Civil war

[HGM]

Do you know who we are fighting? Have you ever experienced these people? Have you seen what they do to our innocent civilians to spread terror into our country? They are cowards who face no rules. In my opinion, they have no rights.. If feel this Abu Garib scandal was absolutly rediculous.. Here we are chastizing our men and women for "hazing" these worthless bastards while they are beheading innocent civilians on TV (because they are terrified of our troops).. They are winning the war when we allow them to make our troops look like the bad guys..

I think that the comments I made may have come across a bit too strong, but yes I do believe we need to turn our heads to some of the stuff happening over there and let our troops win the war to bring democracy to those people and let ours come home..If it creates terror in their minds, we have levaled the playing feild.. The longer we play games, the more lives are lost and the worse we look in the worlds eyes..Time is not on our side in war.. The French are really good at getting their ass kicked by ignoring the facts, they are not a good example for us to follow..

 

[dzalphakilo]

They must be allowed to finnish the job before they come home.

Please define "job".

 

[thcri]

No doubt they have to finish the job before they come home. I originally was for the war but as time goes I am not so sure anymore. It probably will be like all the other wars. We will have people there for a long time.

 

[HarryG]

I'm sorry. Statements like "Media presence must be limited" and "The troops must do what they have to do" and "The Geneva convention rules are going to help us lose this war" are terrifyingly frightening to me.

Saddam Hussein was a member of the minority Sunni Muslims in Iraq. He could not have ruled in a democracy. He had to "do what they had to do" (kill anyone who oppposed him, using any methods) outside of any civilized rules (like the Geneva Convention), and keep it quiet (by controlling the media).

Is that really what you want us to do?

Don,
I know you will absolutely disagree and I feel its due to your bias but thats my opine of your view.
We have our guys playing by the rules (disregarding some undisaplined Abu Graub soldiers playing games). This has been beaten to death in the media. We have as the adversary, a enemy that only knows only terrorism and deceit as its method to attack its adversary. Planting bombs, suicide bombers, murdering innocent civilians, children and dispecible acts on the captured/kidnapped.
In essence we are following the Geneva convention but have the media poking cameras in the face of some soldier just trying to stay alive and do their job and now they have to worry if I'm going to be accused of doing wrong.
Ask any soldier that has been there as a ground troop in the mix about being captured. They will seriously just give the answer "Don't"
They mean any day you go out and it comes down to it you must fight to the death. Surrender is not an option. I know because my Son who served there told me this.
This enemy fights like Sadam Hussein. Murder, torture, outside of any rules so what good is the Geneva Convention. How do you fight such a enemy? with you hands tied by the media?
Put yourself mentally in such a situation if thats "possible".
Maybe throw flowers at them?
I want them to come home also but I want the job done once and for all so it doesn't have to be done over.

 

[dzalphakilo]

I want them to come home also but I want the job done once and for all

Again, what is the "job"?

When in "war" and your "objectives" keep changing, it's time to re evaluate (sp?) your position (only my opinion and we all know what they are like).

When you have an invading army and it conquers its opposition, but then becomes an occupation force WITHOUT imposing it's own rules/govement upon the people of that country, that invading army is doomed if left in the occupied country that it defeated.

History, I'm sorry to say, does repeat itself.

 

[HarryG]

If we pull out now what will happen? You know it will go right back to some ruffian dicator. There comes a time when we have to finish what we started whether we agree with it or not.
We are part of a global economy and its in our interest to keep things stable in the mid-east. Lots of trouble around the corner with Iran kicking up its heels. If we can make a stable gov't in Iraq maybe we can help keep Iran in check. Wishful thinking on my part.
No real solution form me only pulling out only delays the cure.

 

[dzalphakilo]

There comes a time when we have to finish what we started

What is it that we need to finish that we started?

We kicked ass, kicked a dictator out.

3000 (?) KIA on our end, a walk in that park so to speak pertaining to the military compared to the amout of time spent there. We could spend the next ten years there and lose 30k troops and it would be "acceptable" by military standards. Or would it?

 

[Junkman]

There was a stable government in Iraq, but it just want the government that we wanted. There was a stable government in Iran, that we liked, but some people didn't like it, so it was overthrown. Why do we believe that we have the right to go in and kick out one government and impose our beliefs on the country that doesn't agree with us. Left to their own devices, the government would have either failed or changed peacefully just as has happened in the USSR, East Germany, China, etc. You cannot change a peoples views militarily. They have to do that on their own. There will always be dictators, and unless we change our way of thinking, we will always be trying to change them to our way of thinking. I don't believe that our country can afford to do this financially or politically. Unless we are attacked militarily, then we have no justification for going to war with any other country. Since we were attacked on 9/11 by a person or a group of people, not another country, we had no justification in invading Iraq. I have mixed feelings about Afghanistan, since they harbored the criminal, but were not part of the attack.

 

[OkeeDon]

...but yes I do believe we need to turn our heads to some of the stuff happening over there and let our troops win the war to bring democracy to those people...

I believe those are almost exactly the same words spoken by the Spanish Inquisition when they killed the Mayans and Incans in order to "save" them.

If we listened to you, we would be no better than the terrorists you despise. Don't you get it? The difference between them and us is that we don't do those things. If we follow your advice, there would be no difference.

 

[HGM]

Please define "job".

IMO, the job can be identified as giving the country back to its people.. Sadam took it away and had a reign of terror similar to Hitler.. We removed him in part because he was causing instability in the region.. Sorry, some will disagree, but there is no doubt in my mind that there were WMD in his hands.. Some have been found, but surely not enough to prove it to the doubters and Bush haters..I'd bet that if we could peak in Syria, we'd find a bunch.... If left alone to ignore UN sanctioned "rules" he would have grown stronger.. If you dont believe it, there's nothing I can say to prove it to you, but I believe it is a very nieve point of veiw.. Sadam had to go, untill we help the country take control of itself(which is happening with free election) the job will not be completed. But to have our media and Democratic party in general turning our troops into the "bad guys" is only self defeating..

 

[HarryG]

What is it that we need to finish that we started?

We kicked ass, kicked a dictator out.

3000 (?) KIA on our end, a walk in that park so to speak pertaining to the military compared to the amout of time spent there. We could spend the next ten years there and lose 30k troops and it would be "acceptable" by military standards. Or would it?

I'm all for NEVER interferring unless we are attacked. Lets do this across the board. No NATO, or UN. Let some other nations do the dirty work. When some dictator is committing genocide lets just sit back, voice some rhetoric opposing it and send a few $ to someone else willing to go help. Maybe France or Germay will help after all they are closer.
We either do this all the way with no exceptions or not at all.
I wonder what some of my ancestors would have said after Hitler and Stalin killed them if my forefathers thought this way. What the hell the holocost was all a lie anyways as some jerks say.
Lets ask Al Gore, he has all the answers.

 

[HGM]

I believe those are almost exactly the same words spoken by the Spanish Inquisition when they killed the Mayans and Incans in order to "save" them.

If we listened to you, we would be no better than the terrorists you despise. Don't you get it? The difference between them and us is that we don't do those things. If we follow your advice, there would be no difference.

I'm ok with that... Bet that would instill the fear and respect this country used to have back into its enemies..

Dont get me wrong, I believe in following rules.. However, when you are set up for defeat, the rules need to be modified.. We're fighting a group of people that dont have the morals you imply they should.. If you got into a fist fight with someone that had a gun, what would you do? continue throwing punches while he shot you or level the playing field? I believe if we were to allow our kids to do what they have to do, they'd be home already..

 

[Junkman]

.. We removed him in part because he was causing instability in the region..

After we kicked him out of Kuwait, the stability to the region was restored and there were no more problems. If you call the Iraq/Iran war instability, then I might agree, but as I saw it, while that war was going on, they were both fighting an endless battle and that was a good thing. While they were fighting each other, they didn't have the ability to do anything else.

Sorry, some will disagree, but there is no doubt in my mind that there were WMD in his hands.. Some have been found, but surely not enough to prove it to the doubters and Bush haters

I haven't read anywhere that any WMD were found and even the administration now admits that there were none. You must have some information that somehow has evaded the rest of the free world.

..I'd bet that if we could peak in Syria, we'd find a bunch....

If there were any that were transferred, then the administration would have given out the information, because surely, they have satellite photos of the region and could clearly prove it. We did that with Cuba in 1962!

If left alone to ignore UN sanctioned "rules" he would have grown stronger.. If you dont believe it, there's nothing I can say to prove it to you, but I believe it is a very nieve point of veiw..

He didn't ignore the UN sanctions, he was in cahoots with the UN people that ran the sanctions. That is a result of a corrupt UN officials and our not taking action against them. The corruption wasn't a secret, and our government chose not to do anything about it.

Sadam had to go, untill we help the country take control of itself(which is happening with free election) the job will not be completed. But to have our media and Democratic party in general turning our troops into the "bad guys" is only self defeating..

Whenever things don't go the way some people want it, they blame the media and the party that isn't in control. The Republicans control all branches of government, so if anything has gone wrong, they have no one to blame except themselves. The same was true during VietNam era, the Democrats were in full control and were fully to blame. There is certainly no shortage of blame to go around, but it just needs to be properly placed on the people that have caused it, not projected on others to deflect the criticism.

 

[Junkman]

The only time that any war has been stopped is either when one side runs out of money or manpower. The other thing that stops war is when the people themselves are directly involved. Until we started bombing not just the military establishment in Germany and started to go after the cities themselves, we weren't winning the war. Until we bombed the cities of Nagasaki and Hiroshima, we weren't winning the war in the Pacific. We were pushing them back, but they were still fighting. Winning is when they stop fighting. Until all the people of Iraq are directly involved, the fighting will continue. They won't all be involved until there is a Civil War and one side is victorious over the other. Even our Civil War was like that. If it wasn't, there would now be two countries.... USA South and USA North.... Texas thinks it is its own country....(subject needed some humor injected)

 

[HGM]

After we kicked him out of Kuwait, the stability to the region was restored and there were no more problems. If you call the Iraq/Iran war instability, then I might agree, but as I saw it, while that war was going on, they were both fighting an endless battle and that was a good thing. While they were fighting each other, they didn't have the ability to do anything else.


I haven't read anywhere that any WMD were found and even the administration now admits that there were none. You must have some information that somehow has evaded the rest of the free world.

If there were any that were transferred, then the administration would have given out the information, because surely, they have satellite photos of the region and could clearly prove it. We did that with Cuba in 1962!


He didn't ignore the UN sanctions, he was in cahoots with the UN people that ran the sanctions. That is a result of a corrupt UN officials and our not taking action against them. The corruption wasn't a secret, and our government chose not to do anything about it.



Whenever things don't go the way some people want it, they blame the media and the party that isn't in control. The Republicans control all branches of government, so if anything has gone wrong, they have no one to blame except themselves. The same was true during VietNam era, the Democrats were in full control and were fully to blame. There is certainly no shortage of blame to go around, but it just needs to be properly placed on the people that have caused it, not projected on others to deflect the criticism.

Ok,
I read on a couple of occasions that the troops had found one or two here or there, certainly not a stockpile, but thats what I have heard I cannot explain why anyone else hadnt heard the same..Of course, I guess I could be mistaken, though I dont think so.

The UN is corrupt, I have no real use for them as they only dictate where they would like the US to go while they are collecting money from the likes of Sadam.. He was denying to let them search for the weapons, just like last time..

As for my blame of the media and the Democraic party, its not so much for the war, its for the creating the negative impression of our troops... IE: Al Gore's speach a couple of weeks ago..Kerry's comments on our troops being baby killers.. I'm sure the list goes on, but those were the first to come to my mind.. Again, I dont believe the Republican party, or this administration, to be perfect or even close for that matter.. However, the Democratic party has done much more to hurt our troops than the guys that put them there in the first place..

 

[Junkman]

Ok,
I read on a couple of occasions that the troops had found one or two here or there, certainly not a stockpile, but thats what I have heard I cannot explain why anyone else hadnt heard the same..Of course, I guess I could be mistaken, though I dont think so.

I don't think that you are mistaken, I know from all that I have read that you are mistaken.

The UN is corrupt, I have no real use for them as they only dictate where they would like the US to go while they are collecting money from the likes of Sadam.. He was denying to let them search for the weapons, just like last time..

They don't dictate as to where we go, they "invite" us to participate and we willingly do so. In the instance of Iraq, they specifically voted for us not to go to war in Iraq, and our Administration thumbed there collective noses at that and went anyway.

As for my blame of the media

They report the way that they believe that it happened and with whatever political slant that they have. It is no secret that the media has been politically involved since that is where they get there money. If it were not for the media making deals with politicians to get greater control over radio, TV, and print, then they might be more independent. If you don't want your merger to get squashed, then you report the way that the politicians want it reported. All media today have both a liberal and conservative bias as a result. It is just like if you fight with the wife in the afternoon, don't expect to be welcomed in the bed with open arms!!

and the Democraic party, its not so much for the war, its for the creating the negative impression of our troops... IE: Al Gore's speach a couple of weeks ago..Kerry's comments on our troops being baby killers.. I'm sure the list goes on, but those were the first to come to my mind..

You mention two, but they are not the Democratic party. They are members of the Democratic party that have spoken their beliefs. No different than any other Republican speaks for himself, not the party.

Again, I dont believe the Republican party, or this administration, to be perfect or even close for that matter..

Neither party is or has ever been perfect. There is no such thing as perfection when politicians are involved. Politics is not an exact science like math.

However, the Democratic party has done much more to hurt our troops than the guys that put them there in the first place..

In Vietnam, they were the guys that put them there and they were also the guys that criticize them for being there. During Vietnam, there were plenty of Republicans that did the same thing as for criticizing the administration, the war, and the troops. You don't stay in office very long if you start agreeing with the other side, unless you change parties, and then you are part and parcel of the party.

 

[OkeeDon]

As for my blame of the media and the Democraic party, its not so much for the war, its for the creating the negative impression of our troops... IE: Al Gore's speach a couple of weeks ago..Kerry's comments on our troops being baby killers.. I'm sure the list goes on, but those were the first to come to my mind.

This just going too far. Al Gore has never criticized our troops. In every speech I have heard, he has ripped the Bush administration (deservedly so) but praised the troops. You're going to have to find that speech and prove me wrong, or I'm going to have to call you misguided.

Same with Kerry -- he nver used the phrase "baby killer" at any time. That was a lie put out first on the Rush Limbaugh show, and later by the Swift Boat Veterans. Kerry never attacked the troops in Vietnam. In his testimony before Congress as a war veteran who learned the truth and became against the war, he related the stories that OTHER troops had told about their OWN experiences once they returned home. He didn't attack them or blame them; he just repeated their stories. And, the phrase "baby killers" was never used. Don't believe me? Do your own Google search for the phrase "Kerry baby killer" and see all the links that come up.

In fact, I strongly advise you to use Google more often before you post lies and half truths. If you had done a search on WMD before you posted your silly statement about them, you would have discovered that none were found, and the administration has confirmed it.

Stop believing the right wing media and their lies -- do your own reseach and decide for yourself. I'll bet you start singing a different tune.

 

[OkeeDon]

However, the Democratic party has done much more to hurt our troops than the guys that put them there in the first place..

This is getting to be unbelievable. The troops are getting killed because they are where they are. They are there because of the guys who put them there. Therefore, they are getting killed because of the guys who put them there. How can Democrats hurt them more than getting killed? That's a ridiculous statement.

Now, if they had been put there to stop Iraq from attacking our country, there might be a justifiable purpose.

Iraq never attacked us.
Iraq had nothing to do with the 9/11 terrorists.
Iraq was no danger to us.
Even if Iraq had had Weapons of Mass Destruction, they had no means to deliver them to hurt us.
Saddam Hussein was a secular Sunni leader who hated, and went to war with, the Shiite religious leaders of Iran. He did not support radical Muslim terrorists. He once had a meeting with a deputy of bin Laden, and kicked the guy out.
There was NO -- NADA -- NONE -- ZILCH -- reason to attack Iraq. Therefore, the "guys who sent them there" are getting them killed for NO DAMN GOOD REASON!

 

[Dargo]

I firmly believe that Kerry is a flip flopping liar who will say and do anything to further his political career. Gore is not much better. He certainly will not spare a bold face lie if he thinks it may further his political career or his party. I think both of these men will put their political party ahead of the well being of the country. I have no respect for either of them.

Having said that, I will also say that I feel we have no business in Iraq. I think there is no doubt that Saddam had WMD but disposed of them in the years he had to do so with unlimited funds and resources. It would take a fool to think that a man with even average intelligence couldn't hide all aspects of such programs over the course of several years and having unlimited funding. I also do not doubt that Bush was mislead on the facts that these WMD's were gone. Saddam only kept up the typical Arab rhetoric of bullshit bluff and tough talk because that is the way he is.

We came, removed a scab from power, so let's get out. I have no desire to spend my money to "liberate" these people who are using our troops for target practice. I could name thousands of places in the world that have serious issues. We cannot "save" them all. I feel we should have a plan to leave Iraq as soon as possible. It's a mess, but we need to have a way to get out as soon as possible. These people there have been at war since recorded history began. It is rather pompous to think we can "fix" that.

 

[HGM]

This just going too far. Al Gore has never criticized our troops. In every speech I have heard, he has ripped the Bush administration (deservedly so) but praised the troops. You're going to have to find that speech and prove me wrong, or I'm going to have to call you misguided.

Same with Kerry -- he nver used the phrase "baby killer" at any time. That was a lie put out first on the Rush Limbaugh show, and later by the Swift Boat Veterans. Kerry never attacked the troops in Vietnam. In his testimony before Congress as a war veteran who learned the truth and became against the war, he related the stories that OTHER troops had told about their OWN experiences once they returned home. He didn't attack them or blame them; he just repeated their stories. And, the phrase "baby killers" was never used. Don't believe me? Do your own Google search for the phrase "Kerry baby killer" and see all the links that come up.

In fact, I strongly advise you to use Google more often before you post lies and half truths. If you had done a search on WMD before you posted your silly statement about them, you would have discovered that none were found, and the administration has confirmed it.

Stop believing the right wing media and their lies -- do your own reseach and decide for yourself. I'll bet you start singing a different tune.

So Don,
This is now a "lie" and did no harm to our troops? Who do you think followed these orders of the government?

Maybe you are correct about the exact "baby killer" phrase, but he did speak of "atrocities" commited during war time that he personally witnessed. He also implied that it was part of war that the troops would rape and dismember women and children..

I find it funny, that you tell me to stop believing all the "right wing media and their lies" then imply I should trust the left instead.. We should face the fact that we wont agree here..

As far as WMD, I cant produce the source, but I remember thinkning it was odd that they had found some form of chemical weapon in Iraq and it wasnt a huge deal made about it.. Again, it wasnt the "stockpile" everyone expected..

 

[HarryG]

Good old John Kerry.

 

[jdwilson44]

This is getting to be unbelievable. The troops are getting killed because they are where they are. They are there because of the guys who put them there. Therefore, they are getting killed because of the guys who put them there. How can Democrats hurt them more than getting killed? That's a ridiculous statement.

Now, if they had been put there to stop Iraq from attacking our country, there might be a justifiable purpose.

Iraq never attacked us.
Iraq had nothing to do with the 9/11 terrorists.
Iraq was no danger to us.
Even if Iraq had had Weapons of Mass Destruction, they had no means to deliver them to hurt us.
Saddam Hussein was a secular Sunni leader who hated, and went to war with, the Shiite religious leaders of Iran. He did not support radical Muslim terrorists. He once had a meeting with a deputy of bin Laden, and kicked the guy out.
There was NO -- NADA -- NONE -- ZILCH -- reason to attack Iraq. Therefore, the "guys who sent them there" are getting them killed for NO DAMN GOOD REASON!

In addition to all of the key points mentioned above there is one that gets left out of the picture and that is the personality/psychology of Saddam Hussein himself. I have read some but not extensively about Saddam Hussein - and yes, he was a brutal dictator. But he was above all else a 'survivor'. Before he invaded Kuwait there was whole April Glaspie affair where Saddam for some reason got the impression that we would not interfere. Think about Saddam survived for as long as he did in a region where leaders get killed all the time. He played his opponents off against each other - killed them when he could, gassed rebel groups, etc. So why is this important? Because I really don't think that given his behavior Saddam ever would have been stupid enough to attack the US. And the fact is that he didn't - the US has never been directly attacked by Iraq. You can argue all the other points you want - he did / did not have WMD's, he killed people, invaded other countries, etc. etc. All bad things but in the end not a reason for us to pre-emptively attack Iraq. Like in domestic law there are precedents in world history - up until Iraq the US could always claim that we never went to war unless we were attacked by another country - we can no longer claim that.

None of the above even take into account the reality of whether the goal of instituting democracy in Iraq was ever a realistic one. Like somebody pointed out in a previous post - Iraq is not Germany or Japan after WWII. We had soundly defeated those countries - we are in Iraq because we are "liberating" them. This means the things we can get away with are totally different. Bomb cities into dust and kill 100's of thousands of people? - acceptable if you are at total war with another country as a whole, not acceptable if you are allegedly there to save the people. Why does this matter? Because after you kill hundreds of thousands of people and bomb their cities into dust you make it very clear that you are serious and you get the leeway to do whatever it takes to institute your policies. We don't have any of this in Iraq. We went into to save them - they apparently don't want saving all that much - and now we are screwed.

The last and most important reason that this war is just plain wrong is that in the end we will have accomplished nothing. We have essentially given a whole new generation of Jihadists their Afghanistan. The knowledge gained by the insurgent commanders on the ground will get passed on - same as the Mujahideen did after the USSR/Afghanistan thing ( and we are suffering for that war now). We have also basically gone and affirmed everything that Bin Laden has said about us. What is the dumbest thing to do to confirm a stereotype? Go and prove it true. So after we pull out - and we will pull out sooner or later - we will still have problems because we are dependent on Mideast oil, we will still have problems because all of the same goverments that were in power (except for Saddam) will still be in power when we leave, and we will however many billions of dollars in the hole - all essentially for NOTHING. No increased security for the US. No higher love for the US in the Mideast. No decline in Bin Ladens support in the Muslim world. No decline in the likelihood of another attack on the US (maybe even an increase in the likelihood if Iran gets the bomb). Nothing.

One of the things that has not gone mentioned in this thread yet is that there are great many people who feel that the US govt. was steered into this war by interests that don't necessarily reflect the interests of the American people (meaning foreign goverments). For a good analysis of this read:

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Israel/Israel_Lobby_US.html

 

[Junkman]

........................
We came, removed a scab from power, so let's get out. I have no desire to spend my money to "liberate" these people who are using our troops for target practice. I could name thousands of places in the world that have serious issues. We cannot "save" them all. I feel we should have a plan to leave Iraq as soon as possible. It's a mess, but we need to have a way to get out as soon as possible. These people there have been at war since recorded history began. It is rather pompous to think we can "fix" that.

That is the exact reason that we shouldn't have gone to war in Iraq. You hit that one directly on the head. As for getting out, it is simple. We set a time line and if they don't have there act together and are in control of there own country, then we just leave and let them work it out on there own. We left Vietnam in a hurry and now 30 years later, the country is a stable government, albeit not a government that we would have chosen for them. We can't dictate to any people how they should live there lives, not here on our own shores, or a half world away. If we could singlehandedly solve the worlds problems we should start in our own country. We have one of the largest prison populations of the civilized world. Why is that????? We also have one of the highest drug addiction population of the world..... Why is that?? We also have the highest infant mortality rate of the civilized world.......... Why is that????? Charity begins at home. Lets start solving some of our own social problems before we go trying to solve problems on the other side of the world that have been problems for them for longer than our country has been in existence.

 

[HarryG]

I think the left get their facts form this moron.

 

[REDDOGTWO]

This is now a "lie" and did no harm to our troops? Who do you think followed these orders of the government?

Not to get into any spitting contests here, the problems that he is referring to are in the United States, not else where. Therefore the troops were not the ones following these orders.


It looks like I am getting really slow here as they are several more replies.

 

[Junkman]

Good old John Kerry.

Nice color in those cartoons, however they are from a Republican organization that was backing Bush during the election. How about I balance the books with this one.... This isn't a cartoon, but a actual poster in Europe that shows the level of respect that our President enjoys there. It speaks volumes as to how we are perceived in the world today. Our public image has been tarnished way beyond anything that has happened in the past.

 

[HarryG]

Nice color in those cartoons, however they are from a Republican organization that was backing Bush during the election. How about I balance the books with this one.... This isn't a cartoon, but a actual poster in Europe that shows the level of respect that our President enjoys there. It speaks volumes as to how we are perceived in the world today. Our public image has been tarnished way beyond anything that has happened in the past.

No problem here Junkman,
The left are as vile as the right and maybe even more. I've seen more back stabbing form the left than the right. I work for State gov't and at least know where I stand with the Rebublicans. At least I can see the knife from the front, not from behind like the Dems.
Heres a couple just to show I can take it as well as give it. This should make a few lib peters hard. I personally think the left are extremely vile in their attacks.
Just a couple but for more.
http://www.nobeliefs.com/politics.htm

 

[HarryG]

Couple more. True left colors.
So tell me how wonderful and caring the left is to the troops serving to protect your arse and mine?
I hear a leftist BS story coming about how much they feel for the troops.

 

[dzalphakilo]

When some dictator is committing genocide lets just sit back

How long did we support S.H in Iraq? Don't forget that Detroit actually gave him a key to their city when he visited the U.S.

As mentioned before, I was "all for" going in (into Iraq), but it has now become something that we cannot "handle" without eliminating every man, woman and child in that country (and even if you kill them all, what are you going to do with the country?).

 

[AndyM]

(and even if you kill them all, what are you going to do with the country?).

Maybe control the world's second largest oil reserve without opposition?