John Kerry, 2005, says our troops are "terrorizing" the Iraqi's

[djv]

If were nation building then the rules are different. And we should not need to go into anyones house in the middle of the night. Unless, Well maybe there dad or brother is a insurgent? Or if we do have all these trained Iraq soldiers ready. Then let them do it. Then we can go back to being the good guys and our nation building.

 

[MrChristo]

1) But, I don't think this VERY LARGE country will ever be to a point where we are completely safe from terrorists.


Also Christo;

So Bush gets no praise for thwarting several terrorist attacks in the last four years, but he is the one that gets the blame for the shitty new 9/11 report?? I don't quite understand that. I guess he is just lucky??

and anther question that always seems to perplex democrats is, "what would Kerry, Dean, Etc. do differently NOW that we are over there??" They never quite have an answer for that question.

I absolutely 100% agree with you on the first point....whcih is exactly where I'm coming from. (Obviously in a slightly round-about fashion!).

But you seem to be arguing two completely different issues.
Firstly you're saying that [effectively] Bush is making the world a safer place.
Well, no. He isn't. Figures clearly show that that is not the case at all.
Is he making US soil safer? Maybe he is....but what is the cut-off point?
I mean, you said yourself that no country will ever be 100% terrorist safe....so at what point do you stop dwindling the countries resources? (More of a retorical question I suppose)...

...Let me put this to you, that there won't be another attack with Bush in office....But by the time President Timberlake gets into Office, the country's finances are in such a bad state that military and security cut-backs simply have to be made to continue to fund the essentials. (ie. infrastructure, health, education...etc. etc.)
A week later someone lobs a chemical-bomb into a packed LA stadium killing 40,000. (who were watching the LA Saints play the Albuquerque Cardianls)
...is it a) President Timerberlake's fault for cutting the funds?
b) Previous Presidents' fault for draining the budget?
c) No-one fault, because the 'attack' could have come at any time in the past 10 years?

Ponder away.........


in 1986 NASA they lost 7 astronauts....

2003....7 more...

...does that mean that Clinton ran the space-missions more smootly than Bush, because he didn't have an 'incident'?
Does it mean for the 4 years after 1986, everyone thought, "It's been 4 years, it's never going to happen again!"?

Of course not...But that is effectively what you are saying.

ANYONE in office would have tightened home security after 9/11. Clearly it was a HUGE priority...and rightly so.

But, again, you seem to be suggesting that Bush's 'war' on terrorism is making the world a safer place. Sorry for repeating myself...but it simply isn't.

The part I don't really understand, is that if you're more worried about home security than "world peace" ** (for want of a better term), then why wouldn't you rather you troops all came home, to be used in airports/seaports/border security....
Save lives...save billions and billions of dollars, and the country will be more safe than ever before??

Thwarting attempts at home, and driving a stake into the heart of the problem (which Bush continues to claim he is doing...and I'll keep saying it, failing!), are 2 totally different things.

** because you seem to keep "forgetting" about London...or you just don't care?


On a slightly different note...The Koran...There is no mention of violence toward 'infedels' 'non-believers' or anyone else. ***
It's a very open ended book...not a story like the Bible...more a series of short 'proverbs' if you like. It doesn't necessarily tell you what to do, but rather leaves some open interpretation to the reader.
The word Jihad, literally means 'struggle'...not 'fight for our religion', not 'bring down the West'...
People were supposed to use it for strength in their own day to day lives...
It actually teaches peace...Do Unto Others kinda stuff...Welcome strangers with open arms...etc...
Nowhere in the Koran does it say women must cover themselves...In fact early Muslim's were the first 'society' to allow women equal rights.

BUT....(I guess) because it's so open ended, it has been bastardised beyond belief by the animals that are the Taliban...and interpretations are being taught that are far removed from their original ideas by extremists.
[Pretty sure Islam split into different 'sects' somewhere around 1000 ad....much like Christianity now has 6-7-8 branches]

Hey, I definately don't claim to be any kind of expert either!...I've just made a point of watching a few (shall we say, more unbiased?) documentries...and tend to read some weird stuff when I'm bored!

Oh, and I'll still maintain that 99% of Muslims are quite happily going about their own business, living their own lives...it's just the extreme 1% (who aren't called 'extremists' and terror 'cells' for no reason!) who give rise to the Western perception that it's coming down to a global war for religious dominance.


*** even if there was, why is this 'disturbing'? You read the Bible lately? Non-believers get smote left and right!

Anyway...you'd hope I'd have something better to do...

 

[gardenweasel]

let me make a few points here....

as far as leaving iraq in disarray...as mr christo would prefer...his comment..

""But, again, you seem to be suggesting that Bush's 'war' on terrorism is making the world a safer place. Sorry for repeating myself...but it simply isn't.""

this little jihad was happening whether we invaded iraq...or not...

but...please note...we have seen since the invasion....

saddam is gone...

syria has basically been pushed out of lebanon...

egypt is having their first elections....

khaddafi has given up on his weapons....

iran`s youth are becoming more and more pro-american...and generally don`t agree with the ridiculous and incendiary comments of their new leader regarding "wiping israel off the face of the earth"....

some might actually suggest that theres been some positive change in the middle east since the removal of saddam........

iran and syria...by all accounts are desperately aiding and abetting al qaeda and the sunni baathists to undermine the upcoming elections....

for any sort of democracy to succeed in iraq would be a major catastrophe for these two oppressive governments...

if...i repeat if......any sort of democracy can take hold in iraq,it will be a stabilizing influence for the west...and a major disruption for the despots of the region....

how many times has one democracy ever attacked another?.....please answer...

also,another issue that has become clear is that we now know that the u.n is corrupt.......and that russia ,china and france are our enemies....are actively working toward undermining us at every turn....and putin is in the process of un-democracizing russia...

the russians are arming iran......the chinese are arming sudan...the french?....forget the french...they are imploding as we speak...



you mention a few countries that haven`t been attacked....

but,since 9/11...murders in the netherlands...plots foiled in australia...egyptian bombings.....indonesia...the philipines...england...france...india...spain....and that`s just a smidgen....

it`s endless...bush had nothing to do with mass murder in the philipines....indonesia....india...the netherlands...

you say age old conflicts?....it`s ALL OVER THE WORLD...

it`s a worldwide problem....and i`m glad that`s finally hitting home...

but,this one was precious....""In fact early Muslim's were the first 'society' to allow women equal rights"".....

has this society regressed,mr c,or what?....

arranged marriages...honor killings...stoning for infidelity.....

i`m gonna sic` the "mutawa`een" on you...lol

 

[MrChristo]

but,this one was precious....""In fact early Muslim's were the first 'society' to allow women equal rights"".....

has this society regressed,mr c,or what?....

arranged marriages...honor killings...stoning for infidelity.....

The problem, g-dub...as in the other thread....is that you don't seem to read what is actually written!...For some reason you seem to ignore whole sentences and points.

Mate, rather than flaming me, how about you go and read it yourself....just for purely academic purposes of course!

I'm not even going to bother with the other stuff, because I've told you countless times that most of the places you mention, India, Phillipines, Indoneasia, Central Africa....are regional conflicts that have been going on back and forth for a century or more....but at least you didn't bring up the guy getting pushed off the boat again!

Obviously Spain, Holland and England are exceptions, and a huge worry, don't deny that one bit....but either one of those could have just as easily been the USA.
Luckily for you guys they weren't.... lucky for Georgy-boy too I suggest.

And hey, at the risk of spreading some love, I'm sure everyone agrees that we hope democracy (as it is) will succeed and things will become more stable (I have some pretty grave doubts, but whatever)....and I KNOW at least the both of us agree that the UN are ****ing useless/powerless/corrupt. :clap:

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

No attacks in
"Hong Kong?
Toyko?
Singapore?
Berlin?........

Yep ask yourself why-
% of Muslim Population in each
Hong Kong 1%
Japan 1%
Germany 3.4 %
Singapore 17%

and since Canada was brought up 1.4%



Singapore ...
more importantly is how they deal with terrorist--no liberals wanting to give them attorneys I guarantee you.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Country Name Total Population Muslims Percentage Number of Muslims
http://www.islamicweb.com/begin/population.htm

 

[MrChristo]

% of Muslims in the US?.....The World Almanac 2001 states that there are about 5.8 million Muslims in the USA....about 1%.

% of Muslims in the UK...2.5%

What's your point?....you saying that America is safe because of it's low small Muslim population?

England should be safer than Germany? :shrug:


[Pretty sure Islam split into different 'sects' somewhere around 1000 ad....much like Christianity now has 6-7-8 branches]

Totally coincidentally I saw a bit of a doco on the History channel last night after I wrote this.....
.....Apparently the big 'split' was at about 660 ad, with the Sunni's breaking away from the traditional Shi'ites. They been going at it ever since.

The Kings: Babylon to Baghdad it was called. Wasn't too bad actually.....A decent history lesson, let down by some god-awful re-enactment scenes!...3.5 stars

 

[Palehose]

"I don't think there will be any 'winner' or 'loser' when we leave there. Just kind of a general 'was that worth it' consensus. "

OMFG I cannot believe the stupidity of this statement ! Gee fell out of the Stupid tree and hit every ****ing branch on the way down didnt ya !!! Compleate Moron !!!!

So when China is standing in DC After over throwing , god knows what will be our Liberal President of the time . After compleatly handing us are ass at every turn and than deciding its time to leave is this what your gonna say ?? God dam that is the dumbest thing I may have ever heard pass a human beings lips . You cant win militarily anymore than we have . Historically it will go down as one of the easiest victories in the history of humankind . good greif is this really what a Liberal mind has come to ??? You cannot even see a Victory after every single victory condition has been met . God how miserable can you get ?

 

[kosar]

You cannot even see a Victory after every single victory condition has been met .

What are all these 'conditions', if you don't mind me asking?

I have no idea wtf you're rambling about regarding China overthrowing our government, but if you insist calling someone a 'compleate moron', at least spell 'complete' correctly.

 

[Palehose]

Let me put it in laymans terms since your clueless !! If sometime in the near future China is standing in DC and has just overthrown our government and are about to leave and go back to China would you say the same about the Chinese .

Well a gee they really didnt win anything see its more like : I don't think there will be any 'winner' or 'loser' when they leave here. Just kind of a general 'was that worth it' consensus. "

DOH !!!!! Idiot !!!! Moron !!! hello anybody home ?????

 

[Palehose]

Wow acording to Dimpled Chads statement nobody has ever won a war in the history of Mankind . No silly France was never taken by Germany he just went in overturned the Government to one Friendly to the Germans IE : Vichy France so we must apply this staement as well no different than Iraq .......

"I don't think there will be any 'winner' or 'loser' when we leave there. Just kind of a general 'was that worth it' consensus. "

Dam now we know what Hitler was thinking thankgod for people lkie Dimpled Chad they have such a clear and understanding view of the world :mj07: :mj07: :s4: :scared

 

[Palehose]

You honestly think you can lay the blame of 9/11 at Bush's feet??? That is laughable.

What Kosar is saying (sorry...no puppet I promise! ) is that saying, "4 years since an attack, Bush is a genius!!"...is laughable!

What did you people expect? That Bin Laden would stage a new attack monthly?....weekly?....every hour on the hour??

4 years!!...It's an utterly insignificant time to be judging anyone on....esp. in light of the comittee report (which I'll assume you read?), that basically says that nowhere near enough has been done!!...and that it's more good luck than good management that something else hasn't happened.

Terrorist don't attack Cananda for the same reason they don't attack mexico, they are INSIGNIFICANT

....fine than, how about a more significant example?

Hong Kong?
Toyko?
Singapore?
Berlin?........how many terrorist attacks in the last4 years?

And again, go and tell the people of London how well this 'coalition' is doing such a great job at scaring the terrorists into holes.

You gotta love the way it goes between "America" is safer now, to the "world" is a safer place, depending on which argument you're trying to push.

EDIT: Sorry...Didn't realise Kosar had answered already.

Gee lets leave out the fact that since we have been messing with them they have wanted to hit us more than they ever have in the past, but simply cant mainly because we cut off their money and communications to some extent but nah lets just bypass that fact because it makes the admin look too good :mj07: :mj07: :mj14: Got to love a man that sticks to his words right after 9/11 even after the Liberals and the media has long forgotton the most tragic attack on our country in its history on our own soil . Sorry some of us just wont forget ! And we rufuse to blame it on ourselves reguardless that you want us to believe that we brought it onto ourselves ! :cursin:

 

[MrChristo]

Gee lets leave out the fact that since we have been messing with them they have wanted to hit us more than they ever have in the past, but simply cant mainly because we cut off their money and communications to some extent but nah lets just bypass that fact because it makes the admin look too good :mj07: :mj07: :mj14: Got to love a man that sticks to his words right after 9/11 even after the Liberals and the media has long forgotton the most tragic attack on our country in its history on our own soil . Sorry some of us just wont forget ! And we rufuse to blame it on ourselves reguardless that you want us to believe that we brought it onto ourselves ! :cursin:

WTF are you on about? :shrug:

Did you even read/understand anything that I wrote?
Because I wrote this....And again, go and tell the people of London how well this 'coalition' is doing such a great job at scaring the terrorists into holes.

You gotta love the way it goes between "America" is safer now, to the "world" is a safer place, depending on which argument you're trying to push.

...and you've done absolutely nothing but back that up. :shrug:

 

[pharlap]

WTF are you on about? :shrug:

Did you even read/understand anything that I wrote?
Because I wrote this....And again, go and tell the people of London how well this 'coalition' is doing such a great job at scaring the terrorists into holes.

You gotta love the way it goes between "America" is safer now, to the "world" is a safer place, depending on which argument you're trying to push.

...and you've done absolutely nothing but back that up. :shrug:

By your own admission Mr.C, 4 years is an insignificant time frame to be judged upon, and yet you seem to criticize Bush for perhaps bringing about some short term pain in this same time frame. Maybe we should wait and see whether the number of attacks are more or less in 10 years and then make a judgement as to whether the course of action chosen by Bush and others was the correct one.

I really think some people take a narrow, short term view on what are complex and long term structural issues (not exclusively you buddy, but perhaps all of us are guilty of this in order to try and back up our own stance on issues).

I dont think any of us will know whether we are right or wrong for some time to come.

 

[MrChristo]

they have wanted to hit us more than they ever have in the past,

Why?
What makes you assume this?

This is the whole point I don't understand from you 'Bush-is-great' guys....
...Nothing has ever suggested that there will be repeated attacks, or even attacks at reasonably short intervals.
History certainly doesn't support it, none of the 'players' involved have ever suggested it....
...in fact, didn't Bin Laden say something along the lines of, 'we know we can't physically defeat America, so we aim to destroy them economically'....(or something similar).

Got to love a man that sticks to his words right after 9/11

Do you mean the Pres?....How his words were, 'We will get Bin Laden dead or alive!'?...Those words??

 

[MrChristo]

By your own admission Mr.C, 4 years is an insignificant time frame to be judged upon, and yet you seem to criticize Bush for perhaps bringing about some short term pain in this same time frame. Maybe we should wait and see whether the number of attacks are more or less in 10 years and then make a judgement as to whether the course of action chosen by Bush and others was the correct one.

I really think some people take a narrow, short term view on what are complex and long term structural issues (not exclusively you buddy, but perhaps all of us are guilty of this in order to try and back up our own stance on issues).

I dont think any of us will know whether we are right or wrong for some time to come.

Hey, I absolutely agree, pharlap, it's an extremely complex issue.

But, I don't think I've ever critisized Bush for causing 'short term pain'.
In fact, I don't really know who he's brought short term pain to....The Iraqi people maybe?... (Doesn't it crack anyone else up that we are so proud of 'liberating' the Iraqi people, presumably because they are innocent victims, yet see a dark man with a bushy beard in down-town US suburbia and we turn to jelly!! :shrug: )

I just would have thought, that as complex as it is, a large part of the current conflict is driven by resentment of US/western forces occupying Middle Eastern land....yet we go in all guns blazing, totally ignoring every lesson we may have learnt over the last 50 years.

Will Iraq settle down to become a peaceful, united, democratic nation? Maybe...hopefully even!...but I doubt it very much.

Will this course of action prevent terrorism? As you rightly say, we will only know in 10-20 years by looking back...

I just fail to see how Bush supporters here can catagorically state that he is doing such a fantastic job on the basis of a 'safe' US homeland, but choose to ignore other attacks around the world, when, as I repeat myself for the hundreth time, Bush (and the coalition against Evil!!) claims to be making the world safer.

(PS. How can you possibly respect a man (the leader of the free world even!!) who you know has a lower IQ than you, me, and most of this board? :shrug: )

 

[pharlap]

But, I don't think I've ever critisized Bush for causing 'short term pain'.

...


I just fail to see how Bush supporters here can catagorically state that he is doing such a fantastic job on the basis of a 'safe' US homeland, but choose to ignore other attacks around the world, when, as I repeat myself for the hundreth time, Bush (and the coalition against Evil!!) claims to be making the world safer.

Well, I think you did just criticise Bush for causing short term pain (i.e more terrosit attacks). And frankly, I wouldnt disagree with you that anit-US feelings (and anti-Western feelings in general) have heightened over recent years. But as you rightly pointed out, 4 years is no time frame in which to judge his policies.....rightly or wrongly; that's all I was saying.

(I dont know what Bush's IQ is but my wife puts mine at about 75!)

 

[moe777]

I think that may be a little extreme, the whole no muslim thing. I have neve read the koran or claim to be an expert on it, but I have read articles and listened to "experts" and what they say really troubles me. They claim they are sections in the koran that speak of death to infidels, etc. etc. I will not claim to know if that is fact or fiction, but ifit is fact it seems like it will be awfully hard to get billions of muslims to appreciate a bunch of infidels regardless of what we do for them.

it obvious that your not an expert.
been to 2 muslim countries with natives from that country so it wasnt a tourist type visit and americans are very well liked.
kuwait and albania believe it or not,not so bad.kuwait :clap:

 

[MrChristo]

Well, I think you did just criticise Bush for causing short term pain (i.e more terrosit attacks). And frankly, I wouldnt disagree with you that anit-US feelings (and anti-Western feelings in general) have heightened over recent years. But as you rightly pointed out, 4 years is no time frame in which to judge his policies.....rightly or wrongly; that's all I was saying.

(I dont know what Bush's IQ is but my wife puts mine at about 75!)

No, no. I didn't ever say, "Bush's actions are causing more terrorism."....

...It's more that world terrorism IS on the rise, and I don't believe Bush's actions will ever reel it in (certainly not helping as much as some here are suggesting!), and indeed, saying, "No terrorist attack in 4 years, Bush is our saviour!", is totally rediculous. (which has been my and others main point here, but as usual I went off on a bit of a tangent!)

lol!! 75!...Do you put your shoes on before your socks in the morning mate?

 

[kosar]

What are all these 'conditions', if you don't mind me asking?

Hi Palehose. You did a lot of useless ranting and raving since you saw my question, but as hard as I looked I couldn't actually find anything that resembles an answer.

According to you, when can we declare 'victory?' What are all these 'conditions' that you speak of?

This isn't a war where there will be some treaty signed or any surrender, etc....so even if it makes me a 'compleate' moron, please forgive me if I don't see this ending in black or white.

Since i'm sooo off base, and I hit every stick on the dumb tree, or whatever, it should be very easy for you to outline these 'conditions.'

 

[djv]

I don't think so. Say were winning over and over. Gets back to win what. The right to send troops home. Iraq was a mess we were told. It's still a mess and will remain a mess. We just don't seem to get it.