Home  >  Community  >  The Vendio Round Table  >  IRAQ WAR SINCE ELECTION 11/07/06


<< previous topic post new topic post reply next topic >>
 This topic is 7 pages long: 1 new 2 new 3 new 4 new 5 new 6 new 7 new
 kiara
 
posted on November 24, 2006 06:49:12 PM new
Assuming that those who disagree must be reading the Moscow Times is stupid...... about as stupid as posting a quote about God to defend their own reading of a rag site or their position on this war.

********************************************

Hannah Arendt:

What makes it so plausible to assume that hypocrisy is the vice of vices is that integrity can indeed exist under the cover of all other vices except this one. Only crime and the criminal, it is true, confront us with the perplexity of radical evil; but only the hypocrite is really rotten to the core.

Raisa Gorbachev:

Hypocrisy, the lie, is the true sister of evil, intolerance, and cruelty.

********************************************

 
 kiara
 
posted on November 24, 2006 06:58:29 PM new
Aldous Huxley:

At least two thirds of our miseries spring from human stupidity, human malice and those great motivators and justifiers of malice and stupidity, idealism, dogmatism and proselytizing zeal on behalf of religious or political idols.

 
 mingotree
 
posted on November 24, 2006 07:41:28 PM new
Great quotes Kiara but it will go over "you know who"'s head...not into deep thoughts ya know


Bush had NO plan when he started this war and now SOME demand Democrats have a plan. Well, they do have a plan but SOME have been programmed to repeat the same mantra of lies and would never believe it if they were told of a plan......do they all have the same plan....probably not because they don't believe this is a Fascist country just yet and think they can have differences of opinion. It shows they can think for themselves unlike the goosesteppers following Herr Bush....all of whom are Fascists.



 
 bigpeepa
 
posted on November 24, 2006 08:00:24 PM new
The CIVIL WAR Bushy started by invading Iraq is so bad now that most NEW-CONS realize its out of hand. Will more troops help or just be more targets in the expanding Iraq Civil War?

Looks like Bushy and his gang is getting ready DECLARE VICTORY. In doing so Bushy and his gang will blame their failures on the Iraq government.

I think most New-Cons got it by now. A few backwards left overs on this board are just STUPID enough to spin themselves into a deeper hole.

One is so stupid he can't get himself out of a high crime area and chants and grunts his replies. He shows us all the quality of intellectual support Bushy has left.

To me the last of the NEW-CONS are an endless source of comedy trying to pretend they know something the rest of us don't.

PRESIDENT BUSH TRIED BUT FAILED OUR COUNTRY UNLESS YOUR RICH OR A BIG BUSINESS LIKE AN OIL OR DRUG COMPANIES.

 
 Linda_K
 
posted on November 24, 2006 08:05:27 PM new
peepa...you once again show your own ignorance.

Go find out just WHEN we increased our troop levels.....hint - right before EACH OF THEIR ELECTIONS.


There aren't enough in our congress who are willing to ADMIT DEFEAT and run from the terrorists.

You're NOT going to win this one. Even some dems actually have more brain cells than you do....and most wouldn't support your stance.

Proof of that will come as soon as the dems take control of both Houses.


"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"

"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."

Ann Coulter
 
 mingotree
 
posted on November 24, 2006 08:07:54 PM new
lindafascist, ""Proof of that will come as soon as the dems take control of both Houses.""


YOU'RE RIGHT...they DID take control......I guess MOST AMERICANS disagree with your godbush and YOU!



LOLOLOL!!!!!!


 
 Linda_K
 
posted on November 24, 2006 08:08:36 PM new
I will be adding quotes from our founders and Presidents to disprove the notion of the liberals belief that our founding Fathers didn't 'mix' religion with government.

Maybe IF enough people see their own words....then they'll start to understand that's WHY there is no mention of any 'seperation of church and state in our Constitution nor our Bill of Rights'. lol lol lol

It had nothing, as the ignorant one states to do with defending my position. LOL LOL LOL

Their assumptions are always GREAT for a few laughs.


"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"

"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."

Ann Coulter
 
 Linda_K
 
posted on November 24, 2006 08:10:51 PM new
Obviously mingo needs to be able to comprehend what I did type. Don't expect THAT to happen anytime soon though.


"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"

"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."

Ann Coulter
 
 mingotree
 
posted on November 24, 2006 08:17:13 PM new
lindafascist, you already have quoted our founding fathers over and over and over and over again....we can google quotes, too....


And I still want my elected officials, who are my employees, to keep their religious beliefs to themselves.
You won't ever "get it" because with your close association with your god who approves of torture, you'll never understand what it means to be a true American.

You are a Fascist and hate everything America stands for......and "MOST AMERICANS" agree with me!

 
 kiara
 
posted on November 24, 2006 08:29:50 PM new
Trying to overlook the mess of the war in Iraq by bringing in godly quotes is stupid, Linda ....... just about as stupid as YOUR GUY BUSH was when he talked to HIS god and started this war. You fault the terrorists for their religious beliefs and the chaos that follows but you are no different when you try to bring your god into it.

LOL OL OL

BTW, what is OL OL?

Outer Limits Off Lithium?


*************************************************

Howard Thurman:

During times of war, hatred becomes quite respectable, even though it has to masquerade often under the guise of patriotism.


 
 Linda_K
 
posted on November 24, 2006 08:33:42 PM new
Freedom of speech STILL exists in MY country.

I LOVE it.


The Patriot Post
Founders' Quote Daily
"It is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favors."

-- George Washington (Thanksgiving Proclamation, 3 October 1789)
Reference: George Washington: A Collection, W.B. Allen, ed. (543)


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"

"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."

Ann Coulter
[ edited by Linda_K on Nov 24, 2006 08:38 PM ]
 
 kiara
 
posted on November 24, 2006 08:50:17 PM new
So you have no other way to defend your beliefs than to imitate what I said about free speech a few weeks ago when you preferred to silence me and I had to remind you that free speech was still allowed here?

Do you really believe that YOUR god is behind you and YOUR GUY BUSH in this war? Do you pray to your god and to Bush to kill all those in Iraq who don't believe as you do?

 
 Linda_K
 
posted on November 24, 2006 08:59:53 PM new
I stand by what I said.....that the new DEM lead Houses will NOT vote to have America ADMIT DEFEAT....as the WACKO left has been calling for them to do.


Imo, with so many newly elected dems being moderates and conservatives....along with ALL the other re-elected DEMS in Congress who VOTED AGAINST any immediate withdrawal....AND a CIC who has said as long as he is President we will not abandon the Iraqi people UNTIL they can protect themselves....

...I will enjoy watching all those who voted and put the dems in power.....find their 'dream/hope' won't be coming true.


America will NOT admit defeat. The elected dems are NOT all like our radical lefties here. They will NOT vote to let the terrorists WIN.


"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"

"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."

Ann Coulter
 
 kiara
 
posted on November 24, 2006 09:33:04 PM new
Linda, I will take your refusal to answer my questions as a YES answer then?

You sound all too eager to sacrifice the lives of more young men and women in your own country for your undying devotion and belief in YOUR GUY BUSH. Don't you ever feel guilty for supporting all the killings and anticipating many more? Oh ya, I almost forgot....... to you they are anonymous, just numbers like traffic accident stats and not real people with hopes and dreams for their future.


 
 Linda_K
 
posted on November 24, 2006 09:53:42 PM new
Yep....there ARE those who continue hoping for the US to FAIL in Iraq. Who want us to 'admit defeat' and bring our soldiers home.

They're the ones who enabled our enemies in Vietnam too....they help the communists against the US. And now they want to see the same defeat for America.

They will NEVER be able to grasp that FREEDOM isn't FREE. It comes at a VERY high cost.....and it always has.
==
repeat -

An interesting 'take' about our current situation in Iraq...and some of it's implications for America's future.


in part; from today's WSJ op-ed:


"Over the next three centuries, the Pilgrims' ancestors and others fought and bled to improve the "civil" world they fled."


The Revolutionary War took nearly 4,500 lives.

The Civil War, a half-million lives.

The combined dead in World War I was more than 116,000, and

World War II's U.S. battle deaths to defeat Germany and Japan were close to 300,000.


After all that, the United States became the foremost part of "the civil part of the world."

In the mid-1990s, I was talking to a politically sophisticated European lady about Europe's lack of military response to Milosevic's ethnic cleansing of the non-Serbs in Yugoslavia.

She said, persuasively I thought, "You must understand how much bloody death has happened across our continent the past century. We have simply been worn out by it."

In the event, the U.S. went in to stop another 20th-century genocide on the soil of that civil part of the world.

Her remark has come back to me in recent weeks, watching the paroxysm of antipathy toward the Iraq war and its progenitors.




"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"

"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."

Ann Coulter
[ edited by Linda_K on Nov 24, 2006 10:10 PM ]
 
 kiara
 
posted on November 24, 2006 10:20:42 PM new
They will NEVER be able to grasp that FREEDOM isn't FREE. It comes at a VERY high cost.....and it always has.

Freedom for who? Do you really think the Iraqis were jeopardizing your freedom before the war and do you think they are jeopardizing your freedom now? If so, how?


 
 Linda_K
 
posted on November 24, 2006 11:09:53 PM new
Spreading democracy worldwide has ALWAYS been something the U.S. has supported - since our inception - ""Over the next three centuries, the Pilgrims' ancestors and others fought and bled to improve the "civil" world they fled."
========

Obviously something else the liberals just can't grasp. Deny...overlook...refuse to admit WERE and ARE part of American's HISTORY.
-----

Even JFK....the LAST democrat willing to defend this Nation - the LAST that wasn't afraid to stand up to our ENEMIES.
He believed moving missiles to CUBA would be a THREAT to he U.S. So....he forced them to BACK DOWN....and NOT do so.

Since JFK there have been NO democratic presidents with ANY backbone/guts to do the same.

===============
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"

"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."

Ann Coulter
 
 Linda_K
 
posted on November 24, 2006 11:45:48 PM new
And for those with EXTREMELY short memories....the past THREE administration believed saddam presented a THREAT TO THE U.S. and the world.

President Bush is NOT the first President that has not waited UNTIL we were attacked here on our ground BEFORE attacking anyway.
NOR will he be the last. Much to the dismay of the pacifists and thoe anti-all-war.
==============

Transcript: President Clinton explains Iraq strike

CLINTON: Good evening.

Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.


Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.


Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.


I want to explain why I have decided, with the unanimous recommendation of my national security team, to use force in Iraq; why we have acted now; and what we aim to accomplish.

Six weeks ago, Saddam Hussein announced that he would no longer cooperate with the United Nations weapons inspectors called UNSCOM. They are highly professional experts from dozens of countries. Their job is to oversee the elimination of Iraq's capability to retain, create and use weapons of mass destruction, and to verify that Iraq does not attempt to rebuild that capability.


The inspectors undertook this mission first 7.5 years ago at the end of the Gulf War when Iraq agreed to declare and destroy its arsenal as a condition of the ceasefire.


The international community had good reason to set this requirement. Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq.

The international community had little doubt then, and I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again.


The United States has patiently worked to preserve UNSCOM as Iraq has sought to avoid its obligation to cooperate with the inspectors. On occasion, we've had to threaten military force, and Saddam has backed down.


Faced with Saddam's latest act of defiance in late October, we built intensive diplomatic pressure on Iraq backed by overwhelming military force in the region. The UN Security Council voted 15 to zero to condemn Saddam's actions and to demand that he immediately come into compliance.

Eight Arab nations -- Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, United Arab Emirates and Oman -- warned that Iraq alone would bear responsibility for the consequences of defying the UN.


When Saddam still failed to comply, we prepared to act militarily. It was only then at the last possible moment that Iraq backed down. It pledged to the UN that it had made, and I quote, a clear and unconditional decision to resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors.

I decided then to call off the attack with our airplanes already in the air because Saddam had given in to our demands.
I concluded then that the right thing to do was to use restraint and give Saddam one last chance to prove his willingness to cooperate.

I made it very clear at that time what unconditional cooperation meant, based on existing UN resolutions and Iraq's own commitments.

And along with Prime Minister Blair of Great Britain, I made it equally clear that if Saddam failed to cooperate fully, we would be prepared to act without delay, diplomacy or warning.


Now over the past three weeks, the UN weapons inspectors have carried out their plan for testing Iraq's cooperation. The testing period ended this weekend, and last night, UNSCOM's chairman, Richard Butler, reported the results to UN Secretary-General Annan.

The conclusions are stark, sobering and profoundly disturbing.

In four out of the five categories set forth, Iraq has failed to cooperate.

Indeed, it actually has placed new restrictions on the inspectors. Here are some of the particulars.


Iraq repeatedly blocked UNSCOM from inspecting suspect sites. For example, it shut off access to the headquarters of its ruling party and said it will deny access to the party's other offices, even though UN resolutions make no exception for them and UNSCOM has inspected them in the past.


Iraq repeatedly restricted UNSCOM's ability to obtain necessary evidence. For example, Iraq obstructed UNSCOM's effort to photograph bombs related to its chemical weapons program.


It tried to stop an UNSCOM biological weapons team from videotaping a site and photocopying documents and prevented Iraqi personnel from answering UNSCOM's questions.


Prior to the inspection of another site, Iraq actually emptied out the building, removing not just documents but even the furniture and the equipment.


Iraq has failed to turn over virtually all the documents requested by the inspectors. Indeed, we know that Iraq ordered the destruction of weapons-related documents in anticipation of an UNSCOM inspection.

So Iraq has abused its final chance.

As the UNSCOM reports concludes, and again I quote, "Iraq's conduct ensured that no progress was able to be made in the fields of disarmament.
"In light of this experience, and in the absence of full cooperation by Iraq, it must regrettably be recorded again that the commission is not able to conduct the work mandated to it by the Security Council with respect to Iraq's prohibited weapons program."

In short, the inspectors are saying that even if they could stay in Iraq, their work would be a sham.

Saddam's deception has defeated their effectiveness. Instead of the inspectors disarming Saddam, Saddam has disarmed the inspectors.


This situation presents a clear and present danger to the stability of the Persian Gulf and the safety of people everywhere. The international community gave Saddam one last chance to resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors.

Saddam has failed to seize the chance.


And so we had to act and act now.

Let me explain why.

First, without a strong inspection system, Iraq would be free to retain and begin to rebuild its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs in months, not years.

Second, if Saddam can crippled the weapons inspection system and get away with it, he would conclude that the international community -- led by the United States -- has simply lost its will.

He will surmise that he has free rein to rebuild his arsenal of destruction, and someday -- make no mistake -- he will use it again as he has in the past.


Third, in halting our air strikes in November, I gave Saddam a chance, not a license. If we turn our backs on his defiance, the credibility of U.S. power as a check against Saddam will be destroyed. We will not only have allowed Saddam to shatter the inspection system that controls his weapons of mass destruction program; we also will have fatally undercut the fear of force that stops Saddam from acting to gain domination in the region.


That is why, on the unanimous recommendation of my national security team -- including the vice president, the secretary of defense, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, the secretary of state and the national security adviser -- I have ordered a strong, sustained series of air strikes against Iraq.


They are designed to degrade Saddam's capacity to develop and deliver weapons of mass destruction, and to degrade his ability to threaten his neighbors.


At the same time, we are delivering a powerful message to Saddam. If you act recklessly, you will pay a heavy price. We acted today because, in the judgment of my military advisers, a swift response would provide the most surprise and the least opportunity for Saddam to prepare.


If we had delayed for even a matter of days from Chairman Butler's report, we would have given Saddam more time to disperse his forces and protect his weapons.


Also, the Muslim holy month of Ramadan begins this weekend. For us to initiate military action during Ramadan would be profoundly offensive to the Muslim world and, therefore, would damage our relations with Arab countries and the progress we have made in the Middle East.


That is something we wanted very much to avoid without giving Iraq's a month's head start to prepare for potential action against it.


Finally, our allies, including Prime Minister Tony Blair of Great Britain, concurred that now is the time to strike. I hope Saddam will come into cooperation with the inspection system now and comply with the relevant UN Security Council resolutions. But we have to be prepared that he will not, and we must deal with the very real danger he poses.


So we will pursue a long-term strategy to contain Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction and work toward the day when Iraq has a government worthy of its people.

First, we must be prepared to use force again if Saddam takes threatening actions, such as trying to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction or their delivery systems, threatening his neighbors, challenging allied aircraft over Iraq or moving against his own Kurdish citizens.

The credible threat to use force, and when necessary, the actual use of force, is the surest way to contain Saddam's weapons of mass destruction program, curtail his aggression and prevent another Gulf War.


Second, so long as Iraq remains out of compliance, we will work with the international community to maintain and enforce economic sanctions.
Sanctions have cost Saddam more than $120 billion -- resources that would have been used to rebuild his military. The sanctions system allows Iraq to sell oil for food, for medicine, for other humanitarian supplies for the Iraqi people.

We have no quarrel with them. But without the sanctions, we would see the oil-for-food program become oil-for-tanks, resulting in a greater threat to Iraq's neighbors and less food for its people.

The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world.

The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people.

Bringing change in Baghdad will take time and effort. We will strengthen our engagement with the full range of Iraqi opposition forces and work with them effectively and prudently.


The decision to use force is never cost-free. Whenever American forces are placed in harm's way, we risk the loss of life. And while our strikes are focused on Iraq's military capabilities, there will be unintended Iraqi casualties.


Indeed, in the past, Saddam has intentionally placed Iraqi civilians in harm's way in a cynical bid to sway international opinion.


We must be prepared for these realities. At the same time, Saddam should have absolutely no doubt if he lashes out at his neighbors, we will respond forcefully.


Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction. If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors. He will make war on his own people.

And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them.

Because we're acting today, it is less likely that we will face these dangers in the future.

Let me close by addressing one other issue. Saddam Hussein and the other enemies of peace may have thought that the serious debate currently before the House of Representatives would distract Americans or weaken our resolve to face him down. But once more, the United States has proven that although we are never eager to use force, when we must act in America's vital interests, we will do so.

In the century we're leaving, America has often made the difference between chaos and community, fear and hope. Now, in the new century, we'll have a remarkable opportunity to shape a future more peaceful than the past, but only if we stand strong against the enemies of peace.


Tonight, the United States is doing just that.

May God bless and protect the brave men and women who are carrying out this vital mission and their families. And may God bless America.
============

Oh...but how different it was when THIS President said and did EXACTLY the same thing. tsk tsk tsk....all of a sudden EVERYTHING changed....for the radical left.



"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"

"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."

Ann Coulter
[ edited by Linda_K on Nov 25, 2006 10:20 AM ]
 
 bigpeepa
 
posted on November 25, 2006 05:21:30 AM new
Iraq CIVIL WAR update 11/25/06.

Hey Liar_k, can you say CIVIL WAR?

In the past year, thousands of bodies have been found dumped across Baghdad and other cities in central Iraq, victims who were tortured, then shot to death, according to police. The suspected militia killers often have used electric drills on their captives' bodies before killing them. The bodies are frequently decapitated.

Burning victims alive, however, introduced a new method of brutality that seemed likely to be reciprocated by the other sect as the Shiites and Sunnis continue killing one another in unprecedented numbers. The attack, which came despite a curfew in Baghdad, capped a day in which at least 87 people were killed or found dead in sectarian violence across Iraq.



Iraq war update 11/25/06.

LIAR_K SAID THE INCREASED VIOLENCE IN IRAQ WAS TO INFLUENCE OUR ELECTION.

HEY LIAR_K YOU NEED TO TELL THE IRAQ OUR ELECTIONS ARE OVER.

ON ELECTION DAY AMERICA HAD 2836 DEAD AMERICAN TROOPS. TODAY WE HAVE 2872 DEAD TROOPS UP 46 SINCE THE ELECTION.

AS OF TODAY 11/20/06 WE HAVE 21,678 WOUNDED AMERICAN TROOPS.

AS OF TODAY 11/20/06 AMERICA HAS SPENT 345,000,000,000 BILLION DOLLARS ON BUSHES BLUNDERS IN IRAQ.




 
 Linda_K
 
posted on November 25, 2006 07:56:51 AM new
Iraqis relay optimism

(Washington Times) (11/24)

- Iraqis have a decided interest in a strong central government, and, despite escalating violence over the past year, are not chafing at the bit to divide the country through civil war, according to a poll.

http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20061122-090144-3669r.htm

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"

"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."

Ann Coulter
[ edited by Linda_K on Nov 25, 2006 08:06 AM ]
 
 bigpeepa
 
posted on November 25, 2006 08:21:49 AM new
Liar_K,
I asked you can you say CIVIL WAR? You become so TRANSPARENT AND PHONY when you avoid today's issues about BUSHY's invasion of Iraq.

Liar_k your not going to be able to run,hide,lie or COPY AND PASTE when that day comes.

Bushy is getting ready to DECLARE VICTORY before the 2008 elections. He will blame all his failures on the Iraq government.

THE NEW-CON FAITH BASED POLITICAL EXPERIMENT FAILED AMERICA.

 
 kiara
 
posted on November 25, 2006 08:30:24 AM new
Remember the mothers and fathers who are in Afghanistan and Iraq during this holiday season and the children that are left without a parent to care for them.

When war started in Iraq, a generation of U.S. women became involved as never before. More than 155,000 women have served in Iraq and Afghanistan in a wider-than-ever array of jobs, for long deployments, in a conflict with daily bloodshed.

Among their ranks are more than 16,000 single mothers, according to the Pentagon, a number that military experts say is unprecedented.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15871419/

 
 Linda_K
 
posted on November 25, 2006 08:37:13 AM new
Yep.....many BRAVE women who VOLUNTEERED to serve our Nation.

MOST of whom are NOT on the front lines where combat takes place....but rather in support positions.

I thank all our brave soldiers who unlike so many American's would NEVER put their own lives at risk for ANYTHING....let alone to bring democracy to another Nation.


"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"

"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."

Ann Coulter
 
 kiara
 
posted on November 25, 2006 08:58:03 AM new
who unlike so many American's would NEVER put their own lives at risk for ANYTHING.

YUP! Just like you, Linda and the leader you worship daily. You want Bush to come out of this looking a whole lot better than he is now and you are willing to sacrifice more young men and women in your attempt to do so.

My point in posting about the women involved in these wars is to try to show you that these are real people. Some of these women are now amputees. Some are dead. So they are in danger.

While you sit there calling for more war, all plump and happy from your Thanksgiving celebration and Bush goes to his fancy dinners [insert mental image of him gnawing on a turkey leg and talking with his mouth open while making more dirty deals], remember there are little kids at home with no parents, little kids with injured parents. These are real people that suffer. Little kids in Iraq are dead, some are homeless and many are now orphans because of this war.





 
 Linda_K
 
posted on November 25, 2006 09:10:21 AM new
oh...such foolishness...and from someone who THINKS she's just so intellegent. LOL

I believe most American's KNOW none of our Armed Forces take women who are 57 years old. Maybe the less-bright canadian women aren't aware of that fact. lol lol
======================

Since helen has often used the Koz blogging site to get a point across...I'm just SURE my using a blog that FAVORS America won't bother any liberal here. lol

Wake up America

Any man who is under 30, and is not a liberal, has not heart; and any man who is over 30, and is not a conservative, has no brains....... Winston Churchill, Sir (1874-1965)

In war there is no substitute for victory. ........Douglas MacArthur, General (1880-1964)


Friday, November 24, 2006

Enemy Propaganda from our Media

We saw a good example of our news media reporting enemy propaganda under the guise of "news" with CNN showing a clip of a sniper shooting one of our soldiers.


Mrs. Cheney took the issue head on to Wolf Blitzer, when she went on his show to discuss her book and he tried to side swipe her with political questions.


She nailed him and CNN to the wall for acting as an agent of propaganda for the terrosists.

Cheney showed that she knows exactly how to deal with the liberal media when she asked Blitzer "what is CNN doing running tapes of terrorists shooting Americans," more than once.

Her sharpest question "Do you want us to win?" echoed the sentiments of conservatives everywhere who are fed up with the bias and anti-American pap served up by CNN and other liberal media outlets.

I have also mentioned quite often here that our news media refuses to report the full story in Iraq, they distort and they focus on the headlines that only bad news can bring...

I have showed here on this site the good news coming from Iraq that is very easy to find right here.

http://www.centcom.mil/sites/uscentcom1/default.aspx

Centcom gives the good news as well as the bad, they do not focus one one while ignoring the other.


With all that said, after reading Patterico's piece on the news that came out of Iraq, reported by a source in our mainstream media, that has been investigated and turned out to be a downright lie. THAT is very disturbing. Brings into question any and all reports that come from Iraq, such as this one right here.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/24/AR2006112400203.html

I will high light a few parts from Patterico's piece and link to the whole post....be sure to read it, because it should give you cause for concern.

http://wwwwakeupamericans-spree.blogspot.com/2006/11/enemy-propaganda-from-our-media.html

[b]I implore all to read why we CANNOT believe what we always hear from our liberal MSM "news". I encourage all to read the sites and take the word of our SOLDIERS who are fighting over there....ABOVE the lying press....who has their own ANTI-American, ANTI-war agenda. Our soldiers ONLY agenda is to STAY ALIVE.....and complete their missions.

On the last link I've provided....it gives SEVERAL examples of out and out lies.....half truths...etc...that are what UNaware Americans are using to form their opinions on. And MOST of it's FALSE.



They're using 'facts' 'news' from our ENEMIES...and reporting it as TRUTH...when it's NOT.



"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"

"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."

Ann Coulter
[ edited by Linda_K on Nov 25, 2006 09:38 AM ]
 
 bigpeepa
 
posted on November 25, 2006 09:14:24 AM new
Liar_K,
I asked you, can you say CIVIL WAR?

BAGHDAD, Iraq (Nov. 25) - Gunmen raided two Shiite homes in Diyala province, a hotbed of Iraq's Sunni-Arab insurgency, and shot and killed 21 men in front of their relatives, police said Saturday.

The attack by suspected insurgents on Friday night targeted members of the al-Sawed Shiite tribe in the village of Balad Ruz, 45 miles northeast of Baghdad, a police officer said, speaking on condition of anonymity to protect his own security, as officials often do in the increasingly volatile province.

He said police could not reach the remote village to collect the bodies and take them to a morgue until Saturday morning. The province, almost equally divided between Sunnis and Shiites, is the site of many sectarian attacks.

In all, at least 87 Iraqis were killed or found dead in sectarian violence across Iraq on Friday.

THE FAITH BASED NEW-CON EXPERIMENT IN GOVERNMENT FAILED AMERICA. JUST LIKE MIXING RELIGION AND POLITICS IS FAILING IRAQ.




 
 kiara
 
posted on November 25, 2006 10:02:37 AM new
Who was talking about 57 year old women, Linda? Or is age now your excuse for not serving since you have now been informed that just because your son served it didn't qualify you as serving too?

There was an American woman serving that was recently killed by a bomb in Kabul and she was in her 50's.

With the situation as it is, everywhere is a 'front line' so don't try to minimize the danger of women serving.

 
 Linda_K
 
posted on November 25, 2006 10:09:14 AM new
It's obvious to me that people like peepa didn't learn a THING from the way Vietnam ended. MASSES of people, they CLAIM to care about, were MURDERED.....SLAUGHTERED.

Oh...but they're upset about those dying now. Don't give a darn about all that will lose their lives IF we pull out before they can fully protect themselves.

They constantly IGNORE that FACT. Doesn't work too well with their 'admit defeat and run home NOW agenda'.

========================

A pullout too soon will simply create another genocide situation

Guess who will be BLAMED for all those deaths? Yep, that's right....the U.S. AND the blame-America-first crowd of Americans.

All-out civil war would erupt.

Iraq would soon be under the 'ownership' of IRAN and Syria.

Is this REALLY what these 'admit defeat liberals' want to happen?

Do they EVER THINK about that?

Or do they simply just not CARE?

As has been reported by Gen. Casey, the Iraqi army and police are 75% self-sufficient now.

Some just don't want to give them the necessary time NEEDED to be able to handle it themselves.....

nope, they'd rather see a genocide happen AGAIN.

They'd rather have all the lives of our fallen soldiers been for NOTHING.....their mission NOT accomplished. Their injuries for NOTHING.

They would have all died and suffered these injuries for NOTHING.

All the funding spent to bring FREEDOM and LIBERTY to the ME....wasted.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"

"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."

Ann Coulter
[ edited by Linda_K on Nov 25, 2006 10:14 AM ]
 
 Linda_K
 
posted on November 25, 2006 10:52:57 AM new
As of 11-1-06 THREE U.S. women soldiers have died in Iraq.

One took her own life.

And NONE joined the Armed Services when they were ANY where NEAR 50. LOL LOL LOL

Such misinformation canadian liberals have. lol

but kiara just continues to prove how little she DOES know about the U.S. Military...and how it functions. lol


"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"

"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."

Ann Coulter
 
 kiara
 
posted on November 25, 2006 11:34:34 AM new
It is now proven once again that you are communicating with the voices in your head, lindak. Nowhere did I say that women in their 50's were joining. In fact it was you that brought the 57 year old into this discussion, not me.

You are now making up things, aka LYING about what I have said to try to cover up your previous ignorance of women serving in Iraq and Afghanistan and your ignorance that they are truly in danger.

As you try to minimize the service of women, perhaps you should stop laughing long enough to recheck your figures about how many have been killed. Don't forget the ones who are wounded permanently either. These are real people.

http://userpages.aug.com/captbarb/

 
   This topic is 7 pages long: 1 new 2 new 3 new 4 new 5 new 6 new 7 new
<< previous topic post new topic post reply next topic >>

Jump to

All content © 1998-2019  Vendio all rights reserved. Vendio Services, Inc.™, Simply Powerful eCommerce, Smart Services for Smart Sellers, Buy Anywhere. Sell Anywhere. Start Here.™ and The Complete Auction Management Solution™ are trademarks of Vendio. Auction slogans and artwork are copyrights © of their respective owners. Vendio accepts no liability for the views or information presented here.

The Vendio free online store builder is easy to use and includes a free shopping cart to help you can get started in minutes!