Iraqi elections

Originally posted by SirMystiq
As others have done before, I will dismiss all of your speculation about my degree of love for this country because I have previously stated that this country means much more to me than you would think. Also, I don\'t see the connection between loving this country and loving the Government. The Native Americans loved this land, but I bet they hate the Government.

Easy. How many people would say "I love living at home, but I really hate my parents with a passion?"

I\'m sorry. You can say you love this country all you want, all one has to do is read between the lines to see your real feelings. You don\'t do a particularly good job of masking them.

The "What if..." game has no substantial basis for your claim on the first election of the president. The 9/11 attacks happened AFTER his "election" and in no way affected the election. Also, it would be pure and simple speculation to claim that a Democrat would not have done the same as a result of such an attack(Not including Iraq) based on your personal opinions and the faults you might see on the "left".

Al Gore was one of the first to rail against our \'warmongering\', when we were about to blast the Taliban into fine paste. Therefore, I have serious trouble believing Gore would have gone to war with them. Call me funny for thinking that one. Bush fought back the first time they threw a punch at us. Clinton allowed several, and all he did in retaliation was fire a few missiles at nothing. As we all know, that solved our problems perfectly.

Yes, the terrorist did destroy WTC. Yes, they have been around for decades. Now, connect it to Iraq. It\'s been attempted before but we\'re still waiting for that huge connection. Enlighten me.

I have never cared about Iraq being connected to 9-11. Iraq wasn\'t complying with their weapons ban adequately, so we laid the hammer down. The world\'s better off without Saddam.

I\'m not arguing against some of the actions taking by the President after 9/11. You are trying to connect 9/11 to the war in Iraq and fail to provide any kind of evidence linking the two. The only facts we know is that Osama, the original perpetrator of the attacks, is still alive and that he is still sending his people on missions. He is obviously trying to communicate with the new radical Islamic terrorist and the attacks on our soldier in Iraq are nonstop.

I have no doubt we\'ll get him in the end. What I also know is that we haven\'t experienced a terrorist attack in America since 9-11. So I can\'t fault our methods.

And your rhetoric about America\'s freedom sounds alot like the many speeches made by the President. What exactly won\'t I stand about America\'s freedom that you seem to know about? Do you not think I don\'t love this freedom, this right to type all this right now without fear of retaliation from the Government?

Many of your contemporaries call this government fascist, compare it to Nazi Germany. I\'m willing to bet you share this view. So no, I can\'t believe you love this freedom the way it is. After all, we\'re not giving terrorist news stations equal time, fucking freedom of the press.

Now, when it has been obvious and stated many times that the major concern for this terrorist is the US\' constant intrusion and influence on their affairs, specially when dealing with Israel. It has been said before that our foreign policy is the primary target and fuel of the hate and attacks against this country as well as others. Also, your constant attempt to label me as a "Osama supporter" is really dull and it makes me sick. If there is anything I would wan\'t in this world above anything else is for all this shit to stop but it won\'t. And just because I won\'t stand by and let lies be thrown at my face and have people like you try to mold and shape what an ideal citizen should be doesn\'t mean I support "our enemies" You have yet to show how people like me "weaken our resolve" Did my actions encourage 9/11, or are you sure it wasn\'t our foreign policy? Do the constant attacks of our soldiers are a result of people like me, or the fact that they are in the middle of hell and can\'t get out?

You want this shit to end with this nation being humbled. Liberal actions did encourage 9-11, by not punishing anyone for prior attacks. They were testing our mettle for years and we didn\'t do a damn thing. We let them think we were softees. And now, you and yours are being subversive, weakening America\'s will and resolve, by railing against this war and making us out to be the bad guys. The reason the insurgency exists is to fill our airwaves with grisly scenes, because they know people like you will use them to tell us how wrong we are for being over there. You people are their mouthpieces. Their tools.

I will also not adress your assumptions about the "left" and the influence we have on the middle east, because frankly, I\'m tired of allowing people like you use the "left" as scapegoats for the hell hole that is Iraq. I don\'t think that leaving our troops for target practice and retaliation is in any way suppressin the terrorist faction, also I highly doubt that the entire population of terrorist is located in Iraq right now and are not planning another attack. The results of this Iraq war have been minuscle other than the liberation of people that people like you and Giga don\'t care about. It\'s funny to me that you two preach about the welfare of this country when the only obvious result from this war was the liberation of people...from another COUNTRY!! The paradox is amazing.

That whole paragraph just doesn\'t make sense at all. I think you need to restate it with a little more clarity. Or just don\'t state anything at all.

Originally posted by GigaShadow
Learn your history.  Jumpman is absolutely correct in saying the US didn\'t know about the Holocaust until the end of the war

Unlearn your history; becuase that is categorically false. The British knew about the mass extermination of Jews as early as the summer of 1941. The had managed to decode some German radio communications and were hearing reports of X thousand killed in this village, X hundred killed in that village, etc. This information had been distributed throughout the british government even up to Churchill. The US and Britain shared all intel that they had before and during the conflict, so the US did in fact know.

The problem was that Britain did not want to reveal the fact that were able to crack German codes and they were more concerned with winning a war than worrying about the killing of Jews in some foreign country. Plus Britain and the US did not want to bring it up and seem like they were being biased towards the Jews because Britain/America were somewhat antisemetic countries. Britain also had the support of most Muslim countries and did not want to lose their backing by coming out for the Jews.

I saw a PBS interview about this in one of my US history classes and remember it well. If I can find the rest of my notes I\'ll let you know exactly what the show was.

Originally posted by Black Samurai
Unlearn your history; becuase that is categorically false. The British knew about the mass extermination of Jews as early as the summer of 1941.  

Really?  The Final Solution wasn\'t even thought of until 1942:

The Germans embarked on a policy called the \'Final Solution\' which was decided upon at a conference held in Wannsee, near Berlin, on January 20, 1942:


\'Instead of immigration there is now a further possible solution to which the Fuhrer has already signified his consent. Namely deportation to the East. Although this should be regarded merely as an interim measure, it will provide us with the practical experience which will be especially valuable in connection with the future final solution. In the course of the practical implementation of the final solution Europe will be combed from West to East.\'

Regarding the Einsatzgruppen - that was so early in the war the Allies couldn\'t possibly have known it was part of what is considered the Holocaust, especially in 1941 as the Final Solution wasn\'t even a plan yet.  

Instead of watching TV BS, read some books.

Even if the Endlösung wasn’t talked about before 1942, there were still mass killings of Jews before that.

One example from Der SS-Staat by Eugen Kogon.

Buchenwald

Year/Deaths

37: 48 (not complete)
38: 77 (not complete)
39: 1235
40: 1772
41: 1522
42: 2898
43: 3516
44: 8644
45: 13056

Originally posted by GigaShadow
Really?  The Final Solution wasn\'t even thought of until 1942:

The Germans embarked on a policy called the \'Final Solution\' which was decided upon at a conference held in Wannsee, near Berlin, on January 20, 1942:

\'Instead of immigration there is now a further possible solution to which the Fuhrer has already signified his consent. Namely deportation to the East. Although this should be regarded merely as an interim measure, it will provide us with the practical experience which will be especially valuable in connection with the future final solution. In the course of the practical implementation of the final solution Europe will be combed from West to East.\'

Regarding the Einsatzgruppen - that was so early in the war the Allies couldn\'t possibly have known it was part of what is considered the Holocaust, especially in 1941 as the Final Solution wasn\'t even a plan yet.  

Instead of watching TV BS, read some books.

So what you are saying is that when the Einsatzgruppen were ordered to kill all Jews they encountered during the invasion of the Soviet Union in the summer 1941 it was too early in the war to be considered a part of the \'Final Solution\' which was agreed upon in January of 1942?

:rolleyes:

Maybe YOU need to pick up a book. It is time to unlearn some of the bullshit you THINK you know.

That is not what I said BS - I said it was too early for the Allies to know of the genocide that would take place after 1942.  

The numbers Fastson is quoting pre 1942 are mostly political prisoners or others labeled enemies of the state for reasons other than race - obviously in 1937 WW2 hadn\'t started.


The fact is the Holocaust didn\'t begin in earnest until 1942.  Just like other libs on this board you are trying to rewrite history.  :rolleyes:

This boils down to your claim that the Allies new of the Final Solution in 1941 - which is absolutely incorrect.  They may have heard rumors of killings, but they did not know to what extent.  Why do you think the world was so horrified when these camps were liberated at the end of WW2?  

You have yet to prove the British positively new of Germany\'s plans to erradicate Jews from Europe prior to 1942.  Why?  Because they didn\'t know.

Taken from the Simon Wiesenthal Center:

20. Did the Allies and the people in the Free World know about the events going on in Europe?

Answer: The various steps taken by the Nazis prior to the "Final Solution" were all taken publicly and were, therefore, reported in the press. Foreign correspondents commented on all the major anti-Jewish actions taken by the Nazis in Germany, Austria, and Czechoslovakia prior to World War II. Once the war began, obtaining information became more difficult, but reports, nonetheless, were published regarding the fate of the Jews. Thus, although the Nazis did not publicize the "Final Solution," less than one year after the systematic murder of the Jews was initiated, details began to filter out to the West. The first report which spoke of a plan for the mass murder of Jews was smuggled out of Poland by the Bund (a Jewish socialist political organization) and reached England in the spring of 1942. The details of this report reached the Allies from Vatican sources as well as from informants in Switzerland and the Polish underground. (Jan Karski, an emissary of the Polish underground, personally met with Franklin Roosevelt and British Foreign Minister Anthony Eden). Eventually, the American Government confirmed the reports to Jewish leaders in late November 1942. They were publicized immediately thereafter. While the details were neither complete nor wholly accurate, the Allies were aware of most of what the Germans had done to the Jews at a relatively early date.

http://motlc.wiesenthal.com/resources/questions/#8

Here is something I found.. interesting.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/europe/november96/holocaust_11-20.html

RICHARD BREITMAN: The general consensus among scholars who have studied the Holocaust is that the allied governments did not really recognize what was taking place until December of 1942, in other words, a year and a half after the German invasion. And even then, some government officials in London, as well as in Washington, continued to express skepticism about atrocity reports that were coming in. The new information, of course, indicates that British intelligence had very clear information about what was taking place in the Soviet Union much earlier than that.

RICHARD BREITMAN: Yes. Between the first decode in mid July of 1941 and the codes changed every day and so some days they broke the code and some days they couldn’t break the code. They couldn’t break it more often than they could break it, but they broke it enough between mid July and mid September of 1941 to discern a pattern, because some of these reports talk about 2200 Jews executed in such and such a village, 4400 Jews executed in this city, I mean one report after another, so that the pattern after a while became clear. In mid September of 1941, the chief of the German Order police sent out a very interesting radio warning that the commanders in the field should send ordinary information and confidential information by radio, but that they should not send top secret information by radio because there was a danger that the enemy might intercept and decode, and he specifically said do not send reports of execution totals by radio, send them by courier instead.

RICHARD BREITMAN: I wouldn’t go that far, no. I would say that Hitler, Himmler, other top officials were extremely determined to kill as many Jews as they could. I don’t think--barring internal political turmoil--that the outside world could have persuaded them not to go ahead. I do think, however, that a serious publicity offensive might have caused problems for them at least in alerting Jews across Europe that this might be their fate and in reducing the level of innocent sort of cooperation with the Nazis, because people were--many people were deported to extermination camps, not knowing what lay ahead of them. And had there been a publicity offensive, it is quite possible that the sweeps that occurred and the deportations that occurred would have been much less efficient.

RICHARD BREITMAN: I think it will add quantitative evidence and details to our knowledge of the Holocaust as it was carried out in the occupied areas of the Soviet Union. And I think it provides qualitatively new evidence about western response to the Holocaust, or lack of response to the Holocaust, and a lot of what has been written in the past about western governments not reacting because they weren’t confident of the information that they were getting now has to be reconsidered and rewritten.

Basically what Black Samurai said.

[GmanJoe]

But what could they do? It was deep within the enemy territory. Even announcing to the world about it would mean the Allies broke the Enigma code. And just coz some knew, they weren\'t gonna tell the entire military about it.

All this is moot.

Fastson - the general consensus is late 1942.  BS is basing his opinion on one PBS inteview.  Breitman is also implementing hindsight into his analysis, which of course is much clearer now than the information that was available in 1941.  The British had no concrete proof of what was going on until much later than 1941 and he is trying to claim they did, when in fact the Allies did not.

Radio transmissions and intercepted codes were not enough in the opinion of the British to warrant a definative answer.  Also his statement regarding the "lack of response" to the Holocaust is absurd.  Even if the Allies had known - there was nothing they could have done that they weren\'t already doing.

Back on topic:

What if Bush has been right about Iraq all along?


February 1, 2005

BY MARK BROWN SUN-TIMES COLUMNIST

Maybe you\'re like me and have opposed the Iraq war since before the shooting started -- not to the point of joining any peace protests, but at least letting people know where you stood.

You didn\'t change your mind when our troops swept quickly into Baghdad or when you saw the rabble that celebrated the toppling of the Saddam Hussein statue, figuring that little had been accomplished and that the tough job still lay ahead.

Despite your misgivings, you didn\'t demand the troops be brought home immediately afterward, believing the United States must at least try to finish what it started to avoid even greater bloodshed. And while you cheered Saddam\'s capture, you couldn\'t help but thinking I-told-you-so in the months that followed as the violence continued to spread and the death toll mounted.

By now, you might have even voted against George Bush -- a second time -- to register your disapproval.

But after watching Sunday\'s election in Iraq and seeing the first clear sign that freedom really may mean something to the Iraqi people, you have to be asking yourself: What if it turns out Bush was right, and we were wrong?

It\'s hard to swallow, isn\'t it?

Americans cross own barrier

If you fit the previously stated profile, I know you\'re fighting the idea, because I am, too. And if you were with the president from the start, I\'ve already got your blood boiling.

For those who\'ve been in the same boat with me, we don\'t need to concede the point just yet. There\'s a long way to go. But I think we have to face the possibility.

I won\'t say that it had never occurred to me previously, but it\'s never gone through my mind as strongly as when I watched the television coverage from Iraq that showed long lines of people risking their lives by turning out to vote, honest looks of joy on so many of their faces.

Some CNN guest expert was opining Monday that the Iraqi people crossed a psychological barrier by voting and getting a taste of free choice (setting aside the argument that they only did so under orders from their religious leaders).

I think it\'s possible that some of the American people will have crossed a psychological barrier as well.

Deciding democracy\'s worth

On the other side of that barrier is a concept some of us have had a hard time swallowing:

Maybe the United States really can establish a peaceable democratic government in Iraq, and if so, that would be worth something.

Would it be worth all the money we\'ve spent? Certainly.

Would it be worth all the lives that have been lost? That\'s the more difficult question, and while I reserve judgment on that score until such a day arrives, it seems probable that history would answer yes to that as well.

I don\'t want to get carried away in the moment.

Going to war still sent so many terrible messages to the world.

Most of the obstacles to success in Iraq are all still there, the ones that have always led me to believe that we would eventually be forced to leave the country with our tail tucked between our legs. (I\'ve maintained from the start that if you were impressed by the demonstrations in the streets of Baghdad when we arrived, wait until you see how they celebrate our departure, no matter the circumstances.)

In and of itself, the voting did nothing to end the violence. The forces trying to regain the power they have lost -- and the outside elements supporting them -- will be no less determined to disrupt our efforts and to drive us out.

Somebody still has to find a way to bring the Sunnis into the political process before the next round of elections at year\'s end. The Iraqi government still must develop the capacity to protect its people.

And there seems every possibility that this could yet end in civil war the day we leave or with Iraq becoming an Islamic state every bit as hostile to our national interests as was Saddam.

Penance could be required

But on Sunday, we caught a glimpse of the flip side. We could finally see signs that a majority of the Iraqi people perceive something to be gained from this brave new world we are forcing on them.

Instead of making the elections a further expression of "Yankee Go Home," their participation gave us hope that all those soldiers haven\'t died in vain.

Obviously, I\'m still curious to see if Bush is willing to allow the Iraqis to install a government that is free to kick us out or to oppose our other foreign policy efforts in the region.

So is the rest of the world.

For now, though, I think we have to cut the president some slack about a timetable for his exit strategy.

If it turns out Bush was right all along, this is going to require some serious penance.

Maybe I\'d have to vote Republican in 2008.

http://www.suntimes.com/output/brown/cst-nws-brown01.html

Originally posted by GigaShadow
That is not what I said BS - I said it was too early for the Allies to know of the genocide that would take place after 1942.

Of course, how would they know about what was going to happen a year later?

Originally posted by GigaShadow
The numbers Fastson is quoting pre 1942 are mostly political prisoners or others labeled enemies of the state for reasons other than race - obviously in 1937 WW2 hadn\'t started.

The fact is the Holocaust didn\'t begin in earnest until 1942.  Just like other libs on this board you are trying to rewrite history.  :rolleyes:

The fact of the matter is, Jews were being murdered en masse in the summer of 1941. Britain knew about it and the US knew about it through Britain. I am not trying to rewrite anything you just wish to ignore facts.

Originally posted by GigaShadow
This boils down to your claim that the Allies new of the Final Solution in 1941 - which is absolutely incorrect.  They may have heard rumors of killings, but they did not know to what extent.  Why do you think the world was so horrified when these camps were liberated at the end of WW2?

No one but the Germans knew about the \'Final Solution\'. The Allies DID know about the genocide. British intelligence heard transmissions of body counts. This is not rumor and innuendo. The world was horrified because no one told them. Just because the world at large was horrified by the news does not mean that the Allied governments did not know beforehand.

Originally posted by GigaShadow
You have yet to prove the British positively new of Germany\'s plans to erradicate Jews from Europe prior to 1942.  Why?  Because they didn\'t know.

They may not have known of their plans to eradicate Jews from Europe but they did know of the Jews already killed.

Originally posted by GigaShadow
Taken from the Simon Wiesenthal Center:

20. Did the Allies and the people in the Free World know about the events going on in Europe?

Answer: The various steps taken by the Nazis prior to the "Final Solution" were all taken publicly and were, therefore, reported in the press. Foreign correspondents commented on all the major anti-Jewish actions taken by the Nazis in Germany, Austria, and Czechoslovakia prior to World War II. Once the war began, obtaining information became more difficult, but reports, nonetheless, were published regarding the fate of the Jews. Thus, although the Nazis did not publicize the "Final Solution," less than one year after the systematic murder of the Jews was initiated, details began to filter out to the West. The first report which spoke of a plan for the mass murder of Jews was smuggled out of Poland by the Bund (a Jewish socialist political organization) and reached England in the spring of 1942. The details of this report reached the Allies from Vatican sources as well as from informants in Switzerland and the Polish underground. (Jan Karski, an emissary of the Polish underground, personally met with Franklin Roosevelt and British Foreign Minister Anthony Eden). Eventually, the American Government confirmed the reports to Jewish leaders in late November 1942. They were publicized immediately thereafter. While the details were neither complete nor wholly accurate, the Allies were aware of most of what the Germans had done to the Jews at a relatively early date.

Way to completely ignore the last sentence of your own quote.

"the Allies were aware of most of what the Germans had done to the Jews at a relatively early date."

Originally posted by GigaShadow
Fastson - the general consensus is late 1942.  BS is basing his opinion on one PBS inteview.  Breitman is also implementing hindsight into his analysis, which of course is much clearer now than the information that was available in 1941.  The British had no concrete proof of what was going on until much later than 1941 and he is trying to claim they did, when in fact the Allies did not.

I am basing my opinions on the study of many professors who had access to the US\' own records due to the FOIA. I just referenced one interview.

Still, what you are saying about hindsight may be true but that does not mean that the Allies knew nothing before \'42.

Originally posted by GigaShadow
Also his statement regarding the "lack of response" to the Holocaust is absurd.

What statement would that be?

Originally posted by Black Samurai
Of course, how would they know about what was going to happen a year later?

But you claim they did!

Originally posted by Black Samurai

The fact of the matter is, Jews were being murdered en masse in the summer of 1941. Britain knew about it and the US knew about it through Britain. I am not trying to rewrite anything you just wish to ignore facts.

The US knew about it?  Where are your sources?  This is the second time I have asked.  Once again you are dodging questions to suite your own claims.

Originally posted by Black Samurai

No one but the Germans knew about the \'Final Solution\'. The Allies DID know about the genocide. British intelligence heard transmissions of body counts. This is not rumor and innuendo. The world was horrified because no one told them. Just because the world at large was horrified by the news does not mean that the Allied governments did not know beforehand.

And you are basing this on what?  Once again sources please.  

Originally posted by Black Samurai

Way to completely ignore the last sentence of your own quote.

"the Allies were aware of most of what the Germans had done to the Jews at a relatively early date."

Way to ignore the first part of a sentence:

While the details were neither complete nor wholly accurate, the Allies were aware of most of what the Germans had done to the Jews at a relatively early date.

and what date would that be?  Sometime in 1942 perhaps?

Originally posted by Black Samurai

I am basing my opinions on the study of many professors who had access to the US\' own records due to the FOIA. I just referenced one interview.

Once again sources please.  Secondly, even if we did have some intelligence on the matter, it does not mean our government or the Allies in general accepted it as fact.

Originally posted by Black Samurai

Still, what you are saying about hindsight may be true but that does not mean that the Allies knew nothing before \'42.

It also doesn\'t mean that the Allies knew anything with any degree of certainty.  It is pointless to debate this issue since there was nothing the Allies could have done that they weren\'t already doing.

Originally posted by Black Samurai

What statement would that be?

This statement:

RICHARD BREITMAN: I think it will add quantitative evidence and details to our knowledge of the Holocaust as it was carried out in the occupied areas of the Soviet Union. And I think it provides qualitatively new evidence about western response to the Holocaust, or lack of response to the Holocaust, and a lot of what has been written in the past about western governments not reacting because they weren’t confident of the information that they were getting now has to be reconsidered and rewritten.

[SirMystiq]

Originally posted by Weltall
Easy. How many people would say "I love living at home, but I really hate my parents with a passion?"

I\'m sorry. You can say you love this country all you want, all one has to do is read between the lines to see your real feelings. You don\'t do a particularly good job of masking them.

Once again, you are assuming my degree of love for this country. You have nothing but assumptions and the only reason my supposed hatred is being brought up is because of your "reading between the lines" You\'re anti-liberal thinking allows you to form such a conclusion because you have been trained to think that all liberals are US-hating, Osama loving and wish to live in Canada. Which really has no basis or fact behind them except your extreme accusations that are entirely based on your own perspective of society. But you insist in "reading between the lines" so read between this:
___________________________________  
I LOVE this country but hate the direction the President is taking it.
___________________________________

There I even saved you any kind of right-wing perspective thinking.

Originally posted by Weltall


Al Gore was one of the first to rail against our \'warmongering\', when we were about to blast the Taliban into fine paste. Therefore, I have serious trouble believing Gore would have gone to war with them. Call me funny for thinking that one. Bush fought back the first time they threw a punch at us. Clinton allowed several, and all he did in retaliation was fire a few missiles at nothing. As we all know, that solved our problems perfectly.

Yes, because during the Clinton years we had an attack as extreme as the WTC attack. Also, Al Gore definately saw into the future and witnessed Bush taking a very good stance on Afghanistan then pushing his luck and decided to switch the war on terror to the war in Iraq. As we all know, that solved our problems perfectly.

Originally posted by Weltall

I have never cared about Iraq being connected to 9-11. Iraq wasn\'t complying with their weapons ban adequately, so we laid the hammer down. The world\'s better off without Saddam.



I have no doubt we\'ll get him in the end. What I also know is that we haven\'t experienced a terrorist attack in America since 9-11. So I can\'t fault our methods.

As I recall, we were in the middle of a war in Afghanistan when Iraq, all of a sudden, somehow acquired weapons of mass destruction. Which back in 2001, where said to be nonexistent by Rice and Rumsfeld because the sanctions and deprivation of services had kept the Iraqi Government from building up it\'s army to a potential threat. Also, let\'s not forget that GWB back in 2001 also claimed that the "army shouldn\'t be used for nation building"

The world is better off without Saddam. I agree. There was just a better more resolute way than the rushed war. This war was rushed in an attempt to catch all of American\'s still clinging on to the fear of another terrorist attack. This war has been given many reasons yet none have upheld.

Originally posted by Weltall


Many of your contemporaries call this government fascist, compare it to Nazi Germany. I\'m willing to bet you share this view. So no, I can\'t believe you love this freedom the way it is. After all, we\'re not giving terrorist news stations equal time, fucking freedom of the press.



You want this shit to end with this nation being humbled. Liberal actions did encourage 9-11, by not punishing anyone for prior attacks. They were testing our mettle for years and we didn\'t do a damn thing. We let them think we were softees. And now, you and yours are being subversive, weakening America\'s will and resolve, by railing against this war and making us out to be the bad guys. The reason the insurgency exists is to fill our airwaves with grisly scenes, because they know people like you will use them to tell us how wrong we are for being over there. You people are their mouthpieces. Their tools.

 


Please excuse me while I throw up due to your lame and scary assumptions. All right I\'m done.

I don\'t share that view. I share the belief that unless this contry begins to vote so that our government is once again a balanced one, then the threat of a "hidden empire" by the Republicans is very high. The balance to our government has been tilted to the extreme right in an extreme manner and this is very scary and should panic everybody.

America\'s will and resolved upon other nations, you mean. I support our troops, I support our country, but I don\'t support the direction and stand this country is going and taking respectively. Also, I don\'t ever recall opposing the war in Afhanistan or on terror until it turned into the war in Iraq. I understand that in order to keep a respected country, there must be a strong and defiant positions. In this case, this position is pushing in the wrong directions.

And again, I\'m not going to adress your accusations because there is no basis for them. If I was to say that YOU were helping the terrorist by supporting this war which gives them targets to bolster their ego with, you would do the same.

Originally posted by Weltall


That whole paragraph just doesn\'t make sense at all. I think you need to restate it with a little more clarity. Or just don\'t state anything at all.

I will also not adress your assumptions about the "left" and the influence we have on the middle east, because frankly, I\'m tired of allowing people like you use the "left" as scapegoats for the hell hole that is Iraq.
Explanation in simple terms: I\'m tired of people like you trying to blame the left for all the shit that your elected President has got this country into.

 I don\'t think that leaving our troops for target practice and retaliation is in any way suppressing the terrorist faction, also I highly doubt that the entire population of terrorist is located in Iraq right now and are not planning another attack.

Explanation in simple terms: Terrorist see Americans in the middle of an anti-American part of the world. Terrorist kills American then runs off into the land they live on. Terrorist groups are happy and wish for more. Get it?


The results of this Iraq war have been minuscle other than the liberation of people that people like you and Giga don\'t care about. It\'s funny to me that you two preach about the welfare of this country when the only obvious result from this war was the liberation of people...from another COUNTRY!! The paradox is amazing.

Explanation in simple terms: What good has come from the war in Iraq that benifits this country? Anti-Americanism has risen, terrorist have targets far away from home and there is no obvious and factual benefit to this country in general. And you and Giga have made yourselves clear that if it doesn\'t benefit this country then " F\'em" Why did you care about those in Iraq? Why above all the others, care about their "freedom" and their happiness? <
What\'s so hard to understand?

Also, terrorst are not attacking our freedom. That is what FoxNews tells you. Terrorist see our troops making themselves at home in Iraq and hate them for it. They are fueled by the thoughts of the western world taking over what they believe to be rightfully theirs and wish not to have their own religion and view points attacked. That is why they hate this country, not our "freedom" because our "freedom" to them is against their believes and ideals.

[Jumpman]

Couldn\'t be more wrong.

Originally posted by SirMystiq

I don\'t share that view. I share the belief that unless this contry begins to vote so that our government is once again a balanced one, then the threat of a "hidden empire" by the Republicans is very high. The balance to our government has been tilted to the extreme right in an extreme manner and this is very scary and should panic everybody.

 

Panic everybody, including the many who elected him.