Thank you Americans

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Stev0 @ Nov 15 2006, 11:01 AM) [snapback]349447[/snapback]</div>

Right on! People like Doberman, daronspritcher, and Mystery Squid simple DO NOT GET IT. They DO NOT GET that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Iraq DID NOT attack us. IRAQ was not a threat to us. Yet they eternally equate the war in Iraq with defending us, when in fact it is nothing of the sort. The war in Iraq has significantly weaken America's position, and significantly weaken our ability to defend ourselves. This is obvious to most people in US now, and was obvious to most of the rest of the world a long time ago.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Stev0 @ Nov 15 2006, 10:01 AM) [snapback]349447[/snapback]</div>

Seriously, now that you are the party in control what do you want done with Iraq and the war on terror?

Enough of the psychobabble - real time now - your words are now being translated into action. What's you plan of action??

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(kingofgix @ Nov 15 2006, 12:17 PM) [snapback]349462[/snapback]</div>

See, this is where your logic fails miserably, anyone who thinks like this really needs to go one step further...

AFGHANISTAN had NOTHING to do with 9/11 on 9/10 EITHER!!!

Would you have agreed to an invasion of Afghanistan a year before 9/11?

So let's see, let's just sit around, wait for a terrorist attack, and THEN respond. Oh yeah that's right, there's also this thing called "proof". Generally, we wait for planes to start hitting buildings, at least, that way we have absolute proof (unless, of couse, you're jared and part of the conspiracy contingency).

The only reason America's position has been weakend is because of lemmings like you who cave in when the going gets tough, which, by the way, was emphasized by Bush from DAY ONE it wasn't going to be short, nor easy. Everyday we contemplate Iraq as a failure gives leverage to every insurgent/terrorist operating around the world. It sends a message to them that's loud and clear: The more vicious, audacious, bold, tactics they can come up with, the better, as it scares "Americans"/Europeans like you into submission. The more they win, the more pressure they put, the more we contemplate pull out, is EXACTLY what they want.

So don't blame Bush for putting our troops in harms way, blame folks like yourself whose collective viewpoint is ultimately responsible for putting a few more IED's out there, as the pressure they're putting on the infidels is working out just like they wanted...

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Nov 15 2006, 11:23 AM) [snapback]349467[/snapback]</div>

Enough of your psychobabble...

Bush drove the bus off the cliff. There isn't a good plan of action now because Bush screwed things up so bad. I don't think it matters who you hand the steering wheel to now becuase its too late. It was too late the day we invaded Iraq....

But like I said, you don't get it.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(kingofgix @ Nov 15 2006, 09:44 AM) [snapback]349483[/snapback]</div>

I'm going to have to tell you... I've considered this as a solution, thought it through, and this plan of action doesn't solve a thing.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daronspicher @ Nov 15 2006, 10:50 AM) [snapback]349485[/snapback]</div>

Defeatists surround us. I guess they would have given up after Pearl Harbor or when the White House was sacked or the early losses at the hands of the Brits in NYC and Long Island, etc etc. In fact they sound kind of French to me :lol: They is not a battle they have not surrendered for and will not to in the future

Why do they even fight in the politcal arena

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Nov 15 2006, 09:56 AM) [snapback]349491[/snapback]</div>

Seems to me, the only thing they will stand up and fight for is the concept of not standing up to fight.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mystery Squid @ Nov 15 2006, 11:38 AM) [snapback]349479[/snapback]</div>

Well, thanks for making my point. You honestly believe that?! Wow, where have you been? The difference between Iraq and Afghanistan is profound, and you have made it abundantly clear that YOU DO NOT GET IT.

Given the degree to which the above is true, the rest of post doesn't even warrant a response.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(kingofgix @ Nov 15 2006, 07:17 AM) [snapback]349462[/snapback]</div>

It's not that they don't get it. It's that they don't care. The national security mentality needs someone to fear, and needs to lash out. It does not matter who you lash out at, just so long as you are dropping bombs on someone.

Bush has solved a very serious problem for the national security fear-mongers: For decades they had the Soviet Union as the perfect enemy: A big, strong country with a big military, who could be easily portrayed as a fierce, threatening giant. But with the fall of the USSR there was no longer a boogeyman out there with which to frighten the voters. They thought the USSR would never go away and they could keep the nation in a constant state of obscene military spending forever.

When the USSR collapsed they needed to invent a new enemy, and Bush has transformed the tragic events of 9/11 into the perfect opportunity. His "war on terror" can never end because terror is not a country you can defeat, it's a tactic used by small groups who don't have airplanes (though it's used by governments, including ours, far more and to greater effect). As long as one crackpot plants a bomb anywhere in the world, the fear-mongers can terrify the voters into supporting the obscene military spending, and the assaunt on civil rights, in the name of the "war" effort.

Never mind that drunk drivers and second-hand smoke and poverty and fast food and a thousand other things that the government could actually do something about kill more people every month than "terrorists" have killed in a decade. Terrorism can be manipulated to promote public fear.

And people like Daron and Berman feed their xenophobic hatred on fear. (I don't include the Squid because when he's off his meds he just likes to rant, and doesn't care what he rants about.)

So in the end, when you try to explain that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, that it no longer had any WMDs, or that those it once had came from the U.S. government, or that the war is counter-productive, making further terrorism more likely rather than less likely, and making the U.S. less safe rather than more safe, when you try to explain all these things, you are talking past them, because they simply do not care. They just need to know that American soldiers are out there killing somebody, and it does not matter who.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Nov 14 2006, 11:44 AM) [snapback]348742[/snapback]</div>

Are you including the Palestinian children in Gaza and the West Bank - both UN run? I guess the UN sanctions children suicide bombers :lol: How bout those kids in Darfur :lol: :lol: And lets not forget those Iraqi children when Saddam was in power :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Wonders for health of poor countries - Gates has done more with less in a shorter time frame.

You can bow at the alter of the UN and Kofi "food for oil" - I done watched da genocides" Annan - I choose to see reality for what it is.

Tell me how did the UN eradicate smallpox?

So if the UN told us to bomb the living crap out of South Korea you would follow suit?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Nov 15 2006, 11:56 AM) [snapback]349491[/snapback]</div>

You have no idea what you are talking about, but your babbling is revealing. It reveals the difference between people like you and people like me. We both believe in fighting the "war on terror". The difference is, I believe in fighting it smartly and you believe in fighting it blindly.

It appears that to you, any fight is a good fight. Any war against "Middle eastern" people is a good one. That is foolish and blind.

The war in Afghanistan was necessary because Afghanistan directly supported and harboured those who attacked us. The war in Iraq is wrong because Iraq did none of those things and (with the exception of cases like Afghanistan), we cannot fight the "war on terror" in conventional ways. We cannot view it as a war of nation vs. nation because it isn't one. That is what you DON'T GET. You don't understand that we don't just need to fight, we need to fight smart, and the war in Iraq is not smart.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Nov 15 2006, 12:23 PM) [snapback]349510[/snapback]</div>

And here is someone who DOES GET IT. Thanks Daniel, for your intelligent (as usual) and insightful comments.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(kingofgix @ Nov 15 2006, 11:40 AM) [snapback]349516[/snapback]</div>

You put words in my mouth re: "middle eastern people" - if it happens to be that Islamofascists are behind bad stuff than so be - but do not generalize for me.

Your concept of Iraq is what it is - so be it.

If your "fighting smart" includes allowing Iran to develop nuclear weapons then i directly question the intelligence of that decision. At least we agree we should fight. I do not want to get "bit** slapped again - you do not care if we do.

Fact: it is just a matter of how many Americans will die before we take this conflict seriously. My way will minimize that #, with you, that number can be a 7 digit figure - you figure out which way is smarter.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Nov 15 2006, 11:27 AM) [snapback]349513[/snapback]</div>

The World Health Organization is an agency of the UN. The following is from Wikipedia:

So, yeah. The UN gets that credit. Their agency, their success.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Nov 15 2006, 11:45 AM) [snapback]349522[/snapback]</div>

Goodness knows you'd never generalize someone or make assumptions based on their postings.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Nov 15 2006, 11:23 AM) [snapback]349510[/snapback]</div>

I think that they DO care - if we break it down to a 'them' and 'us' scenario, be BOTH want to fight terrorism/make our nation more secure/<choose your own words to express the sentiment>.

A MAJOR difference between THEM and US one of faith in US government leadership.. "THEM" have faith that the leadership will be motivated by a moral conscience; "US" are skeptical about such faith and suspect that base 'wants' like 'greed' often get in the way of acting 'for the common good'.

Personally, I'm a skeptical member of the "US" group, having lived through the Viet Nam War times of the 60's and the 70's here in the US.

Personally, as much as I disliked Lyndon Johnson, I believe he truly believed that we had to fight communism to prevent the collapse of civilization via the 'domino effect', and that he was doing this for the common good, and that he wasn't motivated by something like 'greed'. He did, however, remain adamant about his position on Viet Nam despite what his advisors told him - listening to his advisors and changing his actions would be a 'loss of face'.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Nov 15 2006, 11:23 AM) [snapback]349510[/snapback]</div>

Daniel's right.

Seems to me that people who are afraid are much more easy to manipulate, because they're not thinking logically.

We can never defeat terrorism. And, since we've got *lots* of targets and value freedom of movement within our own country especially, the only thing to do is move past 'national security mentality,' as was suggested above.

I mean, I dropped my umbrella on the BART tracks by accident and probably delayed hundreds if not thousands of people...just think if a bunch of disgruntled people purchased clunker cars, drove them into key areas during commute hours, and then flipped a switch under the dash so they'd conk out in the middle of traffic. What a mess that would be; how infuriating to all of us..and how difficult to prevent.

We're extremely vulnerable to this sort of micro-attack.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Pinto Girl @ Nov 15 2006, 01:32 PM) [snapback]349592[/snapback]</div>

Another brillian post! I am grateful you were never president because slavery, nazism, Japanese imperialism, etc, etc, etc, etc, would still be going strong. And to the hell with all the Americans that get nuked when you allow Iran to develop nuclear weapons - JEEEEEEZ

And a great comparison to boot - how do you do it? How can you really compare terrorism and the potential deaths of MILLIONS to a interupted train trip to your destination. At least you get there ALIVE! What a mess that would be - OMG - just imagine the mess a nuclear device makes when it goes off :lol: That might even interupt your precious traffic conditions. Again, JJEEEEEEEEZZZZZ

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Nov 15 2006, 01:45 PM) [snapback]349606[/snapback]</div>

Wow, thank you so much; this means a lot coming from you.

Oh, wait, I've taken your remarks out of context...funny how it changes the meaning, eh?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Nov 15 2006, 08:27 AM) [snapback]349513[/snapback]</div>

Berman, you sick psycho, what is it you find so laughable about the children in all these countries and Darfur? Seven happy faces to commemorate these tragedies! What do you see so side-splitting that makes you utter your vile "Hah Hahs?" Is the genocide in Darfur funnier than Auschwitz? If anybody found anything the least amusing about Hitler or the holocaust, you'd scream for a week and you'd be right. In the face of tragedy, you bow your head and cry, not go for a belly-laugh. Were you raised by wolves?

By the way, this IS a personal attack and if anybody wants to throw me off it's fine with me. I'll wear any censure with pride. Enough of his unchecked hatred for anybody not like him! He is the Pustule of PriusChat.

 

It's comments like that which will get dberman stuck in Iraq.

When I read it, I wasn't trying to get offended, and so it naturally was a comment ribbing on the prior poster who was stating how great the UN was for solving the problems of the world, including child related issues.

I'll add to this how unchecked child trafficing has become in the last 10 years or more under the UN. No smilies here...

You won't get banned for lashing out at dberman, probably just end up with an ACLU card or something from the liberal centerline here at PC.

 

It's comments like that which will get dberman stuck in Iraq.

When I read it, I wasn't trying to get offended, and so it naturally was a comment ribbing on the prior poster who was stating how great the UN was for solving the problems of the world, including child related issues.

I'll add to this how unchecked child trafficing has become in the last 10 years or more under the UN. No smilies here...

You won't get banned for lashing out at dberman, probably just end up with an ACLU card or something from the liberal centerline here at PC.