It does to me. Every time one of these pantywaist kennedys opens their mouth to spew, it lends credence to other pantywaist kennedys and emboldens them to take their antics to a higher level. This pleases the terrorists because they realize that US wars are fought at home, not abroad. They know they can wait us out and we'll eventually quit, and 2,000 American soldiers will have died for nothing.MMDad said:
Your're right! Christian extremists are evil and should be sent to Gitmo! Go ahead and point them out to us! :cricket: :cricket: Oh yeah, they're all dead and buried.MMDad said:
About Gitmo and Abu Ghirab, I never liked the "no better than the terrorists" argument. I think it's misleading and insulting to even try to make that comparison. It doesn't address the real issue as I see it, which is how we want our soldiers to treat POWs. I see it as setting our own standards and holding ourselves to those standards, not about comparing ourselves to an enemy's standards or lack of them.vraiblonde said:
NoTonio said:Great sentiments.
I agree. Prisoners are at Gitmo and Abu Ghraib for a reason. If we make them stand on a box or put panties on their head, so what? They should have thought about that before they decided they wanted a piece.Tonio said:
But he's just the heir apparent, he has no control over Parliment. He actually has less pull over Parliment than the President has over Congress. The Prime Minister is the real man in charge, the Royal family are now just diplomats and symbols, whixh is not bad. I kinda like the idea of a sitting monarch, so long as they are not the sole power.vraiblonde said:Okay, but the fact of the matter is that Prince Charles has no business talking about the US when one of his Parliament dudes is knee deep in the oil-for-food scandal.
Bunch of corrupt cowards. "Sooo confrontational, don't you agree, Muffy?"I'm tired of people criticizing the US for doing the right thing.
vraiblonde said:No
We're right, they're wrong. The end. It doesn't matter what happened a hundred years ago - none of us were even alive then so it has nothing to do with what's going on in the world right now. I refuse to live in the past and throw away my moral authority because of what one of my ancestor's might have done.
I wasn't thinking about history any more ancient than the pedophile priest problem.
Agreed, the moment this becomes a crusade for Christanity is the moment I throw out my pention and get out of the military early.Tonio said:
From a philosophical standpoint, I don't want the war against terrorism to become a war for Christianity. Partly because Bin Laden wants people to think that America wants to exterminate all Muslims in Auschwitz-style death camps. Yes, we're right and they're wrong, but not because of any harebrained claims about God being on our side or something. We're fighting for our own lives.
Which is a good thing, since Blair is a hell of a lot smarter than that inbred poofter Prince Charles. But the royals DO have some pull, if nothing other than the power to influence public opinion.Bustem' Down said:
And it never will be because there are too many non-Christians in this country. That whole "modern day Crusades" is a strawman that the libs have perpetuated to turn Americans away from doing what's right. Bush so far hasn't done a single thing to make us believe he's in this for the religion, so I don't know why people even bring it up.Tonio said:
Much like blacks defending the Howard University exterminator, if Muslims would renounce their murderous brethren, we wouldn't be having this conversation. As it stands, they seem to want to make excuses and spew moral relativisms, which tells us that they don't really think jihadists are so bad.Spoiled said:
You're right--the idea of a holy war didn't come from Bush but from Ann Coulter and some fundamentalist commentators. I was concerned when Bush said that God speaks through him. But I haven't seen Bush conduct himself in a way that would suggest a Messiah complex. He's fighting the war on terror as an American, which is the way it should be.vraiblonde said:
Yes. Here's my theory as to why they don't: I think they would see it as "telling tales out of school" or "airing dirty laundry in public." Sort of like how siblings squabble among themselves, but would back each other up in the face of an outside threat. I suspect that many black activists feel the same way about the Sharpton and Farrakhan types--they might criticize those guys in private but not in public. Personally, I think that's reprehensible, because hatred and murder deserve to be criticized, to say the least. It's almost cultlike behavior, where members are expected to sacrifice their identity for the sake of the group.vraiblonde said:
