quote:

First off, Saddam's dead--so, why are we still in Iraq?

Because we broke it and Foreign influence (besides ours) seeks control in an unstable country.

quote:

Secondly, with respect to this 'endpoint' being 'proper policing matters', why isn't it that now? And, what can we use as markers to assure 'proper policing matters' has been re-established? And, by the way, which country's police are we talking about?

In Iraq we are not a police force, We are a military force. When Iraqi Police and military forces can handle their own internal security.

quote:

For instance, if Iraq somehow gets 'the right government with the right police force' in place but there is still information that even 'one Islamofascist remains armed', is that a 'proper endpoint' to this 'war'? And, how can we be certain of that?

I have giving you the proper endpoints. Congress, Bush, UN, Iraq. When any 1 of those 4 say the war is over. That will be your endpoint.

quote:

Do you think that those who promote this war as being 'one of freedom against the Islamofascists' as 'blowing smoke up people's asses'?

I
DO
NOT
KNOW.

Well, Loganthor, I just heard George Bush say that 'this war' IS ALL ABOUT FREEDOM to the Heritage Foundation. Is George Bush 'blowing smoke up people's asses'--or do you believe that he believes in the 'virtue' he's promoting?

quote:

I promote this war and I have NEVER used the term Islamofascist.

Now, let me get this right--and don't let me put words in your mouth--you 'promote this war' in order to 'establish proper policing matters' with respect to the 'terrorists', is that correct? And, I am assuming you are saying 'that's possible without having every terrorist submit to unconditional surrender' (the only sure-fired indicator of 'victory' in a 'war', is it not, Loganthor?). And, then, you are 'for' this 'war' in doing that--but you don't have to 'see' how 'this war is to do that' to 'believe it', right? Or, if you do 'see' that, tell me what it is you 'see' as the 'proper policing matters' that this 'war' is supposed to 'support'--and how it's going to get there short of 'unconditional surrender'....

quote:

I am confined and satisfied by the reasons provided by congress for the reason they gave for war. None of which mention Islamofascist.

How many are for this 'war' now?

Plus, I don't care if you call it 'Islamofascist' or 'terrorist', the point the same. If there is one armed terrorist left without having to 'unconditionally surrender', how can we say we've 'won the war'--even using 'proper policing matters' as its 'endpoint'?

quote:

Granted they most likely would die at the hands of a US marine, but a sense of nationalism is healthy.

And, a 'sense of nationalism' is the 'traditional cause for war', isn't it? But, what we are 'fighting' in this 'war' isn't a 'nation', is it? So, in this 'sense of nationalism' that you say is 'appropriate to have' in 'war', what is the 'nationalism' that you are 'appropriately fighting against'? Or, does that part of the 'traditional war' get ignored as the 'proper sense of nationalism' is espoused as 'healthy' to you?

'Terrorism'--like 'Communism'--isn't a 'nation', is it, Loganthor? So, in 'fighting terrorism', why are we directing this issue 'to nations', Loganthor? And, just like 'Communism', if we are going to 'overcome it', it won't be by 'war'. Do you agree with that statement--or how do you see 'war' resolving this?

quote:

As I said Freedon is subjective. They can fight for whatever freedom they want.

According to George Bush right now, 'we' are the ones 'fighting for freedom', Loganthor. Are you saying George Bush is 'blowing smoke up people's asses' in saying this?

quote:

As outlandish as YOU seems to think it is. It does appear to be working in most regards.

The operative term there, Loganthor, is the word 'appears'. Will the 'war' be over when there 'appears to be no terrorist action'--but 'terrorists armed and able to make bombs' still exist?

Bullshit....

quote:

Most Iraqis realize that we are there fighting foreign terrorist.

You really have no idea what you are up against. Why hasn't the rest of the Middle East 'joined the United States' and sent their own soldiers in there to 'get the terrorists' if 'everyone but the terrorists' are on 'our side'? Because, with respect to the Muslim faith, the 'terrorists' of the Middle East are fundamentalists to Islam--especially the 'war motive' of Islam. And, just like 'fighting religious fundamentalism here', attacking 'their belief' just helps 'support their fundamentalism'--and their 'fundamentalist cause'. If you don't 'replace that belief' with something that they can see as 'better', but you 'attack fundamentalism', anyway, you are just as likely to cause as many people to 'support fundamentalism of their religion' as much as you are going to 'divert them away from it' by 'attacking them'--but not really offering 'anything better'--even under the guise of what 'we' profess is 'freedom'....

quote:

Get rid of the foreign terrorist, the US has no reason to stay.

When did these 'foreign terrorists' come to Iraq, Loganthor? Did Saddam Hussein invite them? Or, did the invasion of a foreign force--totally separate from the Islamic faith--invite them?

quote:

If Iraq whated us out of Iraq, We would have been gone years ago.

Really? How many of the people that are in Iraq 'like us being there'? Do you really know that? Or, are you going by the same people that are 'blowing smoke up our asses' by saying this is all about the 'freedom that they want so well that only we know how to establish'?

You need to get a more formidable grip on human nature, Loganthor. It's not rocket science--just 'reverse the roles' and see how you would take it. If the Muslims came in claiming 'God's will' in 'taking over a nation of infidels', would you accept that? Even if some--maybe even a majority--of people did 'accept that'?

I wouldn't....

quote:

Are you starting to see my point, yet, Loganthor?

Nope.

I see that because you really haven't addressed the most pertinent point of 'war' and 'victory'. If it's 'less than unconditional surrender', what 'defines victory' in this 'war'? You have yet to state that clearly....

quote:

Second point, in the Korean conflict, we didn't--and look what's happening now....


South Korea seems to be during great. Compared to the belligerence of North Korea

Doesn't matter with respect to this point, Loganthor. The 'belligerence of North Korea' still exists because it wasn't 'unconditional surrender'.....

And, using that fact, I'll ask you again, what constitutes 'victory' in this 'war on terrorism' if it's not 'unconditional surrender' of all 'terrorists'? And, if it's 'proper policing matters', what will confirm that if there exists one 'terrorist' left 'armed and ready to bomb at any time'?

quote:

Nope... Although I am getting a bit creeped out by the myopic Drum beat of "unconditional Surrender"

It's not 'myoptic', it's the only true indicator of 'victory in war'. Anything less is a 'pronouncement of hypocrites'....even your 'proper policing matters' unless you can tell me how 'assured' you can be of a 'proper policing matter' if any 'terrorist' is left 'armed and ready to bomb'....

quote:

Unconditional Surrender is meaningless term. It is a government proclaimation not nessesarly the will of the people.

A 'government proclamation'? You mean like 'Congress telling us to go to war'? And, considering 'Congress telling us to go to war', when did Congress 'declare war' in this 'battle for freedom' that is supposed to be the 'Iraqi War'?

quote:

WOW.. that is tall order while being pushed of the edge of a cliff.

That's sort of how I see this 'war'--and how it could ever 'really end' if it's not going to be by 'unconditional surrender'....

quote:

Heaven forbid I get branded a Liar and Hypocrit by you.

Are you, personally, willing to 'die for the cause' of this 'war'--even as you 'profess it'? If not, you ARE a hypocrite in 'accepting this war' in any way as far as I'm concerned.....

quote:

First off, Saddam's dead--so, why are we still in Iraq?

Because we broke it and Foreign influence (besides ours) seeks control in an unstable country.

This gets better and better, Loganthor. So, now, are you saying that 'we destabilized the area in order to stabilize it'? Is that correct? Don't let me put words in your mouth and clarify your point at any stage in this 'discussion'....

quote:

In Iraq we are not a police force, We are a military force. When Iraqi Police and military forces can handle their own internal security.

The 'distinction' is rather mute as far as I'm concerned if 'victory' is something 'less than unconditional surrender'. And, once again, how assured are 'we' of this 'Iraqi Police and military forces' if there exists even one 'terrorist' left 'armed and able to make bombs' that wasn't made to 'unconditionally surrender'?

quote:

I have giving you the proper endpoints. Congress, Bush, UN, Iraq. When any 1 of those 4 say the war is over. That will be your endpoint.

UN? Would you accept the UN telling us to 'GET OUT'? And, 'we', as a people, don't have to 'understand any of these entities assertions on when to go to war--and when to get out' since you are 'leaving it all to the leaders' to 'determine that' whether 'we' have to 'understand it' or not, is that right? One, not very democratic. Two, quite assinine we it comes to killing thousands over it...

quote:

Well, Loganthor, I just heard George Bush say that 'this war' IS ALL ABOUT FREEDOM to the Heritage Foundation. Is George Bush 'blowing smoke up people's asses'--or do you believe that he believes in the 'virtue' he's promoting

do you have the qoute? Was the content Our freedom or Their Freedom. I believe the system of government what we promoted for Iraq is indicative of a vastly larger system of freedom then they had. So if the content was the Iraqi people, it would fit.

quote:

Now, let me get this right--and don't let me put words in your mouth--you 'promote this war' in order to 'establish proper policing matters' with respect to the 'terrorists', is that correct?

Not even close.

I supported the war to remove Saddam, I continue to support the effort, Post saddam, because we broke thier infrastucture enough to allow external securty threats. When we fix that, Were done.

quote:

How many are for this 'war' now?

Not enough to Stop it.

quote:

I don't care if you call it 'Islamofascist' or 'terrorist', the point the same.

Not even close. Islmaofascist wants to impose their religious in government. Terrorist is the more general term of a fighter who would kill innocent civilians to gain political advantage. That is the primary reason I have no problem with freedom fighters. They target the military occupation.

quote:

'Terrorism'--like 'Communism'--isn't a 'nation', is it, Loganthor? So, in 'fighting terrorism', why are we directing this issue 'to nations', Loganthor? And, just like 'Communism', if we are going to 'overcome it', it won't be by 'war'. Do you agree with that statement--or how do you see 'war' resolving this?

So far, our wars are with nations that have embraced terrorism. I know of no wars against terrorist in other None nations

quote:

According to George Bush right now, 'we' are the ones 'fighting for freedom', Loganthor. Are you saying George Bush is 'blowing smoke up people's asses' in saying this?

see Above.

quote:

The operative term there, Loganthor, is the word 'appears'. Will the 'war' be over when there 'appears to be no terrorist action'--but 'terrorists armed and able to make bombs' still exist?

Bullshit....

Is that BS for it APPEARING to be working or are you BS'ing some other metaphorical Non appearing situation?

quote:

You really have no idea what you are up against.

Really? Do tell...
Support for Islamic Terrorism Falls

quote:

When did these 'foreign terrorists' come to Iraq, Loganthor? Did Saddam Hussein invite them?

Both invited by saddam and by the destruction of Iraq's Securty Infrastrucur.

quote:

You need to get a more formidable grip on human nature, Loganthor. It's not rocket science--

I'm rubber your glue, bounces of me ann sticks to you. I think you might need to work on your kung-fu grip on Human nature.

quote:

Doesn't matter with respect to this point, Loganthor. The 'belligerence of North Korea' still exists because it wasn't 'unconditional surrender'.....

Nor was it a victory in war. Hence proving my point. The partial victory in South Korea provides inmeasureable freedoms and opportunities that a lost in North Korea did not provide for the North. Hence Korea is the prime example of what will happen with a failure to Secure Iraq.

quote:

It's not 'myoptic', it's the only true indicator of 'victory in war'

No it is NOT. just off the top of my head there is Armistice, Treaties, Conditional surrenders, Un imposed peace, there is also nothing. No governemnt structure to declare a surrender.

quote:

Are you, personally, willing to 'die for the cause' of this 'war'--even as you 'profess it'? If not, you ARE a hypocrite in 'accepting this war' in any way as far as I'm concerned.....

Why would that be? We have a completely voluntary military, I am currently too old and broken to participate, We are in little danger of losing. The military has neither solicited nor wants my help. I have a concealed weapons license, “I think globally and act locally” I would protect anyone, regardless of stature, within my sphere of influence, with my life if necessary. What exactly do you do? Recycle?

quote:

This gets better and better, Loganthor. So, now, are you saying that 'we destabilized the area in order to stabilize it'? Is that correct? Don't let me put words in your mouth and clarify your point at any stage in this 'discussion'....

that close... I almost agreed with you.
"'we destabilized the area in order to stabilize it" Whatever.... Are you sure your not the reincarnation of Sunrise Part 2?

quote:

The 'distinction' is rather mute as far as I'm concerned if 'victory' is something 'less than unconditional surrender'.

Well thank god your not one of the 4 deciding bodies of the War.

quote:

UN? Would you accept the UN telling us to 'GET OUT'?

Sure would. They are the official Global body of the arbitrators of Peace. It is too bad they couldn't fight their way out of a wet paper sack.

quote:

do you have the qoute? Was the content Our freedom or Their Freedom. I believe the system of government what we promoted for Iraq is indicative of a vastly larger system of freedom then they had. So if the content was the Iraqi people, it would fit.

It was just 'freedom'--you know, the type of 'virtue' and 'morality' that you say 'this war' isn't about.....

Most likely, George is meaning 'our meaning of freedom to them'....

quote:

I supported the war to remove Saddam, I continue to support the effort, Post saddam, because we broke thier infrastucture enough to allow external securty threats. When we fix that, Were done.

Yeah, we kill Saddam--which, if you knew anything about 'fundamentalism', in general, and 'Muslim fundamentalism', in particular, you would know that a secular leader like Saddam Hussein would have had NOTHING to do with any form of Muslim fundamentalism (in fact, his existence as a 'secular leader' goes squarely against 'fundamentalism'). So, what was our point in going in and 'getting Saddam now'? Oh, that's right, 'our leaders' said it was important--they get to determine that with or without our support according to you....

We will never 'finish' this 'war'--especially not as a 'victory' (and especially not as an 'unconditional surrender' type of 'victory'), Loganthor. Mark my words....this is worse than VietNam ever was.....

quote:

How many are for this 'war' now?

Not enough to Stop it.

No, not since all the pundits still say it's all 'for freedom'--and no one 'wants to look soft on that', do they? But, according to you, it's not 'about freedom' now--it's about 'stabilizing a region we destabilized'....and, of course, getting 'the right police and military in place'....

quote:

I don't care if you call it 'Islamofascist' or 'terrorist', the point the same.

Not even close. Islmaofascist wants to impose their religious in government. Terrorist is the more general term of a fighter who would kill innocent civilians to gain political advantage. That is the primary reason I have no problem with freedom fighters. They target the military occupation.

You actually like 'swallowing camels and gagging at gnats' (one way Jesus described 'hypocrites'), Loganthor? The 'terrorists of the Middle East' have a 'religious assertion in government' to make.....

quote:

So far, our wars are with nations that have embraced terrorism. I know of no wars against terrorist in other None nations

What proof do you have that Iraq was 'supporting terrorists'? Other than the same 'smoke up your ass blowers' that say 'this war' is for 'freedom', you don't. And, as I've said, fundamentalists don't associate with secular leaders. Saddam Hussein was a secular leader. You're lying--and so is the Bush Administration....

quote:

According to George Bush right now, 'we' are the ones 'fighting for freedom', Loganthor. Are you saying George Bush is 'blowing smoke up people's asses' in saying this?

see Above.

Yep, see above....

quote:

Is that BS for it APPEARING to be working or are you BS'ing some other metaphorical Non appearing situation?

Well, there's several things about the APPEARANCE of 'this war' that is bullshit. That it's all 'about freedom' both you and I seem to agree it's BULLSHIT. That Saddam Hussein would ever had anything to do with a fundamentalist regime (that wouldn't support 'Saddam as a leader', anyway) is BULLSHIT. That we would 'feel alright' about there APPEARING to be 'no terrorist attacks' when the 'terrorist have NOT unconditionally surrendered' is, also, BULLSHIT. Anytime that the administration wanted to, it could say 'But there are still the terrorists.....'--and we are to cringe and ask, 'How much money this time?'.....

You stats, by the way, don't impress me, Loganthor (I'm not a big 'believer' in statistics, anyway). Why was 'the support so high' to begin with in these countries--and what has happened to 'make it lower'? And, if you say anything like 'It's because we have brought freedom to these countries', I'm going to say, once again, BULLSHIT!

I like 'explanations' to go with 'my statistics', Loganthor. It's the only 'scientifically valid' thing to do--correlate the stats with the explanation. If there is 'NO explanation', I don't trust 'the stats'.....in any field, but, especially, in the 'political field'.....

quote:

Both invited by saddam and by the destruction of Iraq's Securty Infrastrucur.

Have you actually read anything about Muslim fundamentalism (I have)--or, are you just going by those who say 'this war is about FREEDOM'?

I've stated the specifics of this before. Muslim fundamentalists believe in re-establishing the 'ONE STATE' of Islam--that means any 'secular leader of a Middle East nation' would be directly in opposition to that very prominent part of the Muslim fundamentalist's goals.....

If you are going to approach these people as 'the enemy', it'd probably serve you and others better to know something about them....

quote:

I'm rubber your glue, bounces of me ann sticks to you. I think you might need to work on your kung-fu grip on Human nature.

You say that as you don't acknowledge one part of my point on this. If the Muslims came in to 'correct us to God's will' because of our 'infidelity'--and even if every neighbor of yours 'accepted that', would you? Tell the truth.....

quote:

Nor was it a victory in war. Hence proving my point. The partial victory in South Korea provides inmeasureable freedoms and opportunities that a lost in North Korea did not provide for the North. Hence Korea is the prime example of what will happen with a failure to Secure Iraq.

What has that got to do with the fact that 'North Korea' still exists--and is still against us--despite our 'war' with them? That we didn't win by 'unconditional surrender'....

quote:

No it is NOT. just off the top of my head there is Armistice, Treaties, Conditional surrenders, Un imposed peace, there is also nothing. No governemnt structure to declare a surrender.

And, since when did any of these represent 'victory'? What 'kind of agreement' did we get with North Korea? And, was 'that agreement' considered a 'victory'?

quote:

I am currently too old and broken to participate,

That's not the point, once again ('swallowing camels, gagging at gnats'...). The question was would you being willing to 'die for the cause' that you promote to be 'the cause for this war'? If you, personally, aren't willing to do it, but you, personally, don't mind others 'dieing for it', and you, personally, are 'for this war', that, to me, personally, makes you a 'hypocrite'....

quote:

"'we destabilized the area in order to stabilize it" Whatever.... Are you sure your not the reincarnation of Sunrise Part 2?

You're the one that said 'we're in there now because we've messed it up and, now, we have to straighten it up'....

quote:

Well thank god your not one of the 4 deciding bodies of the War.

I don't remember the UN agreeing to this 'war'. I don't remember Iraq agreeing to 'this war'. Congress did--but many now say they were duped. So, who does that leave 'agreeing to this war'?

I knew Saddam had nothing to do with Osama Bin Laden before we went to war--and all I had to do to know that was read about Muslim fundamentalism....

quote:

Sure would. They are the official Global body of the arbitrators of Peace. It is too bad they couldn't fight their way out of a wet paper sack.

'Arbitrators of Peace' need to be 'good at fighting'? Is that another Orwellian ('War is Peace') concept for the hypocrites to 'not explain', Loganthor?

True, Captain Patch, I focussed on the interrogated rather than the interrogator. Goodness knows what state of mind returning interrogators must be in, or returning soldiers who have killed, either. And American itself is also harmed because it has lost the moral high ground, to the horror of its allies, though probably to the delight of its enemies and dictators around the world.

I think only one detail has been overlooked in the elaborate history of torture. That is the sociopathology of torture. That the anti-peaceful act is patently crazy.

The adult human mind, as a fragile thing, will wander without constant, directed nurturing-from focus, and from the help of others.

War, or the threat of war, excuses folks from their neighbors concerns, and allows their minds to wander-to torturous pursuits!!!

The Administration needs to throw more parties.
I think.

quote:

It was just 'freedom'--you know, the type of 'virtue' and 'morality' that you say 'this war' isn't about.....

Most likely, George is meaning 'our meaning of freedom to them'....

So you dont know. Was there even a speach?

quote:

Yeah, we kill Saddam--which, if you knew anything about 'fundamentalism', in general, and 'Muslim fundamentalism', in particular, you would know that a secular leader like Saddam Hussein would have had NOTHING to do with any form of Muslim fundamentalism (in fact, his existence as a 'secular leader' goes squarely against 'fundamentalism'). So, what was our point in going in and 'getting Saddam now'? Oh, that's right, 'our leaders' said it was important--they get to determine that with or without our support according to you....

LOL... sure.... Do you even follow your own logic in this passage. He's dead, but somehow he is alive. What the hell are you talking about?

quote:

We will never 'finish' this 'war'--especially not as a 'victory' (and especially not as an 'unconditional surrender' type of 'victory'), Loganthor. Mark my words....this is worse than VietNam ever was.....

I here by mark your words. Granted I most likely will forget in 10 minutes.

quote:

No, not since all the pundits still say it's all 'for freedom'--and no one 'wants to look soft on that', do they?

Hey... if congressmen are cowards to vote their conscience. You get what you deserve.

quote:

You actually like 'swallowing camels and gagging at gnats' (one way Jesus described 'hypocrites'), Loganthor? The 'terrorists of the Middle East' have a 'religious assertion in government' to make.....

Jesus was a cleaver man. But not buying what your selling.

quote:

What proof do you have that Iraq was 'supporting terrorists'?

Saddam stokes war with suicide bomber cash
Good enough for you?

quote:

You're lying--and so is the Bush Administration...

Whatever you have to tell yourself.. I fine with that.

quote:

You stats, by the way, don't impress me, Loganthor

Sorry if you got the impression I care about impressing you. I dont.

quote:

Why was 'the support so high' to begin with in these countries--and what has happened to 'make it lower'?

If I was to guess with my vastly superior intellect, I would guess that Terrorism has finally come home to roast. It is one thing to watch from a distance as terrorist attacking embassy's, Ships, Building on foreign soil. Entirely different when you local market get blown up, or your infrastructure destroyed by Terrorist attacks and their repercussions.

quote:

I like 'explanations' to go with 'my statistics', Loganthor. It's the only 'scientifically valid' thing to do--correlate the stats with the explanation. If there is 'NO explanation', I don't trust 'the stats'.....in any field, but, especially, in the 'political field'.....

I am not your teacher, I posted the link, read it at your leisure. I dont trust stats either, but this one seems to work in my favor.

quote:

I've stated the specifics of this before. Muslim fundamentalists believe in re-establishing the 'ONE STATE' of Islam--that means any 'secular leader of a Middle East nation' would be directly in opposition to that very prominent part of the Muslim fundamentalist's goals.....

You know there are other Muslim terrorist orghanization in world... right?
Bagdad had offices for PLF, ANO, ALF terrorist groups. with support for Hezbollah, Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad.

quote:

You say that as you don't acknowledge one part of my point on this. If the Muslims came in to 'correct us to God's will' because of our 'infidelity'--and even if every neighbor of yours 'accepted that', would you? Tell the truth.....

I dont accept my god now, Why the bloody hell would I accept someone else's. Now if your Talk Norse gods. I would convert in a new york minute... Hence Thor in my name.

quote:

And, since when did any of these represent 'victory'? What 'kind of agreement' did we get with North Korea? And, was 'that agreement' considered a 'victory'?

The war ENDED with a armistice agreement.

Sue,

Here is a good one I been trying to post all day.

Can you define "severe" in context to:
Severe Physical Harm
Severe Mental Harm

quote:

It was just 'freedom'--you know, the type of 'virtue' and 'morality' that you say 'this war' isn't about.....

Most likely, George is meaning 'our meaning of freedom to them'....

So you dont know. Was there even a speach?

Watch the news, I'm sure they will show it (the TV just happened to be on CNN when I saw it 'live'--note how often Bush speaks of 'freedom' in this 'war'.....).

quote:

LOL... sure.... Do you even follow your own logic in this passage. He's dead, but somehow he is alive. What the hell are you talking about?

You said the 'point of this war was to get Saddam Hussein' (among other rather nebulous remarks)--and, somehow, you (like the 'freedom-fighting, smoke up your ass blowing' pundits for this 'war' claim), say it 'relates to terrorism'--are you also going to agree with it 'relates to 9/11'? I'm saying that, as a secular leader, Saddam Hussein would have had nothing to do with Osama Bin Laden (and vice-versa). The correlation I make is Jerry Falwell (who was a 'fundamentalist Baptist') stated he would have never support Bill Clinton (also, a Baptist, but secular, not fundamental...)--same point here.....

quote:

I here by mark your words. Granted I most likely will forget in 10 minutes.

--we'll see, right?

quote:

Hey... if congressmen are cowards to vote their conscience. You get what you deserve.

Well, George (even in his speech today) constantly reminds us that 'if we don't fight terrorism overseas, we'll fight it here'. And, if anyone reaches office that decides to 'pull out' and 'another attack' happens........well, you get the idea....anything is possible when a lot of money is at stake, don't you think?

I predicted that we would go to 'war' to 'prop up the economy' if the stock market dropped below 7000 in 2000--before 9/11. And, it did--and we did. Psychic, don't you think?

Are you ready to change the 'national anthem' to the 'multinational corporate anthem', yet, Loganthor. I vote for Randy Newman's 'It's money that I love' song--I think it's the most appropriate and least hypocritical, don't you?

What else do we have to 'fight for' than 'money'--and hire the killers (mercenaries) to do it....

'Freedom' is just a muse for the 'little guy', don't you think, Loganthor? It's ALL 'money', isn't it?

quote:

Jesus was a cleaver man. But not buying what your selling.

I'm not selling it--I'm 'giving it away'.........

quote:

What proof do you have that Iraq was 'supporting terrorists'?

Saddam stokes war with suicide bomber cash
Good enough for you?

The only thing I would think about that is the old adage that 'the first casualty of war is the truth'.....

quote:

If I was to guess with my vastly superior intellect, I would guess that Terrorism has finally come home to roast. It is one thing to watch from a distance as terrorist attacking embassy's, Ships, Building on foreign soil. Entirely different when you local market get blown up, or your infrastructure destroyed by Terrorist attacks and their repercussions.

So, are you saying that I will either have to constantly live in 'fear of terrorism'--or pay some killers to 'ward it off at the border'? Great 'choices' there, Loganthor. Why are the 'terrorists' so much 'against us'? Is it because of 'our FREEDOM', Loganthor? Or, just why do they really want to 'kill us all'? Any ideas, Loganthor?

quote:

You know there are other Muslim terrorist orghanization in world... right?
Bagdad had offices for PLF, ANO, ALF terrorist groups. with support for Hezbollah, Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad.

And, what Middle Eastern country doesn't have 'terrorists' among them, Loganthor? So, are we going to have to go into Syria, Saudi Arabia, and everywhere else that has 'terrorists'?

I'd say, some of the more severe definitions of severe.

I suppose London may be next for U.S. occupation. The U.K. has had a few home-grown terrorists.

Ditto Spain, Italy, Pakistan, Turkey, etc.
The U.S. military is going to be really busy for the next 100 years.

Seems we create terrorists faster than we eliminate them. Nothing seems to create terrorists faster than creating havouc with peoples families and ripping off nations' resources.

Retired Monk
"Ideology is a disease"

quote:

I'd say, some of the more severe definitions of severe.

None of those are any more decriptive then "severe".

If Severe is to the threshold for torture, What is severe?

I just ate a oversized cinnamon roll. Still warm from the bakery.

I'm "severely" drowzy now and might have to lean....back...and close my eyes for just a few seconds.......

or....I could just prop my head up and stare at my computer while closing my eyes for a bit.
That way, if someone sees me, they'll think I'm working intensly.

quote:

You said the 'point of this war was to get Saddam Hussein' (among other rather nebulous remarks)--and, somehow, you (like the 'freedom-fighting, smoke up your ass blowing' pundits for this 'war' claim), say it 'relates to terrorism'--are you also going to agree with it 'relates to 9/11'? I'm saying that, as a secular leader, Saddam Hussein would have had nothing to do with Osama Bin Laden (and vice-versa). The correlation I make is Jerry Falwell (who was a 'fundamentalist Baptist') stated he would have never support Bill Clinton (also, a Baptist, but secular, not fundamental...)--same point here.....

It would be much simplier if you had just Said. "NO, I do not know what I am talking about" You lose me right after the first sentence.

quote:

Well, George (even in his speech today) constantly reminds us that 'if we don't fight terrorism overseas, we'll fight it here'. And, if anyone reaches office that decides to 'pull out' and 'another attack' happens........well, you get the idea....anything is possible when a lot of money is at stake, don't you think?

Is the statement Wrong? Have we had an Attack on US soil in 6 years? Hasn't Iraq become a vital battleground to which terrorist seem to pool thier resources?

quote:

Are you ready to change the 'national anthem' to the 'multinational corporate anthem', yet, Loganthor.

Not unless they offer me a CEO position. However I will mostly like work for myself for the rest of my life. I found that I do not work well under people.

quote:

I'm not s