OT: “Obama administration warns public to expect rise in US casualties”

[CostaMesa]

I don’t know why anyone would care when righties carelessly throw around treasonous words. Just proves that they weren’t brought up right.

“If there’s one thing I can’t stand, it’s seeing Americans fighting Americans”

[TheBreeze]

[quote=partypup]

And I know of no sane Leftist who believes that had we taken the war to Pakistan after 9/11, the world would be a lot different today.
[/quote]

Really. Most of the world was sympathetic towards America and supported us until Bush took us into Iraq like a bunch of drunken, idiot cowboys. I for one would love to have back that $2 trillion we wasted in Iraq. America would certainly be a lot richer had we not gone into Iraq and there’s a good chance that most of the world would still be supportive of America if Bush hadn’t gone against the international community and taken us into Iraq. The world could be substantially different if the Iraq War never happened.

[quote=partypup]
The Democrats have a problem waging a war in Iraq that enrages Musmilms and emoboldens terrorists, but you don’t think the same would have happened if we had attacked Pakistan? Seriously, how would that have looked any different from Iraq?
[/quote]

Are you being willfully ignorant? Obama isn’t planning to “attack Pakistan”. Instead, he is doing the logical thing and is planning to go after the terrorist cells that operate in Pakistan.

Most Americans support Obama’s efforts to go after the terrorist cells in Pakistan. This redeployment is not that controversial and is actually logical. What was illogical was starting a War with Iraq when none of the terrorists were from there and when none of 9/11 terrorists were hiding there.

[quote=partypup]
And I might also add, Pakistan poses a slight problem that Iraq did not: it possesses nuclear capability.
[/quote]

Once again, the U.S. is not attacking Pakistan. We are going to go after terrorist cells in Pakistan. I understand that the distinction is subtle (sarcasm), but it is an important difference.

[quote=partypup]
And where is the proof that Pakistan was one of “the guys who actually attached us”?
[/quote]

Again, attacking 9/11 terrorist cells does not equal attacking Pakistan. Try to keep up. I am really stunned at how ignorant you are being here.

[quote=partypup]
My understanding is that the hijackers’ nationalities broke down as follows: 15 Saudis, 1 Egyptian, 1 Lebanese, 2 from union of Arab Emirates. Where is Pakistan on this list? Why didn’t we take the fight to Saudi Arabia, the country that spawned 75% of the hijackers?
[/quote]

Where is Iraq on that list? If the terrorists had been from Canada, should we have then gone to war with Canada? If the terrorists who attacked us had hidden in Canada, should we pursue them in Canada?

[quote=partypup]
Ugh. I never thought it was possible, but with this type of thinking coming from the Left, and having seen what the Right has to offer, I am actually dreading the next 4 years more than the last 8…[/quote]

With your kind of thinking coming from the right, I’m predicting massive wins for Obama in ’12. Republicans might not win a single state. It’s amazing that all Obama has to do to crush the right is to just continue to do things that make logical sense. It’s like he’s doing battle with a bunch of mental midgets.

[TheBreeze]

[quote=partypup]

And I know of no sane Leftist who believes that had we taken the war to Pakistan after 9/11, the world would be a lot different today.
[/quote]

Really. Most of the world was sympathetic towards America and supported us until Bush took us into Iraq like a bunch of drunken, idiot cowboys. I for one would love to have back that $2 trillion we wasted in Iraq. America would certainly be a lot richer had we not gone into Iraq and there’s a good chance that most of the world would still be supportive of America if Bush hadn’t gone against the international community and taken us into Iraq. The world could be substantially different if the Iraq War never happened.

[quote=partypup]
The Democrats have a problem waging a war in Iraq that enrages Musmilms and emoboldens terrorists, but you don’t think the same would have happened if we had attacked Pakistan? Seriously, how would that have looked any different from Iraq?
[/quote]

Are you being willfully ignorant? Obama isn’t planning to “attack Pakistan”. Instead, he is doing the logical thing and is planning to go after the terrorist cells that operate in Pakistan.

Most Americans support Obama’s efforts to go after the terrorist cells in Pakistan. This redeployment is not that controversial and is actually logical. What was illogical was starting a War with Iraq when none of the terrorists were from there and when none of 9/11 terrorists were hiding there.

[quote=partypup]
And I might also add, Pakistan poses a slight problem that Iraq did not: it possesses nuclear capability.
[/quote]

Once again, the U.S. is not attacking Pakistan. We are going to go after terrorist cells in Pakistan. I understand that the distinction is subtle (sarcasm), but it is an important difference.

[quote=partypup]
And where is the proof that Pakistan was one of “the guys who actually attached us”?
[/quote]

Again, attacking 9/11 terrorist cells does not equal attacking Pakistan. Try to keep up. I am really stunned at how ignorant you are being here.

[quote=partypup]
My understanding is that the hijackers’ nationalities broke down as follows: 15 Saudis, 1 Egyptian, 1 Lebanese, 2 from union of Arab Emirates. Where is Pakistan on this list? Why didn’t we take the fight to Saudi Arabia, the country that spawned 75% of the hijackers?
[/quote]

Where is Iraq on that list? If the terrorists had been from Canada, should we have then gone to war with Canada? If the terrorists who attacked us had hidden in Canada, should we pursue them in Canada?

[quote=partypup]
Ugh. I never thought it was possible, but with this type of thinking coming from the Left, and having seen what the Right has to offer, I am actually dreading the next 4 years more than the last 8…[/quote]

With your kind of thinking coming from the right, I’m predicting massive wins for Obama in ’12. Republicans might not win a single state. It’s amazing that all Obama has to do to crush the right is to just continue to do things that make logical sense. It’s like he’s doing battle with a bunch of mental midgets.

[TheBreeze]

[quote=partypup]

And I know of no sane Leftist who believes that had we taken the war to Pakistan after 9/11, the world would be a lot different today.
[/quote]

Really. Most of the world was sympathetic towards America and supported us until Bush took us into Iraq like a bunch of drunken, idiot cowboys. I for one would love to have back that $2 trillion we wasted in Iraq. America would certainly be a lot richer had we not gone into Iraq and there’s a good chance that most of the world would still be supportive of America if Bush hadn’t gone against the international community and taken us into Iraq. The world could be substantially different if the Iraq War never happened.

[quote=partypup]
The Democrats have a problem waging a war in Iraq that enrages Musmilms and emoboldens terrorists, but you don’t think the same would have happened if we had attacked Pakistan? Seriously, how would that have looked any different from Iraq?
[/quote]

Are you being willfully ignorant? Obama isn’t planning to “attack Pakistan”. Instead, he is doing the logical thing and is planning to go after the terrorist cells that operate in Pakistan.

Most Americans support Obama’s efforts to go after the terrorist cells in Pakistan. This redeployment is not that controversial and is actually logical. What was illogical was starting a War with Iraq when none of the terrorists were from there and when none of 9/11 terrorists were hiding there.

[quote=partypup]
And I might also add, Pakistan poses a slight problem that Iraq did not: it possesses nuclear capability.
[/quote]

Once again, the U.S. is not attacking Pakistan. We are going to go after terrorist cells in Pakistan. I understand that the distinction is subtle (sarcasm), but it is an important difference.

[quote=partypup]
And where is the proof that Pakistan was one of “the guys who actually attached us”?
[/quote]

Again, attacking 9/11 terrorist cells does not equal attacking Pakistan. Try to keep up. I am really stunned at how ignorant you are being here.

[quote=partypup]
My understanding is that the hijackers’ nationalities broke down as follows: 15 Saudis, 1 Egyptian, 1 Lebanese, 2 from union of Arab Emirates. Where is Pakistan on this list? Why didn’t we take the fight to Saudi Arabia, the country that spawned 75% of the hijackers?
[/quote]

Where is Iraq on that list? If the terrorists had been from Canada, should we have then gone to war with Canada? If the terrorists who attacked us had hidden in Canada, should we pursue them in Canada?

[quote=partypup]
Ugh. I never thought it was possible, but with this type of thinking coming from the Left, and having seen what the Right has to offer, I am actually dreading the next 4 years more than the last 8…[/quote]

With your kind of thinking coming from the right, I’m predicting massive wins for Obama in ’12. Republicans might not win a single state. It’s amazing that all Obama has to do to crush the right is to just continue to do things that make logical sense. It’s like he’s doing battle with a bunch of mental midgets.

[TheBreeze]

[quote=partypup]

And I know of no sane Leftist who believes that had we taken the war to Pakistan after 9/11, the world would be a lot different today.
[/quote]

Really. Most of the world was sympathetic towards America and supported us until Bush took us into Iraq like a bunch of drunken, idiot cowboys. I for one would love to have back that $2 trillion we wasted in Iraq. America would certainly be a lot richer had we not gone into Iraq and there’s a good chance that most of the world would still be supportive of America if Bush hadn’t gone against the international community and taken us into Iraq. The world could be substantially different if the Iraq War never happened.

[quote=partypup]
The Democrats have a problem waging a war in Iraq that enrages Musmilms and emoboldens terrorists, but you don’t think the same would have happened if we had attacked Pakistan? Seriously, how would that have looked any different from Iraq?
[/quote]

Are you being willfully ignorant? Obama isn’t planning to “attack Pakistan”. Instead, he is doing the logical thing and is planning to go after the terrorist cells that operate in Pakistan.

Most Americans support Obama’s efforts to go after the terrorist cells in Pakistan. This redeployment is not that controversial and is actually logical. What was illogical was starting a War with Iraq when none of the terrorists were from there and when none of 9/11 terrorists were hiding there.

[quote=partypup]
And I might also add, Pakistan poses a slight problem that Iraq did not: it possesses nuclear capability.
[/quote]

Once again, the U.S. is not attacking Pakistan. We are going to go after terrorist cells in Pakistan. I understand that the distinction is subtle (sarcasm), but it is an important difference.

[quote=partypup]
And where is the proof that Pakistan was one of “the guys who actually attached us”?
[/quote]

Again, attacking 9/11 terrorist cells does not equal attacking Pakistan. Try to keep up. I am really stunned at how ignorant you are being here.

[quote=partypup]
My understanding is that the hijackers’ nationalities broke down as follows: 15 Saudis, 1 Egyptian, 1 Lebanese, 2 from union of Arab Emirates. Where is Pakistan on this list? Why didn’t we take the fight to Saudi Arabia, the country that spawned 75% of the hijackers?
[/quote]

Where is Iraq on that list? If the terrorists had been from Canada, should we have then gone to war with Canada? If the terrorists who attacked us had hidden in Canada, should we pursue them in Canada?

[quote=partypup]
Ugh. I never thought it was possible, but with this type of thinking coming from the Left, and having seen what the Right has to offer, I am actually dreading the next 4 years more than the last 8…[/quote]

With your kind of thinking coming from the right, I’m predicting massive wins for Obama in ’12. Republicans might not win a single state. It’s amazing that all Obama has to do to crush the right is to just continue to do things that make logical sense. It’s like he’s doing battle with a bunch of mental midgets.

[TheBreeze]

[quote=partypup]

And I know of no sane Leftist who believes that had we taken the war to Pakistan after 9/11, the world would be a lot different today.
[/quote]

Really. Most of the world was sympathetic towards America and supported us until Bush took us into Iraq like a bunch of drunken, idiot cowboys. I for one would love to have back that $2 trillion we wasted in Iraq. America would certainly be a lot richer had we not gone into Iraq and there’s a good chance that most of the world would still be supportive of America if Bush hadn’t gone against the international community and taken us into Iraq. The world could be substantially different if the Iraq War never happened.

[quote=partypup]
The Democrats have a problem waging a war in Iraq that enrages Musmilms and emoboldens terrorists, but you don’t think the same would have happened if we had attacked Pakistan? Seriously, how would that have looked any different from Iraq?
[/quote]

Are you being willfully ignorant? Obama isn’t planning to “attack Pakistan”. Instead, he is doing the logical thing and is planning to go after the terrorist cells that operate in Pakistan.

Most Americans support Obama’s efforts to go after the terrorist cells in Pakistan. This redeployment is not that controversial and is actually logical. What was illogical was starting a War with Iraq when none of the terrorists were from there and when none of 9/11 terrorists were hiding there.

[quote=partypup]
And I might also add, Pakistan poses a slight problem that Iraq did not: it possesses nuclear capability.
[/quote]

Once again, the U.S. is not attacking Pakistan. We are going to go after terrorist cells in Pakistan. I understand that the distinction is subtle (sarcasm), but it is an important difference.

[quote=partypup]
And where is the proof that Pakistan was one of “the guys who actually attached us”?
[/quote]

Again, attacking 9/11 terrorist cells does not equal attacking Pakistan. Try to keep up. I am really stunned at how ignorant you are being here.

[quote=partypup]
My understanding is that the hijackers’ nationalities broke down as follows: 15 Saudis, 1 Egyptian, 1 Lebanese, 2 from union of Arab Emirates. Where is Pakistan on this list? Why didn’t we take the fight to Saudi Arabia, the country that spawned 75% of the hijackers?
[/quote]

Where is Iraq on that list? If the terrorists had been from Canada, should we have then gone to war with Canada? If the terrorists who attacked us had hidden in Canada, should we pursue them in Canada?

[quote=partypup]
Ugh. I never thought it was possible, but with this type of thinking coming from the Left, and having seen what the Right has to offer, I am actually dreading the next 4 years more than the last 8…[/quote]

With your kind of thinking coming from the right, I’m predicting massive wins for Obama in ’12. Republicans might not win a single state. It’s amazing that all Obama has to do to crush the right is to just continue to do things that make logical sense. It’s like he’s doing battle with a bunch of mental midgets.

[4plexowner]

I look at world history primarily from a monetary perspective

War is just one of the ways that the bankers make money – there is evidence of the bankers financing both sides in the same wars

The details of who is waging war against who don’t really matter as long as there is plenty of war going on

At this particular juncture in history, the oil pipelines play into the monetary game

~

Another key thing that wars accomplish is to distract the population from a collapsing economy

Right now we have US, UK, Iceland, Greece, Latvia, North Korea and Iran (did I miss any?) economies collapsing

Not to mention that at least two of the world’s major fiat currencies (USD and British Pound) are doing death rattles

~

So, two good reasons to have a major war right now:
– it’s good for the bankers business
– distract populations from collapsing economy

It’s a shame that our young men have to die so the bankers and politicians can continue their games

[4plexowner]

I look at world history primarily from a monetary perspective

War is just one of the ways that the bankers make money – there is evidence of the bankers financing both sides in the same wars

The details of who is waging war against who don’t really matter as long as there is plenty of war going on

At this particular juncture in history, the oil pipelines play into the monetary game

~

Another key thing that wars accomplish is to distract the population from a collapsing economy

Right now we have US, UK, Iceland, Greece, Latvia, North Korea and Iran (did I miss any?) economies collapsing

Not to mention that at least two of the world’s major fiat currencies (USD and British Pound) are doing death rattles

~

So, two good reasons to have a major war right now:
– it’s good for the bankers business
– distract populations from collapsing economy

It’s a shame that our young men have to die so the bankers and politicians can continue their games

[4plexowner]

I look at world history primarily from a monetary perspective

War is just one of the ways that the bankers make money – there is evidence of the bankers financing both sides in the same wars

The details of who is waging war against who don’t really matter as long as there is plenty of war going on

At this particular juncture in history, the oil pipelines play into the monetary game

~

Another key thing that wars accomplish is to distract the population from a collapsing economy

Right now we have US, UK, Iceland, Greece, Latvia, North Korea and Iran (did I miss any?) economies collapsing

Not to mention that at least two of the world’s major fiat currencies (USD and British Pound) are doing death rattles

~

So, two good reasons to have a major war right now:
– it’s good for the bankers business
– distract populations from collapsing economy

It’s a shame that our young men have to die so the bankers and politicians can continue their games

[4plexowner]

I look at world history primarily from a monetary perspective

War is just one of the ways that the bankers make money – there is evidence of the bankers financing both sides in the same wars

The details of who is waging war against who don’t really matter as long as there is plenty of war going on

At this particular juncture in history, the oil pipelines play into the monetary game

~

Another key thing that wars accomplish is to distract the population from a collapsing economy

Right now we have US, UK, Iceland, Greece, Latvia, North Korea and Iran (did I miss any?) economies collapsing

Not to mention that at least two of the world’s major fiat currencies (USD and British Pound) are doing death rattles

~

So, two good reasons to have a major war right now:
– it’s good for the bankers business
– distract populations from collapsing economy

It’s a shame that our young men have to die so the bankers and politicians can continue their games

[4plexowner]

I look at world history primarily from a monetary perspective

War is just one of the ways that the bankers make money – there is evidence of the bankers financing both sides in the same wars

The details of who is waging war against who don’t really matter as long as there is plenty of war going on

At this particular juncture in history, the oil pipelines play into the monetary game

~

Another key thing that wars accomplish is to distract the population from a collapsing economy

Right now we have US, UK, Iceland, Greece, Latvia, North Korea and Iran (did I miss any?) economies collapsing

Not to mention that at least two of the world’s major fiat currencies (USD and British Pound) are doing death rattles

~

So, two good reasons to have a major war right now:
– it’s good for the bankers business
– distract populations from collapsing economy

It’s a shame that our young men have to die so the bankers and politicians can continue their games

[4plexowner]

Setting up the pretense of two political parties is part of the game as well

That way people can waste time debating ‘my party’ vs ‘your party’ when there is really only one party

It’s the banker party, stupid!

[4plexowner]

Setting up the pretense of two political parties is part of the game as well

That way people can waste time debating ‘my party’ vs ‘your party’ when there is really only one party

It’s the banker party, stupid!

[4plexowner]

Setting up the pretense of two political parties is part of the game as well

That way people can waste time debating ‘my party’ vs ‘your party’ when there is really only one party

It’s the banker party, stupid!

[4plexowner]

Setting up the pretense of two political parties is part of the game as well

That way people can waste time debating ‘my party’ vs ‘your party’ when there is really only one party

It’s the banker party, stupid!

[Author]

Posts