Congratulations Bush on New Milestone!!

[RRocket]

The U.S. military death toll in Iraq has reached 2,974, one more than the number of deaths in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks in the United States, according to an Associated Press count on Tuesday.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20061226/D8M8AVJG0.html

 

[formerknown]

Awesome! Only 1.2 billion more to go!

 

[MAC1]

The U.S. military death toll in Iraq has reached 2,974, one more than the number of deaths in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks in the United States, according to an Associated Press count on Tuesday.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20061226/D8M8AVJG0.html

OK! And your point?

Don't get me wrong, I think it's horrible for American soldiers to die in battle but that's a given when a nation is at war--So, again, what's your overall point.

 

[formerknown]

OK! And your point?

Don't get me wrong, I think it's horrible for American soldiers to die in battle but that's a given when a nation is at war--So, again, what's your overall point.

There isn't a point; it's a scare tactic- nothing more, nothing less. Twice as many soldiers died daily in WWI and WWII. The only difference between then and now is that America has many more pussies and whiners who aren't willing to fight and would rather see this country fall for all of the horrible atrocities it has committed in recent years. One such atrocity would be otherthrowing a dictator and allowing his people to vote. Oh how terrible!

And BTW, how many monkey terrorists have we killed in the process? Probably in the 100,000's by now. So for every 100 of them we kill, we lose two of our soldiers. Too bad that we lose two guys, buy are we really losing? I don't think so. Again, it's a media scare tactic!

 

[fossten]

The U.S. military death toll in Iraq has reached 2,974, one more than the number of deaths in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks in the United States, according to an Associated Press count on Tuesday.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20061226/D8M8AVJG0.html

Your sarcasm is extremely offensive, especially to our soldiers who are in harm's way, and to veterans like me who have served our country and worked to make us safe. You think you're funny, but really you just come across as a troop basher and Bush hater who wants to cut and run at the first sign of trouble. I hear about people like you who spit in the faces of troops in airports returning from Iraq.

Since you lack perspective, you should educate yourself and look up the total losses suffered by the US in WWII. Then you should quit bashing the soldiers and let the leaders of this country do their job.

It's purely idiotic for you to adopt the premise that Bush likes to send people to their deaths. Not one of us in this country wants us to be at war any more than is necessary, but we didn't pick this fight, and I'd rather defeat the enemy on foreign soil than have another 9/11, which by the way we are certain to have if you pacifists have your way.

 

[taylor414ce2003]

my heart goes out to the friends and family of the fallen!you can not compare the currant chain of events to any other war.The coward Bin ladden drew first blood, instead of attacking Military targets like the Japs he decided to to take out civilians-as much as I hate war or dislike Bush he has gotten the job done,most likely Bin ladden is dead,his generals are dead his plan has failed and ww3 has not started .America is still here,freedom and capitalism is growing through out the sworld

RRocket if you where pres what would you have done?

 

[bufordtpisser]

RRocket if you where pres what would you have done?

He would have changed his name to RRocket bin Laden, wrapped a towel around his head, and sent planes to pick up and deliver all of the terrorists of the world to Washington DC so they could overtake the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA without a fight. Just as all of the other pansy ass, wussy wanna-be's like John Kerry and his group of cronies. Like it has been stated before, U S of A, LOVE it or LEAVE it.

Nuff Said.

 

[DLS8K]

There isn't a point; it's a scare tactic- nothing more, nothing less. Twice as many soldiers died daily in WWI and WWII. The only difference between then and now is that America has many more pussies and whiners who aren't willing to fight and would rather see this country fall for all of the horrible atrocities it has committed in recent years. One such atrocity would be otherthrowing a dictator and allowing his people to vote. Oh how terrible!

And BTW, how many monkey terrorists have we killed in the process? Probably in the 100,000's by now. So for every 100 of them we kill, we lose two of our soldiers. Too bad that we lose two guys, buy are we really losing? I don't think so. Again, it's a media scare tactic!

Actually, the difference between this war and WWI and WWII is the tactics in which the war is fought. This war is more like Vietnam than the two World Wars. In Vietnam, our enemy was Communism. In this war, our enemy is terrorism. We are fighting a war to which there is no clear enemy. We are also fighting an enemy that uses gorilla warefare against us while we for the most part have relied on patrols and checkpoints. We will never win the war on terrorism because there will always be a group of people who wish to disrupt the fabric of peace. It has been this way since the beginning of time.

 

[fossten]

We will never win the war on terrorism because there will always be a group of people who wish to disrupt the fabric of peace. It has been this way since the beginning of time.

I completely disagree with that last statement. That is defeatist thinking, and it's incorrect. Certainly we can lose the war on terrorism, especially if we cut and run like RRocket and his bunch would prefer. If it's possible to lose a war, then it is also possible to win a war, especially since we're the United States of America. Helloooo! We don't lose wars unless we quit.

The war needs to be won at the root cause, however, which is at the elementary school level in the Arab countries, where children are being taught to hate and kill Americans and Jews. Since we can't take over their schools, we need to take away their ability to hurt us. If we bomb them back to the stone age, they can hate us all they want and it won't matter, since they will barely be able to rub two sticks together to make fire, let alone smuggle sophisticated bombs across our borders. That's how you win the war on terrorism.

 

[TheDude]

I completely disagree with that last statement. That is defeatist thinking, and it's incorrect. Certainly we can lose the war on terrorism, especially if we cut and run like RRocket and his bunch would prefer. If it's possible to lose a war, then it is also possible to win a war, especially since we're the United States of America. Helloooo! We don't lose wars unless we quit.

The war needs to be won at the root cause, however, which is at the elementary school level in the Arab countries, where children are being taught to hate and kill Americans and Jews. Since we can't take over their schools, we need to take away their ability to hurt us. If we bomb them back to the stone age, they can hate us all they want and it won't matter, since they will barely be able to rub two sticks together to make fire, let alone smuggle sophisticated bombs across our borders. That's how you win the war on terrorism.

That would only stick us in a never ending cycle of death and it would be next to impossible to "bomb them back to the stone age", at least all of them. Theoretically speaking, let’s say we bomb Iraq, Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Afghanistan, Jordan etc. (not taking into account our economic dependency on some of these countries, civilians, foreign policy and every other country ally or foe we share the planet with) then what? All you did is create masses and masses of future terrorist that you will eventually have to "bomb back into the stone age" in a never ending cycle and you most likely didn't all the current terrorist who are probably hiding out in Europe or Asia brokering a deal to buy weapons from Russia and/or China.

Your school idea is more plausible and sensible.

 

[Calabrio]

No. This is not a war on "terrorism."

It's a war on Islamic fundamentalism. The international community can't even agree upon a definition for terrorism. Terrorism is a tactic that is embraced by that Islamic death cult. We are not fighting terrorism, we are fighting people who happen to embrace the tactic of terrorism.

And this new "thresh hold," casualties exceeding the number of 9/11 dead, this was another pop-orgasm moment for the liberal media. For the days prior, they'd been tapping their leg with Bush hating enthusiasm, waiting for the casualities to mount. Just as they had before the 1,000 point and every arbitrary milestone so far.

Is this number relevant? Does it mean anything? Do we have any historical context or explanation for it's importance? Of course not, it's the media sensationalizing and editorializing the news.

How is a country expected to win a war when the causalities are exploited EVERY SINGLE NIGHT on the evening news. Can the public be expected to maintain morale with stories reported like this?

And had these same reporting methods been employed through WW2, do you really think we could have won? Or do you think that the bleeding heart press would have succeeded in convincing the public that the war wasn't our problem, that we should withdraw from the Pacific theater and let Europe deal with their own problems?

On the plus side, stories like this are a litmus test. People who repeat these news stories, and the spin, can quickly be identified as the bleeding heart, America hating, defeatists that are willing to undermine the countries security just so that they can advance their failed world view.

It's disgusting.

And have you noticed, RRocket hasn't responded? I even waited to say anything, hoping he'd interject first.

 

[fossten]

No, he's doing his impression of the drive-by media, hurling stupid statements in the hopes that he'll get some sort of reaction. Then he doesn't bother to wait around in order to defend his positions. It's cowardly IMHO, but it's 97SilverLSC's M.O.

 

[shagdrum]

Actually, the difference between this war and WWI and WWII is the tactics in which the war is fought. This war is more like Vietnam than the two World Wars. In Vietnam, our enemy was Communism. In this war, our enemy is terrorism. We are fighting a war to which there is no clear enemy. We are also fighting an enemy that uses gorilla warefare against us while we for the most part have relied on patrols and checkpoints. We will never win the war on terrorism because there will always be a group of people who wish to disrupt the fabric of peace. It has been this way since the beginning of time.

Actually, in the case of Vietnam, the reason we couldn't win wasn't because there was no clear enemy, it was because of the politics of the time. In the Korean war, we had North Korea on the ropes and were on the verge of victory. This spooked China who sent in forces and pushed us back into South Korea. We were scared the same thing would happen if we invaded North Vietnam. Therefore, the military wasn't allowed to invade North Vietnam. It had nothing to do with the tactics that the ememy was using. The same goes for Iraq. There is no way we can be defeated militarily in Iraq. Terrorist leaders have already admitted this. Instead, they are conducting a propaganda war. The war on terror will be won or lost in the political arena here in the U.S.

 

[DLS8K]

No. This is not a war on "terrorism."

It's a war on Islamic fundamentalism. The international community can't even agree upon a definition for terrorism. Terrorism is a tactic that is embraced by that Islamic death cult. We are not fighting terrorism, we are fighting people who happen to embrace the tactic of terrorism.

And this new "thresh hold," casualties exceeding the number of 9/11 dead, this was another pop-orgasm moment for the liberal media. For the days prior, they'd been tapping their leg with Bush hating enthusiasm, waiting for the casualities to mount. Just as they had before the 1,000 point and every arbitrary milestone so far.

Is this number relevant? Does it mean anything? Do we have any historical context or explanation for it's importance? Of course not, it's the media sensationalizing and editorializing the news.

How is a country expected to win a war when the causalities are exploited EVERY SINGLE NIGHT on the evening news. Can the public be expected to maintain morale with stories reported like this?

And had these same reporting methods been employed through WW2, do you really think we could have won? Or do you think that the bleeding heart press would have succeeded in convincing the public that the war wasn't our problem, that we should withdraw from the Pacific theater and let Europe deal with their own problems?

On the plus side, stories like this are a litmus test. People who repeat these news stories, and the spin, can quickly be identified as the bleeding heart, America hating, defeatists that are willing to undermine the countries security just so that they can advance their failed world view.

It's disgusting.

And have you noticed, RRocket hasn't responded? I even waited to say anything, hoping he'd interject first.

I'm just calling it a war on terrorism because our president has called it such (and that isn't being sarcastic). I do, however, agree with most of your statements. The media has changed the way the public views war and I do not feel it has had a positive effect.

 

[DLS8K]

Actually, in the case of Vietnam, the reason we couldn't win wasn't because there was no clear enemy, it was because of the politics of the time. In the Korean war, we had North Korea on the ropes and were on the verge of victory. This spooked China who sent in forces and pushed us back into South Korea. We were scared the same thing would happen if we invaded North Vietnam. Therefore, the military wasn't allowed to invade North Vietnam. It had nothing to do with the tactics that the ememy was using. The same goes for Iraq. There is no way we can be defeated militarily in Iraq. Terrorist leaders have already admitted this. Instead, they are conducting a propaganda war. The war on terror will be won or lost in the political arena here in the U.S.

Carefully read my post again. I said tactics for both sides. Our tactics/strategy was radically different than those of our enemy much like the case is with our current war. I do, however, agree with your statement that we can not be defeated militarily. It will be a moral defeat for us......much as the case was in Vietnam.

 

[RRocket]

Your sarcasm is extremely offensive, especially to our soldiers who are in harm's way, and to veterans like me who have served our country and worked to make us safe. You think you're funny, but really you just come across as a troop basher and Bush hater who wants to cut and run at the first sign of trouble. I hear about people like you who spit in the faces of troops in airports returning from Iraq.

Since you lack perspective, you should educate yourself and look up the total losses suffered by the US in WWII. Then you should quit bashing the soldiers and let the leaders of this country do their job.

It's purely idiotic for you to adopt the premise that Bush likes to send people to their deaths. Not one of us in this country wants us to be at war any more than is necessary, but we didn't pick this fight, and I'd rather defeat the enemy on foreign soil than have another 9/11, which by the way we are certain to have if you pacifists have your way.

As usual, you make assumptions without knowing jack about me. Nothing new there, and I'm not offended. I've come to know (and love?) these knee-jerk reactions/statements from you.

I hope my reaction is offensive to you. It should be. I'm offended that the lives of these US soldiers mean so little to Bush. Typical of a Rep. to think that opposing the war/Bush means that you automatically don't support the troops. Stupid, actually. I DO support the troops...they are in a horrid situation. Which is why I get more and more annoyed everytime one of them dies needlessly for Bush's little war games. I DO NOT support Bush for putting these people in harm's way.

Oh you can try to make a comparison between WWII and Iraq. But it would be stupid, and honestly I never thought you'd try to make the leap. In WWII America had little choice of fighting. Afterall, Germany was a serious threat to the United States...to the WORLD. They had the weapons, the manpower, and the willpower to try and take over the world. Not so with Iraq. No vast military anymore, no air force, no Navy, no WMD and no missile capable of flying beyond 90 miles. No way to take the war to the US even if they wanted to. Were they a huge threat to the US that required risking of US lives there? NO. You can't try and sell that one to me. IRAQ WAS NO THREAT TO THE US. You know it, and I know it. I'm not even sure they were a threat to anyone in the Middle East after Gulf War 1.

And as far as saying that I hate soldiers is stupidity. You have no clue. I also served in the forces. Trained with US soldiers too. My mom is MARRIED to a US soldier with 24 years of service. His brother just came back from Iraq. Trish's grandfather served for the US in WWII and saw action aboard a vessel in the Pacific (he's Canadian though). We donate $$ and books to http://booksforsoldiers.com/
I also donated a lithograph to another Lincoln club member. He is a pilot in the Air Force and I donated it to his squadron's rec room.

No..I LIKE soldiers. Which is why I get pissed when one of them gets murdered because of Bush Co. stupid war. Not a SINGLE soldier's life was worth losing for Iraq. There was no point in being there. And using terrorism and WMD as excuses when there was ample evidence that suggested otherwise makes it even worse.

If the US really wanted to do something to protect itself, Saudi Arabia is MANY MANY times more deadly to the US than Iraq could ever be.

So be offended. I am. And I hope everytime you hear a soldier getting killed over there you are as offended as me. Screw Bush and his follies.

 

[shagdrum]

you can't separate the troops from their mission. Either you support the mission and therefore the troops or u oppose the mission and therefore are not supporting the troops. If u don't support the mission it hurts troop morale, that isn't support in any fashion. What u r doin is givin lip service to supporting the troops, but hurting troop morale

 

[fossten]

As usual, you make assumptions without knowing jack about me. Nothing new there, and I'm not offended. I've come to know (and love?) these knee-jerk reactions/statements from you.

I hope my reaction is offensive to you. It should be. I'm offended that the lives of these US soldiers mean so little to Bush. Typical of a Rep. to think that opposing the war/Bush means that you automatically don't support the troops. Stupid, actually. I DO support the troops...they are in a horrid situation. Which is why I get more and more annoyed everytime one of them dies needlessly for Bush's little war games. I DO NOT support Bush for putting these people in harm's way.

Oh you can try to make a comparison between WWII and Iraq. But it would be stupid, and honestly I never thought you'd try to make the leap. In WWII America had little choice of fighting. Afterall, Germany was a serious threat to the United States...to the WORLD. They had the weapons, the manpower, and the willpower to try and take over the world. Not so with Iraq. No vast military anymore, no air force, no Navy, no WMD and no missile capable of flying beyond 90 miles. No way to take the war to the US even if they wanted to. Were they a huge threat to the US that required risking of US lives there? NO. You can't try and sell that one to me. IRAQ WAS NO THREAT TO THE US. You know it, and I know it. I'm not even sure they were a threat to anyone in the Middle East after Gulf War 1.

And as far as saying that I hate soldiers is stupidity. You have no clue. I also served in the forces. Trained with US soldiers too. My mom is MARRIED to a US soldier with 24 years of service. His brother just came back from Iraq. Trish's grandfather served for the US in WWII and saw action aboard a vessel in the Pacific (he's Canadian though). We donate $$ and books to http://booksforsoldiers.com/
I also donated a lithograph to another Lincoln club member. He is a pilot in the Air Force and I donated it to his squadron's rec room.

No..I LIKE soldiers. Which is why I get pissed when one of them gets murdered because of Bush Co. stupid war. Not a SINGLE soldier's life was worth losing for Iraq. There was no point in being there. And using terrorism and WMD as excuses when there was ample evidence that suggested otherwise makes it even worse.

If the US really wanted to do something to protect itself, Saudi Arabia is MANY MANY times more deadly to the US than Iraq could ever be.

So be offended. I am. And I hope everytime you hear a soldier getting killed over there you are as offended as me. Screw Bush and his follies.

That's one of the most immature posts I've ever read on this forum. Listen to yourself, spewing your po wittle emotions all over the rest of us. You sound like a woman; all anger, no thought or reasoning. You obviously have no conception of what it takes to keep a nation safe or free.

You certainly don't understand the purpose of the military. You think the military should be hidden safely away so the boys won't be in harm's way. That's idiotic. The military is only designed for two things: To kill people and break things. If anything was a waste of the military's time, it was the Meals on Wheels in Somalia that Clinton sponsored in his Presidency. Your opinion is a joke. You don't even think we're at war, and you are so ignorant as to think that Iraq was no threat to us, this despite the fact that they threatened us and our allies with WMDs.

The FACTS are that our nation was weakened because of Clinton's appeasement and incompetent policies, and we were attacked because of it. We are at war, and Iraq is only one front we are fighting in that war. You still haven't explained satisfactorily why a comparison to WWII is inappropriate. The terrorists and their sponsoring nations ARE A THREAT to the rest of that continent known as the Middle East, and in case you forgot, we have ALLIES over there (or are you a Jew-hater?). The leader of Iran thinks he is the beginning of the second coming of the 12th Imam which will destroy Israel and the West, and he has nukes. Oh, but there's no threat, right?

We know for a FACT that Saddam had ties to Al Qaeda. There's no absolute proof that he was behind 9/11, but that doesn't matter. Germany wasn't behind Pearl Harbor, either, but at least Roosevelt had the sense to know that a Nazi-dominated Europe would bode ill for us. The parallels are startlingly clear FOR THOSE WITH HALF A BRAIN. Sorry you're not in that category. If you're going to spew hate and ignorance all over the rest of us you will be marginalized just like Johnny and Phil. Congratulations for putting yourself on the side of the far left and the truly ignorant in this country.

 

[mespock]

As usual, you make assumptions without knowing jack about me. Nothing new there, and I'm not offended. I've come to know (and love?) these knee-jerk reactions/statements from you.

I hope my reaction is offensive to you. It should be. I'm offended that the lives of these US soldiers mean so little to Bush. Typical of a Rep. to think that opposing the war/Bush means that you automatically don't support the troops. Stupid, actually. I DO support the troops...they are in a horrid situation. Which is why I get more and more annoyed everytime one of them dies needlessly for Bush's little war games. I DO NOT support Bush for putting these people in harm's way.

Oh you can try to make a comparison between WWII and Iraq. But it would be stupid, and honestly I never thought you'd try to make the leap. In WWII America had little choice of fighting. Afterall, Germany was a serious threat to the United States...to the WORLD. They had the weapons, the manpower, and the willpower to try and take over the world. Not so with Iraq. No vast military anymore, no air force, no Navy, no WMD and no missile capable of flying beyond 90 miles. No way to take the war to the US even if they wanted to. Were they a huge threat to the US that required risking of US lives there? NO. You can't try and sell that one to me. IRAQ WAS NO THREAT TO THE US. You know it, and I know it. I'm not even sure they were a threat to anyone in the Middle East after Gulf War 1.

And as far as saying that I hate soldiers is stupidity. You have no clue. I also served in the forces. Trained with US soldiers too. My mom is MARRIED to a US soldier with 24 years of service. His brother just came back from Iraq. Trish's grandfather served for the US in WWII and saw action aboard a vessel in the Pacific (he's Canadian though). We donate $$ and books to http://booksforsoldiers.com/
I also donated a lithograph to another Lincoln club member. He is a pilot in the Air Force and I donated it to his squadron's rec room.

No..I LIKE soldiers. Which is why I get pissed when one of them gets murdered because of Bush Co. stupid war. Not a SINGLE soldier's life was worth losing for Iraq. There was no point in being there. And using terrorism and WMD as excuses when there was ample evidence that suggested otherwise makes it even worse.

If the US really wanted to do something to protect itself, Saudi Arabia is MANY MANY times more deadly to the US than Iraq could ever be.

So be offended. I am. And I hope everytime you hear a soldier getting killed over there you are as offended as me. Screw Bush and his follies.

Rocket your point is well made and worth the posting. Get ready for the anti American comments you pink oh towel headed coward (that's just some members on this forum's way of debating thinking that they are mature and great debaters, one in general this is basically his only forum because he knows Jack about nothing he only like Bush and blindly follows anything Bush says and does. Most others just have a more rightist belief and because this is America are welcome to those beliefs).

 

[mespock]

Germany wasn't behind Pearl Harbor, either, but at least Roosevelt had the sense to know that a Nazi-dominated Europe would bode ill for us. The parallels are startlingly clear FOR THOSE WITH HALF A BRAIN. Sorry you're not in that category. If you're going to spew hate and ignorance all over the rest of us you will be marginalized just like Johnny and Phil. Congratulations for putting yourself on the side of the far left and the truly ignorant in this country.

We declared war on Japan who was an allie of Germany after the attack on Pearl Harbor not on Gremany. Declaring war on Japan caused Germany to declare war on the US.

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

If you're going to spew hate and ignorance all over the rest of us you will be marginalized just like Johnny and Phil. Congratulations for putting yourself on the side of the far left and the truly ignorant in this country.

LOL. I haven't posted here in nearly a month, and you STILL harbor ill feelings towards me? And this comment coming from a guy that holds the record for number of threads started and IGNORED by the rest of LvC members? Do you even post here other than in the Politics forum? Speaking of marginallized dead weight here, YOU take the cake, "Percy Wetmore". :bowrofl:

RRocket, as you can see, the primary responses here to your post over the holidays comes from those who have no life outside of cyberspace. Pretty pathetic if you think about it. You've got a valid point of being pissed that we've lost more lives in Iraq (not to mention in Afghanistan) over this "Revenge for 9/11" that STILL has not netted the man responsible.

BuSh and those who support and follow him and his policies are nothing more than pathetic simpletons who don't give a crap about anyone else but themselves.

 

[RRocket]

LOL. I haven't posted here in nearly a month, and you STILL harbor ill feelings towards me? And this comment coming from a guy that holds the record for number of threads started and IGNORED by the rest of LvC members? Do you even post here other than in the Politics forum? Speaking of marginallized dead weight here, YOU take the cake, "Percy Wetmore". :bowrofl:

RRocket, as you can see, the primary responses here to your post over the holidays comes from those who have no life outside of cyberspace. Pretty pathetic if you think about it. You've got a valid point of being pissed that we've lost more lives in Iraq (not to mention in Afghanistan) over this "Revenge for 9/11" that STILL has not netted the man responsible.

BuSh and those who support and follow him and his policies are nothing more than pathetic simpletons who don't give a crap about anyone else but themselves.

Well I never had a problem with you guys in Afghanistan. That was justified IMO. Iraq and Al-Quaeda? No link. Even the 9/11 Commission said there was no sufficient evidence of Iraq/Al-Queda. Heck...Bush had a closer realtionship to Al-Queda when the Taliban was invited to Texas than Saddam had with Al-Queda...

And no...the flames never worry me. Fossten is harmless too. I do enjoy his explosive repsonses though!!

 

[97silverlsc]

That's one of the most immature posts I've ever read on this forum. Listen to yourself, spewing your po wittle emotions all over the rest of us. You sound like a woman; all anger, no thought or reasoning. You obviously have no conception of what it takes to keep a nation safe or free.

You certainly don't understand the purpose of the military. You think the military should be hidden safely away so the boys won't be in harm's way. That's idiotic. The military is only designed for two things: To kill people and break things. If anything was a waste of the military's time, it was the Meals on Wheels in Somalia that Clinton sponsored in his Presidency. Your opinion is a joke. You don't even think we're at war, and you are so ignorant as to think that Iraq was no threat to us, this despite the fact that they threatened us and our allies with WMDs.

The FACTS are that our nation was weakened because of Clinton's appeasement and incompetent policies, and we were attacked because of it. We are at war, and Iraq is only one front we are fighting in that war. You still haven't explained satisfactorily why a comparison to WWII is inappropriate. The terrorists and their sponsoring nations ARE A THREAT to the rest of that continent known as the Middle East, and in case you forgot, we have ALLIES over there (or are you a Jew-hater?). The leader of Iran thinks he is the beginning of the second coming of the 12th Imam which will destroy Israel and the West, and he has nukes. Oh, but there's no threat, right?

We know for a FACT that Saddam had ties to Al Qaeda. There's no absolute proof that he was behind 9/11, but that doesn't matter. Germany wasn't behind Pearl Harbor, either, but at least Roosevelt had the sense to know that a Nazi-dominated Europe would bode ill for us. The parallels are startlingly clear FOR THOSE WITH HALF A BRAIN. Sorry you're not in that category. If you're going to spew hate and ignorance all over the rest of us you will be marginalized just like Johnny and Phil. Congratulations for putting yourself on the side of the far left and the truly ignorant in this country.

So sayeth the Fuehrer! Heil fossie, heil fossie.

 

[Frogman]

Do you even post here other than in the Politics forum?

Don't look like he does. At least according to his last 500 posts.

Makes me wonder though... why come and debate politics on a CAR RELATED forum? Not e-thuggish enough (Oh snap, I just personally attacked him - Get over it Fossy) to argue politics on Forums that are geared towards your subject?


Oh Well... I guess there's one in every village.

 

[MonsterMark]

Makes me wonder though... why come and debate politics on a CAR RELATED forum?...(Oh snap, I just personally attacked him - Get over it Fossy)

Froggy, what's with the attitude and why are YOU participating in a CAR RELATED political forum?

Everybody visits websites for different reasons. I started the political forum here on LVC for guys like Fossten and others (and myself actually) that happen to like the 'atmosphere' of a car forum centering around a car they own.

We also have a 'gold' member's only section that happens to cater to guys (and gals) need to see a lot more of the other sex. Is that also bad to have on a car forum? Heck, some of the best political forums are on car sites. Check out the Corvette guys if you don't believe me.

The only problem with this forum on LVC is all the personal jabs people have to take at each other. Shows a lack of respect and creativeness if you ask me.

So although I greeted you with Froggy, don't take offense. It was only meant to serve as an example of what should NOT be doing when 'debating' fellow members. All of us need to clean things up a bit and and make it enjoyable to discuss the events of the day with fellow CAR enthusiasts.