We are losing the war on terror

[vraiblonde]

SIDENOTE: My former students have come back from service in Iraq and said they are sick of the slanted news that is our steady diet: It is horribly biased.

That's what we get from our son, too. What's interesting is that liberals are crying "Elect John Kerry and bring our troops home!" But military personnel will vote overwhelmingly for Bush. And that's what gets me about this whole thing - the Democrats trying to pretend they know more about it than the people who are actually over there doing the job.

 

[jlabsher]

I read a book in the 80's told from a muslim point of view. It was about the rift between muslim/christian (western) nations. In it, the narrator (a muslim) bemoaned the fact that western men allowed their women to dress like whores and thereby stir lust in the men which leads to general social disorder.

Now, if you extrapolate this out, it isn't that different than puritans or baptists or even catholics in the way they subjugate women or suppress libido to ensure a stable community. Basically, most organized religions realize folks want to screw all the time and stopping - or at least delaying that in some way is the only way to achieve balance & stable society. Has been going on for centuries, until the welfare state arrived (you pay me money to not work, give me a house, duh what am I going to stay at home all day & do?)

Anyhoo, when we export our "demented" video, music, et. al. to the rest of the world, the young teen boys & girls growing up in a desert hovel in the mideast & elsewhere start saying "Yo #####" & wearing thongs, mom & pop freak, the pendulum swings way far the other way and you end up with fundamentalist states. No big sociolological mystery.

So, before you go ragging on the mideast for treating their women bad, remember this is a big world, morals are different everywhere, and Janet Jackson's nipple caused a national freakathon in our "civilized nation". What do you think a camel rider who had never seen TV before felt like when they first got a TV, turned it on and saw Britney shaking her bootay?

Yes, with our way of life and mass media we have unknowingly threatened the basic tenets of their society. Does that make 9/11 right, no. However, whenever we have big time arguments about abortion, gay marriage, nudity on TV, etc. in this nation when it is no problem in other nations, how do we get off calling them backwards? Like Paul Harvey says, "walk a mile in their moccasins".

 

[BuddyLee]

BL, Spoiled, why is it so hard for you two to grasp the plain and simple fact that radical muslims want us dead.

It's not so hard to grasp that they want us dead. Hello! 9/11!!! But the question remains, why do they want us dead? I think it's our culture imposing into their culture. If it hasn't happened yet then it would be their fear of our culture imposing into their culture.

 

[vraiblonde]

Anyhoo, when we export our "demented" video, music, et. al. to the rest of the world, the young teen boys & girls growing up in a desert hovel in the mideast & elsewhere start saying "Yo #####" & wearing thongs, mom & pop freak, the pendulum swings way far the other way and you end up with fundamentalist states. No big sociolological mystery.

On that we can agree. Where your argument starts going south is when you suggest that they don't have any control over what their citizens watch on TV or hear on the radio. Foreign governments can and do control access to Western culture all the time - ask the Chinese if you don't believe me.

So here's what it looks like to me: We have an irresponsible pop culture. They allow it to infiltrate their country. Then they fly planes into our buildings because they don't like it.

I, personally, am not all that concerned about the restrictions other countries, cultures and religions place on their citizens. Nobody ever died because they had to wear a burka instead of jeans, or eat couscous instead of a cheeseburger.

But here we go again with our liberal American nuttiness:

NOW was all up in arms that Afghani women can't vote or get abortions. Then George Bush comes along and makes it so they can, and NOW is up in arms over that, too.

Liberals were all outraged about how Saddam and his sons tortured people for things like losing soccer games and knowing someone who knew someone who talked disrespectfully of Saddam. Then George Bush goes in and deposes the regime, and liberals are outraged about that, too.

What do you people want? Because, frankly, liberals are the ones who have created our crass pop culture that other nations find so offensive.

 

[SmallTown]

That's what we get from our son, too. What's interesting is that liberals are crying "Elect John Kerry and bring our troops home!" But military personnel will vote overwhelmingly for Bush. And that's what gets me about this whole thing - the Democrats trying to pretend they know more about it than the people who are actually over there doing the job.

First- No, they are saying Elect John and bring our troops home. Kerry has said over and ove that since we are there, we have to stay and complete the mission (regardless of Bush's Mission Accomplished sign)

Second- Funny how when talking about the military, it is always "supposedly" republicans who support serving, and the dems who are against it. And here we have two candidates, one served in combat the other didn't bother to show up for a physical so he could keep flying. I knew it! Bush is a democrat and Kerry is a republican! They have fooled us all!

 

[vraiblonde]

Kerry has said over and ove that since we are there, we have to stay and complete the mission (regardless of Bush's Mission Accomplished sign)

Do you deny that the liberals are in favor of bringing our troops home immediately? Are you saying that all those signs we've seen and interviews we've heard are a mirage? Take a walk over to the DU, because there and the news is where I get my information on what Democrats and liberals are thinking. They support John Kerry because they are against the war. Of course, if John Kerry gets elected and decides to forge ahead with the war, they'll say that it's necessary and conveniently forget all the things they said against George Bush. But that's beside the point.

Funny how when talking about the military, it is always "supposedly" republicans who support serving, and the dems who are against it. And here we have two candidates, one served in combat the other didn't bother to show up for a physical so he could keep flying.

Do you deny that Republicans are pro-military action and Democrats are decidedly against it? Are you saying that all those protesters we've seen on TV and in person are a figment of our imagination?

That's a hell of a hallucination you've got going on.

 

[Spoiled]

Everyone wants to bring the troops home, its not possible though. Some liberals want to, others dont. Conservatives would just rather nuke the middle east.

 

[SmallTown]

Do you deny that the liberals are in favor of bringing our troops home immediately? Are you saying that all those signs we've seen and interviews we've heard are a mirage? Take a walk over to the DU, because there and the news is where I get my information on what Democrats and liberals are thinking. They support John Kerry because they are against the war. Of course, if John Kerry gets elected and decides to forge ahead with the war, they'll say that it's necessary and conveniently forget all the things they said against George Bush. But that's beside the point.

Sorry to break it to you, but the DU is not a credible news source. If they don't believe Kerry when he says he will finish the job in Iraq, that is their own problem.

Do you deny that Republicans are pro-military action and Democrats are decidedly against it? Are you saying that all those protesters we've seen on TV and in person are a figment of our imagination?

That's a hell of a hallucination you've got going on.

Are you talking about in general, or the case of Iraq? The military actions (In Iraq) are not what the dems are concerned about, it is the way Bush handled it.

It is still so ironic how you talk about " do you deny blah blah blah" when it comes to military support when Kerry served in battle and Bush was too busy. Our military is not the Republican Army or Republican Navy. Our military consists of Americans who just happen to be republican or democrat (or neither)

 

[SmallTown]

Conservatives would just rather nuke the middle east.

I wish they would just do it and get it over with.

 

[2ndAmendment]

Sorry to break it to you, but the DU is not a credible news source. If they don't believe Kerry when he says he will finish the job in Iraq, that is their own problem.


Are you talking about in general, or the case of Iraq? The military actions (In Iraq) are not what the dems are concerned about, it is the way Bush handled it.

It is still so ironic how you talk about " do you deny blah blah blah" when it comes to military support when Kerry served in battle and Bush was too busy. Our military is not the Republican Army or Republican Navy. Our military consists of Americans who just happen to be republican or democrat (or neither)

Have you ever checked Kerry's voting record regarding the military? Very rarely does he ever support the military. It is highly unlikely he will change if he becomes president. Sure Kerry has four months of service. He then came back and denigrated the troops and met with the enemy while still in the service. Unless you are officially sanctioned to meet with the enemy as a service person (must be PC), it is treason. You conveniently ignore that.

If Kerry gets elected, he will probably cut the military budget to try to pay for the unconstitutional social programs. I and many others in Southern Maryland will probably lose our jobs. His gun control allies will move to have laws enacted to take our Second Amendment rights away claiming that it only applies to the National Guard, or he will sign the U.N. treaty that outlaws any private citizen to own any weapons (one world government anyone?) and ask the Senate to approve it. He may succumb to pressure from the ACLU to outlaw any expression of belief in God at any public location; won't be able to say a blessing in a restaurant because it will offend someone. Of course the Muslims will still be allowed to have their call to worship and prayers in the name of tolerance. It will only be the Christians and Jews that will be disenfranchised. The Germans didn't think things similar to this could happen before WWII; they did.


Bye. I'm off to better use of my time.

 

[vraiblonde]

Sorry to break it to you, but the DU is not a credible news source.

I didn't say they were. I said they were a good barometer of how Democrats think. Reading for comprehension is your friend.

The military actions (In Iraq) are not what the dems are concerned about, it is the way Bush handled it.

That's not entirely true, now is it? You are a reasonably intelligent person, so you certainly see that they are against Bush, in general, and everything he does. Bush has handled Iraq and terrorism better than any of his predecessors have. Maybe he's not perfect, but it's a hell of a lot better than that appeaser, Bill Clinton, sucking the ass of every terrorist he can get his lips around.

 

[SmallTown]

I didn't say they were. I said they were a good barometer of how Democrats think. Reading for comprehension is your friend.

Hahahaha. No, they aren't.

 

[vraiblonde]

Hahahaha. No, they aren't.

They say they are. And I've heard Terry McAuliffe, head of the DNC, say the exact same things I read over at the DU. So they must be.

Maybe it's just you that's not a real Democrat.

 

[SmallTown]

They say they are. And I've heard Terry McAuliffe, head of the DNC, say the exact same things I read over at the DU. So they must be.

Maybe it's just you that's not a real Democrat.

Kerry also says he has a better plan than Bush, do you believe him? Come on Vrai.

As for your last comment, ding ding ding. I've never been called a democrat until I came on this board.

 

[rraley]

I didn't say they were. I said they were a good barometer of how Democrats think. Reading for comprehension is your friend.

The DU is not a good barometer of how Democrats think...they are radical, activist Democrats that represent about 20% of our party. They universally supported Howard Dean and Dennis Kucinich; two of the most ill-fated Democratic candidates. I, myself, could say that the Free Republic is a good barometer of how Republicans think, but that would be a misguided statement. They, like DU posters, are equally radical in the opposite direction.

Now here's how Iraq should be viewed. Who cares if we went in or not (I myself supported military action there), the question is where are we now and where are we headed. That is what American voters should be considering.

 

[vraiblonde]

I've never been called a democrat until I came on this board.

Then you must be hanging around some extremely liberal nutties.

Terry McAuliffe is the head of the Democratic party. He says the same things on TV that the more extreme members of the DU post. I don't know how you can say he's a fringer when HE'S THE HEAD OF THE PARTY. So yes, I believe him.

Tell the truth what party are you registered to? I frankly admit I'm a registered Republican.

 

[vraiblonde]

The DU is not a good barometer of how Democrats think...

Then how do you explain the fact the the head of the Democratic party says the exact same things they do?

 

[SmallTown]

Tell the truth what party are you registered to? I frankly admit I'm a registered Republican.

Neither because I think both parties are full of crap. My views make it tough for a candidate to grab my vote unless they have a few ideas that break with the party norm. Which is why I was there early to vote for Ehrlich (sp?!) and rushed my wife to the polls when she got home from work to do the same. I didn't vote in the last presedential election because I could not imagine giving my vote to either candidate. This year it will most likely be for Bush because he's just too damn funny not to have in there for 4 more years. To me they both suck, but I think Bush will offer more comedy relief than Kerry. As long as you're getting the vote, don't waste time arguing my reasoning

My only worry about Bush is that the one smart thing he has done has been to surround himself by great people. We already know Powell is leaving. Rumors have it Rice either wants out or moved to a different position (possibly replacing Powell?) Rumsfeld most likely will be replaced. It will be interesting to see who he gets around him.

 

[vraiblonde]

As long as you're getting the vote, don't waste time arguing my reasoning

It's not enough that you're voting for my guy. I want you to THINK like me too!

My only worry about Bush is that the one smart thing he has done has been to surround himself by great people.

See, and I think that surrounding yourself with great people is the ONLY thing a President can do that's worth a ####. Being President is an enormous job - you can't be everywhere at once and you certainly can't make every decision on your own. You can be the suckiest suck that ever sucked, but if you have a great supporting cast, it will turn out fine.

If I can look at a Presidential cabinet and find 3 people I'd rather see as President than the guy holding the title, I'm happy.

 

[soul4sale]

war...HAHAHAHAHAHA!

This war has never been about us thinking the Arab peoples life is wrong and we are going there to fix it. Stop drinking the party kool-aid and recall some history.

He thinks this is a war... Until I see a draft, rationing and unlimited engagement, this is either a police action or empire building. All depends on the success level.

Yes, let's review the history. Kool-Aid Man?

Kool-Aid Man: "Thanks soul. The US spent the last 50 years propping up strongman governments in the Near East to contain the Soviets or secure oil. Now, this short-sighted policy is biting us in the ass. In a vain attempt to rectify it, the neocons (mainly former interventionist Dems) are adopting an equally short-sighted policy of pre-emptive military action. Oh yeah! Back to you..."