NBC News says it will call the Iraqi War a civil war from now on.

The War College definition: two or more sides fighting for the middle, and more than 1,000 dead total.

In Iraq, we have THREE sides fighting and more than 500,000 innocent men, women and chilrun dead.

So, congrats to the GOP -- you started a Civil War in a peaceful country. Or, to put it NBC's way -- W pulled DEFEAT from the jaws of victory.

Again.

Here's the story, kids!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/linkset/2005/04/11/LI2005041100879. html

I thought the insurgency was in its last throes? The Vice President of the United States said it - doggone, it's GOT to be true! Why is the liberal NBC printing all these - these lies?

Andrew

NBC is a liberal rag and is not credible.

Besides, do you want the US to lose?

Fuck we lost the moment we stepped foot in Iraq the first time round!

"So, congrats to the GOP -- you started a Civil War in a peaceful country. Or, to put it NBC's way -- W pulled DEFEAT from the jaws of victory...Here's the story, kids!"

Better contain your schadenfreude. Your liberals pals have already begun to drop the ball.

Herb

The Democrats don't even take power until January, Herb - they haven't had a chance to "drop" anything. Still living in that river in Egypt, eh?

Andrew

If Iraq is not fighting a Civil War, what did we have in 1861. Were the Southerners just insurgents?

Herb, when it is "brother against brother" it is a Civil War.

http://www.laweekly.com/news/news/pelosis-problems/3412/

Just wait until January.

Herb

But I imagine you will wish the Democrats well in helping to improve the situation in Iraq, not secretly hope for Iraq to fail, now, would you, Herb? Wouldn't it be great if Pelosi and Reid can stand behind Bush when he announces to the nation that Iraq has stabalized to the point where American troops can come home?

Andrew

"But I imagine you will wish the Democrats well in helping to improve the situation in Iraq..."

Yes.

UNLIKE THE LEFT, I HAVEN'T BEEN HOPING FOR MORE PROBLEMS FOR OUR COUNTRY.

Herb

But instead of wishing the Democrats well as they assume power - and knowing full well that Iraq was one of the key reasons they were voted in - you keep saying they will fail or that they will already fail. Isn't that a little inconsistent, Herb?

Andrew

Herb IGNORANTLY said>>>
Better contain your schadenfreude. Your liberals pals have already begun to drop the ball.

REALLY! I'm really thinkin' that the DEMS don't have much to say about what is going on RIGHT now...
DAMN Herb are you that ignorant????

iraqis burning the bodies of other live iraqis is pretty much a good cue for usage of "civil war". herb of course, is just a troll pooping.

Herb just got called out big time. The ultimate hypocrite, EXPOSED RIGHT HERE IN FRONT OF YOUR EYES!

Herb and Wayner the Complainer have been called out 400,000 times and they just come back with Gay bashing,Bible thumpin' and Nixon.....

Any clear examination of the facts shows the left is indeed dropping the ball.

Given their track record, liberals will MORE than top conservatives in the corruption department. How do I know? Look at the last democrat administration. Mr. Clinton had more scandals than any administration in decades.

That's why it's so ironic that leftists continue to go down the very road they have accused conservatives of travelling.

Unlike the left, I do not cheer the defeat of our troops in a foreign land.

Besides, leftists will have their hands full with gridlock for the next two YEARS. Now THAT is something to be happy about.

Blocking baby-killing legislation sounds good to me. Leftists are the ones with schadenfreude as they defend their so-called 'right' to kill little ones.

Herb

The voters have spoken, and they think your way sucks. Move on over, loser!!

Gridlock.

Air America is bankrupt.

I wouldn't get too cocky right now. Especially once the left will be expected to actually do something.

Herb

AAR is STILL on the air.....

Trix.

With their talk of sedition, scare america is now more than simply morally bankrupt.

It's also financially bankrupt.

Herb

Morally??
Your the one to give that statement???
Huh?
All HIGH and MIGHTY are we???
American Airlines is bankrupt???
DUHbya and his brother bankrupted a savings and loan...
Where is DUHbya's morals???
In the shitter where they have always been...

Trix.

You can name-call all you want. But do you realize that it doesn't help, but only harms your position?

How do you feel when people swear at you? Does that help matters any?

I merely pointed out that when the violent overthrow of our government is joked about by liberals, we're supposed to laugh.

But were conservatives to mention the SAME THING, you'd lose it and call them neo-cons, nazis and worse.

Be consistent, okay?

Herbert M.

American voters have spoken, and they OVERWHELMINGLY voted down losers like Santorum and Kathleen Harris, two people I'm sure you love! The voters are tired of your crap and fired you!

Joe Lieberman.
scare america bankruptcy.
Gridlock.

Herb

Author: Radioblogman
Monday, November 27, 2006 - 3:39 pm


If Iraq is not fighting a Civil War, what did we have in 1861. Were the Southerners just insurgents?

Herb, when it is "brother against brother" it is a Civil War.

-----
Is it possible to be fair at all here? There has been war going on in the area in question for a thousand years. Its not very fair to say that Bush caused it. But we know that the Libs would blame Bush for the snowfall in our city that as happening as I write.

Author: Reinstatepete
Tuesday, November 28, 2006 - 11:16 am


American voters have spoken, and they OVERWHELMINGLY voted down losers like Santorum and Kathleen Harris, two people I'm sure you love! The voters are tired of your crap and fired you!

---
The big losers were the Rhino Republicans.

But, the biggest loser is YOU!

I didn't lose. God is still in control. You are the loser, Pete, you won't believe in him.

Ohhhhh, now I'm scared!!!

Yep. One's fear of god is exactly as big as one thinks it is.

I'm just damn happy the average joe woke up and voted their best interests for once, instead of listening to the dogma, lies and manupulations.

And, oh yes you lost Wayne. You and every other over zealous individual, thinking they can legislate their faith, at any cost mind you, to the rest of us.

That shit is out the door for a while. Now we get to legislate some things that will actually do some people good. The usual "issues" are nothing more than distractions, fueled by the willful ignorance of those willing to entertain them, and put forth by those wanting said willful votes!

There is a clear reason why the elections went the way they did. People are tired of getting caught up in the middle. They want to live their lives and live them the way they see fit. Nobody really cares about "the issues" as much as they care about feeding their kids, staying out of debt and keeping healthy.

if, in fact, your god is in control. It is a pathetic god. One who would see millions suffer, rather than empower those looking to him for a better path.

Yeah, scared in my boots.

Any god that acts like a 5 year old kid is a figment, nothing more, nothing less.

Once again, getting back on topic; namely, the Civil War in progress in Iraq.

It's about time we owned up to this. Why is our media so afraid to report the state of things? We are engaged in Iraq. We should get the messy details. War is ugly, and we've not seen the ugly side in proper context.

It's better now, but still freaking amazing to me. It's almost as if there is nothing really big going on...

Good on NBC for taking that stand at least.

I, for one, believe, that IF there if a God, He spoke LOUD and CLEAR on election day.

The ramthroaters should withdraw, regroup, rethink, and leave direction of their causes to children yet unborn.

. . . I'm sorry, off topic. Oh yes, civil war. yep. I'm feeling a bit po'd at some of my friends who once tried to convince me the "good news" in iraq is never reported and things were going "remarkedly well". I now realize that when they told me these things, it was NEVER based on fact and that they were indeed, guessing. The benefit of the doubt I gave them is no more.

The NBC will say anything as long as it trashes Bush. That "civil war" has lasted a thousand years.

There was no civil war while Saddam was in charge.

Gotta give credit where credit is due here.

Like it or not, Saddam kept the sects in check.

the brilliance of bush 41's thinking on saddam and clinton's decision not to second guess bush 41's decision is now shining quite bright.

If you call killing his own people by the thousands keeping them in check....

better than our pulling a trigger to do the same thing. better it be done by a bad guy than become the bad guy ourselves. . . . Opps, too late.

Exactly.

Saddam is no prize. He's gonna get killed because of the things he did.

All I'm saying is that he being a pushover from a military standpoint, likely got in the way of assessing the real potential for trouble contained within Iraq.

That's the sects we see fighting for control and corruption today.

Oh, you mean the US (us)?

so you're sayin' Bush didn't invade for the sects? Then why is he so unwilling to withdraw before the mission is complete?

Author: Reinstatepete
Tuesday, November 28, 2006 - 11:05 pm


There was no civil war while Saddam was in charge

------
Shall we put Saddam back in power? And there was a civil war. The network hates Bush and will blame him for the weather.

I think he underestimated what could happen.

Saddams harsh rule contained a lot of unreleased aggression and tension.

Toppling him, opened the flood gates.

He also was about oil control as much as he was about political manupulation of that region. Would have been nice to hear and consider that instead of the whole WMD bullshit.

IMHO, the dishonesty here is what made a solid planning effort impossible. That alone puts the current mess on Bush.

However, there is another aspect that is troubling. Had we actually delivered what we promised we would deliver, we would have won more support among more members of the various sects.

This is key to the mess we are in right now. It's also a biggie as to why we are in an unwinnable scenario. Don't care how you define victory after the fact, it ain't gonna happen.

Why?

Because we've not shown the majority of the Iraqi people that our path is worth it. Our use of lawless contractors, who did not complete their tasks despite having been paid, leaves the country with poor infrastructure.

From their point of view, they now have a useless government and crappy lives and we did it!

Had we delivered on the infrastructure, they would have better lives and only having to deal with a useless government. From their view, the potential for reform would exist and that would likely be better than all the killing.

It would have been messy, but not civil war, IMHO.

Right now, the horrible conditions, combined with the corruption and poor governance we bring to the table all point to alternatives as having the potential for being better for Iraqi people.

This is what powers the insurgency (resistance from their POV). Why allow all that damage to go unchecked, ending up with an Iraq that's not really for the people by the people?

We've spent so much and have allowed things to escalate to a point where it's not possible for us to get things running properly without serious additional sacrifice on our part. This is not gonna sell here because the end result will likely not pay off.

Of course the insurgents know this and can easily make the case for continued wear on our efforts. We spend billions. They need only spend millions and continue to cultivate the hopes of each sect to keep things in chaos.

Thus, we lose and it's only a matter of just how much bleeding we will tolerate before yielding.

That's the unwinnable situation our less than honest approach to this whole thing got us into. Had we fully considered the matter, we may well have not started it in the first place, and had we started it, we would have had a much higher likelyhood of delivering enough goodness to counter insurgent efforts in the first place.

Insurgencies depend on the quality of life thing to exist. if the region is in disarray, they can always find the numbers necessary to continue their efforts. Their efforts do not need to be big in terms of numbers, only need to be big enough to prevent anything really solid from happening.

This continues the cycle where people have no hope associated with our approach to things, thus the insurgency is self powered for as long as it needs to be.

We are then in a position where we cannot win easily --if at all. All they need to do is simply not lose.

Colin Powell now agrees with NBC.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/11/29/powell.iraq/index.html

Yeah, isn't he the same guy that warned if you break it, you own it?

Funny how that all works.

More Iraqis have died in the last 3 years than during the entire time Saddam was in control. Saddam was no peach, believe me, but things are worse now, and will continue to get worse.

Containment was working. And Bush fucked it up big time.

Bush didn't cause the civil war, Pete. Your hero Saddam murdered several hundred thousand more than Bush. Why can't you answer my question: Shall we put Saddam back in power? Was it a mistake of the US to remove him? Apparently so.

Again, the topic is civil war.

It's quickly becoming a matter of common fact that Iraq is in the midst of a civil war. Give it another week and that will be undisputed.

Want to discuss Bush and his role in it? Fine. Start a thread and let's have at it. Not convinced we've actually got a civil war here?

Bring some support to the table for that, or please refrain from posting off topic crap to otherwise solid threads.

Bush ASOLUTELY has caused the civil war in Iraq, because NONE existed before his decision to invade. Had Bush NOT invaded Iraq, there would be NO civil war. Get it?

And, I've already answered your question. NO, Saddam should not be put back in power and he is not my hero.

That is such a lie Pete. There have been fighting going on for centuries. There would be a civil war, Bush or not.

Author: Kbbt
Wednesday, November 29, 2006 - 1:50 pm


Again, the topic is civil war.

It's quickly becoming a matter of common fact that Iraq is in the midst of a civil war. Give it another week and that will be undisputed.

Want to discuss Bush and his role in it? Fine. Start a thread and let's have at it. Not convinced we've actually got a civil war here?

Bring some support to the table for that, or please refrain from posting off topic crap to otherwise solid threads.

---------
why do you keep bringing "support"up when the only "support" you will ever consider is whatever you agree with? I think thats a bit hypocritical.

A growing majority of people do not see it your way.

If you expect to be heard on this matter; namely, Bush not starting the Civil War, you've got to bring some solid fact to the table that say otherwise.

Why is there such resistance to calling it a civil war? Even Wayne admits it is. So what's the problem?

Oh. Right. It would look bad to have been gone into Iraq and not be able to hold control of it. Big deal. Whatever it takes to get our troops out. That's fine by me.

Wayne, start working on the spin that takes credit for the pull-back of troops. Because THAT is what is next.

Of course that prediction will get lost and Herb and Wayne will say " it's all part of the plan. The time is right to pull back...NOW!" But yesterday it was a different story, right?. Riiiiiiiight. We were screaming that this would happen and NEED to happen and encountered " gridlock " at every turn. But if WE get it to happen, then it's the Republican Plan.

Whatever. Take credit. I don't care. We know it's the pressure from Democrats that will get it done.

I am not saying there is not a battle going on. But the network only used the term civil war to make Bush look bad when the battle has gone on a lot longer than when he was first president. You really need to learn about the history of the country. Have you ever heard of the Shinto and the Shuite Moslem factions? They have battled each other for centuries. Leaving Iraq is not the way to solve the problem. There will be a far worse conflict if we leave.
I think most people know it would be a mistake to cut and run like you want. That didn't work in Vietnam and it won't work now. And you do want America to lose the war on terror, thats why you want the troops home! America is the problem, not the terrorists, right?

Wayne said - "Leaving Iraq is not the way to solve the problem."

And what is " the problem "?

Wayne said " There will be a far worse conflict if we leave."

Like what? Take it ALLLLLL the way out to the end. What will happen? Specifically?

Why does the moron continually keep referring to "Moslems"?

He can't even get THAT right.

Sweet Jesus.

Colin Powell said today that its a Civil War....

Author: Chickenjuggler
Wednesday, November 29, 2006 - 8:01 pm


Wayne said - "Leaving Iraq is not the way to solve the problem."

And what is " the problem "?

Wayne said " There will be a far worse conflict if we leave."

Like what? Take it ALLLLLL the way out to the end. What will happen? Specifically?

----
What do you want to see happen? The terrorists to win the war? I bet thats what you want isn't it? Do you hate America that much?

That's what I thought.

No answer.

Man, even I could come up with opposing points of view that are valid. You can't even explain the ones you believe in. If you could, you would answer the two questions that I KNOW you saw - YOU QUOTED THEM!

Charaterizing the current state of the Iraq conflict as being a Civil War is hating America?

WTF?!?

Accepting this, understanding what it means only helps America to know how we got here and what actions might best help going forward.

This is good for the troops, good for us, good for the Iraqis.

Really, it's only bad for the Bush administration.

It's even good for them actually. If they just deal with the fact that they got us here, perhaps some honest dialog can evolve some solutions that will get us out without breaking the bank and more killing.

All of that will reduce terror, or at the very least free up resources we could be using to fight terror. As it is right now, Iraq has really stretched us thin in terms of both dollars and troops. If we can settle that, that's more potential for addressing terror.

How this equates to hating America is beyond me. Care to support that some?

It means egg-on-face to admit there is chaos or a civil war.

Big deal. Show some leadership and take your lumps and start ACTING on MANY suggestions and start ADMITTING some BIG problems.

Otherwise, well, you just look like Wayne.

oh but CJ, we must STAY THE COURSE! WE'RE ON THE PATH TO VICTORY! IRAQ WILL BE FREE!

poop poop poop

Yeah. Nobody believes that anymore. I gave it a shot. It's like a gambling addict hoping to get the jackpot - and even then, he'll still be in the minus column.

AND IT'S FUCKIN' SCARY!!!!

And contrary to what Wayne says, this isn't NBC trying to make Bush look like an ass by calling it a "civil war". If Colin Powell is coming out saying it, guess what I'm gonna believe him. Colin Powell has a lot more clout on the issue than NBC, or Dubya for that matter.

Besides, Bush doesn't need help when it comes to being made to look like an arse. He does a damn good job of that himself without any help.

Yeah, considering he put his clout on the line for this mess in the first place. Takes a lot to come back and say we ended up here.

We are in IRAQ in the middle of what is now a civil war....why not AFRICA....that has been going on a heck of a lot longer and with much more bloodshed!!!!

WHY....because there is nothing of value in AFRICA that the US needs to safegaurd.....kind of hypocritical isn't it!! We went to IRAQ to oust a known terrorist and butcher and yet hundreds of thousands have been killed in AFRICA and tens of millions are now refugee's!!

No Wayne I do not hate America...I love it but if we are to be the World's police force we cannot pick and chose our conflicts based on what gets us the most in return.

The damn UN should be in charge of this mess not the US. I am sick and tired of the US bearing the brunt of any situation while other nations in the UN sit on their collective asses and don't send any troops or support or countries like France actually selling weapons to a country the UN is taking actions against!!!

I guess i've vented and this is really topic for a new thread so have a good night!

You know, I consider myself of somewhat strong convictions and constitution and all those things that make me sleep ok at night;

But I cannot stop feeling like Darfur is just too awful to even think about. Much less discuss. I know I should. And I will, if pressed. But it's just such a bad thing that I get to pick ONE thing that makes me sad to the point of feeling frozen. That's mine. It's no excuse and I'm part of the problem.

I'm working on it.

Raises hand too.

One thing at a time guys. Knowing it's the right path is half the issue.

CJ
Do you understand the point I am making???

YES yes. I do. At least I think I do;

If being in the middle of a civil war is a worthy thing to do, then why not do it in Africa too.

?

Am I close?

We know those answers though. I'm not belittling your point - because I agree with that. But if we actually did that, right now, for that reason...well...I don't know how I would feel. I just don't know enough about it to talk about. Plus, it's hard.

Author: Kbbt
Wednesday, November 29, 2006 - 10:20 pm


Charaterizing the current state of the Iraq conflict as being a Civil War is hating America?

WTF?!?

Accepting this, understanding what it means only helps America to know how we got here and what actions might best help going forward.

This is good for the troops, good for us, good for the Iraqis.

Really, it's only bad for the Bush administration.

It's even good for them actually. If they just deal with the fact that they got us here, perhaps some honest dialog can evolve some solutions that will get us out without breaking the bank and more killing.

All of that will reduce terror, or at the very least free up resources we could be using to fight terror. As it is right now, Iraq has really stretched us thin in terms of both dollars and troops. If we can settle that, that's more potential for addressing terror.

How this equates to hating America is beyond me. Care to support that some?

---
I am sorry but I call that hating America that you want our troops to lose the war on terror and that is obvious from the posts that are being put here. That is the message of NBC too. The networks have become such a desparately liberal item that they can't think of any thing good that is happening in Iraq. It matters little that Saddam is captured and it has had 3 free elections. I guess you aren't for that either are you? And Saddams two sons are dead. Conflicts always happen in war. Leaving cold turkey would be a big mistake and would dishonor our troops. Do you want America to lose the war on terror?

CJ...I think you got it right....and yes it is an awful thing to think about. One thing people that are church going folks could do is ask if there is a way your donations could go to support african missions and even non church going folks can find ways to send non-partison aid to that country.

Part of the point was how the UN is not taking control in IRAQ as they should be doing....that is what the UN is for right??? So one country is not seen as just an aggressor instead of a multi-national force trying to keep order. It is always the US thats shoulders the most human loss and financial burden in these situations.

LMAO @ Wayner.

You go to town buddy. Give hard and regularly. Will make you feel lots better.

Meanwhile, the rest of us are gonna consider the reality of a Civil War and what that means with regard to a solid resolution of the matter. Don't worry. The troops will not hold you at fault. They take all kinds of support --even if it puts them in greater harms way.

By the end of next week, the discussion will be framed around the civil war, the crying over it will die down and we will start to learn what our best options are going forward.

You know what scares the hell out of me....

You guys remember the movie "RED DAWN"??

Remember the beginning as news flashes across the screen....

UN Collapses.....NATO dissolves.....US Stands Alone....it is not that hard to believe anymore that something like this could actually happen....just look at the support we are getting from our allies right now!!!! That was sarcasm for those that did not get it!!

Vent Vent Vent.....The UN needs to get off there collective fat asses and get back into the fray!!!!!

Hell if the UN is good enough to take care of a huge country like Africa then it should be good enough for some little camledung country like IRAQ!!!!

Vent Vent Vent

I bet the ineptitude of the United Nations, in its current state, has Woodrow Wilson rolling in his grave.

**WE** are not the only ones at fault for mass genocides like Rwanda and Darfur. Yeah, the UN stepped in and stopped the ethnic cleansing in Bosnia, because (IMO) it was an European thing, in a former Eastern Bloc country/region, and damn it it just looked bad to see white Christians killing white Muslims, and vice versa. The UN can't be for that, of course!

Look at what is going on in Africa. Rwanda and Darfur aren't exactly isolated incidences over the years ... add in the disparity of the haves and the have-nots, the AIDS epidemic (some countries, 1/3 of the population is HIV positive, and no retrovial drugs are available to hardly anyone! YOW!) ... and the UN is collectively burying their heads in the sand, compared to the other parts of the world. It took a long-assed time for the UN to end the mess in Rwanda, and millions died as a result.

It seems to me that the UN, in general, only REALLY gets its elbows dirty when it is convenient for THEM. Otherwise, you're on your own pal.

For once there are some decent posts. I think if the UN had the guts to step in maybe the battle in Iraq might have not escalated the way it did. It seems to me that the UN has become an organization with a lot of hate for freedom.

Is it the UN's responsibility to clean up the mess that Bush caused? Maybe if Bush had listened to the UN from the get-go, we wouldn't be talking about this in the first place.

You probably think Bush caused the ice storm we had this morning, thats how much you hate America and our president.

Uh oh - Wayne's got a new belief. Let's watch him repeat it for about 3 weeks until he comes up with a new, corny, inaccurate, false lie with which he'll cling to as truth.

" You probably think Bush causes ice storms! "

If I were sitting next to you when you said that out loud, I would slap you for saying such an unfunny thing.

I love America, which is why I hate our current president.

Cmon CJ....Wayne lives on Pluto and he is still pissed that they discounted it as a real planet. He obviously does not live on this planet because if he did he may actually have a clue WTF he is talking about!

And it is fairly evident that he is from pluto the way he squats and drops poop everywhere he goes!!!LMAO

I heard pluto was no longer a planet. And you are one determined liberal who can't help but trash everyone he disagrees with!

Author: Reinstatepete
Thursday, November 30, 2006 - 3:13 pm


I love America, which is why I hate our current president

----
You don't know the meaning of love. We are supposed to love our enemies. Why can't you love your enemies? You don't love America.

Unlike you Wayne, I do know love, that's why I'm married and you aren't. Nobody wants to love a loser like you, which explains why you're a 58 year old virgin.

I doubt it. You don't know love because you don't belong to God for God is love.

Poooooooooooooop

Believe what you want Wayne, but the facts tell me that nobody REAL loves you other than your imaginary friend, otherwise, you'd be married.

How does it feel to be a 58 year old virgin? L-O-S-E-R!!!

BTW....I am a Republican usually but George W. has really screwed things up!!!!!!
He is President and I support him and our country but I do not agree with his politics and decision making processes!

They are flawed almost as bad as yours!!

Thats okay to disagree with Bush. But at least we should support him. But I still want to know why you are trashing people you don't agree with? Why are you above saying that you disagree?

And you are the big loser, Pete. You don't belong to God and your future without him is pretty bleak

Hey Wayne, I thought you promised not to bring up God if we didn't bring up gay marriage.

What happened? You used God to make a point in which God was not the subject.

You broke your promise. I'm crushed.

I bring God up because it was brought up first and because people were saying lies about him! What do you expect me to say when someone says that God causes terror? I can't hardly say nothing. Thats a bit outrageous of a statement.

Nobody here has said god causes terror. Religion causes terror.

Religion doesn't cause terror. Greed causes terror.

What does religion cause?

58-year old mentally disabled lying, gay-hating virgins?

Author: Chickenjuggler
Thursday, November 30, 2006 - 5:18 pm


What does religion cause?

------
Its supposed to cause worship and faith and prayer. Whats so terrorist about that?

" Its supposed to cause worship and faith and prayer."

I agree. Do you think it causes anything else? Do you think it's EVER caused anything bad?

"Thats okay to disagree with Bush. But at least we should support him."

We did.

He now has a congress that might actually help him out of this mess.

Our best support of the President is frank and honest conversation about his deeds. We granted the power, we are accountable to his actions.

Engaging the process means all critique is permissible --and even encouraged. If a given President is worthy, there will not be any significant issues with this.

If not... Well, here we are. Lots to talk about.

Ignoring this in favor of some wierd deference only harms us and the President.

Our President needs help. He's got some now. Maybe things will go better with him. If so, then it goes better for us. Win Win.

Here's what I think -- the iraqi leaders again this week have given bush a hard time. this should be his cue to say, "OK, its your ball now" and start bringing the troops home. And when things go wrong, as they will continue to do, Bush can say he tried and the iraqis no longer want his help.

This way Bush will have time to focus on the remaining two years and build a legacy. Win-win.

Any new Civil War sightings today?

Increased media use of the term or decreased?

Well, Bush, just as he did Rumsfeld and Brownie, has given the kiss of death to Al-Maliki.

" He is the right man for the job."

Every time he's said that publically about someone, that's a sign that they are out very soon.

He said it last night.

Begin the countdown.

Author: Chickenjuggler
Thursday, November 30, 2006 - 8:38 pm


" Its supposed to cause worship and faith and prayer."

I agree. Do you think it causes anything else? Do you think it's EVER caused anything bad?
------------------
I don't see how religion can cause anything bad. You see we all are evil in God's eyes. Sin is what causes terror. Nobody who has ever obeyed God the way he is supposed to has ever caused terror that I have seen.As long as there is evil in the hearts of men there will be terror.

So you are saying " no " to my question. Right?

Religion doesn't cause terror. Greed causes terror. Evil causes that, not good.

How exactly were the 9/11 terrorists greedy?

Don't forget, They DIED.

I would list anger, a sense of futility, and religious fundamentalism as causes of terror, too.

How does fundamentalism cause terror? That can go either left or right. Evil is what causes terror, not religion. The heart of men is desparately wicked and who can know it?

"How does fundamentalism cause terror? That can go either left or right. Evil is what causes terror, not religion. The heart of men is desparately wicked and who can know it?"


Fundamentalism, or religion, or any other thing in itself does not cause terror. Osama bin Laden's Muslim faith doesn't cause him to be a terrorist. It is, however, the reason he gives FOR his terrorist actions. It is the logic behind the actions to him.

It is not any different than your opposition to gay rights - you base your beliefs on how you view your religion. Bin Laden does the exact same thing, in this case he preaches death to Jews and Westerners in the name of Allah. Again, you, I, and everyone else in here knows that it isn't anywhere in the Koran that preaches flying planes into buildings. Bin Laden INTERPRETS that from his religious views, though.

What causes terrorism is evil, Brian, thats the point I am making here. Good doesn't cause terror. How can someone doing good cause terror? There is a good side to religion that is being ignored here. The heart of man is desparately wicked and who can know it says Jeremiah. Every one of us has some of evil. We want something somebody else has. I bet if you can trace evil it would come from that kind of envy. I have seen that hurt a lot of people and I have been hurt by that too. If we deal with the envy we all have I believe we solve a lot of the problems in this world. It is a bit unfair to say that faith in God causes evil. True faith is supposed to benefit everybody. I hope that is understood here.

Religion has its good side. But all of man's actions, even those that are inspired by religion, are fundamentally flawed because we are imperfect beings. God knows that and deals with it better than we do.

Religious fundamentalism inspires things like Islamic jihad, the crusades, the Spanish inquisition, and the governmental assault on Terri Schaivo's husband.

On the other hand, being inspired by religion can cause people to give more to charity than they had planned, overlook their basest prejudices, help others in ways that risk their own comfortable situations, etc.

"What causes terrorism is evil, Brian, thats the point I am making here."

Right.

But, again, they are justifying their actions using their religion.

I know there is a lot of good in religion. I personally think that all of us can take a LOT of good from ALL religions.

Using your religion as a crutch, as an excuse, however, is inexcusable and unacceptable. Whether it's blowing up buildings, or hanging people from trees, or denying people certain rights over something they have no control over ... any myriad of things, it's WRONG. I don't care WHAT religion it is, it's damn wrong. People look at the GOOD in religion, then turn around and exercise the EVIL in their everyday lives.

Which is it, folks?

"I know there is a lot of good in religion. I personally think that all of us can take a LOT of good from ALL religions."

I cannot agree with this enough. Hear, hear!

The definition of this conflict by the media is unimportant. What IS important is how the US will honorably move out without making things worse. Isn't this the crux of the issue?

"What IS important is how the US will honorably move out without making things worse."

As bad as we've botched the whole darn thing, I don't know if we can make ANY move without making things worse.

Yep. That's ugly.

You know if that's really the case, then we really should be doing what's best for us and move on.

"Using your religion as a crutch, as an excuse, however, is inexcusable and unacceptable."

and using it as a bazooka in a forum like this is the ultimate no-no.

Author: Brianl
Friday, December 01, 2006 - 7:19 pm


"What causes terrorism is evil, Brian, thats the point I am making here."

Right.

But, again, they are justifying their actions using their religion.

I know there is a lot of good in religion. I personally think that all of us can take a LOT of good from ALL religions.

Using your religion as a crutch, as an excuse, however, is inexcusable and unacceptable. Whether it's blowing up buildings, or hanging people from trees, or denying people certain rights over something they have no control over ... any myriad of things, it's WRONG. I don't care WHAT religion it is, it's damn wrong. People look at the GOOD in religion, then turn around and exercise the EVIL in their everyday lives.

Which is it, folks?

-----------
I think we need to ask ourselves the question why we belong to the religion that we do if we belong to one at all. Isn't the whole point of religion to give hope and meaning to life? I think the problem is that people do something thats wrong and say that their religion justifies what they do. Thats the complaint that I have about it. I have seen envy happen way too often even at the church I used to go to. It got to be so much of a problem that I was told I couldn't have any contact with the opposite sex because I might be talking to a girl who was dating another guy.I say thats envy in its worst form. I think the world would be a much better place if we realize that we do have a problem with envy understand why we have it and then deal with it. I think it has helped me a great deal at the new church I am at to be able to serve one another. That keeps my mind off of my problems and it makes me a lot happier. One thing that I have done in recent years is to serve food to the homeless at the salvation army. That would be a real cool thing to do. See if doing something like that might make a difference in life!

Back to the subject at hand, whether we call it a civil war in Iraq or not, it's important that we recognize that the situation there has changed.

At first, it was our troops fighting insurgents. Now, it's Sunni vs. Shiite. Whatever we call this war, that change alone means that President Bush's initial strategy no longer applies.

That doesn't mean we automatically withdraw, but it means we find a working strategy instead of a failed one.

"At first, it was our troops fighting insurgents. Now, it's Sunni vs. Shiite. Whatever we call this war, that change alone means that President Bush's initial strategy no longer applies.

That doesn't mean we automatically withdraw, but it means we find a working strategy instead of a failed one."

What WAS his strategy? First we were told that it was to rid Saddam of WMD's. Well, gee, there weren't any. Then it was to rid Iraq of Saddam. Check, done. Then it was to give Iraq free elections and a democracy. Well they have had some elections, and a democratically elected government that no Iraqi seems to recognize. What's his strategy now, besides to "stay the course"?

There IS NO WORKING STRATEGY. It IS a failed strategy. It is now and it will continue to be until we leave. Period and end of story. The Iraqis don't want us there anymore. The Democratically-elected government is making it pretty clear that they don't want us there either. The only ones who DO want us there still is Al-Qaeda and the terrorist operatives, because it gives them thousands of Americans to shoot and kill.

There is a strategy: To defeat the enemy! The strategy of the left is clear: LOSE!

"There is a strategy: To defeat the enemy! The strategy of the left is clear: LOSE!"

Yeah, but who exactly is the enemy here? You line up 10 Iraqis, can you tell me which ones are the militant ones against us?

Didn't think so, Sparky.

WW would just kill all of them!
DEATH
DESTRUCTION
WIPE IRAQ AND THE MIDDLE EAST OFF THE MAP

Thanks Herb and WW for your battle plan to just KILL everyone but Americans.
You make me prous to be an American.
BULLSHIT!!!!

Shame on you. You can't say anything without cussing can you, Trix? You do that because you know you have no argument. Whatever happened to respect? Is that something you are incapable of showing, Trix?

Author: Brianl
Saturday, December 02, 2006 - 3:59 pm


"There is a strategy: To defeat the enemy! The strategy of the left is clear: LOSE!"

Yeah, but who exactly is the enemy here? You line up 10 Iraqis, can you tell me which ones are the militant ones against us?

Didn't think so, Sparky.

--
To the leftists the only enemy is America.

You INSULT people without CUSSING and that's okay???
Your a fine COMMIE!

Wayne said - "To the leftists the only enemy is America."

Wayne's statements are really starting to sound like he has a set of refridgerator words that he got from Fox News to help him articulate some random thought.

Either that or he is reading too much of those Spam Poetry Emails that he thinks are direct messages from God.

Put down your Mad Libs, Wayne. You are constantly just inserting random words into phrases that just don't apply or mean anything anymore.

I'll play too " Conservatives like to take dogs out in the cafeteria for Slurpees on Tuesday afternoons."

I believe that. Therefore it is true.

Nuts, man. Truly nuts.

WW isn't insulting Lefties???
HYPOCRITE!!!!
But without cusing so it's okay???
Huh?
Jerk off.....

"Thanks Herb and WW for your battle plan to just KILL everyone but Americans."

Wait a minute.

Saddam lobbed missiles at Israel.

Iran's current ruler pledges to obliterate Israel.

We take them both at their word and WE'RE the bad guys? Here's a novel idea, Trixter:

For once, how about placing the blame on those who initiate destruction, rape women and gas kurds....and NOT blame those who battle the guys willing to kill innocents?

Naw. That would make too much sense.

Spin on.

Herb

Herb...
Reagan GAVE SODOMY the gas to do the deed!

Herb ignorantly said>>>
For once, how about placing the blame on those who initiate destruction, rape women and gas kurds....and NOT blame those who battle the guys willing to kill innocents?

And 30,000 women and children haven't died in Iraq??? From OUR troops hands??? Our bombs???

Spin the F on Herb TRICKY DICK......

A systemized reduction in troops in Iraq, while still maintaining as much control as possible, is the best answer. Then, an understanding that the US will re-deploy if needed. Is this not a good way to cut our losses? With this plan, we get out, but keep the concept of implied US intervention alive.

Isn't that a good way to lose the war on terror? How do you suggest we do that without Iran taking over the area? Don't you know that if Iran takes over we will be paying 5 dollars per gallon for oil? I don't have that kind of money!

Author: Herb
Saturday, December 02, 2006 - 5:05 pm


"Thanks Herb and WW for your battle plan to just KILL everyone but Americans."

Wait a minute.

Saddam lobbed missiles at Israel.

Iran's current ruler pledges to obliterate Israel.

We take them both at their word and WE'RE the bad guys? Here's a novel idea, Trixter:

For once, how about placing the blame on those who initiate destruction, rape women and gas kurds....and NOT blame those who battle the guys willing to kill innocents?

Naw. That would make too much sense.

Spin on.

Herb

---
Herb they think America is the enemy on the war on terror.

I would pay 5 bucks for a gallon of gas to not have this war going right now.

I would. Since that's the reason and option you presented Wayne, I'm opting to take it.

Now...can I? Will I get to do it?

No. Of course not. Because that is NOT the reason, solution, idea or point being made here by anybody but you. And you just don't have any credible ideas that will work or solve anything. You only have beliefs. And as we all know now, once YOU believe something Wayne, it's truth. You can't make a mistake or be wrong adn there is nobody smarter than you and all your ideas are the BEST ideas possible.

Other facts that prove otherwise be damned. Wayne believes it, so it's absolute.

Now again, I have not used any profanity. So therefore my point is valid, right? Becasue that's ALL that matters here. No profanity. Terrible ideas and poor logic are embraced as long as we don't use profanity.

Got it.

"Terrible ideas and poor logic are embraced as long as we don't use profanity."

Profanity is the lack of logic.

Herbert

Not true at all.

Profanity embodies the expression of less than beautiful things in this world. That's all it is.

Reading more than that into it is not honest.

Weenie.

Herb said>>>>
Profanity is the lack of logic.

So what is your excuse??

And the lack of profanity automatically makes something of good logic.

OK.

Exactly.

Just more of the same bullshit from the same bullshitters!

..or we could easily say:

more of the same nonsense for those making no sense!

Pick the one that you can stomach, it all works the same.

Author: Herb
Saturday, December 02, 2006 - 8:19 pm


"Terrible ideas and poor logic are embraced as long as we don't use profanity."

Profanity is the lack of logic.

Herbert

----
Right on, Herb. When people swear it because they can't think of anything intelligent or worthwhile to say. They swear when they have no argument.

Same goes for YOUR insults....

Live with it!

Then go and POUND IT!

Author: Kbbt
Saturday, December 02, 2006 - 8:25 pm


Not true at all.

Profanity embodies the expression of less than beautiful things in this world. That's all it is.

Reading more than that into it is not honest.

Weenie.

---
When one uses profanity its an act of desparation. When one swears its because they can't think of any other way to make a point.

When one INSULTS (LIKE WAYNER) its an act of desparation. When one INSULTS(LIKE WAYNER)its because they can't think of any other way to make a point.

Wayner has made ZERO points here from day one!

When one uses profanity its an act of desparation.

False on both counts.

I think I've got it.

WAYNER IS AIMING FOR PASTOR!

NOPE!
He's perfect already!

okay, its now Pastor Wayne. You can stop preaching now and wait for people to come to you for help off the board.

I will stop preaching if you stop swearing.

...actually I've not seen Skep swear.

Wayne is a Hypocrit...he will fry in Hell one day for it!!!!!

Not a chance I belong to Jesus. How about you?

Wayne, that just sounds so...so "Brokeback".

If we both "belonged" to Jesus, would that technically be polyamorous or bisexual Polygamy?

Poor Jesus. Does he have any say at all in your cleaving unto him? What if he says "No thanks" to you personally? I would.

kbbt is right! I haven't been swearing here. So wayne, stop preaching. OK?

Author: Mrs_merkin
Saturday, December 02, 2006 - 11:42 pm


Wayne, that just sounds so...so "Brokeback".

If I "belonged" to Jesus, would that technically be polyamorous or bisexual Polygamy?

Poor Jesus. Does he have any say at all in your cleaving unto him? What if he says "No thanks" to you?

----
Don't worry about me I think maybe you need to believe in him yourself, and then we can talk about me.

Wayne, we don't WANT to talk about you.

That's what we are trying to tell you.

Uh, I have NEVER said I don't believe, you dumb box of hair.

I like profanity because it fucking makes the point! And it pisses off the bible thumpers.

Juggler is tellin you straight Wayner......

READ!

Author: Mrs_merkin
Saturday, December 02, 2006 - 11:59 pm


Uh, I have NEVER said I don't believe, you dumb box of hair.

----
You don't have to, your actions speak louder than your words.

Author: Reinstatepete
Sunday, December 03, 2006 - 10:56 am


I like profanity because it fucking makes the point! And it pisses off the bible thumpers.

-----
It makes no point. You use it when you can't make any other argument. You prove I am right every time you swear.

Author: Chickenjuggler
Saturday, December 02, 2006 - 11:54 pm


Wayne, we don't WANT to talk about you.

That's what we are trying to tell you.

---
Thats certainly not true. All you people know what to do is talk about me.

I know it seems like that - and it's a valid misunderstanding. But I'm telling you that we don't. Even though our actions don't always support it, we don't.

But you don't have a lot to go on other than really getting picked on ( sometimes, Wayne, out of frustration when you don't get it the first time around, we have to find some base level in which we think you will get it ). And invariably, we keep getting lower and lower. Then it all looks like a big attack. It doesn't always start out like that - we wish you'd hear and understand us the first few times - but you are right, it sure looks that way.

Sorry. Maybe you can, every once in a while, say " OK - I see your point. I disagree, but at least I know what you are saying. I was mistaken to make a big leap in what I THOUGHT your reasons for saying the thing you said. I will breathe a bit more and just take some of it at face value instead of assigning false motive to everything people say about me."

Try it. Then actually DO it. I will too.

Okay, I'll admit I wasn't familiar with the expression "box of hair" and had to look it up to make sure I didn't miss a bit of pop culture or something.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=box+of+hair

I'm a little pissed that an author of that entry in Urban Dictionary insulted my hero, Ron Popeil.

uthor: Chickenjuggler
Sunday, December 03, 2006 - 3:01 pm


I know it seems like that - and it's a valid misunderstanding. But I'm telling you that we don't. Even though our actions don't always support it, we don't.

But you don't have a lot to go on other than really getting picked on ( sometimes, Wayne, out of frustration when you don't get it the first time around, we have to find some base level in which we think you will get it ). And invariably, we keep getting lower and lower. Then it all looks like a big attack. It doesn't always start out like that - we wish you'd hear and understand us the first few times - but you are right, it sure looks that way.

Sorry. Maybe you can, every once in a while, say " OK - I see your point. I disagree, but at least I know what you are saying. I was mistaken to make a big leap in what I THOUGHT your reasons for saying the thing you said. I will breathe a bit more and just take some of it at face value instead of assigning false motive to everything people say about me."

Try it. Then actually DO it. I will too.

--------
I want that too. But I think some people here are more interested in picking a fight than anything else and its hard to have any kind of a reasonable discussion with people like that. I would much rather say I disagree too and leave it at that. But some people insist that they have the corner on political truth.

Randy, that is a great site! I LOVE it! I'm going to do some serious perusing there.

(And I agree the Popeil statement was not correct)

The "Nuthugger" definition? That's a new one! Yikes!

Complain Wayne said>>>
It makes no point. You use it when you can't make any other argument. You prove I am right every time you swear.

Every time you INSULT someone it makes EVERYONE'S point.....
It's ALL about you and your opinion....

Randy: SWEET SITE! Thanks a bunch for sharing this gem.

I'm with Mrs. M in that I will be doing some serious exploring there.

Author: Trixter
Sunday, December 03, 2006 - 6:44 pm


Complain Wayne said>>>
It makes no point. You use it when you can't make any other argument. You prove I am right every time you swear.

Every time you INSULT someone it makes EVERYONE'S point.....
It's ALL about you and your opinion....

-----
at least I don't swear like you do. You do that when you can't make any other point. An insult to you is a disagreement.

An insult to me is an INSULT period!
You insult everyone you talk to on here WW....
Disagreement to you means one is a Liberal or a Pinko COMMIE.....

Being conservative is an insult to you.