Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 22

Thread: Liberals that "hate america"

  1. #1
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    1,692
    Post Thanks / Like
    I saw a recent interview on FOX in which a writer of a new book called "why liberals hate ameria" was being interviewed. For the most part he got nothing but softball questions and the interview was basically built to support his argument but the last question was awesome. I really couldn't believe that somebody employed by FOX put this guy on the spot like this but they asked him the following question

    "If liberals hate america so much, what do you say to the liberals that are in the military, fighting and making the ultimate sacrafice in some cases in Iraq right now?" The guy was speechless and pretended that his ear piece was broken so he could act as though he couldn't hear the question just as the interview ended. So I ask the board the same question. In a lot of these political posts I see people ripping liberals as being "anti-american". Being in the military I know some (not many) liberals, some of whom just returned from a tour in Iraq. What do you say to those liberals who are fighting the war on terror?

  2. #2
    All League
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    851
    Post Thanks / Like
    [img]http://salon.com/comics/tomo/2002/04/01/tomo/story.jpg[/img]

  3. #3
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by AirForceJetFan[/i]@Oct 2 2003, 03:48 PM
    [b] I saw a recent interview on FOX in which a writer of a new book called "why liberals hate ameria" was being interviewed. For the most part he got nothing but softball questions and the interview was basically built to support his argument but the last question was awesome. I really couldn't believe that somebody employed by FOX put this guy on the spot like this but they asked him the following question

    "If liberals hate america so much, what do you say to the liberals that are in the military, fighting and making the ultimate sacrafice in some cases in Iraq right now?" The guy was speechless and pretended that his ear piece was broken so he could act as though he couldn't hear the question just as the interview ended. So I ask the board the same question. In a lot of these political posts I see people ripping liberals as being "anti-american". Being in the military I know some (not many) liberals, some of whom just returned from a tour in Iraq. What do you say to those liberals who are fighting the war on terror? [/b][/quote]
    Air Force -

    Some liberals do hate America, some don't. I don't know if this issue really merits its own thread. Some conservatives hate America, some don't.

    In light of your specific question - surely you realize that exceptions don't disprove the rule. If you substitute an implied "most" instead of an implied "all" infront of LIBERALS HATE AMERICA the author or any one of the conservative posters here could simply assert that MOST liberals hate America, thus explaining those few that don't. You are free to agree or disagree with this stance. However, I would venture to guess that the overwhelming majority of current military personnel are conservative, probably by something like 80-20, but that is naked speculation and should be taken as such.

    People interviewed on news networks get softball questions all the time. Dan Rather really grilled Saddam, huh?

    Personally, I don't know if liberals hate America so much and haven't really said it too many times as a generalization. I have asserted and questioned, say, Bitonti's patriotism because after almost 2000 pages of posts EVERYTHING he writes is overtly anti-American. But he explained himself and that's that, even if I harbor doubts that is antti-American stances are really generated from a dispassionate and informed analysis of historical events. I think he operates from an assumpion and gravitates to sources that support those assumptions and dismisses events or facts that are in disagreement with them. But everyone has biases, as do I, so what can you do? EVERYONE is convinced of their own neutrality and that is a myth.

    I just think liberals love [i]themselves [/i]too much. I think they are, by and large, as dogmatically irrational about their beliefs as many religious fanatics are. They seem to believe in their presumed "virtues" not by a sober analysis of data, but rather because of the intrinsic rightness of their unproven and unprovable assumptions, for example the belief that diversity = utopia = affirmative action = judicial activism = entitlements = victimization or that murder = choice = pro-woman. In short- I don't think some of them live in the real world.

  4. #4
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by Jet Set Junta[/i]@Oct 2 2003, 04:04 PM
    [b] [img]http://salon.com/comics/tomo/2002/04/01/tomo/story.jpg[/img] [/b][/quote]
    Ah - way to raise the bar Jet Set. Yeah - the Taliban is our fault, missile defense systems are a joke and we will all be interned by the evil John Ashcroft.

    The white-businessman-as-ignorant-Bushie is a nice touch, although it would have been more effective if he was wearing a crucifix and kicking a black bum, too.


    Hypocrisy is merely a conservative phenomenon, clearly.

  5. #5
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    2,393
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by AirForceJetFan[/i]@Oct 2 2003, 04:48 PM
    [b] In a lot of these political posts I see people ripping liberals as being "anti-american". Being in the military I know some (not many) liberals, some of whom just returned from a tour in Iraq. What do you say to those liberals who are fighting the war on terror? [/b][/quote]
    If the liberal mantra is that this war is just a farce by a right wing American cabal and it's an illegal international action, then why aren't they refusing to fight and instead serving their time in the brig?

    Everyone is entitled to their opinion.

    When you burn a flag, when you go to a foreign country and demean our president, when you go to the enemies soil and act as a human shield, when you would rather have Zaccharias Mousoui running around with a fake ID as his God-given right, when you go out of your way to point out only the bad in Iraq and bury the good, when you believe Saddam Hussein over your own President -- that, in my [b]OPINION[/b] (and a lot of other Americans), is anti-American.

    If you have that many friends in Iraq, what is their opinion of what's going on there?

    I bet it ain't as bad as the media is portraying it.

  6. #6
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    1,692
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by Spirit of Weeb[/i]@Oct 2 2003, 09:20 PM
    [b] If you have that many friends in Iraq, what is their opinion of what's going on there?

    [/b][/quote]
    It's tough to say because from the limited conversations I've had with the guys I know that have returned, I don't know how much of what they're saying is true or how much is just trying to impress co-workers.

    As far as what they think about it politically, we had a discussion the other day and most people feel that with the way things are being done, retention is going to suffer.

    To make a long story short (and I posted this in an earlier thread but got no response)

    The Air Force surveyed their people on what their biggest gripes were with the service. The surveys #1 complaint was consistently "too many deployments, no time with my family" so these people were told there would be a new way of doing business and the problem would be fixed. Needless to say the problem is worse than ever and the longer we go with no WMD, the more doubters there are, and that many more people feeling they were lied to on many different levels and they wont be re-enlisting. By no means does that represent the entire military but I can only speak for the small group of people I've spoken to about it.

    I think a recent order sent down to the troops in the middle east to stop talking to the press once it was realized that there was growing animostiy toward the current administration speaks much louder than anything I can say as far as how the troops in the region feel right now.

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Kingston, NY
    Posts
    3,975
    Post Thanks / Like
    One could say that Bush hates Americans since he sent so many of us over to Iraq to die for nothing.

  8. #8
    All League
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    851
    Post Thanks / Like
    Relax, it was a joke. I'm just getting sick of the word "anti-american" being tossed around as a knee-jerk reaction to any critiques of the direction Bush and his cronies have taken the country, probably much as guys on your side are sick of "intolerant" and "homophobic" being used against anyone who questions gay parades.

    I actually like the word "patriot" and have been on a personal crusade to reclaim the word away from people who use it as a lexicon for any xenophobic knee-jerk nationalism; I get very disgusted with people on "The Left" who bristle at this word because of how much it has been abused by that context rather than describing a person who is very concerned about their country, thinks its leadership has sometimes wavered from the ideals it was founded upon, and is willing to fight to make it a place they can be proud of.

    Anyway, I agree with most of your post, 5ever, except of course the last paragraph. Once again, I'm biased too. And I've met plenty of conservatives who are more than willing to live in their own world, ignore reality in favor of opinionated perceptions of situations they've never had to be in firsthand, and preach self-glorification. It's actually funny that you'd ever generalize liberals as "loving themselves too much" -- I thought the number one caricature of liberalism was that only truly self-loathing types consumed with guilt and jealousy would be attracted to liberal ideals and willing to champion them.

    And personally, I've met a lot more "liberal" types who are willing to work their asses off to incite change, change their lifestyle habits, start and work for local organizations, etc. than I have the conservative equivalent outside of people who volunteer a lot of church time AND happen to be conservative as well (not necessarily a full overlap, just as being in the military doesn't always mean being conservative). Granted, I've spent much of my adult life urban environments with a lot of activism and local politics where I've garnered this perception. So maybe that explains my own biases.

    As you often say that arguing with your wife makes you seem like Michael Moore sometimes, 5ever, you'd probably love the arguments I end up having with a lot of the far leftists in Ithaca where I come off like Bill O'Reilly. This board, much moreso than any other football or hockey forum I visit, seems to have the most overwhelming conservative voice with few articulate people arguing the other side, which is why I take up a lot of the debates I do here...

  9. #9
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    4,530
    Post Thanks / Like
    Simple question-

    What would the Dem response be to terrorism? Really-what is their plan?

    Note that Except Wesley Clark has on alternate days taken pro and anitwar stands. John Kerry voted for the war and now is against it.Edwards, Graham, Lieberman and Gephardt all have been both for and against the war, but now badmouth President Bush daily. Kucinich wants a "Department of Peace". Mosely-Braun and Sharpton will take any position that puts money in their pockets. Dean is just an embodiment of how empty the rhetoric all is-AT THE END OF THE DAY WHAT'S YOUR PLAN, IDEA, OR THOUGHTS ON HOW TO DEAL WITH THIS? Because we can't pull up stakes, go home and curl up in the fetal position, no matter how much they wish it were so.

    Because so far, all the candidates and their media buddies seem to be is hellbent on poormouthing Bush, what ever he does. There doesn't seem to be a coherent policy other than something that amounts to well-spoken whining.

  10. #10
    All League
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    851
    Post Thanks / Like
    [url=http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/PageServer?pagename=policy_statement_foreign]http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/PageSer...atement_foreign[/url]
    [url=http://www.clark04.com/articles/]http://www.clark04.com/articles/[/url]

    At least read the words from the horse's mouth before you assume that no Democratic candidate has "a plan". And in the case of Clark, the guy has forgotten more on foreign policy and national security than George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and Condaleeza Rice will ever know.

    I agree with you on some of the Senators that voted for the war, which is part of why I hope none of them gets the nomination. A Clark-Dean or Dean-Clark ticket will be an extremely good race, especially IF more news comes out about the number of ways the Administration s**t the bed on intelligence leaks, propaganda, etc en route to their version of the War on Terror (I know, I know, Bush has never distorted a single fact about the Iraqi threat to America and has completely restored integrity to the White House, which is why a CIA operative was blown by their propaganda corps -- save it for another thread).

  11. #11
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    4,530
    Post Thanks / Like
    We're LESS SAFE today than we were on 9/11/01?PLEASE...

    And Dean quotes Madeline Albright, that halfwit excuse for a Secreary of State who danced with Kin Jong Il instead of actually seeing to it that North Korea's nuclear program would be closely monitored and verified. That's a selling point for safety?

    Clark literally [i]in a day [/i]flipflopped on the war from pro to anti.

    Peculiar footnote-Clark and Albright like all Dems in their quest for Jewish votes magically found Jewish heritage. La Chaim!

    WRONG ANSWER. PLEASE TRY AGAIN.

  12. #12
    All League
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    851
    Post Thanks / Like
    Last I checked, Bush has done nothing about North Korea either to date. So spare me the lectures about how NK's nu-cu-lar problem is yet another one of those endless things conservatives can conveniently blame on Clinton.

    As I said, if you dislike their "plans" and disagree with their assertions, then critique them on those grounds and feel happy that you will not be voting for them in 2004. But don't kid yourself that these candidates have any less a "plan" than W did when he and his groomers came into the White House unaware of 9/11.

    And though it's up for endless debate, and HAS been debated for 100+ pages ad nauseum here, I'm not that impressed with the "plan" the current Administration has carried out in Iraq or Afghanistan. Nothing, to be fair, ever goes 100% as "planned" when you wage war as a tool of foreign policy, but David Kay's report doesn't look so promising for those who, 12 months ago on this very site, insisted that the Iraq war was predicated upon a massive arsenal of dangerous nukes supplied by France and ready for deployment at a flick of Saddam's wrist.

    As for "LESS SAFE", uh, where exactly are Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein?

  13. #13
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    4,530
    Post Thanks / Like
    A. in a cave and B. in hiding, respectively. Which is progress, as opposed to ruling Iraq and Afghanistan.

  14. #14
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Kingston, NY
    Posts
    3,975
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by Bugg[/i]@Oct 2 2003, 06:07 PM
    [b] We're LESS SAFE today than we were on 9/11/01?

    [/b][/quote]
    Why don't you ask the soldiers in Iraq how safe they feel tonight?

    BTW... none of us know for sure if we're safer today than before the criminal attacks of September 2001. I suspect that here in the United States we probably are, but that in and of itself is the minimum government responsibility. I don't see where or why this particular president deserves any special credit for it. Afterall this criminal attack occurred under his watch.

  15. #15
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    Post Thanks / Like
    [b]Jet Set -[/b]

    No one ever said a massive supply of nukes were ready at the flick of Saddam's wrist. I said that his pattern of defiance, regional domination, contribution to and support of terrorism and his WMD pursuits - all in defiance of a cease-fire he agreed to with us after a war he started and lost - were the reasons to invade.

    Bush never said the threat was imminent. He said that to wait UNTIL it was imminent would be suicide - just as waiting to deal with AQ until that threat became immient was demonstrated to be. Honestly, go read [url]www.andrewsullivan.com[/url] for his summary of the repot. Bugg posted it on the "politics" thread.

    Your "we're less safe because we dont know where Bin Laden is" line is hilarious and out of character for you - way too argumentative and irrational, as if AQ hasn't been substantially weakened since 2001 and Bin Laden HIMSELF is the only threat.

    [b]"Bush has done nothing about N Korea" [/b]- this comment needs further explanation. What would qualify as 'something?" He's tried negotiations, diplomatic pressure, getting China and Russia to pressure Kim, what more do you want? Would "something" be an invasion? You [i]really[/i] want him to invade N Korea? Would "something" be another meaningless treaty being signed that N Korea defies? You don't think that Clinton is culpable at all for signing a treay that was ignored without consequence by N Korea. If Clinton had been diligent in enforcing that N Korea actually DID comply, Bush wouldn't [i]have had [/i]to do 'something' with N Korea - it would have already been taken care of. Instead, Clinton threw money at N Korea and didn;t check up on them. You love it when Michael Moore brings up aid that we have given to Afganistan and then cuts to a scene of burning NYC, yet don't mention this parallel with Clinton and N Korea and instead offer half-assed witticisms(sp?) about "convenient" blame and doing "nothing?" Please. Honestly - what should Bush do with N Korea that he hasn't done and how can you possibly blame the fact that they have nukes on him? I am not 100% blaming Clinton, but he is cuplable. But again, our intelligence services and FBI, etc should have been able to realize that N Korea was violating the treay for years. It's a complex problem and there is blame to go around - but this N Korea thing was literally thrust upon Bush, I KNOW you see this.

    [b]In response to your earlier post to me -[/b]


    I have met many, many conservatives who are dumb, racist, hateful and self-absorbed. Unfortunately, this is an all too human condition and is true for a large majority regardless of their racem creed of political leanings.

    I contend a teeny-tiny bit with the line about "working their asses of to incite change, change lifestyles" etc, etc. I guess I don't immediately recognize "change" as a noble pursuit [i]in toto[/i] but hey, we've been talking for months now and I can safely say I do know what you mean. I just think some conservatives also work very hard to maintain the status quo where they feel it is necessary to maintain it. There are tons and tons of groups dedicated to "preserving marriage" and tons of groups trying to overturn Roe. You may disagree with their ends, but their means are identical. But as you stated, you acknowledge the limitations of your own unique circumstances, as do I and as should any rational person.

    I happen to be, what I call, an "ethnic" Catholic. I don't really believe it the dogma (or even in God) but my family is intensely Catholic, my wife is intensely Catholic and we have agreed to raise our kids Catholic if we are lucky enough to have them. (We have been trying and have had limited success so far...discouraging - I spend my entire high school and college life thinking every girlfriend who is a day late is pregnent, and now when I want and am ready to be a father, we can't catch a break)

    My point is that I go to church every Sunday, am a Knight of Columbus, and spend a lot of time volunteering for church-run charities and soup kitchens, etc so I spend an awful amount of time surrounded by religious types. I do know a TON of "liberal" Catholics - you are 100% correct about the overlap. Hell, there are liberal priests, too.

    I shouldn't have said that liberals "love themselves too much" - what I really meant was that they love [i]intellectualism[/i] too much. I can understand liberal disdain for conservative pontifications about things they may not have experienced or even be materially affected by, but there is also an understandable (IMO) disdain for moral relativism, victimization, entitlements and a complete lack of objective standards or accountability that seems to be coming from some of those the left at times. I mean, some schools in Britain are actually talking about not using a red pen to mark tests or about removing the words "pass" and 'fail" from tests, because they may be too discouraging to students - also they are saying they shouldn't use the words "right" and 'wrong" for math tests, simply "creditworthy" or "not creditworthy" - as if most math questions don't have one right answer or that kids SHOULDN'T be discouraged about failing a test. Discouragement is not ALWAYS bad. Ugh...Ok, I was going off on a tangent here.

    But, I have to admit, you are almost single-handedly forcing me to stop making generalizations about liberals - I literally cringe when I do it now because I know it doesn't apply to you. I am definitely conservative in principle and yes, admittedly plan to vote for Bush in 04. But I usually hate to speak in "us" or "them" terms and have stated that I am a registered independent and haven't voted GOP in years (disgusted and embarassed by the Clinton impeachment nonsense, which, coincidentally, is exactly what I think Rove-gate is and will be proven to be)

    Sometimes guys like Bit or Tail get my dander up and yes, these threads tend to devolve in to "us" or "them" name-calling and I am as guilty as anyone, but I do think there is common ground. Unfortunately, everyone has opinions and

  16. #16
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Kingston, NY
    Posts
    3,975
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by jets5ever[/i]@Oct 3 2003, 09:33 AM
    [b] I happen to be, what I call, an "ethnic" Catholic. I don't really believe it the dogma (or even in God) but my family is intensely Catholic,

    My point is that I go to church every Sunday, am a Knight of Columbus, and spend a lot of time volunteering for church-run charities and soup kitchens, etc [/b][/quote]
    Man for a guy who doesn't believe in God you sure go to church an awful lot? Good for you.

    BTW I'm Catholic also and I do believe in God. I'm grateful for my faith, and I do hope my actions are concurrent with the will of God.

  17. #17
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by tailgators+Oct 3 2003, 08:49 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>[b]QUOTE[/b] (tailgators @ Oct 3 2003, 08:49 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--jets5ever[/i]@Oct 3 2003, 09:33 AM
    [b] I happen to be, what I call, an "ethnic" Catholic. I don&#39;t really believe it the dogma (or even in God) but my family is intensely Catholic,

    My point is that I go to church every Sunday, am a Knight of Columbus, and spend a lot of time volunteering for church-run charities and soup kitchens, etc [/b][/quote]
    Man for a guy who doesn&#39;t believe in God you sure go to church an awful lot? Good for you.

    BTW I&#39;m Catholic also and I do believe in God. I&#39;m grateful for my faith, and I do hope my actions are concurrent with the will of God. [/b][/quote]
    Well, Tail, I can&#39;t say I&#39;m not spiritual at all. But yes, I don&#39;t believe in a benevolent God, per se. I could expand, but it gets pretty esoteric and all.

    But, essentially everyone who is important to me goes a lot and I use the time to read the scriptures and sort of take a step back from my week and evaluate whether or not I have behaved well, etc. Corny-sounding, but it&#39;s what I do. I used to be more arrogantly atheist and pick apart every little contradiction in the Bible, etc. Admittedly, this is largely due to my over-bearing parents and their insistence on a Catholic education for me. I went to Catholic preK, grammar school and high school. When something is forced down your throat, I guess you tend to rebel.

    I would be grateful for my faith to, if I had it. I am not saying I never will have it or don&#39;t want it. I&#39;d just be lying if I said I believed right now. I have a lot of respect for religious people who genuinely try to live their lives according to a set of objective values.

  18. #18
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Kingston, NY
    Posts
    3,975
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by jets5ever[/i]@Oct 3 2003, 09:33 AM
    [b] No one ever said a massive supply of nukes were ready at the flick of Saddam&#39;s wrist. I said that his pattern of defiance, regional domination, contribution to and support of terrorism and his WMD pursuits - all in defiance of a cease-fire he agreed to with us after a war he started and lost - were the reasons to invade.

    Bush never said the threat was imminent. He said that to wait UNTIL it was imminent would be suicide [/b][/quote]
    5-ever...Actually in his March 17, 2003 speech giving Saddam Hussein 48 hours to leave Iraq President Bush said: "Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."

    Earlier, in a speech last October 7th, Bush said: "The iraqi regime... possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons." "We know that the regime has produced [b]thousands of tons[/b] of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas... And surveilance photos reveal that the regime is rebuilding facilites that it used to produce chemical and biological weapons."

    In his State of the Union address last January, Bush accused Itaq of having enough material "to produce over 25,000 liters of anthrax -- enough doses to kill several million people... more than 38,000 liters of botuliniium toxin -- enough to subject millions of people to death by respiratory failure... as much as [b]5,000 tons[/b] of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent."

    In his dramatic presentation to the UN Security Council on February 6, 2003, Secretary of State Colin Powel said the United States "knew" that Bagdad had dispersed rocket launchers and warheads containing biological warfare agents to locations in western Iraq.

    "We also have satellite photos that indicate that banned materials have recently been moved from a number of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction facilities," Powell said. "There can be no doubt that Saddam Hussein has biological weapons and the capability to rapidly produce more, many more."

    5-ever... As it&#39;s plain to see by these direct quotes, the focus of the Bush administration last winter was to make the impression Iraq was an imminent threat to the United States and the world.

  19. #19
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    Post Thanks / Like
    Tail -

    First of all - what Bush and Powell said is true. Secondly, Bill Clinton said these same exact things when he attacked Iraq and also said that "some day, someway, Saddam will use this arsenal." In fact, go look up what your boy Kerry also said - you&#39;ll find your liar screams about Bush and support of Kerry logically untenable, or, at least, should.

    Everyone, the UN, France, the USA - everyone knew he had these weapons and everyone also knew that he had not adequately accounted for what he had done with them, period. Hey, if he had destoyed them all and stopped pursuing them then he would have said so and proved it - I assume he enjoyed living in palaces abd being a billionaire. Clearly, he had not explained where all the WMD went, WMD we knew he had.

  20. #20
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    38,782
    Post Thanks / Like
    the latest theory i heard was that everyone thought he had them, including Saddam himself&#33;&#33;&#33; no one had the balls to tell him the program was long since shut down. LOL

    WMD or no Saddam was/is a dictator in his autumn who constituted little threat to USA. To Saudi or Israel? perhaps. But his threat to the US was small if existant at all, and not worthy of sacrificing American life and treasure. we are 5000 miles away and protected by the most favorable geography in the world.

    Iraq war was completely political. They had no real military and was an easy target. It was a TV war, for the incumbents, hopefully the first of many (syria, Iran). Wag the dog anyone?

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us