Maybe it is time to bring the troops home

[ltb]

If we do bring them home however, those people who have been whining and complaining without offering any solutions, will surely be the first to start whining and complaining when the price of gas goes up to $8.00 a gallon after the Mid-East disintegrates into total chaos. One other thing, I wonder if the self-proclaimed liberal thinkers on the West and East Coast fully appreciate who will be targeted by terrorists when they are freed up from fighting soldiers in Iraq? My guess is that the first nuclear weapons to be detonated in America won’t be in places like Dallas, or Topeka, they will be detonated in New York City or Miami or Los Angeles. So, maybe we should give the Liberals what they want, but I for one, will not be there for them, when they are walking around in a daze after they have reaped what they have sown.

 

[Fiercely Proud American]

If we do bring them home however, those people who have been whining and complaining without offering any solutions, will surely be the first to start whining and complaining when the price of gas goes up to $8.00 a gallon after the Mid-East disintegrates into total chaos. One other thing, I wonder if the self-proclaimed liberal thinkers on the West and East Coast fully appreciate who will be targeted by terrorists when they are freed up from fighting soldiers in Iraq? My guess is that the first nuclear weapons to be detonated in America won’t be in places like Dallas, or Topeka, they will be detonated in New York City or Miami or Los Angeles. So, maybe we should give the Liberals what they want, but I for one, will not be there for them, when they are walking around in a daze after they have reaped what they have sown.

Although I agree with your sentiments, I would say forget about the price of gas or anything like that.

Simply put, our withdrawal without a "victory" would embolden the terrorists, and put the sleeper-cells presently in the USA into hyper-drive and we would start seeing a lot of unwanted activity right in our home towns.

Additionally, I can just hear them crying to high heaven where is our protection - and attack President Bush even more - I can see Kerry running to a Heinz Katsup factory, and Kennedy jumping into the Chappiquidick, and Murtha taking a slow boat to Oakinawa, and Pelosi taling a flight on the jet she wants and burring he head under the pillow on the bed she wants, and Gore running to the Polar Icecap to speak infront of the Penguins and Polar Bears about global warming, and the list goes on. Every one of them except Lieberman would run and hide and piss and moan.

 

[ltb]

Additionally, I can just hear them crying to high heaven where is our protection - and attack President Bush even more - I can see Kerry running to a Heinz Katsup factory, and Kennedy jumping into the Chappiquidick, and Murtha taking a slow boat to Oakinawa, and Pelosi taling a flight on the jet she wants and burring he head under the pillow on the bed she wants, and Gore running to the Polar Icecap to speak infront of the Penguins and Polar Bears about global warming, and the list goes on. Every one of them except Lieberman would run and hide and piss and moan.

Funny and true.

 

[1069]

Although I agree with your sentiments, I would say forget about the price of gas or anything like that.

Simply put, our withdrawal without a "victory" would embolden the terrorists, and put the sleeper-cells presently in the USA into hyper-drive and we would start seeing a lot of unwanted activity right in our home towns.

Additionally, I can just hear them crying to high heaven where is our protection - and attack President Bush even more - I can see Kerry running to a Heinz Katsup factory, and Kennedy jumping into the Chappiquidick, and Murtha taking a slow boat to Oakinawa, and Pelosi taling a flight on the jet she wants and burring he head under the pillow on the bed she wants, and Gore running to the Polar Icecap to speak infront of the Penguins and Polar Bears about global warming, and the list goes on. Every one of them except Lieberman would run and hide and piss and moan.

I entirely disagree with your stance, so I can't justify giving you a "thanks", but your writing style is extremely witty and clever.
:2wave:

 

[Billo_Really]

And now back to reality!

Does Cheney 'Validate' al-Qaeda?
By Robert Parry March 1, 2007

Captured al-Qaeda documents reveal that Osama bin Laden’s principal goal in the 9/11 attacks was to lure the United States into a clumsy counterattack in the Middle East that would alienate Muslims, help al-Qaeda recruit more jihadists and bog down the American military in a no-win war.

Though bin Laden was mistaken in believing that Afghanistan would become the central front, he was right in pretty much every other part of his plan. At the time of 9/11, al-Qaeda was a fringe player in the Muslim world, with its leaders driven into exile and holed up in the mountains of Afghanistan.

Bin Laden understood that his movement had little hope if it couldn’t sharpen the animosities between the West and Islam – and force Muslims to pick sides between the U.S. “crusaders” and the “defenders of Islam.” He sought to position his terrorist movement as the chief beneficiary of that dividing line.

But bin Laden’s gamble over 9/11 was that al-Qaeda’s leadership might not survive a precise blow by the Americans.

According to Ron Suskind’s book, The One Percent Doctrine, bin Laden almost miscalculated by underestimating the ferocity and effectiveness of the original U.S. offensive in fall 2001. As he found himself cornered in the mountains of Tora Bora, bin Laden apologized to his followers for bringing them to the edge of destruction.

But then, in what may go down as one of the biggest military blunders in U.S. history, President George W. Bush failed to deploy American troops to block bin Laden’s escape routes, relying instead on Pakistani forces that were slow to move into place. Bin Laden and some of his top lieutenants escaped on horseback.

Bush then compounded his error by redirecting the focus of U.S. Special Forces from Afghanistan to Iraq. Al-Qaeda and the Taliban were badly bloodied but survived – and began to regroup.

By switching the central front from Afghanistan to Iraq in 2003, Bush even may have accelerated al-Qaeda’s progress.

Bush’s invasion of Iraq vitiated the international goodwill that surrounded the United States after the 9/11 attacks. It also eliminated one of bin Laden’s chief Arab rivals, the secular Saddam Hussein, while letting al-Qaeda exploit the chaos by attracting thousands of young jihadists to Iraq.

When the troops come home, al Qaeda will be either kicked out of the country or jailed. Most of the people joining their jihad, will go home because the reason to take up arms, will no longer be present in Iraq. What's left will be Iraqis who have very little tolerance to any further violence in their streets.

By the US staying, it increases al Qaeda's ranks.

 

[VTA]

And now back to reality!

When the troops come home, al Qaeda will be either kicked out of the country or jailed. Most of the people joining their jihad, will go home because the reason to take up arms, will no longer be present in Iraq. What's left will be Iraqis who have very little tolerance to any further violence in their streets.

By the US staying, it increases al Qaeda's ranks.

You don't say...? Minus America's presence in Iraq and Afghanistan before 2003, what do you suppose was the impetus for al Qeada's attacks on America?

The first WTC bombing... was the fore-knowledge that America would someday (10 years later) decide to invade Iraq enough to cause this???

Khobar towers, with regards from Iran and perhaps not al Qeada, was it the knowledge that someday America would be presented on it's borders, some 7 years in the future that brought this on???

American embassies in Africa, al Qeada's handiwork in response to...? America being in Iraq 5 years later???

Getting even closer to the big day! 2000 al Qeada attacks the U.S.S. Cole in Yemen, knowing full well that America would some day soon invade Iraq!

Ehhh... 9/11... 2001

Draw America into combat so everyone can simply go home after America leaves. Stunning deduction.

If you really wish to get back to reality Billo, please remember, as you yourself contradict the article you posted as proof of your opinion's validity, life didn't start in 2003, with the invasion of Iraq. A whole lot's been going on, since long before. Perhaps someone should have awoken you and let you know, because as it stands, your idea of reality is as profound as the Simpsons... and alot less funny.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by VTA:
You don't say...? Minus America's presence in Iraq and Afghanistan before 2003, what do you suppose was the impetus for al Qeada's attacks on America?

US troops on Saudi soil.

Originally posted by VTA:
The first WTC bombing... was the fore-knowledge that America would someday (10 years later) decide to invade Iraq enough to cause this???

I don't understand this question!

Originally posted by VTA:
Khobar towers, with regards from Iran and perhaps not al Qeada, was it the knowledge that someday America would be presented on it's borders, some 7 years in the future that brought this on???

Or this one.

Originally posted by VTA:
American embassies in Africa, al Qeada's handiwork in response to...? America being in Iraq 5 years later???

And this one.

Originally posted by VTA:
Getting even closer to the big day! 2000 al Qeada attacks the U.S.S. Cole in Yemen, knowing full well that America would some day soon invade Iraq!

Don't see how you know this.

Originally posted by VTA:
Ehhh... 9/11... 2001

Draw America into combat so everyone can simply go home after America leaves. Stunning deduction.

Again, is there a question here, a statement or rhetorical comment? You've completly lost me as to what your point is!

Originally posted by VTA:
If you really wish to get back to reality Billo, please remember, as you yourself contradict the article you posted as proof of your opinion's validity, life didn't start in 2003, with the invasion of Iraq. A whole lot's been going on, since long before. Perhaps someone should have awoken you and let you know, because as it stands, your idea of reality is as profound as the Simpsons... and alot less funny.

Where did I state life started in 2003? And what was the contradiction?

 

[LeftyHenry]

Simply put, our withdrawal without a "victory" would embolden the terrorists, and put the sleeper-cells presently in the USA into hyper-drive and we would start seeing a lot of unwanted activity right in our home towns.

Do you actually believe this bullshit?

 

[1069]

Do you actually believe this bullshit?

Yeah, I was sort of wondering that myself. Why would a suicide bomber need "emboldening"?
What have they got to lose?
I would think they're compelled by rage and desperation, and if anything our continued presence in Iraq is probably making them more enraged, more desperate.

 

[Fiercely Proud American]

Funny and true.

Thank you - I do have my "dry humor" side which surfaces every now and again.

 

[Fiercely Proud American]

I entirely disagree with your stance, so I can't justify giving you a "thanks", but your writing style is extremely witty and clever.
:2wave:

Why do you disagree ?? After all the DemLibSocs in Congress want to "Cut and Run".

Thanks for the comment.

 

[Fiercely Proud American]

Billo_Really:

When the troops come home, al Qaeda will be either kicked out of the country or jailed. Most of the people joining their jihad, will go home because the reason to take up arms, will no longer be present in Iraq. What's left will be Iraqis who have very little tolerance to any further violence in their streets.

By the US staying, it increases al Qaeda's ranks.

In case you haven;t been reading the news headlines for the past 6 to 9 months - the major fighting is the Shiite Versus Sunni - and this has been festering ever since 632 AD.

Yes the terrorists are still setting off IED's and suicide bombs - which by the way are killing more Iraqi's than American soldiers.

And in-as-much as it's Iraqi (Shiite) vs Iraqi (Sunni) how can you say Iraqi's will have little tollerance for violence in their streets since this sectarian violence is right smack damn in the middle of their streets ?????

 

[Fiercely Proud American]

Do you actually believe this bullshit?

And what actually leads you to make this uneducated statement :doh

 

[Fiercely Proud American]

Yeah, I was sort of wondering that myself. Why would a suicide bomber need "emboldening"?
What have they got to lose?
I would think they're compelled by rage and desperation, and if anything our continued presence in Iraq is probably making them more enraged, more desperate.

Perhaps you should refer to the manner in which Islamic children are taught starting in elementary school as to the ways of Jihad, and Allah's wishes.

Now, a more simpler question - if you are fighting an oposing force, and you see them start to retreat, etc., wouldn't that encourage you to further more intense attacks until they were defeated ???

 

[Sergeant Stinger1]

If we do bring them home however, those people who have been whining and complaining without offering any solutions, will surely be the first to start whining and complaining when the price of gas goes up to $8.00 a gallon after the Mid-East disintegrates into total chaos. One other thing, I wonder if the self-proclaimed liberal thinkers on the West and East Coast fully appreciate who will be targeted by terrorists when they are freed up from fighting soldiers in Iraq? My guess is that the first nuclear weapons to be detonated in America won’t be in places like Dallas, or Topeka, they will be detonated in New York City or Miami or Los Angeles. So, maybe we should give the Liberals what they want, but I for one, will not be there for them, when they are walking around in a daze after they have reaped what they have sown.

______
If the Mid East does collapse we have Bush to thank for that.
AH! The old "fight them on their ground and not on ours" BS!
There were no or just a few terrorist in Iraq BEFORE Georgie Boy invaded Iraq.
PS: I don't think anyone really wants or needs your help. Unless you single handedly can help any area here that has been nuked or bombed.
Were you the only one at ground zero?

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally Posted by Fiercely Proud American
In case you haven;t been reading the news headlines for the past 6 to 9 months - the major fighting is the Shiite Versus Sunni - and this has been festering ever since 632 AD.

Yes the terrorists are still setting off IED's and suicide bombs - which by the way are killing more Iraqi's than American soldiers.

And in-as-much as it's Iraqi (Shiite) vs Iraqi (Sunni) how can you say Iraqi's will have little tollerance for violence in their streets since this sectarian violence is right smack damn in the middle of their streets ?????

It is these Iranian Shiites we brought to power. All this violence is a direct result of our invasion. All this violence was not present in Iraq before the invasion. It is true their former leader was a tyrannical dictator and major a.s.s.hole, but he was contained and Iraqis had a better standard of living before the invasion without all the sectarian violence.

The following is an inside look at Iraqi life that isn't present in the mainstream media.

MJ: How about the sectarian differences that the fighting seems to be exacerbating?

Sunshine: Personally, I didn’t know the difference between Shiites and Sunnis until three years ago. My best friend is Shiite; we have been friends since we were 6 years old. Neither of us supports what is happening now. My grandparent's neighbors are Shiite; the mother has been my grandma's friend for over 35 years. We like their family very much, and we both feel very angry about this ridiculous segregation. You see Shiites and Sunnis married and living in the same house—many relatives of mine are married to Shiite men or women, and they won’t get divorced because of this silly segregation. They are Muslims before they are Shiites or Sunni, and in the end we are all Iraqis, no matter what our religion or denomination.

In answer to your question, I don't know what will happen after we leave.

 

[ltb]

______
PS: I don't think anyone really wants or needs your help. Unless you single handedly can help any area here that has been nuked or bombed.
Were you the only one at ground zero?

Like I said, bring them home. As far as asking for my individual help, like most Conservatives I don’t need to be asked, because I put my money where my mouth is. I believe in limited government and when disasters strike Conservatives are typically the ones gladly donating our money to help those in need. Charity is a foreign concept to the vast majority of Liberals, most likely because of your selfish and self-centered nature. Studies actually bear out that while Liberals like to talk about helping those in need, they are reluctant to offer their own time and money.

Kerry is a prime example of how Liberals think that all societal woes should be fixed as long as there is no personal sacrifice and like any good Liberal he wants redistribution of wealth as long as it’s not his wealth. If you look at the tax records of Kerry, Bush and Cheney for 2003, the Bushes and Cheneys gave approximately 10% of their income to charity, while Kerry gave less than 9/10ths of 1% of his income (~$44,000) to charities. What a slob.

I gladly donated money to 9/11 funds and quite frankly I was disgusted when families demanded that the government pay them for lost earning potential. If you don’t have life insurance, or adequate savings, and your spouse dies, you should suffer the consequences. Trust me, I will not be donating one cent if NYC or LA are wiped off of the map.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally Posted by ltb
I believe in limited government and when disasters strike Conservatives are typically the ones gladly donating their money to help those in need.

Like the ones in New Orleans?

 

[ltb]

Like the ones in New Orleans?

I’m not sure what you’re implying. Are you saying that President Bush was being stingy when he authorized billions of dollars to help New Orleans rebuild? Regarding personal charity, it's a safe bet that conservative individuals gave a lot more on average than Liberals to the victims in New Orleans. I’ll bet you didn’t give a penny did you?

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally Posted by ltb
I’m not sure what you’re implying. Are you saying that President Bush was being stingy when he authorized billions of dollars to help New Orleans rebuild? Regarding personal charity, it's a safe bet that conservative individuals gave a lot more on average than Liberals to the victims in New Orleans. I’ll bet you didn’t give a penny did you?

He had to be persuaded to do something AFTER 9 DAYS!

As far as stingy, I'm sure Halliburton doesn't think so.

 

[ltb]

He had to be persuaded to do something AFTER 9 DAYS!

As far as stingy, I'm sure Halliburton doesn't think so.

Personally, I don't think the federal government should have lifted a finger, except to help the few, truly needy who fell through the cracks of charity. As far as the businesses and homes that weren’t insured, too bad. On the flip side, the government should have stepped in and forced the greedy insurance companies to pay what was due to those who were insured. That would have been the proper role of our federal government.

We still have a lot of refugees, oh I'm sorry, how insensitive of me, “evacuees” from New Orleans who are sucking the life out of Houston. Our crime rate has sky-rocketed and the city’s coffers are running dry while these evacuees sit around complaining that they are going to have to move from their government subsidized apartments and hotels if Uncle Sam doesn’t step in and do something quick to extend their FEMA housing grants. As hardly [sic] as they try, they simply just can’t find work to get back on their feet. Meanwhile, they also complain that the government isn’t moving fast enough to rebuild New Orleans. Here’s a thought, why don’t they get off their lazy butts, move back to New Orleans and repay Tax Payers for the housing subsidies they received by donating their time to rebuild New Orleans themselves? Of course that would displace a lot of illegal immigrants, oops there I go again, I mean “undocumented workers” who are doing all of that work in New Orleans that Americans just refuse to do.

 

[Sergeant Stinger1]

Why do you disagree ?? After all the DemLibSocs in Congress want to "Cut and Run".

Thanks for the comment.

_____
LOL! "CUT AND RUN" is something made up by loser Bush and you Cons sucked it up like it was beer.
Bush is the Pied Piper and you Cons are the following SHEEP!!!
Ask the familys of our dead soldiers if they would have rather had Bush "Cut and Run" or not!

 

[Sergeant Stinger1]

Like I said, bring them home. As far as asking for my individual help, like most Conservatives I don’t need to be asked, because I put my money where my mouth is.
___
Typical Con thinking he is a real Republican while the real Rebubs, the RICH Repubs are laugh their AZZs off at you!
___
I believe in limited government and when disasters strike Conservatives are typically the ones gladly donating our money to help those in need.
___
YUP! The true charity givers don't brag about it, they just do it.
___
Charity is a foreign concept to the vast majority of Liberals, most likely because of your selfish and self-centered nature. Studies actually bear out that while Liberals like to talk about helping those in need, they are reluctant to offer their own time and money.
___
Do you have a LINK that shows that? OR are you just talking out of your AZZ again?
___

Kerry is a prime example of how Liberals think that all societal woes should be fixed as long as there is no personal sacrifice and like any good Liberal he wants redistribution of wealth as long as it’s not his wealth. If you look at the tax records of Kerry, Bush and Cheney for 2003, the Bushes and Cheneys gave approximately 10% of their income to charity, while Kerry gave less than 9/10ths of 1% of his income (~$44,000) to charities. What a slob.
___
Bush and Cheney have a guilt problem. They think that by giving to charity some of their stolen or price gouged money GOD and the DUMB Cons will think highly of them. Kerry doesn't have any guilt trips!!! Hes not the ones screwing us.
___

I gladly donated money to 9/11 funds and quite frankly I was disgusted when families demanded that the government pay them for lost earning potential.
___
YUP! Ill bet that $2.00 you sent them really helped them.
___

If you don’t have life insurance, or adequate savings, and your spouse dies, you should suffer the consequences. Trust me, I will not be donating one cent if NYC or LA are wiped off of the map.

___
SO! ALL the CONS have adequate life insurance and savings but ALL the LIBS have none? Typical Con WARPED MIND thinking.
___
Funny how you Cons have become SUCKERS for the real Repubs, the RICH Repubs!
BTW: No one is going to miss your $2.00 anyway.

 

[VTA]

US troops on Saudi soil.I don't understand this question!Or this one.And this one.Don't see how you know this.Again, is there a question here, a statement or rhetorical comment? You've completly lost me as to what your point is!Where did I state life started in 2003? And what was the contradiction?

You claim the fight is all about America being in Iraq and if America leaves they'll simply go home. This is what you wrote. So you post an article that states the idea was to draw America into a conflict in the Middle East. The intention was to get America to come to the Middle East and fight, so says the article. Umm. Why? So America will leave and they can go home? Just a good old fashioned blood letting to liven things up? Poor reasoning on both sides, not to mention a contradiction.

All attacks mentioned took place long before America was in Iraq. Again, if your contention is that they're fighting because America is in Iraq and there is no enemy, what do you call those above mentioned attacks? And who were they carried out by?

Because of troops on Saudi soil? What was done because of American troops on Saudi soil? You've already maintained that there is no tangible enemy and that there is no real war. More contradiction. Is there or isn't there someone fighting? You just made an attempt at giving a reason for their (whoever they are) discord and their attacks (whatever they were).

You take a flaky excuse from a bin Laden letter as really having that sort of impact to set something as brutal as this in motion? Then I'll take it, you'll also accept his notion that our behaviour in Western Culture (you know, gambling womenizing and all the dirty things he listed) is good enough reason to start killing 'American civilians any where you find them'?

What's galling is the entire credibility you'll give to this fools words as truth, yet call into question the motives of every move made by your own country. Yes, I know, blind patriotism, or jingoism as the knotheads like to call it, is a dangerous ring to have attached to your nose, but the blind mistrust and acceptance of everything that seems to carry the same aroma of your own general wants are just as dangerous. You might not support or want the war, but be advised, everyone not for the war is honest and above their own sort of propoganda, least of all the enemies of the United States. They can lie too.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally Posted by VTA
You claim the fight is all about America being in Iraq and if America leaves they'll simply go home. This is what you wrote. So you post an article that states the idea was to draw America into a conflict in the Middle East. The intention was to get America to come to the Middle East and fight, so says the article. Umm. Why? So America will leave and they can go home? Just a good old fashioned blood letting to liven things up? Poor reasoning on both sides, not to mention a contradiction.

The point was not whether UBL was right or wrong. I think the man is garbage and should be locked up for the rest of his life without the possibility of parole. The point was that a lot of the insurgency is from people who would not normally be considered terrorists, but have picked up arms against the US because of our continued occupation of their country. You would do the same thing here if a significant force was in America.

Originally Posted by VTA
All attacks mentioned took place long before America was in Iraq. Again, if your contention is that they're fighting because America is in Iraq and there is no enemy, what do you call those above mentioned attacks? And who were they carried out by?

Those attacks were not done by Iraqis. So why attack them [the Iraqis]?

Originally Posted by VTA
Because of troops on Saudi soil? What was done because of American troops on Saudi soil? You've already maintained that there is no tangible enemy and that there is no real war. More contradiction. Is there or isn't there someone fighting? You just made an attempt at giving a reason for their (whoever they are) discord and their attacks (whatever they were).

This statement makes no sense.

Originally Posted by VTA
You take a flaky excuse from a bin Laden letter as really having that sort of impact to set something as brutal as this in motion? Then I'll take it, you'll also accept his notion that our behaviour in Western Culture (you know, gambling womenizing and all the dirty things he listed) is good enough reason to start killing 'American civilians any where you find them'?

No matter how bad our culture has become in regards to decadence, we did not deserve 9/11. What UBL did was wrong. That's not how you solve problems.

Originally Posted by VTA
What's galling is the entire credibility you'll give to this fools words as truth, yet call into question the motives of every move made by your own country. Yes, I know, blind patriotism, or jingoism as the knotheads like to call it, is a dangerous ring to have attached to your nose, but the blind mistrust and acceptance of everything that seems to carry the same aroma of your own general wants are just as dangerous. You might not support or want the war, but be advised, everyone not for the war is honest and above their own sort of propoganda, least of all the enemies of the United States. They can lie too.

It is only your perception that I am giving his words credibility. And you are taking things out of context. You are not even trying to see my point. So what are you responding too?