From 'Gook' to 'Raghead'

[akyron]

IThe story of shattering Coke bottles over the heads of Iraqi pedestrians is a lie. The recipient of such an attack would, at the least be injured or possibly killed. :duel

I believe that. When I was a kid my friend wanted me to break a bottle over his head like we saw in the movies. I said no. He went and got a steel hardhat and I still said no. After much cajoling I hit him once. The bottle did not break and he was unharmed. He said to hit him harder. I hit him harder. He was again unhurt although staggered and asked again.

Ok this time its going to break. We went to a stairwell where I jumped from the top of the stairwell to the bottom where he presented the target. I screamed like Conan the barbarian as I cracked it over his steel helmeted head like an axe adding my full weight.

The bottle did not break, The helmet was dented and he was knocked out briefly before coming out of it unharmed. We did not try that again.


You can literally kill someone with a bottle before it will break.
Thank you for reminding me of this childhood memory. This story is complete and utter :bs

 

[RightinNYC]

I believe that. When I was a kid my friend wanted me to break a bottle over his head like we saw in the movies. I said no. He went and got a steel hardhat and I still said no. After much cajoling I hit him once. The bottle did not break and he was unharmed. He said to hit him harder. I hit him harder. He was again unhurt although staggered and asked again.

Ok this time its going to break. We went to a stairwell where I jumped from the top of the stairwell to the bottom where he presented the target. I screamed like Conan the barbarian as I cracked it over his steel helmeted head like an axe adding my full weight.

The bottle did not break, The helmet was dented and he was knocked out briefly before coming out of it unharmed. We did not try that again.


You can literally kill someone with a bottle before it will break.
Thank you for reminding me of this childhood memory. This story is complete and utter :bs

While I agree that the story was most likely made up/exaggerated, it is not impossible to break a bottle over someones head. My best friend did it in a bar about 3 weeks ago.

 

[akyron]

While I agree that the story was most likely made up/exaggerated, it is not impossible to break a bottle over someones head. My best friend did it in a bar about 3 weeks ago.

A striated empty coca-cola bottle? Ouch.
It is not impossible but I would venture it is highly unlikely.

 

[Fantasea]

While I agree that the story was most likely made up/exaggerated, it is not impossible to break a bottle over someones head. My best friend did it in a bar about 3 weeks ago.

What was the aftermath?

 

[RightinNYC]

What was the aftermath?

My other friend fell down, got up, laughed, and then the next morning when he sobered up, beat the crap out of my best friend.

It was an amusing night.

 

[Fantasea]

My other friend fell down, got up, laughed, and then the next morning when he sobered up, beat the crap out of my best friend.

It was an amusing night.

You make it sound more like the antics of a bunch of drunken fools.

 

[RightinNYC]

You make it sound more like the antics of a bunch of drunken fools.

Yea, that sounds about right.

 

[gordontravels]

I think it is evident. If you want to believe a lie such as our fellow Americans driving through Iraq with their shopping bags full of Coke bottles at the ready to brain Iraqis that are walking down the street, then you will believe it.

I think it is evident. Some of us are somewhat smarter than to believe a lie such as that. :duel

 

[26 X World Champs]

I think it is evident. If you want to believe a lie such as our fellow Americans driving through Iraq with their shopping bags full of Coke bottles at the ready to brain Iraqis that are walking down the street, then you will believe it.

I think it is evident. Some of us are somewhat smarter than to believe a lie such as that. :duel

Aren't you the guy who believes/believed that Saddam was a greater threat to the USA than OBL?

To use your words regarding your previous statement, "Some of us are somewhat smarter than to believe a lie such as that."

:dito:

 

[gordontravels]

Aren't you the guy who believes/believed that Saddam was a greater threat to the USA than OBL?

To use your words regarding your previous statement, "Some of us are somewhat smarter than to believe a lie such as that."

:dito:

Not at all. I am saying exactly what I said. To believe that our boys are so stupid and uncaring as to break nearly unbreakable Coke bottles over the heads of unsuspecting Iraqis is an unadulterated lie. It comes from the same place as other lies. You see the President lie; the media lies through inuendo or disregard or falsification. Disregard; leaving out; is their favorite tactic and you don't look to fill in the blanks because you don't know the blanks exist. If it sounds bad for the Administration it makes you happy.

The story that American troops are running around Iraq breaking Coke bottles over the heads of Iraqis is a lie. Terrorists like those such as you and Newsweek who distort for their own purpose. You are uninformed at your own request. But, you like it that way. :duel

 

[26 X World Champs]

Terrorists like those such as you and Newsweek who distort for their own purpose. You are uninformed at your own request. But, you like it that way. :duel

It is remarkably stupid for anyone to suggest that Newsweek or Liberals are terrorists. That is FASCIST talk, it is hate mongering, it is done only to make people hate. Good job!

Anyone who thinks that disagreeing with our government makes one a terrorist or makes one anti-American is, simply put, an idiot. More stem cells are needed to inject into those brains who feel that way to regenerate the dead tissue that these brains contain.

I do not believe that any American who disagrees with your opinion is a terrorist.

Perhaps you need to spend a little more time reading American history? I seem to recall that our country was founded based on the dissent of the minority that mushroomed into the majority.

 

[gordontravels]

It is remarkably stupid for anyone to suggest that Newsweek or Liberals are terrorists. That is FASCIST talk, it is hate mongering, it is done only to make people hate. Good job!

Anyone who thinks that disagreeing with our government makes one a terrorist or makes one anti-American is, simply put, an idiot. More stem cells are needed to inject into those brains who feel that way to regenerate the dead tissue that these brains contain.

I do not believe that any American who disagrees with your opinion is a terrorist.

Perhaps you need to spend a little more time reading American history? I seem to recall that our country was founded based on the dissent of the minority that mushroomed into the majority.

Just as you distort my words you distort that which you quote. I said terrorists "like those such as you and Newsweek" and in particular what you expouse. I said plainly that they like you, not that you are like them. You want me to study history while you don't understand punctuation? Then, that brings on your vitriol: stupid, fascist, hate mongering, idiot. Your style of debate leaves one understanding much about you. Weakness always brings out the name calling.

Newsweek had to retract their article because their "sources" became "source" became invisible. The news media and the liberal detractors still claim the article is not only true but that the bad thing is that the Bush Administration pointed out that it was false. Just as Dan Rather brings falsehoods to harm so does Newsweek and then the liberal press blame it on the ones falsely accused.

So distort my words even as you quote them. Place your comma where I have none. Even when you edit out the rest of my quote, what you use doesn't say what you want it to. It only says what I meant it to say. :duel

 

[26 X World Champs]

Just as you distort my words you distort that which you quote. I said terrorists "like those such as you and Newsweek" and in particular what you expouse. I said plainly that they like you, not that you are like them.

So distort my words even as you quote them. Place your comma where I have none. Even when you edit out the rest of my quote, what you use doesn't say what you want it to. It only says what I meant it to say. :duel

I did misunderstand your post, I apologize. I misread it, it was not clear to me. It was not the clearest wording, but what you meant and what I thought you meant make me wrong.

I guess part of my over reaction to your posts goes back to last week when you clearly stated that you believe that OBL was nothing compared to the threat of Saddam. I still find that incredulous. I find that opinion so wrong that your creditability is something I now question in every one of your posts. It's stunning to think that you believe that OBL, who killed thousands of Americans and probably thousands more with terrorist acts around the world since 1998, including 9-11 & 3-11 is Saddam's caddy? Saddam never did squat to even one American since 1998 (actually since 1991), had his balls cut off, had nothing going for him, yet to you he was the big threat to us?

Sorry, that's where you lost me. I'm going to start a poll to see how the rest of this community feels....just for the record....

 

[gordontravels]

I did misunderstand your post, I apologize. I misread it, it was not clear to me. It was not the clearest wording, but what you meant and what I thought you meant make me wrong.

I guess part of my over reaction to your posts goes back to last week when you clearly stated that you believe that OBL was nothing compared to the threat of Saddam. I still find that incredulous. I find that opinion so wrong that your creditability is something I now question in every one of your posts. It's stunning to think that you believe that OBL, who killed thousands of Americans and probably thousands more with terrorist acts around the world since 1998, including 9-11 & 3-11 is Saddam's caddy? Saddam never did squat to even one American since 1998 (actually since 1991), had his balls cut off, had nothing going for him, yet to you he was the big threat to us?

Sorry, that's where you lost me. I'm going to start a poll to see how the rest of this community feels....just for the record....

Your apology is accepted as stated.

You question my credibility and still distort my words or make up what I have said out of whole cloth. Saddam's Caddy? The only two things I have said that relates Saddam to Osama is: 1. Saddam allowed al Quaida to operate terrorist training camps near the Iranian border and; 2. I think Saddam was much more dangerous, militarily powerful and better able to finance terrorist organizations than Osama. Anything else is speculation on your part or mine including my belief that Saddam was more dangerous than Osama. You know as much or less than I do.

It is my firm belief that if the Clinton Administration would have accepted The Sudan's offer to turn over Osama in 1998 the attack in New York City would never have taken place. I don't know this for sure. I only know what did happen and that Osama could have been contained and possibly imprisioned years before 9/11. Our news media has an average approval rating from their own viewers of between 23 to 26 percent.

You can't trust what is written in a national magazine of the cailber of Newsweek. And when Newsweek is found lacking they and others in the media blame their target. Even a Dan Rather says a story based on forged documents is none the less true. News organizations such as the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, NBC, CBS, ABC, FNC, PBS and CNN are biased. There is no one organization you can turn to to hear the real story and yet there are those that base their opinion on what they hear mixed with their party affiliation or their own penchant for liberal, middle of the road or conservative. It isn't right or wrong anymore, just my way or the highway. And distortion.

I firmly believe that the story of Coke bottles being broken over the heads of Iraqis is a lie. If you look at what the media regularly does with conservative and liberal lables you will find bias. Bias filters into the question and answer for both the conservative and liberal and there is no other avenue to take but to agree or disagree without the whole story. You and I know so very little of what goes on in the world but, use my exact words to condem me because you distort my words with yours and yours aren't up to the task. :duel

 

[26 X World Champs]

Your apology is accepted as stated.

You question my credibility and still distort my words or make up what I have said out of whole cloth. Saddam's Caddy? The only two things I have said that relates Saddam to Osama is: 1. Saddam allowed al Quaida to operate terrorist training camps near the Iranian border and; 2. I think Saddam was much more dangerous, militarily powerful and better able to finance terrorist organizations than Osama. Anything else is speculation on your part or mine including my belief that Saddam was more dangerous than Osama. You know as much or less than I do.use my exact words to condem me because you distort my words with yours and yours aren't up to the task. :duel

Your own words? OK I will:

Yes, Saddam was a much greater threat than Osama. With a half million men under arms, his country under his dictatorship without hope of release and huge oil revenues, he was a much larger threat than Osama.
05-15-2005, 12:47 PM #211
gordontravels
Student

So I don't feel that I was speculating even a little bit. You said Saddam was "a much greater threat." Now I might have misunderstood your previous post, but I am clear on this one. Did you forget that you wrote this?

 

[gordontravels]

Your own words? OK I will:

So I don't feel that I was speculating even a little bit. You said Saddam was "a much greater threat." Now I might have misunderstood your previous post, but I am clear on this one. Did you forget that you wrote this?

I have no idea what you are trying to say. " I think Saddam was much more dangerous, militarily powerful and better able to finance terrorist organizations than Osama." "a much greater threat." There are both quotes I made. The wording is different but you seem to think dangerous and threat aren't the same thing. This is wasting time.

Saddam may have financed other terrorist organizations such as Hezbolah and he definitely financed the Al Axa Martyr's Brigades. There is proof that al Quaeda met with if not Saddam then with his representatives and, of course, it's not a stretch to believe that since al Quaeda was in Iraq training, Saddam or his representatives could meet with them. Those who say it never happened know as much as those who speculate it did. That is the type of speculation I am talking about and there is plenty on the side of the supporters of the war and those who oppose the war.

Otherwise, your note that I may have forgotten I wrote something when I essentially write the same thing over again is answerable. No. :duel

 

[26 X World Champs]

of course, it's not a stretch to believe that since al Quaeda was in Iraq training, Saddam or his representatives could meet with them. Those who say it never happened know as much as those who speculate it did. That is the type of speculation

This is totally untrue, again. Your speculation is BS. To then say that the opposite is also true, speculating that it didn't happen is ridiculous, again. You flat out wrote that Saddam was a greater threat to the USA than OBL. You even wrote that OBL is so weak right now that he is "irrelevant." Again, this is pure BS.

I started a poll asking the simple question: "Saddam or Osama - Who Was The Bigger Threat to America?"

As I write this 9 out of 10 people believe that Osama was/is the threat to America. I'm guessing that the one vote for Saddam is yours. I would be very surprised if as this poll receives more votes that the percentage of respondents who believe as you do that Saddam was a much greater threat to America will never be above 5%, AND it might very well turn out that the one vote pro Saddam might be the only vote pro Saddam.

The evidence that you speculate on is contradictory to the 9-11 commission report (headed by a Republican) and the Duelfer Report. What you're doing is either making stuff up or taking things out of context and twisting it to make it sound like what you're writing is correct. It isn't. Saddam & OBL hated each other, period. They were never connected, they never did anything together.

Saddam was a *****, a total non-threat to the USA. The American people were DUPED by Bush and his evil henchmen into believing that Saddam was a threat. Have you read the Downing St. memo? Pretty damn clear, don't you think?

The end result of this deception is tens of, if not hundreds of thousands of innocent people getting killed because of George W. Bush. To blame Saddam for this war is just untrue.

I am not saying that Saddam was anything but an evil dictator, and I certainly know he killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. But you know what? None of that translated into any type of threat to America. We are not the world's police. If we were we would be in lots of other countries where dictators and conditions are even worse than Iraq was. Plus, Saddam was ball-less after 1991 and every year after that he became less of a threat. Don't throw the Clinton quotes from the 90s as justification against Saddam. Clinton didn't attack Iraq. Bush started the war, Bush chose the war over finding OBL, he chooses to still put our resources (especially 150,000 Americans) in Iraq rather than concentrating fully on OBL and his evil henchmen.

It is FACT that America is less safe today than it was 9-10-01. It is FACT that we are more hated around the world than anytime in modern history. It is FACT that because we started this war there are now TERRORISTS in Iraq, lots of them, that were never there before the war. We created a Terrorist haven in Iraq!

This war in Iraq will go down as an even bigger political mistake than Vietnam. Vietnam was a political and social disaster. Nothing good came out of Vietnam, and nothing good will come out of Iraq, in the long term. The "liberation of Iraq" propaganda is just that, propaganda. We will not know for years the end result of this dreadful war.

Now, one more thing, because Liberals are against this war does not mean that we are against Democracy in Iraq or anywhere. We absolutely hope that Iraq ends up with democracy. The problem is that the cost to America is outrageous, an unjustified. Get it? We're pro democracy in Iraq as the end result, but we believe the price that we are paying to achieve that is equally as bad as the price we paid in Vietnam.

One could argue that Vietnam was less damaging to the USA than Iraq because we did not create billions of enemies along the way. We have solidified the hate that already existed about the USA and we've added to it tremendously. Billions hate us now and want to see us dead, and the main reason it's getting worse every day, not better is GEORGE W. BUSH. :hm

 

[RightinNYC]

It is FACT that America is less safe today than it was 9-10-01. It is FACT that we are more hated around the world than anytime in modern history. It is FACT that because we started this war there are now TERRORISTS in Iraq, lots of them, that were never there before the war. We created a Terrorist haven in Iraq!

Really. You have any sources/numbers to back up these 'facts'? Because they sure sound like opinions to me. And "Haven" is defined as a place of refuge or rest; a sanctuary. I don't think being targeted by hundreds of thousands of highly trained soldiers and having many of your number killed everyday counts as a "haven."

This war in Iraq will go down as an even bigger political mistake than Vietnam. Vietnam was a political and social disaster. Nothing good came out of Vietnam, and nothing good will come out of Iraq, in the long term. The "liberation of Iraq" propaganda is just that, propaganda. We will not know for years the end result of this dreadful war.

Forgive me if I don't agree with your completely unsubstantiated argument. How on earth do you feel you can defend that statement? Any empirical facts? Anything to support it other than your own opinions and a weak and misplaced analogy?

Now, one more thing, because Liberals are against this war does not mean that we are against Democracy in Iraq or anywhere. We absolutely hope that Iraq ends up with democracy. The problem is that the cost to America is outrageous, an unjustified. Get it? We're pro democracy in Iraq as the end result, but we believe the price that we are paying to achieve that is equally as bad as the price we paid in Vietnam.

Well put.

One could argue that Vietnam was less damaging to the USA than Iraq because we did not create billions of enemies along the way. We have solidified the hate that already existed about the USA and we've added to it tremendously. Billions hate us now and want to see us dead, and the main reason it's getting worse every day, not better is GEORGE W. BUSH. :hm

Well, that's an interesting take on world politics. The US has been hated globally many times before, and it's obviously going to be more passionate now that we're the last remaining superpower.

 

[26 X World Champs]

Really. You have any sources/numbers to back up these 'facts'? Because they sure sound like opinions to me. And "Haven" is defined as a place of refuge or rest; a sanctuary. I don't think being targeted by hundreds of thousands of highly trained soldiers and having many of your number killed everyday counts as a "haven."

Do you really feel safer today? Are the borders safer? How about the ports? Airports? Train stations? Subways? Postal System? Water supply? Security around Nuclear Power Plants? Considering that there are MORE terrorists today than there were on 9-10-01, and considering the hate we've created I do not know how you can say we're safer today?

Do you think there are LESS terrorists today? Do you think America is better liked today? Even our allies like the UK are wavering in their support! Remember the Coalition of the Willing? What happened to that?

Forgive me if I don't agree with your completely unsubstantiated argument. How on earth do you feel you can defend that statement? Any empirical facts? Anything to support it other than your own opinions and a weak and misplaced analogy?

No facts needed. I wrote: "The "liberation of Iraq" propaganda is just that, propaganda. We will not know for years the end result of this dreadful war." "We will not know for years" does not require facts, it is an opinion.

Well, that's an interesting take on world politics. The US has been hated globally many times before, and it's obviously going to be more passionate now that we're the last remaining superpower.

A real reflection on the great diplomacy of Bush's administration. Under Clinton we were liked so much more, and then too we were the only super power.

The reality is that Bush's policies have created a much greater hatred for everything American. Do you dispute this? Do you think American popularity was lower under Clinton? As a matter of fact, can you think of any President's term where America was hated more than we are today?

Bush is, IMHO, the 2nd worst President in my lifetime (Nixon was the worst). He sucks diplomatically, he sucks domestically, he's divided America more than any other President. Name another President in the last 100 years who divided this country more than Bush has? Name one that was even close?

Bush and his cabal have put all of us in grave danger. If you disagree that is your right, but I think you're fooling yourself. Just because nothings happened since 9-11 does not mean we're safer. You can go years without a Volcanic eruption but that does not mean the Volcano will never erupt again.

I still do not like my kids to ride the Subways here in NYC. We try to drive them as much as possible because we fear chemical weapon attacks one day.

Let me put it to you this way? Anyone who can get their hands on nasty germ warfare materials can simply walk down into any Subway station and release it into the air, the draft of a passing train can spread it for miles and can wipe out hundreds of thousands of people, just that simply. Scary right? Can't happen you say? If someone had told you on 9-10-01 that two commercial airplanes would crash into the WTC and another one into the Pentagon and a fourth one would be stopped by crashing it into a field in Pennsylvania almost anyone would have called you crazy.

Bush's War in Iraq might cost us even more than the money and soldiers already lost, and the soldiers who will be lost.

 

[RightinNYC]

Do you really feel safer today? Are the borders safer? How about the ports? Airports? Train stations? Subways? Postal System? Water supply? Security around Nuclear Power Plants? Considering that there are MORE terrorists today than there were on 9-10-01, and considering the hate we've created I do not know how you can say we're safer today?

Do you think there are LESS terrorists today? Do you think America is better liked today? Even our allies like the UK are wavering in their support! Remember the Coalition of the Willing? What happened to that?

I DO feel safer now than I did before 9/11, because there are thousands of security precautions in place that didn't even EXIST before 9/11. The odds of a terror attack succeeding now are far lower than they were before hand.

Where on earth do you get your facts from? There are MORE terrorists now than there were before 9/11? Is that from the 2005 Terrorist Census? You have this nasty habit of taking your unfounded suppositions and presenting them as fact.

And last I checked, the Coalition of the Willing still existed. Naturally, as the threats in Iraq decrease, countries will leave, but it doesn't mean we've failed.

No facts needed. I wrote: "The "liberation of Iraq" propaganda is just that, propaganda. We will not know for years the end result of this dreadful war." "We will not know for years" does not require facts, it is an opinion.

You also said "Nothing good came out of Vietnam, and nothing good will come out of Iraq, in the long term." You have a right to your opinions, just like I have the right to call bullshit when you pretend they're the truth.

A real reflection on the great diplomacy of Bush's administration. Under Clinton we were liked so much more, and then too we were the only super power.

The reality is that Bush's policies have created a much greater hatred for everything American. Do you dispute this? Do you think American popularity was lower under Clinton? As a matter of fact, can you think of any President's term where America was hated more than we are today?

This is because Clinton didn't do ANYTHING. Worldwide popular support is based on inaction. ANYTHING the US does generally lowers worldwide opinion, and creates an environment where the US is "hated" like you so love to say. Maybe if Clinton hadn't worried so much about his popularity and image worldwide, and done what needed to be done, ie Rwanda, Iraq, Al-Quaida, then Bush wouldn't have had to do anything, and we could be well loved now. But he dropped the ball in the name of becoming a Rock Star.

Bush is, IMHO, the 2nd worst President in my lifetime (Nixon was the worst). He sucks diplomatically, he sucks domestically, he's divided America more than any other President. Name another President in the last 100 years who divided this country more than Bush has? Name one that was even close?

Bush and his cabal have put all of us in grave danger. If you disagree that is your right, but I think you're fooling yourself. Just because nothings happened since 9-11 does not mean we're safer. You can go years without a Volcanic eruption but that does not mean the Volcano will never erupt again.

Well, I think you're wrong, but "If you disagree that is your right, but I think you're fooling yourself." To each their own.

I still do not like my kids to ride the Subways here in NYC. We try to drive them as much as possible because we fear chemical weapon attacks one day.

Let me put it to you this way? Anyone who can get their hands on nasty germ warfare materials can simply walk down into any Subway station and release it into the air, the draft of a passing train can spread it for miles and can wipe out hundreds of thousands of people, just that simply. Scary right? Can't happen you say? If someone had told you on 9-10-01 that two commercial airplanes would crash into the WTC and another one into the Pentagon and a fourth one would be stopped by crashing it into a field in Pennsylvania almost anyone would have called you crazy.

Bush's War in Iraq might cost us even more than the money and soldiers already lost, and the soldiers who will be lost.

You completely miss the point. Anyone, and I mean ANYONE, could have poisioned the subways on 9/10/01, and there would have been no way to stop them. This could have happened at any time. That's the scary part. The only way to stop these things from happening? To attack the terrorists at their source, and increase homeland security.

It boggles my mind that you somehow think these things couldn't have happened without "Bush's War" in Iraq.

 

[26 X World Champs]

I DO feel safer now than I did before 9/11, because there are thousands of security precautions in place that didn't even EXIST before 9/11. The odds of a terror attack succeeding now are far lower than they were before hand.

That is your opinion, one I disagree with. Ask ahole Bill O'Reilly if we're safer? If loyalists to Bush feel less safe why shouldn't I? Show me one shred of evidence that we are safer today?

Where on earth do you get your facts from? There are MORE terrorists now than there were before 9/11? Is that from the 2005 Terrorist Census?

So you think there are LESS terrorists today? Really? Tell you what, I will start a poll on this subject, so let's get the views of those here. I also realize there are many more Republicans on this board, so it should be an interesting poll.

And last I checked, the Coalition of the Willing still existed. Naturally, as the threats in Iraq decrease, countries will leave, but it doesn't mean we've failed.

DECREASED! Are you insane? This week alone there were 17 car bombs in Baghdad. More than 30 this month. Last year from January thru May there were only 25 car bombs total! Are you reading about what's going on in Iraq? Not only are the insurgents as strong and violent as ever, but now the Sunnis & Shiites are about to start a second war in Iraq!

The war is getting worse, not better! It's been more than two years yet the road from the airport in Baghdad to downtown is still a war zone, totally unsafe. Just as many Americans are getting killed this year versus last year. There's still a major part of the country that doesn't have electricity! The Coalition of the Willing? Please show me ONE nation that left because of "mission accomplished"? ONE NATION! If your views are reflective of FNC's reporting then I suggest you expand and read some newpapers, listen to the BBC or watchother news stations, you choose.

You also said "Nothing good came out of Vietnam, and nothing good will come out of Iraq, in the long term." You have a right to your opinions, just like I have the right to call bullshit when you pretend they're the truth.

Tell us please what GOOD came out of Vietnam? I lived thru it, knew families that to this day are messed up because of it. My birth year was the last year that the SSS issued draft numbers to see who would be drafted. My draft classification was 1-A. Luckily I was just young enough to avoid the draft.

I am trying to be objective but for the life of me I cannot think of ONE POSITIVE political result that came out of our bitter defeat in Vietnam. We lost that war, we lost more than 50,000 men, and hundreds of thousands of men were wounded and scarred, physically and mentally for life. Please tell me what good came out of Vietnam?

This is because Clinton didn't do ANYTHING. Worldwide popular support is based on inaction. ANYTHING the US does generally lowers worldwide opinion, and creates an environment where the US is "hated" like you so love to say. Maybe if Clinton hadn't worried so much about his popularity and image worldwide, and done what needed to be done, ie Rwanda, Iraq, Al-Quaida, then Bush wouldn't have had to do anything, and we could be well loved now. But he dropped the ball in the name of becoming a Rock Star.

PURE BS! Bush is hated world round for starting a war. He's a war mongerer. He lied to the world, he's increased the threat of terror all over the world, and he's alienated the USA from almost everyone.

 

[RightinNYC]

That is your opinion, one I disagree with. Ask ahole Bill O'Reilly if we're safer? If loyalists to Bush feel less safe why shouldn't I? Show me one shred of evidence that we are safer today?

I couldn't give a **** what bill oreilly thinks. Show me one shred of evidence saying we're less safe? Honestly, with the amount of increased security we have nowadays, you really don't think a terror attack is less likely to be successful than it was on 9/11, when we were caught COMPLETELY unprepared?

So you think there are LESS terrorists today? Really? Tell you what, I will start a poll on this subject, so let's get the views of those here. I also realize there are many more Republicans on this board, so it should be an interesting poll.

Yes, I do. I really couldn't care less what a poll on this board said, but there is little you can do, short of provide a shred of evidence, that would make me believe there are MORE terrorists now.

DECREASED! Are you insane? This week alone there were 17 car bombs in Baghdad. More than 30 this month. Last year from January thru May there were only 25 car bombs total! Are you reading about what's going on in Iraq? Not only are the insurgents as strong and violent as ever, but now the Sunnis & Shiites are about to start a second war in Iraq!

I said "as they decrease." That's the future tense. My point is that as the war continues on, countries will obviously pull out, citing various reasons. This should not be taken as an abandonment of support. And have you noticed the shift in public opinion in Iraq? The support for the insurgents is at a low, the support for the Iraqi government is at a high, and the attacks are focused on civilians because they can't kill "hard" targets like soldiers. Contrary to all of your gripes, we're winning.

The war is getting worse, not better! It's been more than two years yet the road from the airport in Baghdad to downtown is still a war zone, totally unsafe. Just as many Americans are getting killed this year versus last year. There's still a major part of the country that doesn't have electricity! The Coalition of the Willing? Please show me ONE nation that left because of "mission accomplished"? ONE NATION! If your views are reflective of FNC's reporting then I suggest you expand and read some newpapers, listen to the BBC or watchother news stations, you choose.

By the end of that, I don't even know what you're saying.

Tell us please what GOOD came out of Vietnam? I lived thru it, knew families that to this day are messed up because of it. My birth year was the last year that the SSS issued draft numbers to see who would be drafted. My draft classification was 1-A. Luckily I was just young enough to avoid the draft.

I am trying to be objective but for the life of me I cannot think of ONE POSITIVE political result that came out of our bitter defeat in Vietnam. We lost that war, we lost more than 50,000 men, and hundreds of thousands of men were wounded and scarred, physically and mentally for life. Please tell me what good came out of Vietnam?

I was referring to the second part of your statement, where you claimed no good would come out of Iraq. In Iraq, a dictatorship was replaced with a democracy. Care to explain how that is "no good?"

PURE BS! Bush is hated world round for starting a war. He's a war mongerer. He lied to the world, he's increased the threat of terror all over the world, and he's alienated the USA from almost everyone.

Aside from your tired rhetoric, want to actually try to respond to what I said? You don't agree that if Clinton had taken out Bin Laden and handled the Iraq situation, Bush wouldn't have had the support or excuse necessary to prosecute the wars he did? You don't agree that Clinton presided over 8 years of complete American inaction?

 

[gordontravels]

Delgado is a liar and the continuation of the lie is evident. I am responding to the beginning post on this thread.

If I am the 1 out of 10 that thinks Osama is finished and Saddam was more dangerous with his world connections then I am proud to stand the lable of BS. I have just read here that a poll shows 90% believe Osama was more dangerous than Saddam. 90%, and I am accused of BS? :duel

 

[Fantasea]

Bush is, IMHO, the 2nd worst President in my lifetime (Nixon was the worst). He sucks diplomatically, he sucks domestically, he's divided America more than any other President. Name another President in the last 100 years who divided this country more than Bush has? Name one that was even close?

Presidents don't divide the country.

Political parties promulgate policies, practices, and platforms. Naturally, the parties agree on very little. The media, in its quest to fan the flames of controversy, ensure that the disagreements are heralded.

If everyone was in agreement, the two party system would become a one party system.

This is nothing new. The only ones who complain about "a divided country" are those who refuse to accept the President's invitation to join with him in implementing the promises he made during his first term and his campaign for the second.

Those promises are what got him elected by a majority that had to include the votes of several millions of crossover Democrats.

 

[Fantasea]

This war in Iraq will go down as an even bigger political mistake than Vietnam. Vietnam was a political and social disaster. Nothing good came out of Vietnam, and nothing good will come out of Iraq, in the long term. The "liberation of Iraq" propaganda is just that, propaganda. We will not know for years the end result of this dreadful war.

The reason nothing good came out of Viet Nam is that the several administrations which endured it ignored the first principle of battle: WIN!

From the beginning, right through to the end, they screwed around with everything but a concerted effort to win. As the mess dragged on, year after year, it was natural that many initial supporters lost heart and just wanted to see a conclusion, any conclusion.

So, the big bug-out occurred. The aftermath, of course, was the death of several million Southeast Asians at the hands of the tyrannical butchers.

That is the political and the practical lesson of Viet Nam.

Both lessons were learned well by the current administration and military leaders. We've seen ample evidence of that.

The US ground force in Iraq is about 25% of the size of that in Viet Nam and KIA are about 2%. The comparison you make is ridiculous, as is your incessant pounding of the President.

The US will be involved in the Middle East so long as necessary to prevent another Viet Nam aftermath.