CNN's concerted strategy of hurting our war effort

nice try. please don't evade the question at hand. do you support the deaths of more american troops?

 

Yes...

 

Actually, the question at hand was whether you spelled correctly...

 

So now the opinions of Americans are "irrelevant?"

DELUSIONAL

 

thats a loaded question.

 

Fortunately, this thread is about Iraq, not spelling. Get on topic or STFU.

 

being open minded doesn't mean you have to listen to those who are just looking to smear you and not really interested in engaging in an exchange of ideas.

 

Yeah, Donkey is a paragon of reasonable discourse.

 

So basically we are all terrorists in one way or another, which means the word terrorist has no meaning, and using it as a justification for war is not plausible.

Personally, I just think Saddam was a tyrant. That's not a good thing either. But not enough to dispose of him.

And who decided to put 1,000 of soldiers in harm's way? It was Bush and Co. The media and people opposed to the war did not decide to do that, and their criticism is around bring the troops home OUT OF harm's way.

I find it amazing that you will say anti-war protestors are more to blame for troop deaths then the poor decision making that the administration has been belied with for the past 5 years.

 

ok - whatever....i just don't get why you are attacking him for agreeing with you.

Personally, as weird and twisted as I find posts by guys like Basso and TJ, I don't put them on ignore because man...for the bashing they take, they are pretty good about not bashing back. I definitely respect them taking the high road in discourse even if I find their opinions to be from outer space.

 

basso and tj are looney

but thats better than being an a-hole.

 

so you guys wouldn't mind me boning your wives as long as i take the "high road" while doing so?

 

Now that's funny!

 

Does masturbating hurt our war effort?

 

only if you do it in the bathroom and accidently get some spooge on Hotballa. that would be damn unamerican

 

Hillary?...

 

There is no real way to reward a suicide bomber directly. On the other hand, knowing that your family will be taken care of can certainly be seen as an incentive, and that is material support of terrorists. The family of the suicide bomber is receiving a cash reward for the bomber's actions. To pretend that this is not support of terrorism is asinine.

Um, no. People who give willingly and knowingly give money to terrorists and/or terrorist organizations are terrorists. People that kill off their political opponents are terrorists. People that are the chief of state of a country and nerve gas large segments of the population of their country are terrorists. Does everyone in the world do those thing? No they do not. I know I have never done any of those things. Have you? Saddam has. The Iranian leadership has. Certain US officials have in the past. Large segments of the Arab world have.

I disagree on both counts. I have shown rather conclusively that Saddam was a terrorist. It is your contention that he was not that, if correct, would make the word terrorist meaningless. In addition to that, I feel that being a brutal dictator is more than enough reason to be deposed.

I never blamed anti-war protesters for troop deaths. I said their goal of getting the US military to retreat from a much weaker opposing force is the same as the goal of that opposing force. If we lose the war, it will be because of those protesters and the politicians they sway, not because of a military defeat.

 

Again

It is the failed policies of the administration, not protesters or the media that has caused us to lose the war.

Why is that so hard for people to accept?

 

Because the war has not been lost, no matter what the policies. The war is lost if and when we give up without accomplishing the objectives. As the administration has not shown any inclination to withdraw without achieving the objectives, and it is the opposition in congress that was elected by the people who oppose the war that is calling for such an action, it is impossible for a rational person to place the blame for losing the war (if such a thing eventually comes to pass) on the only people in government that are trying to win it.

 

Wait, if you admit that we have helped terrorists before...then how can you say that we are not terrorists now? I just don't think we are. I don't think we have supported terrorism, although he have supported groups that have commited violence against people.

I don't think you can lump ruling with an iron fist with suicide bombers targeted at civilians. It's just not the same thing. And you know something, many people around the world would say by your definition that Israel is terrorists. Saddam giving money to families isn't terrorism. Nor is being a vicious dictator supported a lot by the United States until he invade Kuwait. By Bush's father no less. Is bush's father a terrorist? Is that what you are saying? Shouldn't he be hung like Saddam then? I just think you're opening up a huge can there with your line of thinking.

So again...if Al Qaeda wants us to stay in Iraq...and you want us to stay in Iraq, I guess you are helping Al Qaeda.