If you're not proud of our Country RIGHT NOW

[KRC]

There is no need to explain it if you read the rest of it including the part about "instead allowing" South Dakotans to die for them.

 

He calls NYC a bunch of elitist liberal cowards.  Am I allowed to at least object to that or can you explain how that wasn't really meant as an insult, how I am just a quest to be offended?  Is "elitist liberal coward" been parroted so much around here that it is no longer seen as an offensive insult?

224249[/snapback]

 

I am looking for you to explain the leap in lahjik to go from:

 

"yet elite New York City sends the nationwide lowest percentage of Americans to the fight"

 

to

 

"no New Yorkers have died."

 

You are complaining that I am ignoring "instead allowing" while you have no trouble dismissing "yet elite New York City sends the nationwide lowest percentage of Americans to the fight" in your argument. Nothing like bitching about not taking things in context of the entire post, while not taking things in context of the entire post.

[Mickey]

I am looking for you to explain the leap in lahjik to go from:

 

"yet elite New York City sends the nationwide lowest percentage of Americans to the fight"

 

to

 

"no New Yorkers have died."

 

You are complaining that I am ignoring "instead allowing" while you have no trouble dismissing "yet elite New York City sends the nationwide lowest percentage of Americans to the fight" in your argument. Nothing like bitching about not taking things in context of the entire post, while not taking things in context of the entire post.

224254[/snapback]

Every question I ask, you ignore.

 

However, I'll keep answering your questions anyway.

 

His point is that New Yorkers are a bunch of elitist liberal cowards. The evidence, and I use the term loosely, that he relies on is two fold: service statistics and that they allow others to die for them.

 

What refutes the "elitist liberal coward" thing is that in fact, 67 New Yorkers have died in this war. I think that evidence, that fact, is a far more powerful statement regarding the courage of New Yorkers than uncited service statistics. It is certainly a direct refutation of the "instead allowing" South Dakotans to die for them reference in the post. Instead of what? Instead of dying themselves.

 

Besides, is there all that much of a difference? The more who enlist from NY, the more who die from NY. The poster, clumsily, uses the two interchangably, enlisting and dying. He is right, they really are basically the same thing.

 

As for the leap in logic you ask me about, you are misstating my argument. He said:

 

New Yorkers are elitist cowards who let others die *instead*.

 

I responded:

 

New Yorkers are not cowards, in fact, many have died in this war.

 

 

I would have thought that dying in the service of one's country would be the obvious logical response to a charge of cowardice.

 

The argument you are defending is: New Yorkers are elitist cowards despite the New Yorkers who have enlisted and regardless (he made no exception in his charge of cowardice) of those from NY who have died because, on a per capita basis, South Dakotans have enlisted and died more.

 

How many New Yorkers have to die for me to be offended that he called the whole state and city of NY elitist liberal cowards?

[Vetriano]

I am looking for you to explain the leap in lahjik to go from:

 

"yet elite New York City sends the nationwide lowest percentage of Americans to the fight"

 

to

 

"no New Yorkers have died."

 

You are complaining that I am ignoring "instead allowing" while you have no trouble dismissing "yet elite New York City sends the nationwide lowest percentage of Americans to the fight" in your argument. Nothing like bitching about not taking things in context of the entire post, while not taking things in context of the entire post.

224254[/snapback]

 

Both complaints have a degree of truth to them- the most important thing by this tread is to remember the country is extremely divided over the war- and no one wants any more heros (let the boys be safe). Would I hope Iraq could be a democracy- of course so. Would I encourage the idea and desert my wife and daughter over it- of course not- especially since we dont know what the outcome will be. It is a volunteer army right now- although I fully support volunteers that would choose not to go and fulfill any so-called obligation. Getting a loan, some college money, or even 100k a year doesnt obligate you to put yourself at risk for something you dont believe 100% in- or even 52%. Remember governments can be wrong (aka Germany during WW2, US during Vietnam, Iraq leading to the first war). There is no infallible government, just like there is no infallible church. By the way the US is the greatest country ever- and would probably die for its benefit (although I hope this day would never come), but Iraq is not the US.

[AKC]

Since you ignored it the first time, I'll try it again:

These men died.  They were from NYC.  Please explain why per capita numbers, numbers you do not cite or provide sources for as I have, justify your claim that New Yorkers are cowards despite the sacrifices of these men?

 

Maybe you could explain to me why the 8 people who lost their lives from South Dakota are a more meaningful contribution than the 67 New Yorkers who have died or the 166 Californians or even the 39 from Michigan.  I am sure their families will understand that on a per capita basis, the people of New York, Michigan and California are a bunch of elitist cowards who let South Dakotans die for them.

224156[/snapback]

 

I'll leave the continued insulting of those in uniform to you, I offer simply concern about those communities that breed contempt for our military and in turn produce far smaller percentages of military personnel than our valued heartland. The difference between uys is that my point is about those who try to influence others not to serve, versus those who promote the values of America even if it's simply to protect the liberal elitist establishments of the country they love (something those same liberal elitists refuse to do).

 

Since your shamelesness invites complete embarrasment I'll use your figures to prove EXACTLY what I first pointed out- that you live and embrace a culture that discredits service to our country by exactly the type of rhetoric you regularly espouse here on PPP-

 

In Iraq the Dakotas you talk about have lost a uniformed military person for every 60,000 (ND) and 90,000 (SD) residents. New York is at one per every 300,000 residents. You might get really embarrassed if you looked at the numbers from other states with major populations like Texas but then again, it's possible their losses might offer you some form of glee. (They've lost about double the percentage of New Yorkers). What we can bet is that Western NY has supplied big percentages that buffer up to some degree the tiny fraction a place like NY City sends, but the facts is the facts. NY is right there among the lowest percentages in the country among serving and lost and it's NY City that we can safely assume drags it down to that embarassing level.

 

It's a shame you can't simply acknowledge the fact that our heartland is doing an inordinate amount of providing the military personell who today are protecting the liberal establishments of our major cities, while the elitists in those major cities produce environments that discourage the same level of patriotism from their populaces.

 

My charges of cowardice, as noted, are exclusively for the cowards who would foment an environment that discourages military service to our country. God Bless every one of the war casualites from every state, none more so than those forced to overcome the cowardly influences of liberal metropolises.

[erynthered]

Mick, you've really gone off track here. Re-read the thread.............

[/dev/null]

God Bless every one of the war casualites from every state, none more so than those forced to overcome the cowardly influences of liberal metropolises.

224530[/snapback]

 

wouldn't the plural of metropolis be metropoli?

 

i dunno, i went to public school

[jimshiz]

Both complaints have a degree of truth to them- the most important thing by this tread is to remember the country is extremely divided over the war- and no one wants any more heros (let the boys be safe).  Would I hope Iraq could be a democracy- of course so.  Would I encourage the idea and desert my wife and daughter over it- of course not- especially since we dont know what the outcome will be.  It is a volunteer army right now- although I fully support volunteers that would choose not to go and fulfill any so-called obligation.  Getting a loan, some college money, or even 100k a year doesnt obligate you to put yourself at risk for something you dont believe 100% in- or even 52%. Remember governments can be wrong (aka Germany during WW2, US during Vietnam, Iraq leading to the first war).  There is no infallible government, just like there is no infallible church.  By the way the US is the greatest country ever- and would probably die for its benefit (although I hope this day would never come), but Iraq is not the US.

224375[/snapback]

 

I doubt any of the US soldiers in Iraq feel like they have "deserted" their wives and children. What a ridiculously pessimistic view of military service. And none of them are realistically thinking they'll only fight in the battles that "they know the outcome of". You have no idea what the military is all about. You don't get to pick and choose which battle you will volunteer for and which battle you won't. And YES, "getting a loan, some college money, or even 100k a year" DOES obligate them to fulfill the oath they all took.

 

The US was NOT wrong in Viet Nam. Quit dismissing the lives and courage of all those who fought and/or died in that war by saying such things.

 

You clearly don't understand the reasons for the Viet Nam War nor the reasons for the War In Iraq and the Global War on Terror.

[SactoBillFan]

There is no greater pride than that I feel for our troops in Iraq right now who are making the Iraqi venture into democratic government possible. Godspeed to every one of them and may those who have made the ultimate sacrifice in this conflict be forever remembered not just by those who loved them and those who fully supported them but also may they now be embraced by those who insist they should never have been there in the first place.

222894[/snapback]

 

You'd make a good preacher. From your comments I gather the notion of supporting the troops and that of not supporting the war in "Iraq" are too conflicting to be real.

 

I support the troops and I hope this "election" works out. But we should have never been there in the first place. I guess I'm a lunatic.

 

Time for this lunatic to be redundant:

 

This "conservative" administration spent Hundreds of Billions of Dollars, with Hundreds to go, in order to disarm an unarmed country when letting weapons inspectors finish their job would have sufficed. ie This "conservative" administration invaded and occupied a soveriegn nation that presented no viable threat to our country at an unneccessary taxpayer cost of Hundreds of Billions and counting.

 

No WMD's, no Al-queda ties, nothing to do with 9-11 still some believe now the "Iraq" war is still justifiable because we have to "spread Democracy" to the Middle East. When I was younger I remember "stopping the spread of Communism" was a good reason for one major "military conflict". There is just something really suspect about US intelligence "not knowing" there were no WMDs. Hmmm. What the hell, I'm a lunatic, what do I know.

 

more lunacy: As a result of our "conservative" administrations' crusade to spread Democracy to the middle east close to 1,500 American soldiers are dead, over 10,000 are wounded and of course we don't count the number of dead or wounded innocent Iraqis. Pfff why should we care about the Iraqis? Hell, were giving them Democracy.

 

There are other interesting results from our "conservative" administrations' chosen war. Besides making war profiteering "cool" again and losing a few allies, since there intentionally was no viable exit strategy now, we have a huge military presence on ground, air and sea smack dab in the heart of the Middle East. It appears that it's not enough to secure Iraq, after all these are fighting men and combat support not really many policemen.

 

However, it's a big enough presence to engage in "conflict" with another nearby country. If need be, it's big enough control the one of the worlds most precious resources. And of course, it's big enough to protect Isreal even more from surrounding rogue nations.

 

Anyways, this lunatic can't help but think that the American people were deliberately convinced to go to war on false premises. ie This "conservative" administration flat out lied.

 

Why didn't they just say, hey, Afghanistan is cool but their best resources are poppy plants, besides Osama can wait. Look at Iraq, it has lots of good precious resources (this lunatic remembers that some funds from Iraq's oil was supposed to help pay for the war, conservatively Hudreds of Billions of Dollars). Besides getting even with the scoundrel that took a pot shot at papa, we can kill a lot of birds with one stone in Iraq. We can satisfy our neo-con buddies with the military buildup. We can give Billion dollar contracts to our campaign donors. We can.....

 

I guess people don't like the notion that they were lied to, espescially by people who "work for them", supposedly in their best interest. But what do I know? I'm just a friggin lunatic. And your a proud genius.

[SactoBillFan]

... You clearly don't understand the reasons for the Viet Nam War nor the reasons for the War In Iraq and the Global War on Terror.

224689[/snapback]

 

I'm not sure I do either. Perhaps you'd like to explain these "reasons" to one less intellectually endowed as yourself?

[Alaska Darin]

You'd make a good preacher. From your comments I gather the notion of supporting the troops and that of not supporting the war in "Iraq" are too conflicting to be real.

 

I support the troops and I hope this "election" works out. But we should have never been there in the first place. I guess I'm a lunatic.

 

Time for this lunatic to be redundant:

 

This "conservative" administration spent Hundreds of Billions of Dollars, with Hundreds to go, in order to disarm an unarmed country when letting weapons inspectors finish their job would have sufficed. ie This "conservative" administration invaded and occupied a soveriegn nation that presented no viable threat to our country at an unneccessary taxpayer cost of Hundreds of Billions and counting.

 

No WMD's, no Al-queda ties, nothing to do with 9-11 still some believe now the "Iraq" war is still justifiable because we have to "spread Democracy" to the Middle East. When I was younger I remember "stopping the spread of Communism" was a good reason for one major "military conflict". There is just something really suspect about US intelligence "not knowing" there were no WMDs. Hmmm. What the hell, I'm a lunatic, what do I know.

 

more lunacy: As a result  of our "conservative" administrations' crusade to spread Democracy to the middle east close to 1,500 American soldiers are dead, over 10,000 are wounded and of course we don't count the number of dead or wounded innocent Iraqis. Pfff why should we care about the Iraqis? Hell, were giving them Democracy.

 

There are other interesting results from our "conservative" administrations' chosen war. Besides making war profiteering "cool" again and losing a few allies, since there intentionally was no viable exit strategy now, we have a huge military presence on ground, air and sea smack dab in the heart of the Middle East. It appears that it's not enough to secure Iraq, after all these are fighting men and combat support not really many policemen.

 

However, it's a big enough presence to engage in "conflict" with another nearby country. If need be, it's big enough control the one of the worlds most precious resources. And of course, it's big enough to protect Isreal even more from surrounding rogue nations.

 

Anyways, this lunatic can't help but think that the American people were deliberately convinced to go to war on false premises. ie This "conservative" administration flat out lied. 

 

Why didn't they just say, hey, Afghanistan is cool but their best resources are poppy plants, besides Osama can wait. Look at Iraq, it has lots of good precious resources (this lunatic remembers that some funds from Iraq's oil was supposed to help pay for the war, conservatively Hudreds of Billions of Dollars). Besides getting even with the scoundrel that took a pot shot at papa, we can kill a lot of birds with one stone in Iraq. We can satisfy our neo-con buddies with the military buildup. We can give Billion dollar contracts to our campaign donors. We can.....

 

I guess people don't like the notion that they were lied to, espescially by people who "work for them", supposedly in their best interest. But what do I know? I'm just a friggin lunatic. And your a proud genius.

224704[/snapback]

Sweet. An entire post of the liberal talking points of the last 4 years. Very successful and intelligent. Explains why John Kerry is President.

[SactoBillFan]

Sweet.  An entire post of the liberal talking points of the last 4 years.  Very successful and intelligent.  Explains why John Kerry is President.

224711[/snapback]

 

An excellent rebuttal from another resident genius. Call the person a liberal, ok whatever, everyone will laugh, so now one doesn't have to argue against what appears to be the truth. Come on, give me a real argument (that is a set of premises whose conclusion is supposed to point to the truth). Do you care about the truth Darin? Or is your whole gig about denigrating people for their opinions? Come on, give me an argument as Darin sees the truth. Please, not another proof by exhaustion where you tried to prove that Clinton destroyed the military. Please, Mr. individualist kind of guy, site your sources if you must, but please give me Darins' conclusions, if you're capable of forming such abstract notions. I've been busy, but I'll get back to you given you have the "fortitude" to respond with a real argument implying that this lunatic is wrong. Please avoid the usual diatribe where both parties are a-holes therefore and you don't give a rats ass and hence the "liberal" is an idiot. I tend to think that for you denigrating people is a much more fun sport than engaging in a true argument. Take a logic class, calling a person a "liberal" doesn't disprove their opinion.

[Guest RabidBillsFanVT]

An excellent rebuttal from another resident genius. Call the person a liberal, ok whatever, everyone will laugh, so now one doesn't have to argue against what appears to be the truth. Come on, give me a real argument (that is a set of premises whose conclusion is supposed to point to the truth). Do you care about the truth Darin? Or is your whole gig about denigrating people for their opinions? Come on, give me an argument as Darin sees the truth. Please, not another proof by exhaustion where you tried to prove that Clinton destroyed the military. Please, Mr. individualist kind of guy, site your sources if you must, but please give me Darins' conclusions, if you're capable of forming such abstract notions. I've been busy, but I'll get back to you given you have the "fortitude" to respond with a real argument implying that this lunatic is wrong. Please avoid the usual diatribe where both parties are a-holes therefore and you don't give a rats ass and hence the "liberal" is an idiot. I tend to think that for you denigrating people is a much more fun sport than engaging in a true argument. Take a logic class, calling a person a name doesn't disprove their opinion.

224725[/snapback]

 

You won't get a concrete, logical explanation out of him, so don't even bother... just focus on people, despite their opposition to what you say, that actually can DEFEND a position, and don't feel the need to use 95% of their post for slights and insults.

 

I wouldn't even waste my time, SBF... just use the ol ignore. MUCH easier

[Guest RabidBillsFanVT]

I'll leave the continued insulting of those in uniform to you, I offer simply concern about those communities that breed contempt for our military and in turn produce far smaller percentages of military personnel than our valued heartland. The difference between uys is that my point is about those who try to influence others not to serve, versus those who promote the values of America even if it's simply to protect the liberal elitist establishments of the country they love (something those same liberal elitists refuse to do).

 

Insulting those in uniform? You are still determined to attach opposition to the war with insulting those in uniform! You should know be now that isn't gonna fly...

 

"Our valued heartland"? So that is the pulse of America? I think not...

 

Well, just remember that people of my political affiliation ALSO protect the rights of the conservative extremists who are hell-bent on acting any irresponsible way they feel like it, and serving their own selfish interests by using America as a common tool!!!

 

I STILL wan to know HOW FAR a conservative government has to go before YOU OBJECT to the use of military force. You still have not answered that question... or are you incapable of EVER objecting to it because it has the label 'Republican', or wherever our military goes, it is right automatically, without question?? Please, I am waiting...

[SactoBillFan]

You won't get a concrete, logical explanation out of him, so don't even bother... just focus on people, despite their opposition to what you say, that actually can DEFEND a position, and don't feel the need to use 95% of their post for slights and insults.

 

I wouldn't even waste my time, SBF... just use the ol ignore. MUCH easier

224730[/snapback]

 

I hope your wrong. But I suspect your right.

[Mickey]

I'll leave the continued insulting of those in uniform to you, I offer simply concern about those communities that breed contempt for our military and in turn produce far smaller percentages of military personnel than our valued heartland. The difference between uys is that my point is about those who try to influence others not to serve, versus those who promote the values of America even if it's simply to protect the liberal elitist establishments of the country they love (something those same liberal elitists refuse to do).

 

Since your shamelesness invites complete embarrasment I'll use your figures to prove EXACTLY what I first pointed out- that you live and embrace a culture that discredits service to our country by exactly the type of rhetoric you regularly espouse here on PPP-

 

In Iraq the Dakotas you talk about have lost a uniformed military person for every 60,000 (ND) and 90,000 (SD) residents. New York is at one per every 300,000 residents. You might get really embarrassed if you looked at the numbers from other states with major populations like Texas but then again, it's possible their losses might offer you some form of glee. (They've lost about double the percentage of New Yorkers). What we can bet is that Western NY has supplied big percentages that buffer up to some degree the tiny fraction a place like NY City sends, but the facts is the facts. NY is right there among the lowest percentages in the country among serving and lost and it's NY City that we can safely assume drags it down to that embarassing level.

 

It's a shame you can't simply acknowledge the fact that our heartland is doing an inordinate amount of providing the military personell who today are protecting the liberal establishments of our major cities, while the elitists in those major cities produce environments that discourage the same level of patriotism from their populaces.

 

My charges of cowardice, as noted, are exclusively for the cowards who would foment an environment that discourages military service to our country. God Bless every one of the war casualites from every state, none more so than those forced to overcome the cowardly influences of liberal metropolises.

224530[/snapback]

Please offer a single quote from any of my posts in this entire thread which insult those in uniform.

 

Please offer a link to evidence that there are scads and scads of elitist cowards convincing other people in New York or California or whatever other states you insist on labeling as cowards, into not serving in the military.

 

Please offer an argument that service statistics can be explained only by levels of courage.

 

Please explain why the 67 New Yorkers who have died in this war are not enough for the state of New York to avoid your charge of cowardice. Please let me know how many would be enough.

[KRC]

This "conservative" administration spent Hundreds of Billions of Dollars, with Hundreds to go, in order to disarm an unarmed country when letting weapons inspectors finish their job would have sufficed. ie This "conservative" administration invaded and occupied a soveriegn nation that presented no viable threat to our country at an unneccessary taxpayer cost of Hundreds of Billions and counting.

 

224704[/snapback]

 

The job of the weapons inspectors is not to search the country to find WMD. Their job was to go to the known sites (as per the declarations) of WMD research, production and storage and verify that they are no longer in use. They are also responsible for verifying that the weapons that were declared were destroyed. Anything above and beyond the declarations was not part of their job unless they happened to stumble upon it.

 

The inspectors could come up clean, and Saddam could still have stuff going on and have stuff stored.

 

Now tell me, with Saddam's PROVEN history of deception with the inspectors, what makes you think that he will suddenly comply and allow the inspectors to do their jobs unhindered?

 

BTW, you left out North Korea out of your DNC talking points. "What about North Korea? If we attack Iraq, we should also attack North Korea." Other than that, you pretty well have the DNC talking points down. Well done in providing that summary for us.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

It is a volunteer army right now- although I fully support volunteers that would choose not to go and fulfill any so-called obligation.  Getting a loan, some college money, or even 100k a year doesnt obligate you to put yourself at risk for something you dont believe 100% in- or even 52%.

224375[/snapback]

 

This is brilliant. So we'll have an Army with no enforcable discipline?

 

GENIUS!

 

I can see it now:

 

First Sergeant: "All privates who wish to be combat deployed please step forward!"

 

You sir are an idiot.

[KRC]

This is brilliant. So we'll have an Army with no enforcable discipline?

 

GENIUS!

 

I can see it now:

 

First Sergeant: "All privates who wish to be combat deployed please step forward!"

 

You sir are an idiot.

224787[/snapback]

 

Holy Hell, I missed that post.

 

 

The stuff people come up with.

 

[/dev/null]

Sweet.  An entire post of the liberal talking points of the last 4 years.  Very successful and intelligent.  Explains why John Kerry is President.

224711[/snapback]

 

maybe thats too much info for you AD. maybe you'd understand it better if they were summed up in soundbyte format so the average american voter can comprehend...

 

Bush Bad!!!

Haliburton!!!

Flightsuit!!!

 

ladies and gentlemen, your 2006 democratic national platform

[jimshiz]

This "conservative" administration spent Hundreds of Billions of Dollars, with Hundreds to go, in order to disarm an unarmed country when letting weapons inspectors finish their job would have sufficed. ie This "conservative" administration invaded and occupied a soveriegn nation that presented no viable threat to our country at an unneccessary taxpayer cost of Hundreds of Billions and counting.

224704[/snapback]

 

Iraq was NOT a "unarmed country". Saddam Hussein had already masacred hundreds of thousands in his own country. The Libs from Clinton to Kennedy in the 1990s claimed he had WMDs and should be dealt with. The weapons inspectors were already hindered by Saddam and kicked out. The US is NOT "occupying" a sovereign nation. But, you are right, they are not a viable thread (anymore). How much do you think the Global War on Terror should cost? How much is too much?

 

No WMD's, no Al-queda ties, nothing to do with 9-11 still some believe now the "Iraq" war is still justifiable because we have to "spread Democracy" to the Middle East. When I was younger I remember "stopping the spread of Communism" was a good reason for one major "military conflict". There is just something really suspect about US intelligence "not knowing" there were no WMDs. Hmmm. What the hell, I'm a lunatic, what do I know.

224704[/snapback]

 

There were WMDs. I'd be more worried about where they are now. If there are no Al-queda ties, what is their stake in being there now?

 

The "war on Communism" is worth it. It is not over. Thank God for Reagan; we were able to win one of the battles of the Cold War with the break up of the USSR.

 

more lunacy: As a result  of our "conservative" administrations' crusade to spread Democracy to the middle east close to 1,500 American soldiers are dead, over 10,000 are wounded and of course we don't count the number of dead or wounded innocent Iraqis. Pfff why should we care about the Iraqis? Hell, were giving them Democracy.

224704[/snapback]

 

Again, what cost is too high to win the Global War on Terror?

 

There are other interesting results from our "conservative" administrations' chosen war. Besides making war profiteering "cool" again and losing a few allies, since there intentionally was no viable exit strategy now, we have a huge military presence on ground, air and sea smack dab in the heart of the Middle East. It appears that it's not enough to secure Iraq, after all these are fighting men and combat support not really many policemen.

224704[/snapback]

 

Yes, we're just in it to make money. Like Reagan before him, GWB said we'll be happy to fight terror along side our friends but we'll go it alone if we have to. You can hardly look to Spain as proof they were right to "pull out". The "exit strategy" is to win the Global War on Terror.

 

However, it's a big enough presence to engage in "conflict" with another nearby country. If need be, it's big enough control the one of the worlds most precious resources. And of course, it's big enough to protect Isreal even more from surrounding rogue nations.

224704[/snapback]

 

If you think this war is about us gettin oil, you are an idiot. If you want to blame someone for that, look no further than the "Oil for Food" scandal in the UN. In the first War in Iraq, the mission was to force them out of Kuwait. Nothing more. The resolutions were put in to place and agreed to by Saddam which also allowed us to go no further at the time. And Israel does not need our protection. We should take some cues from them. How can you bash the only current democracy in that region?

 

Anyways, this lunatic can't help but think that the American people were deliberately convinced to go to war on false premises. ie This "conservative" administration flat out lied. 

224704[/snapback]

 

GWB only lied if you also believe that Clinton, Kerry, Kennedy, Albright, etc. ALL lied before him in the 1990s.

 

Why didn't they just say, hey, Afghanistan is cool but their best resources are poppy plants, besides Osama can wait. Look at Iraq, it has lots of good precious resources (this lunatic remembers that some funds from Iraq's oil was supposed to help pay for the war, conservatively Hudreds of Billions of Dollars). Besides getting even with the scoundrel that took a pot shot at papa, we can kill a lot of birds with one stone in Iraq. We can satisfy our neo-con buddies with the military buildup. We can give Billion dollar contracts to our campaign donors. We can.....

224704[/snapback]

 

Yes, more DNC talking points - "this war is about oil"; "this war is revenge for assassination plot against Bush 41". Do you expect anybody to take you seriously when you don't think about outcomes for yourself? The alternative to "peace through strength" is more appeasement that got us Pearl Harbor in 1941, WTC in 1993, USS Cole in 2000, WTC & Pentagon in 2001, etc.

 

I guess people don't like the notion that they were lied to, espescially by people who "work for them", supposedly in their best interest. But what do I know? I'm just a friggin lunatic. And your a proud genius.

224704[/snapback]

 

You're the one buying the "lies" hook, line, & sinker...

 

(As to the "reasons" for the wars - go read my other posts and the posts of so many others who see the bigger picture in the long term).