Lets see who is right this time.
Dem's yell and scream about all the bad things in Iraq, they come on TV and call military murderers (Kerry and Murtha)....they LOVE IT when the military looks bad...that is my position...
So lets see how much praise the Left gives for killing this guy...
So, when I come back on Saturday and not ONE prominent Dem gives any praise for this success, it will be just one more thing that PROVES that Dem's do hate the military, and are only happy when the US looks BAD....because to Dem's the USA is the bully of the world.
Thursday, June 08, 2006
Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi Killed in Air Raid
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
19 comments:
A sad day for liberals everywhere (and a great day for everyone else!)
Libertarian dances his victory jig....
WRONG Jason, It's a great day for anyone who despises murderous cretins. That(as one I know this for certain)includes the vast majority of liberals.
The fact that there are still questions about the overall war on terrorism doesnt mean we are sad.Most are grateful that a true example of what is despicable is gone. As even the bushies have pointed out..there is still much to do.
I ask you Jason, what kind of logic would make you believe that we would support Jhaidists?
Liberals oppose fundamentalism, telling a woman what to do with he body. Opposes all forms of censorship....in favor of stem cell research et al.
Now you are trying to pass off that people who think like that would support a group who is inalterably opposed to all those things? You just aren't making any sense which is why senseable people have a hard time with you guys.
Ron --
Liberals like Murtha have been urging for months to pull our troops to the perimeter and let al Zarqawi become dictator of Iraq. I understand you guys have negative feelings toward terrorists, but you advocate policies that empower them.
Bush advocates policies that *kill* terrorists. That's seems to be the difference between the parties these days, which is why I left the Democratic Party last year.
While that may be true, jason.....its no revelation to anyone that what Bush does is create terrorists, as well. Its been going on for 30+ years since gov'ts decided to stop negotiating and just kill terrorists. Everytime they kill one, they replace him with one thats more ruthless and psychotic, and create more low level ones who are more of the same.
rhyno--
That's simply not the case. For example, if Jimmy Carter didn't stab the Shah in the back and gave him the American help he promised, Iran would have never funded and organized the attack in Beirut that killed a few hundred of our marines in 1983.
Clinton getting owned by Mohammed Farrah Aidid is another event our enemies found contemptible; Osama bin Laden referred to it all of the time, explaining how Americans were decadent pussies that would acquiesce when given a strong dose of violence.
Lastly, and most importantly, look at the Canadian case. They thought terrorists would appreciate their nuance and sensitivity by fighting in Afghanistan, but not fighting in Iraq, like liberals here wanted. WRONG! The terrorists last week wanted to blow up Canadian buildings and behead their officials, despite how nice and tolerant they were.
It is grossly unwise to tolerate fascism in the hope it will go away in the last chapter.
You are extrapolating at best, Murtha said no such thing. Prove it~!
It is a matter of opinion which side is expressing policys that aid terrorists. I happen to think yours get closer to doing that by keeping the fire hot. I dont accuse you of aiding the terrorists or loving saddam or shit like that. It's a difference in policy that needs to be debated in America. We cant have a debate when the media immediately pulls away from policy and focuses on insults between Americans.
I advocate KILLING terrorists to...just not entire countries of innocent people! That does nothing but harm our chance to win the war on terror.
Jason's "argument" goes all over the place and ends up nowhere. It's Democrat/liberal bashing, nothing more.
So, Jason, you want to overthrow brutal dictators for democracy for the people of the middle east if George W. Bush advocates it, but if liberal Jimmy Carter doesn't support a brutal dictator in hopes that a democracy will develop, that's different?
Why? Because liberals are to be scorned and GWB has devine guidance?
nGame, Jason, EH et al. I just couldn't wait to share this GOOD news with you on our efforts to promote democracy around the world! Read this and cheer.
http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArticleNew.asp?xfile=data/weekend/2006/June/weekend_June19.xml§ion=weekend&col=
Damn, I gotta learn some html.
OK, link doesn't work here..just go
Here: http://roswellrealamerica.blogspot.com/2006/06/our-point.html
For the story.
Ron--
Language does not constitute reality. If American forces did not support the Iraqi democracy, violent insurgents would have toppled it. Moreover, they would exterminate their political opponents; they're doing some of that now even with the Americans all over them. The Iraqi police and security forces are far from being completely trained yet, a fact I thought leftist critics understood well.
Why does the left have trouble making inferences from basic propositions? Is it doublethink, or are you people simply stupid?
Jim--
I have no idea why you think the Ayatollahs are better than the progressive yet corrupt Shah. You're "informed," so explain it to me.
Jason, I have no idea what you are trying to say? Honest that is not a snark.
I think you misunderstand the situation and what it takes to win or what we are trying to do. At least, we must have a difference of opinion. I also think that words are far more than that. You know it to be true. It's called integrity and leadership. Why are you so upset to hear that they would like to model themselves after us? To me that is good news, a sign that we are meeting our goals, but apparently to you...well you must just hate the American way.
wait..who are the violent insurgents..who are the good guys, who are the bad guys..who is on whos side..I'm trying to get an idea of your mindset here cuz me thinks it may be far more simplistic than my impression of whats going on(again no snark intended). I'm honestly trying to find our points of disagreement so we can actually solve a problem unstead of endless bickering.
I heard that Zarqawi is dead. Again. Awesome. I'm hoping they lay out his corpse like they did Uday and Qusay because that goes over so well in Muslim culture.
My sentiments exactly.
I shed no tears for the bastard, of course. But he's just a convenient symbol the Bush administration glommed onto to "Al Qaeda-ize" Iraq. In fact, they had ample opportunities to take him out before the war started, but they declined for political reasons.
jason, that doesnt relate to what I said. 1) Fuck the Shah. He was an illegitimate dictator, but he was our handpuppet. You seem to not realize that pro-democracy helped overthrow the Shah because he was a brutal thug. The point of Beirut evades me, as well. Especially, since it was US trained forces from Iran and Afghanistan.
2) Aidid never 'OWNED' Cinton. His thugs outfought the US military mainly because of pathetic leadership, and use of the incompetent US Army.
3) This assertion is so unreal, it is in EH's range. You contradicted yourself IN THE SAME SENTENCE. OBL, the same man fighting under Taliban guardianship, orders a hit on Canada and this suprises you? You said right there that Canada fought in Afghanistan, Geez. STOP WATCHING FAUX NEWS! Its turned game into a ridiculous sounding pundit, and now its doing the same to you, and you two are educated and intelligent people.
rhyno--
I don't watch Fox News. In fact, I don't have cable, so I could not watch it even if I wanted.
The argument I'm hearing is this. If we stay nonviolent and don't take a proactive stance against terrorism, there will be less violence in the world and less violence against us.
I argued that turning the other cheek is a horrible way to deal with totalitarian movements. Canadians are open to attack, even though they are nuanced and sensitive and stayed out of Iraq. Retreating in Somalia instead of getting Aidid *encouraged* terrorism. And with regard to the Shah, it is always a mistake to replace bad with worse -- we don't live in a perfect world.
Those who believe that we can obtain positive consequences when dealing totalitarian movements with a combination reason, diplomacy, and keeping our nose clean have the empirical, historical record opposed to their claim.
Jason said,
"The argument I'm hearing is this. If we stay nonviolent and don't take a proactive stance against terrorism, there will be less violence in the world and less violence against us."
No, Jason, that is not the argument you are hearing. It is the voices in your head.
Nobody IN THE WORLD is saying NOT TO take a proactive stance against terrorism. Nobody is saying that. Nobody. It is just the voices in your head.
I have written this three times here today. You and game supposedly read what we write, find it too complex to understand, translate it into some false straw man, and then spew it out as total nonsense. IT IS NONSENSE. NOBODY is saying that. Got it? NOBODY. Except the voices inside your head, I guess.
Regarding your last graph, I think Reagan in his grave might dispute this.
And "It is always a mistake to replace bad with worse...", see Iraq.
Post a Comment