Peace Democrats - Now and Then

[Grumplestillskin]

let me see if i have this one....since the people you hate are doing something you hate it is ok for you to do it?

I don't hate them at all. But you know, what is someone supposed to do? A group of people have a certain type of behaviour that affects you adversely. Do you sit there and take it or reply in kind? What's your answer?

[manu1959]

I don't hate them at all. But you know, what is someone supposed to do? A group of people have a certain type of behaviour that affects you adversely. Do you sit there and take it or reply in kind? What's your answer?

so you are ok with the invasion of iraq to help out the iraqi people that saddam was killing.....well good for you.

[Grumplestillskin]

so you are ok with the invasion of iraq to help out the iraqi people that saddam was killing.....well good for you.

To which I say when do the invasions of:

China
Burma
Liberia
Uzbekistan
North Korea
Iran
Pakistan
Sudan
Sierra Leone
Kuwait
Oman
Saudia Arabia
and the dozens of other dictatorships begin..:cow:

[manu1959]

To which I say when do the invasions of:

China
Burma
Liberia
Uzbekistan
North Korea
Iran
Pakistan
Sudan
Sierra Leone
Kuwait
Oman
Saudia Arabia
and the dozens of other dictatorships begin..:cow:

wow!....you are quite the superhawk.....do you think they will reinstate the draft?.....i sure hope bambam and the shemale will wage war for ya....

[Grumplestillskin]

wow!....you are quite the superhawk.....do you think they will reinstate the draft?.....i sure hope bambam and the shemale will wage war for ya....

I was more hoping for Superman and Wolverine myself....

[Gaffer]

"Those people" would prefer that our resources were used actually increasing our security to prevent that dirty bomb from getting through. If the Repubs were so concerned about protecting us, they'd have implemented the 9/11 Commission recommendations, secured our borders, our waterways, our nuclear facilities.

Now why is it that the neo-cons, who are luckily less than 1/3 of the U.S. are so invested in pursuing the occupation of a country which has descended into chaos and civil war, at a cost of hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of lives, which has no measurable security benefit to this country?

Hmmmmmmmmm... I wonder....

And I, for one, am not staunchly opposed to war, just this particular misadventure.

Welcome aboard, Bonnie.

Cheers.

We need to do all that, and take the fight to the enemy on his turf. The best defense is a good offense. That has always been the case. Just sitting back and building up defenses does not defeat the enemy.

[manu1959]

I was more hoping for Superman and Wolverine myself....

nah......storm and wonder woman

[Grumplestillskin]

nah......storm and wonder woman

I was talking about saving the world, not who you wanted to do the horizontal bop with - if that were the case it'd have to be Ms Marvel and Rogue...

[Insein]

I was talking about saving the world, not who you wanted to do the horizontal bop with - if that were the case it'd have to be Ms Marvel and Rogue...

Supergirl and batgirl in a 3 way. Save the world? Pfft who cares.

[red states rule]

The media in the US is overwhelming liberal

Here is another example of their "support" for the US, the US military, and how they view the war on terror


CNN’s Cafferty Draws Moral Equivalence Between Iran and United States
Posted by Scott Whitlock on February 12, 2007 - 17:50.
During the Monday edition of the "Situation Room," Jack Cafferty discussed U.S. allegations that Iraqi militants are killing American soldiers with weapons provided by Iran. At the conclusion of the "Cafferty File" segment, the CNN host engaged in the always reliable media tradition of moral equivalence, comparing Iran’s action to U.S. support of Afghan rebels in the 1980s. Apparently, the fact that America was opposing the brutal Russian regime, whereas, in this case, Iran is the oppressive entity, makes no difference. Cafferty and "Situation Room" host Wolf Blitzer also exhibited skepticism about the United State’s timing in making these accusations:

Jack Cafferty: "So here is the question: ‘When it comes to Iran’s alleged involvement in Iraq, who do you believe?’ E-mail your thoughts to CaffertyFile@CNN.com or go to CNN.com/Caffertyfile. Reminiscent, Wolf, of the war in Afghanistan, when Russia invaded. It seems to me we were– The United States was supplying weapons and intelligence and things like that to the Afghan rebels."

Wolf Blitzer: "The Mujahideen, a lot. Through the CIA, through the Saudis, Those shoulder-fired missiles which brought down a lot of Soviet helicopters."

Cafferty: "So, that was okay but it's not okay if Iran-- I'm, I’m confused, Wolf."

Blitzer: "Well, you know, later we will talk to Michael Ware about the timing, why the U.S. is releasing all this information right now since it's been out there at least for a year, maybe two."

A transcript of the February 12 segment, which aired at 4:08pm, follows:

Jack Cafferty: "A war of words, Wolf, heating up between the United States and Iran. U.S. officials yesterday showing off what they call a growing body of evidence that Iranian weapons are being used to kill coalition soldiers in Iraq. They say that Iran is making the violence worse there by providing Shiite groups with technology, money, and training. The officials are focused on something called EFPs or explosively formed penetrators that can punch through heavily armored vehicles. The U.S. says these weapons can be traced back to Iran and have killed 170 coalition forces. An Iranian official calls the U.S. allegations all lies saying the administration has made mistakes in Iraq and they want to use Iran as a scapegoat. The Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad also denied that his country is supplying weapons to Iraqi militants. He said there will only be peace in Iraq when foreign forces leave there. So here is the question: ‘When it comes to Iran’s alleged involvement in Iraq, who do you believe?’ E-mail your thoughts to Caffertyfile@CNN.com or go to CNN.com/Caffertyfile. Reminiscent, Wolf, of the war in Afghanistan, when Russia invaded. It seems to me we were– The United States was supplying weapons and intelligence and things like that to the Afghan rebels."

Wolf Blitzer: "The Mujahideen, a lot. Through the CIA, through the Saudis, Those shoulder-fired missiles which brought down a lot of Soviet helicopters."

Cafferty: "So, that was okay but it's not okay if Iran-- I'm, I’m confused, Wolf."

Wolf Blitzer: "Well, you know, later we will talk to Michael Ware about the timing, why the U.S. is releasing all this information right now since it's been out there at least for a year, maybe two."

Cafferty: "And Iran, arguably, is probably not the only country with vested interest in what’s going on going inside Iraq. All of the nations around in immediate area, including Saudi Arabia, have a very vested interest in the outcome of what is happening in that country."

Blitzer: "A lot of people do. All right, Jack. Thanks very much."

http://newsbusters.org/node/10784

[Gunny]

Bush failed because he failed....

Problem is, Bush hasn't failed at anything yet. You just keep attempting to perpetuate a premature judgement.

There were 7 years between the two trade center attacks. Terrorists are patient. But given your logic, does that mean Bill Clinton kept us safe for all that time? Let me anticipate your answer.... thought not.

That was not the question. The question was how many attacks SINCE 9/11 on US soil? Zero, that's how many. Hard to call that a failure.

Unlike your attitude toward President Bush, I have never blamed Clinton just because he's Clinton, and I defy you to find on this board, or the previous one ONE instance where I have.

The fact is, there were several terrorist attacks during Clinton's tenure.

Again, unlike you, I'm not pointing a finger at anyone but the terrorists. OBL got his nuts in an uproar because "infidels" were on Arab soil during the First Gulf War, and it was THEN that he declared jihad against the US.

So maybe we should have just left Kuwait to Saddam's butchery so we wouldn't piss off OBL?

The millennium plot was thwarted also - on Clinton's watch. That's a function of intel... not a function of a pointless war. And even if you think the war serves a purpose, you think you're getting bang for your buck?

Nope. I'd have won it already and REALLY given you libbies something to squeal about.

[Bonnie]

"Those people" would prefer that our resources were used actually increasing our security to prevent that dirty bomb from getting through. If the Repubs were so concerned about protecting us, they'd have implemented the 9/11 Commission recommendations, secured our borders, our waterways, our nuclear facilities.

Now why is it that the neo-cons, who are luckily less than 1/3 of the U.S. are so invested in pursuing the occupation of a country which has descended into chaos and civil war, at a cost of hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of lives, which has no measurable security benefit to this country?

Hmmmmmmmmm... I wonder....

And I, for one, am not staunchly opposed to war, just this particular misadventure.

Welcome aboard, Bonnie.

Cheers.

Well there we agree, I too believe our borders should be closed, but let's not put that squarely on the Republicans shoulders, I see even worse ideas coming from Pelosi and company...Must be all those illegal nannies they like to hire

Point about Iraq is that we are there, and have been for three years, what a waste if we pull out, leave that country to implode. It sends many terrible messages to the terrorists that we have no stomach to stand up to them in the propaganda arena, and to other countries like Iran that may be festering an internal coup to oust their looney leader, it tells them we the U.S. will cut and run, not to be counted on...And I beg to differ that a friendly Irag has no strategic benefits to us....

BTW thanks for the welcome