FOR REPUBLICANS/CONSERVATIVES/RIGHT OF CENTER POSTERS ONLY! [Archive]

View Full Version : FOR REPUBLICANS/CONSERVATIVES/RIGHT OF CENTER POSTERS ONLY!

radioguy

01-07-2008, 07:53 PM

FOR REPUBLICANS/CONSERVATIVES/RIGHT OF CENTER POSTERS ONLY!

If you had to cast your vote for either Hillary, Obama or Edwards to be the next president of the United States, which one would you choose?

Frankg

01-07-2008, 08:00 PM

Hillary

Because Obama and Edwards will withdraw the troops from Iraq which will result in another terrorist attack on this country

radioguy

01-07-2008, 08:01 PM

Even though she has the best stance on Iraq, I just don't like Hillary at all... She has been involved in too many shady deals and lets face it... She's a bitch.

Silky is a "slip and fall" lawyer that made his fortune representing people trying to make a quick buck. He is way too liberal for me.

That leaves Obama, so that's who I would vote for..

LadyMod at scam.com

01-07-2008, 09:55 PM

Hillary

Because Obama and Edwards will withdraw the troops from Iraq which will result in another terrorist attack on this country

frankie, NO ONE, is going to want to be known as the president who allowed another terrorist attack on this country.

And if things work out (unless Bush pulls a fast one on the troops) a good percentage will be out of Iraq BEFORE he leaves office. If the peace holds, he'll get kudos, if it doesn't he'll be shown for the failure most of America thinks he is already.

Lady Mod

radioguy

01-07-2008, 10:02 PM

Cat slave

01-07-2008, 10:03 PM

LadyMod at scam.com

01-07-2008, 10:04 PM

You know lady mod, I would have thought you would at least choose one of the republican candidates in the other pole, instead of being a narrow minded, partisan liberal...

I would have also not figured you for a cheater either. The pole on this thread is clearly marked for those of us on the right only.

That goes for you too Islam sux.

I'm a Republican. I'm barely right but I am right. I'm just too sane to think that what the Republican party is offering is worth giving total loyalty to AND you offered no one I could vote for or support.

In the final election, I'll vote my conscience, whether it's Republican or Democrat is too early to say.

Lady Mod

hdmarketing

01-07-2008, 10:04 PM

Holy Shit RG!

What the hell brought that on?

My God, have you no heart?

Well Hillary just scares the fuck out of me.
She would get on one of her little rag tantrums and push the button and launch a nuke strike.

Edwards, he is just to fucking stupid, that guy just doesn't have a dman clue, want to talk about a true moron?
There ya go.

I (VERY RELUCTANTLY) voted for Obama.
Even if he does dis respect the country, at least the guy has some brains.
Not much mind you, but he is smarter than the other two.

Independent Harry

01-07-2008, 10:08 PM

I voted for Obama, among being the least entrenched by corporations, he has a brain, and it would be part of making history as well (first black president and all).

But since I don't have to, I'm voting republican.

radioguy

01-07-2008, 10:13 PM

Yirmeyahu

01-07-2008, 10:19 PM

Because Obama and Edwards will withdraw the troops from Iraq which will result in another terrorist attack on this country

Please explain the logic behind that bizarre statement.

The fact that we're there has greatly increased the threat that there may be another terrorist attack on the US. Were we to leave, that threat would be largely mitigated.

In answer to the question, Clinton is right out, so that leaves Edwards or Obama. Between those two, I'd probably lean Obama.

Cat slave

01-07-2008, 10:29 PM

Cat slave

01-07-2008, 10:31 PM

Please explain the logic behind that bizarre statement.

The fact that we're there has greatly increased the threat that there may be another terrorist attack on the US. Were we to leave, that threat would be largely mitigated.

In answer to the question, Clinton is right out, so that leaves Edwards or Obama. Between those two, I'd probably lean Obama.

If terrorism is because "we are there" how do you explain the attacks on
Gt. Britain, Spain, Indonesia (Muslim country) etc. I think there is more
to it than that.

Yirmeyahu

01-07-2008, 10:50 PM

She's a bitch.

radioguy,

would that statement qualify, under your own standard, as "Clinton bashing"?

Incidentally, I agree with you on Clinton not being a good candidate. I would also like to note that I respected the title of the other thread for liberals and didn't post to it since I'm a conservative.

If terrorism is because "we are there" how do you explain the attacks on
Gt. Britain, Spain, Indonesia (Muslim country) etc. I think there is more
to it than that.

Look, it's not really a matter for debate. We know terrorist's justifications for their unjustifiable actions. Take Osama bin Laden, the alleged mastermind of the 9/11 attacks. He's stated his reasons for considering the US the enemy and the rationale for attacks upon the US: US support for the illegal Israeli occupation, US support for despots who oppress the people, US bombing and killing of people in the Middle East, etc.

But to your question, it assumes that the reasons the UK, Spain, and Indonesia were attacked are the same reasons the US was attacked on 9/11, which is simply a false assumption.

But take the UK. The UK made itself a target by being the US's principle supporter against Iraq, by being the main conspirator to wage a war of aggression.

The attack on the train in Spain was initially blamed on "al-Qaeda", but as far as I know it could equally well have been separatists. I didn't follow up well enough to know who was responsible (and perhaps they never learned).

The attack in Bali was an attack on a bar frequented by foreigners: Australians, Americans, Britons--all of whose nations supported and participated in the war in Iraq.

hdmarketing

01-07-2008, 10:53 PM

Really?

Who's the one your pulling for then?

Ron Paul

or

McCain

:D

I am taking bets you know...

Harry will vote for Paul or McCain...

radioguy

01-07-2008, 10:57 PM

radioguy,

would that statement qualify, under your own standard, as "Clinton bashing"?

I tried to be as non-attacking as possible with that Yirmey. I wasn't saying it to insult. I meant she was shrill, cold, and according to various secret service agents that were assigned to protect her back in the 90's, calling her a "bitch" doesn't even scratch the surface of how rude, crude, demanding and demeaning the woman is.

radioguy

01-07-2008, 11:00 PM

Ron Paul

or

McCain

:D

I am taking bets you know...

Harry will vote for Paul or McCain...

I know up until today he's been a Paul supporter, but after the revelations about the little Nazi today, I certainly hope that has changed.

Cat slave

01-07-2008, 11:07 PM

radioguy,

would that statement qualify, under your own standard, as "Clinton bashing"?

Incidentally, I agree with you on Clinton not being a good candidate. I would also like to note that I respected the title of the other thread for liberals and didn't post to it since I'm a conservative.

Look, it's not really a matter for debate. We know terrorist's justifications for their unjustifiable actions. Take Osama bin Laden, the alleged mastermind of the 9/11 attacks. He's stated his reasons for considering the US the enemy and the rationale for attacks upon the US: US support for the illegal Israeli occupation, US support for despots who oppress the people, US bombing and killing of people in the Middle East, etc.

But to your question, it assumes that the reasons the UK, Spain, and Indonesia were attacked are the same reasons the US was attacked on 9/11, which is simply a false assumption.

But take the UK. The UK made itself a target by being the US's principle supporter against Iraq, by being the main conspirator to wage a war of aggression.

The attack on the train in Spain was initially blamed on "al-Qaeda", but as far as I know it could equally well have been separatists. I didn't follow up well enough to know who was responsible (and perhaps they never learned).

The attack in Bali was an attack on a bar frequented by foreigners: Australians, Americans, Britons--all of whose nations supported and participated in the war in Iraq.

You make some good points though WE are not responsible for every bad
thing. What about The Cole, the hotel in SA, the first attack on WTC?
While I dont think we should be in everyones front yard "they" have
vowed to destroy our culture and way of life and I think they would
feel the same way no matter where we are or are not.

Im for a good case of isolationism!

Yirmeyahu

01-07-2008, 11:29 PM

I tried to be as non-attacking as possible with that Yirmey. I wasn't saying it to insult. I meant she was shrill, cold, and according to various secret service agents that were assigned to protect her back in the 90's, calling her a "bitch" doesn't even scratch the surface of how rude, crude, demanding and demeaning the woman is.

Right. But would it or would it not qualify as "Clinton bashing" under your own standard, as defined in the other thread?

You make some good points though WE are not responsible for every bad
thing. What about The Cole, the hotel in SA, the first attack on WTC?
While I dont think we should be in everyones front yard "they" have
vowed to destroy our culture and way of life and I think they would
feel the same way no matter where we are or are not.

Im for a good case of isolationism!

I wouldn't call it isolationism. We should be trading with and talking to people. We just shouldn't be trying to tell them how to run their lives or forcing our ways down their throats or overthrowing their governments or killing them.

The reasons for the Cole bombing and the first attack on the WTC are the same as the reasons for 9/11: US support for the Israeli occupation, US support for despots that oppress and terrorize their own people, US overthrow of their governments, and everything else I just mentioned above, etc.

I'm not sure to what you refer by "the hotel in SA".

I disagree with you that "they would feel the same way" if we weren't over there doing all those things I just mentioned. To make that argument seems very close to me to saying "they hate our freedoms" or "they are jealous of our properity", etc., which is all just nonsense.

They hate us because of everything we've been doing to them for so long, including the above, and then some.

Independent Harry

01-07-2008, 11:59 PM

Really?

Who's the one your pulling for then?

Ron Paul of course, but you already knew that.

Independent Harry

01-08-2008, 12:02 AM

I know up until today he's been a Paul supporter, but after the revelations about the little Nazi today, I certainly hope that has changed.

lol, you're revelations, that didn't evenhave the evidence on the site they said they would...

Cat slave

01-08-2008, 12:36 AM

Right. But would it or would it not qualify as "Clinton bashing" under your own standard, as defined in the other thread?

I wouldn't call it isolationism. We should be trading with and talking to people. We just shouldn't be trying to tell them how to run their lives or forcing our ways down their throats or overthrowing their governments or killing them.

The reasons for the Cole bombing and the first attack on the WTC are the same as the reasons for 9/11: US support for the Israeli occupation, US support for despots that oppress and terrorize their own people, US overthrow of their governments, and everything else I just mentioned above, etc.

I'm not sure to what you refer by "the hotel in SA".

I disagree with you that "they would feel the same way" if we weren't over there doing all those things I just mentioned. To make that argument seems very close to me to saying "they hate our freedoms" or "they are jealous of our properity", etc., which is all just nonsense.

They hate us because of everything we've been doing to them for so long, including the above, and then some.

The hotel was Rihad or something like that....killed a lot of soldiers.
In Saudi Arabia best I remember.

Islam has intended to take over the world long ago. They hate us because
we are "infidels". And no, I dont think we should be meddling in anyones
business. We have quite enough right here to deal with.

I said "a good case of isolationism" as for a .......change....not to use a
very worn word of late. We need to look inward and let the rest of the
world fight their own battles, feed their own people and have whatever
kind of government they wish. Not all people can handle freedom.
We can put America first without forgoing trade with other countries but
it needs to be "fair" trade...not the mess we have now.

Signing off for tonight. Night all.

Yirmeyahu

01-08-2008, 12:59 AM

The hotel was Rihad or something like that....killed a lot of soldiers. In Saudi Arabia best I remember.

Sure, the Khobar Towers in Riyadh in 1996, which were housing US military personnel. The compound bombings in 2003, as well. Same reasons and motivations given before.

radioguy

01-08-2008, 02:47 AM

lol, you're revelations, that didn't evenhave the evidence on the site they said they would...

They weren't my revelations Harry, and they didn't say that the evidence was currently on their site.

Yirmeyahu

01-08-2008, 03:47 AM

They weren't my revelations Harry, and they didn't say that the evidence was currently on their site.

What's the title of that thread, radioguy? You said it had been "confirmed". Then you backpeddled, acknowledging you hadn't seen the alleged evidence yet.

So that's not very well "confirmed", now, is it?

radioguy

01-08-2008, 04:42 AM

What's the title of that thread, radioguy? You said it had been "confirmed". Then you backpeddled, acknowledging you hadn't seen the alleged evidence yet.

So that's not very well "confirmed", now, is it?

The "confirmed" was my word, not theirs. I used it because as far as I'm concerned, it is confirmed. The reason I say that, is because of the source.

TNR is the same publication that recently got into hot water because they for the second time in as many years, published a story that turned out to be fabricated. The latest was the Scott Thomas "Baghdad Diarist" bullshit. That incident hurt their credibility tremendously, and was rumored to have nearly put them out of business.

For that reason, I have to believe there's just no way in hell they would have gone public with a story of this magnitude, if there was even the slightest chance it wasn't authentic.

So Yirmey, as far as the public goes, you are correct... The story has not been confirmed. That was my title and we won't have to wait very long to see if my belief is correct or not.

Yirmeyahu

01-08-2008, 06:52 AM

That was my title and we won't have to wait very long to see if my belief is correct or not.

The point is that your thread title is misleading, as you acknowledged there and just now here. It hasn't been "confirmed", as you said it has. That's the point.

radioguy

01-08-2008, 07:27 AM

The point is that your thread title is misleading, as you acknowledged there and just now here. It hasn't been "confirmed", as you said it has. That's the point.

Yup... That's how I see it, but I understand it doesn't meet that standard to most. I understood exactly what I was saying in the title Yirmey. I willingly said "confirmed" because I have that much confidence in what was presented, based on the reasons I stated previously.

Frankg

01-08-2008, 07:31 AM

radioguy

01-08-2008, 08:18 AM

LOL!!!!:lmao2:

That's funny !!

You had me goin there for a second ,Jim

Obama

HA -HA

good one

It's no joke Frank... I would vote for Obama if those were the only choices and was forced to vote.

I'll bet I can give you another reason why it might be a good Idea to pick him over the others, that hadn't occurred to you...

OK Frank, consider this... Have you noticed that throughout this entire campaign we haven't heard one single word out of Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton? Well, it got me to thinking about why they would be so silent when theres a reasonable possibility, that a year from now America could be swearing in it's first ever African-American president. Wouldn't you think that these two would be doing their part to help make that happen? At the very least, I would have thought they would be hitting the talk show circuits and discussing this possibility, but nothing...

Then it dawned on me... What aspect of the American culture propelled those two into the spotlight, and has earned them millions of dollars? Racial inequality, that's what. They have latched on to any and every issue or cause over the last 30 years, where they could claim that black people were the victims of prejudice, whether that was the case or not...

It's their bread and butter Frank, and if Obama happens to get elected president, It's going to make it difficult for them to claim that America is racist against blacks. If Obama becomes president, they will also not be able to cry "Racism" and claim the government is complicit some how, which will in effect, put those two out of business.

Wouldn't that be a nice silver lining in that cloud, if it did happen?

LadyMod at scam.com

01-08-2008, 08:19 AM

LOL, frankie and radioguy are having a "Lover's" quarrel.

How cute.

:lmao2:

Yirmeyahu

01-08-2008, 08:19 AM

Yup... That's how I see it, but I understand it doesn't meet that standard to most. I understood exactly what I was saying in the title Yirmey. I willingly said "confirmed" because I have that much confidence in what was presented, based on the reasons I stated previously.

So your thread title was a statement of opinion, despite having the appearance of a statement of fact.

Anyhow, fair enough. Let's get back to the topic of this thread.

If I had to choose a democratic candidate, I'd choose Kucinich. But he's not on your list, so I might very well have to agree with you on Obama. Clinton is right out. I don't like Edwards since he ran with Kerry and hence must share many of Kerry's political views. That pretty much leaves Obama from your list, whom I don't know much about. But he seems charasmatic and hasn't said or done anything to make me think he's worse than the rest.

Independent Harry

01-08-2008, 10:41 AM

The "confirmed" was my word, not theirs. I used it because as far as I'm concerned, it is confirmed. The reason I say that, is because of the source.

TNR is the same publication that recently got into hot water because they for the second time in as many years, published a story that turned out to be fabricated. The latest was the Scott Thomas "Baghdad Diarist" bullshit. That incident hurt their credibility tremendously, and was rumored to have nearly put them out of business.

For that reason, I have to believe there's just no way in hell they would have gone public with a story of this magnitude, if there was even the slightest chance it wasn't authentic.

So Yirmey, as far as the public goes, you are correct... The story has not been confirmed. That was my title and we won't have to wait very long to see if my belief is correct or not.

LOL, or that just proves the site will publish informatin without checking its sources, as well as, slander people without proper evidence. Sounds more like that to me.

Cat slave

01-08-2008, 12:57 PM

Sure, the Khobar Towers in Riyadh in 1996, which were housing US military personnel. The compound bombings in 2003, as well. Same reasons and motivations given before.

Aha....thats it. But I still dont accept that those motives are the whole
story. They are convenient and serve to reflect badly on our country when
touted as "the reason" for all their violence.

Yirmeyahu

01-08-2008, 01:27 PM

Aha....thats it. But I still dont accept that those motives are the whole
story. They are convenient and serve to reflect badly on our country when
touted as "the reason" for all their violence.

Well, they are probably not "the whole story", but they are the meat of it. I don't know what you mean by saying they are "convenient". They are "convenient" reasons for the violence because they happen to be true.

I'd be willing to bet that if you lived in a country oppressed by tyrants supported by the US, or in a country in chaos because of US actions, or had lost a loved one due to US actions, etc., you would find that a "convenient" reason to hate US foreign policy, too. But I don't see what that has to do with it, or what that really is supposed to mean.

radioguy

01-08-2008, 01:30 PM

LOL, or that just proves the site will publish informatin without checking its sources, as well as, slander people without proper evidence. Sounds more like that to me.

Say what?

I thought you listened to the clip Harry?

According to James Kirchick, the Assistant to the Editor-in-Chief at TNR, this evidence is as proper as it gets. What he found, were all the Ron Paul Newsletters that were known to exist, but nobody had ever been able to locate... That is, until now.

Kirchick found an archive of them at the University Of Kansas at a place called "The Wisconsin Historical Society" that went back all the way to 1978.

Now I realize that TNR is a far left liberal rag, so I completely understand why any intelligent person would question their credibility... It's only natural. But since they were recently caught pulling a "Dan Rather" for publishing those fabricated "Baghdad Diarist" articles about atrocities committed by US troops, and didn't check out the facts as they claimed they had, they simply cannot afford to to publish another high profile expose' without having their facts straight.

I just can't imagine that this guy would get on a nationally syndicated radio show and claim he has located Ron Paul's Newsletters, if he didn't.

Since I feel it's been long enough now, the guy said and I quote:

"These Newsletters are going to be available... at TNR.com sometime tomorrow"

That would be today sometime.

Independent Harry

01-08-2008, 04:22 PM

Say what?

I thought you listened to the clip Harry?

According to James Kirchick, the Assistant to the Editor-in-Chief at TNR, this evidence is as proper as it gets. What he found, were all the Ron Paul Newsletters that were known to exist, but nobody had ever been able to locate... That is, until now.

Kirchick found an archive of them at the University Of Kansas at a place called "The Wisconsin Historical Society" that went back all the way to 1978.

Now I realize that TNR is a far left liberal rag, so I completely understand why any intelligent person would question their credibility... It's only natural. But since they were recently caught pulling a "Dan Rather" for publishing those fabricated "Baghdad Diarist" articles about atrocities committed by US troops, and didn't check out the facts as they claimed they had, they simply cannot afford to to publish another high profile expose' without having their facts straight.

I just can't imagine that this guy would get on a nationally syndicated radio show and claim he has located Ron Paul's Newsletters, if he didn't.

Since I feel it's been long enough now, the guy said and I quote:

"These Newsletters are going to be available... at TNR.com sometime tomorrow"

That would be today sometime.

well it's now 3:17pm and nothing yet, oh wait, its up and guess what, no links, no actual newsletters, just more of the same without actually posting the proof...figures.

Frankg

01-08-2008, 08:14 PM

It's no joke Frank... I would vote for Obama if those were the only choices and was forced to vote.

I'll bet I can give you another reason why it might be a good Idea to pick him over the others, that hadn't occurred to you...

OK Frank, consider this... Have you noticed that throughout this entire campaign we haven't heard one single word out of Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton? Well, it got me to thinking about why they would be so silent when theres a reasonable possibility, that a year from now America could be swearing in it's first ever African-American president. Wouldn't you think that these two would be doing their part to help make that happen? At the very least, I would have thought they would be hitting the talk show circuits and discussing this possibility, but nothing...

Then it dawned on me... What aspect of the American culture propelled those two into the spotlight, and has earned them millions of dollars? Racial inequality, that's what. They have latched on to any and every issue or cause over the last 30 years, where they could claim that black people were the victims of prejudice, whether that was the case or not...

It's their bread and butter Frank, and if Obama happens to get elected president, It's going to make it difficult for them to claim that America is racist against blacks. If Obama becomes president, they will also not be able to cry "Racism" and claim the government is complicit some how, which will in effect, put those two out of business.

Wouldn't that be a nice silver lining in that cloud, if it did happen?

Point taken Jim , but that would be low on the of reasons voting for Obama yes ?

Jabronies like Sharpton and Jackson don't phase me in the least however, I do care about where Obama stands on homeland security while Clinton is the only democrat who agrees that this country is safer since 9/11 , a painful fact which liberal democrats hate to hear which is what probably could end up sinking her campaign

Cat slave

01-08-2008, 09:30 PM

Well, they are probably not "the whole story", but they are the meat of it. I don't know what you mean by saying they are "convenient". They are "convenient" reasons for the violence because they happen to be true.

I'd be willing to bet that if you lived in a country oppressed by tyrants supported by the US, or in a country in chaos because of US actions, or had lost a loved one due to US actions, etc., you would find that a "convenient" reason to hate US foreign policy, too. But I don't see what that has to do with it, or what that really is supposed to mean.

I use the term "convenient" because they can latch on to something that a lot
of people can relate to and bend it to serve their purposes.

I do HATE our foreign policy but dont cut the terrorists any slack at all regarding 9-11. We didnt cause it beyond being alive and western.
And WE are being oppressed by a dictator and an invading foreign country
that intends to take land, resources, change language and culture. But
few of us would attack Mexico and say they caused it.....oh, but maybe
that would work!!!!:lmao2: Lets give it a go.

Yirmeyahu

01-08-2008, 10:11 PM

...Clinton is the only democrat who agrees that this country is safer since 9/11...

Which demonstrates either how unintelligent or how dishonest she is.

That's nonsense. Why were we attacked on 9/11? Because of our foreign policy. So to escalate that foreign policy and do even more to create hatred of the US only makes us more of a target. That's elementary, simple common sense. And it's born out by the facts. Incidents of terrorism are up. Iraq has become what our own intelligence agencies have called a "breeding ground" for terrorism. Pakistan, a nuclear-armed country, is being overrun by radical militants as a direct result of our war in Afghanistan. Not only our country, but the entire world, is more dangerous as a result of our policies since 9/11.

I use the term "convenient" because they can latch on to something that a lot
of people can relate to and bend it to serve their purposes.

Well, their purpose is to see that what we keep doing to them STOPS. They want us to stop supporting Israel. They want us to stop supporting tyrants. They want us to stop bombing them.

So, yes, pointing out that we are doing those things is "convenient" for them to "latch on to" to serve their purpose of using whatever means they feel necessary to put an end to it.

But that's not really saying anything.

Little Red Dog

01-09-2008, 01:32 AM

...Clinton is the only democrat who agrees that this country is safer since 9/11 ...

...which she attributes to better communication between the FBI and the CIA. And NOT to George Bush.

Yirmeyahu

01-09-2008, 03:39 AM

Lack of communication between the FBI and CIA had very little to do with anything. This notion that there was a "wall" between the agencies is largely a myth. It wasn't a "wall" that kept the CIA, for instance, from notifying the FBI that several known al-Qaeda members on the terrorist watch list had entered the US.

And even if we bought that argument, it's like saying that a person who put a band-aid on a gunshot wound is healthier than before he was shot.

The solution isn't to put a band-aid on by reforming the way our intelligence and law enforcement agencies operate (nothing wrong with doing so), but by reforming our foreign policy into a kind of foreign policy which doesn't give terrorists cause or justification for their acts of terrorism.

And that's something Clinton has made perfectly clear she will NOT do. She is very much in favor of a consistent foreign policy between hers and the Bush administration.

Yirmeyahu

01-09-2008, 03:55 AM

In other words, Clinton, like Bush, ignores the root causes of terrorism and would continue to pursue foreign policy decisions, often criminal in nature (she has supported the war of aggression against Iraq and hence, if held to the standard of Nuremberg, could rightfully be hanged--I'm a hypocrite so I don't agree that that should happen, but it remains a valid observation), which only further increase the threat of another terrorist attack against our country.

Frankg

01-09-2008, 07:40 AM

Originally posted by Yirmeyahu
Which demonstrates either how unintelligent or how dishonest she is.

That's nonsense. Why were we attacked on 9/11? Because of our foreign policy.

Correct, and that policy is to come to the aid of country's which have been invaded by a muderous regime and is killing and torturing its's citizens such as was the case in Kuwait, a policy which we should not our fear of terrorists change , terrorists want us to die, that is still thier only demand so we need to defend ourselves

So to escalate that foreign policy and do even more to create hatred of the US only makes us more of a target. That's elementary, simple common sense.

In other words ...give in to demands of terrorists , brilliant

And it's born out by the facts.
Such as.....???

Incidents of terrorism are up. Iraq has become what our own intelligence agencies have called a "breeding ground" for terrorism.
Better check again Yirme , its now a fact: Al-Queada is wiped out in Iraq
and we will be out by the time the next president takes office

Pakistan, a nuclear-armed country, is being overrun by radical militants as a direct result of our war in Afghanistan.
Our "war" in Afganistan ?

What happened to " ...we still haven't gotten Bin Laden " ?

FACT: If Musharev had allowed US forces to persue the Taliban into Pakistan in the first place , Bhutto would still be alive , Bin Laden would be in Gitmo and I would be teeing off at the Islamabad Country Club right now

Not only our country, but the entire world, is more dangerous as a result of our policies since 9/11.
For the 200th time....PROOVE IT

LadyMod at scam.com

01-09-2008, 08:09 AM

For the 200th time....PROOVE IT

A lot more terrorists in the world since 9/11 and they don't even bother to hide like they used to.

Iran emboldened and taunting the U.S. Navy.

Pakistan.

Afghanistan is more entrenched with Al Qaeda NOW than it was before 9/11.

China and Russia both help Iran with nuclear enrichment.

Lady Mod

Yirmeyahu

01-09-2008, 08:45 AM

Why were we attacked on 9/11? Because of our foreign policy.

Correct, and that policy is to come to the aid of country's which have been invaded by a muderous regime and is killing and torturing its's citizens such as was the case in Kuwait, a policy which we should not our fear of terrorists change , terrorists want us to die, that is still thier only demand so we need to defend ourselves

You know, ignorance is one thing, but there comes a point where ignorance doesn't explain the discrepancy between a person's personal paradigm and reality.

2 Thessalonians 2:9-11 speaks to the point that people go well beyond ignorance into the realm of self-deception, and it's a point that bears often repeating.

Frankg, we needn't look far to understand the motivations for the 9/11 attacks. Let's accept the assumption that Osama bin Laden was resonsible for the attacks, as we are told. Well, he's stated explicitly his greivances against the US: US support for the illegal Israeli occupation, the genocidal sanctions regime against Iraq, US military occupation of Middle Eastern countries, etc.

We were not attacked on 9/11 because we are so good. We were attacked on 9/11 because our actions are so often so evil and condemnable, so corrupt and so immoral.

That's a truth so elementary a child could understand it, but it's beyond your comprehension. You require someone to ascend to heaven to retrieve it for you. I can only implore you to be more honest with yourself, because self-deception can only lead to self-destruction, which is the direction our nation, which both you and I love so dearly, is heading.

In other words ...give in to demands of terrorists , brilliant

Not at all. I don't believe in giving into demands of terrorists. I do, however, believe in doing what's right and in ceasing to do what is wrong. And the fact is that the "terrorists" have legitimate grievances. Hence, we shouldn't cease our support for Israel's lawlessness, for example, because it's what terrorists demand, but because its the lawful, moral, and proper thing to do.

Or would we justify our own evil deeds by pointing to the evil deeds of others?

Why were we attacked on 9/11? Because of our foreign policy. So to escalate that foreign policy and do even more to create hatred of the US only makes us more of a target. That's elementary, simple common sense. And it's born out by the facts.

Such as.....???

I told you. Next sentence:

Incidents of terrorism are up. Iraq has become what our own intelligence agencies have called a "breeding ground" for terrorism. Pakistan, a nuclear-armed country, is being overrun by radical militants as a direct result of our war in Afghanistan. Not only our country, but the entire world, is more dangerous as a result of our policies since 9/11.

Better check again Yirme , its now a fact: Al-Queada is wiped out in Iraq...

First of all, I said "terrorism", not "al-Qaeda".

Secondly, tell that to Col. Riyadh al-Samarrai, the Sunni leader killed yesterday by a terrorist.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/08/world/middleeast/08iraq.html?ex=1357448400&en=2de4f35dd45c9453&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

Or tell it to the four civilians killed by a terrorist three days ago.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1198517307154&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

It's superfluous to continue. It's you who need to check your facts. There has been and continues to be a great deal of terrorism now in Iraq, as a result of our invasion.

...and we will be out by the time the next president takes office

Wanna bet? I'll put money down. We're not leaving.

Pakistan, a nuclear-armed country, is being overrun by radical militants as a direct result of our war in Afghanistan.

Our "war" in Afganistan ? What happened to " ...we still haven't gotten Bin Laden " ?

I'm not sure what you're implying, so can't respond.

FACT: If Musharev had allowed US forces to persue the Taliban into Pakistan in the first place , Bhutto would still be alive , Bin Laden would be in Gitmo and I would be teeing off at the Islamabad Country Club right now

Well, we may imagine "what ifs" and hypotheticals until the cows come home. I happen to disagree with you. But it's pointless to argue about what could have been. We need to deal with present realities, and the reality today is as I've said: Pakistan is being overrun today by radical militants as a direct result of our war in Afghanistan.

I've written about that extensively elsewhere, so won't repeat it here.

http://www.dcjunkies.com/showthread.php?t=2894&highlight=pakistan

Updated version:

http://www.yirmeyahureview.com/articles/2007/pakistan_war_on_terrorism.htm

Not only our country, but the entire world, is more dangerous as a result of our policies since 9/11.

For the 200th time....PROOVE IT

It's a simple matter of common sense. I just explained how I drew that conclusion. Take Pakistan alone. Pakistan is a nuclear-armed country which we have done a great deal to destabilize. In doing so, we put the world at far greater risk of the possibility of a nuclear war breaking out, or of terrorists getting their hands on nuclear weapons, which would not only threaten just Pakistan or just the US, but which could very well have dire consequences for the entire world.

Or take Iraq. There have been numerous cases of terrorist attacks against US coalition allies in the war of aggression against Iraq. The escalated risk of terrorsim is not directed against the US alone, but affects numerous other nations throughout the world.

Destabilizing countries and disregarding the rule of law doesn't just put ourselves at risk, but also has consequences for other nations throughout the world.

That's a fairly elementary observation.

Cat slave

01-09-2008, 01:01 PM

Well, as Ive stated before and wont drag it out, I think we should bring our
toys, our rebuilding missions and all foreign aid to anybody & come home. To hell
with the rest of the world. Let them fight their own battles. The humanitarian
missions mean nothing to the people that they are lavished upon so let them perish
and let them handle their own lives however short they may be. Actually
no one deserves our tax money but us. It needs to be spent right here on
our American citizens, our infrastructure, our domestic priorities. I
personally dont care what the hell anyone thinks of USA, I do care that
our tax money is squandered on parasites.

Meant that to be shorter but Im sick to death of hearing how evil we are and
how much death and destruction we cause.....well, lets stop causing any of
it and dont come to taxpaying citizens whining over any genocide, disease,
coup or natural disaster. The need to put on their big girl panties and deal
with their own problems. That would also put a stop to sermons like Yir
believes in. It would be a win win for us.

Americanadian

01-09-2008, 09:28 PM

Correct, and that policy is to come to the aid of country's which have been invaded by a muderous regime and is killing and torturing its's citizens such as was the case in Kuwait, a policy which we should not our fear of terrorists change , terrorists want us to die, that is still thier only demand so we need to defend ourselves

In other words ...give in to demands of terrorists , brilliant

Such as.....???

Better check again Yirme , its now a fact: Al-Queada is wiped out in Iraq
and we will be out by the time the next president takes office

What happened to " ...we still haven't gotten Bin Laden " ?

FACT: If Musharev had allowed US forces to persue the Taliban into Pakistan in the first place , Bhutto would still be alive , Bin Laden would be in Gitmo and I would be teeing off at the Islamabad Country Club right now

For the 200th time....PROOVE IT

Why is American hegemony a fact you continue to abnegate? It isn't the people of America who chose to engage in Imperialism in an economic sense, or by installing puppet governments in foreign countries where desirable. If America was to intervene on behalf of 'Just' causes in the world, America would truly embody Freedom and Liberty as it once stood for. Providing a dictator such as Saddam with weapons and economic aid isn't exactly perpetuating freedom when the weapons were used against the Kurds. Interfering with democratic elections in Haiti isn't exactly justifiable. Demanding democratic elections in Palestine and then punishing the people for voting for an organization deemed as a "terrorist organization", doesn't encourage Freedom and Liberty.

The above and more only exacerbates hatred towards America. The 20th century was the turning point where America was once viewed as a beacon of light and hope in the world, to becomeone of the most hated (if not "the" most hated) nation on earth, aside from Israel.

There is always a reason. Hate doesn't form out of nothing. Impositions against other people will always draw condemnation and resentment. If not rectified immediately, bitterness and hatred soon follows. War and death is inevitable.

Yirmeyahu

01-09-2008, 10:09 PM

Independent Harry

01-09-2008, 11:35 PM

Yirmeyahu

01-10-2008, 12:13 AM

Lol, you know that's exactly what Ron Paul advocates right,

LOL! Yes, that was an afterthought I had after I posted, but I didn't go back to edit in the comment.

So thanks for making that observation.

Independent Harry

01-10-2008, 12:26 AM

LOL! Yes, that was an afterthought I had after I posted, but I didn't go back to edit in the comment.

So thanks for making that observation.

amazing how we see so many people starting to come around to that way of thinking...

Cat slave

01-10-2008, 01:11 PM

Well, Cat slave, we seem to be mostly in agreement.

Haha, miracles never cease. Stranger things have happened.;)

Cat slave

01-10-2008, 01:13 PM

Lol, you know that's exactly what Ron Paul advocates right,

Oh, geez, I didnt know that is who I am aligned with!!! Oh well, guess
everyones got to fit somewhere....or not.:D

Independent Harry

01-10-2008, 02:01 PM

Oh, geez, I didnt know that is who I am aligned with!!! Oh well, guess
everyones got to fit somewhere....or not.:D

Just pointing out to people that if you actually took the time to listen to his stances you would probably find you are in agreement with the majority of them.

Yirmeyahu

01-10-2008, 11:00 PM

Oh, geez, I didnt know that is who I am aligned with!!! Oh well, guess
everyones got to fit somewhere....or not.

In fact, Ron Paul and possibly Kucinich, are the only candidates to espouse such a view of foreign policy as you have outlined.

radioguy

01-11-2008, 01:26 AM

In fact, Ron Paul and possibly Kucinich, are the only candidates to espouse such a view of foreign policy as you have outlined.

Kucinich has a hot wife... And Ron Paul stands for WHITE POWER!

I'd have to go with Kucinich, if I had to choose between the two. Then at least we could have the hottest first lady in US history.

Yirmeyahu

01-11-2008, 07:38 AM

That's right. You can't argue the actual issues, so it's necessary to simply slander and obsucate in these ad hominum attacks.

You're only harming your own credibility with this relentless Ron Paul obsession of yours.