Comments on: ONE LITTLE, TWO LITTLE, THREE LITTLE TERRORISTS…

By: gay medical

gay medical — Sun, 16 Sep 2007 13:52:07 +0000

Many knowledges I have found here I would come back http://gaymedical.ifrance.com/

By: angryspittle

angryspittle — Tue, 03 Oct 2006 02:20:43 +0000

This whole damned war on terror is nothing but a fraud and a tool for the unscrupulous to rob the treasury.

By: hotfoot

hotfoot — Sun, 01 Oct 2006 19:24:40 +0000

psychobable is not a proper use of “scientific terms”
in as much as one reveals oneself to be prejudiced and overgeneralizing and grouping people with opposing view points into categories and presuming to know what and how others think , is deepy sick and self rightous,also seems to be indicative of one who has certian insecturities and posses the need to attack what one dosn’t understand and to defame and smear rather than looking at objective facts.
To allow oneself to be used as such a tool , is the ways and means of the propeganda machine. being such a cog you can be used in such a way to spread the hate and derision against those who would protect you and speak of reason. to maintain integrity when enimies aclimate against us is paramount in defeating them. to take a few odd people and to overgeneralize every one who has an opposing view to yours is a means to simplifying your own view point and degrading them makes you feel superior.
this is a bit sick.

again, to propose that you know how others think is just kind of sick
and self rightous, this is not to be mistaken as “truth”.
In other words, you conviently lump americans who disagree with you . into catagories of crazies and so forth, but to truely understand , one must disregaurd the crazies and look for reason. you do yourself a disservice to regaurd all that have an opposing view as catagorized by a narrow band of obvious “lamers” shall we say. not every one who opposes your view, agrees with “farenheit 911″ and takes it as gospel.They dont want to “lose ” the war, they dont side with the jihadists. they are americans. I, for one, dont sympathize with terrorists just because they dont like bush, it dosnt meke me feel like i want them to win. nothing could be further from the truth and i wont spread the lie that americans want the enemy to win. I am above that.

with predjudice , you can never understand, your stereotypes are a hinderance to your understanding and only contribute to hate and misunderstanding.

By: Maggie's Farm

Maggie's Farm — Thu, 28 Sep 2006 23:37:16 +0000

Thursday night links: Swim at your own risk.

Maggie’s Farm endorses Joe LiebermanÂ for CT! Lieberman isÂ leading Lamont in the polls. Good. We may not care for left-wing Lieberman too much, but at least he understands the critical challenge of the time. But quit whining, Joe. Speak out!Counting…

By: steve

steve — Thu, 28 Sep 2006 15:09:11 +0000

“In other words, it is not the Presidentâ€™s policy of invasion, occupation, and democratization in Iraq that has been wrong, it is the Democratâ€™s counter strategy of leaving Iraq too soon and abandoning or downgrading democratization efforts that runs counter to the reportâ€™s analysis, conclusions, and recommendations.
The Presidentâ€™s policy is correct; it is the implementation of that policy that has been badly botched.”

Absolutely correct.

By: B.Poster

B.Poster — Thu, 28 Sep 2006 14:58:38 +0000

tofubo

Great post. I completely agree. You are managed to express my sentiments much more articulately than I seem to be able to in far fewer words.

Option A is clearly unsustainable over the long haul. I think every one is aware of this. If not, the the report from the Iraq Study Group will point this out for all to see.

Option B is the one I would choose, as long as it is consistent with American national security interests. Unfortunately I would not expect our coalition partners to contribute more troops. I’m not even sure they can. The US could make up the short fall of troops, if it wanted to, however, the will is lacking. In order to make option B work, the Aemrican people and the news media would need to be on board and the American government would need to be unified. Barring a major change in the domestic political situation the will to make this commitment is lacking. This makes option B unworkable.

Ultimately option C will be chosen. This option will be the one that is chosen because the will to implement option B is lacking. By the middle of 2007 there will be no American or Coalition troops stationed in Shia or Sunni areas. There will be fewer than 10,000 troops remaining in the Iraqi region. These will be primarily special ops forces who will be backed up by air support and will be prepared to intervene in the Iraq civil war, as necessary, to prevent the formation of terrorist bases. Hopefully this strategy for fighting Jihadists will work becuase barring major changes in the American political landscape this is the strategy that will be employed.

By: Dale in Atlanta

Dale in Atlanta — Thu, 28 Sep 2006 14:31:55 +0000

“Salty Party Snax Said:
8:55 am

Dale: Nah, it means I called you a liar and a jackass.

Which you are.”

SIGH………

By: Salty Party Snax

Salty Party Snax — Thu, 28 Sep 2006 13:55:51 +0000

Dale: Nah, it means I called you a liar and a jackass.

Which you are.

By: Dale in Atlanta

Dale in Atlanta — Thu, 28 Sep 2006 12:55:26 +0000

Salty Party Snax:

Ah, that sting in any Rebuke, is the Truth!

Benjamin Franklin..

For YOU, that means, the truth hurts, doesn’t it??

By: tofubo

tofubo — Thu, 28 Sep 2006 12:00:06 +0000

there are three ways to go @ this point

a. stay the course (in where “the implementation of that policy that has been badly botched” will continue to be botched)
b. replace the entire civilian military leadership and substantially increase both u.s. and coalition troops (including arab league and neutral countries participation)
c. definite, specific withdrawal (what time frame ?? 6 days, 6 weeks, not more than 6 months)