...enamored with....

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Jul 14, 2007 | 12:29 AM
  #1  
wittom's Avatar
Thread Starter
|
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 1,919
Likes: 0
From: Western Massachusetts
...enamored with....

.....terrorists.

Sympathize with the terrorists?

Give up to terrorists?

Surrender to terrorists?

Is this really what a majority of this country wants?

Fight terrorists for our own domaine?
 

Last edited by wittom; Jul 14, 2007 at 09:50 AM.
Reply
Old Jul 14, 2007 | 12:35 AM
  #2  
ccla's Avatar
Senior Member
Joined: Feb 1999
Posts: 1,209
Likes: 0
From: Baton Rouge, La
"There's no argument over the choice between peace and war, but there's only one guaranteed way you can have peace -- and you can have it in the next second -- surrender." - Ronald Reagan






Not all of us feel like giving up.
 
Reply
Old Jul 14, 2007 | 01:30 AM
  #3  
chris1450's Avatar
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 774
Likes: 1
From: western washington
I don't believe surrender is what the majority want... just the democrats in office at the moment. Harry reid and mrs bill clinton and obama sure talk like they want to surrender. People need to wake up and realize we are in the middle of WW3. We need to stop being PC and start rubbing down the enemies with pigs blood and shoot the suckers. Make them fear us and they will slow down. They care nothing about life. So make sure that the after life is dirty to them.
 
Reply
Old Jul 14, 2007 | 02:06 AM
  #4  
Stealth's Avatar
Senior Member
Truck of the Month
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 17,118
Likes: 7
From: Burleson, Texas
If we are to fight terrorists we need to do so with a 100% total effort, not a half assed effort.
 
Reply
Old Jul 14, 2007 | 02:12 AM
  #5  
harleydude78's Avatar
Senior Member
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 195
Likes: 0
From: Crestview, FL
Originally Posted by Stealth
If we are to fight terrorists we need to do so with a 100% total effort, not a half assed effort.

+1 but unfortunately that will never happen as long as the politicians and media control it.
 
Reply
Old Jul 14, 2007 | 02:18 AM
  #6  
lovetrucks's Avatar
Senior Member
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 361
Likes: 0
From: New Jersey
I don't think anyone wants to "surrender". We were all so pissed as a nation after 9/11. I think the majority wanted to go kick some ***. But we reacted on feelings. It wasn't well thought out, which is apparant. I'm not a Bush fan, but I don't totally blame him either. I think whoever may have been in office at the time might have done the same thing. However, there are too many innocent lives being taken because of something we can't possibly "win" at the moment.
 
Reply
Old Jul 14, 2007 | 02:20 AM
  #7  
nuclearthreat54's Avatar
Senior Member
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 2,271
Likes: 0
From: Broward County, FL
Iraq was doomed from day 1.
 
Reply

Trending Topics

Old Jul 14, 2007 | 02:29 AM
  #8  
Stealth's Avatar
Senior Member
Truck of the Month
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 17,118
Likes: 7
From: Burleson, Texas
It's not Iraq, it's The Global War on Terrorism.

I thought this pic was funny, it might be needed by someone later on.
 

Last edited by Stealth; Jul 14, 2007 at 02:32 AM.
Reply
Old Jul 14, 2007 | 02:42 AM
  #9  
TexEdition's Avatar
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,184
Likes: 0
From: Austin
Originally Posted by Stealth
It's not Iraq, it's The Global War on Terrorism.

I thought this pic was funny, it might be needed by someone later on.

Every talking-head show encapsulated in one pic!!

BRILLIANT!!

 
Reply
Old Jul 14, 2007 | 04:36 PM
  #10  
Odin's Wrath's Avatar
Senior Member
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 4,121
Likes: 0
From: Hammer Lane
Originally Posted by lovetrucks
However, there are too many innocent lives being taken because of something we can't possibly "win" at the moment.

No we can't win it at the moment. But if we walk away, we won't win it period. This is a long term effort, if we aren't there for a very long time, the attitudes will not change there. Right now, and from the beginning, there is so much confusion and uncertainty about what we (The USA) and they (The Iraqi gov't, the terrorist organizations, the neighboring gov'ts in the region, our allies... The list is long.) are going to do, that time, effort, and sacrifice are the only answers. Quitting is a big mistake. That's why the democrats want us out while Bush is still in office. That way, when things fall apart, they can point at him and say it's his fault. "We didn't have all the information we needed or we wouldn't have voted the way we did at the time." (Sound familiar?)

If we are still in Iraq if a Democrat wins the next election, we will probably stay there. Because that's what we have to do. They'll not want to be the ones that are responsible for the mess leaving Iraq now will create globally. (That may not be a certainty; though, it is very likely.) They want Bush to be the bad guy all the way around start, middle, and end.
 
Reply
Old Jul 14, 2007 | 06:45 PM
  #11  
wittom's Avatar
Thread Starter
|
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 1,919
Likes: 0
From: Western Massachusetts
I think that we've pretty much established what the politicians on both sides of the isle think. I'm just wondering how many of us really want to give up? How many of us want to surrender to terrorist? How many of us want to fight terrorists here at home?

Am I so far off base in my belief that if we give up that terrorists will be emboldened and will stage an ever increasing number of attacks here in the US? Am I wrong in my belief that if they come here, we are going to have to fight them, because our military will have their hands tied even more than they do in Iraq? We think it's a PC war in Iraq, if there is fighting here the news will have a field day every time a civilian is killed by one of our soldiers.

Am I just being paranoid that terrorists will feel that they have defeated us in Iraq and will feel that the necessary next step would be to work their way into our country to further their agenda? Are most people in this country confident that we can keep them from coming to our cities and towns?
Can anyone fathom what it would be like if the things that are happening in Iraq, were happening here?

I hope I am off base and paranoid. It seems a possability that public perception and election hopes could drive many of our representatives to do what is popular rather than what is right. If I'm right though, I fear I won't get a chance to say I told you so.
 

Last edited by wittom; Jul 14, 2007 at 06:47 PM.
Reply
Old Jul 14, 2007 | 07:14 PM
  #12  
referee54's Avatar
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 282
Likes: 0
From: Columbia Station, Ohio
I do not want to surrender to any terrorists...but was Iraq really the terrorist front? Like I have said, I did not agree with the war there---but now that the Iraqi gov't is having no trouble playing grab-***, I recognize that we we be there a long, long time.

Wittom, from time to time you have said, "We fight them over there of fight them over here." Is Iraq the "Them" that we really need to be fighting? It is too late now; it is a moot point; as we will be there for decades, realistically.

Interesting news today with Lugar and Warner proposing new ideas. I agreed with the strategy in regards to Afghanistan---that is trouble with a capital "T" there, and we need to take steps; but Iraq---a different story.

While I did not agree with going to war with Iraq, now that we are there, we might as well kick ***; after all, that is the real idea of war, isn't it? Subdue them, then rebuild. That in itself will be horrifically difficult, as I really do not believe that the Iraqi's want anything to do with democracy---they are too sectarian to give up an play nice.

Tim C.
 

Last edited by referee54; Jul 14, 2007 at 07:16 PM.
Reply
Old Jul 14, 2007 | 07:20 PM
  #13  
referee54's Avatar
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 282
Likes: 0
From: Columbia Station, Ohio
Originally Posted by chris1450
I don't believe surrender is what the majority want... just the democrats in office at the moment. Harry reid and mrs bill clinton and obama sure talk like they want to surrender. People need to wake up and realize we are in the middle of WW3. We need to stop being PC and start rubbing down the enemies with pigs blood and shoot the suckers. Make them fear us and they will slow down. They care nothing about life. So make sure that the after life is dirty to them.
It isn't just the blues anymore; more and more of the reds are moving away from Bush---politically now he is a pariah(sp?) to the party---while I recognize that this is merely political posturing, it is interesting to see that Lugar and Warner---two fairly staunch Bush allies in the past, are beginning to retreat from him. My one Republican senator from Ohio, Voinovich, has already written to Bush to change the plans. Interesting---Bush has become to many Republicans what Clinton became to the Democrats...

Tim C.
 
Reply
Old Jul 14, 2007 | 07:39 PM
  #14  
chris1450's Avatar
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 774
Likes: 1
From: western washington
first off.. bush was wrong not to push the hell out of the dumbocrats and make it there fault... which it is. They have done great marketing with the media to make the iraq war look lost before it started. The political heads, no matter what party need to get out of the way and let the military fight the war. Iraq was a training ground for terrorists. period. what better place to go? we got rid of sadam, and fight terrorists at the same time. But PC allies want us to fight like gentlemen and not like *******s like the terrorists are. We need to fight dirty and win. No holds bared. This WILL be like veitnam unless we do that. The democrats lost that war for us.. I don't want them doing that to us again. Bushes only fault is trying to "get along" with the dumbocrats.
 
Reply
Old Jul 14, 2007 | 08:00 PM
  #15  
referee54's Avatar
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 282
Likes: 0
From: Columbia Station, Ohio
Originally Posted by chris1450
The democrats lost that war for us.. I don't want them doing that to us again. Bushes only fault is trying to "get along" with the dumbocrats.
Wow---and to think that the brightest minds of the admin and the pentagon did not see the insurgent thing coming---that is the Dems' fault? Don't think so...It boggles my mind to think that we were going to roll into Bahgdad and they were going to say, "Game over." That missed assignment there by the admin or the Pentagon people is not the Dems' fault by any stretch of the imagination...No---I didn't agree with fight that group of "Thems"; terrorists are not in one country; terrorist are in cells.

I didn't agree with attacking Iraq---like I said, Afghanistan was a differnt matter, but quit blaming the Dems for everything...there is enough blame for everyone. Like I said, I just do not get it; somebody f'ed up big time by not seeing the potential of insurgents, and sectarian violence. Please tell me that somebody in the admin or the CIA or the Pentagon might have seen this coming and mentioned it just a teeny, weeny bit? Somebody needed to ask the question, "What happens if they can't govern themselves?" Somebody needed to ask the question, "Do they really, really want, understand, and are willing to commit to a democracy, seeing how they have been so sectarian for CENTURIES?" Please remember---one of our "aliies" in the region---Saudi Arabia, is anything but a democracy.

We are there now, we created the mess---reps and dems alike---and we will be there for a long, long time. Either get the heck out of dodge or wage total war, waste the country, and then leave.

TSC
 

Last edited by referee54; Jul 14, 2007 at 08:10 PM.
Reply



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:53 AM.