Bin Laden's message to America...

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/070907_bin_laden_transcript.pdf

He sounds like one of our lefty friends found radical Islam. Compare the "talking points" from this to what the far left blogs and sites spew.

(OK, now you can start calling me names and such) :)

Bin Laden's message to America...

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/070907_bin_laden_transcript.pdf

He sounds like one of our lefty friends found radical Islam. Compare the "talking points" from this to what the far left blogs and sites spew.

(OK, now you can start calling me names and such) :)
I ain't lending him my ears... or any other body parts, TYVM.

As Willie Nelson so aptly put it, "Still crazy after all these years."

It was a goddamned conversion speech - nothing more, nothing less.

He sounds like one of our lefty friends found radical Islam.
Bingo.

Convert to Islam & the war will be over? Let me count the ways I can say "fuck you" in response to that one.
Blame the democrats? Yeah, right. All that worthless s.o.b. is doing is trying to sow seeds of dissent. I'm all for giving him & his followers nukes ... from miles away, miles up & set to detonate in their laps.

Amen.

ditto

He sounds like one of our lefty friends found radical Islam. Compare the "talking points" from this to what the far left blogs and sites spew.
:)
Absolutely. He even says the Democrats haven't done what they said they would and then used the word "Neocon".

If anyone still believes that the words of the left don't embolden this movement they're kidding themselves.

Also, he is obviously coloring his hair. He even has the vanity obsession shared by Kerry, Edwards, Hillary, Bill, etc...

Absolutely. He even says the Democrats haven't done what they said they would and then used the word "Neocon".

If anyone still believes that the words of the left don't embolden this movement they're kidding themselves.

Also, he is obviously coloring his hair. He even has the vanity obsession shared by Kerry, Edwards, Hillary, Bill, etc...
You sound like FT with his "14 Points of Fascism." If you think bin Laden shares anything ideologically with the American left you must be on crack.

Absolutely. He even says the Democrats haven't done what they said they would and then used the word "Neocon".

If anyone still believes that the words of the left don't embolden this movement they're kidding themselves.
He is saying these things in order to keep the war going. He is not emboldened by sayings from the stop-the-war camp; he's worried by them. His goal is to have the US stay in Iraq.

Face it thar Bubbers.The Guy's Dead.He had Type One
Juvenile Diabetes for years.We knew all about it.
If he was on Dialysis,he only had maybe 5 years tops,with
THE Best Hospital care.
He probably died 2,3 years ago,and much money was spent
to concoct ways of using some of his voice and image.
If it's too good to be true,than it is.
OBL died a Diabetic.
I say,this guy who preached w/o being an Islamic scholar,and who
married nearly 2 dozen woman,and fathered as many offspring,knew
his life on earth was limited by Diabetes,and therefore used his
vast wealth to mount a sting or Radical FATWA on the entirety
of mankind,to be heard,noticed and popularized in History.

Me too, I think the guy is moldering in the grave.

http://www.willisms.com/archives/osama%20chomsky.jpg

As Willie Nelson so aptly put it, "Still crazy after all these years."

Quite apropos.

Absolutely. He even says the Democrats haven't done what they said they would and then used the word "Neocon".

If anyone still believes that the words of the left don't embolden this movement they're kidding themselves.

ROTFLMFAO.

That might be the most absurd commentary i've ever read here.

As IF the ""words of the left"" are necessary to encourage or prompt the actions of the people in the Middle East who despise the ConservaFascist faction in this country for what it has perpetrated throughout that part of the world.

Bwaaahahahaaa...The "new" osama looks like a bad halloween mask. Good thing he found the time to dye his beard while cave jumping...

BTW...

When Seeing and Hearing Isn't Believing (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/dotmil/arkin020199.htm)

you are right FT... we should all sit around the campfire and sing Kum-Bay-Ya until we all love each other. Opps... Kum-Bay-Allah... my bad.

Hate to break the news to ya, but the radical Islamists hate ALL of us... not just the "Gawd, Guts, and Glory" types. We should convert now so that we can avoid the "massacre" that Allah will bring to the ones that dare to not believe.

Like OBL said, it is the Islamists that provide sanctuary for the Jews and Christians. I know that all of the Jews in Israel and the Christians in Darfur are sleeping better tonight.

If you think that the "Evil Christians" in the south are bad, just wait till you get a dose of the radical Islamists.

Brooks is NOT wrong here... it is you that are blind to the motives of OBL and the ramblings of the far left.

ROLFCOPTERS

[QUOTE=OldPhart]you are right FT... we should all sit around the campfire and sing Kum-Bay-Ya until we all love each other. Opps... Kum-Bay-Allah... my bad.

Hate to break the news to ya, but the radical Islamists hate ALL of us... not just the "Gawd, Guts, and Glory" types. We should convert now so that we can avoid the "massacre" that Allah will bring to the ones that dare to not believe.

Like OBL said, it is the Islamists that provide sanctuary for the Jews and Christians. I know that all of the Jews in Israel and the Christians in Darfur are sleeping better tonight.

If you think that the "Evil Christians" in the south are bad, just wait till you get a dose of the radical Islamists.

Not good enough.
As it was pointed out today,and probably glossed-over,OBL obviously
doesn't give a Camel Shit in Hell,sacrificing his Own Islamist folk
in order to make a statement or enable Fear.
He's an Evil Fraud. That is why The Sheiks in Al Anbar province
have decided to mount their own offensive on Al Qaeda.
Seems Al Qaeda,liked to make examples of certain slight misconduct
by Muslims with extreme examples of Horrofic torture of Iraqi.
Exactly what Saddam did,and one of the reasons were're IN Iraq.

If anyone still believes that the words of the left don't embolden this movement they're kidding themselves.

These people flew airplanes into buildings and you think they'll be emboldened by words from the left?


Also, he is obviously coloring his hair. He even has the vanity obsession shared by Kerry, Edwards, Hillary, Bill, etc...

Oh I get it...this is a joke...

You sound like FT with his "14 Points of Fascism." If you think bin Laden shares anything ideologically with the American left you must be on crack.Wait here while I check if I said that.




No, apparently I didn't (please see second signature line).

Despite the our-presence-there-has-helped-al-Qaeda crap or the the-terrorists-want-us-there garbage that some claim, they do not want us to stay there.
They want what's best for them, and that's for us to leave.

And for bin Laden to try to achieve what's best for him, he has released a tape in which he uses Democrat leadership / left-wing blog talking points.
That tells me that the statements and desired actions of the Dem leadership / left wing blogs are not what's best for the country right now.

And the sick part is, I think many of them realize it but are caught up in partisanship.
Was Harry Reid making an honest determination that the surge had failed after only a week, or was he playing politics?

As IF the ""words of the left"" are necessary to encourage or prompt the actions of the people in the Middle East.....Wait here while I check if I said that.



No, apparently I didn't (please see second signature line).

They certainly have never needed encouragement. What they need is a belief that we would not have the unity to defeat them. And they are getting that on a daily basis.

A couple of years ago Zawahiri or Zarqawi, I forget which, issued a statement invoking Vietnam several days after Ted Kennedy did the same thing. It seems to me that if they lift Kennedy's words, they must feel they would lead to the ends they desire.

These people flew airplanes into buildings and you think they'll be emboldened by words from the left?...
I'm talking about today and their hope that we will not continue to fight this war.

Despite the our-presence-there-has-helped-al-Qaeda crap or the the-terrorists-want-us-there garbage that some claim, they do not want us to stay there.
They want what's best for them, and that's for us to leave.Your inexperience is showing.

And for bin Laden to try to achieve what's best for him, he has released a tape in which he uses Democrat leadership / left-wing blog talking points.
That tells me that the statements and desired actions of the Dem leadership / left wing blogs are not what's best for the country right now.Your simpleness is showing.

And the sick part is, I think many of them realize it but are caught up in partisanship. When Republicans say it, is that Partisanship?

I'm talking about today and their hope that we will not continue to fight this war.AQ would not criticize the Dems for failing to stop the war if they really wanted them to stop it, my friend. What a loaded gun that would give their political adversaries! Can you imagine? "Senator Liberal Democrat, are you now taking your marching orders from Osama Bin Laden?"

These AQ cats are not so stupid as you seem to think. Or maybe you just don't actually think about it at all.

Very interesting, sincere and truthful message...

HEY Osama Bin Laden :upyours:

That might be the most absurd commentary i've ever read here.


Agreed.
This entire thread is nothing but a preposterous attempt at bashing the ever-nebulous "liberal" bogeyman.

Agreed.
This entire thread is nothing but a preposterous attempt at bashing the ever-nebulous "liberal" bogeyman.
And this is different that (all of)Troof's, (all of) Liberal's, (most of)FT's, and (most of)your posts/comments how? It's preposterous because you don't agree?

I have no fear of the far left liberal views, they are not a "bogeyman" to me. I do often find these views naive, hateful, and sometimes funny.

Al least I posted the transcript and stated my opinion. I could have just C/P some conservative blog commentary and acted like it was gospel. The fact that this "speech" had several liberal "talking points" was interesting to me. "Neo-con" is not an Islamic phrase, nor is the anti-capitalistic Noam Chomsky a "standard reading material" for the oppresive radical Islamic masses. While I may not agree with Chomsky, I don't believe his political thoughts fit very well in a Taliban type government.:lolhit:

All of this was a propaganda tool for trying to divide public opinion even more.

I did think the conversion parts and how (radical) Islam protects and loves Jews and Christians was hilarious.

1. Your inexperience is showing.
Your simpleness is showing.
2. When Republicans say it, is that Partisanship?
1. You answer nothing here.
Are you denying that bin Laden's statements are not amazingly similar to the Dems?
If bin Laden makes certain statements to achieve a certain end, and we find that the Democrat leadership is making the same statements, it would seem they unintentionally have similar ends.
Obviously not for the same reasons, but similar ends nonetheless.

2. Everyone in Washington is partisan. But Reid's and Schumer's partisan statements mislead in a harmful way. And they know it.

These AQ cats are not so stupid as you seem to think. Or maybe you just don't actually think about it at all.I don't know what your problem is or why you're getting so personal all of a sudden, but you are (uncharacteristically) sounding like one of the jerks.
I'm sorry that happened to you.

That might be the most absurd commentary i've ever read here.

As IF the ""words of the left"" are necessary to encourage or prompt the actions of the people in the Middle East.....

Wait here while I check if I said that.



No, apparently I didn't.

Really? I guess I just imagined that you wrote----

""If anyone still believes that the words of the left don't embolden this movement they're kidding themselves.""

Wasn't that what you meant by making that statement??

I said the left prompts their actions? Really?

I don't think the left encourages them (to stimulate or spur to action), they don't need that.
I think they embolden them (to foster courage or boldness in) to continue because our divisions give them the idea that they can win.

Sooo, no one in here thinks Bin Laden is already dead?

I don't know what your problem is or why you're getting so personal all of a sudden, but you are (uncharacteristically) sounding like one of the jerks.
I'm sorry that happened to you.I never expected that you were so thin skinned, Brooks. My post only means what it says, nothing more. Maybe you haven't actually thought it through. No offense intended.

They certainly have never needed encouragement. What they need is a belief that we would not have the unity to defeat them. And they are getting that on a daily basis.

Then isn't it a left and right problem? Since the two sides can't agree on the proper handling of Iraq?

Bin Laden's message should not be considered a threat, but should consider caution.

I don't think the left encourages them (to stimulate or spur to action)...


I think they embolden them (to foster courage or boldness in)....

Ahhh. Why of course!

Huuuuuuuuuge distinction there. ROTFL.

As far as disingenuous and phony assed dodges go, you win the grand fucking prize with that one sir.

Roget's entry for "embolden":

Main Entry: animate
Part of Speech: verb
Definition: activate
Synonyms: activate, arouse, cheer, embolden, encourage, energize, enliven, exalt, excite, fire, gladden, hearten, impel, incite, inform, inspire, inspirit, instigate, invigorate, kindle, liven, make alive, move, quicken, revive, revivify, rouse, spark, spur, stimulate, stir, urge, vitalize, vivify
Antonyms: deaden, discourage, inhibit, kill

http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/embolden

I just see this as a cry for attention from a very impotent asshat with very low standards.

Aw, what the heck.

Let's do "encourage", just for fun:

Main Entry: encourage
Part of Speech: verb 1
Definition: stimulate
Synonyms: animate, applaud, boost, brighten, buck up*, buoy, cheer, cheer up, comfort, console, embolden, energize, enhearten, enliven, excite, exhilarate, fortify, galvanize, gladden, goad, hearten, incite, inspire, inspirit, instigate, praise, prick, prop up*, psych up*, push, rally, reassure, refresh, restore, revitalize, revivify, rouse, spur, steel, stimulate, stir, strengthen, sway
Antonyms: dampen, deflate, depress, discourage, dishearten, dispirit

Sooo, no one in here thinks Bin Laden is already dead?
That didn't stop Tupac. :D

has anyone besides me pulled their heads out of their asses yet? bin laden was a c.i.a. operative long ago and still is.

has anyone besides me pulled their heads out of their asses yet?
No.

We're all waiting to be enlightened when we spark a doobie and start believing in spirit. I'll get back to you on that one.

Are you denying that bin Laden's statements are not amazingly similar to the Dems?
If bin Laden makes certain statements to achieve a certain end, and we find that the Democrat leadership is making the same statements, it would seem they unintentionally have similar ends.
Obviously not for the same reasons, but similar ends nonetheless.

2. Everyone in Washington is partisan. But Reid's and Schumer's partisan statements mislead in a harmful way. And they know it.
Bingo.

Semantics aside, that's exactly what the liberal movement is doing for the Bin Laden types here and abroad.

Ahhh. Why of course!

Huuuuuuuuuge distinction there. ROTFL.
If you think about it, there is a difference. I think his comment was logical, and barring the obvious "distinction" here (not that we really have to clarify it with someone who just looooves to defend Bin Laden's actions against the "world's largest exporter of terrorism") - his message was lost on you over a word game (once again).

You have more in common with Bin Laden than anyone else here.

And I haven't even begun my worship of Allah yet!

No, I think of you as more the "godless" terrorist type. There in "spirit", but not theologically speaking, if you catch my drift...

Bingo.

Semantics aside, that's exactly what the liberal movement is doing for the Bin Laden types here and abroad.The Bin Laden types couldn't care less about what the "liberal movement" is doing, except that they worry that Democrates might actually pull us out of Iraq to soon.

The Bin Laden types couldn't care less about what the "liberal movement" is doing, except that they worry that Democrates might actually pull us out of Iraq to soon.
Oh, yeah - that's what they're scared of..... :rolleyes: I'm sorry, but I think your contention here is patently absurd.

I mean, is it just me, or is it an incredible coincidence that you parrot one another, and usually, it's Al Qaeda parroting YOU? Brooks said it perfectly - you may not have the same goal, per se - but you certainly wish to achieve the same end. Nothing would make them happier than to see us leave. Ipso facto, they'd have their freedom, and you'd have your little political "victory", wouldn't you?

Let's call a spade a spade, shall we?

I mean, is it just me, or is it an incredible coincidence that you parrot one another, and usually, it's Al Qaeda parroting YOU?

I wouldn't call that coincidence, I'd call it a falsehood.


Brooks said it perfectly - you may not have the same goal, per se - but you certainly wish to achieve the same end. Nothing would make them happier than to see us leave.

How do you know what Al Qaeda wants?


Ipso facto, they'd have their freedom, and you'd have your little political "victory", wouldn't you?

One problem is that you think people want the troops to be withdrawn so they can win a "political victory".

Regardless of if we pull out or not, Al Qaeda doesn't have much of a future in Iraq. They have little support amongst the population, and other Sunni militias have turned against them. They also continue to be at conflict with the Shiites. They might be the most brutal insurgent group in Iraq but they're not nearly the most powerful, and their opponents will likely push them further to the fringes.

I know I was arguing quite the opposite a few months ago, ie. that Al Qaeda would gain in power, but I'm glad that I was wrong.

Oh, yeah - that's what they're scared of..... :rolleyes: I'm sorry, but I think your contention here is patently absurd.I'm sure you do.

I mean, is it just me, or is it an incredible coincidence that you parrot one another, and usually, it's Al Qaeda parroting YOU?It is no coincidence at all. It is an intentional effort on the part of AQ to influence the US political process by discrediting the Left's stated position towarding pulling out of theater. By seeming to align with the Left's poition, thay make that position less likely to be accepted by Americans at large.

Brooks said it perfectly - you may not have the same goal, per se - but you certainly wish to achieve the same end.Not true in the least.

Nothing would make them happier than to see us leave.Wrong. Nothing would make them happier than to have us stay exactly as we are.

Ipso facto, they'd have their freedom, and you'd have your little political "victory", wouldn't you?AQ, et al, are not the slightest bit concerned with "freedom," at least in the ways that word is usually used in the West. And any political "victory" on our part would come only from stopping a misguided policy that strengthens our enemies and makes the USA weaker militarily, more divided domestically, and lossing respect internationally.

Let's call a spade a spade, shall we?This little nugget is truely indicative of the problem we face in this matter. This is a clash of cultures on an epic scale and with tremendous, frightening potentials. And in the midst of it all, we have members of the Right thinking they can defeat an enemy without bothering to understand that enemy, and then wrap it up all neatly in cute trite little phrases. Sad for us.

Regardless of if we pull out or not, Al Qaeda doesn't have much of a future in Iraq. They have little support amongst the population, and other Sunni militias have turned against them. They also continue to be at conflict with the Shiites. They might be the most brutal insurgent group in Iraq but they're not nearly the most powerful, and their opponents will likely push them further to the fringes.

I know I was arguing quite the opposite a few months ago, ie. that Al Qaeda would gain in power, but I'm glad that I was wrong.I argued this point some time ago: if the US is interested in dropping AQ in Iraq, we get out and let the Iraqis handle it. They always have and will again.

I argued this point some time ago: if the US is interested in dropping AQ in Iraq, we get out and let the Iraqis handle it. They always have and will again.Perhaps, except that the Iraqis would much more easily defeat Al Qaeda with our support. Of course, the more preferable scenario would be for the Iraqi military to step up to that task and take over everything we're currently doing there. Whether that will ever happen remains to be seen. Additionally, we must also note that even if Al Qaeda was completely eradicated from Iraq, a whole host of other problems would remain.

Perhaps, except that the Iraqis would much more easily defeat Al Qaeda with our support.I wonder. Our aid to the Iraqis resisting the infiltration and violence of AQ is probably more than off set by the positive impact on AQ's recruitment and extra-theater support our presence generates.

Of course, the more preferable scenario would be for the Iraqi military to step up to that task and take over everything we're currently doing there.As it relates to AQ much of the success re expulsion has come from militias outside the command structure of an Iraqi army.
Additionally, we must also note that even if Al Qaeda was completely eradicated from Iraq, a whole host of other problems would remain.
True. And we will do very little to address any of those problems with our current approach, I fear. This is an internal matter for Iraqis to sort out amongst themselves. Our actions only delay that reality.

I wonder. Our aid to the Iraqis resisting the infiltration and violence of AQ is probably more than off set by the positive impact on AQ's recruitment and extra-theater support our presence generates.
Maybe. I don't believe there have been any specific analyses of how our presence affects recruitment for AQ in Iraq, so the net effect of our presence would be difficult to determine. We could take our actions against AQ in Anbar as an example, but our success there could just be localized and/or temporary.

As it relates to AQ much of the success re expulsion has come from militias outside the command structure of an Iraqi army.I mean that the Iraqi army would provide arms, logistical support, air support, etc. to the militias as we had done. But again, whether they're upto that task is up in the air at this point.

True. And we will do very little to address any of those problems with our current approach, I fear. This is an internal matter for Iraqis to sort out amongst themselves. Our actions only delay that reality.I agree that our current approach does not address such problems, and any military success will only be temporary unless those problems are solved. However, our military presence there gives us a lot more leverage than we would otherwise have, and we could use that leverage to contribute to political and economic progress in that country. (I know I'm being vague here; I could into more detail, but it's late.)

Latest Bin Laden Video Is a Forgery: All References to Current Events Are Made During Video Freeze

http://mparent7777-2.blogspot.com/2007/09/latest-bin-laden-video-is-forgery-all.html

Maybe Dan Rather made it

phart's original accusation still stands. obl's cant is identical to the anti-war, irredentist world socialist, far left crowd.

Why is that?

Who is using whom? Why?

Can one of our anti-war, irredentist world socialist, far left crowd members offer us there thoughts to the questions?

phart's original accusation still stands. obl's cant is identical to the anti-war, irredentist world socialist, far left crowd.

Why is that?

Who is using whom? Why?

Can one of our anti-war, irredentist world socialist, far left crowd members offer us there thoughts to the questions?
I, too, would love an answer.

You know, OUTSIDE of hearing the hackneyed contention that Al Qaeda is somehow Serbian-Jew double-bluffing us into "staying the course" by employing "neocon" reverse psychology. I mean, that shit is TRULY beyond ridiculous.

"They're not banking on us, you know - they're banking on YOU and your weapons for success in the Middle East..." :rolleyes:

Ahhh. Why of course!
Huuuuuuuuuge distinction there. ROTFL.
As far as disingenuous and phony assed dodges go, you win the grand f___ing prize with that one sir.

Sedan: Roget's entry for "embolden"....:

Yes, they can be considered synonyms. But, there are also definitions for each that differentiate it from the other (remember the SAT's... "shades of differences....")

Big and tall can be synonymous, but you wouldn't call Rosie O'Donnell tall, would you (I hope this contemporary example makes this easier for you).

Big and tall can be synonymous, but you wouldn't call Rosie O'Donnell tall, would you (I hope this contemporary example makes this easier for you).
That was EXCELLENT, Brooks.

Aw, what the heck.
Let's do "encourage", just for fun:
Aw, what the heck.
Let's repeat it for those whose language lacks subtlety.

Yes, they can be considered synonyms. But, there are also definitions for each that differentiate it from the other (remember the SAT's... "shades of differences....")

Big and tall can be synonymous, but you wouldn't call Rosie O'Donnell tall, would you (I hope this contemporary example makes this easier for you).

The Bin Laden types couldn't care less about what the "liberal movement" is doing, except that they worry that Democrates might actually pull us out of Iraq to soon.Maybe we have some middle ground here Shiloh.

You say bin Laden wants us there.
But he doesn't want us there if we can win. Obviously, right?
He wants us to either stay and struggle or lose.

Now where can he go to hear "the surge is failing", "this is for oil", "US out of Iraq now", "Bush lied", "Rumsfeld is a war criminal", etc....
How much do you think he's enjoying those pipsqueaks seeking their soundbytes in their public grilling of General Petreus?

IT IS UNINTENTIONAL, but the ends that the Democrats are seeking are the same as his.
I'll repeat, it's not for the same reasons, but they are identical.

One problem is that you think people want the troops to be withdrawn so they can win a "political victory".
Withdrawing would certainly save us money (for now, that is), and I believe that's the ONLY positive thing retreating affords us. Actually, I think doing so would lead to spending more money in the VERY NEAR FUTURE, but I digress.

And yes, I do think for many Democrats, a "political victory" is the only thing they care about. Maybe not for you, but for many, I suspect it is.

First off, I appreciate the tone of this post:Maybe we have some middle ground here Shiloh.

You say bin Laden wants us there.
But he doesn't want us there if we can win. Obviously, right?
He wants us to either stay and struggle or lose.The problem here is this: We can not win. There is nothing for us to win. This is a battle of cultures and has no military solution. Period.

Consider this: Operation Desert Shield/Storm, Bosnia, Mogadisu, Operation Just Cause. All of these actions were examples of US intervention on the behalf of Muslims, protecting from aggression of other Muslims (1 & 4, & sorta 3), and non-Muslims (2), or to stem massive starvation, etc (3). At great risk to personnel, resources and international standing, the US has shown a real willingness to support Islamic people in their need. But, in much of the Islamic world, the parts that impact our enemies ability and willingness to fight, none of that matters. The normal Western notions of cause and effect are not at play here.

Now where can he go to hear "the surge is failing", "this is for oil", "US out of Iraq now", "Bush lied", "Rumsfeld is a war criminal", etc....From across all ranges of US society and political lines.

How much do you think he's enjoying those pipsqueaks seeking their soundbytes in their public grilling of General Petreus?I don't think he cares one way or the other, except to get a reading for the mood in USA that may negatively effeact his availabiliy of US targets at hand, propoganda within the Muslim world and fund raising efforts.

IT IS UNINTENTIONAL, but the ends that the Democrats are seeking are the same as his.
I'll repeat, it's not for the same reasons, but they are identical.The ends he seeks have nothing at all in common with the Democrats, his misinformation statements notwithstanding. His statements are an attempt to manipulate Americans into rejecting the notion of pulling out, by providing ammo (against a pull out) to those who want to "stay the course."

Withdrawing would certainly save us money (for now, that is), and I believe that's the ONLY positive thing retreating affords us. It is not retreating. It is recognizing that we're in the wrong fight on the wrong field at the wrong time.

The problem here is this: We can not win.
That's your own myopic opinion.
This is a battle of cultures and has no military solution.
This isn't just about Iraq anymore, Shilo.

And this most assuredly isn't a "battle" - it's a goddamned slaughter, and "culture" has fuck-all to do with what's right and wrong. These asswipes are screwing with the fate of the free world by holding oil, nuclear programs, and twisted religious dogma over EVERYONE'S head while they leverage it with a little can-do attitude, elbow grease, and liberal help. The worst part is, they're doing it while holding the global economy hostage, and I'm sorry - but I just can't abide by that.

The last thing they want us to do is stay.
His statements are an attempt to manipulate Americans into rejecting the notion of pulling out, by providing ammo (against a pull out) to those who want to "stay the course."
Nice try, but if you think Bin Laden has (if he's even alive, that is) employed the use of "reverse psychology" :rolleyes: to keep us there instead of, oh, say, BOMBING us with something other than low-grade plastique, then you're sorely mistaken. If he's so "powerful" (because (as you've already said) you contend that our presence there bolsters his "cause"), then surely he can come up with something better than roadside mines, suicide bombers, AK-47 toting M-60 fodder, or (and this is my favorite one) "double-bluffing" us to accomplish that goal.

I guess with you guys at the helm, he won't have to. Maybe it'll take another 9/11 to wake you up.

First off, I appreciate the tone of this post:The problem here is this: We can not win. There is nothing for us to win. This is a battle of cultures and has no military solution. Period.

This is from President Clinton:
" Today I am signing into law H.R. 4655, the "Iraq Liberation Act of 1998."
Let me be clear on what the U.S. objectives are:
The United States wants Iraq to rejoin the family of nations as a
freedom-loving and law-abiding member. This is in our interest and that
of our allies within the region.
The United States favors an Iraq that offers its people freedom
at home. I categorically reject arguments that this is unattainable
due to Iraq's history or its ethnic or sectarian make-up. Iraqis
deserve and desire freedom like everyone else.
The United States looks forward to a democratically supported
regime that would permit us to enter into a dialogue leading to the
reintegration of Iraq into normal international life."
http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/1998/11/01/981101-in.htm

It really bothers me that no one was talking about the so-called "cultural differences" back when he said all this was possible. It just makes me think that a lot of today's criticism is partisan.

It really bothers me that no one was talking about the so-called "cultural differences" back when he said all this was possible. It just makes me think that a lot of today's criticism is partisan.Six points of light:
1. You weren't discussing this with me in 1998. Those who were heard the same concerns you're hearing now;
2. "Ethnic or sectarian make-up" do not address the cultural issues I'm speaking to;
3. Clinton did not propose destroying the existing government via combat operations and establishing an American style democracy by brute force;
4. Clinton's comments did not come at a time when Iraq was occupied by US forces.
5. I was part of a panel that drafted position papers on this very matter for the the US Navy. We considered his position unattainable at the time, but did consider his efforts (which were not military in nature) to be somewhat encouraging in their goals;
6. I have never said that these goals, as restated by the current administration, are not desirable or maybe even possible on some level, rather that there is no military solution to the problems resisting them.

These asswipes are screwing with the fate of the free world by holding oil, nuclear programs, and twisted religious dogma over EVERYONE'S head .........

That seems the perfect definition of B*sh and his co-conspirators.

If that's who you were talking about, I could not agree more.

The last thing they want us to do is stay.
You keep right on thinking that. You seem to have exactly the kind of thinking this guy loves, i.e. one who is unable to see past his own rage and stereotypes.

You keep right on thinking that. You seem to have exactly the kind of thinking this guy loves, i.e. one who is unable to see past his own rage and stereotypes.
Whatever.

FYI, I'm not "stereotyping" anyone here, you are. Your contention is that we can't bring these people into the fold because of "cultural" differences - i.e., they don't "desire" the same things we do, hence this war is "unwinnable". My contention is that we ALL wanna prosper financially and live in a democracy. Short of their governments (and to a larger extent, Islamic fundamentalists) fucking them over in that regard, you don't have a leg to stand on here. They're the opposition, not the people. But unfortunately, the people ARE the victims here, ergo we should help 'em out. Doing so only serves our needs, and more importantly, it serves theirs. Hey, lo and behold, it may just bring them outta the dark ages financially and socially. I mean, it's worked wonders for EVERY OTHER industrialized nation on earth, why wouldn't it work for them? That's the whole point of this.

Whatever.
It's worked wonders for EVERY OTHER industrialized nation on earth, why not their's? That's the whole point of this.Whatever you say, friend. I wonder if you have it in your character to admit being mistaken in, oh, two more years when nothing has changes substantively. Maybe three? The goverment elected by the people is failing to even behave decently among themselves, for crying out loud! You may continue to see the region through the perspective of US norms, but that's a mistake.

Whatever.
Your contention is that we can't bring these people into the fold because of "cultural" differences - i.e., they don't "desire" the same things we do, hence this war is "unwinnable". Unwinnable through military action, correct.

Yeah, let's talk the islamo-lunatics into giving the Iraqi people a choice over a Venti orange mocha frappuccino, our treat.

That oughta do it.

Yeah, let's talk the islamo-lunatics into giving the Iraqi people a choice over a Venti orange mocha frappuccino, our treat.

That oughta do it.You realize, of course, that the "islamo-lunitics," as you put it, had no place in Iraq before we arrived. And the Iraqis themselves have been most effective at driving them out of their neighborhoods, not the US. This is an internal matter for the Iraqis. (Odd that so-called conservatives what to get/stay involved in such an issue.)

And I've said repeatedly this goes beyond Iraq. It was but a strategic stepping-stone. No one was under the impression that terrorism was unique to Saddam's fiefdom – far from it, actually. He just endorsed it.

Yeah, let's talk the islamo-lunatics into giving the Iraqi people a choice over a Venti orange mocha frappuccino, our treat.

That oughta do it.No, but acknowledging the political and cultural realities of Iraq would serve us better than trying to get the country to conform to a model that simply won't work.

. No one was under the impression that terrorism was unique to Saddam's fiefdom – far from it, actually. He just endorsed it.So have the Saudis. You want to take over the kingdom?

Well here we are a couple days later and still no reply from our resident liberals? I see them posting in the thread. The threads had lots of hits so their obviously reading it. No one wants to explain it?

This can't be that difficult can it?

Smart guys like you should be able to explain it, no.

Or is it simply too embarassing?

Well here we are a couple days later and still no reply from our resident liberals? I see them posting in the thread. The threads had lots of hits so their obviously reading it. No one wants to explain it?

This can't be that difficult can it?

Smart guys like you should be able to explain it, no.

Or is it simply too embarassing?Explain what?

see post #60.

phart's original accusation still stands. obl's cant is identical to the anti-war, irredentist world socialist, far left crowd.

Why is that?
Has the anti-war, far left crowd called for the US to convert to Islam? Bin Laden called for that, you know?

(And what do you mean by "Irredentist world socialist" in this sentence?)

Given that's the only difference you could find what conclusions do you draw about the simiilarity of message of liberals and obl?

Given that's the only difference you could find what conclusions do you draw about the simiilarity of message of liberals and obl?That wasn't the only difference I could find. It was simply enough to show you how they are not "identical," and to (hopely) encourage you to be more careful in how you read/represent things. Now, what is it really what to ask? Be a little more specific, or accurate, and I'll try to answer.

So there's a freckle missing.
Are you telling us that you see no similarity in message between the two?

If you do see a similarity in their message, what conclusions can you draw about the pair?

Given that's the only difference you could find what conclusions do you draw about the simiilarity of message of liberals and obl?
BAM! That was excellent, Waldo.

No, but acknowledging the political and cultural realities of Iraq would serve us better than trying to get the country to conform to a model that simply won't work.
What do you mean "won't work"? It's worked for EVERY SINGLE prosperous nation on Earth. I mean, it's not like we're selling communism here.....

That said, if it's your contention these people are simply "unable" to do the right thing (for everyone involved) due to "political and cultural" differences, then they're a lia-fuckin'-bility to the global economy and they should be treated accordingly.

So have the Saudis. You want to take over the kingdom?
Point taken, but you and I both know our relationship with the Saudis (which, despite the all the minutia, happens to be mired in finance and politics) is a tad more complicated than that. The Saudis are also VERY aware of who butters their bread. There's a kind of (well, for lack of a better word here) "flexibility" with the royals that few other nations, "presidents", or religious leaders are willing to offer us in the Middle East, hence they ARE treated differently. Now, you can bemoan that fact all you want, or you can join reality. The choice is yours.

Point taken, but you and I both know our relationship with the Saudis (which, despite the all the minutia, happens to be mired in finance and politics) is a tad more complicated than that. The Saudis are also VERY aware of who butters their bread. There's a kind of (well, for lack of a better word here) "flexibility" with the royals that few other nations, "presidents", or religious leaders are willing to offer us in the Middle East, hence they ARE treated differently. Now, you can bemoan that fact all you want, or you can join reality. The choice is yours.The point that I'm making is that the Saudis have paid benefits to suicide bombers, fostered the garden from which the 9/11 attackers grew like weeds, continue to be huge cash cows of terror activities worldwide, and have one of the most backward religious countries in the world. And your position is: well, it's complicated by the world of finance and politics? You let your "principles" be bought off by their ol reserves?

You appear to have moral outrage only when it costs you nothing and the enemy has nothing you want to sell out for. That's reality.

So there's a freckle missing.
Are you telling us that you see no similarity in message between the two?

If you do see a similarity in their message, what conclusions can you draw about the pair?I reread the transcipt as provided in the link and counted 17 passages I'd consider agreeing with Left to Far Left rhetoric. I found 23 that could be taken from the rhetoric of the Right to Far Right. Have you read the damn thing?

So you're telling us you dont' see any similarities between obl's message and the liberals message from which you care or can draw any conclusions

So you're telling us you dont' see any similarities between obl's message and the liberals message from which you care or can draw any conclusionsI do see some similarities to the rhetoric of the Left and Far Left, but also to the Right and Far Right. He seem to be pandering across the board, and applying classic techniques to manipulate the situation toward further conflict, all the while being able to claim he's all about peace.

I see no reason to believe he is being aided by commentaries from the Left, agrees with the Left (in fact the Left is the first group he'd persecute), or believes any of the ideals actually espoused by the Left.

He does appear, however, to have accomplished at least one of his goals: Getting the Right to be further at odds with the Left and fomenting greater dissention and irrationality, as in your case.

The point that I'm making is that the Saudis have paid benefits to suicide bombers, fostered the garden from which the 9/11 attackers grew like weeds, continue to be huge cash cows of terror activities worldwide, and have one of the most backward religious countries in the world. And your position is: well, it's complicated by the world of finance and politics? You let your "principles" be bought off by their ol reserves?
You're kind of on target.

My argument is almost solely financial in base (and to a degree, it’s strategic, but that's another conversation entirely).

To be honest, I really don't give a shit about these people, and I can almost guarantee the feeling's mutual, but in reality, that's of little consequence, for the only thing we should be worrying about NOW is how we can cement a good deal for BOTH parties involved.

Anything else (IOW, all this pissing and moaning over the "quagmire" in Iraq) is akin to crying over spilt milk. It's as impractical as it is completely useless. Withdrawing is only an option for politically (and strategically) myopic dullards (and if you wanna know who I'm talking about, see: "9/11 Truth March").

I do see some similarities to the rhetoric of the Left and Far Left, but also to the Right and Far Right. He seem to be pandering across the board, and applying classic techniques to manipulate the situation toward further conflict, all the while being able to claim he's all about peace.

I see no reason to believe he is being aided by commentaries from the Left, agrees with the Left (in fact the Left is the first group he'd persecute), or believes any of the ideals actually espoused by the Left.

He does appear, however, to have accomplished at least one of his goals: Getting the Right to be further at odds with the Left and fomenting greater dissention and irrationality, as in your case.

You don't think his cause is aided by similar commentary from the left? Why would that be?
I would agree whole-heartedly that the far-left kooks would be the first ones he'd go after. Which makes it all the more strange that liberals would parrot his nonsense.
The right is trying to get the left to acknowledge that obl is an issue and develop some kind of consensus on how to fight them. So far the left's approach has been, "we need to get out of the ME", "we're only their to steal their oil", "they'd leave us alone if we just left them alone".....

What do you mean "won't work"? It's worked for EVERY SINGLE prosperous nation on Earth. I mean, it's not like we're selling communism here.....
I wasn't talking about democracy but the specific model of government they're trying to implement in Iraq; in other words, that specific form of democracy. It might work in a country that's more homogeneous, or least doesn't have as much tension between different groups, but it's simply not going to take hold in Iraq. The Iraqi government has had huge problems right from the beginning and they're not going to go away anytime soon. If democracy is going to work in Iraq it will have to be tailored to fit the political and social dynamics of the country and not be a copy of another country's government.

You're kind of on target.

My argument is almost solely financial in base (and to a degree, it’s strategic, but that's another conversation entirely).

To be honest, I really don't give a shit about these people, and I can almost guarantee the feeling's mutual, but in reality, that's of little consequence, for the only thing we should be worrying about NOW is how we can cement a good deal for BOTH parties involved.

Anything else (IOW, all this pissing and moaning over the "quagmire" in Iraq) is akin to crying over spilt milk. It's as impractical as it is completely useless. Withdrawing is only an option for politically (and strategically) myopic dullards (and if you wanna know who I'm talking about, see: "9/11 Truth March").

We need more young fellows like you over there, to carry your passion for the fight to them...silly me.

Sooo, no one in here thinks Bin Laden is already dead?

if he was i think the US would parade his head around on a stick like england did to william wallace.