question for liberals about militant islam

[Tashah]

While liberals generally do not condone Islamic terrorism, it has been my perception that they oftentimes do champion the agenda of Islamic terrorists. For the life of me I cannot understand this stance, because the core agenda of Islamic terrorists is decidedly an illiberal agenda.

 

[Gardener]

While liberals generally do not condone Islamic terrorism, it has been my perception that they oftentimes do champion the agenda of Islamic terrorists. For the life of me I cannot understand this stance, because the core agenda of Islamic terrorists is decidedly an illiberal agenda.

I have all but stopped referring to myself as a liberal because of this very same phenomenon.

I have long supported liberal values, and I do go back quite a ways. I'velongbeen interested in politics, but I had not actually involved myself in online political discussion groups until the dean and then later the Kerry forums. It wouldbe quietthe understatement to say I was shocked by the attitudes of the people I encountered at both places. At the Kerry forum, one perrson was actually promoting a known terrorist web site and the doofus who was chief administrator of the place supported thefellow.

Thisis what liberality has become?

 

[niftydrifty]

This is what liberality has become?

No, that isn't what Liberalism has become. those are a couple of people at a couple of online forums. and how old do you think they were? 20-somethings? do you have any similar examples from people in the public eye? people that actually have influence?

While liberals generally do not condone Islamic terrorism, it has been my perception that they oftentimes do champion the agenda of Islamic terrorists. For the life of me I cannot understand this stance, because the core agenda of Islamic terrorists is decidedly an illiberal agenda.

Do any Liberals actually champion the agenda of Islamic terrorists? examples, please. I don't believe any do. you might find some pointing it out that we should look at the situation from their perspective, but championing their agenda? I really don't think so.

 

[Tashah]

Do any Liberals actually champion the agenda of Islamic terrorists? examples, please. I don't believe any do. you might find some pointing it out that we should look at the situation from their perspective, but championing their agenda? I really don't think so.

I have seen more than one so-called liberal here defending Islamic terrorists. If you defend terrorists, then you tacitly champion their agenda. I will say however, that European liberals are much more prone to this than their American counterparts.

Someone asked, and I provided my perception. From the post that followed mine, it appears that this perception is shared by others... even liberal others.

 

[niftydrifty]

I was wondering if anyone actually championed their agenda. Tashah, you explained how they tacitly champion their agenda. not the same thing. so, I guess we're both right.

"defending" is rather vague.

 

[Iriemon]

I have seen almost no one defending the terrorist agenda or terrorists. I'd like to see that too.

What I see from a lot of conservatives is if you question the legitamcy of war, or the accuracy of accusations about Muslems, you are therefore defending terrorists or the "terrorist agenda".

If I say that I think the attack, invasion and occupation of Iraq was unjustified, or respond to someone saying Hussein was a radical Islamist by stating that that Hussein was not an Islamic fundamentalist but had a *Christian* as his top minister, to conservatives that is "defending the terrorist agenda" or "defending Islamic terrorists".

It's the "if you're not with us you're agin us attitude."

 

[Gardener]

No, that isn't what Liberalism has become. those are a couple of people at a couple of online forums. and how old do you think they were? 20-somethings? do you have any similar examples from people in the public eye? people that actually have influence?

.

Well,I do have an A.N.S.W.E.R for you, but you may not like it and be tempted to COUNTERPUNCH.

I do believe it is much more than a couple of people at a couple of forums, but if you mean by people in the public eye only those who are actual policy makers, then I might tend to agree up to a point.

I usually do not suggest reading the words of others by way of explaining my own position, but I might referyou to Tod Gitlin. He has written about the same phenomenon, and I would hope he still has at least a little street cred as far as his liberal badge is concerned, being the former head of the S.D.S..

 

[Karmashock]

I don't know what you are talking about. I need to see some specific examples, any group who defend their actions regardless of their feelings for Bush is uncalled for, that I concur. I know I have never made any apologies or defended any of their actions, but I do defend grouping peaceful muslims like the sifus with the raging fundamentalists like the wahabis who comprised most of the 9-11 terrorists.

How do you perceive the calls for diplomacy with people that every day officially profess their intent to kill us all?

How do you perceive some leaders, in direct violation of US foreign policy, visiting people that have aided and abeded those that have spilled American blood... for little more it seems then to thumb their nose at the administration?

How do you perceive leaders that dismiss our international obligations as merely optional, dismiss american honor, dismiss american responsiblity, leave allies that depend upon us to fend for themselves... all with no consideration for the long term consequences of abandoning allies in the field? Who would want to be your ally if at the drop of a hat you'd suddenly declare all of your promises and responsibilities to be a figment of someone else's imagination? Would you join their colition in the future? If they offered to protect you in the years to come what would it be worth?

How do you perceive leaders that say they're UNCONDITIONALLY pulling the funding from the war by any means necessary and at the same time refusing to be briefed by the US generals they are now responsible for?


I can go on... But if the democrats keep this up they're going to find that this political gravy train they've been on will have been laced with long term poison. They might win a couple elections with this... but if they don't shape up and SOON, this will burn them for decades.

The only sad thing is that no matter how badly the democrats suffer for that, the nation will suffer far more... we pull out and we'll never be able to live down the shame. And unlike the transient fickle rabble rousing the dems are feeding on right now... that shame will burn hot long after they've moved on to the next carcass to feed upon.


The fact of hte matter is this... the dems have yet to adjust to the fact that they are now in control of congress. Oh they know they have the power and they're using it to secure their power base. However, they've yet to realize that with that power comes responsibility. REAL responsibility. The kind that transcends talking points and spin. This is the real stuff... the do or die... it transcends politics... philosophy... religion... it's like gravity... like fire... the hardness of a stone. It cannot be argued with... only dealt with or it deals with you. The barbarians are at the gate... do not trust the walls to hold them.

Love and peace, Karmashock.

 

[rivrrat]

The only sad thing is that no matter how badly the democrats suffer for that, the nation will suffer far more... we pull out and we'll never be able to live down the shame. And unlike the transient fickle rabble rousing the dems are feeding on right now... that shame will burn hot long after they've moved on to the next carcass to feed upon.

Oh yes... "shame". Such a fantastic reason to send our soldiers to their deaths. So we won't be "shamed". :roll:

We were "shamed" when we invaded another country that posed no threat to us. We were "shamed" as the lies our president told came to light. We were "shamed" by the "misinformation" and "bad intelligence" came to light. We were "shamed" for killing thousands of innocent people because we were wrong. We remain "shamed" while we stay as occupiers of said country. We were "shamed" by our soldiers actions in detention centers. We are "shamed" by having an abomination such as the Patriot Act in place. We are "shamed" - as a country - for being hypocrits... for proclaiming "freedom for all" while we slaughter those who do not wish us to occupy their country and be held at gunpoint by our soldiers. we proclaim "freedom" while holding an entire country hostage.

We cannot undo the shame we have caused ourselves, but we can at least put a stop to it for now by leaving the country we occupy, bringing our remaining soldiers home safely and then worrying about our own country's issues instead of everyone elses.

 

[WI Crippler]

Oh yes... "shame". Such a fantastic reason to send our soldiers to their deaths. So we won't be "shamed". :roll:

We were "shamed" when we invaded another country that posed no threat to us. We were "shamed" as the lies our president told came to light. We were "shamed" by the "misinformation" and "bad intelligence" came to light. We were "shamed" for killing thousands of innocent people because we were wrong. We remain "shamed" while we stay as occupiers of said country. We were "shamed" by our soldiers actions in detention centers. We are "shamed" by having an abomination such as the Patriot Act in place. We are "shamed" - as a country - for being hypocrits... for proclaiming "freedom for all" while we slaughter those who do not wish us to occupy their country and be held at gunpoint by our soldiers. we proclaim "freedom" while holding an entire country hostage.

We cannot undo the shame we have caused ourselves, but we can at least put a stop to it for now by leaving the country we occupy, bringing our remaining soldiers home safely and then worrying about our own country's issues instead of everyone elses.

There is so much wrong with most of whats written in here.

We are "slaughtering" people??
We are holding them at gunpoint??The only ones holding Iraqis hostage are the ones blowing them up with bombs.
Our soliders are in harms way?? Well no ****, thats what they are paid to do. They aren't paid to stay back in the states and play beach volleyball while regimes around the world actually slaughter their own citizens...
The only things that are shameful was the faulty intel, and the very few detention center abuses, which pale in comparison to what the radicals fighting to get us out of Iraq do to their prisoners.

You sound like that crazy *** hack, Cindy Sheehan with this diatribe. Get a clue to the culture that exists in the ME that allows for the teachings of hatred that lead to the suicide bombers. Our mistake in Iraq is that we allowed too much liberty right away, and the terrorists have used it to their advantage. Quit demonizing our troops as the slaughterers, when it is the terrorists that are doing the slaughtering........

I say, shame on you, for your mindless banter....

 

[rivrrat]

There is so much wrong with most of whats written in here.

We are "slaughtering" people??

Yeah, when we drop bombs on people's heads... I call that slaughtering.

We are holding them at gunpoint??

Our soldiers have the entire country of Iraq held at gunpoint.

Our soliders are in harms way?? Well no ****, thats what they are paid to do. They aren't paid to stay back in the states and play beach volleyball while regimes around the world actually slaughter their own citizens...

They should only risk their lives for a reasonable purpose. Not some BS like the reasons we're in Iraq. There is no good reason for our soldiers to be risking their lives and dying in Iraq. It is shameful of a country to use their soldiers in such a way, as if they're all just expendable for any reason at all.

You sound like that crazy *** hack, Cindy Sheehan with this diatribe. Get a clue to the culture that exists in the ME that allows for the teachings of hatred that lead to the suicide bombers. Our mistake in Iraq is that we allowed too much liberty right away, and the terrorists have used it to their advantage. Quit demonizing our troops as the slaughterers, when it is the terrorists that are doing the slaughtering........

How many Iraquis have we killed? For no reason whatsoever? How many did we kill when we came in with guns blazing and bombs dropping? People there live in fear because of *us*. People there live in a fear they never had prior to our arrival. It is indeed shameful of us.

Demoralizing our troops? No, that's the Bush Administration's job. Send them off to a country to fight and die for no reason at all. THAT is demoralizing.

 

[WI Crippler]

Well I am not going to go quote for quote with you here Rivrrat.

Generally you are an intelligent poster, but I am just going to have to disagree with you on this topic. There are alot of things that have been going on in the ME, for a very long time that have now been exposed. And it is not pretty. It is no wonder people are abhorred by what they see, but history does go back before George Bush, and what he did was unwittingly uncover a hornets nest, and then didn't plan for dealing with the hornets themselves. And now we feel the sting, but it should not deter us from giving the people in that region the opportunity that exists for so many in western civilization ( not just the US ). If we are ever going to be this "global community" of citizens, then people are going to need to realize we cannot reach that goal by allowing dictators and religous zealots, to rule with an iron fist over the common man.....

 

[Karmashock]

Oh yes... "shame". Such a fantastic reason to send our soldiers to their deaths. So we won't be "shamed". :roll:

It's called integrity and it's required for relationships in which people trust each other.


If you're a shiftless, two tongued, spin doctor... who can really only be counted upon to double cross anyone that trusts you... you'll find very quickly that no one does trust you.


As to shame... shame is not a baseless emotion... it has roots in reality. If you don't see anything wrong with acting in a shameful manner then I don't expect you to understand why this is a mistake.



In the end, if all you care about is your short term political gains you'll lose that eventually too... the dems are selling their future political credibility for a current gain. Before the war Americans already thought of the dems as being weak on foreign policy... if they kill the war arbitarily while making no effort to even hear what our generals are saying that impression will increase geometrically and the net result will be that dems will have a harder time getting elected to president. I know, that sounds strange because we're really talking about congress. But the president is primarily responsible for the country's foreign policy... htat is where the dems have paid in the past when they've done this and that's where they'll pay again.

 

[rivrrat]

Well I am not going to go quote for quote with you here Rivrrat.

Generally you are an intelligent poster, but I am just going to have to disagree with you on this topic. There are alot of things that have been going on in the ME, for a very long time that have now been exposed. And it is not pretty. It is no wonder people are abhorred by what they see, but history does go back before George Bush, and what he did was unwittingly uncover a hornets nest, and then didn't plan for dealing with the hornets themselves. And now we feel the sting, but it should not deter us from giving the people in that region the opportunity that exists for so many in western civilization ( not just the US ). If we are ever going to be this "global community" of citizens, then people are going to need to realize we cannot reach that goal by allowing dictators and religous zealots, to rule with an iron fist over the common man.....

I am not for "globalization". I believe a country has a right to self-determination. I do not believe that country #1 has the "right" to barge into country #2 and change their government to better country #1. I don't think that our western style democracy is necessarily the "be all, end all" style of government that the entire world just MUST adopt. I think countries should adopt it if they choose. If people of a country want something, they can fight for it. Our ancestors did. So can the citizens of other countries. It is not our place to go in and change governments at our whim and for our own purposes.

 

[rivrrat]

It's called integrity and it's required for relationships in which people trust each other.


If you're a shiftless, two tongued, spin doctor... who can really only be counted upon to double cross anyone that trusts you... you'll find very quickly that no one does trust you.

Yup, I know. We've shown that to world.... that we have no integrity.

As to shame... shame is not a baseless emotion... it has roots in reality. If you don't see anything wrong with acting in a shameful manner then I don't expect you to understand why this is a mistake.

It's purely subjective, and as such it is a absolutely insane "reason" to risk the lives of our soldiers.

In the end, if all you care about is your short term political gains you'll lose that eventually too... the dems are selling their future political credibility for a current gain. Before the war Americans already thought of the dems as being weak on foreign policy... if they kill the war arbitarily while making no effort to even hear what our generals are saying that impression will increase geometrically and the net result will be that dems will have a harder time getting elected to president. I know, that sounds strange because we're really talking about congress. But the president is primarily responsible for the country's foreign policy... htat is where the dems have paid in the past when they've done this and that's where they'll pay again.

In the end, it's all about how many of our soldiers we sent to their deaths for absolutely no reason and no gain whatsoever. How many of our soldiers we essentially used as fodder for... what? They aren't fighting for our country's defense. They aren't fighting to protect America. They aren't fighting to protect America's allies. They aren't fighting to make America a better place. They're fighting for *nothing*. They're dying for *nothing*. It is indeed shameful of an administration to have such little respect for the lives of its soldiers. It is sad, and shameful. It's disgusting.

Whether it's political or not, at least some in the administration now have enough respect for our soldiers and their lives to try and get them the hell out of a place they never should have been in to begin with.

 

[Karmashock]

Yup, I know. We've shown that to world.... that we have no integrity.

False, we've demonstrated to our allies a history of reliability and strength. Where the UN has waffled and europe has dickered the US has generally stood it's ground and defended it's allies.



Abandoning them would be to throw that integrity away. From your manner though, it's obvious that you have nothing but contempt for the United States, it's place in the world, and most of the political realities that make the world go around... largely because they don't fit within a myopic ideological framework incapable of adjusting to "reality".

It's purely subjective, and as such it is a absolutely insane "reason" to risk the lives of our soldiers.

Agreements are not subjective. Promises are not subjective. Commitments are not subjective. Our word is not subjective.


Unless you again... have no integrity?

In the end, it's all about how many of our soldiers we sent to their deaths for absolutely no reason and no gain whatsoever. How many of our soldiers we essentially used as fodder for... what? They aren't fighting for our country's defense. They aren't fighting to protect America. They aren't fighting to protect America's allies. They aren't fighting to make America a better place. They're fighting for *nothing*. They're dying for *nothing*. It is indeed shameful of an administration to have such little respect for the lives of its soldiers. It is sad, and shameful. It's disgusting.

First they are fighting for our defense. It's an obvious part of the GWoT... the nature of which has been explained enough times that you can be expected to know this...

Sadly, I think you're being more then a little dishonest by claiming ignorance on this point.

Whether it's political or not, at least some in the administration now have enough respect for our soldiers and their lives to try and get them the hell out of a place they never should have been in to begin with.

Oh, and did you ask what the soldiers want?


These men and women VOLUNTEERED to serve. This is not vietnam where we had a draft. These people CHOSE to go. What's more the OVERWHELMING majority of messages from the troops is that they do not want to be pulled out before the job is done. Some leftist journalists have even gone so far as to call the troops "ungrateful" for not respecting the democrat's irrational drive to pull out of Iraq. These men and women are making progress over there. They know it and are proud of it.


Wake up. If your people cared about our soldiers they'd be talking with the generals and getting involved with the war effort. Instead they're SNUBBING the generals, closing their ears to everyone, and driving ahead with a preconceived program motivated by little more then expedient partisan political advantage. And in time they will pay for that in spades.


Love and peace, Karmashock.

 

[rivrrat]

False, we've demonstrated to our allies a history of reliability and strength. Where the UN has waffled and europe has dickered the US has generally stood it's ground and defended it's allies.

On occasion. But not always.

Abandoning them would be to throw that integrity away.

Abaondoning who?

From your manner though, it's obvious that you have nothing but contempt for the United States, it's place in the world, and most of the political realities that make the world go around... largely because they don't fit within a myopic ideological framework incapable of adjusting to "reality".

I have nothing but contempt for the Bush administration.

Agreements are not subjective. Promises are not subjective. Commitments are not subjective. Our word is not subjective.


Unless you again... have no integrity?

The concept of what is "shameful" is purely subjective.

First they are fighting for our defense. It's an obvious part of the GWoT... the nature of which has been explained enough times that you can be expected to know this...

Sadly, I think you're being more then a little dishonest by claiming ignorance on this point.

Obviously, it's not so obvious. I've gone over the "evidence". I used to argue very strongly in favor of the war. Then I realized that we had been misled into believing there was actually a good reason for us being there. There isn't.

Oh, and did you ask what the soldiers want?

Really doesn't matter what the soldiers "want", now does it? Not ultimately.

These men and women VOLUNTEERED to serve. This is not vietnam where we had a draft. These people CHOSE to go. What's more the OVERWHELMING majority of messages from the troops is that they do not want to be pulled out before the job is done. Some leftist journalists have even gone so far as to call the troops "ungrateful" for not respecting the democrat's irrational drive to pull out of Iraq. These men and women are making progress over there. They know it and are proud of it.

They volunteered to join the military, they did not volunteer to participate in dumbass effort in Iraq to accomplish absolutely nothing.

I find it disgusting that the BA has so little respect for the men and women who serve in our military. I have much more respect for them personally. I don't consider them expendable for any reason, and certainly not at the whim of one man.

Wake up. If your people cared about our soldiers they'd be talking with the generals and getting involved with the war effort. Instead they're SNUBBING the generals, closing their ears to everyone, and driving ahead with a preconceived program motivated by little more then expedient partisan political advantage. And in time they will pay for that in spades.

My people? Who exactly are "my people"? As far as I know, the only "people" I am a part of are the citizens of the United States.

 

[Karmashock]

On occasion. But not always.

Nothing is perfect... we have an overwhelmingly consistent record.

Abaondoning who?

Iraq, Israel, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, UAE, and most of the other elements in the middle east that are open to moderation.


If we pull out then we give Iraq to Iran... which is already in the process of arming itself with nuclear weapons. A point WHATEVER you might think is widely believed by nearly every nation in the middle east. If Iran's weapons progam isn't stopped, then Egypt, Syria, etc will ALL go nuclear. And as for Iraq it will fall into Iran's hands as a puppet state.


The iraqis that we promised a better life... a shot at freedom... all gone.


And worst of all we'll be betraying ourselves because Iraq's success is very important for the US's struggle against international terrorism. The middle east must be changed fundamentally for the terrorism to stop. Iraq can be used as a seed to that effect.


You give up on that and you throw away our best chance at changing the middle east for hte better which in the end makes american's safer.

I have nothing but contempt for the Bush administration.

Oh? So if changed the president to something else but maintained the policies you'd be ok with that?


Obviously not. Be rational, you dislike the policies... unless you dislike is really the personal dislike of Bush... which I must say is rather hard to respect in a foreign policy debate.

The concept of what is "shameful" is purely subjective.

True, those with no shame shall have none.

Obviously, it's not so obvious. I've gone over the "evidence". I used to argue very strongly in favor of the war. Then I realized that we had been misled into believing there was actually a good reason for us being there. There isn't.

Why did you think the US should have gone to Iraq? I'm curious... and does anyone here remember you saying that? Forgive my skepticism... but I've heard too many people make this claim falsely.

Really doesn't matter what the soldiers "want", now does it? Not ultimately.

So long as you admit you're not doing this for the soldiers. We both know that you're only claiming you're doing it for them because it makes for a nice sound bite.


You're doing this because you've been able to retroactively associate the war with vietnam and after years and years of the media hammering the US population you've started to wear down the public's resolve. Now you have an opportunity to pretend that this is Vietnam only this time it isn't democrats that started the war it's republicans.

Never mind that in those days we had a drafted army that didn't want to be there. Never mind that today we have a volunteer army that wants to stay.


The democrats think they can secure their power base by harping on this war. So that's what they're doing. There is no morality in it... there is no higher consciousness... it's simple crass political partisanship... and it's frankly pathetic.

They volunteered to join the military, they did not volunteer to participate in dumbass effort in Iraq to accomplish absolutely nothing.

Creating a democracy where there was once a brutal dictatorship is nothing?


hmmm...

I find it disgusting that the BA has so little respect for the men and women who serve in our military. I have much more respect for them personally. I don't consider them expendable for any reason, and certainly not at the whim of one man.

If you had respect for them you'd respect their opinions. Which you do not.


your respect is a political fig leaf. If you cared you care what they thought. You do not.

You do not.

You do not.


So don't respect them. They're political pawns to you. You want them to shut up and then speak FOR them. Claim that YOU support them even if they don't support you.


It's irrational and insincere. If you were intellectually honest you'd give some consideration to their opinions.

My people? Who exactly are "my people"? As far as I know, the only "people" I am a part of are the citizens of the United States.

Oh sure, then we're all part of the same people and we all agree on everything. We don't break up into political factions and fight over things like two dogs pulling on a bone in the street... Riiiiiight?


Of course you have a faction just as I have a faction. Pretending otherwise is ludicrous.

 

[Tashah]

Petraeus to Brief Lawmakers Before Final House Vote on Iraq War Spending Bill
Wednesday, April 25, 2007
By Major Garrett

WASHINGTON — Army Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, is briefing House members on Wednesday on President Bush's Iraq troop surge in his first appearance on Capitol Hill to assess the latest military efforts to lessen sectarian and Al Qaeda-sponsored violence in Iraq.

The meeting comes just hours before the House will vote on an emergency war funding bill that requires combat troop withdrawals to begin this year and seeks removal of virtually all combat forces by April of next year.

Petraeus will offer his military assessment of the new Iraq security plan and take questions in a closed-door session on the House floor. All lawmakers are invited, but House Speaker Nancy Pelosi will not attend.

Story here

Read the bolded last sentence. Now THAT, is shameful.

 

[rivrrat]

If we pull out then we give Iraq to Iran... which is already in the process of arming itself with nuclear weapons. A point WHATEVER you might think is widely believed by nearly every nation in the middle east. If Iran's weapons progam isn't stopped, then Egypt, Syria, etc will ALL go nuclear. And as for Iraq it will fall into Iran's hands as a puppet state.

I have no problem with any country 'going nuclear'.

The iraqis that we promised a better life... a shot at freedom... all gone.

What better life?

And worst of all we'll be betraying ourselves because Iraq's success is very important for the US's struggle against international terrorism. The middle east must be changed fundamentally for the terrorism to stop. Iraq can be used as a seed to that effect.

Right. You can buy that party line if you want, I don't.

Why did you think the US should have gone to Iraq? I'm curious... and does anyone here remember you saying that? Forgive my skepticism... but I've heard too many people make this claim falsely.

I was led to believe that the Iraq government had something to do with the 9/11 attacks, and/or was pulling the strings for the people who commited them, and that they had "WMD" that were just waiting to be dropped on our doorstep.

As far as my debating in favor of the war, no I wasn't a member of this forum at the time.

So long as you admit you're not doing this for the soldiers. We both know that you're only claiming you're doing it for them because it makes for a nice sound bite.

Uh no. I'd prefer to see our soldiers come home ALIVE and UNHARMED. That's certainly "for the soldiers". I don't think their lives should be wasted for no good reason. I don't think they should be USED as fodder for some ridiculous war started by an idiot.

You're doing this because you've been able to retroactively associate the war with vietnam and after years and years of the media hammering the US population you've started to wear down the public's resolve. Now you have an opportunity to pretend that this is Vietnam only this time it isn't democrats that started the war it's republicans.

Nice try, but no.

The democrats think they can secure their power base by harping on this war. So that's what they're doing. There is no morality in it... there is no higher consciousness... it's simple crass political partisanship... and it's frankly pathetic.

I really don't care about partisanship. I care about our soldiers' safety.

It's irrational and insincere. If you were intellectually honest you'd give some consideration to their opinions.

K, round up ALL the soldiers, give them ALL the information about the war and their real reasons for being there, and then take a poll of ALL the soldiers.

But, as far as I know... the military itself is not a democracy.

Oh sure, then we're all part of the same people and we all agree on everything. We don't break up into political factions and fight over things like two dogs pulling on a bone in the street... Riiiiiight?


Of course you have a faction just as I have a faction. Pretending otherwise is ludicrous.

No. I do not have a "faction"... whatever that's supposed to mean.

 

[Karmashock]

Story here

Read the bolded last sentence. Now THAT, is shameful.

She's not the only one... they're not listening and they don't care. The dems have been getting angrier and angrier for years... At this point they're just about foaming insane so they're not acting rationally. They're out to crack Republican heads and get power.


The troops that they pretend to defend are telling them to piss off, they're ignoring the generals that say time is on our side if we stay, they're dismissing our foreign allies that depend on us... and eventually they're going to get absolutely pulverized politically if they don't snap out of it.



Time is on the reps side in this if the dems can be delayed in the short term. If the Pentagon can get more funding to hold the line until after the presidential election then there is a good chance that whomever gets elected even if they're a democrat will be responsible about things. But in the short term the dems absolutely have the power to screw the whole war effort up.

=====================================================

I have no problem with any country 'going nuclear'.

What about selling them nuclear technology? I mean, if there's no problem with countries getting nuclear weapons then why not just sell them the weapons? Train their best in US universities and at major US nuclear labs?


It would be a great boon to the US economy and after all you would ensure that as many countries went nuclear as possible... unless we just gave the weapons away...


Would you be ok with the US giving nuclear weapons to all countries? Oh... how about ICBMs! Sure we could install ICBMs in every country around the world!

What better life?

that they don't have it now is not an argument against them ever getting it.

Right. You can buy that party line if you want, I don't.

No, you do buy the party line... the democrat party line. :lol:

I was led to believe that the Iraq government had something to do with the 9/11 attacks, and/or was pulling the strings for the people who commited them, and that they had "WMD" that were just waiting to be dropped on our doorstep.

Well, Iraq absolutely has something to do with the war on terror.


The doctrine we're operating under is that the way to deal with terrorism is to stop any state that supports international terrorism.


Iraq is part of that plan in that much of the middle east does support international terrorism. the only way to fix that is to transform the region.

As to WMDs, Saddam was regardless in breach of the Cease Fire obligations. He breached those obligations and thus the war was immediately restarted.


many people don't understand the difference between a treaty and a cease fire. A cease fire means the war is NOT over. For example, we are still technically at war with North Korea. The war never ended. We have a cease fire with them

Uh no. I'd prefer to see our soldiers come home ALIVE and UNHARMED. That's certainly "for the soldiers". I don't think their lives should be wasted for no good reason. I don't think they should be USED as fodder for some ridiculous war started by an idiot.

That you ignore their own opinions and wishes in this regard demonstrates the blatant falseness of that statement.

Nice try, but no.

:lol: What is this? You might as well have said "nuuuh uhhhhh!, you're a poopy head and your shoes are ugly!"


Contradiction is not argument... that is a lesson people tend to have learned by 1st grade.

I really don't care about partisanship. I care about our soldiers' safety.

They volunteered and most think we're doing a good thing over there and don't want to be pulled out.


You CANNOT dismiss or ignore that. CANNOT.

K, round up ALL the soldiers, give them ALL the information about the war and their real reasons for being there, and then take a poll of ALL the soldiers.

And if they say go, the dems there after lose the ability to say they're doing any of this for the troops.

But, as far as I know... the military itself is not a democracy.

No, the United States is a democracy.Your house is not. The company you work for is not. The relationship I have when people drive in my car is not. The United States military is not a democracy. The United States is... All of those soldiers cast votes.

No. I do not have a "faction"... whatever that's supposed to mean.

*sigh* If you didn't you'd be politically isolated, overruled, and vastly outnumbered.


Are you politically isolated, overruled, and vastly outnumbered?


No? Then you have a faction even if you don't want to admit to one.

 

[rivrrat]

What about selling them nuclear technology? I mean, if there's no problem with countries getting nuclear weapons then why not just sell them the weapons? Train their best in US universities and at major US nuclear labs?


It would be a great boon to the US economy and after all you would ensure that as many countries went nuclear as possible... unless we just gave the weapons away...


Would you be ok with the US giving nuclear weapons to all countries? Oh... how about ICBMs! Sure we could install ICBMs in every country around the world!

Actually I oppose giving anything to anyone. If countries want weapons, or nuclear power, or nuclear weapons... then they can develop the technology themselves and create them themselves.

No, you do buy the party line... the democrat party line. :lol:

No, I look at information.

Well, Iraq absolutely has something to do with the war on terror.


The doctrine we're operating under is that the way to deal with terrorism is to stop any state that supports international terrorism.


Iraq is part of that plan in that much of the middle east does support international terrorism. the only way to fix that is to transform the region.

As to WMDs, Saddam was regardless in breach of the Cease Fire obligations. He breached those obligations and thus the war was immediately restarted.


many people don't understand the difference between a treaty and a cease fire. A cease fire means the war is NOT over. For example, we are still technically at war with North Korea. The war never ended. We have a cease fire with them

I disagree with the approach to "fighting terrorism". Based on all that I have seen, read, and heard, I believe that we are only making things worse, not better.

:lol: What is this? You might as well have said "nuuuh uhhhhh!, you're a poopy head and your shoes are ugly!"

Contradiction is not argument... that is a lesson people tend to have learned by 1st grade.

You attempted to read my mind, and interject what you THOUGHT I believed and why. I simply stated that your assumption was incorrect. There is nothing more that need be said. Your mind-reading attempt failed and you were wrong in your assumptions. Period.

They volunteered and most think we're doing a good thing over there and don't want to be pulled out.

You CANNOT dismiss or ignore that. CANNOT.

Volunteered to join the military, and volunteered to go to Iraq to fight THIS war are two different things. Additionally, I see plenty of evidence that the soldiers do NOT agree with your statement. So yes, I CAN dismiss and ignore it as much as you can dismiss and ignore the evidence and opinions that contradict your own beliefs.

Until a legitimate poll is done of ALL soldiers, there is no such grand statement that can be made by either "side".

*sigh* If you didn't you'd be politically isolated, overruled, and vastly outnumbered.


Are you politically isolated, overruled, and vastly outnumbered?


No? Then you have a faction even if you don't want to admit to one.

LMAO I'm greatly outnumbered, largely overruled, and I do not have any so-called "faction". If and when I ever find a group of people who believe as I do, perhaps I'll "join" them. Most likely not though, since I do not like groups as a general rule. As such, I have no "faction".

 

[niftydrifty]

Story here

Read the bolded last sentence. Now THAT, is shameful.

what's more shameful is your exclusion of context and a mischaracterization of reality.

from the next paragraph:

"Her office cites a scheduling conflict. Pelosi spoke by phone with Petraeus for 30 minutes on Tuesday, which her office says was sufficient."

She's not the only one... they're not listening and they don't care. ... At this point they're just about foaming insane so they're not acting rationally.

see above. Know thyself.

 

[Karmashock]

Actually I oppose giving anything to anyone. If countries want weapons, or nuclear power, or nuclear weapons... then they can develop the technology themselves and create them themselves.

I also said they could buy it... at whatever the market will bare!


We'd make a profit.


See, I don't think you're ok with all these countries getting nukes. I think you just don't want the US to do anything about it.


The failure of that perception is that it neglects that if we don't do anything then everyone will get weapons and do so fairly quickly. Alliances will be formed and Iran or north korea or russia or china will start passing htem out in exchange for subordinate status in larger geopolitical alliances.


The only thing the US would accomplish by saying "it's ok for everyone to have weapons" while at the same time not actively seeing that allies have them is to weaken our international position and strengthen that of our various enemies. Furthermore, I can't think of anything more likely to start WW3 then everyone getting nukes. At some point someone will use them which will cause everyone in the other guy's alliance to nuke back, which will cause that guy's alliance to nuke back... and before you know it we're all dead.

Game over.


Your whole perception is frankly tragically naive.


You either actively deny them, actively pass them out, or become irrelevant to the process... which case you get your throat slit like a passed out drunk in the wrong part of town.

No, I look at information.

To state that is to imply that the "information" could only logically lead to a single conclusion.


Which is nonsense. We both have our biases you're just trying to pretend that you don't have any... which is frankly stupid as everyone has them. it's like pretending you don't have skin or a blood or something... Get real. :lol:

I disagree with the approach to "fighting terrorism". Based on all that I have seen, read, and heard, I believe that we are only making things worse, not better.

Depends perhaps on what you read.


you clearly don't read what the soldiers are saying nor what the generals are saying. So who would know better then the soldiers and the generals as to what is working? Some political hack?

You attempted to read my mind, and interject what you THOUGHT I believed and why. I simply stated that your assumption was incorrect. There is nothing more that need be said. Your mind-reading attempt failed and you were wrong in your assumptions. Period.

No, I cited the motivations of your larger political faction. If you weren't allied with this faction then no one would care what you thought.

Volunteered to join the military, and volunteered to go to Iraq to fight THIS war are two different things. Additionally, I see plenty of evidence that the soldiers do NOT agree with your statement. So yes, I CAN dismiss and ignore it as much as you can dismiss and ignore the evidence and opinions that contradict your own beliefs.

I'm not ignoring any evidence. Nor am I setting up theoretical frameworks proporting to be open to realistic imput while in fact designed specifically to out put the same result no matter what.


Your whole thinking process looks like this 15 + |(Y x (M/W)/(L-15))x1|= ?


No matter what Y, M, W, or L are your answer is always going to be 16... You say "I'm open to M, W, and L"... but then you reduce the whole thing to the absolute value time 1...


It's a flagrant sham. Much as the democrats are refusing to talk to listen to what our generals are saying. You don't care about reality. It's all about the reality in your head.

If and when I ever find a group of people who believe as I do, perhaps I'll "join" them. Most likely not though, since I do not like groups as a general rule. As such, I have no "faction".

You don't need to sign any pact in blood... you just need to move with that herd. And it's extremely obvious you do... I'm not arguing this point with you any more... you're trying to pretend that if you close your eyes you become invisible. It doesn't work that way.


Even if you don't regard them as you faction if you draw political power from them then you're part of them.

 

[Tashah]

what's more shameful is your exclusion of context and a mischaracterization of reality.

from the next paragraph:

"Her office cites a scheduling conflict. Pelosi spoke by phone with Petraeus for 30 minutes on Tuesday, which her office says was sufficient."

Indeed. How callous of me. Pelosi diverted a whole 30 minutes of her frantic schedule to dial-up our Iraq surge commander. How magnanimous! Scheduling conflict? Perhaps it conflicted with her power lunch, or her botox appointment, or her nappy poo? If her office help considered thirty minutes on the phone with General Petraeus sufficient, who am I to disagree? Petraeus must be much better than advertised.