posted on June 16, 2007 06:55:43 PM
6 Gunmen,,1/2 dozen?????,,approached Mosque loaded with EXPLOSIVES. The Gunmen told Iraqi "Security Forces" to leave,,,,which they did.
When Goldfingers palaces were invaded by James Bonds forces, Goldfingers Security Forces!! They FOUGHT,,,,, til the bloody end....
Had U.S. Marines!!!! been guarding that.....
Thank God they were NOT,,,,,,,
Their Security forces have NO OATH,,,,,of Allegiance.....
U.S. Marines DO and they WILL DIE in Defense of that Oath.....
They don't care about their OWN Security why should we?
Get the U.S. forces the HELL out of there.....NOW!!!
posted on June 17, 2007 12:37:01 AM We can chase down all our enemies Bring them to their knees We can bomb the world to pieces But we can't bomb it into peace Whoa we may even find a solution To hunger and disease We can bomb the world to pieces But we can't bomb it into peace
posted on June 17, 2007 08:25:59 AM
For the truly clueless who think the world has lived in peace since the bombs of the 2nd World War, perhaps they should take a moment to catch up on the history they have neglected to absorb since they were born.
If the whole Middle East and any of the rest of the world was bombed and destroyed only because there are those who do not agree with the way others choose to live so continue to lust for genocide, it would still not bring peace.
Within a very short while, any remaining people who crawled out of their bunkers and wanted to rule would be going after each other, hating with a deeper intensity. It's the nature of the beast.
posted on June 17, 2007 11:12:54 AM
The "truly" clueless are those who live in some constant desire for a utopia that has NEVER existed. NEVER.
After the bombing in WW11 we became allies with Germany and Japan.
To ignore those FACTS and pretend the world will EVER be at peace....is nothing short of delusional, on YOUR part kiara...because I never said any such nonsense..
Once again I point out that you bring in something that NO ONE ever said...and then argue THAT point.
posted on June 17, 2007 12:24:04 PM
Germany and Japan become economic power after World War II,China has caught on and so does Vietnam.
Do you ever notice Middle East is economically underdeveloped,so is Africa and parts of Latin America.
When there is no job,people find job by going to war.
Watch India,they like to bomb their prime minister,would they continue this habit now when more Indians are drinking latte and sipping wine and dancing to the disco tune.
And will sushi and sashimi be coming to every corner bar in India??
*
Lets all stop whining !
*
posted on June 17, 2007 12:52:16 PM
You obviously did not understand the lyrics I posted, Linda_K.
Nor did you understand my follow-up response.
It was my opinion and not an argument – not for me anyways.
To ignore those FACTS and pretend the world will EVER be at peace....is nothing short of delusional, on YOUR part kiara...because I never said any such nonsense..
Of course you never said the world would be at peace. You're the 'most bloodthirsty for war and genocide' in this forum and you're not about to change your thoughts on that issue.
You have shown constant loathing for all who don't agree with your lifestyle or your Bush regime style of government that you follow religiously no matter how much it screws up or who it harms. You loathe those of us who speak out and oppose war and killing as a solution to world problems. You loathe anyone that disagrees with your Bush government trying to cram its beliefs on everyone worldwide and occupying their countries thinking they should all just shut up and take it.
The "truly" clueless are those who live in some constant desire for a utopia that has NEVER existed. NEVER.
If I thought that there was hope for utopia in my lifetime I would never believe or say that if the world was bombed and a few went into bunkers they would come out still wanting to fight one another for control. I thought that was clear.
posted on June 17, 2007 01:33:54 PM
hide under any rock you need to kiara....the American military will protect your scared rear.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"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."
posted on June 17, 2007 01:34:22 PM
There are always twits who say (typically back of hand to forehead) "I'm against war!" (like everybody else is for it.) talk, talk, talk, about peace.
This thread is similar tot he one where are the little liberals were cooing and ahhhing because Reid gave an interview. He was asked if we pulled out of Iraq, wouldn't Iran just move in and cause more trouble? He said no and why would they do that?????? From the posts it sounded like most here died and went to heaven.
So I asked a simple question:
When, since the beginning of time, has a belligerent power not moved into the resulting power vacuum when a stabilizing power has exited? No answer.
"We can chase down all our enemies
Bring them to their knees
We can bomb the world to pieces
But we can't bomb it into peace
Whoa we may even find a solution
To hunger and disease
We can bomb the world to pieces
But we can't bomb it into peace"
The stupidity of this little ditty is that everything is up to US. As Linda pointed out, these trite little bits of stupidity conveniently ignore the Hitlers, Stalins, Pol Pots, just to name a portion of the list, and also ignore that in most cases the world has bent over backwards to supply these animals' blood lust, only to discover (to the liberals' amazement) that there is NEVER enough.
Now, the "war" in Iraq is not "civil" when you have Iran training, equipping, and supporting one side. And contrary to who can be called incredibly stupid people, it's not because we were mean to them and it is also not true that they will stop with Iraq.
So our liberal friends here had better start practicing that big-eyed, slow blink they often exhibit as history unfolds (AGAIN!) if they get what they want.
posted on June 17, 2007 03:11:14 PMhide under any rock you need to kiara....the American military will protect your scared rear.
I'm not hiding. Nor am I scared. So please don't project your fear on me, Linda_K. It's as stupid as Desquirrel projecting his daily, nutty, big-eyed forehead smacking on me after he does it over and over again to himself.
You show your daily fear. You are afraid of terrorists, every word they utter sends you into more fear. They have you exactly where they want you!
You are afraid of other cultures and countries and governments and you are even afraid of free speech and the beliefs of others within your own country or the beliefs of your very own neighbors. Bombing them or killing them will never rid you of your fear.
Neither you or Desquirrel will ever understand the lyrics I posted - you cannot bomb the world into peace. If you bomb one country and rid the world of the people you fear and hate there will be someone you will fear and hate right afterwards - you will never be content.
If only America is left on this planet you will still hate and want to destroy those less fortunate than you within your very own country. Once they are killed you will turn on the next group. You will never be content because of your loathing for all others who do not believe as you do.
Fortunately there are those who are more intelligent than you so there is still hope for the world.
posted on June 17, 2007 07:25:09 PM
Oh...that was sooooo special.
Totally wrong according to U.S. historical actions/policy when it comes to dealing with our enemies...but none-the-less, special.
Here's a clue: There IS a reason the democrat party WON'T stop funding this war....and it's not because they support this President.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"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."
posted on June 18, 2007 08:20:09 AM
"Neither you or Desquirrel will ever understand the lyrics I posted -"
Man are you confused. I thought my answer was plain enough in that I not only understood you silly prattle, I went to great lengths to show it to be simplistic and downright stupid.
posted on June 18, 2007 10:03:25 AM Blair blasts critics in final defence of Iraq war
Jun 18 09:54 AM US/Eastern
Tony Blair on Monday strongly defended intervening in Iraq for the final time as prime minister before parliament's top scrutiny body.
In a robust farewell performance, Blair insisted ordinary Muslims craved democracy, saying that Islamist terrorists rather than the West were their worst enemy.
He warned that the West would be making a "fundamental mistake" if it gave up defending democracy when threatened with terrorism and slapped down those blaming coalition failures for the sectarian unrest since the March 2003 US-led invasion to topple dictator Saddam Hussein.
And Blair, who steps down next week, admitted that he felt a heavy responsibility for the death toll in Iraq.
"It is so comforting to people to say there was an error made in the planning. Someone didn't spot what was going to go on," he told the House of Commons liaison committee, made up of all the chiefs the lower chamber's scrutiny bodies.
"That is not what has created the problem. What has created the problem is that the people we are fighting have decided to give us a problem."
"What they have decided is that if they can hang on long enough in Iraq, or in Afghanistan, or anywhere else, then we will lose the will."
He said that Islamist militants purporting that Muslims were being oppressed by the West had a "difficult argument to make" if Muslims were being given a free vote for the first time.
"If we end up saying that because these people are committing these acts of terrorism in Iraq or Afghanistan, that we shouldn't have done the removal of Saddam or the removal of the Taliban, then we are making a fundamental mistake about our own future, about security, about the values we should be defending in the world."
Blair stands down on June 27 after a decade in power, leaving a legacy clouded by his decision to support US President George W. Bush in the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
====================================
"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."
posted on June 19, 2007 07:28:37 AM
Brown promises to avoid the mistakes that led to war in Iraq
By Andrew Grice and Ben Russell
Published: 12 June 2007
Gordon Brown has promised to prevent the "party political" use of intelligence material so that he would never repeat Tony Blair's mistake in taking Britain to war on a flawed prospectus.
On his first visit to Baghdad, the incoming prime minister said he would learn lessons from the run-up to the 2003 Iraq invasion, when Mr Blair based his case for war on intelligence reports about Saddam Hussein's supposed weapons of mass destruction.
Mr Brown said he had already begun discussions with Sir Gus O'Donnell, the Cabinet Secretary, to ensure security and intelligence material was collected "free of the party political process" and was " fully verified" if it was to be made public. "That is learning the lessons from things that happened in the past, and we should make sure that we can do things better in the future," he said.
His remarks were seen as a barely coded criticism of Mr Blair and an attempt to draw a line under a controversy which left a stain on the Government. Mr Blair's official spokesman said measures to reform the use of intelligence recommended by the 2004 Butler inquiry were already being taken forward.
The Chancellor, who heard nine mortar shells land near by during his Baghdad visit, refused to be drawn on a possible cut in the number of British troops in Iraq. He said he was there to "listen and learn" and that such decisions were for another day.
In interviews, he declined to repeat Mr Blair's pledge to the Iraqis that Britain would not "cut and run" but said Britain had obligations to the Iraqi people and the United Nations. He said the number of British forces would continue to decline as Iraqis took over more responsibility for security.
Mr Blair and Mr Brown rejected growing demands for an immediate inquiry into the mistakes made before and since the invasion, but Mr Brown left open the option of calling one after more British troops have left Iraq.
Last night a Tory attempt to force the Government to hold an inquiry into the conflict was rejected by 288 votes to 253 in the Commons. Ten Labour MPs backed the calls for an inquiry.
Earlier, the Government amendment saying that a further inquiry would " divert attention" from the campaign in Iraq was passed by 274 votes to 229, a majority of 45.
During the debate, Margaret Beckett, the Foreign Secretary, had dismissed the idea as self-indulgent and poured scorn on Conservative calls for the Government to accept the principle of an inquiry, insisting that there had been four inquiries into the war.
She said: "To carry this motion would be both an unnecessary and a damaging diversion of effort, focus and attention. All our time and energy is badly needed now to address the challenges of the present. It is our responsibility to the people of Iraq which should receive our focus and attention in the critical times ahead."
William Hague, the shadow Foreign Secretary, urged ministers to bow to the " gathering consensus" and called for an inquiry by privy councillors. He said: "It's not true that our troops would be demoralised or our enemies would take heart if we took the trouble to find out what's gone wrong. In a democratic society the examination of successes and failures is a sign of strength not of weakness." Michael Moore, the Liberal Democrat foreign affairs spokesman, told MPs: "The Government is still trying to avoid an inquiry while hinting that there will be one, simply ducking the question of when."
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- The duty of a patriot in this time and place is to ask questions, to demand answers, to understand where our nation is headed and why. If the answers you get do not suit you, or if they frighten you, or if they anger you, it is your duty as a patriot to dissent. Freedom does not begin with blind acceptance and with a flag. Freedom begins when you say 'No.'
