Iraq: Who Has the Right Plan?

[dmek25]

beems, great post, and i agree. and i laugh about bush and the illegals. he doesn't say a peep about any of this until 6 years into his presidency. he sees his popularity numbers dip into all time lows, and figures he had better do something. those illegals should have to go thru the same process that my great grandfather, and yours, had to. i don't understand the thinking of handing them a free pass?

[70Chip]

Beem, sorry you were disappointed with what Republican dominance looked like. This is what Democratic dominance looks like:

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by dmek25

Dem's are the only ones that will sell you down the river? all politicians, when put in a position for their own gains, will agree to anything. i think the biggest reason people agreed to invade Iraq was it would pretty much be political suicide if you disagree( at that time) and you say that bush has gotten over 90% of the terrorists, you have got to be joking? where in the world did you come up with that? for every terrorist that has been captured, or killed, there are 10 more waiting in the wings.

My bad, I meant 90% of the most wanted terrorists.

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by dmek25

Dem's are the only ones that will sell you down the river? all politicians, when put in a position for their own gains, will agree to anything. i think the biggest reason people agreed to invade Iraq was it would pretty much be political suicide if you disagree( at that time) and you say that bush has gotten over 90% of the terrorists, you have got to be joking? where in the world did you come up with that? for every terrorist that has been captured, or killed, there are 10 more waiting in the wings.

So if there are 10 more waiting in the wings, don't you think we should try to stop them somehow?

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Originally Posted by dmek25

those illegals should have to go thru the same process that my great grandfather, and yours, had to. i don't understand the thinking of handing them a free pass?

Something about that statement doesn't seem right. My forefathers endured harship, so I want to see others have to as well.

[dmek25]

Originally Posted by jsarno

So if there are 10 more waiting in the wings, don't you think we should try to stop them somehow?

so the united states, fighting in Iraq, is stopping all terrorists? there will always be terrorism in this world we live in

[Beemnseven]

70chip, what do you expect from San Fransisco?

Seriously though, you can't take this example and make representative of all democrats, or their collective 'values' -- anymore than Mark Foley or Ted Haggard are indicative of republican 'values'.

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

70chip, what do you expect from San Fransisco?

Seriously though, you can't take this example and make representative of all democrats, or their collective 'values' -- anymore than Mark Foley or Ted Haggard are indicative of republican 'values'.

I gotta agree with Beem there. It is this dividing up and villifying the other "side" that has our system broken. Yeah there are cooky Dems. And there are nutso Reps too. Crazy doesn't discriminate based on party affiliation. Both parties have strong elements who have totally thrown true values out, in terms of social values and political values. That's why there isn't a one of them that you can trust right now.

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by dmek25

so the united states, fighting in Iraq, is stopping all terrorists? there will always be terrorism in this world we live in

DId i say that they were fighting ALL terrorists by being in Iraq?
If we ignored Hitler, we would be in trouble right now (probably speaking german), if we ignore the terrorists, they will kill us.
To not fight them would be a mistake.

[dmek25]

i didn't say don't fight them. what i said is being in Iraq serves absolutely no purpose. if you think because of us fighting in Iraq, the terrorists will not strike in the United States, you are just kidding yourself. the more i think about this administrations plan of attack, the more i think that they really didn't have one

[70Chip]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

70chip, what do you expect from San Fransisco?

Seriously though, you can't take this example and make representative of all democrats, or their collective 'values' -- anymore than Mark Foley or Ted Haggard are indicative of republican 'values'.

The reason San Fransisco is like that is because it's controlled by Liberal Democrats. If and when they achieve a similar stranglehold on national government, they will implement the same agenda. They will destroy this country.

BTW, a Democratic version of Mark Foley would be a congressman who was secretly being faithful to his wife.

[12thMan]

Originally Posted by 70Chip

The reason San Fransisco is like that is because it's controlled by Liberal Democrats. If and when they achieve a similar stranglehold on national government, they will implement the same agenda. They will destroy this country.

BTW, a Democratic version of Mark Foley would be a congressman who was secretly being faithful to his wife.

I'm curious, 70...how do you define Liberal?

[70Chip]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

I'm curious, 70...how do you define Liberal?

In the modern sense of the word. Perhaps radical and radicalism would be a better term. IMO, the modern right has as much claim to the word liberal as the modern left does, but I use the term as it has been defined since around the 1970s. I mean the Radical Left. Generally they see capitalism as inherently unfair and opressive. They view religion as reactionary and repressive. They view the state and state power as a means and not an end (so long as they run it). Their worldview is largely informed by Marx and his approach to history (dialectical materialism) even if they don't realize it. In addition, any number of liberation ideologies have attached themselves to the modern left, taking in the areas of human sexuality, race relations, and the sovreignty of individual nation states.
I think the glue that holds these disparate phenomenon together, though, is their rejection of a compassionate, personal God. This is their most common refrain.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by dmek25

i didn't say don't fight them. what i said is being in Iraq serves absolutely no purpose. if you think because of us fighting in Iraq, the terrorists will not strike in the United States, you are just kidding yourself. the more i think about this administrations plan of attack, the more i think that they really didn't have one

Well we haven't had an attack in this country sense 9/11 so the administration gets the credit. Its not like they have not tried to attack us because we have broken up several terr. plots over the past couple of years. We all know terrorist will strike again and they only have to get it right once to succeed. You also cannot say that the war has served no purpose because then you must have the ability to see into history.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by firstdown

Well we haven't had an attack in this country sense 9/11 so the administration gets the credit. Its not like they have not tried to attack us because we have broken up several terr. plots over the past couple of years. We all know terrorist will strike again and they only have to get it right once to succeed. You also cannot say that the war has served no purpose because then you must have the ability to see into history.

It will be interesting to see what happens when the administration does change hands. Particularly if a Democrat wins, Will terrorists see it as an opportunity to test the new President. Similar to what happened to Gordon Brown in Great Britain.

I shouldn't say interesting, I should say somewhat frightening. And it's not limited to just Democrats of course.

Let's just say I think late January/early February 2009 might be a good time to visit Vancouver.