posted on June 19, 2004 02:28:41 PM new
Think about this. Don't question your government, don't disagree with them at all and just go with the program. Flash back to August 2001 and more and more reports are coming in about terrorist activities. The President, the CIA and the FBI are all on holidays and not even talking to each other and no one is minding the store but the people have faith in the government. Well, guess what happened?
Now fast forward to today where the 9/11 Commission is questioning the government about what went wrong. Oh my, so many mistakes, such bad communication, such ignorance. And still everyone is so vulnerable because not much is being done about security and it may take at least another 5 years to fix.
Look at all the people in the US and worldwide who are questioning and now they've found out the truth about the Iraqi war. But please, please......... no one say anything out loud or the terrorists will see we are divided. Worse yet, please don’t say anything out loud or you will be accused of being anti-American and a Saddam supporter.
Yup, let's not question, let's all nod like sheep and let the government do what it wants until the whole world is blown up. Are we all going to be sitting in the corner clutching our Bibles and praying to Bush-God as he leads us down a path of destruction? Or are we going to ask the government what the hell are they thinking and how can we work together to clean up this mess?
posted on June 19, 2004 04:01:37 PM new
helen - Your Bush link says at the top:
Capitol Hill Because nobody's life, liberty or property is safe while Congress is in session.
Just WHAT type of government DO you support if not our own? Is this site pro-American to you?
And the whole article is based on RUMOR and the only factual statement in it - beside some lefites opinion is: [i]"The President and I discuss the war privately," the elder Bush said in an interview earlier this year. "That is the way it will remain."
Is that how YOU form your opinions by what some 'unknown - unidentified person' supposedly knows about the situation?
posted on June 19, 2004 04:08:21 PM new
kiara - You're great at criticizing everything this President has done - including fighting the war on terror.
You're great at continuing to say we shouldn't believe what our government tells is we need to do for national security....which includes the past THREE administrations believing saddam needed to be removed.
But where are your solutions? Do you think we should be negotiating with the likes of binladen....saddam....hamas terrorists? Just what would YOU do?
posted on June 19, 2004 04:39:15 PM new
Good propagandists will turn their enemies' words against them, and the best will sow suspicion and division among them. This is happening now in the United States, where the terrorist enemy and its allies are using the rhetoric of the current presidential campaign in their jihad against the nation. Previous cautions against rash campaign words that provide aid and comfort to the enemy were thrown out the window long ago.
Kerry steadily has become more and more shrill in his denunciations of the president as a leader, a man and a politician. Straying from legitimate policy differences with Bush or a healthy national debate about how best to fight the terrorist enemy, the Democratic nominee in waiting has yanked off the safety and fired full auto at the president.
Al-Jazeera and other anti-U.S. propaganda outlets have been quick to magnify whatever Kerry says in an attempt to show what a failure the United States has become under the Bush presidency. Kerry's increasingly strident and careless statements on the campaign trail reverberate abroad. His foul-mouthed interview with Rolling Stone became part of an Al-Jazeera feature on March 16. Although Kerry voted to let the Iraq war go forward, the Wahhabi-owned TV network noted, "He has suggested Bush's handling of the campaign is 'f-ed up.'"
"Bush misled Americans on the degree Iraq posed a threat," Kerry said in the Al-Jazeera broadcast, and the president is not "working closely enough with the international community." Bush's exclusion of France and Germany from competition for U.S. taxpayer-funded contracts to rebuild Iraq, Kerry said, was "dumb and insulting." Al-Jazeera rebroadcast, in Arabic, Kerry's allegation that in combating terrorist structures inside the United States, Bush and the Department of Justice have smeared "innocent Muslims and Arabs who pose no danger."
Such words, one of Kerry's former Senate colleagues says, grind down the image of the United States abroad and damage Washington's efforts to maintain allies and supporters in the Arabic-speaking world. With near-daily doses of extreme and careless quotations from the anti-Bush camp, Arab audiences are led to believe the worst about U.S. intentions and policies in the war on terrorism. Rather than helping the war effort with positive alternatives to counterterrorist policies they consider flawed, Kerry and other politicians are fanning the flames of hostility in the Islamic world.
The government-controlled press in Syria generally ignored President Bush's State of the Union address in January, "but on its front pages highlighted criticism that came in its wake, particularly Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry's calling Bush's [foreign] policy 'arrogant and inept,'" according to the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI), which monitors Middle Eastern news and propaganda organizations and publishes translations and analyses in English.
Even in Jordan, an Arab kingdom that has been an ally in the war against the terrorists, the editor of the Al-Arab Al-Yaum newspaper commented, "When President Bush gave his address, to hearty applause by his party in Congress, the Democrats shook their heads in condemnation."
The Kerry campaign, meanwhile, is reported to have e-mailed messages to foreign media outlets, pledging to "repair the damage" that President Bush allegedly has inflicted on the world. The Tehran Times, an English-language newspaper in the Iranian capital, reported Feb. 8 that unnamed Kerry staffers sent an e-mail to the Tehran-based Mehr News Agency apologizing for the conduct of the United States in the war on terrorism and saying that Kerry is the man to make things new again.
"Disappointment with current U.S. leadership is widespread, extending not just to the corridors of power and politics but to the man and woman on the street as well," the message said. "We also remain convinced that John Kerry has the best chance of beating the incumbent in November and putting America on a new course that will lead to a safer, more secure and more stable world."
The Kerry campaign has claimed that all of this was the work of overseas Democrats and cannot be laid at the door of its candidate.
But recent statements from Sheik Moqtada al-Sadr, the extremist Iran-backed Shiite cleric whose guerrilla army has been killing U.S. soldiers and Marines, appear to echo this and some of Bush's other Democratic critics. Within 48 hours of Sen. Edward M. Kennedy's (D-Mass.) first major characterization of Iraq as "another Vietnam," al-Sadr picked up the theme.
Soon after Kerry denounced Halliburton, the oil company formerly headed by Vice President Dick Cheney, bin Laden singled out the firm. "I stopped briefly at a gas station," Kerry said on March 30. "If prices stay that high, Dick Cheney and President Bush are going to have to carpool to work.
Those aren't Exxon prices, they are Halliburton prices." In his recording released two weeks later, according to a MEMRI translation, bin Laden denounced major corporations but named only Halliburton: "This war makes millions of dollars for big corporations, either weapons manufacturers or those working in the reconstruction [of Iraq], such as Halliburton and its sister companies."
Former Sen. Fred Thompson (R-Tenn.) observed in a recent Washington Post commentary: "Instead of trying to chart a path of progress, many of the president's critics have devoted themselves to fomenting public despair over a war, which they keep repeating, should never have been fought.
At the same time critics of the Bush administration insist it should have done more to combat al-Qaeda in Afghanistan before Sept 11." Thompson added, "They miss the more profound lesson that national tragedy should have instilled: that the only deterrent to terrorism is strength and that weakness - real and perceived - is an incitement to further attacks."
The steady, daily attacks on the war and the motivations behind it, Thompson warns, risk undermining the strong international position of the United States and turning it into one of weakness.
"Weakness is when America's leaders compare Iraq to Vietnam, announcing to the world a faltering resolve to see our mission through." This signal, Thompson argues, causes wartime allies to lose heart. "To our allies in the Middle East and beyond, these predictions of defeat send a clear and chilling message to hedge their bets, because the United States cannot be counted on. And to our enemies, they can send an equally clear message: You can win."
How silly coming from you, Linda who transcribes your news from Drudge, Fox and the Washington Times. As this history of George H.W. Bush Senior indicates --some in his own words, it can be seen that he would have likely steered the country down a much different course than the one chosen by his son who has led us into the biggest mess in American History.
"After completing 20 planes for which we have begun procurement, we will shut down further production of the B-2 bomber. We will cancel the small ICBM program. We will cease production of new warheads for our sea-based ballistic missiles. We will stop all new production of the Peacekeeper [MX] missile. And we will not purchase any more advanced cruise missiles. … The reductions I have approved will save us an additional $50 billion over the next five years. By 1997 we will have cut defense by 30 percent since I took office."
The speaker was President George H.W. Bush, the current president's father, in his State of the Union address on Jan. 28, 1992.
From 1989-92, he supported amendments to halt production of the B-2 stealth bomber.
In 1992, George H.W. Bush halted it himself.) It is true that the B-2 came in handy during the recent war in Iraq—but for reasons having nothing to do with its original rationale. From 1989-92, he supported amendments to halt production of the B-2 stealth bomber.
And more importantly, this is what Bush's father said about Saddam
"Trying to eliminate Saddam...would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible.... We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq.... there was no viable "exit strategy" we could see, violating another of our principles. Furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-Cold War world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations' mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression that we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land."
posted on June 19, 2004 05:32:39 PM new
Well helen - At least the Washington Times, The Drudge Report and Fox News ARE pro-American.
Is there some reason you won't answer questions like that? Is that how you feel about our democratic process?
Bush Sr. has himself said he felt Saddam needed to be removed. Clinton said saddam needed to be removed....now you try to use the President's own father against him. How very sad.
Linda, I'm just defending my human interest story that you found so objectionable. The point in that story was not to point out an anti-American position.
I have no interest in discussing anything with you. Find someone else, willing to treat you gently -- someone who is willing to suck up a bit in order to make a few points that you refuse to recognize. Every thought you think is repulsive to me so there is no point in trying to pursue an amicable discussion with you while you derisively laugh and make false and disparaging remarks about my character.
posted on June 19, 2004 06:32:51 PM new
LOL - Always have a reason why you won't answer a question. But boy....let one you asked not be answered and the person gets badgered until they do.
-----------
Maybe the reason the lefties can't offer a solution to the Iraq issue is because their candidate can't answer that question HIMSELF yet. Appears he keeps avoid many questions on many issues too.
--------------
By Donald Lambro
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Sen. John Kerry's fusillade of attacks on President Bush's handling of Iraq has played well with the Democrat's antiwar political base and contributors, but his reluctance to reveal an alternative to the administration's war strategy is fueling criticism among national security analysts.
"I haven't the faintest idea what his prescriptions in Iraq would be. Some people may, but I don't," said Helmut Sonnenfeldt, a national security scholar at the liberal Brookings Institution and a former State Department and National Security Council adviser.
"At some point, he is going to have to get serious if he is going to be taken seriously about how he would actually deal with the issue in a way that he as a patriotic American can support it. But he hasn't done that," Mr. Sonnenfeldt said. "At the moment, it's all attack and all name-calling and trying to take advantage of whatever uneasiness there is in the American electorate."
Even some of the backers of the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee acknowledge that they are uneasy about the negative nature of the Massachusetts senator's attacks on the administration's war policies. They would like Mr. Kerry to deal with the larger strategic issues at stake in Iraq and define his plan for protecting the United States from terrorists.
"He has said there is no easy way out and resisted the temptation to say 'cut and run,' " said Michael O'Hanlon, a Kerry campaign supporter and a senior foreign-policy fellow at Brookings.
"But I do agree that Kerry could be a little more constructive and a little less negative in his tone," Mr. O'Hanlon said. "I would like to see Kerry talk about how we can win the war in Iraq in a broader way, how we can win the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people. I'd like him to be more visionary."
Sensing that Mr. Kerry finally was coming under fire for failure to detail his approach to the war, the Bush campaign is stepping up attacks on the senator's reluctance to say what he would do if elected president.
"Instead of showing the world and the enemies of freedom that America stands firmly behind the effort in Iraq, and is committed to victory, Kerry has made the political calculation to rail against the war on terror at every stop on the campaign trail without offering any credible alternative. Kerry has no plan for the war on terror, just personal political attacks," said Nicolle Devenish, the Bush campaign's chief spokesman.
It is not just in the foreign-policy community and the Bush campaign that Mr. Kerry is encountering criticism for being all attack and no alternatives. Some of the national news media also have begun to criticize him on the war.
"It was clear this week [Kerry] had no alternative plan for pacifying Iraq, beyond a vague notion that other nations should help out," the Los Angeles Times reported Thursday.
-------------
At SOME point the voters will expect to get some answers. He can't continue to go around ONLY criticizing and offering NO solutions to the problem. People are beginning to notice.
posted on June 19, 2004 06:40:51 PM new
Linda, quit being so extreme in thought and try to center yourself and perhaps you'd understand me a bit better. And I am saying this in a reasonable tone and not being snide or nasty to you.
Just because I question the government's actions on Iraq and terrorism it doesn't mean that I want to go to the other extreme and negotiate with Bin Laden or Saddam. It doesn't mean that I support the insurgents and terrorists and it doesn't mean that I'm anti-American.
You continue to harp back to the three previous administrations but please understand that they didn't blindly rush into Iraq and cause this mess because they probably knew the consequences. We are discussing what is happening now, not then.
I truly believe that if America stands up and votes Bush out of office it will show the rest of the world that America does not stand for his rash and selfish and out-of-control actions and it will put a new face on America. That way more countries may come forward to join in and support finding a solution to a war that has got completely out of control for all.
For you to suggest that everyone just shut up and go with the program even when they think it's wrong is not the position that many free thinking individuals would choose to do because it's not what they believe in, even though they may also believe in God and read the Bible.
I know it may be difficult for you to accept or rationalize but there are many people worldwide who see the facts and are in agreement that Bush went into Iraq without taking the advice of intelligent people who were most aware of what may happen. He did this and if he gets voted in again he may become even more power-happy and rush into something else even more serious. Why take the risk?
If you wish to believe otherwise you have the freedom to do so and I'm not calling you names or putting you down for thinking as you do.
posted on June 19, 2004 06:53:15 PM new
kiara your hatred of President Bush just reinforces my desire to see him reelected for 4 more years...
Can you even vote here? I would like to have that question answered...
There is plenty of time to disagree after this is done... finish the job and then b*tch all you want... I hope that soon canada gets attacked... then lets see what happens.
posted on June 19, 2004 07:08:50 PM new
Thanks for posting this column. It's an excellent one.
I don't hate Bush, either, but I don't have respect for him, his apparent level of education, or his reasoning ability. We deserve a smart, educated president as a role model--one who can speak without reading his every line. (Like Clinton, dare I say it?)
Bob: If I'm ever a widow, you can be my second husband.
Linda: Once more. Spell-checker!
___________________________________
As I've matured, I've learned . .
#2. . . that the people you care most about in life are taken from you too soon and all the less important ones just never go away. And the real pains in the butt are permanent.
posted on June 19, 2004 11:10:26 PM newMy computer burped this morning as I was about to post so I left a BBL.
I had things to do today so I left, mad, but assuming that someone, hell, a BUNCH of people would react to what I saw- the most DESPICABLE post I have ever seen on this board.
We all know where Linda stands politically and her view of anyone to the left of Attila the Hun; we are all aware of her calls to give up our Freedom of political expression because in her opinion it is treasonous, a legal concept she obviously has little understanding of; we all know that her ideas are supported by "news" sources so biased that they make Rush Limbaugh look like a liberal. And yet, knowing all this, I was flabbergasted at what she said and almost as amazed that noone has taken her to task for it.
I'm a Republican, been one for years, just not a Bushite, or if you prefer, not a NeoCon Troglodyte. and yet, I am OUTRAGED at her statement.
Linda posted on June 18, 2004 06:19:00 PM
"...I am really hopeful there are no democrats that wish us to loose this war in Iraq, although sometimes it does appear to me that's what the lefties would like to see....only to make this President look bad."
ARE YOU KIDDING ME!?!?!
In her cutesy backhanded way ("..I am really hopeful.." ) she infers that there ARE Democrats that wish to see our nation lose in Iraq, with the anguish, the emotional and political costs and the loss of life both military and civilian so their candidate can be elected to the Presidency.
"..although sometimes it appears to me that's what the lefties would like to see.,"
makes it clear that she isn't referring to some nutcase radical still stewing over the 60's movement, she's referring to a larger group, avowed democrats and liberals, republicans who don't support Bush, in fact, anyone that doesn't subscribe to the simplistic political viewpoint that she espouses.
She'll come back here and defend what she said, explain it, spin it, pretend it isn't what it is , but it is what it is.
Think it's OK? Maybe Bear and Parklane and Twelvepole and some of the other Bushies will come along and support her-let me put it another way....
I am really hopeful there are no BUSH supporters that wish for another 9/11 attack before the election, although sometimes it does appear to me that's what the Bushies would like to see...only so their candidate can climb on the rubble and look more Presidential, more Heroic, and have a better chance at re-election.
Linda, you owe an apology to everyone on this board for that statement- and if you had any sense of decency you would be crying over what you have inferred here of loyal Americans and your fellow Vendio posters.
edited to correct a typo, remove an unintended smiley, and add bolding(twice)
[ edited by bob9585 on Jun 19, 2004 11:17 PM ]
[ edited by bob9585 on Jun 19, 2004 11:20 PM ]
posted on June 19, 2004 11:18:43 PM new
I will preface this by saying that I'm speaking in a quiet calm manner because I know that some of you read different tones into posts than what the writer intended.
Twelvepole, I don't hate Bush and this is not the first time I've had to explain this to some of you. Just because I don't agree with the man it doesn't mean that I feel hatred for him. I can't hate anyone and I believe that hatred destroys one from inside and you can no longer be happy.
It's an interesting observation that I've had for quite awhile here and I've mentioned it before. Why do some of you always see "hate" in a viewpoint that differs from your own and why do you use that word so often? Are you so extreme that you actually think that if someone doesn't approve of something that they have to "hate" it? Or is it because you feel so much hatred coming from within yourselves? If so, can that hatred actually reflect from out of you into the words you read from someone else on your screen so you assume they also write with hate?
I hope that soon canada gets attacked... then lets see what happens.
Why do you want Canada attacked, twelvepole? Do you think because I live here now instead of the US, it will teach me a lesson for speaking out? I think that anyone who holds dual citizenship or lives in any other country for that matter should have the right to express his or her views here, regardless of the topic.
It's difficult to communicate reasonably here when some of you feel so threatened or are so insecure in your own beliefs that you have to resort to personal attacks each and every time you respond to others who don’t agree with you.
posted on June 20, 2004 12:34:31 AM new
Bob, I didn't see your post on top of mine as I was writing mine at the same time but thanks for mentioning that. Thanks also for admitting that it made you mad and outraged because I understand somewhat how you may feel.
Yes, I saw Linda_K's comment but I didn't respond to it because she thinks I want the US to lose the war also.
When the prison abuse photos were released someone else on this board made this comment:
The lefties must be delighted to see the US and our military disgraced like this.
I did respond to that one.
That's why I find it difficult at times to communicate with some here. I don't understand their preconceived notions about some of us.
posted on June 20, 2004 05:54:57 AM new
"I will preface this by saying that I'm speaking in a quiet calm manner because I know that some of you read different tones into posts than what the writer intended.
I am happy you said this before you started your post. I think may posters here do take it the wrong way in how people write and post. This goes for everyone that partakes in a discussion which sometimes turns into words of dislike because there are some in here that only read dislike into threads.
There are a couple of threads here that are literally funny. I will not name them as I am sure there will be people that disagree with me. But that's life. JMHO I sure hope I said this right.
posted on June 20, 2004 06:12:50 AM new
Linda owes no one here on these boards an apology, especially you Bob...
Come in here an read for awhile, then post you inane diatribe... was good for a laugh or to but nothing else...
Some people posting here would love to see us lose in Iraq to reinforce their anti-american sentiments.
I see once again you avoided answering my direct question Kiara, can you vote in the United States?
Is it a personal attack asking if you can vote in this country? I think not...
It is funny though that you feel "attacked" because some here see your posts as strictly anti-american... however you had the gall to suggest I was homosexual because of my posts... Now that is funny LOL
If Canada were attacked then, they would understand the need to fight this on someone else's property and not thier own..
They seem to be missing the big picture.... as usual.
AIN'T LIFE GRAND...
[ edited by Twelvepole on Jun 20, 2004 06:34 AM ]
Kiara said, "I don't understand their preconceived notions about some of us."
That's because there is no basis for their preconceived notions. Do you remember the thread in which I invited every dam one of them to give me the basis for their allegation that I was a socialist or "farther left than socialism" and not a single answer was received from anyone After asking the question several times. I made it simple for those who might have trouble formulating an answer and suggested that they could state only one reason for their belief. Nothing was heard from anyone in the group. Even Linda, who made the allegation and led everyone to believe it by constant repetition couldn't answer or provide any basis whatsoever.
I doubt that most of them could define socialism if we gave them a pop quiz.
posted on June 20, 2004 07:34:30 AM new
Was that during my vacation Helen?
Socialism
(n.) A theory or system of social reform which contemplates a complete reconstruction of society, with a more just and equitable distribution of property and labor. In popular usage, the term is often employed to indicate any lawless, revolutionary social scheme.
Is that the definition you were looking for...
Not even close to what this country is about, we are about independence from each other, but unified against a common enemey
We admire those who took it upon themselves to better themself, but take umbrance on those who would do nothing but ask for handouts.
Johnson started this Great Society crap and ever since then we have generations of welfare families.
I personally know of several families who have not worked a job in years but have worked the welfare system for all its worth... is that your idea of utopia?
This is not Star Trek, we have poverty, we have people living in the streets, why? Because they can make more on government handouts than they can working, we have done this for society, most people who stand on street corners are there by CHOICE, they would rather do that than do an honest days work.
We as a society have allowed this to happen, we as a society have let these inviduals get away with it... try offering these people a job sometime, see the reaction get... most times the answer will be "No" or they claim to have so many things wrong with them they actually can't work.
Well I for one do not support these people, I do occasionaly toss out a job fair flyer to see them read it and then crumple it up and throw it away.
Socialism is the worst kind of society and those advocating it have no real concept of reality.
Do away with welfare and make these people work, there are jobs out there and there is nothing wrong with being a janitor if you take pride in your work.
I for one refuse to allow this government to give my money to those who have not earned it.
I always love seeing the biggest cop out in the world on a sign "Homeless Vet" That is pure BS and any vetran can tell you there are programs for them, they are either to busy doping or drinking to understand and would rather receive handouts from strangers.
We need to kick these people in the ass, not give them a handout.
"Some people posting here would love to see us lose in Iraq to reinforce their anti-American sentiments."
Now, the question is who are "anti-Americans". Are they defined by their nationality or their preferred form of government? Are they Communists? Are they Socialists, Fascists or Nazis? Or could they just be people who don't agree with Bush policy? I don't see any anti-American terrorists on this board. Do you?
I don't believe that losing in Iraq would reinforce anyone who might have anti-American sentiments. We lost in Vietnam and our country was not destroyed by anti-Americans. The commies didn't even take over. The Socialists didn't take over. We can also survive this debacle started by the Bush administration. Unfortunately, it will take many years to stabilize our position in the international community and to recoup the billions of dollars that Bush shot to hell. The lives lost on both sides will live in our memory - hopefully giving us cause not to repeat such a horrific, needless warmongering policy in the future.
Helen
Have to go out for awhile...Have a Happy Father's Day Everybody!!!
posted on June 20, 2004 09:07:28 AM new
anti-american terrorists... no, anti-american sentiments; yes.
Negativity abounds about the US on these boards
People do have the right to complain about thier President and administration policies, however this is not the 80's or even the 90's we are at war with terrorists throughout the world... complain but offer some viable solutions... I have yet to see a viable solution and bringing the troops home is not a viable solution.
posted on June 20, 2004 04:21:23 PM new
No, Bob, I don't owe anyone an apology for stating how I see this situation - what the left is doing is detrimental to our troops on the ground as my 'treason' article pointed out....our enemies LOVE what the these dem leaders are doing and support them against a President that is taking care of business. That's very sad to me. I understand it won't change....there's an election try and win. It just use to be that once the 'discussion' about going to war had been made....the people pulled together for American to win. I don't see that coming from the screaming democratic leaders....especially the one who wants to be our next president.
THEY are the one's who owe an apology to our troops who keep asking 'do we still have the support of the American people'? And even at Thanksgiving time old hillary had to just work so very hard not to tell them what she was really thinking. BUT ...she VOTED to send them over there. She and all these other screaming idiots need to take personal responsibility for THEIR OWN votes.
posted on June 20, 2004 04:39:36 PM newI don't believe that losing in Iraq would reinforce anyone who might have anti-American sentiments.
That coming from someone who, from the first foot we put on their soil, was calling for our nation to 'admit defeat' and run. YES HELEN...you did later say at the earliest opportunity. Still called for us admitting defeat when we first went in thought. Most wouldn't agree - immediately admitting defeat to our enemies as supporting your country or our troops.
Most, IMO, would be hoping our troops quickly got the situation under control and that we COULD declare victory against saddam's supporters.
BUT...on your above comment.....most would only have to look to the reaction of the people in Fullajah when our troops called for a temporary 'cease fire' -
to see that THEY took it as a loss for our troops and a win for their side.
posted on June 20, 2004 05:38:28 PM new "Some people posting here would love to see us lose in Iraq to reinforce their anti-American sentiments."
My comment was addressed to Twelvepole who made the statement above...not to you. I have no interest in your skewed interpretation of what you incorrectly state that I have said. If you will notice, I'm seldom reading or commenting on your statements anymore unless while scanning, I see my name mentioned. Please show me the same courtesy that I am showing to you right now. I have absolutely no interest in your comments and no respect for your opinions on anything. How can I make it more clear to you than that.
