Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Maui, Aug 6, 2007.
Run, Newt, run!
Next time link to the actual article, and not to another forum.
The poor bastard's gone senile...
Yes, keep up the party line. Your spin is laughable.
He fails to notice that WW2 was a "total war", whereas this is but a little local police action. It's not like you're free to use tanks, bombers, napalm or white phosphorus. No wonder it's taking a long time...
And he's wrong how? We dropped the ball on the real terrorists in the 'stans, the ones who attacked us, to pull resources and go to Iraq. Where we still are. And they still want to screw up in Iran, which may actually be a threat now thanks to what we've been doing elsewhere. We are now less safe, and still don't have Bin Laden.
So tell us, other than the fact that he hit on a reality that his base still does not like to admit, what did he say that was so wrong?
We did use white phosphorus.
And all the other things, too. You obviously missed my invisible "roll-eyes"...
That I did. I wasn't aware of the napalm, which I know we've used in the past, but was thinking hadn't been used in quite some time. At least not in this war. I guess we've continued bombing and still use tanks too. And we wonder why they hate us. Well, we know why, but apparently those in charge don't and/or would rather make it worse.
Also, I wonder if this is some lame tactic to make the Republicans look like they're the ones standing up the the ever unpopular Bush to gain back control from the Democrats who don't seem to be doing much.
Geeze, I wonder why we hate them. Didn't realize that all we needed to do was to 'splain it to them.
Maybe I missed something but, what did Iraq do to us again?
Sounds like he just woke up to me. I guess the majority of the country's gone senile too?
Given how Jihadists seem to enjoy killing anybody who's not Jihadist, our presence in Iraq is almost a non-issue. When folks keep publicly howling about how our cultural norms justify the killing, I don't think it really matters what our foreign policy is, was or will be.
And they sure seem to be following the adage, "Put your money where your mouth is," worldwide. Places where our foreign policy is not an issue, and way the hellandgone away from the mideast.
Even in context, it seems that Gingrich's ideas are only pertinent to dealing with hostile governments, not amorphous fourth generation warfare.
World War II was a "simple" affair. The sides were distinct: we knew who our allies were, and we knew who our enemies were. There was no blurring of the objective (nothing short of full surrender by the Italians, Germans, and Japanese) or the means with which to obtain it.
The War on Terror, or whatever you want to call it, is a much more complex affair. We still don't know beyond a shadow of a doubt who exactly our allies are or our enemies are. The objective is clear (neutralize the extremist influences in the Middle East and others) but the means via which to obtain it are much less straightforward.
I meant Islamic terrorists worldwide. Their vicious terrorist actions seem to always be tied to something we did or what we represent even though they've been doing it for a thousand years longer than we've existed.
Sure, its always the Americans fault. Its becoming a joke.
All true. Thats the main reason why the GWOT has no exact end date. Which is a bad thing.
Anyway I disagree with Newt on his one point that the war is "phony". How can it be phony if we are losing?
What an interesting view of history. Interesting, but total bollocks. Ferdinand and Isabella were the sponsors of Columbus, and coincidentally the people who massacred thousands of Muslims in Spain, drove out the Jews - who were of course given sanctuary by the Ottomans - and forced everyone who remained to convert to Christianity under the threat of the Inquisition. In other words, the very people to whom you owe your existence in the Americas were arguably the greatest religious fascists in history.
I told you Swarm, it never ends. The Americans are even responsible for the massacre of thousands of the poor muslims in Spain over 500 years ago.
I believe it isn't so much of a reference to the period before the attack on France during WWII but rather that the reasons behind it are complete BS.
Of course there are clearly some people who see it as a good thing, how anybody could see it that way is beyond me, but hey,
That is not what I said, as you probably realise. An appreciation of irony is clearly not one of your strengths.
Oh give it a rest. No one is saying we're responsible for everything. But we are at least partially to blame for some things. What makes a lot of us angry around here is that so many conservatives want to paint a black and white pic of "good vs. evil". It's not that simple and you know it. There's good and evil on both sides. If you don't look at the whole picture and realize we've made some horrible mistakes, well-I guess we'll just keep on making them.
You're talking about the thousands of Muslims that invaded Spain and about destroyed their culture in the process before being run out, right?
By the way, Christianity is judged by what it is today, not what long dead people did during the dark and middle ages. Heck, if we're drudging up the past from that long ago, then I'd rather get all Hun on them and use that as an excuse. For that matter, I'm sure Arabs screwed my ancestors out of a corner of a glacier at the end of the Ice Age. I want compensation!
Full time apologist for Arabs is one of yours though.
(Running away. Doesn't want to be here when skunk gets back. )