Join The Debate!

ajhil writes:

In contrast, why do you and other conservatives feel that you can accuse liberals of being traitors for voicing opinions that differ from yours?
=====================================

Good point that deserves an answer. Treason is "claimed" not because they protest the war. I served during Viet Nam and disagreed with the political limits set. But, I didn't have a political office and the "authority" of the people and thus, was not an "item" on the nightly news.

Our elected officials in a time of war are to put forth a united front in public, even if they fight like dogs behind closed doors during the "military action" that puts our troops in harms way. It is not treason to protest but it is treason to give "aid and comfort" to the enemy and a divided public persona of our government where the "protestors" tell the eneny to get a few more weapons, get a few more bombs, get a few more terrorists, and you can defeat our "undermanned, demoralized, poorly led," military.

Whether those things are true or not, once the majority in Congress reach a conclusion or the military does a certian action whether based on the President, Congress or military leaders, the public presence should be united support because the decision was done under our Constitutional system of government and how decisions are reached.

Regarding the Commander in Chief. He has the right and the power to end all rights as Commander in Chief, but not as President. So what is the check. Our founders, who wanted virtually absolute power in a time of war to rest in one person who would thus avoid indecision by many, provied a very powerful check, impeachment. Remember they called Lincoln, "King Lincoln" for taking the right of "habeas corpus" away from the people and some were calling for impeachement. But, he did it, was empowered by the the Constitution to do it and didn't have a "majority" that felt he had overstepped what needed to be done even if some disagreed with him.

Now, what that has evolved into is another story and the U.S. Supreme Court hinting but failing to add any clarification hasn't helped. We could even say the will of the people has changed but we haven't amended the Constitution nor has the Court restricted it. But, it certainly is worthy of "protest" by liberals and even many Conservatives who feel the federal government is taking away rights we have been guaranteed. We weren't guaranteed those rights, however, if a time of war by the Constitution as much as by "peer pressure" on our elected officials.

Still, protesting is one thing for us as citizens. For our elected officals who are to represent all of us, it is different. They are no longer common citizens when they speak for the nation and not just their constituents. Behind closed doors, in secret away from the cameras and microphones, they should represent themselves, their constituents and the Constitution as they interpret it. But, once they step into the limelight, they can say "While I have some concerns," or while I disagree," we are going to so such and such. We support this action or some other such thing.

But to get on public TV and tell our enemies we are "undermanned, demoralized, poorly led, lack armor, etc." is treason even if true. You never, never, tell the enemy your weaknesses unless you are a traitor. Washington was undermanned, under armed, had troops that were often poorly led, but they remained united and defeated the best army in the world at that time because whether they agreed with him or not, one man, Washington, called the shots. It was that "position of absolute authority" that the "Commander in Chief" in the Constitution was based on. It was a special role only applicable
quote:
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States
=========================================

Where is the "fly in this ointment? Simple, when we ratified it we didn't have a military in constant military action in German, Japan, So. Korea, and other places where we had been at war and were now "on standby" but still in service of our nation.

This must change, whether we are conservative or liberal because it literally means the President is "Commander in Chief" at all times since we are never at "peace" technically. Perhaps this is why the Supreme Court has been so silent. Technically, since the Constitution doesn't say "at war," but only "in actual service" the Constitution is being upheld even if our "will" isn't being upheld. But, if that be the case, "we the people" have the power to amend the Constitution. Yet, we don't.

Instead, people with very good intentions that are in public office commit treason by giving "aid and comfort" to the enemy not only by the supplying the previous information but by leaking and publishing secret military operations to gain intelligence on the enemy.

Having called them traitors doesn't mean I don't believe they may have good intentions though for some, their only intent is to weaken this nation and hasten the day socialism completely takes over. Remember that key principle of Socialism, so many in the Government are promoting,
Quote:
We condemn war, preparation for war, and the militaristic culture because they play havoc with people's lives and divert resources from constructive social projects.
============================
For socialists, social programs come before defense. Not because they don't want to be free nor because they want to be helping an "enemy." It is because they sincerely believe there is enough good in all people that somehow, someway, negotiation can resolove differences much better than war. They are not traitors because they "hate" America but they do hate what it stands for when it uses force to solve problems.

They completely deny their isn't a peaceful way to resolve difference even when confronted with a Hitler, an Osama Bin Ladin, a Saddam Hussein, an Ahmadinejad, etc. Those are people who have only one goal and that is absolute power over all people they can possibly conquer. Whether is for power or the wealth of other nations or a genuine "faith" they are doing "Allah's will," they don't negotiate except to gain time to regroup and strike again and again and again.

It is that basic but huge difference between liberals who side with the likes of Murtha and Kerry and Reid's public treason and Cosnservatives who label them traitors that divide them. One views some people as so evil they can't be negotiated with while the others say, "all people have good in them that can be reasoned with" to at least "limit" their conquest to the area and/or people around them. They can be limited so they won't attack us or our allies. They can be "allowed" their own little tryanny and it will satisfy them and keep us safe at the same time.

Now, how do you get over that difference because it is based on core beliefs. One in inherent good and one in inherent evil as they believe the Bible states about some who reject God completely and follow the will of Satan in all that they do. Some may even say they are "of God" but really aren't.

ajhil

ajhil's perspective is that :

"In other words, by invading Iraq, George Bush has played directly into Osama’s hands, doing exactly what Osama wanted him to do."

Which, by the way, is just fine. We can not worry about what actions play into our enemy's hands. If Osama hopes to profit politically by our reactions, it is HIS calculation. Just because he calculates that a certain percentage of people will react a certain way, shouldn't prevent us from OUR calculation that many more people will also react favorably to the US. This has actually happened. The US had an 80 percent favorable rating amongst Iraqis because we DID SOMETHING about a cruel tyrant. Rather than folded up our tent and turned our backs upon the millions of people who suffered undered Saddam's reign. In other words: Liberals are cowards who are more concerned about their Starbucks coffee than about the evils that befall innocent citizens of the world. For all their high and mighty bluster about individual rights, they do nothing to secure those rights for the downtrodden around the globe. In fact, THEY PLAY RIGHT INTO THE HANDS OF THE WORLD'S WORST OPPRESSORS. And then they lay the blame on those who are most helpful in the war on terror.

and by the way..ajhil

Also, I really don’t see how you’d come up with the, false and untrue, idea that I advocate for “tolerance” of America’s “enemies” Where’d you come up with that?

Because I said racial epithets were wrong when others were dumping on Arabs here? They are wrong. But I never said fanatical Muslims were right, and, clearly, not every Arab in the world is a Muslim, so I don’t know where you were coming from with that one.

If that was supposed to be funny, sorry, I don’t get it. If it was meant to be accurate about me and mine, well, you’re wrong. Not that you’d know. But nothing I said here supports that idea you placed here about me, unless you’ve taken my words largely out of context, which could be...I will, once more, accept the compliments though..:-)

ajhil

Thank you for your kind comments. Except,

I had no idea I was "...giving aid and comfort to America’s enemies by preaching tolerance."

My definition of tolerance may be different from your own.

Our family's idea of "tolerance" is akin to say the 1940's version, see last scene, in "The Bishop's Wife (the original), as opposed to fake tolerance which us used as an excuse for closing eyes at any sort of spiritual compromise today. Then tolerance meant what it is supposed to mean and has really meant all along, The Golden Rule, respect for others, charity, but not agreeing with, providing for, or protecting their need to change the basic laws, lifestyles and tenets of mankind. (The new Devil's dictionary penned by the socialist types running en league with liberal types takes old words and tries to fashion them new, but they mean nothing. e.g "gay-marriage"-not and not,"homophobe"=not and not, "intolerant"=you can't tell me how do to my sin and where and when all according to newfangeled liberal laws..etc,etc,etc. Really the list is quite long.)

As for the rest of what you said: "Do you really think that liberals (you don’t have to capitalize the word, by the way) support muslim fanatics? Has it occurred to you that mistaken beliefs like that can foster unreasoning hatred just as effectively as the rabid speech that you’ve so rightly criticized here?"

I do not think all Liberals consciously realize who and what they are supporting, or not, when they push on against wars and these things.

I think they think they are helping our nation, in, in their minds, the grand tradition of say Democrats back in their heyday, the late 1960's let's say.

Nobody wants wars, ok maybe terrorists do, some people do, but most don't.

War is like a necessary evil to most Conservatives who simply want to see our nation defended from her enemies.

I think that's quite reasonable really...

If you look at the recent political landscape, you will notice it was liberals, and liberal Democrats, not Conservatives, who sought to promote, support and defend factions who have been against this country for many years.

You might remember in one of our most recent elections it was Mr. Bin Laden himself who urged voters not to vote for President Bush, G.W., but for a Democrat...

It is liberals who have sought to end a war against terrorism, while our nation has, still been under their threat almost everyday.

It is liberal 'elites' and their ilk in universities the world over who have urged students, and others, to walk out on the idea of defending their country. It is our brave service men and women who risk their lives so those liberals can have such a say.

Finally, and I have left a lot out, it is liberals who have failed in defending this country from its biggest enemy, that of secularism and philosophies of men which are ones speaking out against family, and God, and the basic foundations of civilization.

While our nation is based on faiths having their right to practice as they do, side by side under one flag, liberal media, schools and lawmakers have set out to ruin, and destroy ever last remnant of Christ-based thinking from sea to shining sea.

Ironically, it is because of this disintegration in values that some of our nation’s enemies, terrorists, loathe us as they do today.

Surely there are liberals out there that think they are walking the cause of truth by speaking out against our President, but I think they're wrong.

While some things wrought of the 1960's might have been good, health food stores for example, what have you, a lot of things weren’t.

Radicalism for its own sake, in my humble opinion, and after seeing its effects in part of my lifetime, is almost never good. Unless it’s say, radical for Jesus Christ, which won’t hurt anyone but will certainly help...

So, if you read what I have written above, I have no tolerance for "enemies" of our nation, anymore than I would feel comfortable tolerating any other kind of sin.

I am not sure about your reply to me, though I appreciate the parts that were complimentary...

Do I feel every liberal is out to hurt America? Not hardly. At least, not on purpose...

Let me add, you are talking to a lady who used to jump up and down, with her Husband, on their living room couch cheering Ann Coulter on, back when she was on ABC's "Politically Incorrect", (yes, I remember it clearly), so I might not be the person to ask about that :-)

Well, congrats, Raidencraig

At least this time you quoted me correctly.

Vast improvement.

I'm proud of the quote, too.

Then, Raidencraig, you moron

Make that clear in your post.

The Real Enemies, pt2

Let me just add that fanatic Muslims, and those who support them, Liberals and others, are advocating a way of life and mindset that is no less Evil than that of the Nazis.

Brian, your deep thought was right in that we must also be careful to guard against any kind of hateful sentiment which often comes with such types of thinking, abject prejudice and hating races of men. We must be sure to be cognizant of our real enemies, particularly for the Christians here who want to live as God would intend.

I believe with all my heart we must defend our nation, but must be very careful about the terrain of our own hearts. The greatest mistakes we can make often come from these personal weak areas, while we claim good intentions. No thinking person with a heart or gratitude for where he was born can think a terrorist a good thing. But where does your mind and heart go past that point?

These are the murky areas of personal deficiency. These are the waters we must shore up if we are to make any difference at all in our world or the greater world we know.

Has anyone noticed that the same Liberals and socialists who support Hezbollah are also the ones prone to label Evangelical CHRISTIANS as extremists, please take a look at this Nazi-esque Federal judge looking to pick apart our faith? Who and what places us in with, true, extremist Muslims?

I contend that these are the people who are so ignorant that the sins of other faiths fall on us all.

I think these are the reasons, to control populations and greed, and people to watch out for, working through our aforementioned enemies.

Please read this related story on a crazy, ignorant activist judge, here in America! The implications are staggering.

Such absolving of Evil is a hallmark of Liberal insanity. Their goals, ideas, and beliefs, largely, in opposition to the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

http://family.org/fmedia/broadcast/a0041479.cfm

reply to BrianR

Take a valium, bud!
I was not quoting you PERIOD, or I would have identified it as such... my "sand people" allusion was actually meant to connote with a Star Wars allusion (perhaps too tangential-- a limitation of blogs) that many here blithely lump ALL Arabs and Islamics together as if they were of one monolithic mindset, and in any case make bogeymen of the lot of them. [This serves the ends of the Pan-Israeli's quite nicely.]

As to a possible broad Islamic perspective, I saw what I believe to be an accurate statement by a rare impartial pundit that 90% of Islamics in the Arab world CONSISTENTLY say in polls-- and have for MANY years-- that they dislike what they know of American culture and values and distrust us because they perceive us (rightly in my view) as THE captive champion of Israel which increasingly sees and parrots in lock step, submissive fealty ONLY the Israeli perspective. When Israel has retributive acts of violence/terror on Palestinians or Lebanese, we endorse the lie that there is a distinction with a difference.

This collective anti-American bias DOES NOT MEAN that most Islamics are a terrorist threat to us, nor that they condone such wanton acts of depravity. HOWEVER, given this anti-American bias, it makes NO SENSE that we are going to win over hearts and minds there by trying to foist OUR definition of good govt., morality, or whatever upon them, especially when we insouciantly discount the results of free elections when they choose Hamas or whomever. Furthermore, our invasion of Iraq is naked aggression in the eyes of many in the region. WE purport to be liberators, at least in the revised White House/neoCON spin, BUT WE fathomed that in Viet Nam too! The OTHER side views us as invaders! And why not?! We have given them EVERY reason not to trust us otherwise!

As for disabusing neoCON theories, it is well known that Wolfowitz, Cheney and company have been privately stunned that all of the Iraqi's did not celebrate us as liberators. Quite the contrary, over 40% of ALL Iraqi's think it is just OK to kill American troops! My God, would we have felt that France had been worth liberating if they had felt that way?! Our arrogant presumptuousness in charging into Iraq was only exceeded by our tunnel-vision naivete and ignorance about those disparate sects.

More BS from the Lefties

We had every right to depose Saddam. The burden of proof was on HIM not BUSH. Why are you people being so dense. If I get cited for lack of _proof of insurance_. That doesn't mean I do/do not have it.

The real point you are making is :

I believed Saddam more than I believed most of the world intelligence agencies( as well as our own president).

Keep up the loathing. Democrates will soon be a whiny, pouting teenager in the corner of American politics.

PS. The fool (craig?) who said that Israel was created through blood and terror should start writing for Al-Jazeera. Muslims and non Jews hold public office and are treated better in Israel than they are in Palestine, Jordan, Iran or Syria.

It should be pointed out...

that one of the top U.S. fighter aces in Korea was an Arab-American of Palestinian descent. He flew the F-86 Sabrejet. I can't remember his name, unfortunately.

being part Arab American

I am also half Arab American Brian, Syrian, my paternal Grandmom from Damascus, and I am amazed at some of the silly, uneducated comments here.

One does not have to have a Liberal ideology to see things in a balanced way. And, clearly, a lot of these arguments support the notion that Liberalism is not balanced about these things. Surely, it seems so...

In any case, I would imagine, or hope, you found comments by some posters here a bit bizarre in their extreme sentiment. I hope none of us ever get to a point of walking around with such a weight on us, thinking such wholesale hateful thoughts about any race as some on here.

Making other fellow humans mongrels in our minds is one of the first steps towards seeing them as less than human. Most of the time this is a precedent that is very bad. While it is indeed true terrorists are different and do act in a less than human way, or as humans corrupted, I can't abide anyone making such inane comments about "all" of any race.

My Dad served in our armed forces and so did my Uncle in Korea. Their entire family sacrificed to be upstanding and productive members of their communities till this day.

None of them have taken part in this madness (terrorism) that's been thrust upon us, though there are no Muslims in our family or its history. I get tired of a few flagrant madmen almost trying to make we part Arab Americans look bad.

It's a strange kind of prejudice that's both tangible and yet, seemingly, not there...

I wrote a story about this on here called:
"Arabs the New Blacks and Why". You might want to take a look for another perspective.

even if..

Even if you don't agree with a Liberal argument, it's best not to make it so personal, and in such a deriding way. Anyone with a modest education knows one of the first rules of debate is to break points, not people.

I may, or may not, I haven't read this all I don't know, agree with Phylo's comments, but some of the replies to him have been nothing but caustic and hateful.

Attacking the person is never a good way to make one's point, and really should not even be an option. It does nothing to fortify your sharing, and often makes the party your speaking of come off in a more favorable light.

Cruelty is the last bastion of cowards, and makes a meager profit when you're cashing in on input.

Cut down points people, not individuals. Otherwise it's a negative pain to read these caustic diatribes, regardless of any important points you may share.

Not to mention it's simply sinful and poor form..

response to BrianR

In comparing all i BILLION Islamics to the Japanese in WWII, there are several glaring differences.

1) the Japanese attacked us and were pretty darn uniform in purpose and as an identifiable enemy... not many different Islamic nations and sects.

2) WE CHOSE to attack Saddam because that was the stratagem of the Pan-Israeli neoCONS who engendered and drove the decision (Wolfowitz, Feith and Perle) and conned the TIMES to proselytize the merits of it. Those bad boys on the left SHOULD HAVE HAD the temerity to question the agenda and modus instead of acquiescing in the wake of 9/11.

3) the terrible decision to effect 200,000 casualties on Nagasaki and Hiroshima almost SURELY saved perhaps 1 million American dead otherwise and MANY MORE Japanese, combatants and bystanders-- a distinction with a huge difference. It INDUBITABLY brought a swift and certain end to the carnage. The only real ethical challenge has been that we might instead have simply demonstrated the bomb elsewehere, say the Bikini islands, to Japanese emissaries and obviating 200,000 casualties in those fateful cities.

4) that there are surely militant Islamic terrorists in the world and many who despise us does NOT JUSTIFY a VERY expensive land war in Iraq, which had NOTHING to do with 9/11... nor will the effort either lessen future threats or improve inimical attitudes toward us. If anything, we are MORE LIKELY engendering animus and vitriol and prospects for retribution.

In contrast to WWII, we have been in Iraq longer than we were in all of WWII. When do we start turning the corner, pray tell? Do you "teach the terrorist sand people a lesson" (no naive, overarching zenophobia or racism there!) advocates have in mind a timeline here? A definition of "success" perhaps? Are you bothered that all of the promises about the expected benefits now ring hollow?

Here is a big one-- would you HONESTLY give up your child in combat there for this "cause"? If not, what will you say to the families of the dead and horribly maimed if we do indeed pull out as we did in Nam? [Perhaps: it is all the fault of the MSM and appeasing quisling capitulators? We could have won except for those liberal wimps? We should have stayed the course?]

My family gave up an uncle of mine over Germany in a B-17 in 1944 shortly before D-day. There was never a hint among them of questioning of the cause and sacrifice. A German family found his remains, and noting his German surname [which had been unswervingly American ONLY since 1750... unlike many Pan-Israeli's], contacted my grandparents thru the Red Cross. When I was young, I heard the stories about his goodness, his humor and warmth, about the girl he left behind-- I saw the ache in the hearts behind the stoic expressions.

When we send our young people off to die, it DAMM sure better make sense for AMERICA and be the ONLY viable alternative. The Chicken Hawk Tough Cowboy Jorge foolish folly foray into Iraq does not pass the litmus test here for me.

Brian, you got it wrong

You wrote "The Hiroshima and Nagasaki casualties are estimated at about 200,000. Therefore, we've only had, world-wide, about 4,000 annualized casualties to nuclear weapons (200,000 divided by 50)" But you only go back 50 years. You have to go back 62 years to get the invention, but I would suggest that we go back 230 years to say that the US has only killed 869 people a year with A-bombs. Such a pitiful few. So what is the big deal?

Raidencraig:

You wrote: " would ask-- are you going to kill much of 1 BILLION Islamics to do that?! And if so, HOW IS THAT NOT GENOCIDE?! "

The same way it wasn't genocide to kill a million Japanese (or whatever the number was during WW2); when you're killing people trying to kill you, it's not genocide.

If they're participating in action against us, they're legit military targets.

I stand corrected.

JD:

I was going to respond that you’re wrong and that the “definition” you gave is one of the dumbest things I’ve ever heard.

Then I read the article on “weapons of mass destruction” in Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weapons_of_mass_destruction
and realized that you’re correct.

The usage you describe is still one of the dumbest I’ve ever heard, but it has been promoted – apparently successfully - by politicians in order to conflate small scale unconventional weapons with large scale strategic ones. Seen in this light the term fits perfectly into the Orwellian “new speak” of the radical right:

“Islamofascists” who aren’t fascists.
“Weapons of mass destruction” that don’t create mass destruction.
A “Clear Skies Initiative” that increases air pollution.
A “Help America Vote Act” that makes voting harder and facilitates fraud …

It all makes sense now. I’m grateful to you for the insight. In addition you avoided the low-minded scurrility that passes for cleverness in so many posts (The one preceding yours is a prime example.) which means you may be a stand-up guy.

That would be a refreshing change!

Defintion of WMD

ajhil -

A WMD isn't defined by the number of casulities produced when the weapon is used or by the size of the weapon - it is defined by the nature of the weapon. The most widely used definition of "weapons of mass destruction" in official U.S. documents is "nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons."

Lydia,

Pearlgirl's been with us a while. Since before the Townhall makeover. She's kinda like the weird aunt that you put up with and on occasion makes you laugh even when you don't want to. Usually because what she says is so over the top. And it's not just Muslims; get her on the topic of homosexuals and look out.

I've never hit the "flag as offensive" deal because I figure if people want to make a$$es out of themselves, that's their deal. And, it's good for everyone to know what they're up against.

Cyne: Yeah, okay, I'm bored...

... with trashin' Phylo. I'm on my way to your blog.

Who's Glick? Does he have a hot link, or on your blog roll?

Lydia,

concerning the deodorant, I got a post on my blog about it (Airport Extravaganza), and I didn't even know it had really happened.

Phylo,

that's not fair to use Pearlgirl to characterize all conservatives. We don't use you to characterize all lefties.

Marc of CA

I suppose you would recommend that I walk into the neighborhood and, as PearlGirl says it, "blow all of the sand n!ggers away", K!ll'em all."

There you have it folks: the Republican plan for world peace.

Phylo out.

Phylo...phylo...phylo..AH!

Phylo Minderbinder. It all makes sense, now.

Oops, dropped the line

....unprecendented opportunity to test your moral relativity guidelines.

Phylo, if you live through the experience you either did not pick the right neighborhood or you are correct in your thinking. Try it tonight and call me in the morning.

Celt

I think we saw the ramblings of a graduate of the Neville Chamberlain School of International Relations.

LOL

Phylo

If you think the binary chemical shells in question are harmless, then by all means, give 'em a sniff. You might want to have an atropine injector handy...lol!

You're a fool old man

The only people who believe that the sarin cannisters constitute the WMD we went to war for are right-wing propagandists like Hannity and Powerline etc. They were buried in the sand from 15 years ago and were so degraded that they were unusable as shells. No responsible person, including the Bush Administration, have said that we've found the WMDs. They don't say it because they know they would be laughed at.

There is no hard evidence to suggest that there was an operational connection between Iraq and Al Queda. Donald Rumsfeld himself said this. And, in case you didn't know, even George Bush has said that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. Also the 9/11 commission said there were no operational ties.

You've been brainwashed my friend.

Phylo out.

Phylo, you're a dolt

That's all there is to it. You're simply a hopeless, blithering idiot. Do the world a favor, and truly go "Phylo out", because you're certainly just out of your mind.

We Must Negotiate with the Terrorists

That's my favorite line of liberal "reasoning." The problem is, Islamofascists want to give us three simple choices:

1. Convert to their particular brand of Islam;

2. Submit to their version of Islamic law as an infidel; or

3. Die.

And guess what? If everyone in the world took one of the three above options, Muslims would then continue the slaughter by killing each other.

For a sneak preview, just look at how they kill each other in Iraq, Egypt, Jordan, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, etc.

Response to Brian R

You wrote: "...when I think of my daughter in the same context as being in the city when an Iranian-made nuke detonates..."

You're paranoid. This ain't gonna happen. The only reason you've fallen for this nonsense is that you're being played by the Israel Lobby. They WANT you to believe that Iran poses a serious threat because they want the US to do their dirty work for them.

You also wrote: "Nope, hit them first, hard, and definitively."

Yours is the cowards way out. You seem to be saying "Nuke'em all, because you never know, they might get nukes." Would you advise all of the other countries in the world to adopt a similar strategy? Boy, what a wonderful world that would be. The Brian R plan for world peace.

You also wrote: And don't try to fall back on that lame annualization rationale I already debunked earlier in this thread.

You did no such thing. I was trying to put this all in perspective for you. The fact is, more people probably die from Bee stings in this country every year. Should we nuke all the bees?

Phylo out.

War On Terror? What War On Terror

Exactly, my friend. What war on terror. I live down on the US/Mexican border. What war on terror. OTMs get a pass. Drug runners and illegal alien smugglers get a pass, unless they make the headlines like the past Monday that killed 9 illegal aliens here in Yuma, Arizona.
What war on terror. The terrorist here near the border is these Mexican groups claiming to be for the downtrodden Hispanics. Sound familiar? The downtrodden Palestinians, Islamics. And when someone steps forward to protect us, the citizen, our country, and aid others in their own defense that are lambasted as homaphobics(sic), racists, inconsiderate boobs. Well, I resemble that remark proudly, and to hell with being politically correct.
Joe Liberman is Conn. loss. Now they may be stuck with an idiot who seems to lie out of both sides of his mouth and elsewhere. Joe was a dog that would hunt Lamont couldn't find his back pocket with both hands, a cane, and a compass. It's all about the money and power with him and his backers.

Pilgrim: your point is excellent

The only reason anyone in this world would take on the United States of America, the most powerful nation on Earth, is because they can watch CNN just like everyone else -- thanks to satellite -- and they can see that we are crippled from taking decisive action by those on the Left in our own country who insist on defanging us.

The very same group who lost the Vietnam War. The liberal teeth-gnashers, white-flag-wavers, Blame America First crowd. If you want to read a first hand account of how their cowardice influences world events, read the books of Vo Nguyen Giap, the North Vietnamese chief military strategist, who credits the American Left and MSM for his ultimate success in that war.

Phylo -- again you're wrong

What a shock, I'm sure.

You wrote: "If they really want a war with us, we have to be brave enough, and strong enough to let them take the first punch."

So much to refute, so little space.

First of all, we already received the first punch, on 9/11/01. That put us at war with all Islamo-fascists. Iran is part of that group, as a direct sponsor and supplier of terrorist organizations. Do you think that if they get nuclear weapons they won't supply them to allies that they think can successfully use them to target America? Can you, even you, possibly be that naive and foolish? We may not be shooting at Iran -- yet -- but don't count on that as being a permanent state of affairs.

Secondly, when you blithely pronounce that we should be "strong enough to let them take the first punch" in this modern era when that first punch may be with a nuclear, biological or chemical device that can kill hundreds of thousands, I wonder what planet you come from.

Even putting aside your own life, upon which you don't seem to place much value, do you have kids? A family? Friends you don't want to see turned into Crispy Critters?

Maybe not. But when I think of my daughter in the same context as being in the city when an Iranian-made nuke detonates... Nope, hit them first, hard, and definitively.

And don't try to fall back on that lame annualization rationale I already debunked earlier in this thread.

DEAR CHERI:

SUNDAY A.M. IS A LITTLE EARLY TO BE HITTING THE HARD STUFF, CHERI...AFTER A FEW CUPS OF COFFEE AND A SIESTA, YOU NEED TO READ BOTH MY POSTING AGAIN---AND SOBER UP.

CONNECT THE DOTS.

Phylo

Long time no see...
Iran does not have the bomb as you pointed out. At least, not yet...
They are blatantly trying to build one and have also been shopping in North Korea for an ICBM. When you mix that with the apocalyptic ravings of Ahmadinejad, I tend to think there might judt be a teeny weeny little problem. Iran may well precipitate an apocalypse, but most likely upon itself if Israel becomes convinced that an Iranian bomb is imminant. (shameless plug alert!!!) Click on my name to see my blog entry "Swimming With Dolphins" for my rundown on Israels new nuclear capable submarines.

A message to Hank

You can't be serious. That small-minded, egocentric philosophy of poor me paying $3 a gal. for gas, etc is why the call us fat stupid and useless Americans. Use that mass of tissue under your scalp for something other than to hold your hat, will you?. This threat to our way of life is enormously important for us and all future generations. Do you have children? Can't you somehow look beyond your own limited needs to what the future holds for them if this particular enemy is not dealt with. Harsh as it may be to tighten the ol' belt...well, some sacrifices might just be worth it. Stop you're gutteral whinning. Encourage our gov't to find alternative fuel sources. Get involved. Turn off you're T.V. Approach this with some intelligence.

36% OF AMERICANS...100% LIBERAL DEMS

If Scripps and Ohio U. took their now famous conspiracy poll to the next logical step, then they probably would have also learned that nearly all of the "conspirators"--the wacky 36%--are angry, mad and pissed liberal democrats who are totally blinded by "hate-Bush." I can just see those thick red veins throbbing out of their bulging eyeballs.

With over one-third of Americans living in some parallel universe right out of the "Twilight Zone," is it so suprising that the same Moonbats think that Hezbollah is just another branch of the The Boy Scouts of America?

Even paranoid people have enemies

Phylo Se Fizer I hope your comment was taung in cheek. Because if you are serious, and your delusion gets accepted by our government, we are in real trouble. First of all The Iranian leader is hoping for a world wide cataclysm. He, unlike the leaders of the old Soviet Union, welcomes death. As far as he is concerned, this will bring what it says in the Koran to fruition. He will have no qualms about creating a nuclear winter. And as far as waiting until he demolishes Seattle, is the same mentality where a dangerous intersection does not get a stop light until several people die there. We are in an era where the second response may be too late.

"WHAT, ME WORRY?"

Don't bother me with this terorist stuff, I'm angry enough. I really don't have time to worry about some trumped-up war with IslamoFacists and I'm totally preoccupied with paying my bills, $3.00 gasoline, global warming, the spotted owl as well as weekend soccer and little league. The PTA take a lot of my time as does the Sierra Club and my volunteer work with the ACLU.

What are we doing over there anyway? Bring the boys home today. Why are we at war with the people of Iraq? Why are the Israeli's murdering innocent women and children? Let's not forget that 36% of Americans agree with me that Bush knew--he actually planned it.

And when will Halliburton and Exxon stop picking my pocket along with Merck and Pfizer? We need to eleminate the tax cuts for the rich and double the minimum wage if we are ever to emerge from our current soup-kitchen, economic depression. Half the people I know haven't had a job for 3 years.

I can't take this insanity any more, when will folks return to reality and come to their senses? I'm getting angrier by the minute. I'm really pissed. Oh yeah, I certainly did vote for Ned, that Lieberman guy is clueless. Kerry and Murtha got it right.

Your pal,

Al

You are dead on.

Liberal Americans think that 9/11 was a protest.

"Mother of Satan" Technical note:

This home-made explosive stuff was used in the July 7 2005 London bombings, and was the stuff
in Richard Reid's shoes.

Taken from: http://www.janes.com/

"Triacetonetriperoxide (TATP) is a
highly volatile, highly explosive compound
made from widely available chemicals,
including acetone, hydrogen peroxide
and a mineral acid."

"The work done by the detonation of
TATP is about 80 per cent that of TNT,
its detonation velocity being about 5250 m/s."

http://www.janes.com/security/law_enforcement/news/jtic/jtic050722_1_n.shtml

Being 80% as good as TNT suggests to me
that carry-on luggage would provide ample
volume for a sufficient quantity to bring
down an airliner. I'm sure the terrorists
know how much is required.

You people are paranoid

Please folks, don't fall for the Republican fear mongering. In five years these people have only been able to knock over two buildings and kill three thousand people. That's an average of about 600 people per year. Of course it's horrible, but my God, keep it in perspective. Y'all are losing all sense of proportion.

The Muslim world does not pose an existential threat to the United States of America. If, and at this point it is a HUGE if, Iran were to get hold of a Nuclear weapon and take out Seattle for instance. The next day Iran would be turned to glass. Do you really think the Iranians are that stupid? Do you really think they want to be remembered as the dumbest nation in the history of the world?

The Soviet Union was a huge threat. The Axis Powers were a huge threat. These rag tag barbarians with boxcutters and homemade bombs are no where near that kind of threat. (Yes they are a threat but keep it in perspective.)

Oh, and PearlGirl, do you not believe that Muslims were created in God's image? Do you not believe that ALL men are created equal?

If not, then you don't believe in either Biblical principles, or American principles.

Phylo out.

Jerry et al.

Try this link to go directly to the video:
http://attacked911.tripod.com/
This video is powerful and it will touch your heart or your heart is untouchable. Make sure the sound is on--the music is an important part of the emotion you will feel. We must be "steeled" because our conflict with Islam is going to be long and I believe, brutal.

Take of the blinders, will you!!!

As long as you're looking up videos, why not pop up some popcorn and watch your buddies slice off a few American heads with a carving knife. I'm sure you feel George Bush contrived that as well to boost his popularity. My question is how in the hell does he get thousands upon thousands of people in on his schemes. The deception of this country is an amazing accomplishment considering his popularity ranking is pretty low.

TRUTHSEEKER MY EYE.

You need to do some more "seeking" boy. I have worked with explosives for 36 years and I guarantee you that a quart bottle of ammonia,
(learn how to spell), bleach and a couple of other ingredients can bring down a passenger jet. All it takes is a small hole, even a crack in the skin of the ship, at 30,000 feet to cause a blowout due to cabin pressure. One on each side, detonated at the same time, could very well cause enough damage, at the speed and altitude a jet liner flies, to cause the plane to break in half.

You think this is some kind of political ploy? You are nuts is what you are. You go to the link below and watch that video again and again then look in a mirror and try to tell yourself that the war on terror is some kind of ploy.

http://olivetreeviews.org

On the left side of the page will be a link that says "terrorism, U.S." Click on it. Then click on the "remember 9/11" icon. It takes a while to load but maybe, just maybe, it will remind you that we are fighting against suicidal crazies that need to be eliminated.

I urge everyone to look at the video. It will get to you just like it did on that fatefull day.

Under no illusion

Looking at the fool who thinks this is some kind of plan to boost ratings and sway elections, there are a lot of "him's" out there. These are people that even after the next mass murder in this country will see some plot by Bush. Their kind will not understand what is going on until the Muslims are in full attack, on the ground, in Stratford, Boston, Miami and Greensboro. There is no hope for individuals like that, we can only hope they breed out of existence.

hoodwinked?

Maybe it is not the people of Connecticut that are easly hoodwinked ---here again a terrorist threat is discovered just in time to boost standings in the polls just as we enter the pre election cycle. Repeative pattern? Just how realistic was this threat. was it another goverment sting operation where a bunch of college students were given a copy of " The Anarchivist Cook Book" and a plan for sleeping with a dozen virgins. yes you can make an explosive using bleach and amonia that will blow the lid off a cooking post but it will require a few gallons to take out an airplane. watch out for the passenger pushing a shopping cart full of gatorade!