Butterfly, we know you’re still lost in the far-left fever swamps but it’s Let’s Roll, Not Roll Over…

You will notice, the jihadists are not pouring across the Syrian border to, say, Brooklyn Heights. They are running to Iraq, where they run smack dab into the glorious U.S. military-where, it's far preferable to fight them there in the streets of Baghdad than in the streets of New York (where the residents would immediately surrender). This strategy appears to be working...

What needs to be addressed here as well is the fact that many folks would like to treat international terrorists the same way we treat domestic murderers: as sick people to be cured, without regard to the dignity of those they kill. In the lame attempt to be overly-tolerant and empathetic, we start to identify too much with the enemy (very much like those suffering from Stockholm syndrome) and start to dehumanize the victims of terror. The victims of 9/11, Bali, Jordan, Madrid etc bombings deserve more than that. 

I agree totally. The 2000+ allied troops who have died fighting in Iraq deserved the truth before they gave up their lives too. If you, and others like you were as willing to admit that the Bush administration makes mistakes rather than just continual propagandising you'd have alot more allies.

Unfortunately there's those within the ranks of conservatives who have the mindset that it's their "team" vs the others, and bugger the truth, they consider it a loss of faith to admit mistakes. When someone points out the truth, instead of conceding the point they reach for the slogans and propaganda. Just like the unions do.

cv

I think the media exacerbates the problem. They thrive on contention and any point conceded by Bush will be used in tedious repetition as political ammunition against the Republicans. Stirring things up means both parties will spend millions on advertising - the source of the media's income. Add to this the media is more comfortable with a Democrat in charge of the country.

What needs to be addressed here as well is the fact that many folks would like to treat international terrorists the same way we treat domestic murderers: as sick people to be cured, without regard to the dignity of those they kill. In the lame attempt to be overly-tolerant and empathetic, we start to identify too much with the enemy (very much like those suffering from Stockholm syndrome) and start to dehumanize the victims of terror. The victims of 9/11, Bali, Jordan, Madrid etc bombings deserve more than that. 

I agree totally. The 2000+ allied troops who have died fighting in Iraq deserved the truth before they gave up their lives too. If you, and others like you were as willing to admit that the Bush administration makes mistakes rather than just continual propagandising you'd have alot more allies.

Unfortunately there's those within the ranks of conservatives who have the mindset that it's their "team" vs the others, and bugger the truth, they consider it a loss of faith to admit mistakes. When someone points out the truth, instead of conceding the point they reach for the slogans and propaganda. Just like the unions do.

cv

I think the media exacerbates the problem. They thrive on contention and any point conceded by Bush will be used in tedious repetition as political ammunition against the Republicans. Stirring things up means both parties will spend millions on advertising - the source of the media's income. Add to this the media is more comfortable with a Democrat in charge of the country.

Oh yes, now it's the media's fault. Can't get anyone to give a straight answer anymore, they just point the finger at someone else.

Note that Boon still refuses to answer anything that challenges his views, invoking the twin towers and jihad on the streets of New York as he skirts the issue.

Hippie leftist: It's the corporations' fault.

Conservative robot: It's the liberal media's fault.

Hippie Leftist: Bush is evil

Conservative robot: Bush is always right

Hippie leftist: It's not your fault Mr Robber, you had a bad childhood.

Conservative robot: It's not your fault Mr Bush, you had bad intelligence.

Hippies don't know any better, they're just hippies.

Conservatives however, preach individual resposibility. It's part of the core of conservative values. So why do so many conservatives refuse to admit mistakes, or take responsibility?

It's because these so-called conservatives are just like the hippies they claim to reject, as illustrated above. Making excuses, and pointing fingers.

cv

It's because these so-called conservatives are just like the hippies they claim to reject, as illustrated above. Making excuses, and pointing fingers.

cv

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Fundamentalism in any form (and I describe fundamentalism as "a point of view based upon the belief that the Whole Truth is contained in one book") is IMHO the greatest threat to civilised behaviour.

From religious fundamentalism through to political fundamentalism.

The OP is a political fundamentalist, demonstrated by his method of arguing, particularly his ignoring of all points counter to his position.

He is so blind in his fundamentalism that he unable to see the obvious: bellowing as he does from his minaret, he alienates more than he attracts.

His, is the terrorism of blind argument, that creates mind-sets capable of physical actions, that destroys the moral high ground from which he takes his standpoint.

By admirable fighting Evil - but in the manner in which he does - he is unable to see, he is piling up the soil on what is rapidly becoming the immoral high place shared by all fundamentalists.

A place from which there is only one way to go.

I believe post #375 here says it all!

I believe post #375 here says it all!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

"When the Moors invaded Southern Spain, did they do as much damage to it as the US has done to Iraq?"

Well it makes as much sense as any of your arguments.

I believe post #375 here says it all!

"When the Moors invaded Southern Spain, did they do as much damage to it as the US has done to Iraq?"

Well it makes as much sense as any of your arguments.

Tommy, Tommy, Tommy - bottom line: No major terror attacks on US soil since 9/11. Can you wrap your Ivory-Tower mind-set around that one perhaps, hmmmm?

1962.... a young Boon Mee learns to dance around the issue and avoid answering questions.

cv

Seems like y'all got your knickers in a twist because Dubya chose to take pre-emptive action in Iraq vs. waiting for the next shoe to drop.

A real Jimmy Carter appeaser way of viewing the realpolitik...

Seems like y'all got your knickers in a twist because Dubya chose to take pre-emptive action in Iraq vs. waiting for the next shoe to drop.

A real Jimmy Carter appeaser way of viewing the realpolitik...

But you said a few posts back he got bad intelligence. If that were the case, it's not pre-emptive, but a mistake.

You must be on the ropes, you've ignored all points put forth to you and started name calling. Surely you can do better than that?

cv

Boon Mee and the Islamic terrorists both believe that the bad guys should be killed. Boon Mee and the Islamic terrorists are willing to die for what they believe to be right. Boon Mee and the Islamic terrorists believe that the other one is morally bankrupt. Boon Mee and the Islamic terrorists believe in high ideals and direct action. Boon Mee and the Islamic terrorists both will do whatever they think is legitimate action to defeat the other.

Boon Mee and the Islamic terrorists are the salt of the earth!!!!

Tommy, Tommy, Tommy - bottom line:  No major terror attacks on US soil since 9/11.  Can you wrap your Ivory-Tower mind-set around that one perhaps, hmmmm?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Facts:

- 1993 First attack on the WTC

- 2001 Second attack on the WTC

No attack under Clinton watch. Does this mean that 2001 never happened ?

Do you actually understand the facts above or do I need to spell it out for you ? or are you going to run and duck ?

Tommy, Tommy, Tommy - bottom line:  No major terror attacks on US soil since 9/11.  Can you wrap your Ivory-Tower mind-set around that one perhaps, hmmmm?

Facts:

- 1993 First attack on the WTC

- 2001 Second attack on the WTC

No attack under Clinton watch. Does this mean that 2001 never happened ?

Do you actually understand the facts above or do I need to spell it out for you ? or are you going to run and duck ?

Uhh....what color is the sky on the world you're living on there, B-Fly?

We're talking about 9/11 - 2001...OK?

No attack on US soil since? Comprende?

Here there be moonbats:

World Can’t Wait | Drive Out the Bush Regime.

Tommy, Tommy, Tommy - bottom line:  No major terror attacks on US soil since 9/11.  Can you wrap your Ivory-Tower mind-set around that one perhaps, hmmmm?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Facts:

- 1993 First attack on the WTC

- 2001 Second attack on the WTC

No attack under Clinton watch. Does this mean that 2001 never happened ?

Do you actually understand the facts above or do I need to spell it out for you ? or are you going to run and duck ?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Uhh....what color is the sky on the world you're living on there, B-Fly?

We're talking about 9/11 - 2001...OK?

No attack on US soil since? Comprende?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If there were any doubt that you couldn't count up to 10, your post above has removed that doubt

Tommy, Tommy, Tommy - bottom line:  No major terror attacks on US soil since 9/11.  Can you wrap your Ivory-Tower mind-set around that one perhaps, hmmmm?

Facts:

- 1993 First attack on the WTC

- 2001 Second attack on the WTC

No attack under Clinton watch. Does this mean that 2001 never happened ?

Do you actually understand the facts above or do I need to spell it out for you ? or are you going to run and duck ?

Uhh....what color is the sky on the world you're living on there, B-Fly?

We're talking about 9/11 - 2001...OK?

No attack on US soil since? Comprende?

If there were any doubt that you couldn't count up to 10, your post above has removed that doubt

It's like trying to herd cats - I swear...

It's like trying to herd cats - I swear...

Getting you to answer direct questions? Yes it is....

cv

I believe post #375 here says it all!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

"When the Moors invaded Southern Spain, did they do as much damage to it as the US has done to Iraq?"

Well it makes as much sense as any of your arguments.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Tommy, Tommy, Tommy - bottom line: ....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ooh, Boony, Bony Mee, you do sound so Rock Hudsen, when you talk like this.

Revision Thing

A history of the Iraq war, told entirely in lies

Posted on Monday, November 7, 2005. All text is verbatim from senior Bush Administration officials and advisers. In places, tenses have been changed for clarity. Originally from Harper's Magazine, October 2003. By Sam Smith.

Once again, we were defending both ourselves and the safety and survival of civilization itself. September 11 signaled the arrival of an entirely different era. We faced perils we had never thought about, perils we had never seen before. For decades, terrorists had waged war against this country. Now, under the leadership of President Bush, America would wage war against them. It was a struggle between good and it was a struggle between evil.

It was absolutely clear that the number-one threat facing America was from Saddam Hussein. We know that Iraq and Al Qaeda had high-level contacts that went back a decade. We learned that Iraq had trained Al Qaeda members in bomb making and deadly gases. The regime had long-standing and continuing ties to terrorist organizations. Iraq and Al Qaeda had discussed safe-haven opportunities in Iraq. Iraqi officials denied accusations of ties with Al Qaeda. These denials simply were not credible. You couldn't distinguish between Al Qaeda and Saddam when you talked about the war on terror.

The fundamental question was, did Saddam Hussein have a weapons program? And the answer was, absolutely. His regime had large, unaccounted-for stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons--including VX, sarin, cyclosarin, and mustard gas, anthrax, botulism, and possibly smallpox. Our conservative estimate was that Iraq then had a stockpile of between 100 and 500 tons of chemical-weapons agent. That was enough agent to fill 16,000 battlefield rockets. We had sources that told us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons--the very weapons the dictator told the world he did not have. And according to the British government, the Iraqi regime could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as forty-five minutes after the orders were given. There could be no doubt that Saddam Hussein had biological weapons and the capability to rapidly produce more, many more.

Iraq possessed ballistic missiles with a likely range of hundreds of miles--far enough to strike Saudi Arabia, Israel, Turkey, and other nations. We also discovered through intelligence that Iraq had a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We were concerned that Iraq was exploring ways of using UAVs for missions targeting the United States.

* * *

Saddam Hussein was determined to get his hands on a nuclear bomb. We knew he'd been absolutely devoted to trying to acquire nuclear weapons, and we believed he had, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons. The British government learned that Saddam Hussein had recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources told us that he had attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear-weapons production. When the inspectors first went into Iraq and were denied-finally denied access, a report came out of the [international Atomic Energy Agency] that they were six months away from developing a weapon. I didn't know what more evidence we needed.

Facing clear evidence of peril, we could not wait for the final proof that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud. The Iraqi dictator could not be permitted to threaten America and the world with horrible poisons and diseases and gases and atomic weapons. Inspections would not work. We gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in. The burden was on those people who thought he didn't have weapons of mass destruction to tell the world where they were.

We waged a war to save civilization itself. We did not seek it, but we fought it, and we prevailed. We fought them and imposed our will on them and we captured or, if necessary, killed them until we had imposed law and order. The Iraqi people were well on their way to freedom. The scenes of free Iraqis celebrating in the streets, riding American tanks, tearing down the statues of Saddam Hussein in the center of Baghdad were breathtaking. Watching them, one could not help but think of the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of the Iron Curtain.

It was entirely possible that in Iraq you had the most pro-American population that could be found anywhere in the Arab world. If you were looking for a historical analogy, it was probably closer to post-liberation France. We had the overwhelming support of the Iraqi people. Once we won, we got great support from everywhere.

The people of Iraq knew that every effort was made to spare innocent life, and to help Iraq recover from three decades of totalitarian rule. And plans were in place to provide Iraqis with massive amounts of food, as well as medicine and other essential supplies. The U.S. devoted unprecedented attention to humanitarian relief and the prevention of excessive damage to infrastructure and to unnecessary casualties.

The United States approached its postwar work with a two-part resolve: a commitment to stay and a commitment to leave. The United States had no intention of determining the precise form of Iraq's new government. That choice belonged to the Iraqi people. We have never been a colonial power. We do not leave behind occupying armies. We leave behind constitutions and parliaments. We don't take our force and go around the world and try to take other people's real estate or other people's resources, their oil. We never have and we never will.

The United States was not interested in the oil in that region. We were intent on ensuring that Iraq's oil resources remained under national Iraqi control, with the proceeds made available to support Iraqis in all parts of the country. The oil fields belonged to the people of Iraq, the government of Iraq, all of Iraq. We estimated that the potential income to the Iraqi people as a result of their oil could be somewhere in the $20 [billion] to $30 billion a year [range], and obviously, that would be money that would be used for their well-being. In other words, all of Iraq's oil belonged to all the people of Iraq.

* * *

We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories. And we found more weapons as time went on. I never believed that we'd just tumble over weapons of mass destruction in that country. But for those who said we hadn't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they were wrong, we found them. We knew where they were.

We changed the regime of Iraq for the good of the Iraqi people. We didn't want to occupy Iraq. War is a terrible thing. We've tried every other means to achieve objectives without a war because we understood what the price of a war can be and what it is. We sought peace. We strove for peace. Nobody, but nobody, was more reluctant to go to war than President Bush.

It is not right to assume that any current problems in Iraq can be attributed to poor planning. The number of U.S. forces in the Persian Gulf region dropped as a result of Operation Iraqi Freedom. This nation acted to a threat from the dictator of Iraq. There is a lot of revisionist history now going on, but one thing is certain--he is no longer a threat to the free world, and the people of Iraq are free. There's no doubt in my mind when it's all said and done, the facts will show the world the truth. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind.

Revisionist History explained here and here. .

Back to you...

Important information from the US Ministry of Homeland Security

Revisionist History explained here and here. .

Back to you...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

"In a speech earlier today, President Bush said his opponents are rewriting the pages of American history. You know what makes him really mad? They're using big words."

--Conan O'Brien

Revisionist History explained here and here. .

Back to you...

"In a speech earlier today, President Bush said his opponents are rewriting the pages of American history. You know what makes him really mad? They're using big words."

--Conan O'Brien

Ah...joke thread there, Tommy...?

Revisionist History explained here and here. .

Back to you...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

"In a speech earlier today, President Bush said his opponents are rewriting the pages of American history. You know what makes him really mad? They're using big words."

--Conan O'Brien

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ah...joke thread there, Tommy...?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I am under the impression that everything you post is one big joke.

Often lacking in humour, but funny all the same.

Revisionist History explained here and here. .

Back to you...

"In a speech earlier today, President Bush said his opponents are rewriting the pages of American history. You know what makes him really mad? They're using big words."

--Conan O'Brien

Ah...joke thread there, Tommy...?

I am under the impression that everything you post is one big joke.

Often lacking in humour, but funny all the same.

This is no joke...

Revisionist History explained here and here. .

Back to you...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

"In a speech earlier today, President Bush said his opponents are rewriting the pages of American history. You know what makes him really mad? They're using big words."

--Conan O'Brien

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ah...joke thread there, Tommy...?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I am under the impression that everything you post is one big joke.

Often lacking in humour, but funny all the same.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This is no joke...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Are you claiming this is Historical Revisionism? The journalist spelt Bush incorrectly?

Lots of folks including Richard Clarke worried that Osama would boogie to Baghdad" if we invaded Afghanistan. "Clarke’s opinion was based on intelligence indicating a number of contacts between al Qaeda and Iraq, including word that Saddam had offered bin Laden safe haven."

Of course we new that Osama would "boogie to Baghdad"! Back in 1999, CNN reported that Saddam granted Osama bin Laden asylum.

This AP story in CNN is right: "Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has offered asylum to bin Laden, who openly supports Iraq against the Western powers."

We don't know how much this matters now, except as a reminder that the revisionist Saddam-and-Al-Qaeda-in-alliance claim isn't exactly supported by the history.