Posted on 09/03/2006 10:03:43 AM PDT by meandog
Once again, you STILL haven't posted squat to back up your assertions. So give that sand a double pounding.
Yep, nothing like an sense of intellectual superiority coupled with nothing to substantiate such.
I understand that you don't like the President, but at least try to accuse him of actual, factuial errors, rather than things you just imagine.
Given recent German history at the time, he was. And subsequent history demonstrated such.
Why do I have the feeling I am debating two Pat Buchanan Neanderthal-cons with a completely warped view of history?
Kinda like those who accuse Bush of wanting to bring about the End Times because he is born again. When did he ever make reference to this?
I looked at this thread earlier and decided this article and these Freepers ideas were not worth a response...my opinion still holds
Yep, when you are attempting to debate one poster engaging in circular logic and another calling you uninformed while failing to post any information of his own ... yours was probably the wiser decision, to just let them stew in their own sordid juices.
I have never seen such an expert on the Mid-east and our foreign policy. Why aren't you declaring yourself to replace Condi? Gosh, I wish the rest of us knew so much. /sarc
bookmk ping , urrrgH
I've spent the last several years carrying out our foriegn policy. I do take it personally. I take winning very seriously, which is why I'm particularly worried when I see us as unable to fix our mistakes and change course when the situation warrants it. It's tough to sit by and watch things you've spent years working on thrown under the bus by people who are too stubborn or short sighted to take criticism. Shooting the messenger has become a national sport, and debating the message is out.
So as far as that goes, I wish the rest of you knew so much, too.
You used the term 'runt German army', and then fast forwarded to his 'subsequent history'. Which is cute, when you know how history turns out.
I can say that the state of global jihad in 2001 isn't going to be as dangerous as it will be in 2011, because it hasn't happened yet. That doesn't mean it won't, and odds are the global jihadists may be WMD capable by 2011.
What you're trying to do is compare threats in different stages, and then say that since they turned out bad, they were bad from the beginning. All I'm saying is even though that's true, most people don't think like that, even when it's obvious a threat is coming, or we would have invaded Hitler in the mid thirties.
Or, for that matter, nuked Iran's atomic weapons program now, when we were holding all the cards. Our generation will be laughed at by our progeny the same way we laugh at our ancestors for failing to stop Hitler. "They should have known." Sure we should have known, and many of us did, but good luck getting people to act on that.
This is extreme cynicism. The guy expects President Bush (not Georgie or "mindless, depressing, witless ferret" but our President) to look at the world with the same defeatist, depressed and depressing outlook as his.
Sorry. I reject his nihilism.
Sure, the human heart is desperately wicked. We all know that if we've read The Bible. But I saw pictures of thousands of Iraqis standing in the line of fire of snipers to vote for democracy in their country. The man lies.
Fobid imans! God!
I read his bio and am reminded of "I Ate the Last Mango in Paris."
I said the Iraqis don't, not the Kurds. The Kurds are not Arabs, and, as I stated before, don't really see themselves as Iraqis. One can refer to them as such, just as a Korean man could be called Chinese, by someone who couldn't understand the idea of Asians not being Chinese. Just don't ask the Korean to accept it.
The Sunnis definitely don't see us as an improvement, on any level. They'd be happy if we left tonight.
The Shi'ites were of mixed opinion, but our failure to provide security or services has driven them against us and into the arms of the Iranians. The Iranians are normally competitors to the Iraqi Shi'ites, but in this case they're willing to work together to drive us out.
Pretty damn well I'd say. Abu Abbas? DEAD. Abu Nidal? DEAD. Zarqawi? DEAD. Usay? DEAD. Qusay? DEAD. The old man? A laughing stock. Terrorist training bases? DEAD.
There's a lot more DEAD than you mentioned, but unfortunately we CREATE them at a rate faster than we kill them. There's more terrorist training bases in Iraq now than there were before, and far more terrorists. Many of them have gone home and set up shop there, as well. I was all for the 'drain the swamp' idea, but it pretty much backfired on us.
Not to mention lots and lost of deadenders who are attracted to Iraq and sent to their maker by our brothers in the Army and Marine Corps.
Yeah, they're dead, but not deadenders. Their deaths, and their victims, are propaganda sets that encourage thousands more to take their place. We're not hitting the root causes of the problem, just whacking away at the individuals who show up to fight. And every year there's more of them.
And with these words of dubious wisdom we'll part company. Your mindset is such that we really have no chance of reaching common ground. The notion that we create Islamofascists was one I thought was confined to left wing loons. Evidently I was wrong.
Au contraire, the agenda has been laid out. It is all encompassing, open ended "Stay the course"!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.