Iraq War (a few facts)

[BillUCF]

I appreciate all of the replies to my original post. Here are my thoughts after reading them all.

The liberals have shown once again they have no concept of how to handle themselves when times get tough. If the liberals of today were in charge 250 years ago we would all be paying out the ass to the Brits for tea. Something must be genetically inferior in the liberal mind to cause them to cry like weak schools girls when it comes time to defend freedom. Watch the 1 hour long documentary (History channel) on the Marines as they took Fallujah. Specifically pay attention to the young Marine who spent all day as point man for his squad going from house to house to root out the insurgents. There is not one liberal alive that has the stones to do what that man did. That is the type of man who fought for United States independence and who is fighting for freedom for the Iraqi people.
Thoroughout American history liberals have failed in the competitive political arena whenever a strong leader was needed (and don't bother throwing out JFK, he was not a liberal by today's standards). The strong survive and rise to the top, and by Darwin's survival theory this can NEVER be a liberal. They just don't have what it takes.

[Autocratic]

[ QUOTE ]
I appreciate all of the replies to my original post. Here are my thoughts after reading them all.

The liberals have shown once again they have no concept of how to handle themselves when times get tough. If the liberals of today were in charge 250 years ago we would all be paying out the ass to the Brits for tea. Something must be genetically inferior in the liberal mind to cause them to cry like weak schools girls when it comes time to defend freedom. Watch the 1 hour long documentary (History channel) on the Marines as they took Fallujah. Specifically pay attention to the young Marine who spent all day as point man for his squad going from house to house to root out the insurgents. There is not one liberal alive that has the stones to do what that man did. That is the type of man who fought for United States independence and who is fighting for freedom for the Iraqi people.
Thoroughout American history liberals have failed in the competitive political arena whenever a strong leader was needed (and don't bother throwing out JFK, he was not a liberal by today's standards). The strong survive and rise to the top, and by Darwin's survival theory this can NEVER be a liberal. They just don't have what it takes.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've read your reply and here are my thoughts:

You are totally unable to properly respond to our arguments, which have generally been cohesive and articulate. You response is a generic, "liberals are pussies" type that doesn't actually correspond to the argument.

While I have absolutely nothing to base this on, my guess is that all you do is listen to either talk radio or a nightly conservative broadcast (no matter which it be), and then try to tackle message boards, which unfortunately for you are often full of far more intelligent people.

Now, aside from the fact that liberals are little bitches, which you have totally proven, how about you respond to the fact that basically all of your initial 5 points have been deemed incorrect. As many people have responded with well thought-out arguments, perhaps you can throw out a counter-counter-punch. Or maybe you'll continue posting like this, which is roughly equivalent to vomiting through your keyboard and onto the forum.

On Edit: While this is just giving you a reason to not respond to the first part of my post, that's fine, because you're not going to have a good response anyway. But as for a strong liberal president...FDR. You see, while he did start the New Deal, and you disagree with that I assume, as do many people, he still planned and executed our entry into WWII. "But Autocratic, you fool, he only did it because the Japanese attacked us first! Clearly you know this and I am right once again!" Why yes, that did end up being our breaking point. However, for several years prior, FDR had been preparing the military (and the nation) for what he viewed as an inevitable war with Germany. Also, LBJ certainly wasn't a pussy. He started up Vietnam for practically no reason!

This post made me laugh out loud.

[ QUOTE ]
The recent posts on the Iraq War have so many factual errors I had to start a new post.

1. The current war in Iraq is actually a continuation of the one in which Iraq invaded Kuwait. That war never oficially ended. A cease fire was agreed to by Saddam Hussein. He broke the cease fire agreement when he jacked around with the UN inspectors for 10 years. Clinton didn't have time to get BJ's from Monica and perform his job at the same time, so all we had was a 10 year intermission.

2. Anyone who believes there were no WMD's is naive. Just ask the Kurds.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good one. Except they still haven't found any WMD, and there is zero reason to believe that he still had some. No one denies that at one point he had chemical weapons and used them on the Kurds, but that was multiple DECADES ago.

[ QUOTE ]

3. Anyone who believes there was no connection between Saddam Hussein is naive and uneducated. Just follow the Saudi money trail.


[/ QUOTE ]

Naive and uneducated, eh? Sounds like an ad hominem to me. There is no evidence of this connection, and if a connection was discovered, it would be in the front page of every newspaper. And if you are thinking of replying with something along the lines of "the newspapers are liberal so they would cover it up," then please go back to your cave.

[ QUOTE ]

4. Anyone who disagrees with points 2 and 3 needs to realize that international politics is not the US court system where you need everything documented in triplicate for a conviction. All you need is to learn your history, read between the lines, and apply some common sense.


[/ QUOTE ]

so the burden is on us doves to prove a negative? 100,000 + Iraqis have been murdered so far by US soldiers, not to mention the amount of US lives that have been lost. On a hunch?

[ QUOTE ]
5. Even if we relocated Israel to Greenland and gave the whole country to the Palestinians the crazy Arabs would find something else to fight about. Go read your pre-WWII Middle East history.

Gulf War Vet (USAF 89-93)

[/ QUOTE ]

those "crazy arabs." Has this poster been cut off yet by the moderators? This is racist, offensive, and frankly disgusting. You ought to be ashamed of yourself.

[coffeecrazy1]

Actually...FDR was the one that came to mind for me, too...and I'm not even a liberal... [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

[ QUOTE ]
The immaturity of some libs makes the good ones look bad.

[/ QUOTE ]


Hambuuurgerrrrrrrr!!!!!!!!!!!!!




[img]http://rds.yahoo.com/S=96062883/K=hamburger/v=2/SID=e/TID=I046_85/l=IVI/SIG=1214vi11k/EXP=1125025114/*-http%3A//www.numb3rs.com/archives/hamburger.jpg[/img]

[nicky g]

Congratulations on failing to answer a single point made inresponse to your original post.

[phlup]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not saying your poll is wrong, I'm just pointed out the hypocracy, in that Fox News slants right and Washington Post slants left, but you guys can't admit that the post slants left.

[/ QUOTE ]

What the hell is wrong with people? You're opening admitting that Fox News slants to the right yet you keep using them for your arguments.

This isn't just aimed at you Fish, but at everyone:

Just because you think the Washington Post is liberal does not mean that the correct answer is to create a right wing news station. And just because you think Fox News is too right wing doesn't mean we should be adding left leaning stations.

Why is this bias news considered ok at all? What the hell happened to the news just reporting the facts? Have we all gotten so dumb and lazy that we can't even think for ourselves? Do we now need some talking head to tell us how to think and what "facts" need to be regurgitated at the water cooler?

Seriously here people, it's time to stop saying its ok to have biased news because the other guy has bias news. Find a news source that ISN'T bias at all and go to them. Perhaps once we stop paying attention to all the "tell us how to think" news we can finally get some decent news back on the air.

/rant

[ptmusic]

If those "crazy Arabs" would find something else to fight about no matter what, what the f are we doing trying to solve the problems of the Middle East? Do you really claim that the alleged insanity of Arabs is a reason for us to invade Iraq?

-ptmusic

[ptmusic]

[ QUOTE ]
The only fault I give the Bush administration is not having a decent PR program to explain the Iraq liberation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Before Bush needed a PR program to explain the Iraq liberation, he really needed a strategy. But that wasn't his main goal, he didn't have a sound strategy for achieving that goal, and the new constitution is adding to the reality that liberation is not happening any time soon.

Are you going to add "failure to liberate Iraq" to Bush's fault's, or will you write it off as the fault of liberal weakness back home?

-ptmusic

[FishHooks]

There is no way to get totally unbiased news. The ratings would suck, and eveyone has an opinion. I think biased news helps if you listen to both sides that way you can use informaiton to think for yourself. Also when i say Fox News slants left, I dont mean its some GOP talking machine like some liberals like to beleive, however it's clear the anchors on that show are smarter and therefor tend to be more conservative. At least Fox News has debates between people from different political parties, rather than one guy tell the news the entire hour from his point of view.