Bush vs Kerry Debate 1, who won?

My, my Wes. You seem like a sharp guy - and one of my careers is being a pro nerd as well. But you seem like an angry, angry boy. I'm sure that its rare indeed that anybody else lives up to 1/100th of your self-image.

You'd perhaps be suprised at the accomplishments of some of those who consider beneath you. But, you know - to each their own. Being a legend in your own mind isn't all of a bad thing!

Good luck stud!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

A psychiatrist could find a 'mental illness' in any person you put in front of him. I have the same attitude towards it as a discipline as Tony Soprano.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

my,my the things I find when I search my objectivist websites feast your eyes on this article Wes..
http://capmag.com/article.asp?ID=3647

Godless.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No, but I think to publicly decry those particular accusations during wartime is incredibly dangerous to the people who are stuck there. The main problem is that the people in charge had a different perspective and your criticism as a leader of an organization, coupled with the propensity of the media to play to the throng, gives the enemy, who is at the time of your public display trying to kill your brethren - the best reason to fight them with more fury than ever before. Your objections don't do much to change the minds of people with power eh? They might get them voted out of office, but they get GIs killed and certainly don't do anything to resolve the problem you put such high priority on. By the time the next guy gets in to attempt to resolve the situation, how many lives have been lost due to your insolence? That lives were lost in the first place for reasons you presume so valid does not at all justify your adding to the problem. Further, how many 23 year old kids do you think presume valid reasons? Perhaps he's just a stupid fuck of an idealistic kid who doesn't know his ass from the hole in the mekong delta, spouting off in altruism - taking lives with your pathetic vanity. That's what I see in John Kerry. Pure vanity.

I'm not discussing the validity of the war, I'm discussing the behavior of asshats who get people killed with their vanity.

Which was bullshit. They could have won easily, they simply lacked the political will to do so.

I think you are probably responsible enough to consider the ramifications of your actions? Unless you're willing to take up a coup, then shut the fuck up about it if you're in any position of influence. You can talk whatever you like privately, but when you empower the enemy even in an unjust war, you just screwed up IMO.

Maybe that's true. The same might be true of Iraq. The outcome is a long way off.

To me it's the difference between not realizing that guy might hurt you, and him having hurt you once. After the first big happening, the possible outcomes become somewhat more accute.

Are you contending that Iraq doesn't satisfy that criteria? Obviously to me it was perceived as such, or it most likely wouldn't be happening.

Value is dynamic. It's pretty plain to see. I have a hard time believing that is a realistic consideration in geopolitics. Everyone is mandated to protect their people. Times change, alliances follow. That's pretty plain to see for any nation.

I think international outrage is pretty much for political gain in the respective countries. The people don't get it. Their governments could swing the folks our way but it's to their political advantage not to. End of story.

Then I think you presume poorly. You're saying they're consumed by corruption. It's possible that you're right, but I think these people take their obligations seriously for the most part. Certainly there are perks, but this is about the survival of our country. Without incredibly strong evidence, I think your assertion is that they are motivated only by corruption, and as such - fallacious. I might agree if there were dire consequences for them having not invaded, but I don't at all see any evidence that this was done "for kicks". It took me a while to get over my disgust for the man, but I realized eventually that I blamed him for his privelage. I faulted him for it. It's not his fault. In fact though I didn't like to think of it, his family uniquely qualifies him as president, as he has been around this stuff his entire life. I read the president as sincere.

Wise of him. Unwise of us not to finish the job at the time. A reasonable decision I think, given political pressures etc.... but look where it got us?

Because they got to us and 12 years later he's still dicking us around through the UN.

Sure, but one thing is that then it was troops and we didn't have 9/11. We hadn't really taken the possibility of attack on America by foreigners, inside our borders was really, really serious. Even after the first trade center attack it was kind of like "ah but look, they can't really cause serious damage. Looks like we were wrong. Time to wake up.

 

Your ill-informed, amature psycho-analysis is irrelevant. Calling a guy an arrogant asshole and weeping for your children from his comments, and then pretending it's me with the problem is straight weak. The fact is you have shit to stand on besides your disgust for W and "I know more than everyone else but you think you know more than everyone else". You have nothing added nothing substinative whatsoever to this conversation and yet have the gaul to analyze me. At the moment, I'm indeed annoyed with the indignance you present, with your pathetic superiority and your oh-so-typical of sciforums inability to add a fucking coherent thought to a conversation. I'm further annoyed at you sorry fucking haters calling everyone a hater. It's SO goddamned exhausting. You haven't really considered a word I've said. You are smug in your presumption. You are an asshat. Wake up and use your fucking brain. If you have a valid argument that counters mine, I'm definately interested. I loath war and death, but it seems to me that apparently, survival sometimes requires it.

Please demonstrate where I've implied someone is beneath me. I've noticed you doing it a number of times. I've noticed that people who have problems generally project them onto people they disagree with such that they are the problem. Take a look in the mirror pal. Would you want your kids to act like you're acting?

Look at what you just said. You accuse me of shit you have in no way supported. Good troll.

You claim to be an adult? You talk like a child.

 

Vietnam didn't exist in a vacuum. Our leaders had to keep in mind the proximity of China, and the lessons of Korea.

After saving the day with his landing at Inchon, MacArthur routed the north Koreans, and had made it all of the way to Korea's northern border on China. Then China joined the hostilities directly in October 1950. 200,000 Chinese troops boiled over the border and engaged 20,000 U.N. troops, mostly American. The fighting that followed was some of the fiercest in history.
Read an interview with one of the "Chosin Few".

The war lasted until 1953, with the border between north and south roughly where it had been before hostilities.

The North Vietnamese were generally communists. But foremost, they were nationalists, and saw the battle as just one more fight against a colonial occupying power. The only way to defeat the Viet Cong would have been to invade and defeat North Vietnam, and that would almost certainly drawn China into the fray directly.

Have you ever wondered why the Chinese and the Soviets only had to provide military supplies, while we actually had to do the fighting for our South Vietnamese allies? Could it be because the leaders of South Vietnam were corrupt puppets who had very little popular support?

Sure we could have prevailed in the Vietnam conflict if we had been willing to kill most of the Vietnamese. But that would have been a little counterproductive to our pretense for being there wouldn't it?

We managed to put a pretty good dent in their population as it was.

http://www.rjsmith.com/kia_tbl.html

What does their persistance in the face of such massive casualties tell you?

Nationalism is a funny thing. It paralyses peoples ability to think critically, and leads people to kill and die for trivial things.

Sure, the Iraqis and the M.E. in general would be better off if they would stop fighting and accept our help. But apparently they don't see it that way, and there is no good reason to believe that our continued slaughter will bring them around.

 

Good points, RM. Further, it is those who advocate "supporting the troops" by stifling political movement toward withdrawal from an ill-begotten and unwinnable war who are the ones getting our troops (not to mention foreign civilians) needlessly and shamefully killed.

Often these same voices chanting "support the troops" and "don't dishonor our troops" repeat without specific elaboration that we could have won in Vietnam, if only we had "done the job right", invoking the "glory" of raining down even more destruction and misery on Vietnam than we did. Those with the same callous and dark outlook fail to realize how unprovoked violence on such a horrendous scale indelibly stigmatizes the military defenders of the United States. The deepest and most lasting way to dishonor loyal soldiers of the highest moral standards is to hoodwink the nation into an immoral and unjustified war, and then justify a gradual increase in brutality, and the sullying of our moral authority, by the simplistic rationale that with "we can't lose" or "we must not lose".

But we do. We lose whenever we inject inadequate forces where they are clearly despised as deceiving, uninvited occupiers. Sufficient force to end resistance in such a case must resemble Nazi Blitzkrieg and Nazi repression in scale and tactics. At the same time, such a massive and brutal use of force must have the support of an inexorably integrating world, in order to endure beyond intervention and occupation. Just as a Soviet Union with a "human face" was unworkable, naked American imperialism with a saccarin coating is impossible to assemble or maintain in the contemporary geopolitical context. In this information age the scale and spectacle of killing now required for restructuring the Mideast by alien force far exceeds what the United States can politically and logistically escalate sustain. Americans can't handle becoming that brutal, and our economy can't handle the international repercussions of becoming that brutal.

As a result, US forces will certainly leave Iraq in bitter disgrace. The depth of that disgrace, and the extent of our losses, depends solely on the political endurance of the popular mindset Wesmorris expresses. Support the troops: Fight this deadly ignorance.

 

You think this is about nationalism?

Wartime is different than not-wartime. When a war is on, nationalism is proper such as to minimize the loss of friendly lives. When a war is over, it's time to reject the asshats who started it if you don't like them. Blind nationalism is dangerous, nationalism during wartime is necessary to the survival of the folks at risk in our name - even if you don't agree with those who put them there. Hell it's not even necessarily nationalism, just shut up about your problems with the administration until our troops are out of the way. If you want to bring up your problems with them, don't LIE, don't EXAGGERATE, don't politicize the bullshit to where they die for your ideology. Of course you people don't seem to give a shit.

To paint me as some sort of retarded nationalist is at best, a mischaracterization. I realize feeble minds like that of Hype's have little recourse to latch onto soundbites like that, but I would expect someone with a brain to consider the weight of my words. I have seen jack shit refuted by anyone here. In fact it seems like those who've taken issue with my points here are interested for the reasons people attend executions. You certainly aren't listening. You're certainly smug in your presumption... so confident in fact, that you completely ignore a very rational, heartfelt presentation of opinion that contradicts your own.

You are a shameful pack of jackals.

 

I've read everything you've written in this thread. It hasn't changed my mind, and evidently I haven't changed yours. So be it.

I disagree with you on issues. If you choose to view that disagreement as a personal attack, there is nothing I can do about that.

Yes, this is about nationalism. The U.S. has experienced a sickening upsurge of it since 9/11. There is nothing like having your country attacked by a foreign power to cause an upsurge of nationalism. That is also true of other countries, like Iraq as a for instance.

Collective fear stimulates herd instinct, and tends to produce ferocity toward those who are not regarded as members of the herd. So it was in the French Revolution, when dread of foreign armies produced the reign of terror. And it is to be feared that the Nazis, as defeat draws nearer, will increase the intensity of their campaign for exterminating Jews. Fear generates impulses of cruelty, and therefore promotes such superstitious beliefs as seem to justify cruelty.Neither a man nor a crowd nor a nation can be trusted to act humanely or to think sanely under the influence of a great fear. And for this reason poltroons are more prone to cruelty than brave men, and are also more prone to superstition. When I say this, I am thinking of men who are brave in all respects, not only in facing death. Many a man will have the courage to die gallantly, but will not have the courage to say, or even to think, that the cause for which he is asked to die is an unworthy one. Obloquy is, to most men, more painful than death; that is one reason why, in times of collective excitement, so few men venture to dissent from the prevailing opinion. No Carthaginian denied Moloch, because to do so would have required more courage than was required- to face death in battle. -Bertrand Russell, from An Outline of Intellectual Rubbish

http://www.luminary.us/russell/intellectual_rubbish.html

 

A sneak peek at Bush's debate notes:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

http://www.thetalentshow.org/archives/001296.html

 

I'm cool with that.

You're an eloquent fellow, I want to understand why you think it's okay to get guys killed because of your problem with the government (not you, but fellas like Kerry). Especially considering that in trying to stop it, you get more guys killed than you would have for leaving your trap shut. It's like Bush poorly stated, how do you ask guys to fight for a cause you have said is hopeless? How do you call yourself capable of being the commander in chief when you spend your entire campaign for the job bolstering the mindset of those who would kill our troops? It's a long term design to give the Iraqis a stable, free government. We're not there to kill Iraqis, but we have to if they try to kill us.

Perhaps I misinterpreted, but it seemed to me that you'd already done that by your direct implication that I'm basicaly a drone. I find that insulting but perhaps that wasn't your intention.

As I mentioned, that's perfectly appropriate for the circumstances. I ask you now, why isn't it?

But I'm not talking about the herd. I'm talking about the issues. More specifically, those that can direct the herd. The herd does what it does. I don't ever expect them to necessarily think rationally. Few people always think rationally. I'm attempting to here, and the herd is insignificant to my point as I see it.

Soldiers do not have that option, they are sworn to duty. I have no problem with you if you think this is the wrong war at the wrong time, it's simply that influential pronouncements of such at this time, are maybe the right or wrong pronouncements at the wrong time. The fact remains, there is no telling the outcome at this point.

There is no "prevailing opinion" in the Iraq issue. The nation is split. Further, I don't think that has anything to do with the issue of whether or not minimizing dissent during a war is appropriate. It IS appropriate from my perspective to do so rather, when our troops are in harm's way rather than "during war". IMO, this isn't really a war at this point, it's an occupation that should end in a few years when the Iraqi government is stabalized to the point of being able to defend itself. Right now, it could be viewed as a "puppet government" but that is a short-term view. We had to get the ball rolling somehow. They are only "puppets" due to their dependency on us to stabalize them.

Interesting stuff, but IMO a soldier is bound by his oath. Thus his intellectual leanings are displaced during the time of that oath.

 

Source: New York Times
Link: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/04/opinion/04safire.html
Title: "Kerry, Newest Neocon"
Date: October 4, 2004

New York Times columnist William Safire sounds off in the wake of last week's debate:

Comment:

Mr. Safire plays the simplification game: an anti-war candidate should not have ideas regarding the very real war he proposes his election into the middle of.

This kind of backward thinking from conservatives reveals the depths of their shock in the wake of the Kerry-Bush debate in Florida; it seems as if their entire campaign has been blown asunder by yet another storm in the Sunshine State.

As the reverberations echo through conservative camps, the nearest strategy at hand is paradoxical: demonize John Kerry by casting him as what his supporters most despise, a neoconservative.

Throughout this presidential campaign cycle, Republicans and pundits have played an interesting game wherein only the most superficial elements of the social discourse are acknowledged. Indeed, the cheap ideology of the conservative political campaign has been one to present life in two dimensions: flat and static, an intellectual still-life affixed in the age of dinosaurs. Safire presents his case:

Such a simplistic view of either the candidate or the war does a great disservice to the human costs already inflicted, and still promised to come, in Iraq. Just as President Bush, in pressing his criticisms of Kerry's "mixed messages", sought to simplify the issue in order to simplify the necessity of response, so has Mr. Safire forgotten a simple difference in his criticisms of Kerry as an anti-war candidate. Bush asked how a commander-in-chief could say "Wrong war, wrong place, wrong time" and still expect to lead. Well, perhaps that's a consideration if you're the president that sent the troops, but how the idea of "wrong war" plays will be measured in large part by the votes of the troops themselves, and also the votes of the people who pay them.

Simplification is a running conservative theme. Will our service members hold Kerry's defense votes against him? It depends on whether they accept the simplification--that Kerry voted thirteen times against vital defense programs--or have the time to think about the history that shows the majority of those votes came in one shot against an appropriations package put together by the first Bush administration that was widely criticized for reducing military readiness. In other words, will they fault Kerry for voting against a budget perceived as harmful to the military?

If John Kerry is elected, the war in Iraq that President Bush started will not go away. Pretending otherwise is foolish, though seemingly no more wise is Mr. Safire's working presumption that acknowledging reality is a neoconservative trait.

If being prepared to wipe out criminal elements makes Kerry more hawkish then Bush, well, paint me pink and call me surprised. If addressing the reality of what is already happening--as Kerry, a presidential candidate and U.S. Senator necessarily must--is an identifying trait of neoconservatism, we wouldn't be in Iraq as we are right now. Safire's criticism is self-defeating upon historical reflection.

Mr. Safire questions Kerry's "Strangelovian" position on pre-emption; do we pretend that falsely-founded, provocative "pre-emption" is the only pre-emption available? We must, if Kerry's position is to seem "Strangelovian".

Mr. Safire seems to forget Korea, Vietnam, and a number of "preventive" actions in Central America; how convenient, since he has also chosen to narrow to "nuclear" pre-emption specifically in order to justify his historical apathy.

And as conservatives deride the idea of a "global test", we must pause to think of those who, in the past, did not pass the "global test". Of course, it's considered "hate speech", or a violation of Godwin's law, to pause and consider history.

Safire pins his desperation, in the end, on his lapel for all to see:

Kerry has abandoned nothing: only if we pretend that war is so simple that an anti-war candidate should have no opinion on how to get the nation through a war he didn't start but is asking to be elected into the middle of can Kerry be seen to be abandoning anything by acknowledging reality.

Mr. Safire seems insecure with the idea that the people would hold Kerry accountable for his handling of the war should he be elected. And he knows his rendering of the war is simplistic and depends on the existence of historical ignorance amid the masses or a general malaise of apathy toward history: only if we don't pay attention to the lessons of the past do we fail to meet the challenges of the future. The writing's there, in forty-mile fiery letters like a message from God. It's just a question of whether we wish to continue ignoring what glares from the darkness.

Mr. Safire hopes you'll believe him because it's too much trouble to go look up history and see whether he's right or not. And he knows what will happen when people do go look through the past.

And this is what it takes to not even make Bush look good, but merely not awful: demonize the opponent by casting him as everything bad about the incumbent.
____________________

• Safire, William. "Kerry, Newest Neocon". New York Times, October 4, 2004. See http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/04/opinion/04safire.html

 

There may not be a prevailing opinion in the U.S., but there certainly is in the Bush administration.

The prevailing opinion in most of the rest of the world seems to be that our invasion of Iraq is about as legitimate as the Soviet's invasion of Afghanistan was.

Wes, how far does a soldiers allegiance go in your opinion? Would you have supported a soldier in the German army refusing to obey orders to slaughter civilians in WW-2? How about a Soviet soldier who decided to desert rather than continue in the unjust and unwinnable Afghan invasion/occupation? Surely you would agree that there comes a point where soldiers have a responsibility to stop obeying criminal orders? Obeying orders wasn't recognized as a legitimate defense in the Nuremberg war crime trials.

I remember a story in the paper by a local woman who was a holocaust survivor. She told of how rape by a guard was a standard introduction to life in the camps. She said that when a new arrival of about 12 or 13 came in one day, an SS officer ordered a guard to rape her. She said the guard refused, explaining to the officer that had had a daughter her age, and he could not rape her. She said the SS officer then shot and killed the guard. The price paid for dissent can be as high as your life.

I see a certain increase in nationalism as inevitable when your country is attacked. But since I view nationalism in general as a bad thing, I don't ever feel it is appropriate. the United States is where I was born, and where I live. It is an ok place, but I don't worship it. I won't allow anger over an attack on this country to unduly cloud my judgement of right and wrong. I won't allow an attack on my country to cause me to ignore when our government is behaving badly.

Nationalism is of course an extreme example of fervent belief concerning doubtful matters. I think it may be safely said that any scientific historian, writing now a history of the Great War, is bound to make statements which, if made during the war, would have exposed him to imprisonment in every one of the belligerent countries on both sides. Again, with the exception of China, there is no country where people tolerate the truth about themselves; at ordinary times the truth is only thought ill-mannered, but in war-time it is thought criminal. Opposing systems of violent belief are built up, the falsehood of which is evident from the fact that they are believed only by those who share the same national bias. But the application of reason to these systems of belief is thought as wicked as the application of reason to religious dogmas was formerly thought. When people are challenged as to why scepticism in such matters should be wicked, the only answer is that myths help to win wars, so that a rational nation would be killed rather than kill. The view that there is something shameful in saving one's skin by wholesale slander of foreigners is one which, so far as I know, has hitherto found no supporters among professional moralists outside the ranks of Quakers. If it is suggested that a rational nation would find ways of keeping out of wars altogether, the answer is usually more abuse. -Betrand Russell On the Value of Scepticism
http://www.luminary.us/russell/value_scepticism.html

To state it as plainly as possible: in my opinion, our troops should only be put in harms way if it is completely unavoidable. If by some terrible mistake they have been deployed in a colossal error, the responsible thing to do is to work to get them removed from the danger zone as quickly as possible.

 

Obviously.

While they are entitled to their opinion, I don't see how it matters as I've stated in previous comments in this thread.

To the bounds of their oath. Obviously that's restricted by the bounds of their character.

Nope. Under UCMJ I believe that would be an illegal order.

I don't know Soviet rules, but by the UCMJ I believe he would be justly court-martialed as a deserter. The US is a volunteer army though, if theirs isn't, that changes things a bit.

No, I would agree that a soldier shouldn't obey a criminal order... EVER.

For crimes against humanity, that might be valid. Are you supporting that the current endeavor is sanctioning genocide or human medical experiments? If so, please support your assertions.

Sure. I don't have a problem with that. I have a problem with irresponsible dissent that costs the lives of US soldiers. I think that your comparison has no basis.

Then you don't view it as a bad thing in general, you just view it as a bad thing. I think it has its place.

Are you implying that to hold a position converse to yours must mean that one's judgement must be clouded and thusly they ignore the government behaving badly?

I respect that opinion, but do not completely agree since what constitutes "unavoidable" is different depending on your perspective of the scenario. Apparently the president saw it as such. Given that I'm not in his position and I gauge his as of proper intent, I figure for the most part he came to the very conclusion you just said satified your criteria. Given the circumstances and stakes, I think it was a sound judgement. This isn't because "I like Bush" (which of course if you put it in lower case, I do), but because as far as I can tell given the scenario, it was sound judgement. The problem is that given the mandate of the protection of the American people and way of life and given the obvious intentions of those who wish us harm - when does "completely unavoidable" happen? Maybe after a big attack on US soil? Does that perhaps make you re-evaluate when "completely unavoidable" comes around? Obviously in the end, you see it as avoidable. Other people don't. Does that mean they are just part of the herd? I suppose that is the crux of your argument. You've asserted that the only way to reach such a conclusion is through irrational fear. I simply disagree.

Even if it gets more of them killed than shutting your pie hole eh? Well, it's good that you can appease your conscience at the expense of their lives. I'm a veteran, and I couldn't do that.

 

I've got to disagree with you here as well. Nationalism does not trump logic or ethics.

We went to Iraq supposedly to find WMDs. We didn't find them (yet we were able to find a single guy hiding in a hole).
The UN inspectors said before the war that it was doubtful that Iraq was developing nukes (the WMD that seemed to be mentioned the most). This has proven to be true.
The UN did not support the invasion. In one fell swoop the US discredited the UN. It is somewhat of a joke that we (one of the founding countries) doesn't even play by the rules.
Even without UN approval, it would be completely justifiable if there was an immediate threat.... but Sadamn was contained. Hell, even if he himself paid to crash the planes on 9/11, 10000 Iraqi lives are not worth 3000 American lives.

In short, I don't believe we had a good enough reason. I'm left with the option that the administration was either misleading or being mislead (not sure which is worse).

 

In one fell swoop the US discredited the UN

Visa Versa...America’s invasion of Iraq was not because of WMD, Al Qaeda, it was over a belligerent country (in the sense she did not conform to American terms of economics, or geo-politics not an actual threat to the US) and was it was not in the Americans best interests to have this nation in the Middle East, also there was a genuine feeling that the US is a benevolent power, and would be greeted as liberators from the tyranny that the US so eagerly supported in the 80’s (like many others) . Also the US would say that this would be an example for the rest of the nations that the US considers enemies. Iraq was a product of many things, Ameromorality centrism, American exceptionalism, oil, Israel, Corporate interests, alas this was the war of the special interests. The American people themselves got nothing of out Iraq but death, debt, and a lower standard which she now has to abide by. This was a classic example of nationalism trumping OVERTNESS, when I realized that the US was invading Iraq in 2002, I could not for the life of me understand why so many Americans became sheeple so quickly. America was justified to go into Afghanistan but in NO way was she justified to invade a nation that did not want war, nor she didn’t even have designs for such a war, never mind capability. Meanwhile on the Korean peninsula a enemy who had all those prerequisites was allowed to actually develop not only nuclear weapons by ICBMS! If one is so foolish to believe this war was over WMD, or even Al Qaeda they deserve what they will get from justice, OUTSOURCING!

 

I must break a long standing policy of being in disagreement with Persol; however, here we pretty much agree with one qualified exception.

I think 3,000 American lives are worth 100,000 Iraqi lives, if it is the lives of those that support, encourage or participate in the haneous conduct of terroists.

I regret loss of truely innocent people of any color, religion or nationality but when people celebrate beheadings or drag charred bodies down the street they are not innocent any longer.

As has been said in this case you are either with us or against us. There is no neutral positon.

 

I think 3,000 American lives are worth 100,000 Iraqi lives, if it is the lives of those that support, encourage or participate in the haneous conduct of terroists.

These ppl don't live in a democracy so it’s not like they had a voice in those decisions. So again we are at square one, let's punish the innocent for the sins of the few. Anti-utilitarianism.

 

You are right. There was no vote when they chose to celebrate 9/11, beheadings, or dragging burnt bodies down the street.

They do not have to vote to come forward and point out who among them are evil vs cheering them on or hiding them.

 

And if it is not the lives that support terroists? Or even worse "terrorists"?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

First, again - our sudden interest in terrorism is because of the horror of 9/11 - NONE of the 9/11 folks were from Iraq. Iraq was ENEMY'S with the Taliban! Iraq was our enemy, but a nation-state that is our enemy is different from a group sponsoring terrorism. Saudi Arabia, Bush's oil butt buddy's, most of the hijackers were from there - and funded by Saudi Arabia.

You think 100,000 Iraqi's, tens of thousands of them women and children, were involved terrorism?

You better hope there is no heaven and hell.