bartski wrote on Sep 4, 2008 1:46 PM:
" Whoever gets elected in November, the Supreme Court will be grossly uneven in one direction or the other. That's the big debate, the reason everyone is so vitriolic I think. I fought in a war. Tonight John McCain is going to tell us that he hates war. Who doesn't? Good, then stay out of them, it's pretty simple. War bad...peace good! Me like um peace. Most warmongers seem to me to be male cheerleaders, chicken-hawks, and volunteer bathroom monitors anyway. Oh, and did I mention flag-waving, bible-toting, "conservative," a good majority of whom live pregnant, barefoot, and illiterate in the "red states" who so loyally vote for the Republicans every four years. Hmmm, I didn't see the word Republican in the Twin Cities at all this week. "
PerfectStranger wrote on Aug 26, 2008 7:30 AM:
" Sorry, Troller. Your comment is merely a suggestion, not an actual answer. Nice try, however. By the way, it's the 'stranger' part of my moniker that deserves to be emphasized. I'm far from perfect, and to everyone else here, I am both a stranger - and a strange person. I readily admit that I'm not ordinary, but to me that's a great thing. I'd rather be strange than be just another ordinary person. Now, cewoodford once asked if I am a Dio fan. The Dio song, 'Perfect Strangers' wasn't the source of my screen name. I used to travel a lot, and a friend always greeted me by saying, "Well aren't you a perfect stranger!" "
Troller wrote on Aug 24, 2008 2:39 PM:
" Well emil, at least you came up with some kind of answer. Bush did put special forces on the ground (for my money he should have put them on the Pakistani border because even my mule knew they would run off to those mountains) but the rest of your answer, again travels off in some conspiracy direction which ultimately doesn't gain any advantage in defeating terrorism. As for the puts, and calls, how do you know the Dept., of Homeland Security didn't investigate? You see, conspiracy theorists such as your self usually go long on "what ifs?" and short on "what is". But hey, you answered one question to the best of your ability and that's more than enough for me. "
Troller wrote on Aug 24, 2008 2:32 PM:
" Perfect Stranger, I have the perfect answer, for what you must consider your perfect little question. Remain perfectly happy reading some other section of the paper. Perhaps the obits, they should be perfect at cheering you up. Have a perfect day. "
cewoodford wrote on Aug 22, 2008 5:38 PM:
" Uhhmmm...Emil... You STILL haven't addressed my question. You're diverting.. Your elected leaders could stop the " illegal" war at their will..they have chose not to..Why? You should be attacking them with the same fevor you attack conservatives. AND if you're implying that the left had something to do with the change in direction in Iraq and the scale down of troop levels..well again, I'd like an ounce of that fairy-dust you're smoking. The troop surge( mainly) caused the turnabout in Iraq..the same surge I'm sure you were rallying in favor of on the steps of the capital last year.... "
PerfectStranger wrote on Aug 22, 2008 8:09 AM:
" Someone please explain to me who gains anything from this Internet tit-for-tat exercise. Has this discourse led to a change of heart or mind by any of the participants? I highly doubt it. This is nothing more than a buch of extremely hard-headed people pushing their unchanging agendas onto an unchanging audience. Why not push your chairs back, stand up, step away from your computers, get out into the real world and do something with your time that will lead to actual results toward your respective agendas? "
emil wrote on Aug 22, 2008 6:02 AM:
" And you only see the world through the distorted vision of rush Limbaugh and the neocon agenda. The fact is both parties are in the pockets of special interests which you fail to recognize.. One Uncle George and Devious Dick made the decision to put troops in harms way in Iraq moving out was going to take time. Democratic pressures and populace unhappiness caused Bushie and his pentagon cohorts to change strategies many times. We are slowly getting out. Where is Osama? "
cewoodford wrote on Aug 21, 2008 10:17 PM:
" And let me ask you once again, WHY haven't the democrats stopped this "illegal" war as they promised in '06? What do you think is holding them back on fulfilling their campaign promises to you, their loyal believers? "
cewoodford wrote on Aug 21, 2008 10:13 PM:
" didn't want to address my points head on Emil? I listened to The Hungarian Devil speak on NPR just last year, I implore you to go to their website and listen in on how he justified robbing millions of english retirees of their pensions..' If my company hadn't been there another would have, I give my money to worthy causes". Your rationale that he has become some sort of softie or moot item in the far-left is completely shortsighted...much like Chamberlain thinking appeasement would prevent his people from suffering. Now...making his billions upon billions on fluctuating currencies, as his hedge funds do, what stake does he have in helping to mold American politics? Did you see what one of his funds did to Indonesia in the 90's? And this is the Democrats #1 financial supporter... "
emil wrote on Aug 21, 2008 9:36 PM:
" CE
The last interview I saw of George Soros, I came away with the distinct impression he had lost it and and he is really only running the fund with his name on a masthead. I think a guy named Druckenmiller actually runs the fund he and Jim rodgers ran and Mr Rodgers is living in china. Care to mention Bruce Kovner, Julian Robertson and Joseph Singer and their large contributions. Those men of war fought to allow you to distort the record. Fought to allow you to protest and voice a dissenting opinion "
Jack Sparrow wrote on Aug 21, 2008 9:29 PM:
" "The war was a necessary war"...Emil, NO war should ever be considered necessary. "
cewoodford wrote on Aug 21, 2008 3:36 PM:
" Emil, stop waffling. You said what you said, It's all here for everyone to read. Have a good day. "
cewoodford wrote on Aug 21, 2008 3:33 PM:
" Emil, George Soros is the LARGEST financial contributor the the Democrats..end of arguement. You call out the Republicans for being this and that, meanwhile you COMPLETELY IGNORE the fact that the Dems are fully in bed with the Little Hungarian. The Dems havent done ONE THING to end the war( like they PROMISED YOU). Why don't you start looking within Neville...oops, I mean Emil. "
emil wrote on Aug 21, 2008 3:32 PM:
" CE
You clearly misinterpreted what I said. I said we saved lives by entering WW2 and the Holocaust included not only the jews but the mentally ill and developmentally disabled who were put to rest to the tune of about 2 million prior to the jewish cleansing. The war was a necessary war and the men and women who fought it and led it deserve all the accolades. "
emil wrote on Aug 21, 2008 3:26 PM:
" CE
They are also in bed with the republicans. These folks are very powerful and move money all around the world from one tax free haven to another in a blink of an eye or the stroke of a keypad. I kinda think Congress and the president are representing these special interests rather than us voters. "
cewoodford wrote on Aug 21, 2008 3:26 PM:
" Oh really Emil? Are you telling me that the D-Day invasions had NOTHING to do with Hitler being toppled? You seriously thing he would have just imploded had we NOT stepped in? I would love to have an OUNCE of whatever fairy dust you're smoking. Also, I'd like to SQUARELY punch you in the face on behalf of my three relatives who lay buried in St Marys cemetary who died in Europe fighting the Nazi's. Your flippant disregard of their( and my familys) sacrifice is a blatant slap in MY face and certainly evry veteran who reads your ridiculous justification for WW2 isolationism. Again, a square punch to the face Emil. "
emil wrote on Aug 21, 2008 3:20 PM:
" CE
The argument about being an extension of Germany in WW2 had we not entered the war is such a reach that only a fool would believe. Self destructive paranoia would have taken care of Hitler and his henchman long before he reached the shores of the US. The US and the Russian winter did save lives by entering the war "
cewoodford wrote on Aug 21, 2008 3:20 PM:
" Emil...you want greater transparency in the Hedge Fund business? I AGREE! However that will NEVER HAPPEN as long as the Democrats control Congress. Why? you ask...Because of a little Hungarian DEVIL named George Soros who contributes BILLION$$$ to the Democrats. You see sir, your Lilly-White Democrat politicians are FUNDED by the king of Hedge funds, George Soros( Who also happens to be FULLY responsible for the collapse of several economies through his manipulation of currencies..go aheade...Google him...see who your Dems are in bed with...While you're at it, Google Tony Rezko..another interesting name associated with the Democrats... "
cewoodford wrote on Aug 21, 2008 3:15 PM:
" sooo...in 2006 you voted out the evil corrupt REPUBLICANS and took full control of Congress..What exactly is your elected officials excuse for NOT ceasing all operations in Iraq? YOUR elected officials have EVERY power and OPTION to immediately bring the troops home yet..they sit there and enact ZERO legislation to do so..and this is the Republicans fault? My elected officials( the Evil Republicans) made a choice back in 2003 and they are seeing it through to the end( with my full support), Your elected Democrats, who PROMISED YOU they would stop the Iraq War have LIED TO YOU. They haven't done a damn thing and you don't have the gall to call them out on their lack of action.Instead, you continue to point fingers at the Conservatives...Your elected Dem officals could have stopped this war 2 yrs ago. They chose NOT TO..Why? "
emil wrote on Aug 21, 2008 3:10 PM:
" troller
I'll answer your question. I would have had the special forces on the ground in Afghanistan yesterday and I would have found Osama Bin Laden. I would not have gone into Iraq. I would have established a Language center to help with intelligence and I certainly have asked the SEC and the US Banking institutions to watch the money flow. I would have asked about the large amount of put purchases in the airline and reinsurance companies prior to 9/11. Or the call purchases of Raytheon stock. I would have asked for greater transparency in the Hedge Fund industry and would have asked frankly what the Pentagon and CIA were doing with our tax dollars. "
cewoodford wrote on Aug 21, 2008 12:52 PM:
" What exactly have the Democrats done since the "sweeping change" of 2006? WHERE IS THE CHANGE? They CONTROL Congress...What "change" have they brought about? This war was supposed to come to a screeching halt when Grandma Nanacy took over...what up? "
cewoodford wrote on Aug 21, 2008 12:48 PM:
" And while you Liberal DOLTS sit here and type away your free thinking liberties, ask yourself this...D.C. is now in FULL CONTROLL of the Democrats( your people)and has been since 2006. WHY IS THIS "ILLEGAL" WAR STILL BEING FUNDED? YOUR politicians, who swept in on the promise of "CHANGE" have enacted ZILCH to stop or cease operations in IRAQ. Why aren't you attacking YOUR elected officials? Why aren't you attacking Nanacy Pelosi? She SAID TO YOU that she would stop funding Iraq..What happened? YOUR PEOPLE are running D.C. Why don't you start holding your own elected officials accountable? Is it TOO EASY to just demonize all Conservatives? Look within Liberals...look within... "
cewoodford wrote on Aug 21, 2008 12:43 PM:
" If we used the EXACT same "logic" being extolled by the superior thinking liberals here back in 1945 we'd by all rights probably be speaking German right now and be fearful of speaking out against the government. All you Chamberlainesque thinking dolts oughta thank the Lord our senate didnt acquiesce to the isolationist liberal rants of the day. "
Pirate Steve wrote on Aug 19, 2008 9:14 AM:
" Thank you, Young Vet, for providing such a well thought out answer!
Nobody likes being in a war. Innocent lives ARE lost. There is no question about it. But to leave Saddam in power for the next couple decades would have been torturous for Iraqi people.
In my opinion (and to be honest, I don't have any real facts to back this up), I think that if we want to cripple terrorism in our world, lets begin by finsihing the work in Iraq and Afghanistan, and reduce our dependence on foreign oil. To pump 700B a year to other countries is single handedly "fueling" (pun intended) their research on new weapons systems. Let's keep that money in the United States to boost our economy. "
Jack Sparrow wrote on Aug 19, 2008 8:14 AM:
" Unfortunately, President Bush couldn't send those extra troops in right away, or at any time really, because congress wouldn't approve the extra money to fund them. So really, there wasn't too much more the President could have done about troop levels. I think he did his best to listen to his generals in the field, but his hands were essentially tied by congress.
Chances are, less Iraqis would be dead if we hadn't invaded, but the majority of Iraqis that have died now are actually from other countries and came in to fight us. So if you look at it that way, the level of Iraqis who would have died might not be much different. "
PerfectStranger wrote on Aug 19, 2008 8:10 AM:
" I see that this story has brought the 'usual suspects' out of the woodwork to trot out their usual, unchanging self-righteous diatribes and accusations against those who think differently than they do. What's the point? Most of you are either forcing your ideals on people who you KNOW won't accept them, or you are 'preaching to the choir', or you start to piss each other off and wind up taking shots at people with whom you usually agree. Then you 'kiss and make up'. Same comments, different article. How boring. What does it accomplish? "
xfs-123 wrote on Aug 19, 2008 8:07 AM:
" Young Vet- Thank you. You show intelligence on the matter with a view point instead of just complaints.
El Uno- You are right, Congress does not make laws for the rest of the world, they make decisions on what this country will do when attacked and over 3000 of our civilians are killed.
As for your next answer, you are obviously not serious after he killed about 1M of his own people in the years before our invasion.
And can we say the same about these radical Muslims who are pissing off and terrorizing the world - ah but no more attacks on the US! "
Troller wrote on Aug 19, 2008 7:53 AM:
" Emil? I understand why you haven't been much help here. We are talking about the middle east, not Europe. Thank you young vet. Your post illustrates there are other ways this war on terror could have been waged. That's what I'm looking for. How many other ways could we have responded to the increase threat brought on by 9/11. Many are quick to criticize but in the end have nothing to offer in exchange for what we have in place. Protesters want to change our policy. With what? It's a fair question. (invading a wrong country isn't a policy, it's a mistake for those who don't understand the difference) Thanks again young vet. Anyone else? Long day ahead, won't be back till this afternoon. Later. "
El Uno wrote on Aug 19, 2008 7:46 AM:
" #1. Wouldn't have lied to the American citizens about going to war
#2. US Congress does not determine laws for the rest of the world.
#3. 75
#4. Not sure, when did the US start pissing everyone off? "
young vet wrote on Aug 18, 2008 9:35 PM:
" I'll give an answer since no one else will.---9/12/01 I go about things the same way GW did. The change I would make, however, is after a few months of the Special Operations war, I'm not sure what the good spot would be, maybe a year, who knows, I would send at least 50,000 troops into Afghanistan. This would change everything, and I believe they would be much better off in Afghanistan. Iraq- More troops in the post-invasion time frame...like 500,000. No doubt it was mismanaged after the invasion....it's finally going right at this point. It's not an illegal war. Saddam would have killed more. Al Qaida was not in Iraq at that time, but people who later joined Al Qaida were, such as Al Zarqawi. "
xfs-123 wrote on Aug 18, 2008 8:51 PM:
" I am still waiting for someone to answer Troller's question on what you would do if you were charge and it is 09/12/01.
I am still waiting for someone to explain how this is an illegal war if it was approved by the congress.
I am still waiting for someone to tell me how many Iraqis would be dead, in the same period as this war, if we didn't take out Suddam and stop him from murdering his own people.
And when exactly was it when terrorist were not in Iraq? "
Jack Sparrow wrote on Aug 18, 2008 8:45 PM:
" There's a reason that we had a surplus when Clinton left office. He didn't DO anything except cut the military by half a million personnel. So that would explain your surplus, and just how well prepared our military was in the late 90's for ANY conflict. "
emil wrote on Aug 18, 2008 8:36 PM:
" I've talked with a few people who have spent time in europe. They do not hate americans. Most they say are not real fond of George Bush and wish we would become citizens of the world. "
Troller wrote on Aug 18, 2008 5:14 PM:
" Assuming you now know the difference between 500 billion over five years spent on the war (that's 100 billion a year) and 700 billion a year on purchasing outside oil, you can now see where commerce drives national interests. Hey, almost single one of them over there hates our guts, but they aren't quite ready to fund their war against America without our contributions. Well, it's been a heck of paper day, and I'm glad we had this chat! But I am disappointed, not one you answered my questions. But with the exception of Spirit's little name calling things went well. Says more about you Spirit. I couldn't have changed a mind here, nor would I care to. But this day has been a real demonstration of liberal politics. Be wrong, be proud! "
Troller wrote on Aug 18, 2008 5:05 PM:
" No, I haven't failed to realize anything. You pointed out (apparently correctly) 100,000 Iraqis have died. That's over a five year period. If I take into account illness, in Iraq and America, you may well find Iraqis are healthy over all than us as well. The money spent on this war pales to the 2 billion a day we send outside our borders looking for energy. But on subject, you stated the deaths and the dollars. I just looked up your statistics and offered a comparison. But not one of you has answered any of my original questions. You did offer up some "nasty" spirit. Is that really the spirit of our cosmos? Maybe yours, not mine. People who are reading this, know spirit, emil and eluno are reaching and haven't dished up anything solid yet. "
spiritcosmo wrote on Aug 18, 2008 5:04 PM:
" What troller fails to realize is that all these death are above and beyond regular occurrences of accidents and diseases. By trollers logic I can kill some one everyday and say well at least im not as bad as cancer. As far as the money goes, he also fails to realize that we are not paying for this war. All the money has been dealt in emergency supplemental spending bills. In short we are borrowing the money. Who is loaning us all this money? China. Now lets add interest to all those billions. Wow. "
spiritcosmo wrote on Aug 18, 2008 4:47 PM:
" What troller fails to realize is that all these death are above and beyond regular occurrences of accidents and diseases. By trollers logic I can kill some one everyday and say well at least im not as bad as cancer. As far as the money goes, he also fails to realize that we are not paying for this war. All the money has been dealt in emergency supplemental spending bills. In short we are borrowing the money. Who is loaning us all this money? China. Now lets add interest to all those billions. Wow.
Did I mention that when bush took office we were running a surplus, hence his call for massive tax cuts for the rich (I saved about 60 dollars.) now our national debt is at an all time high of just over 9 trillion plus interest. "
Troller wrote on Aug 18, 2008 4:23 PM:
" Quick math lesson for you eluno. You have to divide the number killed by the population to arrive at a death ratio. Nobody is suggesting it's safer to be in a city with a nuclear detonation than on our highways. However, since you brought it up, more people have died on our highways since 1945 than died in the combined bombings. Would it help if a nuclear dirty bomb where exploded in New York or Washington D.C. to make your point? No, the comparison isn't ridiculous, because unlike your comparison, it happened in RECENT history and is ongoing. In short, it's current! Nice try though, what's next? The killing fields of Cambodia when the US ran out? Oops, not that one uh? "
El Uno wrote on Aug 18, 2008 4:13 PM:
" Sorry, your conclusion was ridiculous. Here is another figure for you... Hiroshima, 1945, 140,000 people died as a result of an atomic bomb being dropped on the city. According to your logic, it is 10 times safer to be in a city where an atomic bomb is dropped than on the US highways in 2007. "
Troller wrote on Aug 18, 2008 3:56 PM:
" Sawdust. Please name a war which wasn't like that. I guess it'd help if one of you at least opined on what you would do to protect the US and our allies. How would your plan work? (in a real world) What would be the cost in dollars, lives and misery? Then finish by telling me, and the rest of my silent partners here, which war was your favorite as far how it was fought goes. Please tell us about the good wars which had no casualties, no after affects, no property destruction and please, pretty please, include what this war was fought for. "
Troller wrote on Aug 18, 2008 3:49 PM:
" Suppose you give more figures and I'll check them out against, oh let's say, the homeless in this country, or the mental health figures of people who have not served in the military. As for displacement, who do you think is protecting Iraqis as they rebuild? NO! You don't just get to keep asking me questions without answering a few yourself. This is supposed to be civil discussion right? It's 9/12/01, you have the same information now as Bush and as Clinton had before 9/11. What would you do? How would you prevent 9/11 from happening again? Which "failed policies" are we protesting here? We haven't had a 9/11 since and everyone believed and still believes it could happen again. What would you do? "
Wet Sawdust wrote on Aug 18, 2008 3:47 PM:
" Let's take away all that and look at the fact that we can't even properly fight this war. Above all that, we're failing our soldiers, as well. They're coming home to broken marriages, PTSD, lost mortgages, et cetera.
There is no reason, with all the money being thrown at military contractors (a real farce, right there) that our own men and women shouldn't be able to come back to the life they left. In that respect, it's an awful lot like Vietnam. "
Troller wrote on Aug 18, 2008 3:44 PM:
" Now why is that comparison ridiculous? Those are the numbers. And, dead is dead. If you don't have anything to compare Iraqi death tolls to, then it's just a number. Would you prefer I cancer, heart disease? US murder rates run around 17,000 per year. That's almost equal to the number of people killed in Iraq each year over a 5 year period. It's certainly less per million, about .47 in a 100,000. You see, here in lies the problem, if you don't like a figure or fact then "it's just ridiculous" yet you will accept a million dead as an extrapolated fact because it serves your viewpoint, not because it's based in reality. Now, I have asked you some tough questions but still nothing. The comparison is valid. "
El Uno wrote on Aug 18, 2008 3:35 PM:
" what kind of figures can you find for the number of Iraqis who are suffering due to being displaced from their homes because of the fighting? The dead are not the only ones who are affected by this. Also, I'm sure your aware of the mental state our soldiers return in and what happens to them as a direct result of fighting. Much more to factor other than dollars and death tolls. "
El Uno wrote on Aug 18, 2008 3:32 PM:
" That comparision is absolutely ridiculous... "
Troller wrote on Aug 18, 2008 3:05 PM:
" Did a little searching. Ultimately used CNN and Reuters figures. Way left websites use a million Iraqi dead since the war began. They admit to using extrapolation rather than actual figures. Other figures are around 100,000. However, insurgent activity accounts for much of this. So, where does that leave us? Using Sprits figures I did some quick calculations using US highway death tolls as a comparative. 1.36 in a million died in 2007 highway accidents. 2.75 in a million died in Iraq over a five year period. This give an annual death rate in Iraq of .55 per million each year. In short, it's safer in Iraq than on our highways. Also, worst case dollar estimate is 500 billion with 200 billion being the norm. This is a long, long way from a trillion. "
Troller wrote on Aug 18, 2008 2:47 PM:
" In all fairness Clinton wasn't dealing with 9/11 either. Also, I'm not sure this war has cost a trillion dollars either, nor have anywhere close to 100,000 Iraqi lives been lost at the hands of the US, but I'll look some more. Now I have presented some tough questions here and have yet to get an answer except being referred to as a sociopath and terrorist. Seems you Bush haters want it both ways. The war was voted on in congress, please detail the criminal element if you will. I was respectful in my questions. But it is well known that name calling is the ONLY resort of those standing on the losing side of an issue. Thank you spiritcomsos for your demonstration. Now, please answer the questions and we can continue. "
spiritcosmo wrote on Aug 18, 2008 2:25 PM:
" I dont think a full scale trillion dollar invasion that has cost over 4,000 U.S. lives and a hundred thousand Iraqi civilian lives is even close to the few cruise missiles that Clinton used (not that I agreed with him either), nor was it in a preemptive fashion. The preemptive war model is affectionately called the Bush doctrine.
By your rationale we would be right in destroying every man woman and child in the Middle East, which makes you a sociopath as well as a terrorist. You truly are sick and utterly stupid. May God have mercy on you?
So yes, Iraq was the wrong country, Afghanistan was the right country, and neither was handled with anything but criminal negligence. "
Troller wrote on Aug 18, 2008 2:12 PM:
" Well emil, you're adamant about what hasn't worked. Fair enough! It's 9/12/01 and you're in charge. What would you do? "
Troller wrote on Aug 18, 2008 2:10 PM:
" Two more questions. Intelligence reports (presumably from the same agencies which reported WMD in Iraq, under both democrat and republican presidents) have reported Osama is somewhere in Pakistan. Should we invade Pakistan to get him? Bush drew a line in the sand, "with us or against us, any nation harboring terrorist" Second question, now that Suddam, and his two sons (those little impish pranksters) are no longer in the picture, if you could back up time, would you reinstall them as Iraqi leaders and why? I guess that's three questions then. "
El Uno wrote on Aug 18, 2008 2:09 PM:
" Troller - standing here with guns pointed didn't work either.... "
Troller wrote on Aug 18, 2008 1:45 PM:
" I don't think invading the wrong country is the primary issue. Even Clinton attacked Iraq under the same reasoning, which was a preemptive first strike. I don't recall posting anything about talking with terrorists, though it would be futile and a waste of time. I said, negotiating with terrorists. This has only created more terrorism in the past. The price of oil dropping also coincided recent poles saying 69% of Americans want drilling here and drilling now. Who's to say? But the wrong country is intriguing. Since this is technically a holy war in Islamic minds, and they occupy the entire region, which country would you suggest beginning with? I don't think standing on our soil, with peace signs in hand, would have averted 9/11. "
emil wrote on Aug 18, 2008 1:10 PM:
" Troller
I see you are know talking about motive of the Japaneese military. The japaneese leader, Harvard trained if I recall spoke of the futility of a japaneese takeover of the US in the excellent book Pearl Harbor. Osama Bin Laden is a very wealthy man and much of terrorist financing is done by the well heeled. One should read Confessions of an economic hitmen for an interesting read. Is the policy of not talking with "terrists" working? How can you tell when we can't find Osama? Price of oil dropped when we began to converse with Iran "
spiritcosmo wrote on Aug 18, 2008 1:07 PM:
" Well lets start with the policy of not invading the wrong country. "
Troller wrote on Aug 18, 2008 12:24 PM:
" As I posted on the previous article, I think these people's intentions are good, just misdirected. While I doubt there will be much "policy change" as a result of their work, perhaps we should examine which policy they want changed? Would that be the policy of not negotiating with terrorist? The policy of "preemptive strikes" to ensure another 9/11 doesn't happen? The policy of extracting information from terrorists who know the next "where, when and how"? If the US left the middle east today entirely, what would the world face with jihadists embolden by defeating the US? Should we change common sense policy which states if you enter a war, you should do so with the intent of winning it? "
spiritcosmo wrote on Aug 18, 2008 12:02 PM:
" The point is for the public to be heard and to start or keep a discussion going. Policy can be changed this way, especially when one holds the moral high ground. Look at all the social movements of our past. We should all respect the protesters for having the courage to exercise there convictions as well as there rights, most of us never even bother. We look around, see injustice, and do nothing. Only the most imprudent among us blindly follows his government without seriously entertaining opposing views; otherwise they would call us fascist, and from reading these posts maybe they would be right to do so. "
Troller wrote on Aug 18, 2008 12:02 PM:
" Interesting point. It supports my earlier post about commerce. The Japanese figured out it was easier, and cheaper, to buy America than to attempt a forceful takeover. Do you suppose the jihadists will ever draw the same conclusion? "
yarnivek wrote on Aug 18, 2008 11:42 AM:
" We'd be more likely to be speaking Japanese than German as a result of WW2. Oh wait, our manufacturing industry pretty much already does. "
LAX wrote on Aug 18, 2008 10:49 AM:
" Blah-blah-blah...Talk about ignorant...were you looking in a mirror Troller? By the way, what is it exactly that you "troll" for? Are you a Larry Craig kind of "guy?" You'd like to ignore me, 123, but you know I'm right and you're wrong...sorry! Go back to your twiddly-winks! "
xfs-123 wrote on Aug 18, 2008 10:02 AM:
" Good one Troller! Maybe just to ignore LAX completely would be a good way to go. I enjoy hearing another viewpoint, but certainly not the way he presents himself or his views. "
Troller wrote on Aug 18, 2008 9:36 AM:
" Guys! I above all, love to throw stones in LAX's slew of despond.. It occurs to me though, LAX lives vicariously through our posts. This is why LAX is incapable of making a comment without dragging fellow posters into the ignorant tirades which we've come to know as EXLAXISMS. I think most of us can agree, LAX has two issues, colossal ignorance and a general hatred of everything. Each time we try to engage LAX in any intelligent discourse we always get the mindless drivel LAX posted today. LAX is wrong. LAX has always been wrong. Since we can never guess what color the sky is in LAX-LAND perhaps we should pray for LAX on her quest to find the wizard. "
LAX wrote on Aug 18, 2008 9:33 AM:
" What is it that you don't understand, Pirate? McCain would be nothing more than a continuation of the same illegal, illogical, ill-informed and stupid policies of George W. Bush. Thus McCain = Bush! Do we need to draw a picture for you? You do know what an equal sign is, do you not? Most 4th-graders do... "
Pirate Steve wrote on Aug 18, 2008 8:37 AM:
" McCain = Bush ?!?!?!?!?
Who's the ignorant moron now, LAX?? "
Troller wrote on Aug 18, 2008 8:19 AM:
" Protesting for peace won't really accomplish more than getting your "15 minutes of fame" then life moves on. The Vietnamese never came after us, radical muslims from the Middle East, an entire region, not just Afghanistan or Iraq did. If you really want peace, I mean really want it, then you have to encourage commerce. Trade alliances are stronger than treaties. Don't believe me ? Check out our own American history. Being financially vested in something may not improve your opinion of certain people but fiscal concerns will keep you in check. Most of these radicals, be they liberals or muslims, aren't sharing in the wealth. They don't want to earn it, they want it gratis. So in their minds, nobody should have it. Then they attack! "
LAX wrote on Aug 18, 2008 8:16 AM:
" All the little right-wing Frank Burns are out today bellyaching because somebody is trying to "ruin the war." Of course, none of them can define what victory in Iraq really is...they just think might makes right. To compare Bush's illegal, immoral war in Iraq with WW2 is the height of ignorance and stupidity. Even the WW2 vets will tell you that. Sparrow, Demosthenes and Rawhide -- idiots! Sorry, boys -- lots of people ARE listening and ARE beginning to wake up to Bush's crimes. And don't forget: McCain = Bush = more of the same BS. "
Jack Sparrow wrote on Aug 18, 2008 1:01 AM:
" Walking will not lead to peace. It never has, and it never will. If our ancestors had walked for independence from the British, we'd still be a British colony. If Lincoln had walked for peace we'd be a divided nation still. If we had walked for peace during The Great War, all of Europe would be speaking German. If we had walked for peace in WW2, WE would probably be speaking German. So walk all you want people, it's not doing us any good except to be a burden on taxpayers for your probable unemployment/welfare checks. "
Demosthenes wrote on Aug 18, 2008 12:55 AM:
" Let them walk, let them talk. Very few people are actually going to listen anymore. Walking for peace certainly isn't going to work. The enemies of this country are loving people like this right now, because they realize it means we're a divided country, and that boosts the morale of people like Bin Laden. "
Rawhide wrote on Aug 17, 2008 11:56 PM:
" Yes, history does repeat itself. Not standing up to tyrants and socialists always results in mass death. We never would have our own country if we had to rely on these types. I'm all for their right to free speach... Carry on, but after 9/11, you didn't read about these people on the front page of any paper. Because when it comes right down to it, thier opinions are irrelevant. America brushes these milque-toasts aside and does what it has to to survive. It always has, and it always will. "
Advertisement
