yeah, bush brought the knife to the gunfight.
-Imp
we should have listened to patton
If we had, odds are you would never have been born.
no, the democrats have lost the will
Hmm. Who just voted them into control of Congress?
wait until the next 9-11.
Hopefully, if there should be another 9/11, whoever’s in charge will strike at whoever is responsible, not someone that had nothing to do with it but happens to be sitting on a pile of oil.
nope. israel will nuke them.
Care to bet?
yeah, bush brought the knife to the gunfight.
I would say he brought a gun to a brainfight.
Mr. Predictable, there was no way for us to win in Iraq.
Or, no, let me revise that. There was a way, once we accepted and acknowledged that we were going in to conquer, not to liberate. In that case, we could have resolved to occupy, clamp down, and brutalize the Iraqi people into submission, not merely until they surrendered, but forever.
No chocolate bars. That’s totally unrealistic. You do that, and the guy that was offering you a blowjob before will shoot you in the back as soon as you let your guard down. Take the blowjob instead. Completely humiliate him. And keep doing it.
Of course, there’s nothing in Iraq that is worth that approach, nor will the American people stand for it. But that’s how it could be done, and the ONLY way it could be done.
That’s what I meant by saying that Germany and Japan were fundamentally different from Iraq. Germany and Japan could be beaten, brought to acknowledge their mistakes in backing Hitler or the Japanese militarists, and released thereafter.
Germany and Japan are highly civilized and advanced nations, very disciplined and obedient in their culture. They are unified nations that show no signs of splitting apart and fighting a civil war if they’re not clamped down on. Moreover, they are nations that followed Hitler or the militarists willingly. Sure, Hitler was a dictator once martial law was declared, but before that he was elected legitimately as Chancellor, and even after that he was wildly popular with the Germans until the war started to go sour.
Why can’t you see that none of that is true about Iraq? It’s not highly civilized and advanced; it’s still stuck in the Middle Ages. It’s not disciplined or obedient in its culture, except perhaps to God, and that only provokes fanaticism. It’s not a unified nation but one patched together out of three nations that hate each other’s guts. And Saddam wasn’t a popular ruler, he was a tyrant propped up by American support until either he turned agaisnt us or vice-versa – not entirely clear to me which.
What worked in Germany and Japan would not work in Iraq. As far as turning it into a unified, peaceful, friendly democracy, I can’t see anything that would work.
You’re ignoring basic human nature.
The Stockholm Syndrome works on every type of person.
The people in the mid-east are no less human than any other type of person.
You’re ignoring basic human nature.
You’re grossly oversimplifying it.
The Stockholm Syndrome works on every type of person.
Some evidence in support of this statement would not be amiss.
Impenitent:we should have listened to patton
If we had, odds are you would never have been born.
irrelevant
no, the democRATS have lost the will
Hmm. Who just voted them into control of Congress?
republicans who didn’t vote because bush wouldn’t act like reagan or newt
wait until the next 9-11.
Hopefully, if there should be another 9/11, whoever’s in charge will strike at whoever is responsible, not someone that had nothing to do with it but happens to be sitting on a pile of oil.
when, not if but when, they strike us again we’ll take their sorry asses out as well as the democRATS who wouldn’t allow us to finish the job this time. how many times does chamberlain have to be proven wrong? and the only assholes sitting on a pile of oil is america who won’t drill because of some enviromentalist wackos.
nope. israel will nuke them.
Care to bet?
yep. remember masada.
yeah, bush brought the knife to the gunfight.
I would say he brought a gun to a brainfight.
brainfights? one fucking bullet ends that liberal brainfart.
[size=200]VIVA LA REVOLUTION!!![/size]
-Imp
Impenitent:stop.
look at the big picture.
the war in iraq is just a front in the war on iran. (which is just another front in the war against islamo fascism)
did we stop freeing europe after the liberation of paris?
think about it.
and what do you think happens when we stop and pull out after we get to the rhine?
-Imp
We did stop short of Eatern Europe and the USSR as I recall.
The characterization of the Iraq war as incomplete disregards the number and type of munitions used. People hear the term “smart bomb” and think all we are doing in Iraq is removing key targets with minimal loss of life or suffering. The truth is that Cluster munitions and White Phosphorous, both things we have employed in Iraq, do not discriminate. neither does depleted uranium, should this government finally get around to admitting its curious side effects, something I have read even the British government has done.
The truth is Iraq was a nation already defeated once and subjected to ten years of sanctions which, arguably, led to the deaths of over 500,000 civilians.
I don’t know how much more bloodthirsty you would like us to be, Mr. P, but its is hard to shuffle around the world with our veneer of supposed moral superiority with the blood of dead children splattered on our clothes. The reason the war is spun as being half fought is so to retain our particularly American belief that God is on our side, because God would not favor baby killers.
But the truth is we have killed plenty of Iraqi’s, directly or indirectly, and the only result is that Iraq will most likely become a failed state, with us along only hastening its failure.
And this too belies the entire “Iran is next” fantasy… because in this instance, the nation that will profit the most from this war will be Iran. America has lost its political will to remain in Iraq. There is no more mandate. At this point the calls to return the troops home will grow… and it may not be this year, or ten years, but Iran will fill in the vacuum left by our absence. They wil influence the Shia majority of Iraq, if not directly incorporate them, and they will become THE regional power in the Middle East. Bush stood at the precipice of History alright… and he dove in head first.
I’m not advocating anything.
My point is that Americans want a certain kind of war that isn’t realistic. They also have an attitude that isn’t fitting for war.
I’m not attacking you, but you mention that 500,000 died because of sanctions, and that’s not true. They died because their countrymen wanted them to, because they chose opposition as opposed to submission. At least that’s how you would look at it if you were a warlike person.
If you’re going to have a war, then you have to go all out. There is no unwinable war, under these circumstances.
All of this is the opposite of peace and understanding. If you set out to have those qualities, should there be any bounds?
If you put bounds on love then what are you? Are you a loving person?
If you put bounds on war, then are you a warrior?
Navigator: Impenitent:we should have listened to patton
If we had, odds are you would never have been born.
irrelevant
No it’s not. It’s not even remotely clear we could have beaten the Soviet Union at the end of World War II. It’s abundantly clear we would have taken so many casualties doing it that it wouldn’t have been worth it.
“You’d probably never have been born” was a way to phrase that.
republicans who didn’t vote because bush wouldn’t act like reagan or newt
Oh, aren’t assumptions fun? I doubt there were enough of those, though, to have overridden the Evangelicals who are starting to figure out that God cares about more than abortion and gay marriage, or the vast numbers of ordinary people who believe Iraq is a fiasco, or who are disgusted with the corruption in Washington and associate that with the Republicans.
when, not if but when, they strike us again we’ll take their sorry asses out as well as the democRATS who wouldn’t allow us to finish the job this time.
It wasn’t the Democrats who wouldn’t let us “finish the job.” It’s not their fault bin Ladin is still out there somewhere. It’s not the Democrats who diverted our energies into Iraq, a country that had absolutely nothing to do with the attack. It’s no the Democrats who wasted all that money and all those lives.
and the only assholes sitting on a pile of oil is america who won’t drill because of some enviromentalist wackos.
One of these days you’re going to learn how to count. The amount of oil tied up in environmentally-protected areas would meet our current demand for maybe a couple of days.
remember masada.
So you think all the Israelis are going to commit suicide?
brainfights? one fucking bullet ends that liberal brainfart.
Only if you shoot it into the right brain. Bush seems to have a problem with that one.
Impenitent: Navigator: Impenitent:we should have listened to patton
If we had, odds are you would never have been born.
irrelevant
No it’s not. It’s not even remotely clear we could have beaten the Soviet Union at the end of World War II. It’s abundantly clear we would have taken so many casualties doing it that it wouldn’t have been worth it.
we had the nukes and they didn’t. a few well placed bombs on moscow, stalingrad or leningrad would have changed history- stopped the cold war entirely- and casualities being worth it is a matter of perspective…
“You’d probably never have been born” was a way to phrase that.
republicans who didn’t vote because bush wouldn’t act like reagan or newt
Oh, aren’t assumptions fun? I doubt there were enough of those, though, to have overridden the Evangelicals who are starting to figure out that God cares about more than abortion and gay marriage, or the vast numbers of ordinary people who believe Iraq is a fiasco, or who are disgusted with the corruption in Washington and associate that with the Republicans.
the evangelicals didn’t vote?
pewresearch.org/obdeck/?ObDeckID=88
stateline.org/live/details/s … tId=155729
pewresearch.org/obdeck/?ObDeckID=78
pewresearch.org/obdeck/?ObDeckID=83when, not if but when, they strike us again we’ll take their sorry asses out as well as the democRATS who wouldn’t allow us to finish the job this time.
It wasn’t the Democrats who wouldn’t let us “finish the job.”
who is cutting and running? who will demand military spending be cut? not bush…
It’s not their fault bin Ladin is still out there somewhere.
ask slick willie about that
It’s not the Democrats who diverted our energies into Iraq, a country that had absolutely nothing to do with the attack. It’s no the Democrats who wasted all that money and all those lives.
and here are the democRATS who voted FOR the war that prove you wrong :
“[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.” – From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998
“This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer- range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies.” – From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others
“Whereas Iraq has consistently breached its cease-fire agreement between Iraq and the United States, entered into on March 3, 1991, by failing to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction program, and refusing to permit monitoring and verification by United Nations inspections; Whereas Iraq has developed weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological capabilities, and has made positive progress toward developing nuclear weapons capabilities” – From a joint resolution submitted by Tom Harkin and Arlen Specter on July 18, 2002
“Saddam’s goal … is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed.” – Madeline Albright, 1998
“(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983” – National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998
“Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement.” – Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002
“The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability.” – Robert Byrd, October 2002
“There’s no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat… Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He’s had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001… He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn’t have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we.” – Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002
“What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad’s regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs.” – Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002
“The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow.” – Bill Clinton in 1998
“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security.” – Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002
“I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons…I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out.” – Clinton’s Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003
“Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people.” – Tom Daschle in 1998
“Saddam Hussein’s regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal.” – John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002
“The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction.” – John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002
“I share the administration’s goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction.” – Dick Gephardt in September of 2002
“Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.” – Al Gore, 2002
“We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction.” – Bob Graham, December 2002
“Saddam Hussein is not the only deranged dictator who is willing to deprive his people in order to acquire weapons of mass destruction.” – Jim Jeffords, October 8, 2002
“We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.” – Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002
“There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein’s regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed.” – Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 2002
“I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.” – John F. Kerry, Oct 2002
“The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation.” – John Kerry, October 9, 2002
“(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. …And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War.” – John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003
“We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them.” – Carl Levin, Sept 19, 2002
“Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States.” – Joe Lieberman, August, 2002
“Over the years, Iraq has worked to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. During 1991 - 1994, despite Iraq’s denials, U.N. inspectors discovered and dismantled a large network of nuclear facilities that Iraq was using to develop nuclear weapons. Various reports indicate that Iraq is still actively pursuing nuclear weapons capability. There is no reason to think otherwise. Beyond nuclear weapons, Iraq has actively pursued biological and chemical weapons.U.N. inspectors have said that Iraq’s claims about biological weapons is neither credible nor verifiable. In 1986, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran, and later, against its own Kurdish population. While weapons inspections have been successful in the past, there have been no inspections since the end of 1998. There can be no doubt that Iraq has continued to pursue its goal of obtaining weapons of mass destruction.” – Patty Murray, October 9, 2002
“As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.” – Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998
“Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production.” – Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998
“There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources – something that is not that difficult in the current world. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.” – John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002
“Saddam’s existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq’s enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East.” – John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002
“Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Administration’s policy towards Iraq, I don’t think there can be any question about Saddam’s conduct. He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are simply the facts.” – Henry Waxman, Oct 10, 2002
and the only assholes sitting on a pile of oil is america who won’t drill because of some enviromentalist wackos.
One of these days you’re going to learn how to count. The amount of oil tied up in environmentally-protected areas would meet our current demand for maybe a couple of days.
right. keep believing those lies. we need more refineries, more oil wells, more coal mines and more nuclear plants.
remember masada.
So you think all the Israelis are going to commit suicide?
no, but the iranians do
brainfights? one fucking bullet ends that liberal brainfart.
Only if you shoot it into the right brain. Bush seems to have a problem with that one.
no, it is a left brain.
-Imp
It’s not their fault bin Ladin is still out there somewhere.
This is an example of what I’m talking about.
In a war one man doesn’t matter very much. Imagine if someone killed the US president. Would the entire American movement end?
I certainly wouldn’t and the people would continue with new leaders. If they got killed new ones would fill their place to the point where old ladies or kids would fill the office. Only massive social destruction would make Americans forget about their concept of leader.
right. keep believing those lies. we need more refineries, more oil wells, more coal mines and more nuclear plants.
?
Typical limited perspective of a partisan mind.
Dependence on oil just furthers the problems, and destroying the world to get oil doesn’t make any logical sense.
But I guess shitting where you sleep is what partisanship is all about.
Welcome to America.
right. keep believing those lies. we need more refineries, more oil wells, more coal mines and more nuclear plants.
?
Typical limited perspective of a partisan mind.
Dependence on oil just furthers the problems, and destroying the world to get oil doesn’t make any logical sense.
But I guess shitting where you sleep is what partisanship is all about.
Welcome to America.
Emotionally, that a fine argument, but what is the west really supposed to do?
Also, why should a civilization interested in world trade and capitalism put up with the seeming irrationality of the middle-east?
we had the nukes and they didn’t.
Actually, no. The Manhattan Project produced three atomic bombs. One was used in a test, the other two on Japan. All we had was the knowledge of how to make nuclear weapons. Of actual nukes we had none.
the evangelicals didn’t vote?
More of them than in the past voted Democratic.
who is cutting and running?
From fighting al-Qaeda? No one.
From Iraq? Irrelevant. Iraq was a diversion having nothing to do with the real fight before us.
and here are the democRATS who voted FOR the war that prove you wrong
No, that only proves THEM wrong.
right. keep believing those lies. we need more refineries
To refine what oil?
more oil wells
In what fields?
more coal mines and more nuclear plants.
That last might be useful, but the first thing we need to do is invest in improved energy efficiency. It wouldn’t be that hard to turn our current 10% efficiency into 40%, resulting in an effective quadrupling of our energy production.
no, it is a left brain.
al-Qaeda’s leadership is decidedly right wing.
In a war one man doesn’t matter very much. Imagine if someone killed the US president. Would the entire American movement end?
First of all, the struggle against al-Qaeda is not a war. Wars are fought against nations, armies, government. al-Qaeda is not a nation and not a government and has no army. Calling it a “war” is at best a metaphor and at worst a species of deliberate deception.
Secondly, while Osama bin Ladin isn’t indispensible to al-Qaeda, he’s far more important to it than Saddam Hussein, in that at least he’s a member and had some responsibility for the 9/11 attack.
Emotionally, that a fine argument, but what is the west really supposed to do?
As already stated, improve efficiency, stop wasting so much, and produce the remaining 1/4 of current energy production that we’d still need from renewables. If the renewables fall short, which they probably wouldn’t, build a nuclear plant or two.
Also, why should a civilization interested in world trade and capitalism put up with the seeming irrationality of the middle-east?
Because they HAVEN’T done the above, and still need the oil.
Mr. Predictable:In a war one man doesn’t matter very much. Imagine if someone killed the US president. Would the entire American movement end?
First of all, the struggle against al-Qaeda is not a war. Wars are fought against nations, armies, government. al-Qaeda is not a nation and not a government and has no army. Calling it a “war” is at best a metaphor and at worst a species of deliberate deception.
Secondly, while Osama bin Ladin isn’t indispensible to al-Qaeda, he’s far more important to it than Saddam Hussein, in that at least he’s a member and had some responsibility for the 9/11 attack.
You have a scope limited by your culture.
The idea of nations and so forth are western legal concepts that apply only to those that believe they matter. You have to learn to look at issues in a very broad way. Think—practical.
Mr. Predictable:Emotionally, that a fine argument, but what is the west really supposed to do?
As already stated, improve efficiency, stop wasting so much, and produce the remaining 1/4 of current energy production that we’d still need from renewables. If the renewables fall short, which they probably wouldn’t, build a nuclear plant or two.
Also, why should a civilization interested in world trade and capitalism put up with the seeming irrationality of the middle-east?
Because they HAVEN’T done the above, and still need the oil.
You accused another of assuming, and there you go.
Capitalists are cheap and I think that you might want to consider that things are operating at nearly the best that they can. What would be the motive for wasting money.
It could be that this world is the world.
Impenitent:we had the nukes and they didn’t.
Actually, no. The Manhattan Project produced three atomic bombs. One was used in a test, the other two on Japan. All we had was the knowledge of how to make nuclear weapons. Of actual nukes we had none.
we had the knowledge and the parts. we could have slapped a few together quickly. the soviets were years away from their first nuke
the evangelicals didn’t vote?
More of them than in the past voted Democratic.
yes, they voted for the democRATS who pretended to be conservatives
who is cutting and running?
From fighting al-Qaeda? No one.
al qaeda is in iraq. but pull out like murtha so they can come here
From Iraq? Irrelevant. Iraq was a diversion having nothing to do with the real fight before us.
no, iraq is where the war is happening now. next will be iran unless the democRATS pull out and bring the war on terror to america. but that’s great too… we’ll kill the terrorists- of every stripe- right here.
and here are the democRATS who voted FOR the war that prove you wrong
No, that only proves THEM wrong.
they are the leaders that you follow.
right. keep believing those lies. we need more refineries
To refine what oil?
all the oil we want.
more oil wells
In what fields?
yellowstone, alaska, gulf of mexico, california coast for starters.
more coal mines and more nuclear plants.
That last might be useful, but the first thing we need to do is invest in improved energy efficiency.
right. have the liberal hot air machines heat water
It wouldn’t be that hard to turn our current 10% efficiency into 40%, resulting in an effective quadrupling of our energy production.
no, it is a left brain.
al-Qaeda’s leadership is decidedly right wing.
al qaeda isn’t the only target
-Imp
You have a scope limited by your culture.
Nonsense, I just have a scope limited by proper use of the English language. I know what “war” means, and I know when it is being misused, which it clearly is in the phrase “war on terror.”
You have to learn to look at issues in a very broad way. Think—practical.
There is nothing impractical about approaching a problem with a tool proper to its remedy, rather than that tool’s fourth cousin twice removed, however convenient that cousin may be for sound-bite and propaganda purposes.
Capitalists are cheap and I think that you might want to consider that things are operating at nearly the best that they can. What would be the motive for wasting money.
When the money being wasted is our money, not theirs, and goes to line their pockets, it’s not, from their view, a waste.
It could be that this world is the world.
It could also be that I’ve studied a little more about the particular corner of “the” world under immediate discussion than you’re giving me credit for.