liberals.....

[newbie]

Hicksey, in case you forgot it was the Liberals who sent soldiers to Afghanistan.

[Hicksey]

Hicksey, in case you forgot it was the Liberals who sent soldiers to Afghanistan.

The Liberals are never wrong, remember? According to them the CPC should have reconsidered and brought them home immediately.

I didn't think we were revisiting that stupidity here. So I just made the assumption that everyone knew that and went on from there.

[jdobbin]

The Liberals are never wrong, remember? According to them the CPC should have reconsidered and brought them home immediately.

I didn't think we were revisiting that stupidity here. So I just made the assumption that everyone knew that and went on from there.

No, it was the debate the renewed mission. At first the Conservatives said no and then they decided to let the debate happen. The Liberals are divided on the mission and voted as such.

A free vote is something the Conservatives consider a good thing, right?

[ceemes]

Sorry folks but I am tired of all the Liberal’s making up stories about conspiracy theories against George Bush. What a JOKE! He doesn’t need help from the terrorists to make his point! You do! I watched a news program last night that made me sick. Liberals and anti-Bush ideologies have become ramped in a world fought by brave young people. You, on the other hand, are equal to the Talaban or Al’Quada terrisits on the lose still.... Sad you people are...and you know who you are...Wake up and smell the smut you pollute the world with, then join the army and get off welfare! Or take a break from Michael Moore who is an ass!

If this pisses you off....its because you are one of them!

Here ya go Bushbot...........someone (not the articles writer tho) seem's think along the same line as you do...so much for freedom, democracy, free speech, free press, free will.....roll on the 5th Reich, American Style.

Featured

The New American Insurgency - Look Now Towards the Mirror

By Cathy Garger

Aug 9, 2006, 12:29

Now I officially HAVE seen everything. While my calendar tells me that it's 2006, it might as well be Nazi Germany in the 1930's all over again.

Newt Gingrich is calling for some new terminology for my friends and I who are non-appreciative of the current US wars. Seems that we will all be labeled as either "enemies" or part of the "insurgency." Clever way to start the civil war that divides us all quite neatly into two distinct camps, huh? That's what fascist governments have done throughout history in order to keep the people from uniting against the beast ... that is, those in control of their government.

Neo-cons know that they must create civil war within a nation when it is the evil-doing elite regime in power that *is* the actual problem. Gingrich has apparently taken on the lead, creating a distraction away from the "root cause" of US domestic problems by taking America's eyes off the actual criminals. Instead, the Congressional war-hawks' cries have started to encourage American citizens to begin to point hateful fingers at one another.

I can't wait to see the very first index-finger pointed in my direction by a US war-lover, along with the dead giveaway "Hisssssss" sound. Invasion of the body-snatched, I admittedly hereby await the identification of being one of the accused in Gingrich's war on the peace-lovers, the new American "insurgency".

Fill Article

Seems we have a lib-bot here too.

Only idiots equate Bush to Hitler. Look at these zealot Muslims and look at Bush -- which would be the greater evil? Would you rather be under the rule of the Taliban or Bush? The enemy we fight wants to do to us what Hitler did to the Jews. Bush has been fighting this fight for 3 years now, is that what he is doing?

Did you give one second of thought to what you posted before you posted the drivel your leaders are feeding you? There are much better fronts on which to fight your fight.

Lib-bot? LOL, sorry to disappoint Jr, but up until the merge of the Progressive Conservative Party and the Canadian Alliance, I was a card carrying member of the the PC's, now I am a proud independent centralist who kowtows to no one.

As for living under either the Taliban or Bush, the answer is neither. As far as I am concern each is as bad and as evil as the other. One is group of radical Islamic fundamentalist and the other is backed and part of a group of radical Christian fundamentalist. Both would try to control yours and mines lives, how we live it, how we think and even how or who we screw. I say a pox on both their houses. If either gained control of Canada, I would don my combats once again, grab a rifle (you can still get your hands of the old FN-C1 or FN-C2 if you know where to look and who to ask) and start/join the insurrection.

And Bush has been fighting Muslim Fundies for the past three years? Oh really? Where? Afghanistan? Right, there’s a good fairy tale for you. Afghanistan was where AQ was based out of and the fight against the Taliban is still on-going. However, Canada and NATO are now fighting that fight in the main, the US has all but pulled out, deciding instead to concentrate on Iraq, a nation that had nothing to do with 9-11 and was not home to AQ, until Shrub decided to go in and make it terrorist friendly. Bush has done more harm then good in the so-called War on Terror and has proven he is indeed “a uniter”. Trouble is he has united much of the Islamic and Arab world against the west all the while; he has caused a huge divide not only among the American people but has turned most of America’s traditional allies against him. At the same time he has all but bankrupt the US and depends on handouts from Communist China to keep his economy and war afloat.

But let’s get back to the original post shall we? The poster was calling for the deportation of all Liberals. I seem to recall two other nations that went that route, Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. As I said in my first post, so much for democracy, free speech, free thought, free will, the right to dissent and all the other trappings of a free and just society.

I have a number of friends in the US from both sides of the political spectrum, Liberal (Democrats) and Conservatives (Republicans) and although they differ on many issues, the one thing that they are united on is that the US is in serious trouble and the root of that trouble lays squarely at the feet of one George W. Bush and his base of radical Christian fundamentalist and the neo-cons who have taken over the Republican Party.

In mind that choice is cut and dry. Bush is fighting for a level of freedom. In my mind that's what its all about. The Islamo-fascists are fighting against freedom. They scare me much more than the religious fanaticism that seems to scare you so much. Many of the views of the religious fanaticists are largely not popular enough for them to be legislated. As such, that is the major stumbling block to the religious fanaticists along with liberal courts that on the whole overturn every gain they make. The islamo-fascists would just force it upon us and kill those of us that do not comply.

I really fail how you can call one as evil as the other.

And if they got the US, what do you think happens to us? With an afterthought for a military and a bunch of liberals that refuse to use it short of sending them out to their pet causes as glorified social workers they'd take Canada before dinner.

This really is WW3. It won't be a traditional war in the sense of WW1 and WW2. It will likely be fought over 20 or more years in a series of battles on many different fronts. I like my way of life. I want to win it. If we have to kill a few of our enemy to do so, whatever. Because of liberals and the media we're actually being handcuffed because they're insisting we fight politically correct battles where it would be much smarter to go in and win each quickly and decisively because each time we show any sort of weakness our enemy is further embolded to continue.

I consider Bush a bad president because he has no clue how to run his homeland during wartime. Having said that, I have to laud him for fighting for what I think is right even though it is unpopular. I have always hated politicians that govern by the poll. Screw the poll. Do what you think is right now regardless of its popularity. The other party will likely undo it in a few years if you're wrong anyway. I don't want such a *insert your favorite breed of pussycat here* for a leader.

To say Bush is fighting for freedom is akin to you saying you are screwing for virginity.

When you take a look at what has happened not only within the US since Bush's first term but also where ever the US has taken its fight, then you know want I mean. PATRIOT ACT's I & II, proposed national id cards, so-called free speech zones, illegal and warrentless wire tappings of US Citizens, Abu Gabia (sp), detention of anyone suspected of being against the US, torture, you name it, it has happened under Bush and Co. During the Vietnam War, it was said that in order to save the village, they had to destroy the village, Bush has taken this up a couple of notches. In order to save the US, he must destroy the US and the same can be said again for the world.

Bush is fighting for his corporate masters for the most part and for some god foresaken and bastardized Endtimer vision of return of the Corporate Jesus. The assults against intellectualism, science and non-Evangelical Christian beliefs within the US is frightening and are almost on par with the identical assults made by the Taliban in Afghanistan when they were in power.

And I find it laughable that you call the press "Liberal", Christ on a crutch boyo, the vast bulk of US and even Canadian press are front line cheerleaders of the Bush Administration. The only real media dissent against Bush comes from forums like this where people can actually speak out and give voice to their oppinions.

I am a retired soldier and just right of centre Conservative and frankly what I see going on down south scares the ever living shit out of me. Sorry for the crude languange, but there you have it. If you love your way of life and the freedoms you enjoy, then you should be manning the anti-Bush barracades, and cease being one of sheeple drones of the Bush Camp.

[Hicksey]

The Liberals are never wrong, remember? According to them the CPC should have reconsidered and brought them home immediately.

I didn't think we were revisiting that stupidity here. So I just made the assumption that everyone knew that and went on from there.

No, it was the debate the renewed mission. At first the Conservatives said no and then they decided to let the debate happen. The Liberals are divided on the mission and voted as such.

A free vote is something the Conservatives consider a good thing, right?

Yeah, I saw that. A few token backbenchers made the Liberals look moderated when if you look the leaders voted against leaving them there in lock-step with one another. All the while the leadership of both the Liberals and NDP continued to vilify the CPC in the media for leaving troops there with the "new mission."

I think that if the Liberals planned to cut and run at the first whiff of real fighting, they should never have sent them in the first place. As usual they're willing to send our military anywhere as glorified social workers, but as soon as our military has to act like a military they want to bring them back.

[jbg]

To say Bush is fighting for freedom is akin to you saying you are screwing for virginity.

When you take a look at what has happened not only within the US since Bush's first term but also where ever the US has taken its fight, then you know want I mean. PATRIOT ACT's I & II, proposed national id cards, so-called free speech zones, illegal and warrentless wire tappings of US Citizens, Abu Gabia (sp), detention of anyone suspected of being against the US, torture, you name it, it has happened under Bush and Co. During the Vietnam War, it was said that in order to save the village, they had to destroy the village, Bush has taken this up a couple of notches. In order to save the US, he must destroy the US and the same can be said again for the world.

All wars entail some loss of civil liberty. This is a war, not of Bush's or the US's choosing.

[jdobbin]

All wars entail some loss of civil liberty. This is a war, not of Bush's or the US's choosing.

Does that mean all our bank records should be examined by the U.S. government?

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/14082006/2/nati...nk-records.html

[jbg]

All wars entail some loss of civil liberty. This is a war, not of Bush's or the US's choosing.

Does that mean all our bank records should be examined by the U.S. government?

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/14082006/2/nati...nk-records.html

I have a question. I'm an American and I value my freedom. Nothing could be more boring than my banking records. If someone wants to read it whose only interest is in finding out if I'm a criminal, why not?

[jdobbin]

I have a question. I'm an American and I value my freedom. Nothing could be more boring than my banking records. If someone wants to read it whose only interest is in finding out if I'm a criminal, why not?

Would you be okay with a foreign country looking at your back records?

[jbg]

I have a question. I'm an American and I value my freedom. Nothing could be more boring than my banking records. If someone wants to read it whose only interest is in finding out if I'm a criminal, why not?

Would you be okay with a foreign country looking at your back records?

Any of the core English-speaking democracies, i.e. Canada, UK, Australia, New Zealand or Israel, no problem.

[jdobbin]

Any of the core English-speaking democracies, i.e. Canada, UK, Australia, New Zealand or Israel, no problem.

<heh> Israel has used banking records to find out who in the American government could be turned to give them intelligence.

[jbg]

Any of the core English-speaking democracies, i.e. Canada, UK, Australia, New Zealand or Israel, no problem.

<heh> Israel has used banking records to find out who in the American government could be turned to give them intelligence.

Wasn't aware of that. Link?

[jdobbin]

Wasn't aware of that. Link?

It was so long ago. It was the miltary officer whathisname... Jonathan Pollard. I can't recall. I am so vague on the details now but they said that the Israelis were very well aware of the bank records of some of their targets. I suppose it is because any financial institution can get a credit record from someone.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Pollard

There was talk that this guy was recruited the same way but no one is saying anything on it. So much of this stuff is classified.

http://www.nationalvanguard.org/story.php?id=9791

Pollard said it was never about the money but it was the money that eventually brought him attention of the authorities.

One thing for sure...the Israelis routinely spy on Americans.

[jbg]

And Pollard is a great example of what happens when someone snooping through records goes over the line.

[ceemes]

To say Bush is fighting for freedom is akin to you saying you are screwing for virginity.

When you take a look at what has happened not only within the US since Bush's first term but also where ever the US has taken its fight, then you know want I mean. PATRIOT ACT's I & II, proposed national id cards, so-called free speech zones, illegal and warrentless wire tappings of US Citizens, Abu Gabia (sp), detention of anyone suspected of being against the US, torture, you name it, it has happened under Bush and Co. During the Vietnam War, it was said that in order to save the village, they had to destroy the village, Bush has taken this up a couple of notches. In order to save the US, he must destroy the US and the same can be said again for the world.

All wars entail some loss of civil liberty.

Really, are you truly ready and willing to surrender some of your liberties in order to gain a sense (a false sense at that) of security?

Well a couple few people with better minds then you or I could ever hope to possess would differ.

Benjamin Franklin:

They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security

A smart man ole' Benjamin don't you think? But let's see what Dorothy Thompson had to say of the subject.

Dorothy Thompson:

When liberty is taken away by force it can be restored by force. When it is relinquished voluntarily by default it can never be recovered.

Or as Edward R. Murrow stated

We cannot defend freedom abroad by deserting it at home.

Sounds about right, if your rights, freedoms and liberties are taken away from you by force, you can gain them back with force. But if you give your freedoms, rights and liberties away then you have little or no recourse. Do you honestly trust ANY Government to return to you any of the rights, freedoms or liberties you surrendered to them? If so, then you are sadly a fool and a slave in the making.

This is a war, not of Bush's or the US's choosing.

Evidence to date strongly suggest you are wrong here. While the Afghanistan invasion can be tied to the events of 9-11 and terrorism, the main war in Iraq cannot. Even Bush and his cabel have publically stated that Iraq and Saddam had absolutely no ties to the events of 9-11.

The Iraqi War may not be a war of choice for most Americans, it is however THE War of Choice for Bush and his merry band of Neo-Cons. The planning of the Iraqi Invasion by the PNAC core goes back to the Clinton Administration. After Bush was selected (not elected), all they need was an excuse and pretext to execute those plans. The events of 9-11 gave them that excuse and they ran with it.

So far the Iraqi Adventure has proved to be a major dismal failure. It has cost the lives of almost 2500 US servicemen and women, all but bankrupt the US treasury (The only thing keeping the US from defaulting is continuing handouts from Mainland China and Japan, god knows what will happen when they call in their markers), created a terrorist training heaven in Iraq, destroyed the good will off traditional US allies around the world and shown once and for all, the US is little more then a paper tiger. North Korea is laughing itself silly at the US, China holds enough US debt to bankrupt the US overnight if it so wished. Nations such as Iran and Venezuela are cutting major deals with China to sell oil in Euros and not US dollars. These are just a few of the many things that the Bush Administration's ill planned and poorly executed War of Choice in Iraq have brought to the American people.

[Hicksey]

To say Bush is fighting for freedom is akin to you saying you are screwing for virginity.

When you take a look at what has happened not only within the US since Bush's first term but also where ever the US has taken its fight, then you know want I mean. PATRIOT ACT's I & II, proposed national id cards, so-called free speech zones, illegal and warrentless wire tappings of US Citizens, Abu Gabia (sp), detention of anyone suspected of being against the US, torture, you name it, it has happened under Bush and Co. During the Vietnam War, it was said that in order to save the village, they had to destroy the village, Bush has taken this up a couple of notches. In order to save the US, he must destroy the US and the same can be said again for the world.

All wars entail some loss of civil liberty.

Really, are you truly ready and willing to surrender some of your liberties in order to gain a sense (a false sense at that) of security?

Well a couple few people with better minds then you or I could ever hope to possess would differ.

Benjamin Franklin:

They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security

A smart man ole' Benjamin don't you think? But let's see what Dorothy Thompson had to say of the subject.

Dorothy Thompson:

When liberty is taken away by force it can be restored by force. When it is relinquished voluntarily by default it can never be recovered.

Or as Edward R. Murrow stated

We cannot defend freedom abroad by deserting it at home.

Sounds about right, if your rights, freedoms and liberties are taken away from you by force, you can gain them back with force. But if you give your freedoms, rights and liberties away then you have little or no recourse. Do you honestly trust ANY Government to return to you any of the rights, freedoms or liberties you surrendered to them? If so, then you are sadly a fool and a slave in the making.

This is a war, not of Bush's or the US's choosing.

Evidence to date strongly suggest you are wrong here. While the Afghanistan invasion can be tied to the events of 9-11 and terrorism, the main war in Iraq cannot. Even Bush and his cabel have publically stated that Iraq and Saddam had absolutely no ties to the events of 9-11.

The Iraqi War may not be a war of choice for most Americans, it is however THE War of Choice for Bush and his merry band of Neo-Cons. The planning of the Iraqi Invasion by the PNAC core goes back to the Clinton Administration. After Bush was selected (not elected), all they need was an excuse and pretext to execute those plans. The events of 9-11 gave them that excuse and they ran with it.

So far the Iraqi Adventure has proved to be a major dismal failure. It has cost the lives of almost 2500 US servicemen and women, all but bankrupt the US treasury (The only thing keeping the US from defaulting is continuing handouts from Mainland China and Japan, god knows what will happen when they call in their markers), created a terrorist training heaven in Iraq, destroyed the good will off traditional US allies around the world and shown once and for all, the US is little more then a paper tiger. North Korea is laughing itself silly at the US, China holds enough US debt to bankrupt the US overnight if it so wished. Nations such as Iran and Venezuela are cutting major deals with China to sell oil in Euros and not US dollars. These are just a few of the many things that the Bush Administration's ill planned and poorly executed War of Choice in Iraq have brought to the American people.

If Bush just beefs up homeland security after 9/11 and does nothing else, what message does that send?

If every time a suspected despot decided to build up their weaponry (everyone was out there before Iraq claiming that Iraq had WMDs including all the leaders of the countries that opposed going into Iraq) we just let them do whatever they want, won't we end up with little North Korea's all over that are much more difficult to deal with?

I think Iraq was a war that needed to be fought. I also think the timing was off. We needed to send that message to Iran more than Iraq right now. The war needs to be fought. I'll grant you that Bush isn't exactly going about it as we would. But name me one liberal (Democrat or Liberal) that has pledged to fight it. I'll take a Bush over a Kerry/Martin ten times out of ten.

What's more telling about US politics is that a bungling POTUS like Bush can be a two term POTUS. That tells me that the Democrats have even less to offer. More than anything its sad that our neighbors to the south have so little from which to choose their leader.

[yam]

You never said why YOU think that the war of Iraq needed to be fought.

Im curious since they never did find weapons of mass destruction and managed to dispossess 1000s of peoples let alone murder them. Dont forget the premise for entering Iraq was to check out IF it had weapons. This is a far cry from what actually took place. The US should be locked up like any of its citizens would be if they committed mass murder.

[jbg]

You never said why YOU think that the war of Iraq needed to be fought.

Im curious since they never did find weapons of mass destruction and managed to dispossess 1000s of peoples let alone murder them. Dont forget the premise for entering Iraq was to check out IF it had weapons. This is a far cry from what actually took place. The US should be locked up like any of its citizens would be if they committed mass murder.

They were funding different terror efforts aimed at the US and more frequently its allies. Further, they constantly verbalized a threat of use of chemical weapons and WMD's. Even if they didn't have the capability the threat of same cannot be ignored and an unenforced, paper UN resolution is not enough.

[jdobbin]

They were funding different terror efforts aimed at the US and more frequently its allies. Further, they constantly verbalized a threat of use of chemical weapons and WMD's. Even if they didn't have the capability the threat of same cannot be ignored and an unenforced, paper UN resolution is not enough.

One of the things that has probably affected people's thoughts on Iraq is that the message on why the U.S. is in there keeps changing.

[Hicksey]

To say Bush is fighting for freedom is akin to you saying you are screwing for virginity.

When you take a look at what has happened not only within the US since Bush's first term but also where ever the US has taken its fight, then you know want I mean. PATRIOT ACT's I & II, proposed national id cards, so-called free speech zones, illegal and warrentless wire tappings of US Citizens, Abu Gabia (sp), detention of anyone suspected of being against the US, torture, you name it, it has happened under Bush and Co. During the Vietnam War, it was said that in order to save the village, they had to destroy the village, Bush has taken this up a couple of notches. In order to save the US, he must destroy the US and the same can be said again for the world.

Bush is fighting for his corporate masters for the most part and for some god foresaken and bastardized Endtimer vision of return of the Corporate Jesus. The assults against intellectualism, science and non-Evangelical Christian beliefs within the US is frightening and are almost on par with the identical assults made by the Taliban in Afghanistan when they were in power.

And I find it laughable that you call the press "Liberal", Christ on a crutch boyo, the vast bulk of US and even Canadian press are front line cheerleaders of the Bush Administration. The only real media dissent against Bush comes from forums like this where people can actually speak out and give voice to their oppinions.

I am a retired soldier and just right of centre Conservative and frankly what I see going on down south scares the ever living shit out of me. Sorry for the crude languange, but there you have it. If you love your way of life and the freedoms you enjoy, then you should be manning the anti-Bush barracades, and cease being one of sheeple drones of the Bush Camp.

So, you equate the non-stop Bush=Hitler mantra to being "front line cheerleaders of the Bush Administration" (your words)? Give me a break. Short of Fox News, talk radio, and the likes of the Sun newspapers in Canada, conservatives have no voices in the press at all. If you think the press is conservative, you must be farther to the left that you admit.

And you need to know a lot more about me before you call me a Bush drone. He is a Republican. I am a conservative. The two are not mutually exclusive these days. I evaluate each move he makes and support or decry it according to what I believe is right. I give Bush plenty of shit. Even on this issue. I am not in any camp. I vote for politicians based on what they support that I do. Whichever one supports the most of what I believe is right I vote for. I give no politician a free ride because I vote for them. Ask a few of the more conservative posters here. I have been all over Harper on a few things. I vote on party positions, they earn my support by their actions.

[Charles Anthony]

Bush is fighting for a level of freedom.

You think?

In my mind that's what its all about. The Islamo-fascists are fighting against freedom. They scare me much more than the religious fanaticism that seems to scare you so much. Many of the views of the religious fanaticists are largely not popular enough for them to be legislated. As such, that is the major stumbling block to the religious fanaticists along with liberal courts that on the whole overturn every gain they make. The islamo-fascists would just force it upon us and kill those of us that do not comply.

Not everybody agrees with that outlook. Some people think that your labels are a smoke screen.

Why Do They Hate Us?

by Jacob G. Hornberger, August 9, 2006

You’ll recall that immediately after the 9/11 attacks, U.S. officials declared that the attacks had been motivated by the terrorists’ hatred for America’s “freedom and values.” That refrain produced the “war on terrorism” and, more recently, the “war on radical Islamo-fascism.”

----<snip>----

The argument of the “freedom and values” crowd boils down to this: “The decades of U.S. supplying of advanced weaponry and foreign aid to the Israeli government, which is now being used to kill people in Lebanon, and the U.S. government’s obeisance and submissiveness to the Israeli government, have had no adverse effect on how Arabs and Muslims feel about the United States. Their anger and hatred is caused by America’s freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and rock and roll.”

----<snip>----

The same “freedom and values” argument was made with respect to more than a decade of brutal sanctions against Iraq, which contributed to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children — deaths that U.S. officials maintained were “worth it.” People in the Middle East were indifferent to those deaths, the argument goes. Their anger and hatred were caused by the U.S. Bill of Rights and the gambling casinos in Las Vegas.

http://www.fff.org/comment/com0608c.asp

[Hicksey]

You never said why YOU think that the war of Iraq needed to be fought.

Im curious since they never did find weapons of mass destruction and managed to dispossess 1000s of peoples let alone murder them. Dont forget the premise for entering Iraq was to check out IF it had weapons. This is a far cry from what actually took place. The US should be locked up like any of its citizens would be if they committed mass murder.

Go back and look for all the quotes. Every world leader, including ours at the time, was out telling everyone how we knew that Iraq had WMDs. I won't deny that once there, there wasn't nearly the WMDs that everyone had believed and that the intelligence machine broke down horribly.

Despite that, I still think the Iraq war needed to be fought--but not today. I think that we need to start preventing North Koreas so that rogue states can be dealt with easier. How do you deal with KJI now that he has the threat of nuclear weapons? We need to keep such weapons out of the hands of nations professing to want the complete destruction of others. The next burgeoning NK is Iran. We should have went into Iran when we went into Iraq. What if Afghanistan had gotten ahold of nuclear weapons and 9/11 had been the start of nuclear warfare? These are chances I do not want to take. I would rather keep these countries in line through conventional warfare in several smaller battles.

I don't live in fear, but I also choose not to play ostrich and just ignore these countries until we have a bunch of little NKs to worry about.

[Hicksey]

Bush is fighting for a level of freedom.

You think?

In my mind that's what its all about. The Islamo-fascists are fighting against freedom. They scare me much more than the religious fanaticism that seems to scare you so much. Many of the views of the religious fanaticists are largely not popular enough for them to be legislated. As such, that is the major stumbling block to the religious fanaticists along with liberal courts that on the whole overturn every gain they make. The islamo-fascists would just force it upon us and kill those of us that do not comply.

Not everybody agrees with that outlook. Some people think that your labels are a smoke screen.

Why Do They Hate Us?

by Jacob G. Hornberger, August 9, 2006

You’ll recall that immediately after the 9/11 attacks, U.S. officials declared that the attacks had been motivated by the terrorists’ hatred for America’s “freedom and values.” That refrain produced the “war on terrorism” and, more recently, the “war on radical Islamo-fascism.”

----<snip>----

The argument of the “freedom and values” crowd boils down to this: “The decades of U.S. supplying of advanced weaponry and foreign aid to the Israeli government, which is now being used to kill people in Lebanon, and the U.S. government’s obeisance and submissiveness to the Israeli government, have had no adverse effect on how Arabs and Muslims feel about the United States. Their anger and hatred is caused by America’s freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and rock and roll.”

----<snip>----

The same “freedom and values” argument was made with respect to more than a decade of brutal sanctions against Iraq, which contributed to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children — deaths that U.S. officials maintained were “worth it.” People in the Middle East were indifferent to those deaths, the argument goes. Their anger and hatred were caused by the U.S. Bill of Rights and the gambling casinos in Las Vegas.

http://www.fff.org/comment/com0608c.asp

I ask you this. Where would Israel be today without US support?

I submit it wouldn't be. Why is killing Jews less wrong than killing Arabs?

Israel is surrounded by countries that want them dead. Leave them to their own devices and Israel will end up in history books and no longer on a globe. It that what you want?

The only reason Israel has to target civillians is because the chicken-hawks that are Hezbollah hide within their civillians and fire at Israel.

Who we support in the battle aside ...

Why can't this entire region get along with each other, or those around the world? They're the only ones that cannot, or refuse to.

[Black Dog]

If every time a suspected despot decided to build up their weaponry (everyone was out there before Iraq claiming that Iraq had WMDs including all the leaders of the countries that opposed going into Iraq) we just let them do whatever they want, won't we end up with little North Korea's all over that are much more difficult to deal with?

Actually there was considerable disagreement among UNSC nations as to Iraq's capabilities. Many of the nations that share dteh U.S.'s views were basing their positions on information the U.S. gave them.

I think Iraq was a war that needed to be fought. I also think the timing was off. We needed to send that message to Iran more than Iraq right now. The war needs to be fought. I'll grant you that Bush isn't exactly going about it as we would. But name me one liberal (Democrat or Liberal) that has pledged to fight it. I'll take a Bush over a Kerry/Martin ten times out of ten.

First: given the hash that has been made of Iraq, would you really trust the people in charge to have successfully prosecuted a war against Iran? As for now, going to war against Iran would be a titanic strategic blunder that would undermine the war in Iraq, the war on terrorism, and threaten stable, U.S. friendly regimes in the region.

Despite that, I still think the Iraq war needed to be fought--but not today. I think that we need to start preventing North Koreas so that rogue states can be dealt with easier. How do you deal with KJI now that he has the threat of nuclear weapons? We need to keep such weapons out of the hands of nations professing to want the complete destruction of others. The next burgeoning NK is Iran. We should have went into Iran when we went into Iraq. What if Afghanistan had gotten ahold of nuclear weapons and 9/11 had been the start of nuclear warfare? These are chances I do not want to take. I would rather keep these countries in line through conventional warfare in several smaller battles.

No state is going to spend the time and resources to build a nuclear weapon and waste it in a futile effort to make a statement. They're certainly not going to hand weapons to terrorists (despotic regimes have a hing for control). Nuclear weapons are of limited strategic value. They make good deterrents (and when you're ona list of "Evil" countries, one of qwhich has already fallen to invasion, you're gonna get what deterrent you can) but are pretty much useless as offensive weapons.

[Charles Anthony]

I ask you this. Where would Israel be today without US support?

I submit it wouldn't be. Why is killing Jews less wrong than killing Arabs?

That was not the suggestion.

Your question even demonstrates that you understand that the "Islamo-fascists" are not fighting against American freedom. Your question suggests that the "Islamo-fascists" are fighting against American foreign policy.

The rest of your questions are just more smoke-screening.