Political Argument Arena!!!

[colinh9]

Wow. Talk about missing the point.


You can't be serious here can you? You think sitting on our hands and letting the hornets nest fester will make it better? Brilliant.


The funny thing is these Republican "morons" will wipe the floor with either your precious Hillary or Obama. It's a sad state of affairs in American politics, but the only thing scarier than a bad Republican in the White House is HRC.

She's the one that will bring us down for good.

I don't think I am missing the point at all. This war has cost us 3 trillion dollars and 3000+ American lives. Our dollar is weaker then ever, terrorism is more rampant than ever before. Iraqis just want their country back and I just want my friends home. There is no reason we can't withdraw, create a legitimate security force(which we aren't) and work on a federalist government.

Why do you think terrorism exists in the first place? Do you think it might have to do with our foreign policy(past and present) in the slightest?

My "precious," Hillary or Obama, well that is quite amusing. The last democrat I want winning is Hillary, and it is hysterical how scared Republicans are of her. During their debates she gets brought up consistently and they've already started attacking her in their ads, before they've even won a primary. Absolutely hysterical. Why is she the one that will bring us down for good? You can't throw that statement out there without expanding on it.

[JaredSS07]

My "precious," Hillary or Obama, well that is quite amusing. The last democrat I want winning is Hillary, and it is hysterical how scared Republicans are of her. During their debates she gets brought up consistently and they've already started attacking her in their ads, before they've even won a primary. Absolutely hysterical. Why is she the one that will bring us down for good? You can't throw that statement out there without expanding on it.

They are attacking her because they are afraid. They attack her to show electability and because it winds up the base. Trust me, GOP Presidentials are looking forward to running against Hillary.

[JaredSS07]

Living in Europe has just reinforced my belief that our two-party system is mind-numbingly stupid. One shite-Republican candidate in 2008 vs. one other shite-Democrat. Brilliant.

I work in politics in the US currently, but have worked in Canada. After working in Canada with a multiparty system, I had more apprecitation for our system in the US.
I know that it depends on the area you live in, but both systems have plenty of flaws. In Alberta, one party had 72 of the 83 seats in the Leg. Multiparty system didnt prevent them from having absolute control over Government for more than 30 years. To me that is much worse than having only two major candidates per election.

To me, our parties are like umbrella groups for many different interests and platforms. Instead of electing 4 different parties that are "conservative" and then those parties join into coalitions in government; we just have the 4 different groups join before the election into one major party.

[BayernWake]

Okay, our political system isn't literally "mind-numblingly stupid", and isn't all bad...but when voting, I would like to have more a choice than

a) republican
b) democrat
c) throwing your vote in the toilet

But I do get your point Jared.

[ToonUSA]

I don't think I am missing the point at all. This war has cost us 3 trillion dollars and 3000+ American lives. Our dollar is weaker then ever, terrorism is more rampant than ever before. Iraqis just want their country back and I just want my friends home. There is no reason we can't withdraw, create a legitimate security force(which we aren't) and work on a federalist government.
This struck me as absolute liberal crap.

Fact is, violence has gone down a lot in the past few months. That isn't because we are doing our job, rather the fact that the Sunni minorities are all refugees now and violence against them is impossible when they aren't living there anymore.

God forbid our troops there are actually beating back the very tough to stop terrorist cells, but of course it's not their good work. It's the fact the terrorists are now without a target? Huh?


Furthermore, the reluctance to admit that our presence there is only creating more terrorists is shocking. McCain's quote from Bin Laden and others about if we leave they will declare victory is beyond hysterical. Does he not realize that factions in Iraq have declared they hate Al-Qaeda and have even further declared them an enemy?

"Osama bin Laden issued two fatwas—in 1996 and then again in 1998—that Muslims should kill civilians and military personnel from the United States and allied countries until they withdraw support for Israel and withdraw military forces from Islamic countries."

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/terrorism/international/fatwa_1998.html

Seems simple enough for me. Bush didn't all of a sudden just create these guys. They've been around and hating us for years. Just so happens it all came to a head right in his lap. (Insert Bill Clinton joke here)

In a sense I can agree that our presence there is making people come to the cause of the "fatwa" but it was inevitable that we would intervene in the Islamic world sooner or later. I'd personally rather it be sooner.

The thing that scares me is alot of people on the left don't get how real the threat of Islamofascism is in the world. They hate us and everything we stand for. No troop withdrawal or left wing appeasement policy can change that.

Why do you think terrorism exists in the first place? Do you think it might have to do with our foreign policy(past and present) in the slightest?
Terrorism has been around for a very long time. I don't quite understand what you are trying to get across here. I hope it's not that the US has created terrorism because that's just madness.

My "precious," Hillary or Obama, well that is quite amusing. The last democrat I want winning is Hillary, and it is hysterical how scared Republicans are of her. During their debates she gets brought up consistently and they've already started attacking her in their ads, before they've even won a primary. Absolutely hysterical. Why is she the one that will bring us down for good? You can't throw that statement out there without expanding on it.
Scared? I'm not exactly scared more so that I hate her and everything she stands for. Her absolute refusal to hold one point of view is a very, very big problem I have with her. Shit, Bush may be wrong sometimes but at least he doesn't let opinion polls or some negative results change his mind. She can't make her mind up about Driver's licenses for illegals in NY. What the hell is she gonna do about whether or not to initiate a police action in Lebanon?

Also, her spendomter has hit an absolutely stomach wrenching $778.6 billion dollars. That'll certainly help chip away that debt. :rolleyes:

[BayernWake]

I don't think I am missing the point at all. This war has cost us 3 trillion dollars and 3000+ American lives. Our dollar is weaker then ever, terrorism is more rampant than ever before. Iraqis just want their country back and I just want my friends home. There is no reason we can't withdraw, create a legitimate security force(which we aren't) and work on a federalist government.

This struck me as absolute liberal crap.

This is the problem with debate...and the reason why Crossfire doesn't exist anymore.

You can't just say "this is liberal crap." That is the response of a person who has no response.

[Dirt McGirt]

I love how Toon USA just turns up every so often to drop some complete nonsense and then disappears for a month.:D

[colinh9]

This struck me as absolute liberal crap.
Is that right? So you deny the war has cost us over 3 trillion dollars? You deny 3000+ American lives have been lost? Iraqis don't want their country back(ahem:http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7115131.stm) Nothing of what I said is "liberal" crap, just facts you throw away since you don't want to deal with them.


God forbid our troops there are actually beating back the very tough to stop terrorist cells, but of course it's not their good work. It's the fact the terrorists are now without a target? Huh?
Nobody is saying the troops aren't doing a good job. I'm just pointing out that we aren't beating back the very tough to stop terrorist cells. The troops there are doing a good job right now, but they are always at risk to terrorist maniacs. How does anyone beat back terrorist cells anyway when they aren't based in Iraq?


[/quote]
"Osama bin Laden issued two fatwas—in 1996 and then again in 1998—that Muslims should kill civilians and military personnel from the United States and allied countries until they withdraw support for Israel and withdraw military forces from Islamic countries."

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/terrorism/international/fatwa_1998.html

Seems simple enough for me. Bush didn't all of a sudden just create these guys. They've been around and hating us for years. Just so happens it all came to a head right in his lap. (Insert Bill Clinton joke here) [/quote]

First off, don't link PBS when all you did is wikipedia that.

Who said Bush created Osama Bin Laden? I always thought it was the CIA. Plus it didn't "so happen" to come to a head right in his lap, rather the war has caused it to do such at hing. I think the funniest part of the point you just made is that it coincides with mine. "Until they withdraw military forces from Islamic countries." Hmm.


In a sense I can agree that our presence there is making people come to the cause of the "fatwa" but it was inevitable that we would intervene in the Islamic world sooner or later. I'd personally rather it be sooner.

Well at least you admitted part of my argument was right. It was not inevitable that we would intervene in the Islamic world sooner or later. I'd much rather it never, especially since the consequences of invading Iraq have been far more severe then if we stayed at home in the fist place.

The thing that scares me is alot of people on the left don't get how real the threat of Islamofascism is in the world. They hate us and everything we stand for. No troop withdrawal or left wing appeasement policy can change that.
http://www.db-artmag.de//images/208/5.jpg

You have shown a clear lack of understanding of the Islamic world. 99.9% of Islamic people couldn't give a rat's ass about how we live, they only care about how our policies affect the way they live. When we impede and harm the way they live, and threaten their religion they begin to hate us. Simple as that.


Terrorism has been around for a very long time. I don't quite understand what you are trying to get across here. I hope it's not that the US has created terrorism because that's just madness.

No, just that those that have the United States as a target have a specific purpose. Why does Osama have it in for the United States. Simply because one day he decided he didn't like the way we lived? Then why was 90% of his family living and getting an education in the US at the time of 9/11? Surely, its our foreign policy.


Scared? I'm not exactly scared more so that I hate her and everything she stands for. Her absolute refusal to hold one point of view is a very, very big problem I have with her. Shit, Bush may be wrong sometimes but at least he doesn't let opinion polls or some negative results change his mind. She can't make her mind up about Driver's licenses for illegals in NY. What the hell is she gonna do about whether or not to initiate a police action in Lebanon?

Also, her spendomter has hit an absolutely stomach wrenching $778.6 billion dollars. That'll certainly help chip away that debt. :rolleyes:

Oh yeah that's the good thing about Bush. He can never admit when he makes a mistake. No matter how badly his policies turn out, he never changes, you are right, thats the sign of a good president.

You do realize that a Clinton administration would be farther towards the center than any of the other democrats? You would think the Republicans would want to run against her.

HAHAHAHAH, bringing economics into question when you support Bush is absolutely hysterical. The man didn't vetoed two thing in his first 6 years in office and spent outrageously. Conservative economists are disgusted by Bush. By no means am I saying Hillary would be any better, but how you can cite that against her is nothing short of hilarious.

[ToonUSA]

This is the problem with debate...and the reason why Crossfire doesn't exist anymore.

You can't just say "this is liberal crap." That is the response of a person who has no response.

Did you miss my post? I backed up my comment.

[ToonUSA]

Is that right? So you deny the war has cost us over 3 trillion dollars? You deny 3000+ American lives have been lost? Iraqis don't want their country back(ahem:http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7115131.stm) Nothing of what I said is "liberal" crap, just facts you throw away since you don't want to deal with them.
I mean that your troops comment was liberal crap. The war probably has cost 3 trillion dollars.

Nobody is saying the troops aren't doing a good job. I'm just pointing out that we aren't beating back the very tough to stop terrorist cells. The troops there are doing a good job right now, but they are always at risk to terrorist maniacs. How does anyone beat back terrorist cells anyway when they aren't based in Iraq?
What do you mean we aren't beating back the terrorists? Violence and deaths are down as a result of the surge. What, do you think the terrorists just got tired? And you beat back a terrorist cell by doign exactly what we're doing. Taking out their little enclaves inside of Iraq.

First off, don't link PBS when all you did is wikipedia that.

Who said Bush created Osama Bin Laden? I always thought it was the CIA. Plus it didn't "so happen" to come to a head right in his lap, rather the war has caused it to do such at hing. I think the funniest part of the point you just made is that it coincides with mine. "Until they withdraw military forces from Islamic countries." Hmm.
Wikipedia what? Bin Laden's fatwa? Actually I didn't.

Well at least you admitted part of my argument was right. It was not inevitable that we would intervene in the Islamic world sooner or later. I'd much rather it never, especially since the consequences of invading Iraq have been far more severe then if we stayed at home in the fist place.
It's hard for me to respond to such naivity. Since the early 90s we've openly been in conflict with the Islamic world. A full scale invasion was coming.


You have shown a clear lack of understanding of the Islamic world. 99.9% of Islamic people couldn't give a rat's ass about how we live, they only care about how our policies affect the way they live. When we impede and harm the way they live, and threaten their religion they begin to hate us. Simple as that.
You're wrong. There are 1 billion Muslims in the world. The estimates are that 10-15% of them are radical Islamofascists. While that is not a lare percent it's still 100-150 million people. That's alot of people who hate us for everything we stand for. When did we threaten their religion? The Crusades started up again?

No, just that those that have the United States as a target have a specific purpose. Why does Osama have it in for the United States. Simply because one day he decided he didn't like the way we lived? Then why was 90% of his family living and getting an education in the US at the time of 9/11? Surely, its our foreign policy.
So you don't defend your initial comments? What did this mean?

Why do you think terrorism exists in the first place?

:confused:

Alot of the hatred from Osama Bin Laden stems from our aid we sent to Afghanistan during the Cold War. That, and the fact they dislike the fact we want their oil even though it finances all of their little terrorist retreats in the Iranian mountain resorts.

h yeah that's the good thing about Bush. He can never admit when he makes a mistake. No matter how badly his policies turn out, he never changes, you are right, thats the sign of a good president.
Yep, that's what was said. :rolleyes:

You do realize that a Clinton administration would be farther towards the center than any of the other democrats? You would think the Republicans would want to run against her.
How did you arrive at this conclusion? One of the craziest things I've read. And the Republicans do want to run against her.

HAHAHAHAH, bringing economics into question when you support Bush is absolutely hysterical. The man didn't vetoed two thing in his first 6 years in office and spent outrageously. Conservative economists are disgusted by Bush. By no means am I saying Hillary would be any better, but how you can cite that against her is nothing short of hilarious.
I'm glad you think it's funny as that just throws your credibility out the window. We want to improve the economic dilemma not make it worse. She will worsen it.

[BayernWake]

Did you miss my post? I backed up my comment.

But you responded to the cost of the war, the dollar being weak, and 3000 lives being lost with "this struck me as liberal crap."

[ToonUSA]

But you responded to the cost of the war, the dollar being weak, and 3000 lives being lost with "this struck me as liberal crap."

No, I had meant to say the part about the troops not defeating the terrorists was liberal crap. I apparently did a poor job of quoting him as many of you have interpreted it that way. I should have put a colon and put his name in the quotes. But didn't. Sorry for the confusion.


Now any response to the points I made?

[BayernWake]

No, I had meant to say the part about the troops not defeating the terrorists was liberal crap. I apparently did a poor job of quoting him as many of you have interpreted it that way. I should have put a colon and put his name in the quotes. But didn't. Sorry for the confusion.


Now any response to the points I made?

Gotcha. Yeah, that was confusing. The rest of your post was fine (from a debate standpoint).

But get ready for an ambiguous response to a point you made.

One thing I would question, content-wise, is whether or not we've caused terrorism. The US is of course NOT the sole cause of terrorism, as (like you mentioned), terrorism has been around for god knows how long. However, although we've done a good job of fighting terrorist cells and taking out terrorists in general, our mere presence in Iraq is breeding more terrorism. It's a double bind. If we don't fight terrorism, terrorism will spread. If we do fight terrorism, we will engender more terrorism by making the terrorists hate us more (as well as other people).

Terrorism will not end if we leave Iraq. But it will not end if we stay, either. I don't have a solution to the problem. I don't know whether terrorism will increase or decrease in the long run if we stay in or if we leave Iraq. Who actually knows? In order to end terrorism we'd have to change the whole ideology of an entire people, which takes centuries. All we can do now is play whack-a-mole and plug up the mole-holes without convincing the peaceful moles to make new mole holes.

So basically I agree with you and colin simulataneously (and disagree with you both). It's a lot more complicated than "just bring my friends home" vs. "stay in Iraq or else terrorism will spread."

[JaredSS07]

Gotcha. Yeah, that was confusing. The rest of your post was fine (from a debate standpoint).

But get ready for an ambiguous response to a point you made.

One thing I would question, content-wise, is whether or not we've caused terrorism. The US is of course NOT the sole cause of terrorism, as (like you mentioned), terrorism has been around for god knows how long. However, although we've done a good job of fighting terrorist cells and taking out terrorists in general, our mere presence in Iraq is breeding more terrorism. It's a double bind. If we don't fight terrorism, terrorism will spread. If we do fight terrorism, we will engender more terrorism by making the terrorists hate us more (as well as other people).

Terrorism will not end if we leave Iraq. But it will not end if we stay, either. I don't have a solution to the problem. I don't know whether terrorism will increase or decrease in the long run if we stay in or if we leave Iraq. Who actually knows? In order to end terrorism we'd have to change the whole ideology of an entire people, which takes centuries. All we can do now is play whack-a-mole and plug up the mole-holes without convincing the peaceful moles to make new mole holes.

So basically I agree with you and colin simulataneously (and disagree with you both). It's a lot more complicated than "just bring my friends home" vs. "stay in Iraq or else terrorism will spread."

There is no stopping terrorism. So long as people who cannot afford large armies are pissed at other people, we will have terrorism. There are many groups in history that could be called terrorists by our current definition.

Has anyone else seen "Battle for Algiers"? It is about the French Foreign Legion trying to stop terrorists in Algiers. The movie is very true to history and has been studied by the National War College. It shows how you can fight terrorism by stooping to their level and by becoming increasingly heavy handed. However, it didn't stop Algeria from leaving France.

Leaving Iraq will not stop terrorism or reduce the hate of the West by the Muslim world. It is not just a US problem or a result of our foreign policy. The US is just a recent player in the longstanding war between the Muslim world and the Western world.

[colinh9]

I mean that your troops comment was liberal crap. The war probably has cost 3 trillion dollars.

So the war is worth those costs to you?


What do you mean we aren't beating back the terrorists? Violence and deaths are down as a result of the surge. What, do you think the terrorists just got tired? And you beat back a terrorist cell by doign exactly what we're doing. Taking out their little enclaves inside of Iraq.


No what I mean is look at the London and Spanish train bombings, which both countries know was directly related to their involvement in Iraq. Violence and deaths are down partly as a result of the surge, partly because 1.5 million refugees are in Syria. Most of Al-Quedas terrorist cells are not located within Iraq.


Wikipedia what? Bin Laden's fatwa? Actually I didn't.


Well sorry about that, your wording was exact with Wikipedias'.


It's hard for me to respond to such naivity. Since the early 90s we've openly been in conflict with the Islamic world. A full scale invasion was coming.


I thought 9/11 was our justification for the invasion.


You're wrong. There are 1 billion Muslims in the world. The estimates are that 10-15% of them are radical Islamofascists. While that is not a lare percent it's still 100-150 million people. That's alot of people who hate us for everything we stand for. When did we threaten their religion? The Crusades started up again?


First off Islamofascist is such a stupid term. There is nothing in the Middle East today that is similar to Italy or Spain during Mussolini or Franco's reigns. To me this word is just another wartime propaganda term this administration has come up with to scare its people. Always trying to drive fear into our minds so that they can achieve whatever they want to achieve(ahem the invasion of Iraq) I have no idea where you are getting this 10-15% number. I'd like to see a credible source that says such a thing. We threaten their religion by imposing our Western ways on their culture, on their way of business, through globalization.



Alot of the hatred from Osama Bin Laden stems from our aid we sent to Afghanistan during the Cold War. That, and the fact they dislike the fact we want their oil even though it finances all of their little terrorist retreats in the Iranian mountain resorts.


What in god's name are you talking about? A lot of hatred from Osama Bin Laden stems from us funding Osama Bin Laden during the Cold War? And that they hate us for wanting to help them grow economically by buying their oil?


Yep, that's what was said. :rolleyes:

You said President Bush doesn't change his mind, and that his opinions stay the same no matter what. That this is a good thing. It's exactly what you said.


How did you arrive at this conclusion? One of the craziest things I've read. And the Republicans do want to run against her.

Clinton won't withdraw from Iraq, and will take a very tough stance on foreign policy to overcompensate for her being a women. The past Clinton administration increased military spending even when it was completely unnecessary to do so. She's taken a hardline stance on immigration that would be expected of the GOP.

If they really wanted to run against her I can't see why they have already started the negative attacks on her. Apparently they are scared of running against her and are already trying to take away her credibility.


I'm glad you think it's funny as that just throws your credibility out the window. We want to improve the economic dilemma not make it worse. She will worsen it.

And I'm saying Bush and Reagan have worsened it more than any other President's in history. What about them? I'm not defending Hillary here, but you can't use this as a reason to dislike her when you clearly would defend Bush and Reagan.

Out of curiosity which GOP candidate do you support in this upcoming election?

[colinh9]

\

One thing I would question, content-wise, is whether or not we've caused terrorism. The US is of course NOT the sole cause of terrorism, as (like you mentioned), terrorism has been around for god knows how long. However, although we've done a good job of fighting terrorist cells and taking out terrorists in general, our mere presence in Iraq is breeding more terrorism. It's a double bind. If we don't fight terrorism, terrorism will spread. If we do fight terrorism, we will engender more terrorism by making the terrorists hate us more (as well as other people).

Terrorism will not end if we leave Iraq. But it will not end if we stay, either. I don't have a solution to the problem. I don't know whether terrorism will increase or decrease in the long run if we stay in or if we leave Iraq. Who actually knows? In order to end terrorism we'd have to change the whole ideology of an entire people, which takes centuries. All we can do now is play whack-a-mole and plug up the mole-holes without convincing the peaceful moles to make new mole holes.

So basically I agree with you and colin simulataneously (and disagree with you both). It's a lot more complicated than "just bring my friends home" vs. "stay in Iraq or else terrorism will spread."


Well, if you believe that terrorism will exist whether we are there or not, then there is no need to spend 3 trillion dollars and lose 3,000 lives. I'm not saying this issue is as easy as "bring my friends home." I wouldn't just abandon Iraq, that is a completely atrocious idea. But when Iraqis do not want you there, and it breeds more hatred towards the US, you have got to take your troops out and set up an alternative security force(maybe a Swiss firm or something because the UN has no legitimacy there either UN=US in those parts)

For me the only acceptable solution, and its one of those best of the worst policies, is Joe Biden's federalist system, which the Iraqis have shown they want through their "Congress." Most Iraqi leaders want the US out and their country back, by not doing these things we are not setting ourselves up to be loved.

The question is: Is the US safer than it was 4 years ago? I certainly don't think so and I think it can be contended that we are in a worse situation. For me, that isn't worth the costs we are paying(roughly $12,000 in taxes for every person in the United States)

[JaredSS07]

But when Iraqis do not want you there, and it breeds more hatred towards the US...Most Iraqi leaders want the US out and their country back

For every quote and statistic that you find saying we are not wanted in Iraq, I could find one that says we are. I don't want to get into a Google-search war, but to claim that Iraqis and their leaders don't want us there is an overstatement. It is probably a very split opinion with neither side in a clear majority.

[ToonUSA]

So the war is worth those costs to you?
Every penny.

No what I mean is look at the London and Spanish train bombings, which both countries know was directly related to their involvement in Iraq. Violence and deaths are down partly as a result of the surge, partly because 1.5 million refugees are in Syria. Most of Al-Quedas terrorist cells are not located within Iraq.
And what did Spain do? Withdraw, exactly what the terrorists wanted. You can't just back down everytime something goes wrong. We've perservered over the last few years and are starting to see some real breakthroughs.


I thought 9/11 was our justification for the invasion.
It was and I fully agree with the invasion. That's what I meant. All the years of a standoff ended with 9/11.

First off Islamofascist is such a stupid term. There is nothing in the Middle East today that is similar to Italy or Spain during Mussolini or Franco's reigns. To me this word is just another wartime propaganda term this administration has come up with to scare its people. Always trying to drive fear into our minds so that they can achieve whatever they want to achieve(ahem the invasion of Iraq)

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/593ajdua.asp?pg=1

In my analysis, as originally put in print directly after the horror of September 11, 2001, Islamofascism refers to use of the faith of Islam as a cover for totalitarian ideology. This radical phenomenon is embodied among Sunni Muslims today by such fundamentalists as the Saudi-financed Wahhabis, the Pakistani jihadists known as Jama'atis, and the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood. In the ranks of Shia Muslims, it is exemplified by Hezbollah in Lebanon and the clique around President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in Iran.

Political typologies should make distinctions, rather than confusing them, and Islamofascism is neither a loose nor an improvised concept. It should be employed sparingly and precisely. The indicated movements should be treated as Islamofascist, first, because of their congruence with the defining characteristics of classic fascism, especially in its most historically-significant form--German National Socialism.

It's a perfectly legitimate term.


I have no idea where you are getting this 10-15% number. I'd like to see a credible source that says such a thing. We threaten their religion by imposing our Western ways on their culture, on their way of business, through globalization.

http://www.mises.org/misesreview_detail.aspx?control=318

an ideology capable of appealing to Muslims of every size and shape … [with] a large number of committed cadres. If Islamists constitute 10 to 15 percent of the Muslim population worldwide, they number some 125 to 200 million persons … the objective of the Islamofascists is not merely to deploy these resources in order to murder as many of us as possible. Like the Nazis and the Communists before them, they are dedicated to the destruction of the freedoms we cherish and for which America stands. (p.14)

Also, if you get a chance rent or watch this documentary. Will make you understand where I'm coming from.

cNogyqznpxo

What in god's name are you talking about? A lot of hatred from Osama Bin Laden stems from us funding Osama Bin Laden during the Cold War? And that they hate us for wanting to help them grow economically by buying their oil?
Yes, Bin Laden resented the US involvement in Afghanistan during the Soviet invasion. He was even staunchly anti-American then but he was able to put that aside and focus on the cause. The boiling point for him was the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. He disliked the fact that non-Muslim troops were going to enter the Kingdom and fight. He pleaded with the Prince of KSA to let his troops fight but he was told they would use the American aid.

You said President Bush doesn't change his mind, and that his opinions stay the same no matter what. That this is a good thing. It's exactly what you said.

Clinton won't withdraw from Iraq, and will take a very tough stance on foreign policy to overcompensate for her being a women. The past Clinton administration increased military spending even when it was completely unnecessary to do so. She's taken a hardline stance on immigration that would be expected of the GOP.
They increased military spending but completely failed in the foreign policy department. Making that stat null in void. Clinton's poor foreign policy decisions led to the slaughter of millions in Rwanda and in my opinion paved the way to 9/11. Clinton was soft on terrorism and that's a fact. Hardline stance on immigration? Have you heard he speak on the Driver's licenses for illegals?

If they really wanted to run against her I can't see why they have already started the negative attacks on her. Apparently they are scared of running against her and are already trying to take away her credibility.
Actually she's losing credibility everytime she opens her mouth. I hope there's 200 more debates. She'll beat herself everytime.

And I'm saying Bush and Reagan have worsened it more than any other President's in history. What about them? I'm not defending Hillary here, but you can't use this as a reason to dislike her when you clearly would defend Bush and Reagan.
I don't think their economic solutions were the best but I give them a pass based on their foreign policy achievements. And I can use it as a reason all I want. She wants to be the President. Think about the future more than the past Colin.

Out of curiosity which GOP candidate do you support in this upcoming election?
I personally like Mitt Romney, but think the fact that he's Mormon will hurt him.

[colinh9]

Every penny.
Well I disagree. Personally, I think if we took 3 trillion dollars and spread it out to all the people of the world, we'd win a hell of a lot more hearts and minds than bombing and killing innocent people. That's just me though.


And what did Spain do? Withdraw, exactly what the terrorists wanted. You can't just back down everytime something goes wrong. We've perservered over the last few years and are starting to see some real breakthroughs.

That isn't exactly what the terrorists wanted. If I'm Osama Bin Laden what I want the most is the US in Iraq? Why? First, it creates more people he can preach to. More people that will take terrorism into serious consideration because they see us as occupiers. Second, we are spending an enormous amount of money there. Every time an empire(and we are an imperialist empire no way around that) expands itself too far financially or militarily it falls. We've seen it time and time again, and the more we continue to go along this path the more unstable we become. I'm relatively sure Bin Laden wants us to stay. Sure you can cite the fact he tells us he wants us to leave, but I also think the guy is pretty intelligent and knows what he is doing. A little reverse pysch if you will.


It was and I fully agree with the invasion. That's what I meant. All the years of a standoff ended with 9/11.


Funny because Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11. You can justify Afghanistan (and the possible upcoming bombing of NW Pakistan) with 9/11 but you certainly can't do so with Iraq.


http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/593ajdua.asp?pg=1


What a shock that you come back with an over the top conservative online magazine. If I liked you an article to some liberal thing you'd just write it off as "liberal crap," so I think I'll do the same here.


It's a perfectly legitimate term.

Well I've argued my point and all I can say is I disagree.



http://www.mises.org/misesreview_detail.aspx?control=318


That article states "IF it were 10 to 15 percent." Furthermore, the article only demonstrates my points:

"Which people, and how many were jubilant? Podhoretz does not tell us, nor does he refer, e.g., to the candlelight vigil for the victims of 9/11 in Iran. But suppose that Podhoretz is right. Would this show anything more than that some people are happy to view the misfortune of a hostile power? To jump from this to a worldwide conspiracy to destroy America is nothing short of reckless. I do not suggest that all talk of an Islamic threat is foolish. My problem concerns Podhoretz, not Islam: he totally fails to provide evidence for his principal claims."

And it continues:
"So minor a matter as logic does not detain our author. It is enough for him that Bush declared Iraq part of the "axis of evil." No evidence that Saddam planned any assault against America is needed, nor does it matter that the invasion of Iraq led to "a furious outburst of anti-Americanism" in the Arab world (p. 100). The destruction of Saddam did not weaken the power of the radical Islam that Podhoretz fears, since Iraq was not governed by this ideology. Rather, the invasion further inflamed the hostility of the radical Islamists. Podhoretz, as just mentioned, notes this reaction but sees it only as an illustration of Arab evil rather than proof that the policy he favors is bankrupt."

It's great that you linked me to this :D

Also, if you get a chance rent or watch this documentary. Will make you understand where I'm coming from.

cNogyqznpxo

Haven't had a chance to do so, but I will certainly give it a chance soon.


Yes, Bin Laden resented the US involvement in Afghanistan during the Soviet invasion. He was even staunchly anti-American then but he was able to put that aside and focus on the cause. The boiling point for him was the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. He disliked the fact that non-Muslim troops were going to enter the Kingdom and fight. He pleaded with the Prince of KSA to let his troops fight but he was told they would use the American aid.


Well, we gave rise to his power so we have nobody to blame but ourselves. We created his wealth, and I cannot see how that can be argued. I'm not sure the point you are trying to make, but American policy created Osama and brought him to his current hatred.



They increased military spending but completely failed in the foreign policy department. Making that stat null in void. Clinton's poor foreign policy decisions led to the slaughter of millions in Rwanda and in my opinion paved the way to 9/11. Clinton was soft on terrorism and that's a fact. Hardline stance on immigration? Have you heard he speak on the Driver's licenses for illegals?


How did they fail in the foreign policy department? I mean I agree, but for me its because they increased military spending in a time when it was completely unnecessary(not expecting you to agree here). Well, if you are really concerned about genocide I agree. Clinton's policy during that was complete crap, just as Bush's is complete crap right now for Darfur and many other humanitarian issues. "Soft on terrorism," what would you have liked Clinton to do?

Driver's licenses for illegals has nothing to do with actual immigration. The idea is to make our roads safer, to make sure that illegals aren't driving without proper knowledge of our traffic system and making everyone that much more likely to die in an accident. That policy is borne out of concern for Americans' well being, not immigrants. It's a dumb idea anyway, since these people are extremely concerned about being deported and would be reluctant to get any sort of identification. She's hardline on immigration because she wants most of them deported, just as any GOP candidate.

Actually she's losing credibility everytime she opens her mouth. I hope there's 200 more debates. She'll beat herself everytime.


Ok.


I don't think their economic solutions were the best but I give them a pass based on their foreign policy achievements. And I can use it as a reason all I want. She wants to be the President. Think about the future more than the past Colin.

I just don't understand. A continuation of the War in Iraq is going to hurt us more than any other policy as far as economics go. Military spending has been out of control in this country for a long time now, and it has cost us a whole lot on many other issues within our country. 12% of the population still live below the poverty line in this country, which is a measly
$20000 for a family of four. That's just absurd. I'm more concerned about the rampant inequality throughout our nation and other nations. Just look at all the friends Chavez is winning by providing aid throughout Latin and South America with our oil money. It's ironic that he gains friends with our money while we continue to lose them by only aiding Columbia in the drug fight(which has been a huge failure as well)

[ToonUSA]

Well I disagree. Personally, I think if we took 3 trillion dollars and spread it out to all the people of the world, we'd win a hell of a lot more hearts and minds than bombing and killing innocent people. That's just me though.
Bombing and killing innocent people? O boy.

That isn't exactly what the terrorists wanted. If I'm Osama Bin Laden what I want the most is the US in Iraq? Why? First, it creates more people he can preach to. More people that will take terrorism into serious consideration because they see us as occupiers. Second, we are spending an enormous amount of money there. Every time an empire(and we are an imperialist empire no way around that) expands itself too far financially or militarily it falls. We've seen it time and time again, and the more we continue to go along this path the more unstable we become. I'm relatively sure Bin Laden wants us to stay. Sure you can cite the fact he tells us he wants us to leave, but I also think the guy is pretty intelligent and knows what he is doing. A little reverse pysch if you will.
Were you or were you not trying to correlate the bombings in Spain to their involvement in Iraq? If so, that's why I sighted the Spanish pullout from Iraq. They got scared their involvement was making them a target and took away aid from the "infidels" invading the holy land. Score 1 for the terrorists.

Funny because Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11. You can justify Afghanistan (and the possible upcoming bombing of NW Pakistan) with 9/11 but you certainly can't do so with Iraq.
Whether Iraq was or wasn't involved in 9/11 (I personally refuse to believe they were completely innocent and think in the next few years proof will come out that they were in fact involved) I agree as it was a pre-emptive strike on Saddam Hussein. One less tyrant and human rights violator running a country, the better.


What a shock that you come back with an over the top conservative online magazine. If I liked you an article to some liberal thing you'd just write it off as "liberal crap," so I think I'll do the same here.
Over the top? I knew you would say this but had hoped you read the article first. If you payed attention you would have seen the article first appeared on the TCS Daily website. Now are they overly Conservative? :rolleyes:

That article states "IF it were 10 to 15 percent." Furthermore, the article only demonstrates my points:

"Which people, and how many were jubilant? Podhoretz does not tell us, nor does he refer, e.g., to the candlelight vigil for the victims of 9/11 in Iran. But suppose that Podhoretz is right. Would this show anything more than that some people are happy to view the misfortune of a hostile power? To jump from this to a worldwide conspiracy to destroy America is nothing short of reckless. I do not suggest that all talk of an Islamic threat is foolish. My problem concerns Podhoretz, not Islam: he totally fails to provide evidence for his principal claims."

And it continues:
"So minor a matter as logic does not detain our author. It is enough for him that Bush declared Iraq part of the "axis of evil." No evidence that Saddam planned any assault against America is needed, nor does it matter that the invasion of Iraq led to "a furious outburst of anti-Americanism" in the Arab world (p. 100). The destruction of Saddam did not weaken the power of the radical Islam that Podhoretz fears, since Iraq was not governed by this ideology. Rather, the invasion further inflamed the hostility of the radical Islamists. Podhoretz, as just mentioned, notes this reaction but sees it only as an illustration of Arab evil rather than proof that the policy he favors is bankrupt."

It's great that you linked me to this :D
You asked for a source of the stat. Are you writing it off saying it's less than 10-15%? Do you think it's more like the 00.01% stat you threw out earlier? I can cite the documentaries I've watched in my classes so I'll just say if you really don't feel there's a threat God help you.


Haven't had a chance to do so, but I will certainly give it a chance soon.
You'll never view the Islamic world the same. It's kinda scary actually. I've got other sites to link if you want as well.

Well, we gave rise to his power so we have nobody to blame but ourselves. We created his wealth, and I cannot see how that can be argued. I'm not sure the point you are trying to make, but American policy created Osama and brought him to his current hatred.
Jesus wept, my whole Bin Laden point was responding to your initial inquiry as to why he hates the US. So I've been educating you.

How did they fail in the foreign policy department? I mean I agree, but for me its because they increased military spending in a time when it was completely unnecessary(not expecting you to agree here). Well, if you are really concerned about genocide I agree. Clinton's policy during that was complete crap, just as Bush's is complete crap right now for Darfur and many other humanitarian issues.
While Bush hasn't been stellar in Darfur he's actually got the groups talking about a possibly peace treaty. Clinton's policy towards Rwanda could even be considered racist as he refused to intervene there but had very little hesitation about going into Serbia to stop that genocide. Just a thought.

"Soft on terrorism," what would you have liked Clinton to do?
Uh, maybe respond to one of the multiple terrorist attacks committed against the United States worldwide. Also, you know taking Osama Bin Laden into custody when he could have might have been effective.

Driver's licenses for illegals has nothing to do with actual immigration. The idea is to make our roads safer, to make sure that illegals aren't driving without proper knowledge of our traffic system and making everyone that much more likely to die in an accident. That policy is borne out of concern for Americans' well being, not immigrants. It's a dumb idea anyway, since these people are extremely concerned about being deported and would be reluctant to get any sort of identification. She's hardline on immigration because she wants most of them deported, just as any GOP candidate.
She's not consistent here:

"I am, you know, adamantly against illegal immigrants." "People have to stop employing illegal immigrants" - Hillary Clinton December 13, 2004

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/7/14/125858.shtml


"I want to thank you for raising your voices and joining with people all over America and ask for fairness. Your faces are the faces of America. The faces of those who give us a good day's work, and often not at a fair day's pay," Hillary Clinton. April 10, 2006

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/viewstory.asp?Page=%5CNation%5Carchive%5C200604%5CNAT20060411b.html


I just don't understand. A continuation of the War in Iraq is going to hurt us more than any other policy as far as economics go. Military spending has been out of control in this country for a long time now, and it has cost us a whole lot on many other issues within our country. 12% of the population still live below the poverty line in this country, which is a measly
$20000 for a family of four. That's just absurd. I'm more concerned about the rampant inequality throughout our nation and other nations. Just look at all the friends Chavez is winning by providing aid throughout Latin and South America with our oil money. It's ironic that he gains friends with our money while we continue to lose them by only aiding Columbia in the drug fight(which has been a huge failure as well)
What are you a communist?