Why does the left celebrate American deaths and defeat?

Post by Gactimus
The upside to losing Iraq? An empire falls
By Robert Jensen
http://thirdcoastactivist.org/jensen-statesman.html
Another liberal celebrating the deaths of American men and women and the
defeat of the United States. Someday soon, people like him will be jailed
and shot.

Guess you couldn't make it to the second sentence.

--
Tukla, Eater of Theists, Squeaker of Chew Toys
Official Mascot of Alt.Atheism, aa 1347

Gactimus

2004-12-07 18:53:06 UTC

Post by Gactimus
The upside to losing Iraq? An empire falls
By Robert Jensen
http://thirdcoastactivist.org/jensen-statesman.html
Another liberal celebrating the deaths of American men and women and
the defeat of the United States. Someday soon, people like him will be
jailed and shot.

Guess you couldn't make it to the second sentence.

Yet it will take the deaths of American soldiers and Iraqis to bring about
what he wants.

Tukla Ratte

2004-12-08 21:00:59 UTC

Post by Gactimus
The upside to losing Iraq? An empire falls
By Robert Jensen
http://thirdcoastactivist.org/jensen-statesman.html
Another liberal celebrating the deaths of American men and women and
the defeat of the United States. Someday soon, people like him will be
jailed and shot.

Guess you couldn't make it to the second sentence.

Yet it will take the deaths of American soldiers and Iraqis to bring about
what he wants.

It'll take their deaths to accomplish the neocon objectives, too. Do
neocons celebrate the deaths of American soldiers?

--
Tukla, Eater of Theists, Squeaker of Chew Toys
Official Mascot of Alt.Atheism, aa 1347

Gactimus

2004-12-08 21:33:52 UTC

Post by Gactimus
The upside to losing Iraq? An empire falls
By Robert Jensen
http://thirdcoastactivist.org/jensen-statesman.html
Another liberal celebrating the deaths of American men and women and
the defeat of the United States. Someday soon, people like him will
be jailed and shot.

Guess you couldn't make it to the second sentence.

Yet it will take the deaths of American soldiers and Iraqis to bring
about what he wants.

It'll take their deaths to accomplish the neocon objectives, too.

No it won't.

Jafo

2004-12-11 16:38:14 UTC

Do neocons celebrate the deaths of American soldiers?

No. Such celebrations are only found in the words and posts
of the radlibs.

--
Jafo

grinder

2004-12-07 19:36:41 UTC

They put U.S. soldiers in situations were their deaths are needless and
without reason. But they don't mind as long as others serve.

John Popelish

2004-12-08 00:52:15 UTC

Post by grinder
They put U.S. soldiers in situations were their deaths are needless and
without reason. But they don't mind as long as others serve.

It uses up useless eaters.

--
John Popelish

Gactimus

2004-12-08 01:03:43 UTC

Post by grinder
They put U.S. soldiers in situations were their deaths are needless and
without reason. But they don't mind as long as others serve.

Since when was fighting terrorism needless?

grinder

2004-12-08 15:27:18 UTC

Post by grinder
They put U.S. soldiers in situations were their deaths are needless and
without reason. But they don't mind as long as others serve.

Since when was fighting terrorism needless?

Since when is the war in Iraq fighting terrorism?

Oh I know!!!
When no WMDs were found.
When it was determined Iraq was NOT a threat against the U.S.
When it was proven there was no Iraq-9/11 connection.

Dentata

2004-12-08 16:39:12 UTC

Post by grinder
They put U.S. soldiers in situations were their deaths are needless and
without reason. But they don't mind as long as others serve.

Since when was fighting terrorism needless?

Since when is the war in Iraq fighting terrorism?
Oh I know!!!
When no WMDs were found.
When it was determined Iraq was NOT a threat against the U.S.

fascinating. then why did john kerry state, in the debate, that it was, and
that he has always known it was?

whit

Post by grinder
When it was proven there was no Iraq-9/11 connection.

Tukla Ratte

2004-12-08 21:04:17 UTC

< snip >

Post by grinder
Since when is the war in Iraq fighting terrorism?
Oh I know!!!
When no WMDs were found.
When it was determined Iraq was NOT a threat against the U.S.

fascinating. then why did john kerry state, in the debate, that it was, and
that he has always known it was?

<shrugs> Who knows? If that's what he thought, then he was wrong, too.

OTOH, Kerry wasn't responsible for fabricating "evidence" of the alleged
WMDs.

< snip >

--
Tukla, Eater of Theists, Squeaker of Chew Toys
Official Mascot of Alt.Atheism, aa 1347

Gactimus

2004-12-08 21:56:54 UTC

Post by Tukla Ratte
< snip >

Post by grinder
Since when is the war in Iraq fighting terrorism?
Oh I know!!!
When no WMDs were found.
When it was determined Iraq was NOT a threat against the U.S.

fascinating. then why did john kerry state, in the debate, that it
was, and that he has always known it was?

<shrugs> Who knows? If that's what he thought, then he was wrong, too.
OTOH, Kerry wasn't responsible for fabricating "evidence" of the alleged
WMDs.

Neither was Bush.

dentata

2004-12-09 06:08:51 UTC

Post by Tukla Ratte
< snip >

Post by grinder
Since when is the war in Iraq fighting terrorism?
Oh I know!!!
When no WMDs were found.
When it was determined Iraq was NOT a threat against the U.S.

fascinating. then why did john kerry state, in the debate, that it
was, and that he has always known it was?

<shrugs> Who knows? If that's what he thought, then he was wrong, too.
OTOH, Kerry wasn't responsible for fabricating "evidence" of the alleged
WMDs.

Neither was Bush.

as both the 9/11 and duelfer (sp?) report clearly indicate

whit

dentata

2004-12-09 06:13:00 UTC

Post by Tukla Ratte
< snip >

Post by grinder
Since when is the war in Iraq fighting terrorism?
Oh I know!!!
When no WMDs were found.
When it was determined Iraq was NOT a threat against the U.S.

fascinating. then why did john kerry state, in the debate, that it was, and
that he has always known it was?

<shrugs> Who knows? If that's what he thought, then he was wrong, too.
OTOH, Kerry wasn't responsible for fabricating "evidence" of the alleged
WMDs.
< snip >

neither was bush, according to the duelfer (sp?) report and the 9/11
commission

hth

whit

Post by Tukla Ratte
--
Tukla, Eater of Theists, Squeaker of Chew Toys
Official Mascot of Alt.Atheism, aa 1347

grinder

2004-12-08 21:21:04 UTC

Post by grinder
They put U.S. soldiers in situations were their deaths are needless and
without reason. But they don't mind as long as others serve.

Since when was fighting terrorism needless?

Since when is the war in Iraq fighting terrorism?
Oh I know!!!
When no WMDs were found.
When it was determined Iraq was NOT a threat against the U.S.

fascinating. then why did john kerry state, in the debate, that it was, and
that he has always known it was?
whit

He must have made the big mistake of believing the texassss clown .

Gactimus

2004-12-08 21:56:54 UTC

Post by grinder
They put U.S. soldiers in situations were their deaths are needless and
without reason. But they don't mind as long as others serve.

Since when was fighting terrorism needless?

Since when is the war in Iraq fighting terrorism?
Oh I know!!!
When no WMDs were found.
When it was determined Iraq was NOT a threat against the U.S.

fascinating. then why did john kerry state, in the debate, that it was, and
that he has always known it was?

He must have made the big mistake of believing the texassss clown .

He believed Iraq had WMD before Bush ever took office.

Jafo

2004-12-11 16:40:45 UTC

Post by Dentata
fascinating. then why did john kerry state, in the debate, that
it was, and that he has always known it was?

He must have made the big mistake of believing the texassss clown .

He believed Iraq had WMD before Bush ever took office.

"[Saddam Hussein] cannot be permitted to go unobserved and unimpeded
toward his horrific objective of amassing a stockpile of weapons
of mass destruction..." -Senator John Kerry, D-MA 1997

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with
the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including,
if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to
respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its
weapons of mass destruction programs." - Letter to President
Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and
others Oct. 9, 1998.

--
Jafo

dentata

2004-12-09 06:11:50 UTC

Post by grinder
They put U.S. soldiers in situations were their deaths are needless and
without reason. But they don't mind as long as others serve.

Since when was fighting terrorism needless?

Since when is the war in Iraq fighting terrorism?
Oh I know!!!
When no WMDs were found.
When it was determined Iraq was NOT a threat against the U.S.

fascinating. then why did john kerry state, in the debate, that it was, and
that he has always known it was?
whit

He must have made the big mistake of believing the texassss clown .

what part of ALWAYS known it was, don't you understand? bush wasn't ALWAYS
president

it just seems that way. :)

hth

whit

Ray Fischer

2004-12-09 06:39:17 UTC

Post by grinder
They put U.S. soldiers in situations were their deaths are needless and
without reason. But they don't mind as long as others serve.

Since when was fighting terrorism needless?

Since when is the war in Iraq fighting terrorism?
Oh I know!!!
When no WMDs were found.
When it was determined Iraq was NOT a threat against the U.S.

fascinating. then why did john kerry state, in the debate, that it was, and

Typical neocon: Never take responsibility. Always blame somebody
else. Always make excuses.

Bush lied and is still lying.

--
Ray Fischer
***@sonic.net

Dentata

2004-12-09 16:09:01 UTC

Post by grinder
They put U.S. soldiers in situations were their deaths are needless and
without reason. But they don't mind as long as others serve.

Since when was fighting terrorism needless?

Since when is the war in Iraq fighting terrorism?
Oh I know!!!
When no WMDs were found.
When it was determined Iraq was NOT a threat against the U.S.

fascinating. then why did john kerry state, in the debate, that it was, and

Typical neocon: Never take responsibility. Always blame somebody
else. Always make excuses.

i'm not a neocon.

and it's a simple question.

was john kerry wrong?

was he lying?

whit

Post by Ray Fischer
Bush lied and is still lying.
--
Ray Fischer

Gactimus

2004-12-09 16:08:34 UTC

Post by grinder
They put U.S. soldiers in situations were their deaths are
needless and without reason. But they don't mind as long as
others serve.

Since when was fighting terrorism needless?

Since when is the war in Iraq fighting terrorism?
Oh I know!!!
When no WMDs were found.
When it was determined Iraq was NOT a threat against the U.S.

fascinating. then why did john kerry state, in the debate, that it
was,

and

Post by Ray Fischer
Typical neocon: Never take responsibility. Always blame somebody
else. Always make excuses.

i'm not a neocon.
and it's a simple question.
was john kerry wrong?
was he lying?

He's won't answer your question. He's too much of a coward. He'll also
probably call you a murdering neocon. Just watch.

Ray Fischer

2004-12-09 17:41:08 UTC

Post by grinder
They put U.S. soldiers in situations were their deaths are needless

and

Post by grinder
without reason. But they don't mind as long as others serve.

Since when was fighting terrorism needless?

Since when is the war in Iraq fighting terrorism?
Oh I know!!!
When no WMDs were found.
When it was determined Iraq was NOT a threat against the U.S.

fascinating. then why did john kerry state, in the debate, that it was,

and

Post by Ray Fischer
Typical neocon: Never take responsibility. Always blame somebody
else. Always make excuses.

i'm not a neocon.

Yes you are.

Post by Dentata
and it's a simple question.
was john kerry wrong?

Obviously. What does Kerry have to do with anything, neocon?
Bush is in charge. Bush ordered the invasion. Bush chose the
cabinet that lied to America. Bush lied to America.

--
Ray Fischer
***@sonic.net

Todd Grigsby

2005-02-02 21:05:37 UTC

Post by Dentata
i'm not a neocon.

You certainly sound like one.

Post by Dentata
and it's a simple question.
was john kerry wrong?

Yes.

Post by Dentata
was he lying?

No.

He was misled by the case Bush presented to Congress. All of Congress
was wrong, and it was Bush's fabrications that made that possible.
Focus on the cause, not the effect.

Todd Grigsby

Sangfroid

2005-02-02 21:33:52 UTC

Post by Dentata
i'm not a neocon.

You certainly sound like one.

contrary to belief by some, supporting the iraq war does not make one a
neocon

tony blair is not a necon, nor is ed koch, andrew sullivan, elie weisel,
alan dershowitz, etc.

Post by Dentata
and it's a simple question.
was john kerry wrong?

Yes.

Post by Dentata
was he lying?

No.
He was misled by the case Bush presented to Congress. All of Congress
was wrong, and it was Bush's fabrications that made that possible.
Focus on the cause, not the effect.
Todd Grigsby

as both the duelfer report and the 911 commission established, bush (and
minions) did not fabricate. congress voted based on essentially the same
information.

hth

whit

Paul Hovnanian P.E.

2005-02-03 04:07:41 UTC

Post by Dentata
i'm not a neocon.

You certainly sound like one.

contrary to belief by some, supporting the iraq war does not make one a
neocon

OK. How about a neocon patsy?

--
Paul Hovnanian mailto:***@Hovnanian.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
David Bradley (IBM programmer who created the Ctrl-Alt-Del reboot
keyboard sequence), "I may have invented it, but Bill made it famous."

Sangfroid

2005-02-03 16:52:15 UTC

Post by Dentata
i'm not a neocon.

You certainly sound like one.

contrary to belief by some, supporting the iraq war does not make one a
neocon

OK. How about a neocon patsy?

snippage noted

so are blair, ed koch, elie weisel, guiliani, arnold, dershowitz et al
"neocon patsies?"

what you can't grok is that intelligent people can differ in their opinion
on the iraq war

i respect those who were against it. being for it does not make one a
neocon, though

neocons were generally for the invasion. it does not therefore follow that
all who are for the invasion are neocons

see "all squares are rectangles. not all rectangles are squares"

if you want to falsely lump all war supporters into the neocon camp, you are
just being incorrect

whit

Post by Paul Hovnanian P.E.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------
David Bradley (IBM programmer who created the Ctrl-Alt-Del reboot
keyboard sequence), "I may have invented it, but Bill made it famous."

Paul Hovnanian P.E.

2005-02-09 04:00:30 UTC

Post by Dentata
i'm not a neocon.

You certainly sound like one.

contrary to belief by some, supporting the iraq war does not make one a
neocon

OK. How about a neocon patsy?

snippage noted
so are blair, ed koch, elie weisel, guiliani, arnold, dershowitz et al
"neocon patsies?"

Maybe they are neocons instead of just patsies.

Post by Sangfroid
what you can't grok is that intelligent people can differ in their opinion
on the iraq war

I understand that perfectly. Intelligence != common sense.

The initial justifications for engaging in this war (WMD, Saddam's
support for international terrorism, etc.) have all largely been
debunked, leaving only the neocon's agenda standing. That is: the
aggressive intervention into foreign affairs for the purpose of
furthering U.S control and economic leverage abroad.

Post by Sangfroid
i respect those who were against it. being for it does not make one a
neocon, though

What's left? There are no remaining justifications left except for those
that support the neocon's world view.

Post by Sangfroid
neocons were generally for the invasion. it does not therefore follow that
all who are for the invasion are neocons

Many others _were_ for the invasion. Some can't face the fact that they
got played like fools by the neocons and are trying to save face by
inventing new reasons for it. These are the 'patsies'. The designers of
this little adventure know that these arguments are pure B.S. but they
are happy for the continued support. It takes the heat off of them.

Post by Sangfroid
see "all squares are rectangles. not all rectangles are squares"

see "when you find yourself at the bottom of a deep hole, stop digging".

Post by Sangfroid
if you want to falsely lump all war supporters into the neocon camp, you are
just being incorrect

Not all supporters are 'in' the neocon camp. Some are just hanging
around it in much the same way prostitutes have set up shop outside many
military bases.

--
Paul Hovnanian mailto:***@Hovnanian.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
Life is like an analogy.

Sangfroid

2005-02-09 03:04:27 UTC

Post by Dentata
i'm not a neocon.

You certainly sound like one.

contrary to belief by some, supporting the iraq war does not make one a
neocon

OK. How about a neocon patsy?

snippage noted
so are blair, ed koch, elie weisel, guiliani, arnold, dershowitz et al
"neocon patsies?"

Maybe they are neocons instead of just patsies.

that is absurd beyond words

when you come back to reality, i'm pleased to talk to you.

dershowitz has written a lot. his politica and legal philosophy is not
neocon, or neocon patsy

and blair is MAYBE a neocon?

grow up.

accept that people who are NOT neocons can be for the iraq invasion

intelligent people of various persuasions can disagree on iraq. i can
respect those who are against the invasion. and some are conservative
(paleo, etc), liberal (and there are liberals who are FOR the invasion as
well), libertarian, moderate, etc.

but it is bigoted and absurd to claim that if one is for the invasion, one
is a neocon or a patsy

Post by Sangfroid
what you can't grok is that intelligent people can differ in their opinion
on the iraq war

I understand that perfectly. Intelligence != common sense.
The initial justifications for engaging in this war (WMD, Saddam's
support for international terrorism, etc.) have all largely been
debunked, leaving only the neocon's agenda standing. That is: the
aggressive intervention into foreign affairs for the purpose of
furthering U.S control and economic leverage abroad.

Post by Sangfroid
i respect those who were against it. being for it does not make one a
neocon, though

What's left? There are no remaining justifications left

of course there are

except for those

Post by Paul Hovnanian P.E.
that support the neocon's world view.

Post by Sangfroid
neocons were generally for the invasion. it does not therefore follow that
all who are for the invasion are neocons

Post by Sangfroid
see "all squares are rectangles. not all rectangles are squares"

see "when you find yourself at the bottom of a deep hole, stop digging".

Post by Sangfroid
if you want to falsely lump all war supporters into the neocon camp, you are
just being incorrect

Not all supporters are 'in' the neocon camp. Some are just hanging
around it in much the same way prostitutes have set up shop outside many
military bases.

you are just being bigoted and trying to pigeonhole people you disagree with

that's easier (and intellectually dishonest) than accepting that
intelligent, conscientious people can have different opinions on the iraq
invasion

whit

Post by Paul Hovnanian P.E.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------
Life is like an analogy.

Paul Hovnanian P.E.

2005-02-09 23:15:38 UTC

Post by Dentata
i'm not a neocon.

You certainly sound like one.

contrary to belief by some, supporting the iraq war does not make one

Post by Sangfroid
neocon

OK. How about a neocon patsy?

snippage noted
so are blair, ed koch, elie weisel, guiliani, arnold, dershowitz et al
"neocon patsies?"

Maybe they are neocons instead of just patsies.

that is absurd beyond words

Why?

[snip]

Post by Sangfroid
but it is bigoted and absurd to claim that if one is for the invasion, one
is a neocon or a patsy

You are assuming that there is something undesirable about being labeled
a neocon. Now THAT is bigoted. I know quite a few people who readily
(and proudly) admit to being one. And they are some of the staunchest
supporters of our current activities in the middle east.

--
Paul Hovnanian mailto:***@Hovnanian.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaese porrf raed befre postng.

Rob Duncan

2005-02-04 09:12:04 UTC

Post by Dentata
i'm not a neocon.

You certainly sound like one.

Post by Dentata
and it's a simple question.
was john kerry wrong?

Yes.

Post by Dentata
was he lying?

No.
He was misled by the case Bush presented to Congress. All of Congress was
wrong, and it was Bush's fabrications that made that possible. Focus on
the cause, not the effect.
Todd Grigsby

Considering President Bush based his decisions and case on what was
presented to him by our intelligence services, put in place through 8 years
of Clinton rule, then we obviously know who to blame, correct?

Rob

zookumar

2005-02-04 15:21:14 UTC

Post by Rob Duncan

Post by Dentata
i'm not a neocon.

You certainly sound like one.

Post by Dentata
and it's a simple question.
was john kerry wrong?

Yes.

Post by Dentata
was he lying?

No.
He was misled by the case Bush presented to Congress. All of Congress was
wrong, and it was Bush's fabrications that made that possible. Focus on
the cause, not the effect.
Todd Grigsby

Your self-delusions are your own business. But stick to what is
known when you try your hand at intellectual debate. What is known is
that, in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, Rumsfeld et all began planning
an invasion of Iraq. The US power cartel (with neocons and oilcons
alike) wanted to invade Iraq before 9/11. But that fateful day in
September gave them the perfect cover for pursuing Iraq's oil resources
and Israel's Zionist ambitions.

To wit, "evidence" against Iraq was manufactured _after_ 9/11.
Evidence that never existed in the first place at all. The power cartel
acted because the tide of opportunity was high.

Yellow cake in Niger? Hardly. Bush lied. Rumsfeld lied.
Cheney lied. Rice lied. And Powell lied to the UN. The cartel rigged
the votes (this time using Diebold machines) and the Empire is striking
forward, blissfully unperturbed by the historical record and the ruins
that await.

You can still choose intellect over delusion, Rob. There is no
law against that choice, at least, not yet anyways.

-zookumar-

Jafo

2004-12-11 16:37:04 UTC

Post by Ray Fischer
Typical neocon: Never take responsibility. Always blame somebody
else. Always make excuses.
Bush lied and is still lying.

Typical radlib: Ignorant of the facts and circumstances, too stupid
to have an opinion yet publishing knee-jerk party-line Bush bashing
anyway.

--
Jafo

John Baker

2004-12-12 00:46:59 UTC

Post by Jafo

Post by Ray Fischer
Typical neocon: Never take responsibility. Always blame somebody
else. Always make excuses.
Bush lied and is still lying.

Typical radlib: Ignorant of the facts and circumstances, too stupid
to have an opinion yet publishing knee-jerk party-line Bush bashing
anyway.

Bush lied. Deal with it.

Jafo

2004-12-12 01:47:03 UTC

Post by John Baker

Post by Jafo

Post by Ray Fischer
Typical neocon: Never take responsibility. Always blame somebody
else. Always make excuses.
Bush lied and is still lying.

Typical radlib: Ignorant of the facts and circumstances, too stupid
to have an opinion yet publishing knee-jerk party-line Bush bashing
anyway.

Bush lied. Deal with it.

286-252. Deal with it.

And then, fuck off.

--
Jafo

MarkA

2004-12-10 12:46:51 UTC

Post by grinder
They put U.S. soldiers in situations were their deaths are needless
and without reason. But they don't mind as long as others serve.

Since when was fighting terrorism needless?

Since when is the war in Iraq fighting terrorism?
Oh I know!!!
When no WMDs were found.
When it was determined Iraq was NOT a threat against the U.S.

fascinating. then why did john kerry state, in the debate, that it was,
and that he has always known it was?

Uh....because he was trying to get elected? Just a wild guess.

Post by Dentata
whit

Post by grinder
When it was proven there was no Iraq-9/11 connection.

--
MarkA
(still caught in the maze of twisty little passages, all different)

Dentata

2004-12-11 15:36:49 UTC

Post by grinder
They put U.S. soldiers in situations were their deaths are needless
and without reason. But they don't mind as long as others serve.

Since when was fighting terrorism needless?

Since when is the war in Iraq fighting terrorism?
Oh I know!!!
When no WMDs were found.
When it was determined Iraq was NOT a threat against the U.S.

fascinating. then why did john kerry state, in the debate, that it was,
and that he has always known it was?

Uh....because he was trying to get elected? Just a wild guess.

good answer. kerry would say almost anything to get elected

whit

Post by MarkA

Post by Dentata
whit

Post by grinder
When it was proven there was no Iraq-9/11 connection.

--
MarkA
(still caught in the maze of twisty little passages, all different)

Tim Crowley

2004-12-11 16:07:51 UTC

Post by grinder
They put U.S. soldiers in situations were their deaths are needless
and without reason. But they don't mind as long as others serve.

Since when was fighting terrorism needless?

Since when is the war in Iraq fighting terrorism?
Oh I know!!!
When no WMDs were found.
When it was determined Iraq was NOT a threat against the U.S.

fascinating. then why did john kerry state, in the debate, that it was,
and that he has always known it was?

Uh....because he was trying to get elected? Just a wild guess.

good answer. kerry would say almost anything to get elected

as would Bush. Damn, child. It must be time to change your name.
You've proably been put in tons of kill files. You only got one way to
get people to read this garbage. Change that name. Tell another lie and
TROLL on little boy.

Post by Dentata
whit

Post by MarkA

Post by Dentata
whit

Post by grinder
When it was proven there was no Iraq-9/11 connection.

--
MarkA
(still caught in the maze of twisty little passages, all different)

Gactimus

2004-12-08 16:58:14 UTC

Post by grinder
They put U.S. soldiers in situations were their deaths are needless
and without reason. But they don't mind as long as others serve.

Since when was fighting terrorism needless?

Since when is the war in Iraq fighting terrorism?

Interesting that we are fighting terrorists in Iraq, yet you say that Iraq is
not part of the war on terror.

Ray Fischer

2004-12-09 06:39:59 UTC

Post by grinder
They put U.S. soldiers in situations were their deaths are needless
and without reason. But they don't mind as long as others serve.

Since when was fighting terrorism needless?

Since when is the war in Iraq fighting terrorism?

Interesting that we are fighting terrorists in Iraq,

Because of Bush.

Post by Gactimus
yet you say that Iraq is
not part of the war on terror.

Bush is PROMOTING terrorism in Iraq.

--
Ray Fischer
***@sonic.net

r***@hotmail.com

2004-12-30 08:08:13 UTC

The left is NOT celebrating US defeat in Iraq.

There are people, left, right, and center, in the United States who see
the diaster that the United States has gotten herself in to. Many,
like myself, warned actively about the danger from the first time the
fascists started pushing this war.

But this is not about celebrating anything, its about solving the
fucking problem.

The fact is clear: the United States is in a situation in Iraq that it
can not win, and will only result in reduction in its wealth, power,
influence, and security. Each man we lose in Iraq is a major victory
of Jihadists and now Bin Laden, who has used the war to move himself in
to the center of Iraq. Each man, woman and child the Iraqis lose is a
victory for radical Jihadists. Do the math yourself.

We need the wises soundest most considered policy we could have. The
US is in grave danger of facing a history that says 1. We were attacked
on 9-11, 2, so we invaded a nation totally unrelated to that event and
lost.

Sadly we have Bush and Rumsfeld, so defeat is unavoidable.

BUT, remember Vietnam and knowing what I knew about Korea, I can see
why people on the left are afraid that a defeat inflict upon the nation
by the right wing fascists of Bush and Company will be blamed on them.
Already the fascists propagandists on Fox News and other shitholes are
starting the myth that somehow Hollywood or some liberals are making
the Bush plan in Iraq fail, which they seem to believe would work fine
if there were no liberals.

Just as in Vietnam and Korea those who had the wisdom to see the error
of the war are likely to be blamed for its failure. And that is sad,
Ameirca is trapped in a long cycle of these kinds of wars, and now
living through one as an adult I see why. Ameirca is arrogant, and the
vast majority seem to believe that they are a super race select by God.
Defeats are never sources of lessons, but must come from those
elements in the society that are not up to god's standards.

Yesterday we killed and tortured Iraqis, today they fight back, and
tommorrow the government will persecute artists, homosexuals, thinks,
and journalists for the defeat. As in Korea, as in Vietnam, and now as
in Iraq.
America post WWII history is a predictable pattern of foolishness.

Yang, AthD (h.c), Kicking AWOL's Cocaine Snorting Ass

2004-12-08 07:32:11 UTC

Because they have small penises

-----

Yang
a.a. #28
AthD (h.c.) conferred by the regents of the LCL
a.a. pastor #-273.15, the most frigid church of Celcius nee Kelvin
EAC Econometric Forecast and Sorcery Division
Proudly plonked by Lani Girl and Crazyalec

The Bush 'balanced' budget: 1.6 trillion and worsening
The Bush 'economic' policy: 12 million FEWER jobs than Clinton and counting
The Bush Iraq lie: -1275 GIs, one friend's co-worker's son and mounting

Having Bush fuck up my country: Worthless

Gactimus

2004-12-08 16:58:15 UTC

"Yang, AthD (h.c), Kicking AWOL's Cocaine Snorting Ass"

Post by Yang, AthD (h.c), Kicking AWOL's Cocaine Snorting Ass
Because they have small penises

I didn't know you were a "neocon".

MarkA

2004-12-10 12:49:52 UTC

Post by grinder
They put U.S. soldiers in situations were their deaths are needless and
without reason. But they don't mind as long as others serve.

What are you, an idiot? There are TONS of money to be made from a war.

--
MarkA
(still caught in the maze of twisty little passages, all different)

--sexkitten--

2004-12-10 12:59:49 UTC

Post by MarkA

Post by grinder
They put U.S. soldiers in situations were their deaths are needless and
without reason. But they don't mind as long as others serve.

What are you, an idiot? There are TONS of money to be made from a war.

And little things like dead people trouble them not at all.

--
--sexkitten--CONGRESS.SYS Corrupted: Re-boot Washington D.C (Y/n)?

Jeff Welch

2004-12-08 16:52:30 UTC