To liberals: Winning Is Not an Option

[Naturalized-Texan]

Winning Is Not an Option (http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=Y2Y0ZDk0NzA5ZmI1OTI0YWEyN2RmMjc0NjY2MjYwMzI=)

Let me get this straight. For a couple of years now Democrats have increasingly demanded that America get out of Iraq now, soon or by a date certain. The Murtha bug-out chorus says “it’s not our fight,” “let the Iraqis handle it,” “let’s stay out of a civil war,” and, “we can’t win.”

I think I have that right.

So on Thursday the Washington Post ran a front-page story on how the democratically elected Iraqi government is considering offering amnesty for some insurgents as part of a larger “national reconciliation plan.”

In response, the Democratic leadership in Congress went ass over tea kettle.

“The mere idea that this proposal may go forward is an insult to the brave men and women who have died in the name of Iraqi freedom,” shrieked Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid. New Jersey Senator Bob Menendez a co-sponsor of the resolution demanding that the amnesty plan be immediately quashed, thundered: “We ask you Prime Minister Maliki, are you willing to have ‘reconciliation’ on the pool of American blood that has been spilled to give your people and your country a chance for freedom?” He continued: “We reject that notion and are outraged that the sacrifice of American troops and the American people could be so devalued.”

Florida Senator Bill Nelson says “Terrorists and insurgents shouldn’t be rewarded for killing American soldiers.” And, Chuck Schumer in a pitch perfect pose of deep regret and sadness lamented that insurgents were getting a “get out of jail free card.”

This is repugnant. Shame on them.

{More at the link above.}

[Lubbock]

From the Washington (Com)post earlier today:

BAGHDAD-- Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's office on Thursday accepted the resignation of an aide who had told a reporter that Maliki was considering a limited amnesty that would likely include guerrillas who had attacked U.S. troops, the aide said.

So Chuckie and Nancy can shut up now.

[Jester21]

I'd like to hear a rationale definition of what 'winning' in Iraq would be. If he's going to whine that Democrats don't want to 'win', Goldberg should explain exactly what would constitute victory over there. Is he waiting for the insurgents to surrender? That will never happen; they don't have central leadership. There will always be wackos to fight on. Waiting until Iraqis can be responsible for their own security? That's a little more likely, although it's dismaying how long it's taking to train them. And how is he going to know when the Iraqis are ready for self-government? He needs to define that as well.

Look, I was all for the war in Iraq. In my book, taking out Saddam Hussein is A Very Good Thing, regardless of the other reasons given for going in there. But it's such a clusterf*ck there right now I think the best thing to do would be to leave. Either that or send in about 4 times as many troops as are there right now. But I think the insurgency now has enough popular support that you could send millions of troops in and they'd never stamp out all of it. I'm becoming increasingly convinced that Iraq is going to have a civil war as soon as we've left, so I figure may as well let them do it with as few American deaths as possible.

[Lubbock]

Jester, you need to study your history.

I can point to any number of Clusterf**ks that took place during the Civil War (on both sides), and yet the Union slogged on, and eventually the slaves were freed.

Some would describe the D-Day Invasion as a Clusterf**k, and yet we slogged on, eventually defeating Hitler and making the European continent free of tyranny.

Despite the Clusterf**ks in the American Revolution, we are a nation today, free of tyranny. (Well, almost, except for the tyranny that's being rained down on us from The Bench).

I submit to you, there may be fewer Cluserf**ks in Iraq than you are being led to believe by the Leftstream Media.

I wouldn't Armchair General that war if I were you.

As to when we leave Iraq: honey, we're still in Germany.

[Antigone]

As to when we leave Iraq: honey, we're still in Germany.

ooooooooooooh, that's gonna hurt!! :rotflmbo:

[Jester21]

I can point to any number of Clusterf**ks that took place during the Civil War (on both sides), and yet the Union slogged on, and eventually the slaves were freed.

Some would describe the D-Day Invasion as a Clusterf**k, and yet we slogged on, eventually defeating Hitler and making the European continent free of tyranny.

Despite the Clusterf**ks in the American Revolution, we are a nation today, free of tyranny. (Well, almost, except for the tyranny that's being rained down on us from The Bench).
In all of these cases there was an enemy which was more or less centralized-there was leadership in place with the authority to say 'I surrender'. Who is that figurehead in Iraq? The war in Iraq will go on continuously because there is noone on the other side who can say 'enough!' and make all the nutjobs stop.

And i would never describe the D-Day invasion as a clusterf**k. I'd describe it as possibly the greatest single military victory in history.

As to when we leave Iraq: honey, we're still in Germany.
We're not being attacked by them.

In all honesty: what constitutes victory in Iraq? How do we win?

[Antigone]

As to when we leave Iraq: honey, we're still in Germany.
We're not being attacked by them.


My Lord, you cannot be that dense can you? Wait, I'm talking about a liberal. Nevermind.

[Jester21]

German terrorists are attacking American forces?

Also, I'm not a liberal. I'm just more liberal than most people here. I'm not a conservative either.

[Jester21]

We win when we have established Democracy. In other words, we have already won and now we are helping them to minimize problems later.
Specifics, please. If we've already won, can you point to when that happened?

[CzechPrince]

I think Jester brings up a good point. I was all for the war, but what constitutes winning? They have a government, a constitution, 100,000+ security forces trained, what else do they need from us? We've rebuilt much of the public service buildings and infrastructure as well.

At this point, if with 100,000+ security forces (and all the forementioned items listed above) if they can't get it done, tough. I care about our soldiers more than any of those people.

I'm not saying to high tail it and run, I come from a very strong military family, and I know the job needs to be done. But I think we have accomplished our job, and it's time to start phasing out.

[DoctorDoom]

I'd like to hear a rationale definition of what 'winning' in Iraq would be.The war was over in a few months, libertroll. Didn't you get the memo?

The liberation of Iraq from Sodamn Insane and his cadre of monsters was accomplished (despite the fact that liberal assholes did their damnedest to put impediments in the way - remember the "human shield" dumfux?). Now the fight is against terrorists, a large percentage of them from outside.

Let me ask you a question, liberal. Where would you rather have the camel-raping terrorist sons of bitches, in Iraq fighting the US military or in the US killing citizens? ......No, on second thought, don't answer that. Liberal scum are praying to Gaia for an attack that will kill Americans by the thousands, so that they can use it as political capital against Bush. In fact, they'd sell the country out to its enemies if they could blame it on Bush.

Also, I'm not a liberal.Your denial is expected and understandable. If I were a liberal, I wouldn't admit it, either.

[Foquet]

I'd like to hear a rationale definition of what 'winning' in Iraq would be. If he's going to whine that Democrats don't want to 'win', Goldberg should explain exactly what would constitute victory over there. Is he waiting for the insurgents to surrender? That will never happen; they don't have central leadership. .
And the Terrorist Left has a coherent policy? Aside from putting together office pools when the 1000th, 2000th, and 2500th soldier died? I know that people like you get wet pussies and creampie yourselves when you see those numbers. You cannot contain yourselves when you see a real dead GI in a coffin. The wetness that comes forth from your orifices makes me sick. And it is WAY past time that slime like you are made to pay for your crimes. A shame you have the freedom to post here when slime like you should be in a prison camp. A true war demands that.

The fact that that thousands...(that is thousands..not Dick and Jayne blow jobs...since you went to a gov't school) are dead ..that is DRT.....and we know that how disheartened you are via that fact..but you want to dig up as many US soldiers and blame Bush of things worse than the Stalinists and the Nazis are to blame for. Go back to duH..little boy.

Look in the mirror..ala Joan Baez 2 days before Pol Pot took over and you might see the Holocaust of your ways.

Bastard.

[Wyatt_Junker]

This bears repeating, at least for those who don't know their history.



Look in the mirror..ala Joan Baez 2 days before Pol Pot took over and you might see the Holocaust of your ways.



Pol Pot's enormous skull rooms were the direct result of every single anti-war nam-protesting, longhair sonofabitch, dope smoking fukwrench with a purple haze and a Bob Dylan chaser on a booger sugar binge. Coitus interruptus makes lousy birth control. Why would we expect it to work in war? Maybe John Murtha does everything half ass. War based on Tijuana time will get you laid faster than a 5 peso whore. I have the doctor's prescription to prove it.

[Foquet]

Bingo....dude.

Those that are too young, dumb and full of cum...are doomed to repeat it.

[Foquet]

This bears repeating, at least for those who don't know their history.

Pol Pot's enormous skull rooms were the direct result of every single anti-war nam-protesting, longhair sonofabitch, dope smoking fukwrench with a purple haze and a Bob Dylan chaser on a booger sugar binge. Coitus interruptus makes lousy birth control. Why would we expect it to work in war? Maybe John Murtha does everything half ass. War based on Tijuana time will get you laid faster than a 5 peso whore. I have the doctor's prescription to prove it.

You know what is funny? When I was 13 and took on my first job back in Nov 1979...the media talk was the massive refugee wave from Pol Pot and his Soviet Ron Jeremy Regime.

And not 2 days later...the Iranian Hostage Crisis reared it's ugly head. And that was my 1st day as a paper delivery man. I served as that deilvery man from Day 1 to Day 444..from 1979 to 1981.....in fact...I quit not 5 days after that crisis was solved by the swearing in of RR.

[Wyatt_Junker]

My theory?

That the Rubic's Cube was the result of American frustration. We were restless and needed to fidget with something. Nerves.

Our seething was turned inward. There was nothing we could do about our Tollhouse Cookie President. I remember my teacher brought in a black and white tele into our classroom in 1976 to watch the Carter/Ford debates. There stood a man with teeth the size of tombstones and an oversized, deformed head.

Bobby Reynolds sat in front of me on the floor of the classroom sitting indian style, letting silent but deadlies. I watched Carter with the ambience of his roiling farts that were a mixture of hot dog water and bad perm smell. That's my first memory of Carter.

Then we had 444 days of burlesque. At least that's what it appeared to be. The hostage crisis apparently amounted to little more than gay Broadway show tunes. Our 'leaders' seemed to think so. Carter's solution? Yellow ribbons. Now there's a good idear. Tie one on!

And then the ball-less moron takes us right into fill-up station hell. Meanwhile my brother and I are in the back seat of our station wagon waiting to fill her up in 110 degree heat in a half a mile long line of cars, and I'm drawing horns on the Ayotolloah's head in Time magazine and wondering why somebody doesn't just nuke his shit right up. Beat the old man's ass, then unspool his head and shave his beard. I didn't care if the hostages lived or died. I saw the burning of American flags. I saw the cocky sumbitch muslim scum. I was only 10 years old in '79 and I knew what to do. Bloodshed. Carrion. By the cargo containers. The big ones you see off our ports, filled with Iranian corpses. If I could see it(and it was so easy to see) before puberty, then why couldn't anybody else? We just picked up our Rubic's Cubes and twirled them around in our hands... waiting for someone with a pair.

[Foquet]

We had a Twinkie for a Pres....and Charlie Daniels to reminds us that we were Americans. Lee Greenwood needs to bow towards Charlie's feet. 1980 was a BAD year.

[Longhorn_Platinum]

Jester21:
And i would never describe the D-Day invasion as a clusterf**k. I'd describe it as possibly the greatest single military victory in history.

In all honesty: what constitutes victory in Iraq? How do we win?

:unsmile: What constitutes a clusterfúck?


:question: Is it even in the dictionary?

[Longhorn_Platinum]

Jester21:
Specifics, please. If we've already won, can you point to when that happened?

:moo: April 9, 2003.

[DoctorDoom]

Is it even in the dictionary?Not in M-W. However ...

clusterf*ck -- Marine slang -- A clusterf*ck was any group of Marines big enough to draw enemy fire, or several Marines close enough together to be wounded by the same incoming round. More generically, a clusterf*ck was something that was all screwed up, i.e. "That blocking operation was a giant clusterf*ck!" Whenever three or more CAP Marines gathered in the open, talking or working on something, somebody was sure to call out "clusterf*ck!" and one or more guys would walk away.CAP Glossary (http://capmarine.com/cap/glossary.htm)

The general meaning is similar to SNAFU/FUBAR.

[aaron11]

In all of these cases there was an enemy which was more or less centralized-there was leadership in place with the authority to say 'I surrender'. Who is that figurehead in Iraq? The war in Iraq will go on continuously because there is noone on the other side who can say 'enough!' and make all the nutjobs stop.

{The Iraqi National Guard} Clue time, kid. The American-Iraq war has been over for several years. Your first clue, The Iraq and American agenda is one in the same. Democracy and stability in Iraq. You Liberals have so abused the term "war" that it no longer carries any meaning, "war on poverty", "war on drugs", war on fatty foods", hell y'all even declared war SUV'S... Wake up, son. Iraq is moving forward, along with Afghanistan. That became clear when Iraqi and Afghani TROOPS carrying flag and color marched into the battle against your so called "nut-jobs"...

And i would never describe the D-Day invasion as a clusterf**k. I'd describe it as possibly the greatest single military victory in history.

Allied forces sustained 10,000 casualties to take that beach, American forces sustained less then 300 casualties in the taking of Iraq.

We're not being attacked by them.
You're right, we're being attacked by the American left...:finger:
In all honesty: what constitutes victory in Iraq? How do we win? We already have. Saddam is no longer in power, ten's of thousands of terrorist elements and their networks, finances and ability to operate globally have been crushed. We now have two allied countries in the middle east, both of which have as much at stake in this as we do and we have broken up the UN controlled black market for Oil and weaponry sales/trade. WTF are you whining about? Was there a part of [This will be a long hard fight] that you didn't understand?

[DesertFox]

Specifics, please. If we've already won, can you point to when that happened?

The day before Saddam Hussein was born. We won before the dinosaurs went extinct. Before the beginning of time, we had already won the war in Iraq.

The Korean War is still not settled by formal agreements. I suppose to you that means the Korean War is still going on.

The world's a messy place. Not everything is neatly tied up in a little box with a pink ribbon and bow centered just so.

[Naturalized-Texan]

Let's face it. Libs like the Jester don't want us to win the War on Terror. Libs oppose fighting terrorists for the same reason they opposed fighting Communists: they see no enemies on the left.

[Naturalized-Texan]

I read this and all I can think about is Bush giving 20 million criminals here a pass while pissing in the faces of the 300 million Americans demanding that he do his CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY and defend the borders. I think of the American civilian blood shed by these invaders, and families cowering in their homes so Bush's billionaire buddies can make more profit.
If President Reagan would have vetoed the Simpson-Mazzoli amnesty bill in 1986 and then demanded that Congress pass an immigration bill requiring strict enforcement of our borders and the immediate deportation of all illegal immigrants, we wouldn't have the mess that you are referring to.

BTW, the best estimate is that there are 11 million illegals here, not 20 million. And no matter what happens, it is impossible to deport the illegals already here. Again, it all goes back to President Reagan not vetoing Simpson-Mazzoli (see above).

[Antigone]

German terrorists are attacking American forces?

Also, I'm not a liberal. I'm just more liberal than most people here. I'm not a conservative either.

You asked when soldiers were going to leave Iraq. Lubbock indicated we still have soldiers in Germany. If you are too dense to get what she was trying to say, I doubt anyone will be able to explain it to you sufficiently.

[Lubbock]

Simpson-Mazzoli is where today's problem could have been headed off at the pass, but you have to go back a lot further than that, and look at the incrementalism that has brought us to where we are today.


One Example: Caesar Chavez, the lionized lettuce pickers hero with his own "day" in California, was the driving force behind the law that says your local police can not handle illegals. Up until Chavez, when a local cop crossed paths with illegals, the cop could handle the situation. Now, the INS/Border Patrol has to be contacted to come to where the illegal(s) are being held and take charge of the situation.

That's why most cops just didn't bother. It could be days before the undermanned Border Patrol could get to your jurisdiction to take charge of an illegal border crosser.

Of course, now we have cities passing laws making it impossible for a local cop to even stop an illegal for anything. Cops are being told to look the other way.

I fully understand why vast numbers of people are turly angry with GWB for his stance on the illegal situation, and believe me, I have my own flash points of anger over certain proposals, but I at least have common sense enough to understand that today's problems did not start with GWB, and they won't end with GWB.

[Naturalized-Texan]

I fully understand why vast numbers of people are turly angry with GWB for his stance on the illegal situation, and believe me, I have my own flash points of anger over certain proposals, but I at least have common sense enough to understand that today's problems did not start with GWB, and they won't end with GWB.
I think that Americon has such an irrational hatred of President Bush that he blames him for every problem that America has had in in the past 100+ years.

[Jester21]

Sorry; I've been away for a couple of days.

I know that people like you get wet pussies and creampie yourselves when you see those numbers. You cannot contain yourselves when you see a real dead GI in a coffin. The wetness that comes forth from your orifices makes me sick.
What??? Your post is kind of making me sick lol.

April 9, 2003.
That's fair.....but I think there have been more casualties since April 9/03 than before. Usually when you win a war/battle/whatever, you don't suffer more AFTER you win than before.

Libs like the Jester don't want us to win the War on Terror.
On the contrary, I very much would like to see us win. I don't see the War on Terror being won by creating more terrorists the longer we're in Iraq.

You asked when soldiers were going to leave Iraq.
No I didn't.

I'll say it again: I was all for the war, I believed there were WMDs being readied to be used against us. I thought it was a great idea to remove Saddam Hussein. To this day, I think that the Iraqi people were thrilled when we came in and took him out. But there weren't enough troops to secure the country from the terrorists who flooded in afterward and began stirring up trouble amongst the locals. And now I think it's too late to fix, the only thing that will be accomplished will be more American deaths. I've seen no indication that the more extreme elements of the Iraqi people will stop any of their activities. If you need to see how long these people hold a grudge you needn't look any farther than the Palestinians. Why make more Americans die when it won't accomplish anything? Iraq won't be a good ally if all it does is suck us dry, every new story, authentic or not, of American behaviour in Iraq creates more terrorists, and it's tying up a huge part of our armed forces and budget that could be better spent on Iran and North Korea which now apparently has a missile that can hit the West Coast.

If there is no plan on how to stabilize the country, then why have more American deaths? Why not get the troops out of there and let the Iraqis settle it amongst themselves?

[DoctorDoom]

But there weren't enough troops to secure the country from the terrorists who flooded in afterward and began stirring up trouble amongst the locals.Why is that? A: the libeRATs are deliberately, callously undermining our efforts in Iraq for one reason: they loathe President Bush with a pathological, intractable hatred, and they will sell out America to the terrorists in order to destroy him.

They WANT more American deaths in Iraq. They high-five each other with every US warrior who dies there. Our guys in the field are nothing but numbers to them.

America has NEVER been defeated on the battlefield, and never WILL be. If we are beaten, it will be because we have failed them here in the US, as we did during the Vietnam conflict, by not lining the piece-of-shit traitors up against a wall and machine-gunning them. They deserve nothing better than to be exterminated like f**king cockroaches.


FYI: White Guilt and the Western Past (http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110008318)

[Jester21]

Why is that?
The reason there weren't enough troops sent to Iraq for the original invasion had nothing to do with liberals or conservatives, undermining or encouraging. It had everything to do with Rumsfeld trying to show off his new 'Army-lite' that could be used for rapid-response situations as well as full-on invasions and occupations. He didn't listen to his advisors.

And please, enough with the 'liberals who want more Americans to die' routine. I have never in my life met anyone who thought it was good when one of our soldiers died. Have you? Honestly? Not someone who you disagreed with and then assumed 'he must want our troops to die, too.' I mean someone who openly admits that he likes it when soldiers die, and would welcome another terrorist attack like 9/11. Remember: people you have actually met, not some nutcase on tv or with his own website.

[DoctorDoom]

Sorry, kid, but I was politically active during the 'Nam war. I KNOW what the unwashed, unshaven, lice-infested, acid-fried assholes in the streets said and did. I KNOW how traitors went to North Vietnam and sucked the leaders' dicks while our guys were dying. I KNOW that we lost that war in Washington, on TV, and in the streets of America. And I KNOW that the same kind of traitors are at it again in America, in Washington, on TV and in the streets.

Can the leftist propaganda. We ain't buying it.

Remember: people you have actually met, not some nutcase on tv or with his own website.You're a typical lib, kid. You delude yourself that anecdotal evidence has any significance beyond your own little world. Use this.

<table align="center" bgcolor="400000" bordercolor="CCCCCC" border="4" cellpadding="8"><tr><td><div align="center"><font face="Verdana" color="yellow" size="7"><b>* CLUEPON *<br><font size="5">This cluepon entitles the bearer to<br>one free clue at any local retailer.<br><font size="3">Valid worldwide. No expiration date.</font><br></font></b> </font></div></td></tr></table>

[Longhorn_Platinum]

Jester21:
That's fair.....but I think there have been more casualties since April 9/03 than before. Usually when you win a war/battle/whatever, you don't suffer more AFTER you win than before.

:unsmile: Murders continue, even after victory. As far as I'm concerned, the killings in Iraq since 4/9/2003 are not acts of war, they're murders. Baghdad is no less safe than New Orleans.

[Borgia]

:unsmile: Murders continue, even after victory. As far as I'm concerned, the killings in Iraq since 4/9/2003 are not acts of war, they're murders. Baghdad is no less safe than New Orleans.

Baghdad no less safe than New Orleans? Let's take a look.

New Orleans
274 murders per year
Population: 475,000
Murder Rate = 0.00058

Iraq (Americans only)
2500 murders in three years
American Population = 150,000
Murder Rate = 0.0056

Comparing we can see that Iraq is ten times more dangerous than New Orleans for Americans.

[Naturalized-Texan]

On the contrary, I very much would like to see us win. I don't see the War on Terror being won by creating more terrorists the longer we're in Iraq.
I see that you have bought into the liberal Big Lie Propaganda that terrorists are being "created" in Iraq. Nearly all of the terrorists now in Iraq were infiltrated into Iraq from Iran and Syria. Moreover, they were already terrorists before they were infiltrated. Those terrorists who weren't infiltrated into Iraq after Saddam's removal were already there before Operation Iraqi Freedom began - e.g. al-Zarqawi, who was already there and organizing his terrorist cell in 2002 according to the NY Times.

[Jester21]

You're a typical lib, kid. You delude yourself that anecdotal evidence has any significance beyond your own little world.
I'm going to take this to mean you haven't personally met anyone who cheers when a soldier dies. You are just convinced that these people exist, in large enough numbers to thwart the war effort.

I see that you have bought into the liberal Big Lie Propaganda that terrorists are being "created" in Iraq. Nearly all of the terrorists now in Iraq were infiltrated into Iraq from Iran and Syria. Moreover, they were already terrorists before they were infiltrated.
So by this I assume you believe there is a finite number of terrorists in the world, and if we kill them all in Iraq, there won't be any left to attack us at home?

I'll even concede that leaving Iraq isn't the only option....I would also support stationing way, way more troops there. I believe the military planners thought they'd need 450 000. Put 450 000 troops there and try to stabilize the country. I don't believe it will ultimately work, but I do believe it can reduce the number of American deaths, at least in the short term. The 150k that are there now is insufficient for the job they are being asked to do. All we're doing is needlessly endangering them.

[Longhorn_Platinum]

Borgia:
Iraq (Americans only)
2500 murders in three years
American Population = 150,000
Murder Rate = 0.0056

Comparing we can see that Iraq is ten times more dangerous than New Orleans for Americans.

:nono: Twisting your statistics to make your point. Shame! I said, "Baghdad", not "Iraq". Besides, let's see how safe New Orleans is, once the National Guard goes into its toughest neighborhoods, & becomes sitting ducks.

[Kathy29]

The democrats have no reason to complain about Iraq giving a pass to insurgents who killed Americans. The democrats wants to give a pass to millions of illegals, many of whom also have killed Americans.

[Borgia]

:nono: Twisting your statistics to make your point. Shame! I said, "Baghdad", not "Iraq". Besides, let's see how safe New Orleans is, once the National Guard goes into its toughest neighborhoods, & becomes sitting ducks.

Do you really think Baghdad is safer than the rest of Iraq?

[Longhorn_Platinum]

:unsmile: It could very well be. It probably has more security, because of its importance. I know that Jakarta is safer for Christians than many rural parts of Indonesia.

[Borgia]

:unsmile: It could very well be. It probably has more security, because of its importance. I know that Jakarta is safer for Christians than many rural parts of Indonesia.

You could be right. But *you* made the claim that Baghdad was safer than New Orleans yet you have yet to provide any evidence for that claim. Surely you based that statement on something. So feel free to direct me towards the stats that you used to come to that conclusion.

Surely you would not just say something with no evidence whatsoever to back it up, would you?

[Longhorn_Platinum]

Borgia:
Surely you would not just say something with no evidence whatsoever to back it up, would you?

:unsmile: I said it, based on my own instinct, that I'd be no better off walking through a New Orleans slum, where white people are hated, than down a Baghdad street, where at least some Iraqis appreciate what Americans have done for them. If I had to make that choice right now, I'd choose Baghdad. If you want a statistics battle, by all means, go find some.

[Lubbock]

I'm with LP on this. I'll tke Baghdad over New Orleans.

What does it say about America when a mayor has to ask for the National Guard to patrol the streets and put down violence.

I think I would actually feel safer in Baghdad than any number of US cities I can think of right off the top of my head.

How safe would you feel walking the streets of South Central LA?

[Borgia]

:unsmile: I said it, based on my own instinct, that I'd be no better off walking through a New Orleans slum, where white people are hated, than down a Baghdad street, where at least some Iraqis appreciate what Americans have done for them. If I had to make that choice right now, I'd choose Baghdad. If you want a statistics battle, by all means, go find some.

I don't need a stats battle now that I see you have none to back up your claim. Nothing wrong with your opinion, but it is just that, an opinion. I saw an excerpt that did show the murder rate in Baghdad to be 100/100000 or 0.001. Recall that New Orleans was 0.00058. Therefore we can see that Baghdad is more dangerous than NEw Orleans.

We should also note that the murder rate in Baghdad is most likely underreported as the stats come only from the morgue. Many will bury their own dead and they would not eb counted. Further, this does not include the murder of coalition forces in Iraq which clearly would further increase the murder rate if they were included.

Be wary of instincts as they often will lead you astray.

[Lazarus]

You could be right. But *you* made the claim that Baghdad was safer than New Orleans yet you have yet to provide any evidence for that claim. Surely you based that statement on something. So feel free to direct me towards the stats that you used to come to that conclusion.

Surely you would not just say something with no evidence whatsoever to back it up, would you?Oh please.... We're not beating that dead horse again?

:deadhorse: I thought we had already played this record....:rolleyes:

[Borgia]

Oh please.... We're not beating that dead horse again?

I thought we had already played this record....:rolleyes:

Well, if you conservatives keep making the false claim expect that someone will provide the truth instead of letting your error continue.

[DoctorDoom]

I am becoming convinced that there are liberal idiots here who would rather see innocent people dying of terrorism in America than terrorists dying in Iraq. They can deny it, and they can feign outrage, but their Bush-loathing, America-bashing mentality is glaringly obvious.

[Lubbock]

I am convinced (and have been for a long time) that Liberals are as big a threat, if not a bigger threat to the United States of America than any terrorist.

Terrorists can kill a few thousand at a time, and kill them quick.

Liberals go about it slowly, incrementalism, and they kill the soul of the nation.

Everything about liberalism is evil, liberals are evil, and they are all on the road to hell. Wearing out horses, riding to it.

[DoctorDoom]

New Orleans
274 murders per year

Iraq (Americans only)
2500 murders in three years

United States
3000 murders in a few hours on 9/11/2001.

United States
Number of liberals with an IQ > 50: 0

[Borgia]

Everything about liberalism is evil, liberals are evil, and they are all on the road to hell. Wearing out horses, riding to it.

We'll get you my pretty. And your little dog too!!! :)

[Naturalized-Texan]

New Orleans
274 murders per year

Iraq (Americans only)
2500 murders in three years

United States
3000 murders in a few hours on 9/11/2001.

United States
Number of liberals with an IQ > 50: 0
Given that, then why do we so often overestimate the intelligence of liberals?

[Longhorn_Platinum]

Borgia:
We should also note that the murder rate in Baghdad is most likely underreported as the stats come only from the morgue.

:unsmile: We can also note that Baghdad could very well have more trouble spots than New Orleans, & the problematic areas of New Orleans, while fewer, are more dangerous. (I'm just surmising here.) I'd still rather be in one of the many bad parts of Baghdad, than in the worst part of New Orleans. I doubt that the stats that you've provided tell the whole story.

[Lubbock]

Liberals are evil. Devil posessed.

[Naturalized-Texan]

I am becoming convinced that there are liberal idiots here who would rather see innocent people dying of terrorism in America than terrorists dying in Iraq. They can deny it, and they can feign outrage, but their Bush-loathing, America-bashing mentality is glaringly obvious.
I've been convinced of that ever since those in the liberal-controlled media had virtual orgasms when they announced the deaths of 1,000 American troops and again when they announced the deaths of 2,000 American troops and again, recently, when they announced the deaths of 2,500 American troops. Liberals are the scum of the Earth!

[Longhorn_Platinum]

Lubbock:
Liberals are evil. Devil posessed.

:devil: .....Communists....Nazis....Liberals....Moderates. ...Conservatives .... http://www.websmileys.com/sm/angels/teu25.gif

[DeclinetoState]

Given that, then why do we so often overestimate the intelligence of liberals?

I don't. :D

When I saw the title of this thread, I thought it was about the upcoming November elections.

[DoctorDoom]

Given that, then why do we so often overestimate the intelligence of liberals?Pity?

[Longhorn_Platinum]

Naturalized-Texan:
Given that, then why do we so often overestimate the intelligence of liberals?

:unsmile: If liberals want to dispute their intelligence compared to ours, they should first consider that we allow them to post here, while we'd be banned post-haste at one of their boards. Clearly, they're more afraid of us, than we are of them.

[DoctorDoom]

:devil: ..... Communists .... Nazis .... Liberals .... Moderates .... Conservatives .... http://www.websmileys.com/sm/angels/teu25.gif<pre><b> <font color="red">Official FC IQ Scale</font><br><br> +----------+----------+----------+-----------+-----------+<br> | | | | | |<br><br><font color="blue">Liberal Brick Idiot Normal Genius DrDoom</font></b></pre>

[DesertFox]

There are more killings of Salvadorans by Salvadorans every day today, during peace, than during any period of their 12-ýear long civil war -- which ended 14 years ago.

It's unavoidable. When a war ends, a whole new period begins during which law has to reestablish itself as civilization redefines itself in that place. It isn't something that happens overnight, or in one year, or even in five years. The old guard never goes easily, but more importantly, confusion reigns everywhere over who's really in charge, who's going to do what about what, what can you can get away with and what you can't -- all the myriad small things we take for granted where the traditionally-accepted norms haven't been rent.

There are just too many people around today who have no idea how complex civilization is. They think everything should happen at a fingersnap. This attitude not only displays embarrassing ignorance, but astonishing arrogance-cum-stupidity.

[Wyatt_Junker]

There are more killings of Salvadorans by Salvadorans every day today, during peace, than during any period of their 12-ýear long civil war -- which ended 14 years ago.

It's unavoidable. When a war ends, a whole new period begins during which law has to reestablish itself as civilization redefines itself in that place. It isn't something that happens overnight, or in one year, or even in five years. The old guard never goes easily, but more importantly, confusion reigns everywhere over who's really in charge, who's going to do what about what, what can you can get away with and what you can't -- all the myriad small things we take for granted where the traditionally-accepted norms haven't been rent.

There are just too many people around today who have no idea how complex civilization is. They think everything should happen at a fingersnap. This attitude not only displays embarrassing ignorance, but astonishing arrogance-cum-stupidity.

I'll chalk it up to the advent of microwaves and the convenience of cable TV. People also want Happy Meal wars with neat-o prizes. We are the post-modern society of piss pumps and Monster energy drink. We can't even wait for our erections anymore. We swallow pills and wash it down with caffeine milkshakes trying to think we are not trash by drinking a regular milkshake, that if somehow it had a brown hue to it and a few cocoa shavings in it we would somehow be elevated to an entirely new cultural level of sophistication.

Sometimes even hearing the 'democracy' at play when democrats debate republicans about this war, I feel the embarassment as a physical symptom. Literally. I want to puke so hard that untaxed corn kernels, the ones that have escaped the delterious effects of my stomach acids, erupt from my nostrils like a spray of confetti. That other nations are actually hearing this conversation... the humiliation is just that much worse. I want an America that doesn't need its hand held. I want an America that doesn't need to be told what specific date the troops will leave Iraq. I want an America that understands committment or at least what it has already signed on to.

Its like we're all watching Oprah and the world is watching all of us watching Oprah, all of the Americans with their eating disorders and ridiculous lack of discipline. And China is hearing this 'democracy' thing and it just looks so weak because they talk openly about real dumb things, stupid things and they know that America is just a ball's hair away from collapsing on the weight of its own self-made critics. They are watching as 'democracy' actually kills itself with its excessive babble. And I look at this so-called discussion, this 'democracy' and how idiotic the conversation actually is with unblinking gaze Pelosi leading the charge for withdraw and I want to crawl into a hole because America is dying and full of defeat and elects assholes and idiots and pretenders and grifters and cheats who will stab America between the shoulder blades, right on the altar of its own pretension, this 'democracy' that now appears highly overrated, exhausted and near death.

Some people may say I am wrong and that a 50/50 electorate split is a good example of democracy. It is not. The electorate is now the problem. The people of this democracy are now the problem. They are what is killing America from the inside out, the very characterless people who want everything right now without even breaking a sweat and then complain that's its not fast enough like the asshole who berates the waitress in public. And we are that lazy fat asshole in public. At least a large part of the electorate is, like John Murtha the new dirty American who uses false maudlin poses for dramatic effect or Howard Dean the maniacal dickslap with his Nurse Ratchet meds still dribbling down the front of his shirt. These are the people we put up with everyday and I just want to drop the hammer, drop the railroad spike, drop everything and call it quits and roll up this country's quaint little Constitution and stick it right back inside the cardboard mailing tube and use it to whack a pinata.

Yes, its that bad.

[Borgia]

Liberals are evil. Devil posessed.

<speaking in tongues>

Soy El Diablo. Quiero comer su alma con frijoles negras.

[Lazarus]

...Some people may say I am wrong and that a 50/50 electorate split is a good example of democracy. It is not. The electorate is now the problem. The people of this democracy are now the problem. They are what is killing America from the inside out, the very characterless people who want everything right now without even breaking a sweat and then complain that's its not fast enough like the asshole who berates the waitress in public. And we are that lazy fat asshole in public. At least a large part of the electorate is, like John Murtha the new dirty American who uses false maudlin poses for dramatic effect or Howard Dean the maniacal dickslap with his Nurse Ratchet meds still dribbling down the front of his shirt. These are the people we put up with everyday and I just want to drop the hammer, drop the railroad spike, drop everything and call it quits and roll up this country's quaint little Constitution and stick it right back inside the cardboard mailing tube and use it to whack a pinata...You and me, bro...

[gnome]

:unsmile: If liberals want to dispute their intelligence compared to ours, they should first consider that we allow them to post here, while we'd be banned post-haste at one of their boards. Clearly, they're more afraid of us, than we are of them.
I am grateful that this board sets a good example by allowing participation from those with an opposing point of view. I don't happen to sign up to any "liberal only" forums per se--because I don't seem much benefit of everyone agreeing with each other and reinforcing each others' misconceptions. I think there are probably some out there that would give a similar fair shake to one of you, as you have for me, so far.

Constructive debate brings out more facts, new ideas. I enjoy it.

[Longhorn_Platinum]

gnome:
I think there are probably some out there that would give a similar fair shake to one of you, as you have for me, so far.

:unsmile: Name one.

[DesertFox]

I think there are probably some out there that would give a similar fair shake to one of you, as you have for meI doubt it. Among the posters here is several years' experience trying to post on liberal boards and engage constructive give and take, and to a man we´ve had nothing but insults and bannings, nearly always with fewer than ten posts made.

[DesertFox]

Soy El Diablo. Quiero comer su alma con frijoles negras.¡Ya te creo, Beelzebub! :D