For the defeatist wimps who said "it will be another Vietnam!"...

[chequita guevara]

The oops was for a mis-post. Though it was strangely appropraite because of Giancarlo's homophobic rant. Go look at my new thread.

[Victor Galis]

Sounds like a good show.

[Alexander's Horse]

I just think most of you lack the life experince to have the feintest idea what you are talking about. Can someone explain to me how bombing and invading Afghanistan is going to win the war on terrorism? Doesn't seem to have stopped Hamas or whoever.

[Zylka]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
I just think most of you lack the life experince to have the feintest idea what you are talking about. Can someone explain to me how bombing and invading Afghanistan is going to win the war on terrorism? Doesn't seem to have stopped Hamas or whoever.

It won't win any war on terrorism. The next psychopath leader will come along, and we'll be forced to do the same time and again. As long as we can exert control in this never ending cycle, and keep any terrorist leaders from the stability they need for true international power.

If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on the face of a muslim zealot, forever! Now zoom in on the boot, you'll be happy to see a star spangled tag which reads; made in America

[Zylka]

...and just how, oh how do you feel your particular brand of real life experience leaves you more knowlegable in the field of international politics?

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[Alexander's Horse]

Trying too hard there Zylka

[Zylka]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
Trying too hard there Zylka

Then perhaps you'd like to patronize me with a response, MISTAR I DONT NEED UNIVERSITY YEW DONT HAFF REAL LIFE EXPERIENCE 2 KNOW HOW TEW IMPOSSIBLE TO DEFEAT TERRORISM

[chequita guevara]

I wish pointless posts still counted for post counts. I feel like spamming this thread.

[Deity Dude]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
I just think most of you lack the life experince to have the feintest idea what you are talking about.

I'm 40, so I have a little life experience.

Can someone explain to me how bombing and invading Afghanistan is going to win the war on terrorism? Doesn't seem to have stopped Hamas or whoever.

I never said, nor has Bush et al, that "bombing and invading Afghanistan is going to win the war on terrorism." Look at my post. I believe my quote was 1 down 7 or 8 to go. It is just Part 1.

More specifically, terrorism like crime and a million other problems will never be stopped. I think the goal could be more accurately stated as "Eliminating state sponsored/sanctioned terrorism in a priority order."

I think the first priority is bin Laden and those that harbor him (i.e. Taliban) for obvious reasons. Then those that pose the greatest danger in descending order. Probably Iraq second, unless the rest of al Qaada comes before them (i.e. Somalian, Phillipine and other "cells"/training camps) in which case that could be considered Part 1b before moving on to step 2, Iraq.

As far as Hamas is concerned, I'm sure they are on the list just not on the top.

[Chris 62]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
You doth protest too much.

All the threads claiming America is winning have had a desperate tone to them - like deep down you know it isn't true.

Your just nervous you will lose your bet with Mike!

As for the other stuff, who told ya months ago the blowhard Taliban would fold?

[The Mad Monk]

Terrorism cannot be must stopped, only controlled--but controlled it must be.

Horsie's troll:

(out of a possible five)

[rev]

Please allow me to temporarily perform a threadjack for this little rant. I will return the thread when I am done with it.



Giancarlo, do you have multiple personalities?

A week or two ago, you said you'd try to be more tolerant and accepting of people who are different than you -- in regard to sexuality.

Now, you call them "fags" and -- maybe I took this the wrong way, but -- say to red_jon that he shouldn't live because he's gay. That's what Hitler said, too, kid.

You jump from belief to belief, depending on the mood. You felt bad for trolling and getting *****slapped because of it, so you apologize profusely and resolve to better yourself, to be a better person. Now, you're trolling again (or simply taking out your world's anger on us) and basically telling people that because they're ("they are" = "they're", not "their", by the way) "fags" they shouldn't be allowed to live. And then you're back to the "I'll stop. I'll change!" nonsense.

Another example: yesterday, you said I had "moderate dimentia" for making fun of a stupid 'joke' you made, and today you come crawling back asking for advice. For the record, I told Giancarlo that I had no advice for him because I had "moderate dimentia" and could not be trusted.

red_jon, you're not getting out of this unscathed. Telling Giancarlo HE shouldn't be allowed to live because of the (moronic) opinions he holds isn't very cool. That's all.

Anyway, back to the thread.

People on both sides of this issue seem to always go to the extreme: "Total victory!" or "Another Vietnam!". The 'truth', although not yet determined, probably lies somewhere in the middle. The war to this point has had some great victories and great decisions, but it's also had its mistakes -- as most wars do -- and the biggest one might be happening right now. In the past, we've been able to keep Isreal on a leash to prevent the situation from escalating too much. Now that we've struck back at our terrorists, we've given the Isrealis a blank check to go after Palestinians. Might not be good, but we'll just have to wait and see.

We started winning this inevetible battle on Sept 11. That's when terrorists woke up America on our own shores and showed us just how bad terrorism could be if left unchecked.

This might have been another error. If/When the Supreme Court and Congress get to the various bills passed and executive orders signed, parts (if not the whole) of them may be nullified. Now, if the Feds and White House want certain 'tools' to combat terrorism, they'd have to go through a Congress which will be much less willing to negotiate and to be "yes-men, for the good of the country". (The alternative view, of course, is that Congress and the People have already been prepared to see the 'extreme' and would be willing to give up some ground when the issue comes up again).

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by rev
Giancarlo, do you have multiple personalities?

No just a bad temper.

A week or two ago, you said you'd try to be more tolerant and accepting of people who are different than you -- in regard to sexuality.

Let me say this: I may have said that, but gay people here were harassing me.

Now, you call them "fags" and -- maybe I took this the wrong way, but -- say to red_jon that he shouldn't live because he's gay. That's what Hitler said, too, kid.

He said I shouldn't be living either.... so he is just as bad as Hitler.

You jump from belief to belief, depending on the mood. You felt bad for trolling and getting *****slapped because of it, so you apologize profusely and resolve to better yourself, to be a better person.

There is only belief I have.

Now, you're trolling again (or simply taking out your world's anger on us) and basically telling people that because they're ("they are" = "they're", not "their", by the way) "fags" they shouldn't be allowed to live. And then you're back to the "I'll stop. I'll change!" nonsense.

I'll stop. You must realize I was quoting something redjon said to me. He said I shouldn't live so that is something you should realize. Something you don't. Saying I should be dead is as bad as what Hitler did. Shame on you redjon for being a hypocrit.

Another example: yesterday, you said I had "moderate dimentia" for making fun of a stupid 'joke' you made, and today you come crawling back asking for advice. For the record, I told Giancarlo that I had no advice for him because I had "moderate dimentia" and could not be trusted.

You don't any have form of dementia.

red_jon, you're not getting out of this unscathed. Telling Giancarlo HE shouldn't be allowed to live because of the (moronic) opinions he holds isn't very cool. That's all.

I am a republican, someone with a purpose and someone who has a different opinion. Is that acceptable or must I be censored by people who supposably fight for freedom of speech? My point is made.

[General Ludd]

Do unto others as you'd have them do unto you.

Originally posted by Giancarlo
gay people here were harassing me.



He said I shouldn't be living either.... so he is just as bad as Hitler.

If you harass, insult, and demean people for being gay, expect to be treated the same way back.

[Berzerker]

Zylka -

Now zoom in on the boot, you'll be happy to see a star spangled tag which reads; made in America

Focus a bit more, it says Malaysia.

Victor -

"The liberals would of destroyed four hundred times more civil liberties like the right to carry guns. "

-That's not a right.

The 2nd Amendment is at odds with your assertion.

"Bush will get reelected for practical purposes."

-He's already destroyed the budget surplus and a good deal of civil liberties.

Did he fly planes into the WTC/Pentagon?
The Democrats control the senate and that means they share responsibility. Just look at how the 20 billion Bush asked for to deal with terrorism and the damage quickly turned into 40 billion once the senate (Democrat controlled senate) got a hold of the issue.

Red Jon -

And conservative parties have always been anti-freedom (wtih the odd rare exception).

At least there are exceptions, there are none with the liberals - they are all anti-freedom.