Cut & Run Liberals

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:
They didn't put terror cells into America the way Islamic fundamentalists have.

Yeah, terror cells everywhere you look these days, sheesh

Cycloptichorn

No one said "everywhere you look." Just to be clear, you're asserting that Islamic fundamentalist groups do not have terror cells in the US?

0 Replies

Conservatives conflate Al Qaeda and the Iraq War whenever possible, to their rhetorical advantage.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

I think you know that pre-war Iraq had nothing to do with al Qaida.

BTW, who said that we should stop fighting the latter?[/quote]
And who is discussing pre-war Iraq? Someone asked me to compare the people we're fighting in Iraq today to the North Vietnamese.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Conservatives conflate Al Qaeda and the Iraq War whenever possible, to their rhetorical advantage.

Cycloptichorn

One of the group's we're fighting in Iraq today, Zarqawi's group, calls itself "Al Qaeda in Iraq." It doesn't require much conflating.

0 Replies

Quote:

No one said "everywhere you look." Just to be clear, you're asserting that Islamic fundamentalist groups do not have terror cells in the US?

Upon what would I base such an assertion?

I am asserting that we haven't found a whole bunch of them lately. Certainly hasn't been in the news.

Remember, it used to be 'communist cells' that were the boogeyman. 'Terrorist' cells are another boogeyman. Do they exist? Probably. Are they worth changing our way of life over, and our foreign policy? Probably not.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:
No one said "everywhere you look." Just to be clear, you're asserting that Islamic fundamentalist groups do not have terror cells in the US?

Upon what would I base such an assertion?

I am asserting that we haven't found a whole bunch of them lately. Certainly hasn't been in the news.

Remember, it used to be 'communist cells' that were the boogeyman. 'Terrorist' cells are another boogeyman. Do they exist? Probably. Are they worth changing our way of life over, and our foreign policy? Probably not.

Cycloptichorn

I was asked to compare the relative danger of the North Vietnamese and Islamic fundamentalists. I did. Period.

0 Replies

No, you didn't, because the NV were often equated with their backers - Communist China - which most definately were displayed as being a threat to our way of life here in America at the time.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

The Vietnamese were not our enemies, but the Cold War was still in progress. Concern re nuclear war was real then, unlike the current BS about "Can you imagine if Saddam had gotten the bomb?"

It's blowing smoke to say that the USSR and China (and No. Vietnam) weren't thought to be as dangerous to the US as Islamic terrorists are now. Why else were we there in the first place? Remember the domino theory?

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

No, you didn't, because the NV were often equated with their backers - Communist China - which most definately were displayed as being a threat to our way of life here in America at the time.

Cycloptichorn

This argument is getting rather murky, and represents a distraction from my actual point that (1) any war with significantly worthwhile goals is worth bearing some burden for, and that (2) making a habit of cutting and running if someone puts up a fight will embolden future potential enemies.

0 Replies

Were we to leave Iraq, al-Qaida and other foreign fighters would be considered more occupiers to be expelled. This is Murtha's point, and he is correct.

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

Were we to leave Iraq, al-Qaida and other foreign fighters would be considered more occupiers to be expelled. This is Murtha's point, and he is correct.

So, then, you deny that establishing a pattern of cutting and running as soon as the going gets tough will embolden potential future enemies?

0 Replies

What exactly would we be 'cutting and running' from? We already won the war in Iraq.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

Advocate wrote:
Were we to leave Iraq, al-Qaida and other foreign fighters would be considered more occupiers to be expelled. This is Murtha's point, and he is correct.

So, then, you deny that establishing a pattern of cutting and running as soon as the going gets tough will embolden potential future enemies?

Iraq is not our country and the Iraqi's have no obligation to care about our fight with our "potential future enemies".

The only question in this debate should be what do the Iraqi's want.

0 Replies

Brandon, do you really believe that we have to stay in Iraq, at the cost of over $300 M a day, so that future enemies won't be emboldened? I think these future enemies see the damage and killing that we done in Nam and Iraq before leaving, and that this would give them pause. I might mention that, at least partly due to our actions in Iraq, we are really hated all over the world. This could cause immeasurable damage to our beloved country.

0 Replies

ebrown_p wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
Advocate wrote:
Were we to leave Iraq, al-Qaida and other foreign fighters would be considered more occupiers to be expelled. This is Murtha's point, and he is correct.

So, then, you deny that establishing a pattern of cutting and running as soon as the going gets tough will embolden potential future enemies?

Iraq is not our country and the Iraqi's have no obligation to care about our fight with our "potential future enemies".

The only question in this debate should be what do the Iraqi's want.

They want us to stay in their country and provide them with the necessary back-up muscle to allow them to establish a stable democracy.

Do you deny this?

As it just so happens, this coincides quite nicely with our strategic interests.

Everybody wins!

0 Replies

ebrown_p wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
Advocate wrote:
Were we to leave Iraq, al-Qaida and other foreign fighters would be considered more occupiers to be expelled. This is Murtha's point, and he is correct.

So, then, you deny that establishing a pattern of cutting and running as soon as the going gets tough will embolden potential future enemies?

Iraq is not our country and the Iraqi's have no obligation to care about our fight with our "potential future enemies".

The only question in this debate should be what do the Iraqi's want.

So, then, you're saying that a pattern of slinking off whenever someone puts up a fight won't encourage potential enemies?

0 Replies

kuvasz wrote:

Amigo wrote:
If he had any brains, yes.

yeap.

The fukktard is a rank amateur monarch-wannabe so head-thickend and brow-lowered with caste-based inbreeding that the lowest markers of general intelligence - like sentence construction and primary mathematics - are debased to a point where the poor fukktard must weep every morning in sub-mongoloid rage that he is unable to carry out even the most basic functions of human existence and thought, like logic and a$$-wiping, so he is surrounded by stewards and toadies who do it all for him, all the "If a and b, then c" (for, surely, left to his own devices, the President's logical progression would be something like, "If a and b, then tuna") and ensuring that the Commander in Chief doesn't have a vague $hit smell coming off him.

I must congratulate Finn for his list of pyschopaths, the list also showed that each of those monsters at least had some innate intelligence and capabilites going for him, unlike George Walker Bush who attained his station in life by merely being the fastest swimming sperm in his daddy's nut sack.

(on correction, that last also goes for Kim Jung Il and his daddy's nut sack sperm)

"The fukktard", I like that. It's got Bush written all over it.

Bush is like having your retarded cousin around. Anything bad happens just blame it on your retarded cousin. People at home are like "Jezz, that guy is a retard". As long as the fukktard is in the whitehouse the people that put him there can get away with all kinds od $hit.

Bush, American oligarchys retarded cousin

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

ebrown_p wrote:

So, then, you deny that establishing a pattern of cutting and running as soon as the going gets tough will embolden potential future enemies?

Iraq is not our country and the Iraqi's have no obligation to care about our fight with our "potential future enemies".

The only question in this debate should be what do the Iraqi's want.

So, then, you're saying that a pattern of slinking off whenever someone puts up a fight won't encourage potential enemies?[/quote]

Did you read my post?

I said that Iraq is not our country and the Iraqi's have no obligation to care about our "potential future enemies.

If the Iraqi's were begging us to stay... then you would have a point. But that is not happening.

Some of the Iraq's are shooting at us... and polls taken in Iraq say that a good number of Iraqi's support the insurgents and say it is morally justified to shoot at troops. They see us as occupiers.

Even the Iraqi government that won power in the elections that we sponsored are now saying we need a time table to get the heck out of their country.

I said nothing about slinking.

I am saying that it is their country and it is wrong for us to stay when we are not wanted.

0 Replies

Finn, polls taken in Iraq show that about 85 % want us out now, and about 45 % want us dead.

Considering this, how much sacrifice on our part is justified? Oh, I know, leaving would embolden future enemies.

0 Replies

Not that I accept that embolding future enemies is at all the most important factor here...

But it seems like we are doing an awfully good job at emboldening future enemies by staying.

0 Replies

Cut & Run Liberals

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know