OK LEFTWING WE GIVE

I'm not calling for immediate withdrawal of our troops. Actually, I'd like to see more troops in Afghanistan. In Iraq, I'd like to see us working toward making Iraq stable enough that we can excuse ourselves (and we are).

I question the urgency and the necessity of the war in Iraq, particularly the timing. But we are there, and there's no sense in wasting the progress we've made, particuarly with the price tag that's it come with.

I think war against the taliban and the GWOT is just and should be a continued effort.

"I question the urgency and the necessity of the war in Iraq, particularly the timing. But we are there, and there's no sense in wasting the progress we've made, particuarly with the price tag that's it come with."

Urgency is relative. I wonder if anyone pre-9/11 would have considered the need to attack Afghanistan 'urgent'. How many more years would have been before the UN allowed Hussein to rearm himself, with France and Russia poised to make a killing doing it? Look at how willing members of the suppsedly non-aligned UN were to make a quick buck by helping him starve his people?

If it wasn't done in the 8 years Bush was in office, would it have been done in the 4 or 8 years after with reasonably good chance of a Clintonian Democrat in office? I think in 16 years we would have been facing a completely different, and more dangerous, Iraq. Best case scenario, the people of Iraq would have continued suffering under sanctions while corrupt officials diverted the food for oil money into his pockets.

Others don't agree, but there was no change in Hussein's opinion of those in his country who opposed him, and no change in his promotion of terrorist attacks against Israel ($10k bounties to families of suicide bombers). I just think that 16 more years of complacency might have led to something far, far worse than 9/11, if not in the US, then in Israel or somewhere else.

Who's fault is it? those left wingers. And how was Bush to know way back when that there were no WMDs? All the signs said they were, and we had to take urgent action. Sure, we didn't find any, but look how many people got their freedom.

lets say the bad guys hit a chemical plant, thousands of american citizens die, women and children. WHOS FAULT IT IS?.

i'd think it would be the people put more effort into rushing thru the patriot act, choosing homeland security colors, dumping money and untold hours creating the illusion that iraq hadda be invaded...while not even pretending to compel the chemical industry to make sure all its gates are locked.

i'd think it would be the people put more effort into rushing thru the patriot act, choosing homeland security colors, dumping money and untold hours creating the illusion that iraq hadda be invaded...while not even pretending to compel the chemical industry to make sure all its gates are locked.

Again you attack the victims, and not the agressors.  At least you are consistent in that regard.

I think we need to look no further than Marci's article the other day on whether or not we deserved 9/11. Once the military is removed, and they can no longer claim oppression, they will shift to attack us simply because we are more successful. Evidently it's A-OK to hate someone simply because they have a better lot in life than you do.

So after the military is removed as an excuse, the far left will move to blame corporations, CEOs, millionaires for the attacks because it will somehow be THEIR fault that people live in poverty and that poverty inspires terrorism.

And if we move to a socialist society where everything was equally distributed and no one was poor, they would blame terrorism on the individual victim, saying "Well, Joe over there didn't hold the door open for Hasad, so of course his house got hit with a car bomb. He deserved it!"

Reply By: Texas WahinePosted: Thursday, August 11, 2005I'm not calling for immediate withdrawal of our troops. Actually, I'd like to see more troops in Afghanistan. In Iraq, I'd like to see us working toward making Iraq stable enough that we can excuse ourselves (and we are). I question the urgency and the necessity of the war in Iraq, particularly the timing. But we are there, and there's no sense in wasting the progress we've made, particuarly with the price tag that's it come with.I think war against the taliban and the GWOT is just and should be a continued effort.

so do I tex, was just wondering if the left got there way, and we were attacked again, would that be bushes fault too?

Reply By: BakerStreetPosted: Thursday, August 11, 2005"I question the urgency and the necessity of the war in Iraq, particularly the timing. But we are there, and there's no sense in wasting the progress we've made, particuarly with the price tag that's it come with."Urgency is relative. I wonder if anyone pre-9/11 would have considered the need to attack Afghanistan 'urgent'. How many more years would have been before the UN allowed Hussein to rearm himself, with France and Russia poised to make a killing doing it? Look at how willing members of the suppsedly non-aligned UN were to make a quick buck by helping him starve his people?If it wasn't done in the 8 years Bush was in office, would it have been done in the 4 or 8 years after with reasonably good chance of a Clintonian Democrat in office? I think in 16 years we would have been facing a completely different, and more dangerous, Iraq. Best case scenario, the people of Iraq would have continued suffering under sanctions while corrupt officials diverted the food for oil money into his pockets.Others don't agree, but there was no change in Hussein's opinion of those in his country who opposed him, and no change in his promotion of terrorist attacks against Israel ($10k bounties to families of suicide bombers). I just think that 16 more years of complacency might have led to something far, far worse than 9/11, if not in the US, then in Israel or somewhere else.

There ya go making sense again baker.

Reply By: kingbeePosted: Thursday, August 11, 2005lets say the bad guys hit a chemical plant, thousands of american citizens die, women and children.WHOS FAULT IT IS?. i'd think it would be the people put more effort into rushing thru the patriot act, choosing homeland security colors, dumping money and untold hours creating the illusion that iraq hadda be invaded...while not even pretending to compel the chemical industry to make sure all its gates are locked.

ya never let me down kingbee I have come to expect the worse from you and you never dissapoint.

Reply By: Dr. GuyPosted: Friday, August 12, 2005i'd think it would be the people put more effort into rushing thru the patriot act, choosing homeland security colors, dumping money and untold hours creating the illusion that iraq hadda be invaded...while not even pretending to compel the chemical industry to make sure all its gates are locked.Again you attack the victims, and not the agressors. At least you are consistent in that regard.

bot ain't that the unvarnished truth.

Reply By: ZoombaPosted: Friday, August 12, 2005I think we need to look no further than Marci's article the other day on whether or not we deserved 9/11. Once the military is removed, and they can no longer claim oppression, they will shift to attack us simply because we are more successful. Evidently it's A-OK to hate someone simply because they have a better lot in life than you do.So after the military is removed as an excuse, the far left will move to blame corporations, CEOs, millionaires for the attacks because it will somehow be THEIR fault that people live in poverty and that poverty inspires terrorism.And if we move to a socialist society where everything was equally distributed and no one was poor, they would blame terrorism on the individual victim, saying "Well, Joe over there didn't hold the door open for Hasad, so of course his house got hit with a car bomb. He deserved it!"

ah so in essense you are saying that no matter what we as a nation do, the terror mongers will find a reason to kill us.

Urgency is relative. I wonder if anyone pre-9/11 would have considered the need to attack Afghanistan 'urgent'. How many more years would have been before the UN allowed Hussein to rearm himself, with France and Russia poised to make a killing doing it? Look at how willing members of the suppsedly non-aligned UN were to make a quick buck by helping him starve his people?

Excellent points, Baker. While I stand with those who question whether the Iraq war was justified, I also have to stop to realize that the same idiots who attack Bush no matter what he does would have hit him twice as hard had we not intervened and consequently been the victims of a large scale attack by a Hussein led regime.

I don't think there were easy choices to have been made in these situations, at any rate.

ah so in essense you are saying that no matter what we as a nation do, the terror mongers will find a reason to kill us.

Exactly. Hatred requires no reason, especially when it's fundamentalist hatred like we are dealing with now. They will hate us no matter what we do or who we are. So long as we aren't a part of their group, we will be a target of their hatred. The far left can't grasp this so they'll keep blaming everyone but the terrorist for the acts, until eventually they blame those killed for being killed or being in a situation where they could be killed.

And if we move to a socialist society where everything was equally distributed and no one was poor, they would blame terrorism on the individual victim, saying "Well, Joe over there didn't hold the door open for Hasad, so of course his house got hit with a car bomb. He deserved it!"

Exactly!  On another thread I disputed that envy was the human condition.  Instead, I maintain that it is the flawed human condition.  They do not need a reason.  For anytime you take away the 'reason', they will come up with another. 

In simpler terms, evil exists as a flawed human condition.  And it will find an excuse for its existance. Period.

I also have to stop to realize that the same idiots who attack Bush no matter what he does would have hit him twice as hard had we not intervened and consequently been the victims of a large scale attack by a Hussein led regime.

And as for Proof for Gideons statement, listen to them talk about Sudan and Rwanda (that was a clinton one, but they will assign it to Bush).

Exactly. Hatred requires no reason, especially when it's fundamentalist hatred like we are dealing with now.

Ok, so I am not Zoomba.  I will disagree in nuance.  They do require a reason, but they will make one up.

Now, back to being Zoomba!

Ok, so I am not Zoomba. I will disagree in nuance. They do require a reason, but they will make one up.

Sorry, I should have said does not require a valid reason. I don't entirely consider ones they cook up in their heads to be reasons, just personal justification for what they do. I see a difference between justification and reason in this case.

When the reason to hate can be anything, can just be made up from nothing, then no reason is actually really required, one just exists to justify what they do.

Reply By: Gideon MacLeishPosted: Friday, August 12, 2005Urgency is relative. I wonder if anyone pre-9/11 would have considered the need to attack Afghanistan 'urgent'. How many more years would have been before the UN allowed Hussein to rearm himself, with France and Russia poised to make a killing doing it? Look at how willing members of the suppsedly non-aligned UN were to make a quick buck by helping him starve his people?Excellent points, Baker. While I stand with those who question whether the Iraq war was justified, I also have to stop to realize that the same idiots who attack Bush no matter what he does would have hit him twice as hard had we not intervened and consequently been the victims of a large scale attack by a Hussein led regime.I don't think there were easy choices to have been made in these situations, at any rate.

exactly, notice PRIVATEgenes latest rant..about withdrawels of troops { it ain't gonna happen} not now anyways.. PRIVATE gene has been whining "bring the troops home" NOw he is whining "bush deserts troops and america" by bringing home troops.

to Zoomba and drguy:

In the beginning BIN laden claimed this was about us having troops in his holy land of saudi arabia, we have withdrawn troops so he changes his reasons.

terrorist much like the far left will continue to DEVOLVE and change as long as they get to hate the target of there choice.

Again you attack the victims, and not the agressors. At least you are consistent in that regard

the question was who's fault it would be if a chemical plant was attacked by terrorists after we removed our troops from iraq and afghanistan. obviously the terrorists who attacked the plant would be responsible for having done so.

if that's the point of the question, why bother answering?

that's why they call em terrorists.

i guess my mistake was considering WHY a chemical plant was chosen as a target. i compounded it by pointing out the fact (as demonstrated by at least two network tv news magazines and confirmed by a number of independent security professionals) that too many chemical plants are neglecting their responsibility to properly secure their facilities and nobody in the government is making an effort to compel them to do so. neglecting responsibility is an understatement that covers doing nothing to prevent unauthorized access thru unlocked gates or refusal to hire an adequate number of capable security guards.

any facility that carelessly makes large quantities of dangerous subtances easy to steal or detonate isn't an innocent victim but a dangerous hazard and that kinda negligence doesnt deserve sympathy.

any government that claims to be committed to homeland security but permits such dangerous foolishness to continue is putting us all at risk.

so go head on and congratulate yourselves on having chosen such a committed resolute warrior and give yourself an extra pat on the back for having recognized the fact that terrorists terrorize. hopefully you don't live nearly as close as i do to tanks fulla stuff that can take out a couple square miles of everything should they be exploited.

ya never let me down kingbee I have come to expect the worse from you and you never dissapoint.

if i'm the worst you're able to imagine or expect, you're living in candyland and you dont realize it.

I don't think there were easy choices to have been made in these situations, at any rate.

At least we were finally blessed with a president who was willing to make the choices, though, for good or ill. He did what what seemed right for the country, and not for his numbers.

any facility that carelessly makes large quantities of dangerous subtances easy to steal or detonate isn't an innocent victim but a dangerous hazard and that kinda negligence doesnt deserve sympathy.

Which again by that reasoning means that the victims of a car crash are the perpatrators of it.  For they did not take sufficient precautions to guard against it.  It is the SOS.

NO ONE can guard against every inevitability.  You guard against the most common and safeguard for that.  But that does not make you invunerable, and it never will.  So when terrorist do strike, the fingers come out and hindsight becomes 'should be' foresight.  Sorry, I still dont by it.  You are still blaming the victims for not being omnipotent.

Which again by that reasoning means that the victims of a car crash are the perpatrators of it

no it means if you leave your keys in your car and the engine running after you've been warned about kids stealing unattended cars...and you also leave a pistol on the seat, you've contributed to any resulting crime.

You are still blaming the victims for not being omnipotent.

not omnipotent nor omniscient (which is what you meant). i'm blaming em for being cheap and complacent and negligent. i'm blaming the government for not doing the least that could be expected and for complacency, stupidity & arrogance. and i'm blaming you for condoning it.

kingbee: you are one of the best here in eloquence, and argueing, if only you would use your powers for good instead of evil.