheney’s former ties to it. Do you also have contempt for the Texas Rangers baseball team because George Bush once owned it? My point here is Haliburton is an American corporation. They have a contract to do work in the MidEast. Would you prefer a foreign country like China, Cuba, or Venezuela get the contract over an American company? America’s success in business is a liberal’s nightmare. America’s success in war is also a liberal’s nightmare.
Keeping the overall picture in mind, America hasn’t been attacked by terrorists for 4 ½ years thanks to Bush bringing the fight to Islamic Fascists on their land. You and others of your ilk keep making snide remarks that we haven’t captured Bin Laden. Rather than expend our resources to search for a coward in some spider hole through thousands of miles of rough terrain--Bush has decided to fight visible terrorism throughout the entire MidEast. Bin Laden has been rendered to non-entity status. Again, you do not see terrorist boot camp training facilities on TV anymore. This is because of our widespread (in your face) presence all over rag-head nation (thanks to George Bush).
Che said:Keep in mind Ptsd that not all of us are as gullible and stupid as you.
Cookie Parker said:Wrapping yourself in the flag does not make you right.
This administration's "foreign" policy is the pre-emptive strike. Going into nations with no one's approval ("one" being the UN and other countries) and doing what we want, and taking what we want. This being said, it is a new policy for our nation who used to use defense of our nation as the only reason to go to war.
Of course there are many people against this policy. This policy stirs up hatred against our nation. It changes how we are perceived in the world, going from benevolent Christian nation to aggressive war-mongering nation.
To understand what the implications are from Bush's reckless actions, you need to maybe look at AlJazeer.com. in English. Knowing how you impact the people you are bombing is a good perspective, I think, in figuring out if Bush has done any good with his policies.
Hiding your collective heads' in the sand by becoming isolationists from the worldwide threats of radical Islamic Fascism is not going to cut it in the 21st century.
oldreliable67 said:That was uncalled for.
Che said:Did you notice how we kind of half assed our search for binladen and morphed Saddam into Osama by focusing our military power on Iraq rather than catching that bastard.
The Real McCoy said:What do you people who oppose the war in Iraq propose we do to combat the problem of terrorism?
Stop exacerbating the problem with our foreign policy.Originally Posted by The Real McCoy
What do you people who oppose the war in Iraq propose we do to combat the problem of terrorism?
This isn't a solution, it's part of the problem. We need to stop being so intolerent of other cultures and stop being so arrogant about ours. And that has nothing to do with appeasing "head-choppers" or being anti-American.Originally Posted by Ironside
Here's the SOLUTION!
BRING THE TROOPS HOME NOW! AND BOMB THE CRAP OUT OF ANY TOWN WE THINK TERROR IS BEING HARBORED WHERE EVER IN THE WORLD THAT MAY BE! SCREW THEM! YOU'RE EITHER WITH US, OR AGAINST US! GROUND TROOPS ISN'T THE ANSWER!
The ONLY ground personel being Arab allies infiltrating terror groups!
Cookie Parker said:Great post.
The pre-emptive strike policy has failed this nation and its security. It, coupled with the lack of controlling illegals crossing the Mexican border demonstrates more of a complicity with the Arab nations than an intolerance. By that, I mean look at all of our nation that has been sold to the Arabs. Look at the Bush family ties to bin Laden's and the royal family and you have a real conflict of interest in dealing with the terrorist issues.
Bush fails because his interests are not in America...his interests are in oil...
Cookie Parker said:Great post.
The pre-emptive strike policy has failed this nation and its security. It, coupled with the lack of controlling illegals crossing the Mexican border demonstrates more of a complicity with the Arab nations than an intolerance. By that, I mean look at all of our nation that has been sold to the Arabs. Look at the Bush family ties to bin Laden's and the royal family and you have a real conflict of interest in dealing with the terrorist issues.
Bush fails because his interests are not in America...his interests are in oil...
Rachel said:That's right! Bush is best friends with the terrorists. That's why the Taliban were kicked out of power and why the terrorists are being hunted to the ends of the earth.
And the pre-emptive strike policy is wrong. It would be a lot better for the U.S. to sit and wait for each threat to come home and kill a few thousand American citizens. The best way to know we're right and to feel morally justified is to let threats fully materialize and have nukes go off in Amrican towns. If nothing else, it will give America the sympathy of the world. You saw how many people around the world felt bad for the U.S. after 9/11 (except for those who celebrated). Imagine how much sympathy a nuke going off in New York or Washington D.C. will generate. It will be great for America's standing in the world.
This way liberals won't have any moral reservations about using force. Leave regimes like Saddam in power and let Iran have their nukes. And if the U.S. is doing something the Iranians don't like, then they should be appeased. That will strengthen America's position in the world. Let Iran dictate its demands to the world once they have nukes. Allow them to gain more influence over the entire Middle East and to bring down moderate Arab regimes. Let more countries get nukes, that will make the world a safer place.
If we put a few more border patrol on the Mexican border the terrorists will never find a way to attack America! Maybe build a huge wall around the entire continental U.S. And maybe put the entire U.S. army and Marines on the borders! That way America will be safe no matter how much time the terrorists have to plot and plan their next attacks.
Sure maybe it wouldn't have prevented 9/11. And maybe a nuke could still be smuggled in by container since you will never be able to check every single one. And maybe the Iranians will eventually have missiles that can reach the U.S. But they would never use it, not even as leverage to get the West to change some of the policies they don't like. Let them blackmail the West. Let them spread terror all over the world.
The longer we wait the better the situation gets, don't you think?
And if it gets to the point where Iran makes greater and greater demands and a confrontation becomes inevitable, then at least we'll know we're fighting an adversary who really poses a threat and can cause millions and millions of casualties on both sides.
Not that Iran or Iraq ever showed that they are willing to sacrifice the lives of a million of their people on a pointless war!
SSlightning said:Dont you think that maybe this "its us against them" idea is only making the problem worse?
Maybe we should just take over the entire world so that we could police everyone easier?
News flash, just because we are a powerful country doesn't mean we get to tell everyone how they should live their lives. Iran sure does have the right to have nuclear missles if they want, and why wouldn't they? Because we deam them "evil", well excuse me, dont they deam us evil? Well, you feel threatened by them right? Don't you think they feel even more threatened by us? You're starting the war by throwing the first punch, justifying everything they do. You know that if some country was to invade the United States homesoil anything you did would be justified if you win the war. Keep in mind terrorists do NOT represent countries, they represent factions. I dont know what the proper response would be to a country that is unwilling to cooperate with us when we are hunting down our enemies, but is sure as hell isn't taking over their country and telling them that they have to have this type of government and follow these types of rules, that the UN's job, not the US.
Trajan Octavian Titus said:Are you freaking serious? You think Iran should be allowed to get nuclear weapons? That's freaking insane. Their president just threatened to wipe Israel off the map. Do you know what the nuclear non-proliferation treaty is? Iran signed it they don't have the right to get nuclear weapons. The U.N. can't even police themselves let alone the world. You think we should hand over our soveriegnty to the U.N.? Not on my watch skippy. The U.N. is corrupt they have the Sudan on their Human Rights Commission for Christs sakes they are dominated by despots and tyrants. Let the U.N. handle it? The U.N. has never adequatly handled anything in its entire existence and you want to intrust that defunct organization with the fate of the world?
Those nations who harbor terrorists will be considered terrorist states and instead of the carrot they will get the stick. Do you know what a state sponsor of terrorism is? Do you not think we have the right to take action against those countries who fund those organizations which kill Americans? Good to see you learned you lesson on 9-11. :roll:
Ironside said:Here's the SOLUTION!
BRING THE TROOPS HOME NOW! AND BOMB THE CRAP OUT OF ANY TOWN WE THINK TERROR IS BEING HARBORED WHERE EVER IN THE WORLD THAT MAY BE!
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?