Have people forgotten about 9/11? (hell, America, mission, experience, pagan)

[methylatedghosts]

Originally Posted by tomspug

Now that we're clearly winning in Iraq, it seems that the news and Congress have shut up about it. Maybe we can go back to remembering why people believe that a "war on terror" exists.

You're winning? I had no idea....

We need to examine who we choose to believe and what we choose to fight for. Is it our job to protect ourselves, or to protect ourselves AND our allies AND the oppressed?

If by protecting you mean invading a country......

[Reverend Rick]

Originally Posted by methylatedghosts

You're winning? I had no idea....



If by protecting you mean invading a country......

Exactly right. If anyone messes with us, we will come for them and put their head on a stick.

[Father Heathen]

Originally Posted by Reverend Rick

Exactly right. If anyone messes with us, we will come for them and put their head on a stick.

Like Osama! Oh, wait...

[GadFly]

Originally Posted by Ringer

I remember in my Freshman year at College (2001), I had a U.S. History professor who couldn't have been younger than 75 years old. I specifically remember her telling the class something similar to, "Mark my words - Iran isn't what we are going to be worry about in the near future. Saddam Hussein and Iraq is where it's all about."

In retrospect, I wonder why she thought so because I find it ironic that shortly thereafter we had 9/11 and the decision to invade Iraq to find WMDs. I guess I just brushed it off as the ramblings of an old, confused woman. Don't know where I was going with this but maybe someone would like to respond. Since it's coming up on 7 years ago, it's becoming difficult to remember if there were events going on behind the scene that most people wouldn't have recognized that would point to a conflict with Iraq.

Many of us lived through the history leading up to the invasion of Iraq. Too many of us forget what a danger Iraq was to the world. I remember very little criticism of Israel, even from the Arab counties, when Israel took out the nuclear facilities in Iraq. All the Mid East knew Saddam was a mad man and was a potential threat to use WMD on any of them. The Liberals in Congress find it easy to ignore the past threat Iraq was to the world. Even after the first Golf war Saddam used WMD on his own people and the threat that he had and would use WMD on his neighbors kept him safe from invasion. The argument the Liberals use against Bush that Iraq was no threat to the USA is nonsense especially since most Liberals voted in favor of the War in the beginning. The secret the Liberal Democratic Party held back from the public was that they voted for the invasion to keep the voting public from thinking the Liberals would not defend the nation.

The only interest Liberals had in the war was to find a way to "take back their country" from the Republicans. This strategy was openly discussed on all the Liberal talk shows by NBC, CBS, ABC and FOX as well. The Democrats had it planned that if things went wrong that they would make it G.W Bush/Republican's War, just like Nam was the Democrat's war. They had no interest in doing what was best for the country. The Democrat's goal was to win the next election.

Just today it was announced on Fox News that 93% of all journalist were Liberals and only 7% of the journalist in the USA were Conservative. The Democrats have always had enough propaganda to make the public believe almost anything. I remember Jessie Jackson bragging directly after the election of 2000 that the Democrats were never going to say a good thing about the Bush administration, give Bush credit for nothing good he did, and hound him until he left office. You might say Jackson was bitter over the election results. Shortly after his bitter announcement, Jackson was revealed to have had recent affairs with women resulting in the birth of children. Jessie ended his moral attack on Bush at that time but he had already announced what the Party would do to Bush to get even with what happened in Florida.

The idea that Bush lied and men died was as false as a cow giving birth to a skunk. According to their plan the Liberal Democrats began to dump their loyalty for Bush's War. Even though the Clinton's had the same recent intelligences as Bush they said Bush lied. Another lie the Liberals told and made it stick was that the only reason that Bush went to war was to find WMD. Saddam had to make Iran believe he had WMD's or Iran would have attacked him long ago. Saddam was too convincing and it cost him. But the myth that Bush lied was pressed forward by 93% of the free press. The Liberal Press joined the Liberal Democrats in attacking Bush.

When the election of 2004 came the Liberals had already become victims of their own propaganda. Because they hated Bush so strongly they were convinced the country shared their hate for Bush. When it came election time the country turned out to the polls in support of Bush. I think the Dan Rather scandal showed the nation that it could no believe a thing the Liberal press was telling it and that Democrats were a Party of lies.

Now, not all Democrats are lairs. Neither party has a monopoly on telling lies. If a good number of Democrats don't find a reason to vote for Bush in the last two presidential elections, Bush does not win. It makes you think about the 2008 election. The Liberal Democrats are at it again only with each other now. Do you think enough Democrats will find reason enough to vote for McCain this time?

The public knows already that the 93% Liberal press is a pack of liars spouting out the lies of the Democrat Party. There is nothing the 93% of the Liberal press can do to change the image of the Liberals as big laying politicians. Of course the Republicans and Democrats on this forum are already set in their minds whose position they are for. The very idea that any of us are going to change our minds is foolish, unless the cows come home giving birth to skunks. The election is still out there on the streets among undecided voters of the middle of the road voters.

I would say the formula for victory favors the Republicans. Every time the 93% of the Liberal press attempts to criticize McCain, the Democrats lose support. Who do you think the public will believe? Will it be that 7% of Conservative journalist or 93% of the Liberal journalist? I wonder how many of that 7% group belong to FOX Network which has over 50% of the viewing population? These odds are looking better for McCain, don't you think? It will be funny to see who the Liberals will blame if they lose again. I am not trying to anger anybody, but if the Democrats don't win, it will not be safe to get on the street for at least six months to a year. All that planning for eight years going down the tubs due to a cat and dog fight in the Democrat Party and Ralph Nader jumping into the election just to give the disenfranchised party members a place to go. Would it not be funny if Ralph won? It's not going to happen.

that held for the world because of their political philosophy requires them to do what is best for their Party and not what is best for the country

[GadFly]

Originally Posted by Somkid

We attacked the wrong people not that Iraq was a good country or anything but it would have been more relevant to attack the Saudis. This "war" (circus) has gone on long enough it is time to make Bush bring his toys home and go to bed.

Speaking of relative, it would be smart to drill our own oil and let the rest of the world fight over the Med East oil. But Guess who will not allow us to drill? It's the same people who blame Bush for being friends with the Saudis. Can you imagine what would happen to the American economy if the oil producing counties would say to us, no more oil? If the Liberals ever win the presidency and anger the Saudis without having an adequate source of oil, their party would not win an election for the next 100 years. They just talk morality first, oil second. They'll never do it.

[GadFly]

Originally Posted by Father Heathen

Like Osama! Oh, wait...

I would rather have him in a mountain cave than walking the streets in open public like the Democrats had him. He knows now that if he sticks his neck out somebody will cut his head off.

[PureX]

Originally Posted by GadFly

I would rather have him in a mountain cave than walking the streets in open public like the Democrats had him. He knows now that if he sticks his neck out somebody will cut his head off.

Except that this isn't true. He's much harder for us to kill, now that he's hiding. We tried to get him before, and even that proved very difficult. He's a rich and powerful man, with a lot of supporters in other countries. And we can't just go stomping into other nations and killing people until we get the 'bad guy'.

[Father Heathen]

Originally Posted by GadFly

I would rather have him in a mountain cave than walking the streets in open public like the Democrats had him. He knows now that if he sticks his neck out somebody will cut his head off.

Sigh, conservatives always shift the blame instead of taking responsibility for their own failures.

[Bishka]

Originally Posted by Reverend Rick

Exactly right. If anyone messes with us, we will come for them and put their head on a stick.

What a way to act.....

[tomspug]

Originally Posted by gnomon

I forgot about this thread.

No, the people were not unified. Just because a few pundits jump up and down screaming unification doesn't make it so. The rather quick installation of a Patriot Act and off to war in the wrong country destroyed any illusion of unified political sentiments.

This reminds me of my sponsor, the following night (9/12 for those keeping pace), telling a roomful of people in a mental hospital that they don't have real problems because he lost a friend on 9/11. I pointed out to him that one of the young lady's in the room had just told many of us about being raped by her uncle shortly before arriving.

Where the hell were all these patriots when are own government has put so many non-violent criminals in prisons where they are open to abuse, killed American citizens and even in one instance, less than 20 years ago, by U.S. marines.

Don't speak to me like you know anything. Throwing a badge called 9/11 on your should means nothing. As I said, I remember very well the terrorist attack. I remember researching the destruction of the towers, the lost lives and the political background leading to it. I study history. I don't need to go around barking like a patriotic lapdog.

Dude, seriously. Get back in reality. If you think I'M a patriotic lapdog, then you are obviously off the deep end. The truth is, I'm about as moderate you can get, but apparently because I have the clarity to not be fooled by the propaganda of an 8-year hate-Bush machine, I'm a lapdog. Get real, man. You can't just push one perspective into a box and expect it to stay there.

I mean, consider for a moment, you're own views. There are plenty of reasons to not be a fan of the Iraq War, but to state ridiculously WRONG things like the American response to 9/11 was imbecilic, or to imply that our president has the IQ of an ape (news flash, he's got more education than you, I'm sure AND he's the freaking President. Trust me, he's a smarter man than you). No, the TRUTH is that some people just really WANT to hate Republicans so much that they have fooled themselves into believing that everything that is wrong with America and our government is somehow 100% Republicans fault and that everything that goes right is either an accident or ACTUALLY the Democrat's doing.

Can we AT LEAST find common ground on this issue that everything is not always as it appears. This goes for both sides of every issue, including the Iraq War. If there were absolutely no benefits to the Iraq War, then how did it make it past Congress? It's not like Democrats stopped being Democrats for a couple of months and then woke up later like a bad drug trip.

If you're refusing to admit that there is anything good about the Iraq War then I guess this conversation is finished. Perhaps you've been drinking the "Bush=Bad" kool-aid for too long.