Guiliani

Putting aside for the moment the hilarity of these two imbeciles interviewing a presidential candidate, and putting aside the way they are crawling up his ***, I just wanted to canvass the board about this question: Is it just me, or are there others who feel the same away about Guiliani as they did about Nixon?

I turned it off as soon as he came on. I think he's despicable. Although they all do it to one degree or another, he takes the cake as far as invoking fear in the citizenry to achieve his own ends. Talk about using the tragedy of 911 for your own political gain...

I can see this thread being immediately dispatched to the political forum. Which is probably where it belongs.

Mike lecturing on what it's like to be President. Mike *does* know everything ! :)

I can see this thread being immediately dispatched to the political forum. Which is probably where it belongs.
It definitely does. I should have checked to see before I responded...

Mike lecturing on what it's like to be President. Mike *does* know everything ! :)

Yes, HE certainly does......"They all have days where they want out...."It's a thankless, thankless job...just a brutal job."

Geez Mike, then tell us WHY so many people want the job in the first place.

Was waiting for Russo to ask Rudy WHY HE HAD TO SNEAK INTO HIS DAUGHTERS HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATION AND HOW SOMEONE ELSE HAD TO TELL HIM THAT HIS DAUGHTER WAS GOING TO HARVARD IN THE FALL. WHEN RUDY WAS INTRODUCED BY CHUCK SCHUMER AT HIS (RUDYS) DAUGHTERS GRADUATION, THE ONLY PEOPLE THAT DIDN'T STAND UP WERE HIS EX-WIFE AND ANDREW. SO MUCH FOR HIS SON 'LOVING' HIM. THE GUY IS A MAJOR LEAGUE HYPOCRITE !!

PERSONALLY, I WOULD NOT VOTE RATHER THAN HAVING TO VOTE FOR RUDY. THE GUY IS MORALLY BANKRUPT AND MEAN SPIRITED.

HE WANTED HIS BUDDY "THE CROOK' KERIK TO BE IN CHARGE OF HOMELAND SECURITY AT THE SAME TIME HE WAS FORMING A SECURITY FIRM. CAN SOMEONE SAY KICKBACK ??

FRANCESA CAN'T WAIT TO SAY "MY CLOSE FRIEND, THE PRESIDENT"

I turned it off as soon as he came on. I think he's despicable. Although they all do it to one degree or another, he takes the cake as far as invoking fear in the citizenry to achieve his own ends. Talk about using the tragedy of 911 for your own political gain...


Read Matt Taibbi's piece in the recent Rolling Stone magazine..it discusses his use of 9/11 for political gain (as you said) and really shreds Rudy. I mean, you know what to expect politically when you read RS but man he kills him.

Anyway...

Why would this thread go to the political forum, he was interviewed by Mike and the Mad Dog

because there isnt a "NJ\NY sucks, New Mexico and you perfect together" category.

Despite all the pundits already saying McCain is done, I just don't believe it. I still think it will be McCain vs. Clinton when the dust has settled. Possibly Fred Thompson, just not sure if he will have the money to go the extra mile.

But Guiliani, haha, I don't care what the polls say, this guy is fooling himself thinking he can win the nomination. I want to see the Southern states nominate a pro-choice, pro-gay, pro-gun control, cross dressing, 3x married, who has God himself striking him down with lightning during his abortion answer at the last debate.

Rudy wants to ride on that 9/11 tragedy all the way to the White House, not gonna happen.

The religious right will never accept Rudy. They don't completely trust McCain. I think they'll eventually throw their support and financial resources to Thompson and he'll get the nomination.

Hillary won't have an easy ride either. Winning a national election is a lot harder than winning a Senate seat in a heavily Democratic state. I think the left wing still have problems with her vote on Iraq and may see her recent anti-war rhetoric as pandering. But she'll probably win the nomination unless Gore steps in.

Giuliani is morally bankrupt human being with a disgusting record of race baiting throughout his time as mayor. What's most sickening is his use of 9/11 national tragedy for political gain. It is sickening. Mike is so "ga-ga" over him that its so nauseating to listen to. Then again its hardly surprising.

I really don't see Guliani as a viable candidate. There is too much dirt there.....something will come out. Althought I'm sure the Republicans are hoping it's him so they can exploit 9/11 some more. As someone who supports the Democrats....I really hope Hillary does not get the nomination. I still wouldn't be surprised to see Gore enter the mix. Gore/Obama in '08?

I think to MIke, the most important thing is being a Yankee fan. I think he would support any political candidate if that candidate was a Yankee fan, particularly if that candidate liked Mickey Mantle or Derek Jeter.

Was waiting for Russo to ask Rudy WHY HE HAD TO SNEAK INTO HIS DAUGHTERS HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATION AND HOW SOMEONE ELSE HAD TO TELL HIM THAT HIS DAUGHTER WAS GOING TO HARVARD IN THE FALL. WHEN RUDY WAS INTRODUCED BY CHUCK SCHUMER AT HIS (RUDYS) DAUGHTERS GRADUATION, THE ONLY PEOPLE THAT DIDN'T STAND UP WERE HIS EX-WIFE AND ANDREW. SO MUCH FOR HIS SON 'LOVING' HIM. THE GUY IS A MAJOR LEAGUE HYPOCRITE !!

PERSONALLY, I WOULD NOT VOTE RATHER THAN HAVING TO VOTE FOR RUDY. THE GUY IS MORALLY BANKRUPT AND MEAN SPIRITED.

HE WANTED HIS BUDDY "THE CROOK' KERIK TO BE IN CHARGE OF HOMELAND SECURITY AT THE SAME TIME HE WAS FORMING A SECURITY FIRM. CAN SOMEONE SAY KICKBACK ??

FRANCESA CAN'T WAIT TO SAY "MY CLOSE FRIEND, THE PRESIDENT"



Amazing how so few people realize (or remember) how this guy was hated by majority of the general population in the 5 boroughs prior to 9/11. It was like living in a police state for many.

Amazing how so few people realize (or remember) how this guy was hated by majority of the general population in the 5 boroughs prior to 9/11. It was like living in a police state for many.

I'm a huge Rudy supporter, if only because I could actually ride the subway and walk around in midtown without fear. Rudy cleaned up Manhattan, and for that he's always got my vote. Do you remember NYC in the 80's before he showed up?

I'm a huge Rudy supporter, if only because I could actually ride the subway and walk around in midtown without fear. Rudy cleaned up Manhattan, and for that he's always got my vote. Do you remember NYC in the 80's before he showed up?



Yeah, Dinkins. Awful mayor. He was good for Tennis, though. Go figure. LOL

Here's a good Dinkins quote.

In response to his failure to file (or pay) income taxes for 5 years earlier in his career, Salon magazine later reported, Dinkins reasoned, "I haven't committed a crime. What I did was fail to comply with the law."

I'm a huge Rudy supporter, if only because I could actually ride the subway and walk around in midtown without fear. Rudy cleaned up Manhattan, and for that he's always got my vote. Do you remember NYC in the 80's before he showed up?

http://www.cpluv.com/www/medias/subfusc/subfusc_4432c7007f9cd.jpg

Giuliani is morally bankrupt human being with a disgusting record of race baiting throughout his time as mayor. What's most sickening is his use of 9/11 national tragedy for political gain. It is sickening. Mike is so "ga-ga" over him that its so nauseating to listen to. Then again its hardly surprising.
Which politician has morals?
9/11 is used by all to push their agenda.
I really don't see Guliani as a viable candidate. There is too much dirt there.....something will come out. Althought I'm sure the Republicans are hoping it's him so they can exploit 9/11 some more. As someone who supports the Democrats....I really hope Hillary does not get the nomination. I still wouldn't be surprised to see Gore enter the mix. Gore/Obama in '08?
Thats the thing everything with him is out there.

Amazing how so few people realize (or remember) how this guy was hated by majority of the general population in the 5 boroughs prior to 9/11. It was like living in a police state for many.

He cleaned up the city and set it up for Bloomberg to be busy with anti smoking and congestion. after a while people got tired of him but still remember him for what he did which is why his *** is always kissed.

The religious right will never accept Rudy. They don't completely trust McCain. I think they'll eventually throw their support and financial resources to Thompson and he'll get the nomination.


What's with the religious right and actors? Ironic that people trust actors to be leaders of the free world.

I'm a huge Rudy supporter, if only because I could actually ride the subway and walk around in midtown without fear. Rudy cleaned up Manhattan, and for that he's always got my vote. Do you remember NYC in the 80's before he showed up?

I agree it was much safer for most but not for all. Many would say that the increased over zealous police mentality took away the civili liberties of many. I myself was continually stopped, frisked, harrased for supposed mistaken identities. But I do see your point that many areas were cleaned up for the better.

What's with the religious right and actors? Ironic that people trust actors to be leaders of the free world.

Evidently, Thompson is gaining in this poll: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/politics/la-na-poll12jun12,0,6280343.story?page=1

In terms of Mike and Chris, I know they work in Astoria, which is great. But they really shouldn't have an opinion on a mayor if you don't live in the area full-time. I'm not going to comment on what New Canaan's mayor/leader is doing, or comment on what Manhasset's community leader is doing, they did not live here during the Guiliani era and should not comment on our community.

Big issues aside, and yes he did clean up Times Square. He let other areas of NYC deteriorate, like Jamaica and parts of Brooklyn. He lowered rent control standards with kicked out many tenants who lived in their apartments for 10-20+ years and for those who couldn't afford it, allowed rent prices to skyrocket with no rent ceiling, and displacing many New Yorkers into afformentioned deteriorated areas. In terms of logistics, his bungling of the budget allowed for many potholes not being filled, the Queens subway tracks to be neglected and took over 15 years to finally complete, and of course, the Williamsburg/Manhattan Bridge construction debacles. Don't forget Diallo and Louima also happened under his watch.

And he cheated on his wife with no remorse =)

And his ideas for un-zoning the public high schools, which ultimately was done under Bloomberg's watch, caused many of our good schools like Forest Hills, Madison, Midwood, Townsend Harris, Murrow, etc. lower their own standards in favor for many smaller schools (charter schools) to take over and take taxpayer money and give it to the corporations who fund these schools. Just food for thought.

I'm a huge Rudy supporter, if only because I could actually ride the subway and walk around in midtown without fear. Rudy cleaned up Manhattan, and for that he's always got my vote. Do you remember NYC in the 80's before he showed up?

Let's not forget former NYPD Police Commish Bill Bratton ! Bratton deserves a lot of the credit. When he was getting too much recognition for Rudy's taste the mayor had him dismissed. Bernie "The Crook" Kerik wasn't worthy enough to shine Bratton's shoes.

Find Rudy taking credit for increase in adoptions laughable. What exactly did he do ??

It also didn't hurt Rudy (and NYC) that the greatest bull market in history started on his watch.....which he had zero to do with greatly helped NYC's economy.

In terms of Mike and Chris, I know they work in Astoria, which is great. But they really shouldn't have an opinion on a mayor if you don't live in the area full-time. I'm not going to comment on what New Canaan's mayor/leader is doing, or comment on what Manhasset's community leader is doing, they did not live here during the Guiliani era and should not comment on our community.

Big issues aside, and yes he did clean up Times Square. He let other areas of NYC deteriorate, like Jamaica and parts of Brooklyn. He lowered rent control standards with kicked out many tenants who lived in their apartments for 10-20+ years and for those who couldn't afford it, allowed rent prices to skyrocket with no rent ceiling, and displacing many New Yorkers into afformentioned deteriorated areas. In terms of logistics, his bungling of the budget allowed for many potholes not being filled, the Queens subway tracks to be neglected and took over 15 years to finally complete, and of course, the Williamsburg/Manhattan Bridge construction debacles. Don't forget Diallo and Louima also happened under his watch.

And he cheated on his wife with no remorse =).

And he cheated on Hanover more than once in a very public way.

Which politician has morals?
9/11 is used by all to push their agenda.

Thats the thing everything with him is out there.



He cleaned up the city and set it up for Bloomberg to be busy with anti smoking and congestion. after a while people got tired of him but still remember him for what he did which is why his *** is always kissed.

Let's not forget that Rudy wanted to extend his term after 9/11 and prevent Bloomberg from becoming mayor.

The good news is that Rudy and his inflated ego were overridden.

By the way, you have to give Bloomberg his due regarding an improved school system, a continued decline in crime (Ray Kelly is a great police commish) and the fact that his business acumen greatly helped NYC in the years immediately following 2001. He also is not mean spirited and has greatly improved race relations in Gotham.

If Rudy is the Republican candidate, the only part of NYC he is likely to carry is Staten Island, especially if Hillary is his competition.

......and has greatly improved race relations in Gotham.



cough cough....Sean Bell.....cough cough

cough cough....Sean Bell.....cough cough

Bloomberg seems to have gotten a pass in this matter, especially since it is comparable to Diallo, 41 shots aside. Both died.

cough cough....Sean Bell.....cough cough

At least Bloomberg contacted Sharpton and other black community leaders and politicians in an effort to diffuse the situation.

Name one black leader Rudy consulted with or took advice from during his administartion ??

By the way, a few of the cops that were involved in the Bell shooting were minorites themselves.

Bloomberg seems to have gotten a pass in this matter, especially since it is comparable to Diallo, 41 shots aside. Both died.

Especially since its much less likely for people to get shaken down during the Bloomberg term than when Rudy was here. With Bloomberg people got what they asked for ...a business man. With the smoking ban, and the short lived feed the meters on sunday plan, people can't complain they knew initiatives like this were forthcoming.

Name one black leader Rudy consulted with or took advice from during his administartion ??


Bob Watson :)

At least Bloomberg contacted Sharpton and other black community leaders and politicians in an effort to diffuse the situation.

Name one black leader Rudy consulted with or took advice from during his administartion ??

By the way, a few of the cops that were involved in the Bell shooting were minorites themselves.

The Bell shooting never seemed racially motivated to me, no matter how much Sharpton wanted it to be.

Bob Watson :)

Very clever !! Can't stop laughing !! Excellent !!!

Read Matt Taibbi's piece in the recent Rolling Stone magazine..it discusses his use of 9/11 for political gain (as you said) and really shreds Rudy. I mean, you know what to expect politically when you read RS but man he kills him.

Anyway...

I'm sure you, Taibbi and Mohawk guy above are completely wrong. There is nothign wrong at all with a candidate pointing to his accomplishments when seeking the Presidency, including leadership on 9-11 that led none less than
Jacques Chirac of France to name him, "Rudy the Rock". And David Letterman to annoint him on air as America's Mayor. Have you forgotten World War Two? Without that war, Dwight Eisenhower would not have become POTUS, two terms. Do you think he politically "exploited" D-Day? Or that his calm leadership during the hardest days in America convinced overwhelming majorities to vote for him?

Rudy G. is an eggbreaker. That's how you get things done. I forgive him for a an egg he broke close to my own life, because he also turned around the management of city government and gave Blomberg a much much better city to run, despite that 9-11 happenned at the end of the term.

Do you want a better FEMA? Remember Katrina? There is no one of the viable candidates with ANY RECORD WHATSOEVER of management turnarounds in difficult situations. None. Nada. If there is anyone who can make FEMA run the way Americans want it to run, it's Rudy or it can't be done.

Do you want someone to establish control of our own borders? The man who
started the crime turnaround in NYC, who did what all previous mayors said was impossible, is the man to do that. He'll break eggs. He'll make some people scream. And just as crime still happens in NYC, illegals will still get in.
But it won't be in the millions per year anymore. Maybe you guys prefer open stroll across borders? Go ahead. Elect any of the others and you'll have it and be happy. Elect the eggbreaker and it can and will get done. Do you want it?

Rudy is not the only guy who can manage a huge political entity like the Federal government. There may be others. Hard to tell cause running a big corporation is nothing like running a goiverment. Rudy is the only one who can and has a realistic chance of obtaining the office. If you elect Hillary because you've convinced yourself that Bernie Kerik's shortcomings are Rudy's fault, (despite having zero evidence of same), then go ahead. Elect her. And be sure to like what you elect.

Bob Watson :)

Add **** Parsons to that list. They're old friends and both former partners
at Patterson, Belknap, Webb and Tyler.

Let's not forget that Rudy wanted to extend his term after 9/11 and prevent Bloomberg from becoming mayor.

The good news is that Rudy and his inflated ego were overridden.

By the way, you have to give Bloomberg his due regarding an improved school system, a continued decline in crime (Ray Kelly is a great police commish) and the fact that his business acumen greatly helped NYC in the years immediately following 2001. He also is not mean spirited and has greatly improved race relations in Gotham.

If Rudy is the Republican candidate, the only part of NYC he is likely to carry is Staten Island, especially if Hillary is his competition.

And it was Rudy's endorsement that changed Mike Blomberg from an unknown into a viable candidate. And in searching for, finding and promoting Mike, Rudy saved the city from Mark Green, who is a nice man, and an idiot. If you think Mike is Mayor today without Rudy's help, you're living in Dreamville.

Do you want a better FEMA? Remember Katrina? There is no one of the viable candidates with ANY RECORD WHATSOEVER of management turnarounds in difficult situations. None. Nada. If there is anyone who can make FEMA run the way Americans want it to run, it's Rudy or it can't be done.



To be fair, invoking the name of Ray Nagin into the political landscape is to set the bar fairly low. Probably one of the most loathesome individuals in recent political history. Amazingly, in spite of not being able to effectively evacuate a city, form an egress plan, show effective leadership, etc, that is 5 feet below sea level, staring down the barrel of a category 4 hurricane, this man managed to win re-election. And the governor of Louisiana, Blanco, should also be investigated, for withholding 8 billion in earmarked funds from FEMA until she got matching dollars. People were harsh on Federal Government during that fiasco, how about some of the local leadership being similarly culpable, if not moreso?

To be fair, invoking the name of Ray Nagin into the political landscape is to set the bar fairly low. Probably one of the most loathesome individuals in recent political history. Amazingly, in spite of not being able to effectively evacuate a city, form an egress plan, show effective leadership, etc, that is 5 feet below sea level, staring down the barrel of a category 4 hurricane, this man managed to win re-election. And the governor of Louisiana, Blanco, should also be investigated, for withholding 8 billion in earmarked funds from FEMA until she got matching dollars. People were harsh on Federal Government during that fiasco, how about some of the local leadership being similarly culpable, if not moreso?


I can't agree more and I hate our newsmedia for ignoring their incompetence, their reelections despite their incompetence, and blaming everything on the Feds, the POTUS, and FEMA. Anderson Cooper, call your therapist. Nevertheless, America needs a better more efficient FEMA for the future.
And if anyone will appoint the kind of tough guy admins they need, and tell them to make it happen, and give them the authority of the POTUS to make it happen, and give them a fast hook if they can't make it happen, it's Rudy.
All the candidates will say they can do this. Only Mitt Romney, besides Rudy
can point to actual accomplishments that they ran at the top. And I don't think Mitt is electable nationally. 2008 is a bad year for any pol who looks on stage too much like George W. Bush. And Mitt does.

Ohhhhhh, will everyone stop with their freaken candidates? Uhhhh, I like Joe Blow because he's tough on Islamic terrorism, and he'll uhhhhhhhhh lower taxes....or something. My guy's good, your guy's bad, blah, blah, blah. Everone STFU and vote who you wanna vote for and let me watch sports in peace.



Paid for by people who wanna let Gator watch sports in peace.

Ohhhhhh, will everyone stop with their freaken candidates? Uhhhh, I like Joe Blow because he's tough on Islamic terrorism, and he'll uhhhhhhhhh lower taxes....or something. My guy's good, your guy's bad, blah, blah, blah. Everone STFU and vote who you wanna vote for and let me watch sports in peace.

Paid for by people who wanna let Gator watch sports in peace.
The People Who Wanna Let Gator Watch Sports In Peace? Those scumbags! I knew you were taking money from those lowlifes! You just lost my vote, Gator. Until you stop taking money from these lobbyists, I can no longer in good conscience support your campaign...:)

Ohhhhhh, will everyone stop with their freaken candidates? Uhhhh, I like Joe Blow because he's tough on Islamic terrorism, and he'll uhhhhhhhhh lower taxes....or something. My guy's good, your guy's bad, blah, blah, blah. Everone STFU and vote who you wanna vote for and let me watch sports in peace.



Paid for by people who wanna let Gator watch sports in peace.

So now your beholden to "the people who wanna let Gator watch sports in peace". You lost my vote.

By the way, I don't care if my mayor, president or third baseman cheat on their wife...as long as they produce.

Due to the furor that has surrounded my candidacy, I am stepping down and.....WILL NOT....watch the Met game tonight.



...but only because they completely suck these days coupled with the fact that Lebron is on.

I turned it off as soon as he came on. I think he's despicable. Although they all do it to one degree or another, he takes the cake as far as invoking fear in the citizenry to achieve his own ends. Talk about using the tragedy of 911 for your own political gain...

Hillary talks about 9/11 and the "sick" volunteers all the time. She speaks as if she's a native New Yorker.

Giuliani is the best thing that ever happened to New York City. The city was an absolute dump in 1993 when he took over after disastrous years of Dinkins, Koch, Beame and Lindsay.

NYC was totally different by the time Giuliani left office. He did a great job on 9/11 and deserves all of the praise he gets.

Look at what a disastrous the New Orleans mayor, Ray Nagin, was during the hurricane. At least Nagin had advance warning of an impending disaster. Giuliani behaved heroically on that day.

People mad at Giuliani are only hurling partisan insults. Look at Hillary and the way she exploits 9/11 and she has no record or accomplishments in her career.

Read Matt Taibbi's piece in the recent Rolling Stone magazine..it discusses his use of 9/11 for political gain (as you said) and really shreds Rudy. I mean, you know what to expect politically when you read RS but man he kills him.

Anyway...

You get your political reporting from Rolling Stone magazine? Hahaha, okay.

Ohhhhhh, will everyone stop with their freaken candidates? Uhhhh, I like Joe Blow because he's tough on Islamic terrorism, and he'll uhhhhhhhhh lower taxes....or something. My guy's good, your guy's bad, blah, blah, blah. Everone STFU and vote who you wanna vote for and let me watch sports in peace.



Paid for by people who wanna let Gator watch sports in peace.


My name is Obama Lincoln. If elected, I promise that Gator will not have one moment in peace to watch sports. We''ll bug his house, his cable, his internet connection and his IPOD too. We'll compromise his HDTV with hidden wiring so that it only gets analog signals. We'll have Roger Clemens come to his house and repossess his car. We'll ship Eric Mangini to Guantanamo for his terrorist appearance on The Sopranos. His Meadowlands 50 yard line season tickets will be replaced with his name on the bottom of the Wait List. And we'll charge him for it too. Finally, we'll get a court order mandating he watch
all Colorado Rockies games, start to finish.

Any other suggestions?

Hillary talks about 9/11 and the "sick" volunteers all the time. She speaks as if she's a native New Yorker.

Giuliani is the best thing that ever happened to New York City. The city was an absolute dump in 1993 when he took over after disastrous years of Dinkins, Koch, Beame and Lindsay.

NYC was totally different by the time Giuliani left office. He did a great job on 9/11 and deserves all of the praise he gets.

Look at what a disastrous the New Orleans mayor, Ray Nagin, was during the hurricane. At least Nagin had advance warning of an impending disaster. Giuliani behaved heroically on that day.

People mad at Giuliani are only hurling partisan insults. Look at Hillary and the way she exploits 9/11 and she has no record or accomplishments in her career.
I'm not hurling partisan insults. You are. You're the one who immediately brought Hillary and Ray Nagin into the equation, when the conversation has been focused on Rudy. That sort of behavior is the definition of partisan politics. I can't stand Hillary or the Democrats. I'm a registered Independent, and pretty much can't stand either party. If you want to give Rudy a lot of credit for his handling of 911, that's obviously your prerogative. I can point you to some things that outline how he mishandled a lot of the aftermath. I live near Summit, NJ, a town which had a lot of Cantor Fitzgerald employees living in it, and I can tell you that many of them are none too pleased with Rudy's refusal to fully cooperate with the 911 Commission. If you want to talk about heroes, I suggest sticking to the people on the ground, the people who did the real work, and who would have done so whether Rudy or anyone else was barking orders, or no one at all. The real heroes are always the people you never hear about it. The politicians, save for a very few exceptions, are always the ones who take credit for the hard work of others. I cringe anytime I hear someone refer to a politician as a hero. Please. Enough already.

My name is Obama Lincoln. If elected, I promise that Gator will not have one moment in peace to watch sports. We''ll bug his house, his cable, his internet connection and his IPOD too. We'll compromise his HDTV with hidden wiring so that it only gets analog signals. We'll have Roger Clemens come to his house and repossess his car. We'll ship Eric Mangini to Guantanamo for his terrorist appearance on The Sopranos. His Meadowlands 50 yard line season tickets will be replaced with his name on the bottom of the Wait List. And we'll charge him for it too. Finally, we'll get a court order mandating he watch
all Colorado Rockies games, start to finish.

Any other suggestions?


Obama's the guy that looks like brother Malcolm, right? I don't trust that guy. Sure, he looks all clean cut now, but you know the second he gets elected he'll be having those pool parties in the white house with the gangsta rap, the bitchez, and the Bentleys in the driveway. Meanwhile, the terrorists will be lining up at the border.

I hope McCain wins, but only because my M-I-L gave us a book signed by him. I wanna have a book signed by the president, OK?

You can see I'm not big on politics.

I'm sure you, Taibbi and Mohawk guy above are completely wrong. There is nothign wrong at all with a candidate pointing to his accomplishments when seeking the Presidency, including leadership on 9-11 that led none less than
Jacques Chirac of France to name him, "Rudy the Rock". And David Letterman to annoint him on air as America's Mayor. Have you forgotten World War Two? Without that war, Dwight Eisenhower would not have become POTUS, two terms. Do you think he politically "exploited" D-Day? Or that his calm leadership during the hardest days in America convinced overwhelming majorities to vote for him?

Rudy G. is an eggbreaker. That's how you get things done. I forgive him for a an egg he broke close to my own life, because he also turned around the management of city government and gave Blomberg a much much better city to run, despite that 9-11 happenned at the end of the term.

Do you want a better FEMA? Remember Katrina? There is no one of the viable candidates with ANY RECORD WHATSOEVER of management turnarounds in difficult situations. None. Nada. If there is anyone who can make FEMA run the way Americans want it to run, it's Rudy or it can't be done.

Do you want someone to establish control of our own borders? The man who
started the crime turnaround in NYC, who did what all previous mayors said was impossible, is the man to do that. He'll break eggs. He'll make some people scream. And just as crime still happens in NYC, illegals will still get in.
But it won't be in the millions per year anymore. Maybe you guys prefer open stroll across borders? Go ahead. Elect any of the others and you'll have it and be happy. Elect the eggbreaker and it can and will get done. Do you want it?

Rudy is not the only guy who can manage a huge political entity like the Federal government. There may be others. Hard to tell cause running a big corporation is nothing like running a goiverment. Rudy is the only one who can and has a realistic chance of obtaining the office. If you elect Hillary because you've convinced yourself that Bernie Kerik's shortcomings are Rudy's fault, (despite having zero evidence of same), then go ahead. Elect her. And be sure to like what you elect.

I can only hope Mitt, McCain, or Fred wil beat Rudy for the nomination.

If you want a morally bankrupt person as president that is your choice.

The last thing this country needs now is someone (Rudy or Hillary) who is a polarizing figure.

I would rather not vote than vote for Rudy.

And it was Rudy's endorsement that changed Mike Blomberg from an unknown into a viable candidate. And in searching for, finding and promoting Mike, Rudy saved the city from Mark Green, who is a nice man, and an idiot. If you think Mike is Mayor today without Rudy's help, you're living in Dreamville.


Did you really think Rudy wasn't going to endorse the "Republican" candidate ??

Mike's $$$ didn't hurt him either.

Steve from Philly is referring to John Feinstein who is very anti-Duke lax

I can't agree more and I hate our newsmedia for ignoring their incompetence, their reelections despite their incompetence, and blaming everything on the Feds, the POTUS, and FEMA. Anderson Cooper, call your therapist. Nevertheless, America needs a better more efficient FEMA for the future.
And if anyone will appoint the kind of tough guy admins they need, and tell them to make it happen, and give them the authority of the POTUS to make it happen, and give them a fast hook if they can't make it happen, it's Rudy.
All the candidates will say they can do this. Only Mitt Romney, besides Rudy
can point to actual accomplishments that they ran at the top. And I don't think Mitt is electable nationally. 2008 is a bad year for any pol who looks on stage too much like George W. Bush. And Mitt does.
I appreciate your passion, but any president, Rudy or anyone else, can only maneuver ever so slightly, assuming he even wants to step outside the limits set by those who decide he is worthy to be there in the first place, a decision based not on "toughness" or intelligence or anything a reasonable person might find admirable, but rather by how much he or she panders to their interests and how many superficial qualities ("Gee, I'd like to have a beer with that guy...") he can present to the gullible electorate. Rudy's not going to be President, but even if he somehow did manage to become elected, he'll quickly find it's not the same thing as being mayor, even mayor of NYC. Of course, he already knows this. Too bad the majority of the electorate does not.

“If a baseball player slides into home plate and, right before the umpire rules if he is safe or out, the player says to the umpire — ‘Here is $1,000.’ What would we call that? We would call that a bribe. If a lawyer was arguing a case before a judge and said, ‘Your honor before you decide on the guilt or innocence of my client, here is $1,000.’ What would we call that? We would call that a bribe. “But if an industry lobbyist walks into the office of a key legislator and hands her or him a check for $1,000, we call that a campaign contribution. We should call it a bribe.” -Janice Fine, Dollars and Sense magazine

"Occupants of public offices love power and are prone to abuse it." -George Washington , Farewell Address

"The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a financial element in the large centers has owned the government of the U.S. since the days of Andrew Jackson." -Franklin D. Roosevelt (1882-1945), 32nd US President, November 21, 1933 - Source: in a letter written to Colonel E. Mandell House

"A professional politician is a professionally dishonorable man. In order to get anywhere near high office he has to make so many compromises and submit to so many humiliations that he becomes indistinguishable from a streetwalker." -H.L. Mencken

"Any man who wants to be president is either an egomaniac or crazy." -Dwight David Eisenhower

"Democracy becomes a government of bullies, tempered by editors." -Ralph Waldo Emerson

Noticed in today's Times that St. Rudy has renewed his ties with Bill Bratton after not speaking to him for 10 years. Guess the Mayor wants to paper over the rift between the two since it posed a potentially embarrassing siutation on the campaign trail.

Rudy would be terrible. If you walk down 42nd street now, there are no more porno shops or drug dealers. You can actually take your children there, or walk down 42nd street without fear of being killed. There are all these high level shops and restaurants in time square. Also, Rudy would be too tough on terrorists. A guy like GOre would give the terrorists a chance. First of all, terrorism isn't a big deal, unless your father or wife, or husband or child was killed on 9/11, and that's only the families of 3,000 people, who wouldn't vote for Gore anyway. Secondly, Rudy would intercept their phone calls to Iraq, Iran and Pakistan and arrest them. Gore wouldn't do anything like this, and would give them a chance. He would make sure they have their rights read to them. If he did arrest them, he would at least give them a Muslim friendly meal, since they're so religious. Rudy isn't a saint, just tough and intelligent and competent. Murdering innocent people is pious. Especially evil Americans. Maybe we should just surrender to Cuba or convert to Islam. Wait a minute, you can convert or move to Cuba, I'll live here and support people who stand for principle and fight terrorism.

Did you really think Rudy wasn't going to endorse the "Republican" candidate ??

Mike's $$$ didn't hurt him either.

I think he endorsed Cuomo in 1994 over Pataki.

[QUOTE=I Can't Disagree;30599]I appreciate your passion, but any president, Rudy or anyone else, can only maneuver ever so slightly, assuming he even wants to step outside the limits set by those who decide he is worthy to be there in the first place, a decision based not on "toughness" or intelligence or anything a reasonable person might find admirable, but rather by how much he or she panders to their interests and how many superficial qualities ("Gee, I'd like to have a beer with that guy...") he can present to the gullible electorate. Rudy's not going to be President, but even if he somehow did manage to become elected, he'll quickly find it's not the same thing as being mayor, even mayor of NYC. Of course, he already knows this. Too bad the majority of the electorate does not.

With all respect, you may be wrong. Some things seem impossible to others, but when you actually try, they're not so impossible. Government, smartly applied, can make lives better for the people. In a sense, not trying and surrendering to pessimism is the worst crime of all. You have to try. You may fail, but you're guaranteed to fail if you don't try. Based on what he tried to do and succeeeded to do in NYC, I'm certain that Rudy is the far and away best choice right now. But I don't know how to convince people of that,
nor what to do with those who will willfully distort history, cause they don't want someone who is willing to try, and maybe do. Cause when you do, when you make change, eggs will be broken. It's a certainty. Some people prefer high crime, dead deli clerks, open-air drug supermarkets, shutterred stores,
shutterred neighborhoods, and rule of the streets by the toughest guys on the street. They won't say it, but they do.

Noticed in today's Times that St. Rudy has renewed his ties with Bill Bratton after not speaking to him for 10 years. Guess the Mayor wants to paper over the rift between the two since it posed a potentially embarrassing siutation on the campaign trail.


No great comes without flaws, not Lincoln, not Churchil, not nobody. Rudy was wrong to banish Bratton, who was instrumental in the NYC crime turnaround.
Rudy has an arrogance that demands personal loyalty, as he defines it, and
punishes disloyalty, also as he defines it, with banishment. But thats a pink slip, not an execution. Bratton was fired, not whacked. It's very important not to confuse those two, and ever since the infamous Watergate "Saturday Night Massacre", far too many people, especially talking heads, do exactly that.
King Rudy will not execute appointees for disappointing the king, but he will fire them. Is that so unfair? Especially if the appointee knew going in this was the demand placed upon him. It's a weakness, I guess, but it can also be a strength.

If Rudy is making peace with Bratton after all these years, he may have him in mind for a job such as Homeland Security or FBI Director, if Rudy wins it all ofcourse. Bill Bratton can do the job and do it well.

Rudy would be terrible. If you walk down 42nd street now, there are no more porno shops or drug dealers. You can actually take your children there, or walk down 42nd street without fear of being killed. There are all these high level shops and restaurants in time square. Also, Rudy would be too tough on terrorists. A guy like GOre would give the terrorists a chance. First of all, terrorism isn't a big deal, unless your father or wife, or husband or child was killed on 9/11, and that's only the families of 3,000 people, who wouldn't vote for Gore anyway. Secondly, Rudy would intercept their phone calls to Iraq, Iran and Pakistan and arrest them. Gore wouldn't do anything like this, and would give them a chance. He would make sure they have their rights read to them. If he did arrest them, he would at least give them a Muslim friendly meal, since they're so religious. Rudy isn't a saint, just tough and intelligent and competent. Murdering innocent people is pious. Especially evil Americans. Maybe we should just surrender to Cuba or convert to Islam. Wait a minute, you can convert or move to Cuba, I'll live here and support people who stand for principle and fight terrorism.


This message is such nonsense. Do you honestly think Rudy is the only candidate who wants to protect America??? If you think that then you should check into Shady Acres immediately.

No great comes without flaws, not Lincoln, not Churchil, not nobody. Rudy was wrong to banish Bratton, who was instrumental in the NYC crime turnaround.
Rudy has an arrogance that demands personal loyalty, as he defines it, and
punishes disloyalty, also as he defines it, with banishment. But thats a pink slip, not an execution. Bratton was fired, not whacked. It's very important not to confuse those two, and ever since the infamous Watergate "Saturday Night Massacre", far too many people, especially talking heads, do exactly that.
King Rudy will not execute appointees for disappointing the king, but he will fire them. Is that so unfair? Especially if the appointee knew going in this was the demand placed upon him. It's a weakness, I guess, but it can also be a strength.

If Rudy is making peace with Bratton after all these years, he may have him in mind for a job such as Homeland Security or FBI Director, if Rudy wins it all ofcourse. Bill Bratton can do the job and do it well.

It is beyond absurd and sacrilegious to compare Lincoln and Giuliani.
You can't even compare Giuliani and Churchill. Believe me, I am no fan of Churchill. People always ignore the fact that Churchill was incredibly racist and was staunchly against the independence of the African and Asian nations. But obviously he showed tremendous courage in WWII, and Giuliani shouldn't be compared with him. Giuliani is a scoundrel as a human being and is a disgraceful race baiter. He's a good prosecutor. He can stick to that.

No great comes without flaws, not Lincoln, not Churchil, not nobody. Rudy was wrong to banish Bratton, who was instrumental in the NYC crime turnaround.
Rudy has an arrogance that demands personal loyalty, as he defines it, and
punishes disloyalty, also as he defines it, with banishment. But thats a pink slip, not an execution. Bratton was fired, not whacked. It's very important not to confuse those two, and ever since the infamous Watergate "Saturday Night Massacre", far too many people, especially talking heads, do exactly that.
King Rudy will not execute appointees for disappointing the king, but he will fire them. Is that so unfair? Especially if the appointee knew going in this was the demand placed upon him. It's a weakness, I guess, but it can also be a strength.

If Rudy is making peace with Bratton after all these years, he may have him in mind for a job such as Homeland Security or FBI Director, if Rudy wins it all ofcourse. Bill Bratton can do the job and do it well.

Lets calm down with the comparisions to Abe and Winston.

By the way Rudy fired Bratton because of jealousy.

Rudy would be terrible. If you walk down 42nd street now, there are no more porno shops or drug dealers. You can actually take your children there, or walk down 42nd street without fear of being killed. There are all these high level shops and restaurants in time square. Also, Rudy would be too tough on terrorists. A guy like GOre would give the terrorists a chance. First of all, terrorism isn't a big deal, unless your father or wife, or husband or child was killed on 9/11, and that's only the families of 3,000 people, who wouldn't vote for Gore anyway. Secondly, Rudy would intercept their phone calls to Iraq, Iran and Pakistan and arrest them. Gore wouldn't do anything like this, and would give them a chance. He would make sure they have their rights read to them. If he did arrest them, he would at least give them a Muslim friendly meal, since they're so religious. Rudy isn't a saint, just tough and intelligent and competent. Murdering innocent people is pious. Especially evil Americans. Maybe we should just surrender to Cuba or convert to Islam. Wait a minute, you can convert or move to Cuba, I'll live here and support people who stand for principle and fight terrorism.

Wow !! Didn't realize Gore was running for president in '08.

I think he endorsed Cuomo in 1994 over Pataki.

I'll take your word for it, but RG wasn't going to back Mark Green over Mike.

Rudy would be terrible. If you walk down 42nd street now, there are no more porno shops or drug dealers. You can actually take your children there, or walk down 42nd street without fear of being killed. There are all these high level shops and restaurants in time square. Also, Rudy would be too tough on terrorists. A guy like GOre would give the terrorists a chance. First of all, terrorism isn't a big deal, unless your father or wife, or husband or child was killed on 9/11, and that's only the families of 3,000 people, who wouldn't vote for Gore anyway. Secondly, Rudy would intercept their phone calls to Iraq, Iran and Pakistan and arrest them. Gore wouldn't do anything like this, and would give them a chance. He would make sure they have their rights read to them. If he did arrest them, he would at least give them a Muslim friendly meal, since they're so religious. Rudy isn't a saint, just tough and intelligent and competent. Murdering innocent people is pious. Especially evil Americans. Maybe we should just surrender to Cuba or convert to Islam. Wait a minute, you can convert or move to Cuba, I'll live here and support people who stand for principle and fight terrorism.

So let's see , if you don't support Rudy you are implying that one is anti-American and should move to Cuba and convert to Islam??? Get a grip my friend, adhominem attacks are a sign of someone who is intellectually malnourished. Rudy would be disappointed with you !!

Allrighteenow, if I disagree with you, will I be banned from the board. Hard as it may be with my sweet disposition, it has happenned to me. There's some fella named (appropriately) "Koz" over at theganggreen.com who pines away for me daily.

Ike and Rudy's situation is not comparable. Ike spent his whole life preparing for large army warfare. Nobody was prepared for the crushing of the WTC.
And you're wrong, dead wrong, if you think it was just press conferences.
Decisions were made every ten minutes. And the biggest decision was to not lie prostrate, to get NYC back to life as fast as possible. Even the NY Times marvelled at how fast the streets of lower Manhattan sprang back to life. And the fires kept burning in the pit until December. The daily stench of that fire did not leave, until the fire was put out. It's very popular today, after the fact, to do the gas mask shuffle, and say why weren't people forced to wear face masks, instead of merely told to do so. In that situation, do you really think you can waste time and effort trying to force guys to comply? Really?
We all had to go back to work, as fast as possible. To have declared lower manhattan a dead zone would have been a far worse disaster, and that's what we have have gotten from wannabees like Mark Green.

I think this after the fact revisionism, belittling Rudy's leadership during those days, is petty. I don't see what Thompson has accomplished to make him worthy of being President, but I do like the guy. And I love John McCain, a certified hero for enduring what he did at the Hanoi Hilton. But for some reason he also dreamed up McCain-Feingold, which looks at the First Amendment and spits at it as inconvenient. What can you do.

I'll give you this Mr. Admin. Almost everything I hope Rudy can accomplish as POTUS could also be done if he winds up as Vice President. So if you think
John or Fred can do it, I just hope they choose well for Veep.

Lets calm down with the comparisions to Abe and Winston.

By the way Rudy fired Bratton because of jealousy.

That's what Bratton says. I read his book. There may be two sides to that story. You know, Bratton badly wanted to run for Mayor when Rudy was term limited out. And he approached Rudy to patch things up, and see if he could get Rudy's endorsement. Rudy sent him packing. He was wrong to do this, that's the way it goes between people. This does not mean Rudy cannot be a great POTUS, when we need one. Or that he and Bill can't patch things up now.
Bratton's ambition goes higher than L.A. Police Comm. I wish him well, he's a good man.

Of course, Churchill was also quite fond of British Imperialism, bitterly resisting FDR's wishes to recognize India's independence (Churchill despised Gandhi). He was very much involved in Arab nation-building (including present-day Iraq and Saudi Arabia), obviously in order to secure the resources of the area for British use, without regard for the indigenous populations, as is par for the course - The old "We have to protect our interests" line which was invented by the British and of course carries forward to the present day.....
OUR INTERESTS = THEIR RESOURCES.

Oh wait, I forgot, they hate us for our freedom. :rolleyes:

Churchill was also very eager to establish the Jewish state in the middle of the Arab land, which, needless to say, has caused a bit of controversy over the years.:rolleyes: Whether or not he was eager to do this in order to legitimately help the Jewish people, or to give Britain a working base for which to carry out its imperial agenda, or some combination thereof, is debatable. At any rate, many forward-thinking Jews, including Albert Einstein, were not in favor of the idea. Here's some interesting quotes from both. Notice the date of the Churchill quote:

"The wealthy, crowded, progressive Jewish State lies in the plains and on the sea coasts (of Palestine). Around it, in the hills and the uplands, stretching far and wide into the illimitable deserts, the war-like Arabs of Syria, of Transjordania, of Arabia, backed by the armed forces of Iraq, offer the ceaseless menace of war . . . To maintain itself, the Jewish State must be armed to the teeth, and must bring in every able-bodied man to strengthen its army. But how long would this process be allowed to continue by the great Arab populations in Iraq and Palestine? Can it be expected that the Arabs would stand by impassively and watch the building up with Jewish world capital and resources of a Jewish army equipped with the most deadly weapons of war, until it was strong enough not to be afraid of them? And if ever the Jewish army reached that point, who can be sure that, cramped within their narrow limits, they would not plunge out into the new undeveloped lands that lie around them?" -Winston Churchill, quoted in 1937...more than ten years prior to the establishment of the state of Israel on May 14, 1948

"I should much rather see reasonable agreement with the Arabs on the basis of living together in peace than the creation of a Jewish state. Apart from the practical considerations, my awareness of the essential nature of Judaism resists the idea of a Jewish state with borders, an army, and a measure of temporal power no matter how modest. I am afraid of the inner damage Judaism will sustain -- especially from the development of a narrow nationalism within our own ranks, against which we have already had to fight without a Jewish state." -Albert Einstein, 1950

Who had the over on when this thread is moved to the political board? ;)

Please read what I said. I didn't say that you have to support Rudy. I'm not saying that Musharev is a great humanitarian, except that he is better than muslim extremists that want to kill Americans. I'm not defending Bush. I'm not saying that the U.S. shouldn't withdraw from Iraq. Many ultra-liberals wish to take the position that terrorism is not a big deal and that we are being to tough on terrorists. I don't necessarily think that Rudy should be President. Terrorists are very dangerous. I would rather someone be President (possibly Hillary Clinton) who realize this and aren't naive enough to think that the terrorists are people we can deal with and who should be granted constitutional rights and treated nicely, read their rights and given Muslim friendly meals. One of the few good things that Bush has done was transfer terrorist to "secret prisons" in Poland and Romania to extract information from them so that more children don't grow up without their parents. I don't think that Gore would favor this. Gore actually gave a speech in Saudi Arabia in which he said that many Arabs in AMerican were rounded up and imprisoned, which is untrue. If a few guys who want to kill innocent people and cut their heads off get tortured, to me it's "don't ask, don't tell". The world isn't perfect. Musharev and the Saudi leaders are not the greatest guys. One of my heroes, Benjamin Netanyahu, doesn't oppose Saudi Arabian leaders. I believe in confronting and killing Muslim extremist terrorists. If Rudy and Hillary agree (which I think they do) then I like them. If you think that the terrorists can be dealt with and are nice and shouldn't be killed, then you are naive and intellectually bankrupt. I don't think that Rudy is perfect. At least he knows who the enemy is. He's on my side, and in all due respect to those that think he's racist, he's on the side of African-American kids and their parents who will will be safer viz a viz muslim extemists murderers who don't deserve to have their rights read to them and receive Muslim friendly meals. My point is, the options are either convert to Islam, surrender or fight. I'm not converting or surrendering and Netanyahu can't be President of the U.S. I will support someone who will fight Muslim extremist terrorists who want to murder innocent people, destroy our economy and have kids grow up without their parents. This is the real world. If you think that Al-Quada will back off if we're nice, you're misguided. like Neville Chamberlain was.

Parenthetically, I'm not Jewish. But I think that Netanyahu stands for principles for civilized people. If you notice, Bin Laden has to hide. Netanyahu doesn't because he stands for what's right with humanity. Quite frankly, I'm glad Netanyahu is on our side.

True. But I've always found Churchill to be a terrible hypocrite. He was a staunch imperialist racist who never wanted Africa and Asia to be freed from very repressive conditions. They may never have been freed if it wasn't for FDR. FDR urged him that imperialism had to come to an end for Britain to have any moral standing in the world. If Churchill had his way, those nations would never have been freed.

Please read what I said. I didn't say that you have to support Rudy. I'm not saying that Musharev is a great humanitarian, except that he is better than muslim extremists that want to kill Americans. I'm not defending Bush. I'm not saying that the U.S. shouldn't withdraw from Iraq. Many ultra-liberals wish to take the position that terrorism is not a big deal and that we are being to tough on terrorists. I don't necessarily think that Rudy should be President. Terrorists are very dangerous. I would rather someone be President (possibly Hillary Clinton) who realize this and aren't naive enough to think that the terrorists are people we can deal with and who should be granted constitutional rights and treated nicely, read their rights and given Muslim friendly meals. One of the few good things that Bush has done was transfer terrorist to "secret prisons" in Poland and Romania to extract information from them so that more children don't grow up without their parents. I don't think that Gore would favor this. Gore actually gave a speech in Saudi Arabia in which he said that many Arabs in AMerican were rounded up and imprisoned, which is untrue. If a few guys who want to kill innocent people and cut their heads off get tortured, to me it's "don't ask, don't tell". The world isn't perfect. Musharev and the Saudi leaders are not the greatest guys. One of my heroes, Benjamin Netanyahu, doesn't oppose Saudi Arabian leaders. I believe in confronting and killing Muslim extremist terrorists. If Rudy and Hillary agree (which I think they do) then I like them. If you think that the terrorists can be dealt with and are nice and shouldn't be killed, then you are naive and intellectually bankrupt. I don't think that Rudy is perfect. At least he knows who the enemy is. He's on my side, and in all due respect to those that think he's racist, he's on the side of African-American kids and their parents who will will be safer viz a viz muslim extemists murderers who don't deserve to have their rights read to them and receive Muslim friendly meals. My point is, the options are either convert to Islam, surrender or fight. I'm not converting or surrendering and Netanyahu can't be President of the U.S. I will support someone who will fight Muslim extremist terrorists who want to murder innocent people, destroy our economy and have kids grow up without their parents. This is the real world. If you think that Al-Quada will back off if we're nice, you're misguided. like Neville Chamberlain was.
People aren't born terrorists. And terrorism isn't an ideology - it's a tactic. So to reduce the threat of people turning to terrorism, a reasonable person would obviously look at why they turn to it. And we have ample evidence of why from the people themselves, from our own intelligence agencies, and from foreign intelligence agencies. And the reasons are pretty clear. They are angry that we, and the British before us, have supported corrupt, repressive, and un-Islamist regimes in the area in order to pursue our own ends. The more fanatical religious elements are able to draw people to their cause because there is so much anger, fear, and desperation in the area, again essentially because of the mining of the area's resources without due regard for the indigenous population. Our unwavering support of Israel is another key component that fuels the anger in the region.

It's important to remember that much of what has gone on was predicted by our own intelligence agencies. The CIA calls it "blowback," and it's the unintended (though certainly foreseeable) consequences of our own actions. So, when the CIA armed and trained Bin Laden and his men in the 80's in order to get the Russians out of Afghanistan, and then up and left them high and dry (and to their own devices), it's not hard to predict what actions that may have provoked down the road. It's also laughable any time a politician talks about going after others for supporting "Islamic fundamentalism" (see: Iran) when the U.S. has supported some of the most fundamentalist Islamic states in history, most notably Saudi Arabia.

the saddest commentary is that i get most of my political knowledge from the MikeFrancesa.Com message board.

how pathetic is that!!

i learn alot from reading these threads both ways so you putz' better know what you are talking about when you debate.

btw: i will vote for rudy if he runs.

People aren't born terrorists. And terrorism isn't an ideology - it's a tactic. So to reduce the threat of people turning to terrorism, a reasonable person would obviously look at why they turn to it. And we have ample evidence of why from the people themselves, from our own intelligence agencies, and from foreign intelligence agencies. And the reasons are pretty clear. They are angry that we, and the British before us, have supported corrupt, repressive, and un-Islamist regimes in the area in order to pursue our own ends. The more fanatical religious elements are able to draw people to their cause because there is so much anger, fear, and desperation in the area, again essentially because of the mining of the area's resources without due regard for the indigenous population. Our unwavering support of Israel is another key component that fuels the anger in the region.

It's important to remember that much of what has gone on was predicted by our own intelligence agencies. The CIA calls it "blowback," and it's the unintended (though certainly foreseeable) consequences of our own actions. So, when the CIA armed and trained Bin Laden and his men in the 80's in order to get the Russians out of Afghanistan, and then up and left them high and dry (and to their own devices), it's not hard to predict what actions that may have provoked down the road. It's also laughable any time a politician talks about going after others for supporting "Islamic fundamentalism" (see: Iran) when the U.S. has supported some of the most fundamentalist Islamic states in history, most notably Saudi Arabia.
That's pathetic. People become terrorists because they are taught to hate. It is not our fault they are terrorists. It is their fault. This is typical of the "blame america first people". The world is not a perfect place. It is necessary to support some totalitarian regimes to prevent worse regimes. Iran under the Mullahs is worse than under the Shah. If Saudi Arabia was overrun by extremists, they would not only cut off oil which would plunge the world into a world-wide depression, but use the wealth of the royal family to engage in world wide terrorism. I wish we lived in a pure world. We don't. I don't think that any reasonable person would have imagined that after assisting the Afghans in defeating Soviet domination, that Bin Laden would have engaged in terrorism against us. A reasonable person would have predicted he would have thanked us. Bin Laden is an extreme extremist. He didn't turn to terrorism because we left him "high and dry". He wishes to establish world wide fundamentalist islamic rule. I wish the Saudies didn't have madrasas. I wish they had a more humanitarian regime. At least they aren't trying to nuke us. We have a better chance of convincing them to extend human rights to their citizens than we have to convince Bin Laden. ANy normal person with Bin Laden's money would be living at the Waldorff Astoria, not in a cave in Pakistan. If you think we can call him up and work it out with Bin Laden, you're mistaken. And this idea that we "support Israel" is ridiculous. We support everyone. We "support Israel" because it is a nation whose people deserve to live. Most Americans want peace for everyone, not just Israel.

That's pathetic. People become terrorists because they are taught to hate. It is not our fault they are terrorists. It is their fault. This is typical of the "blame america first people". The world is not a perfect place. It is necessary to support some totalitarian regimes to prevent worse regimes. Iran under the Mullahs is worse than under the Shah. If Saudi Arabia was overrun by extremists, they would not only cut off oil which would plunge the world into a world-wide depression, but use the wealth of the royal family to engage in world wide terrorism. I wish we lived in a pure world. We don't. I don't think that any reasonable person would have imagined that after assisting the Afghans in defeating Soviet domination, that Bin Laden would have engaged in terrorism against us. A reasonable person would have predicted he would have thanked us. Bin Laden is an extreme extremist. He didn't turn to terrorism because we left him "high and dry". He wishes to establish world wide fundamentalist islamic rule. I wish the Saudies didn't have madrasas. I wish they had a more humanitarian regime. At least they aren't trying to nuke us. We have a better chance of convincing them to extend human rights to their citizens than we have to convince Bin Laden. ANy normal person with Bin Laden's money would be living at the Waldorff Astoria, not in a cave in Pakistan. If you think we can call him up and work it out with Bin Laden, you're mistaken. And this idea that we "support Israel" is ridiculous. We support everyone. We "support Israel" because it is a nation whose people deserve to live. Most Americans want peace for everyone, not just Israel.
Bin Laden doesn't want to "establish world wide fundamentalist Islamic rule." I guarantee you that if the US didn't have its teeth in so many things over there, you never would have heard of him. He surely wouldn't have come knocking on America's door in order to spread his version of Islam here. And I never said we could call him up and work it out. Don't put words in my mouth. And I'm no fan of the CIA, but they by all means knew what they were getting into with Bin Laden. They chose him precisely for the fact that he was extreme, and they surely had to know that if a promise was made to him to get the Russians out of Afghanistan, but then subsequently our troops stayed in order to secure oil routes, that this would certainly piss him off.

The point is that there will always be some crazy lunatics out there. But when they "teach hate," we would be wise to not increase the amount of people who are willing to listen to them. There are crazy people in this country who want to establish world-wide Christian rule. But since we have reasonable standards of living, there's not nearly as much desperation to draw from. There are hardcore Zionists who think that the Jewish race is the ultimate race, and everyone else should be underlings to them (particularly Palestinians). The fact is that there are crazies everywhere. And regarding Israel, of course its people deserve to live. But their lives aren't worth any more or less than anyone else, including the Palestinians (which sadly has to be said). Besides, it's pretty obvious when you establish a state in the middle of a sacred area where people have lived for a couple thousand years, you're going to create some resentment. But don't take my word for it. How about what Israel's first prime minister had to say on the subject:

"If I were an Arab leader I would never make terms with Israel. That is natural: we have taken their country . . . We come from Israel, but two thousand years ago, and what is that to them? There has been anti-semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault? They only see one thing: we have come here and stolen their country. Why should they accept that?" -David Ben-Gurion, Israel's first prime minister, speaking to Nahum Goldmann, president of the World Jewish Congress

Obviously, we are where we are. Israel isn't going anywhere. But while numerous proposals for two-state solutions have been offered over the years, Israel and the US consistently oppose them. If you look at the maps of the area, Israel is constantly expanding its settlements, pushing further into Palestinian lands. Don't you think this would cause just a little resentment? Yet we're honestly supposed to believe that the Palestinians are the only evil ones, while Israel is completely innocent (the one-sidedness of the reporting on this in this country is unbelievable. It's fascinating to read the international news, like the Financial Times of London, or watch CNN International, and compare it to The New York Times or plain old CNN). Similarly, we're supposed to believe that America is always noble in its pursuits - perhaps not always going about things the right way, and perhaps making some mistakes, but the intent is always altruistic, never imperial. By this logic, we would have invaded Iraq to "spread Democracy" even if it were some small island in the middle of nowhere whose main export was cabbage.

And to say that "we support everyone" is a little misleading. We support nations first and foremost based on where our interests lie (our interests = securing their resources). And if you look at the amount of money Israel receives in relation to other nations, it's not even comparable. It's been said that a terrorist is someone who doesn't have a standing army behind them. Israel has a huge military, and it has an arsenal of nuclear weapons which it refuses to declare to the international community.http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/israel/nuke/

I'm not advocating abandoning Israel. Not at all. But serious discussion needs to take place in this country regarding the extent of our relations with Israel, and particularly how they are often shaped by powerful interest groups. I recommend reading the report by John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago and Stephen Walt of Harvard. The abridged version, printed in The London Review of books, is here:http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/mear01_.html

Mearsheimer also talks about it in this video, which also has a rare appearance by former Reagan and Bush defense advisor Richard Perle, one of the architects of the neocon Project for a New American Century (PNAC) and its outline for American hegemony titled "Rebuilding America's Defenses," written before Bush came to power. Perle also produced a strategy paper with Douglas Feith (Under Secretary of Defense for Policy under Bush) for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu entitled "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm" which advocated, among other things, removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq, as this would be a key objective for the Israeli state. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2894821400057137878

Despite all the pundits already saying McCain is done, I just don't believe it. I still think it will be McCain vs. Clinton when the dust has settled. Possibly Fred Thompson, just not sure if he will have the money to go the extra mile.

But Guiliani, haha, I don't care what the polls say, this guy is fooling himself thinking he can win the nomination. I want to see the Southern states nominate a pro-choice, pro-gay, pro-gun control, cross dressing, 3x married, who has God himself striking him down with lightning during his abortion answer at the last debate.

Rudy wants to ride on that 9/11 tragedy all the way to the White House, not gonna happen.


Those very same people you speak of in the southern states won't vote for Hillary or Obama either Mod.

Rudy is not the only guy who can manage a huge political entity like the Federal government. There may be others.

What country do you live in ? And can I borrow your rose colored glasses ?
Let's be truthful here....there is NO ONE who can manage the Federal gov't....and that's the way they want it to be. Geez, the states of NY & NJ can't even manage themselves.

Here is what the Feds do best:

Create Taxes
SPEND MONEY
Waste money
Steal money
Hire employees
Expand control
Tell us how to live
Create Taxes
SPEND MONEY
Waste money
Steal money
Hire employees
Expand control
Tell us how to live

I was talking about the Republican primaries. Clinton doesn't need the South to win, if she keeps all of the Kerry states she just has to add Ohio, although I think she can flip Iowa and possibly her home state of Arkansas. Ohio has been trending Democratic and she polls very well there, they have been gutted by job losses, especially in the manufacturing industry. Unless something major changes I think Ohio is going Democratic.



However, if Guiliani were to get the Republican nomination, you'd have to consider that he could win states that went for Kerry in the last election, such as New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and possibly Connecticut. I think Hillary Clinton leads Guiliani in New York by 5-7 points in a hypothetical presidential election.

I Can't Disagree,

It's true that the Middle East has been effected by Western interests, but that still doesn't make what the terrorists are doing right.

Germany before WWII had a horrible economic situation imposed on it with the Versailles Treaty, so that it create a situation ripe for facism. However, you can't blame WWII on Britain, France, and the US. Germany was ultimately at fault.

The same way you can't blame the Allies for WWII, you can't blame the West and Israel for Arab terrorism. The Arabs and Iranians terrorists are the ones ultimately at fault for terrorism. There are other means that societies can take to cause change besides terrorism. The terrorists chose the path of evil, and that is no one's fault but their own.

I Can't Disagree,

It's true that the Middle East has been effected by Western interests, but that still doesn't make what the terrorists are doing right.

Germany before WWII had a horrible economic situation imposed on it with the Versailles Treaty, so that it create a situation ripe for facism. However, you can't blame WWII on Britain, France, and the US. Germany was ultimately at fault.

The same way you can't blame the Allies for WWII, you can't blame the West and Israel for Arab terrorism. The Arabs and Iranians terrorists are the ones ultimately at fault for terrorism. There are other means that societies can take to cause change besides terrorism. The terrorists chose the path of evil, and that is no one's fault but their own.


Nobody here has said that the terrorists are right. Nobody has said. Historical analysis is always important and shouldn't be ignored. Sadly it has been over the last 7 years. Poor decisionmaking has led to creation of terrorist breeding grounds and havens along the Pakistan/Afghanistan border and in Iraq.

People aren't born terrorists. And terrorism isn't an ideology - it's a tactic. So to reduce the threat of people turning to terrorism, a reasonable person would obviously look at why they turn to it. And we have ample evidence of why from the people themselves, from our own intelligence agencies, and from foreign intelligence agencies. And the reasons are pretty clear. They are angry that we, and the British before us, have supported corrupt, repressive, and un-Islamist regimes in the area in order to pursue our own ends. The more fanatical religious elements are able to draw people to their cause because there is so much anger, fear, and desperation in the area, again essentially because of the mining of the area's resources without due regard for the indigenous population. Our unwavering support of Israel is another key component that fuels the anger in the region.

It's important to remember that much of what has gone on was predicted by our own intelligence agencies. The CIA calls it "blowback," and it's the unintended (though certainly foreseeable) consequences of our own actions. So, when the CIA armed and trained Bin Laden and his men in the 80's in order to get the Russians out of Afghanistan, and then up and left them high and dry (and to their own devices), it's not hard to predict what actions that may have provoked down the road. It's also laughable any time a politician talks about going after others for supporting "Islamic fundamentalism" (see: Iran) when the U.S. has supported some of the most fundamentalist Islamic states in history, most notably Saudi Arabia.

This is a very good post. It is not legitimizing terrorism. It isn't at all. It gives historical context to the situation. Its tough to fight a war on terrorism without consistency. America stands against Islamic fundamentalism, but yet emboldens a fundamentalist, royal dictatorship in Saudi Arabia. It makes no sense. This is a serious fight. It's not a right vs. left fight. We must learn from history.
America supplied the Mujahedeen in Afghanistan to use terrorist tactics against Russians, but yet didn't consider the fact that those tactics and weapons were given to people that hated America as well, and those people would jump at the first opportunity to use it against America. Again, the government in the 80s should never have supplied Saddam Hussein with nerve gas and weaponry in his fight against Iran. America isn't to blame for the actions of crazy people, but it is important that Americans learn from past decisionmaking in order to ensure the nation's security so that the war on terrorism is won!

I listened to the Guiliani interview with Mike and Chirs and he is dead wrong when he says people no longer vote based on race, gender, religion, etc. The main reason the conservative south chose Bush over Kerry in 2004 was not because of Bush's Iraq policy and stance on terrorism, rather the "family values" he held in regard to abortion, stem-cell research, and gay marriage. If that election was held solely on the merit of Bush's Iraq policy and the economy, which at the time was not doing well, Kerry wins easily. Guiliani better re-evaluate his stance on these "family value" issues before he attempts to garner votes from the deep south, because those are major issues to people living in those states.

Again, the government in the 80s should never have supplied Saddam Hussein with nerve gas and weaponry in his fight against Iran. America isn't to blame for the actions of crazy people, but it is important that Americans learn from past decisionmaking in order to ensure the nation's security so that the war on terrorism is won![/QUOTE]

Simply not true. Iraq in the 80's was a military client state of another country, then called the USSR. Not the USA. What little weaponry they recieved from us, was just that, little. And most of Saddam's chemical weapons were homemade, with recipes supplied from Europeans. Those formulae ain't big secrets by any means. Don't take my word for it. Google this: Iran-Iraq War.

I Can't Disagree,

It's true that the Middle East has been effected by Western interests, but that still doesn't make what the terrorists are doing right.

Germany before WWII had a horrible economic situation imposed on it with the Versailles Treaty, so that it create a situation ripe for facism. However, you can't blame WWII on Britain, France, and the US. Germany was ultimately at fault.

The same way you can't blame the Allies for WWII, you can't blame the West and Israel for Arab terrorism. The Arabs and Iranians terrorists are the ones ultimately at fault for terrorism. There are other means that societies can take to cause change besides terrorism. The terrorists chose the path of evil, and that is no one's fault but their own.

Obviously what the terrorists are doing isn't "right." Of course, if we are going to be serious about making moral judgements, then we must apply the same standards to ourselves as we do to others, perhaps even more stringent standards, since we enjoy a legacy of freedom and privilege that others do not. And if you are willing to enter into this arena of moral debate, then you won't come away declaring the west blameless. But this is very, very hard to do, as evidenced by the fact that you opened your post by making vague reference to the Middle East being "affected" by western interests, and then, rather than exploring that further, you instead immediately abandoned it and proceeded to do everything in your power to show why they're wrong, including an absurd analogy to WWII, and invoking "Arab and Iranian terrorism." (the word "terrorism" is officially reserved for Muslims. Oh, and environmental whackos. It couldn't possibly be used to describe actions of the U.S. government. Of course, this is beside the fact that the U.S. is the only country in the world ever convicted of international terrorism, for Reagan's terrorist wars in Nicaragua. Why isn't what we are doing in Iraq called terrorism? Clearly it is...). So, we arrive once again where we started, with "We are good, they are evil." If only it were that simple...

Again, the government in the 80s should never have supplied Saddam Hussein with nerve gas and weaponry in his fight against Iran. America isn't to blame for the actions of crazy people, but it is important that Americans learn from past decisionmaking in order to ensure the nation's security so that the war on terrorism is won!

Simply not true. Iraq in the 80's was a military client state of another country, then called the USSR. Not the USA. What little weaponry they recieved from us, was just that, little. And most of Saddam's chemical weapons were homemade, with recipes supplied from Europeans. Those formulae ain't big secrets by any means. Don't take my word for it. Google this: Iran-Iraq War.
Or, try googling "U.S. support for Saddam Hussein" and see what comes up. Here's what I found:

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/press.htm

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/history/husseinindex.htm

This comes straight from the National Security Archive, which collects and organizes declassified U.S. documents. In other words, this is straight from the horse's mouth:

U.S. DOCUMENTS SHOW EMBRACE OF SADDAM HUSSEIN IN EARLY 1980s
DESPITE CHEMICAL WEAPONS, EXTERNAL AGGRESSION, HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSES

Fear of Iraq Collapse in Iran-Iraq War Motivated Reagan Administration Support; U.S. Goals Were Access to Oil, Projection of Power, and Protection of Allies; Rumsfeld Failed to Raise Chemical Weapons Issue in Personal Meeting with Saddam

Putting aside for the moment the hilarity of these two imbeciles interviewing a presidential candidate, and putting aside the way they are crawling up his ***, I just wanted to canvass the board about this question: Is it just me, or are there others who feel the same away about Guiliani as they did about Nixon?

I think that is about the dumbest comment I've ever read.

If Guilanni is elected into office they will start playing Yankeeographys on one of the CSPAN channels.

Obviously what the terrorists are doing isn't "right." Of course, if we are going to be serious about making moral judgements, then we must apply the same standards to ourselves as we do to others, perhaps even more stringent standards, since we enjoy a legacy of freedom and privilege that others do not. And if you are willing to enter into this arena of moral debate, then you won't come away declaring the west blameless. But this is very, very hard to do, as evidenced by the fact that you opened your post by making vague reference to the Middle East being "affected" by western interests, and then, rather than exploring that further, you instead immediately abandoned it and proceeded to do everything in your power to show why they're wrong, including an absurd analogy to WWII, and invoking "Arab and Iranian terrorism." (the word "terrorism" is officially reserved for Muslims. Oh, and environmental whackos. It couldn't possibly be used to describe actions of the U.S. government. Of course, this is beside the fact that the U.S. is the only country in the world ever convicted of international terrorism, for Reagan's terrorist wars in Nicaragua. Why isn't what we are doing in Iraq called terrorism? Clearly it is...). So, we arrive once again where we started, with "We are good, they are evil." If only it were that simple...

I didn't explore the Middle East being affected by Western interests because unlike you I don't have time to write discertations on the history of human civilization. I figured that you, obviously being an intelligent person, would already know how the West has affected the Middle East. Where do you want me to start? Napoleon's invasion of Egypt? The relations between Europe and the early Ottoman empire? The rise of Zionism in the late 19th century? How about I go back to the initial Islamic expansion into France and the battle against Charles Martel?

And you say I made an absurd example of WWII. Fine if that's your opinion. I call it imaginative. After WWI, Germany was provided with a situation by the Allies that caused a horrible economic condition that lead to a populace ready for the taking by Hitler. In the Arab countries (which were basically made by Europeans drawing lines on a map without regard to ethnicity), the population has suffered in part because of the regimes that were propped up and supported by the West and also hurt by the Israeli/Palestinian situtation creating a populace ready made to be indoctrinated with hate and terrorism. Just as I cannot excuse the Nazis for WWII due to their situation, I can't excuse the Arabs for resorting to terrorism for their situation.

Then you assume that I don't believe that the US is ever wrong. I don't believe I mentioned anything like that whatsoever. The US has made mistakes and shown poor judgement at times, which has partially caused the situation
the US is in today.

You also state that it is easier for us to make change because we enjoy freedom. That is true. However, even in the harshest of conditions there are ways to implement change without resorting to violence. Martin Luther King Jr. and Gandhi lived with oppression, but were somehow able to change their world without strapping bombs to their chest and killing civilians.

Also, I don't think you can call what we are doing in Iraq "terrorism". This has nothing to do with morality. I believe terrorism now refers to certain kind of tactics such as suicide bombing, guerilla warfare, and targeting of civilian populations to inspire fear. You can call the occupation of Iraq unfair, not right etc. but I don't think it is accurate to call it "terrorism", regardless of morality.

And speaking of morality, I don't give a ****. I am a practical person and believe in practical solutions. My point is it is stupid to play the blame game. America has made bad decisions in the past and has to live with them - they can't be changed. What is important now is to find practical solutions to the problems at hand. To me these problems are 1. How do we become less dependent on fossil fuels and foreign sources of energy 2. How do we create a stable Iraq 3. How do we combat terrorism. In this thread I've only heard the usual bull**** rhetoric which is either 1. You left-wing scum, you hate America, you don't want to fight terrorist blah blah blah or 2. America is evil and horrible and deserves all the troubles its going through blah blah blah. I've yet to hear anyone come up with any concrete solutions. All I see and hear is blame, not just in this thread, but also with our phony politicians. I don't care who's right, or who's wrong, I only care that the problems get solved.

I didn't explore the Middle East being affected by Western interests because unlike you I don't have time to write discertations on the history of human civilization. I figured that you, obviously being an intelligent person, would already know how the West has affected the Middle East. Where do you want me to start? Napoleon's invasion of Egypt? The relations between Europe and the early Ottoman empire? The rise of Zionism in the late 19th century? How about I go back to the initial Islamic expansion into France and the battle against Charles Martel?
LOL. Well, first, I'd like to apologize for the abrasive tone of my post. This stuff obviously gets me worked up sometimes, and it comes out the wrong way. As for my "dissertations," I do tend to ramble on, but I enjoy the give and take and it's nice to have an outlet for all the different stuff I read. And I do it while I'm online doing other stuff anyway, so I don't think I'm completely crazy. And I'd say your post is close enough to a dissertation, so you're obviously finding the time:)
And you say I made an absurd example of WWII. Fine if that's your opinion. I call it imaginative. After WWI, Germany was provided with a situation by the Allies that caused a horrible economic condition that lead to a populace ready for the taking by Hitler. In the Arab countries (which were basically made by Europeans drawing lines on a map without regard to ethnicity), the population has suffered in part because of the regimes that were propped up and supported by the West and also hurt by the Israeli/Palestinian situtation creating a populace ready made to be indoctrinated with hate and terrorism. Just as I cannot excuse the Nazis for WWII due to their situation, I can't excuse the Arabs for resorting to terrorism for their situation.
Point well taken. And I obviously don't excuse terrorism either. But it's easy for me to sit here in judgement. I don't know what the hell I would do if I were in a different place and time. And anyway, I can't affect them through my actions. But I can affect my own government and public opinion by speaking out here (at least I'd like to think so:) ). Also, although I agree with much of what you say on the similarities of what leads to fanaticism in any form, I think the actual workings of the two are vastly different (thus my "absurd" characterization). The Nazis were highly organized, and were easy to distinguish. Basically, the Allies knew who they were fighting. The groups in the Middle East and elsewhere that eventually foster terrorists are very, very loosely knit. I mean, Nazism was essentially a political party, and was a very definitive ideology. Terrorism is not. It is a tactic. Also, when you say, "Just as I cannot excuse the Nazis for WWII due to their situation, I can't excuse the Arabs for resorting to terrorism for their situation," I think this is a very misleading statement. The Nazis were a political group. The Arabs are a race of people. And although not all Germans supported the Nazis, they did have enormous popular support at one time. A miniscule percentage of total Arabs are in agreement with using the tactic of terror. I just think it's a really bad analogy, and one that fuels a lot of dangerous anti-Arab racism.
Then you assume that I don't believe that the US is ever wrong. I don't believe I mentioned anything like that whatsoever. The US has made mistakes and shown poor judgement at times, which has partially caused the situation the US is in today.
A apologize for any assumptions I made. Whether the U.S. is only "partially" or perhaps a bit more accountable for the situation we, and the world, are in, is certainly debatable.

You also state that it is easier for us to make change because we enjoy freedom. That is true. However, even in the harshest of conditions there are ways to implement change without resorting to violence. Martin Luther King Jr. and Gandhi lived with oppression, but were somehow able to change their world without strapping bombs to their chest and killing civilians.There is a lot of detail to cover here, and no time to do it. But certainly non-violent forms of resistance are effective and preferable, obviously.

Also, I don't think you can call what we are doing in Iraq "terrorism". This has nothing to do with morality. I believe terrorism now refers to certain kind of tactics such as suicide bombing, guerilla warfare, and targeting of civilian populations to inspire fear. You can call the occupation of Iraq unfair, not right etc. but I don't think it is accurate to call it "terrorism", regardless of morality.
I completely disagree. There is no internationally agreed upon definition of terrorism, but we can stick with the U.S. Department of Defense's definition: Terrorism is "the calculated use of violence or the threat of violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological." In other words, terrorism is violence designed to advance some cause by getting a government to change its policies or political behavior. That's obviously our intention in Iraq, and it frankly is our intention more often than not anytime we intervene in other countries' affairs.

And speaking of morality, I don't give a ****. I am a practical person and believe in practical solutions. My point is it is stupid to play the blame game. America has made bad decisions in the past and has to live with them - they can't be changed. What is important now is to find practical solutions to the problems at hand. To me these problems are 1. How do we become less dependent on fossil fuels and foreign sources of energy 2. How do we create a stable Iraq 3. How do we combat terrorism. In this thread I've only heard the usual bull**** rhetoric which is either 1. You left-wing scum, you hate America, you don't want to fight terrorist blah blah blah or 2. America is evil and horrible and deserves all the troubles its going through blah blah blah. I've yet to hear anyone come up with any concrete solutions. All I see and hear is blame, not just in this thread, but also with our phony politicians. I don't care who's right, or who's wrong, I only care that the problems get solved.
I never said America is evil and horrible. That is a judgement I'll leave to others. But I don't think pointing out responsibility for crimes, whether by "them" or "us," is "playing the blame game." I think it helps to understand the priorities and objectives of the people who control powerful nations and how their actions, with results both intended and unintended, affect others around the world, and ourselves. I'm just as sick of the "left" / "right" bullsh*t as you are. I always put those words in quotes, because as soon as you use those terms people automatically make assumptions, and then the facts get muddled (as is often the intention).

Yeah, it's weird. They also had good healthcare and educational systems. I've always been fascinated reading about Iraq under Saddam. I always had the image of this severely oppressed society in which everyone lived in constant fear of their lives. But it wasn't like that. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying Saddam is some great guy either.:rolleyes: It's amazing you have to say that lest people jump all over you because they think you support dictatorships - because you dare to point out some things that don't fit the picture of pure evil. The amount of people who see things in pure good vs. evil terms is really frightening. This black or white mindset is a dictator's wet dream. Or an American president's...;)

Again, the government in the 80s should never have supplied Saddam Hussein with nerve gas and weaponry in his fight against Iran. America isn't to blame for the actions of crazy people, but it is important that Americans learn from past decisionmaking in order to ensure the nation's security so that the war on terrorism is won!

Simply not true. Iraq in the 80's was a military client state of another country, then called the USSR. Not the USA. What little weaponry they recieved from us, was just that, little. And most of Saddam's chemical weapons were homemade, with recipes supplied from Europeans. Those formulae ain't big secrets by any means. Don't take my word for it. Google this: Iran-Iraq War.[/QUOTE]

You are so uninformed on this that it isn't even funny. Saddam was not in cahoots with the USSR. He got nerve gas from the U.S. U.S. supplied Iraq heavily in the war of attrition with Iran. Get your facts straight!

You're not wrong on that mod. Iraq actually did have more rights for women because they were secular. Again, before any rightwinger tries to paint me or you as Saddam fans, let me say in the strongest way possible that Saddam was an absolute scumbag. It is a national disgrace that when he did his most heinous acts back in the 80s, the U.S. stood as an ally of his. That is a disgrace!
Saddam was a secularist and actually fought against the Islamic fundamentalists and purged many of them. He killed Abu Nidal and other fundamentalist terrorists. Ironically, Bin Laden and Al Qaeda hated him. The only base they could try to set up was in northern Iraq where the Kurds were, and also where Iraq had no territorial sovereignty. Al Qaeda hated Saddam, and that is why the whole Al Qaeda-Saddam connection has always been ridiculous. It was a flat out lie. Now, worst of all, we've fallen into Al Qaeda's trap because they wanted us to go to Iraq in the first place. Now Iraq is a breeding ground for Al Qaeda terrorists. It's basically a dream come true for them. We've replaced a repressive dictatorship with a terrorist haven.

You're not wrong on that mod. Iraq actually did have more rights for women because they were secular. Again, before any rightwinger tries to paint me or you as Saddam fans, let me say in the strongest way possible that Saddam was an absolute scumbag. It is a national disgrace that when he did his most heinous acts back in the 80s, the U.S. stood as an ally of his. That is a disgrace!
Saddam was a secularist and actually fought against the Islamic fundamentalists and purged many of them. He killed Abu Nidal and other fundamentalist terrorists. Ironically, Bin Laden and Al Qaeda hated him. The only base they could try to set up was in northern Iraq where the Kurds were, and also where Iraq had no territorial sovereignty. Al Qaeda hated Saddam, and that is why the whole Al Qaeda-Saddam connection has always been ridiculous. It was a flat out lie. Now, worst of all, we've fallen into Al Qaeda's trap because they wanted us to go to Iraq in the first place. Now Iraq is a breeding ground for Al Qaeda terrorists. It's basically a dream come true for them. We've replaced a repressive dictatorship with a terrorist haven.


This is an excellent post. None of it is untrue. The part about the U.S. supporting Iraq in the 80s especially. Actually, Israel had to act in its own defense in 1981 when it took out a bomb factory Hussein's scientists were in charge of, because Israel suspected the bombs were being made to eliminate that nation. It was only when the free flow of oil at market prices was threatened, during the Kuwait invasion, that our interests on Hussein changed.

We can't win the war the way we're fighting it. We should pull all the troops out, and spend all the money in the region bombing the crap out of them. That seems to be the way we are the most effective, and the way we lose the least amount of troops. Plus, it's cool on TV watching things blow up. We can switch off. Bomb the shiites on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays, the sunnis Tuedays, Thurdays and Saturdays. Sundays........they could have a weekly internet poll of who to bomb and the winner (or loser) gets bombed on Sunday. Kinda like American Idol, only with things exploding instead of lame singers.

I'm Gator and I want to be your next president.

In order for the democrats to win, we have to lose the war in Iraq and on a broader sense the war on terror.

So bad news in Baghdad is good news in San Francisco.

Also don't forget the money Saddam was sending over to the families of suicide bombers.

You're right about Saudi Arabia mod.

I didn't bring them up because the topic was Iraq.

I'll tell you who is losing this war. The president and other rightwing neo-cons who have implemented an idiotic strategy. That is what is losing the war. Not Congress or anything like that. That's flatout nonsense, that rightwingers like to spout when trying to question the patriotism of others because as usual they like to create the illusion that they are the only ones that care about America. Const, do you honestly think that the president's strategy is helping to bring about victory?? The war on terrorism needs to be won, and the neo-con plan in Iraq has made the fight against terrorism exponentially more difficult. Iraq has become a terrorist haven because of poor planning and decisionmaking by the President and other rightwing neocons. It is sickening that their poor planning has left American citizens in the middle of a meatgrinder in Iraq dying in scores by the day. These are fellow citizens that are dying because of the bad plan and decisionmaking of a bunch of ideologues and neocons. It is an outrage. This isn't winning the war. This isn't a winning strategy. I can't understand why rightwing neocons don't reject this status quo policy when it is harmful for our nation! If you want to lose the overall war on terror, then you should keep supporting the status quo, because the status quo is causing terrorist basis to spread like wildfire.

By the way, you desperately need to check your facts and re-read my post. America didn't support Saddam's specific heinous acts. However, in the 80s when America supported against Iran he was supplied with nerve gas and other chemical agents. He used these against Iranians and against other local insurrections. The U.S. government knew exactly what he was doing but did nothing and said nothing. Instead, rightwingers like Rumsfeld were deployed to meet with him and shake hands and continue to show support for him. Abu Nidal was murdered by Saddam! Case closed!

Also, Iraq did have a relatively good record for women in the Arab world. You may be mixing it up with Afghanistan. Saddam actually got an international award for promoting female education and literacy. This is a fact.

Saddam was a secularist. That is a major reason why the fundamentalists and Ayatollah in Iran hated him. Islamic fundamentalists saw him as a secularist infidel and hated his attacks against Iran. These are facts. As for the Fedayeen Saddam, they were a part of the Iraqi Presidential guard. They are not Islamic fundamentalists. They were renowned for targeting fundamentalists such as al-Sadr's father. Iraq was not an exporter of terrorism. It was a brutal, repressive dictatorship. That while it was at the height of its brutality, the U.S. government cut deals with them and stood by them and said nothing! Now, however, Iraq is a paradise haven for terrorism. Al Qaeda couldn't be happier about it. That is not the product of a winning strategy!!

I accidentally double posted. Sorry about that

In order for the democrats to win, we have to lose the war in Iraq and on a broader sense the war on terror.

So bad news in Baghdad is good news in San Francisco.

Also don't forget the money Saddam was sending over to the families of suicide bombers.

Some more rightwing drivel. Democrats hate America...blah blah blah....only Republicans want to keep us safe.....yet another San Francisco reference...that's so original. It gets really old. I for one would rather go to San Francisco, then to Philadelphia, Mississippi. Which was where a certain president in the 80s started of their presidential campaign. In spite of the fact, that I probably couldn't walk the streets there even today. But seriously though, enough with some of the silliness. We are all Americans at the end of the day. Remember that!! We may have different points of view but understand that every is working in the national interest.
By the way, Saddam's Iraq was not the only one who contributed to fund for families of Palestinian suicide bombers. Just about every Middle East nation does. Do you know what nation contributes the most to the suicide fund??
SAUDI ARABIA. Yet Saudi Arabia is a staunch U.S. ally. Go figure!

I can't believe CONST tried throwing out that Atta met in Prague with a Saddam agent, what kind of a site does he think this is.

I remember weeks after 9/11 reading that the Czech government said this never happened. Funny though, the so called liberal media placed it in a tiny article way down at the end of the newspaper and not many outlets covered it. Basically it was buried which allowed Cheney to say it and get away it for a long time.

Very well said.
The so-called liberal media also didn't do their due diligence and homework in the build up to the war.

I doubt too many people in Congress condemned Israel too harshly. That's political suicide. Israel would do well to declare its own nuclear weapons to the world, and become a signatory to the Non-Nuclear Proliferation treaty. Say what you will about Iran, but it is a signatory. Why would Israel, which has an entire nuclear arsenal itself, be afraid of Iran possibly getting one weapon in a period of 2-10 years? Iran is smart enough to know that if it even considered shooting off a nuclear weapon in Israel's direction, that it would be immediately annihilated. And why would anyone believe the reports that are coming out about Iran, when we all know that the whole story about Iraq was a crock?

What does "winning the war" mean?

Objectives are being achieved. Thirteen permanent bases are being built in Iraq. Their oil is in the process of being handed into private hands, which will lead to a windfall in profits for the oil companies, who are already awash in riches while millions of hard-working Americans struggle to survive. The Iraqi people have basically been given an ultimatum: vote for the U.S.-backed Iraqi government or we won't supply the reconstruction funds to rebuild your country which we just destroyed. To say we're "losing the war" isn't exactly the right way to look at it, if you understand the objectives of the war in the first place.

Some more rightwing drivel. Democrats hate America...blah blah blah....only Republicans want to keep us safe.....yet another San Francisco reference...that's so original. It gets really old. I for one would rather go to San Francisco, then to Philadelphia, Mississippi. Which was where a certain president in the 80s started of their presidential campaign. In spite of the fact, that I probably couldn't walk the streets there even today. But seriously though, enough with some of the silliness. We are all Americans at the end of the day. Remember that!! We may have different points of view but understand that every is working in the national interest.
By the way, Saddam's Iraq was not the only one who contributed to fund for families of Palestinian suicide bombers. Just about every Middle East nation does. Do you know what nation contributes the most to the suicide fund??
SAUDI ARABIA. Yet Saudi Arabia is a staunch U.S. ally. Go figure!

Quote me right Tarboro.

I never said Democrats hated America in my post. However the fact remains that things have to go bad for your side to win power in this country a fact that you and the rest of your liberal buddies can't escape.

What I cannot stand is congressional democrats who acted as if they never believed in this war to begin with. They were all on the side of the President in the beginning and ONLY after things started going wrong did they U-turn and act as if they never supported the thing in the first place.

Your leader in the Senate Harry Reid even as far back as the 90s made comments about Saddam's nuclear capacity and ties with terrorists but those comments never make it into the so called non liberal media.

San Francisco has declared itself a Military Free Zone. They are trying to erase the military's presence altogether. They have sometimes violently shut down job fairs that have included military recruiters.

Groups like Al-Awda (The Palestine Right to Return Coalition) and The Middle East Children's Alliance, while having seemingly nothing to do with this debate, are in fact organizations whose opposition to Israel's existence also includes a fair amount of anti-American sentiment. Then there's the American Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, which has opposed every effort of the U.S. government to combat Islamic terrorism, whether at home or abroad.

Remember the USS Iowa? They were not permitted to dock in good old San Fran as a floating museum last year, it had to go to Stockton Ca. because the board of Supervisors in San Fran didn't want it there even though it was estimated to bring in more than 500,000 new tourists to the city.

Lastly lets not forget the group Code Pink For Women based in San Fran. which is best known for best known for spearheading the drive to deliver $600,000 in cash and supplies to "the other side" in Fallujah effectively funding terrorists.

So go ahead Tarboro, go vacation in San Francisco, spend your hard earned money there, America's enemies needs it.


And while your there maybe you can offer a plan for victory in Iraq rather than do nothing but criticize the current one.

Groups like Al-Awda (The Palestine Right to Return Coalition) and The Middle East Children's Alliance, while having seemingly nothing to do with this debate, are in fact organizations whose opposition to Israel's existence also includes a fair amount of anti-American sentiment. Then there's the American Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, which has opposed every effort of the U.S. government to combat Islamic terrorism, whether at home or abroad.
LOL. This sounds like a press release from AIPAC, or something Alan Dershowitz would post on Harvard's website. But Arabs aren't human, are they?

LOL. This sounds like a press release from AIPAC, or something Alan Dershowitz would post on Harvard's website. But Arabs aren't human, are they?

I am no fan of Alan Dershowitz ICD. Everything I posted is fact, if you can dispute it go ahead.

If you think what Arabs are doing in the name of Islam around the world is humanity than you need a wake up call.

A recent poll which I'm sure your aware of conducted on young Arab americans 25% think suicide bombing is OK.

I'm not saying all are bad but when was the last time you've seen a news clip or read an article in a newspaper of any Arab group in this country hold a rally in support of the US? If you happen to find on please let me know so I can read it too.

Quote me right Tarboro.

I never said Democrats hated America in my post. However the fact remains that things have to go bad for your side to win power in this country a fact that you and the rest of your liberal buddies can't escape.

What I cannot stand is congressional democrats who acted as if they never believed in this war to begin with. They were all on the side of the President in the beginning and ONLY after things started going wrong did they U-turn and act as if they never supported the thing in the first place.

Your leader in the Senate Harry Reid even as far back as the 90s made comments about Saddam's nuclear capacity and ties with terrorists but those comments never make it into the so called non liberal media.

San Francisco has declared itself a Military Free Zone. They are trying to erase the military's presence altogether. They have sometimes violently shut down job fairs that have included military recruiters.

Groups like Al-Awda (The Palestine Right to Return Coalition) and The Middle East Children's Alliance, while having seemingly nothing to do with this debate, are in fact organizations whose opposition to Israel's existence also includes a fair amount of anti-American sentiment. Then there's the American Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, which has opposed every effort of the U.S. government to combat Islamic terrorism, whether at home or abroad.

Remember the USS Iowa? They were not permitted to dock in good old San Fran as a floating museum last year, it had to go to Stockton Ca. because the board of Supervisors in San Fran didn't want it there even though it was estimated to bring in more than 500,000 new tourists to the city.

Lastly lets not forget the group Code Pink For Women based in San Fran. which is best known for best known for spearheading the drive to deliver $600,000 in cash and supplies to "the other side" in Fallujah effectively funding terrorists.

So go ahead Tarboro, go vacation in San Francisco, spend your hard earned money there, America's enemies needs it.


And while your there maybe you can offer a plan for victory in Iraq rather than do nothing but criticize the current one.


So, now you're implicitly saying that the all the people of San Francisco are funding America's enemies! I won't even bother debating such nonsense. Again, I'd much rather go to San Fran, than to Philadelphia, Mississippi. Which of course is where a certain president in the 80s started off his campaign. Based on all reports, I probably couldn't walk the streets of this town even today.

Also, Republicans AND Democrats were wrong about Iraq in the beginning. Both parties have had it wrong in varying points of the war. Obviously that is the case or else we wouldn't be in this position today. It's not surprising that supporters of the status quo claim that everybody against the current strategy wants Americans to die and for us to lose. I can't even begin to tell you how offensive that is. I know people serving in Iraq! So, don't you dare tell me that I'm rooting for their defeat just because I oppose the current policy! I'm sick and tired of this stupid level of discourse. Our leaders owe it to the soldiers there and to all America citizens to implement a smarter, better strategy to win the war on terrorism.Creating a terrorist haven in Iraq is not a winning strategy. The status quo is not a winning strategy!! But don't you dare even suggest that non-Republicans want our troops to fail. Don't even suggest such nonsense! I'm sick to death of this nonsense. We are all Americans. Some people need to remember that. There is a difference between wanting a change in strategy and failure. What we have right now is perpetuating a failing situation.

I am no fan of Alan Dershowitz ICD. Everything I posted is fact, if you can dispute it go ahead.

If you think what Arabs are doing in the name of Islam around the world is humanity than you need a wake up call.

A recent poll which I'm sure your aware of conducted on young Arab americans 25% think suicide bombing is OK.

I'm not saying all are bad but when was the last time you've seen a news clip or read an article in a newspaper of any Arab group in this country hold a rally in support of the US? If you happen to find on please let me know so I can read it too.
What are Arabs doing in the name of Islam around the world?

Typical misstating of facts. I remember when I was watching M&MD on YES and the FoxNews scroll at the bottom said something like "Many Muslims Support Suicide bombings." Here's the facts, according to the poll: 1 in 4 younger Arab Americans said they may be warranted in some circumstances. I guarantee you can get higher numbers from Christian zealots who will support atrocities in the name of their religion. Hell, a lot of Christians are actively rooting for WWIII in order to fulfill whatever lunatic prophecy they believe in. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18797530/

I didn't know you had to hold rallies in order to prove your worth to the country. I thought you could just come here, work hard, and make a better life for yourself, like the vast majority of Arab and Muslim Americans do. In fact, I'm of Irish Catholic lineage, and although we have St. Patrick's Day parades in oder to celebrate leprechauns and drink a lot (and you'll probably see some American flags flying for good measure), I don't think we hold a lot of pro-U.S. rallies. And my Hungarian roots certainly don't qualify in that regard. So I hope I'm still worthy enough to live here.

So, now you're implicitly saying that the all the people of San Francisco are funding America's enemies! I won't even bother debating such nonsense. Again, I'd much rather go to San Fran, than to Philadelphia, Mississippi. Which of course is where a certain president in the 80s started off his campaign. Based on all reports, I probably couldn't walk the streets of this town even today.

Also, Republicans AND Democrats were wrong about Iraq in the beginning. Both parties have had it wrong in varying points of the war. Obviously that is the case or else we wouldn't be in this position today. It's not surprising that supporters of the status quo claim that everybody against the current strategy wants Americans to die and for us to lose. I can't even begin to tell you how offensive that is. I know people serving in Iraq! So, don't you dare tell me that I'm rooting for their defeat just because I oppose the current policy! I'm sick and tired of this stupid level of discourse. Our leaders owe it to the soldiers there and to all America citizens to implement a smarter, better strategy to win the war on terrorism.Creating a terrorist haven in Iraq is not a winning strategy. The status quo is not a winning strategy!! But don't you dare even suggest that non-Republicans want our troops to fail. Don't even suggest such nonsense! I'm sick to death of this nonsense. We are all Americans. Some people need to remember that. There is a difference between wanting a change in strategy and failure. What we have right now is perpetuating a failing situation.

I am suggesting non republicans want us to lose and I'm not going to back away from it because whether you realize it or not the US losing Islam cheering coming from this country is coming from the left with almost NO condemnation from leaders in the democratic party.

You lefties hate to be painted with a broad brush always claiming in the face of criticism that when people on the right point out simple facts about liberalism that "we're not all like that" and that's your defense. Well I don't buy into that and I'll assume more of you guys on the left agree with that left element because you hardly ever speak out against it, especially the leaders of your party.

For the record I am NOT a stay the course Republican. President Bush will probably go down in history as one of the if not the worst President's we've had and he deserves it. If it were up to me in the face of this global struggle that the world civilization is in peril I would have nuked almost every single Arab country in the mideast starting with Iran and Syria and ask questions later.

What are Arabs doing in the name of Islam around the world?

Typical misstating of facts. I remember when I was watching M&MD on YES and the FoxNews scroll at the bottom said something like "Many Muslims Support Suicide bombings." Here's the facts, according to the poll: 1 in 4 younger Arab Americans said they may be warranted in some circumstances. I guarantee you can get higher numbers from Christian zealots who will support atrocities in the name of their religion. Hell, a lot of Christians are actively rooting for WWIII in order to fulfill whatever lunatic prophecy they believe in. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18797530/

I didn't know you had to hold rallies in order to prove your worth to the country. I thought you could just come here, work hard, and make a better life for yourself, like the vast majority of Arab and Muslim Americans do. In fact, I'm of Irish Catholic lineage, and although we have St. Patrick's Day parades in oder to celebrate leprechauns and drink a lot (and you'll probably see some American flags flying for good measure), I don't think we hold a lot of pro-U.S. rallies. And my Hungarian roots certainly don't qualify in that regard. So I hope I'm still worthy enough to live here.

Are you this nieve?

Leaving off Afghanistan and Iraq for a moment.

ALGERIA: Armed Islamic groups formed and since 1992 have carried out attacks on key economic points, security forces, officials and foreigners.

EYGPT: Fundamentalist Muslim rebels seek to topple the secular Egyptian government. At least 1,200 people have perished since the beginning of the rebellion.

INDONESIA: The struggle on the Indonesia islands is complicated by leaders of pro- and anti-independence movements, and by religious conflicts. More than 500 churches have been burned down or damaged by Muslims over the past six years.

INDIA/PAKISTAN: Muslim separatists in the Indian section declared a holy war against the mostly-Hindu India and started attacks in 1989, mainly from Pakistan-occupied section of Kashmir.

ISRAEL: Nuff Said

KOSOVO: The ethnic Albanian KLA (Kosovo Liberation Army) in this Serbian province fought a guerilla war against Serbia to claim the region. Beginning in February 1999, Albanians were forced out of the province, prompting NATO to attack Serbia. By July 1999 Serb troops were forced out of Kosovo, only to open an avenue for Albanian Kosovars to attack Serb Kosovars. The Albanian Muslims have since burned down dozens of centuries-old Christian churches.

NIGERIA: There are violent religious clashes in the city of Kaduna in northern Nigeria beginning February 21 2004 and have continued. Kaduna is the second largest city in the north. The clashes followed a march by tens of thousands of Christians to protest the proposal to introduce Muslim sharia law.

SUDAN: The largest country in Africa, has been plagued by a succession of unstable civilian and military governments since it gained independence in 1956 from an Anglo-Egyptian condominium. The long-running conflict continues between the Arab Muslim northerners of Sudan, (the base of the government), and the African Christians of the south. In the mid-90s Sudan was home to Osama bin Ladin, the international terrorist responsible for the World Trade Center attack. It is estimated that more than 1,2 million people have been killed in the Sudan war, brining devastation to the Sudanese economy.

PHILIPPINES: The Phillipines armed forces, with assistance of US troops, are fighting Moslem rebels - they have been linked to Osama bin Laden's el Qaeda terrorist group - on the southern islands of the country. Muslim rebel groups seek autonomy/independence from the mostly Christian Philippines. One rebel group, the Abu Sayaf Group, is believed linked to Osama bin-Laden's Al-Qaida. This connection, plus their tactic of kidnapping and beheading Americans, led the United States to send Special Forces to aid the Philippine Army.

Show me where I'm misstating facts about Islam ICD?


Wake the hell up ICD. before Islam decides the USA should be under Sharia Law.

What are Arabs doing in the name of Islam around the world?

Typical misstating of facts. I remember when I was watching M&MD on YES and the FoxNews scroll at the bottom said something like "Many Muslims Support Suicide bombings." Here's the facts, according to the poll: 1 in 4 younger Arab Americans said they may be warranted in some circumstances. I guarantee you can get higher numbers from Christian zealots who will support atrocities in the name of their religion. Hell, a lot of Christians are actively rooting for WWIII in order to fulfill whatever lunatic prophecy they believe in. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18797530/

I didn't know you had to hold rallies in order to prove your worth to the country. I thought you could just come here, work hard, and make a better life for yourself, like the vast majority of Arab and Muslim Americans do. In fact, I'm of Irish Catholic lineage, and although we have St. Patrick's Day parades in oder to celebrate leprechauns and drink a lot (and you'll probably see some American flags flying for good measure), I don't think we hold a lot of pro-U.S. rallies. And my Hungarian roots certainly don't qualify in that regard. So I hope I'm still worthy enough to live here.


Wow, straight out of the Rosie O'Donnell playbook. We know Christians are far worse than Musllims.

Wow, straight out of the Rosie O'Donnell playbook. We know Christians are far worse than Musllims.
I don't even know what the Rosie O'Donnell playbook reference is meant to imply. I have no idea what old Rosie says, aside from the headline I may accidentally glance at. But you're obviously quite familiar with it. I'll keep reading scholarly sources, and you keep watching Fox (and CNN for that matter).

If it were up to me in the face of this global struggle that the world civilization is in peril I would have nuked almost every single Arab country in the mideast starting with Iran and Syria and ask questions later.

Well, that's a very intelligent approach.
That has to be single most ridiculous and outrageous thing I have ever heard. Thank goodness that they are no lunatic, rightwing fringe fanatics spouting off this type of nonsense in the state department and Pentagon. Nuclear holocaust is certainly not the way to win this fight. No rational human being could think that. You're the one who has a radical fringe perspective, In a Big Spot. You clearly have no idea what you are talking about and fringe fanatical opinions like yours are best ignored.

Wow, straight out of the Rosie O'Donnell playbook. We know Christians are far worse than Musllims.

Fundamentalism regardless of what religion it is is wrong. Islamic fundamentalism is the issue of the day, and that is what the current fight is about. But don't delude yourself into thinking that other fundamentalisms are fine. Christian fundamentalism led to death and subjugations of millions in Africa, Asia, and South America. You may want to read about how some of the local people were "converted'. All fundamentalism is wrong.

Fundamentalism regardless of what religion it is is wrong. Islamic fundamentalism is the issue of the day, and that is what the current fight is about. But don't delude yourself into thinking that other fundamentalisms are fine. Christian fundamentalism led to death and subjugations of millions in Africa, Asia, and South America. You may want to read about how some of the local people were "converted'. All fundamentalism is wrong.
Exactly. And the fundamentalist elements should be clearly distinguished from the rest, or else we are simply further fueling the fires of racism and hatred that lead to fundamentalism in the first place.

I love how you liberals like to bring up Christian fundamentalism in defense of so called Islamic fundamentalism.

Last time I looked I didn't see any christians hijacking planes and crashing them into buildings.

You'll change your mind god forbid when the next mall your shopping in gets blown up by an Islamic fundamentalist.

Well, that's a very intelligent approach.
That has to be single most ridiculous and outrageous thing I have ever heard. Thank goodness that they are no lunatic, rightwing fringe fanatics spouting off this type of nonsense in the state department and Pentagon. Nuclear holocaust is certainly not the way to win this fight. No rational human being could think that. You're the one who has a radical fringe perspective, In a Big Spot. You clearly have no idea what you are talking about and fringe fanatical opinions like yours are best ignored.

Hey don't knock it Tarboro, without it you might be speaking Japanese or German today or at the very least be a lampshade somewhere.

So what's your plan to win the war on global terrorism? Sit down hold hands and sing kumbaya?

I love how you liberals like to bring up Christian fundamentalism in defense of so called Islamic fundamentalism.

Last time I looked I didn't see any christians hijacking planes and crashing them into buildings.

You'll change your mind god forbid when the next mall your shopping in gets blown up by an Islamic fundamentalist.

Can you read? I said that in this current era, the main enemy is Islamic fundamentalism. But all throughout time fundamentalism has been a threat to different societies. This is a fact. Currently, in our world Islamic fundamentalism is what we're fighting. However, you are deluding yourself and quite frankly showing bigotry, if you think that there aren't religions that have had fundamentalist elements. Murderous Christian fundamentalism thankfully is a thing of the past but it left indellible marks in Africa, Asia, and South America. But since I realize you have a hard time understanding my original point, I'll repeat myself. Currently, in our times, Islamic fundamentalism is what we're fighting.

Hey don't knock it Tarboro, without it you might be speaking Japanese or German today or at the very least be a lampshade somewhere.

So what's your plan to win the war on global terrorism? Sit down hold hands and sing kumbaya?

Don't compare WWII and the global war on terrorism. The wars are completely different and will be won differently. Thank God you weren't the president during the Cuban missile crisis. But I'm pleased that you spouting your views, everybody needs to see the radical rightwing fringe for what it really is.

Show me where I'm misstating facts about Islam ICD?

Wake the hell up ICD. before Islam decides the USA should be under Sharia Law.
The facts you misstated were when you said: "A recent poll which I'm sure your aware of conducted on young Arab americans 25% think suicide bombing is OK."

I told you why you misrepresented it. If you can't figure it out, I don't know what to tell you. I mean, I'm sure they're running polls in Arab lands now which say that 25% of Americans want to nuke the hell out of them, and that a scary proportion of Americans are unable to discern the basic difference between a fundamentalist and the vast majority of peaceful Arabs. Where does it end? How much more wanton destruction needs to take place until you'll feel safe enough to go outside, Big Spot? I mean, you honestly believe that crap about Islam deciding to implement Sharia Law in the U.S? Where do you come up with this stuff? And even if they wanted to, which they don't, you honestly think they could? If you want to get into securing oil in that region and other honest appraisals, I'll be happy to oblige. But crazy Arabs instituting Islamic law on U.S. homeland? Gee whiz.

Can you read? I said that in this current era, the main enemy is Islamic fundamentalism. But all throughout time fundamentalism has been a threat to different societies. This is a fact. Currently, in our world Islamic fundamentalism is what we're fighting. However, you are deluding yourself and quite frankly showing bigotry, if you think that there aren't religions that have had fundamentalist elements. Murderous Christian fundamentalism thankfully is a thing of the past but it left indellible marks in Africa, Asia, and South America. But since I realize you have a hard time understanding my original point, I'll repeat myself. Currently, in our times, Islamic fundamentalism is what we're fighting.

Can you read? You were the one who brought up Christian fundamentalism from the past not me. You can't have it both ways.

Here we go with the race/bigot card. I knew this was coming and its the main reason why people are afraid to speak out because people like you who don't like someone else's argument immediately call out the bigot/race card when they don't have a logical retort.

I've asked you twice what your plan to fight global islamic terrorism was and you have refused to answer. Am I to guess you don't have one and am only here to criticize anyone else who suggests one?

Don't compare WWII and the global war on terrorism. The wars are completely different and will be won differently. Thank God you weren't the president during the Cuban missile crisis. But I'm pleased that you spouting your views, everybody needs to see the radical rightwing fringe for what it really is.

Explain to me what is different Tarboro? Our very existence is in jeopardy as a nation and as a people from these nuts. Hitler was any different? You've never heard islamic fundamentalists say their goal is to convert the world to islam? Did I dream that up?

Can you read? You were the one who brought up Christian fundamentalism from the past not me. You can't have it both ways.

Here we go with the race/bigot card. I knew this was coming and its the main reason why people are afraid to speak out because people like you who don't like someone else's argument immediately call out the bigot/race card when they don't have a logical retort.

I've asked you twice what your plan to fight global islamic terrorism was and you have refused to answer. Am I to guess you don't have one and am only here to criticize anyone else who suggests one?
What is global Islamic terrorism?

The facts you misstated were when you said: "A recent poll which I'm sure your aware of conducted on young Arab americans 25% think suicide bombing is OK."

I told you why you misrepresented it. If you can't figure it out, I don't know what to tell you. I mean, I'm sure they're running polls in Arab lands now which say that 25% of Americans want to nuke the hell out of them, and that a scary proportion of Americans are unable to discern the basic difference between a fundamentalist and the vast majority of peaceful Arabs. Where does it end? How much more wanton destruction needs to take place until you'll feel safe enough to go outside, Big Spot? I mean, you honestly believe that crap about Islam deciding to implement Sharia Law in the U.S? Where do you come up with this stuff? And even if they wanted to, which they don't, you honestly think they could? If you want to get into securing oil in that region and other honest appraisals, I'll be happy to oblige. But crazy Arabs instituting Islamic law on U.S. homeland? Gee whiz.


Those polls are coming from Arabs in Arab land ICD. The recent poll in this country is coming from Arabs who consider themselves Americans. Big difference.

You can call it crap but if you are a student of history as you say then you'll know the Arab crusades came before the christian crusades and arabs, specifically islamists have been trying to conquer lands that are not theirs for centuries and if you think it's going to stop at the Eastern seaboard then I suggest you start having the women in your life trying on burkas.

What is global Islamic terrorism?

If you don't know what it is then I can't help you.

Continue to deny global terrorism doesn't exist ICD, it's attitudes like that that can and will lead to our destruction.

Unless you too think it's only a bumper sticker slogan.

Those polls are coming from Arabs in Arab land ICD. The recent poll in this country is coming from Arabs who consider themselves Americans. Big difference.

You can call it crap but if you are a student of history as you say then you'll know the Arab crusades came before the christian crusades and arabs, specifically islamists have been trying to conquer lands that are not theirs for centuries and if you think it's going to stop at the Eastern seaboard then I suggest you start having the women in your life trying on burkas.
The "polls" I mentioned in Arab lands were just hypothetical to prove a point.

If you don't know what it is then I can't help you.

Continue to deny global terrorism doesn't exist ICD, it's attitudes like that that can and will lead to our destruction.

Unless you too think it's only a bumper sticker slogan.
I was hoping you would go through a laundry list of areas where fundamentalism has been rampant, as you did previously. I was then going to ask you to look deeper into the players involved and the areas in question. I mean, if global fundamental terrorists are so hell-bent on re-making the world in their image, then why haven't they made a big deal out of countries such as the Netherlands, Sweden, etc? Countries which live much the same way we do. Don't they hate their freedom too? How come every time one of these incidents comes up, it involves one of the G8 states or their client-states? Just a coincidence I guess...Couldn't be that those countries mind their own business...

I was hoping you would go through a laundry list of areas where fundamentalism has been rampant, as you did previously. I was then going to ask you to look deeper into the players involved and the areas in question. I mean, if global fundamental terrorists are so hell-bent on re-making the world in their image, then why haven't they made a big deal out of countries such as the Netherlands, Sweden, etc? Countries which live much the same way we do. Don't they hate their freedom too? How come every time one of these incidents comes up, it involves one of the G8 states or their client-states? Just a coincidence I guess...Couldn't be that those countries mind their own business...

Listen I already went into the world conflicts of Islam. All those conflicts have basically one premise. Islamic imperialism. It's also been historically written about as far back as 632AD.

People like Bin Laden and other fanatics are doing nothing more than what Muhhamed was trying to accomplish back in 632.

Maybe I'm ringing an early warning bell on this but I do not think this is going to stop anytime soon.

We as Americans are not blameless. I would be the first one to tell you we don't belong militarily in foreign lands. I'm more of an isolationist. All our troops should be on American soil but that is just not reasonably possible right now. We have an enemy out there that wants to kill us because they don't like our way of life and have struck us once and are trying to do it again every single day.

Listen I already went into the world conflicts of Islam. All those conflicts have basically one premise. Islamic imperialism. It's also been historically written about as far back as 632AD.

People like Bin Laden and other fanatics are doing nothing more than what Muhhamed was trying to accomplish back in 632.

Maybe I'm ringing an early warning bell on this but I do not think this is going to stop anytime soon.

We as Americans are not blameless. I would be the first one to tell you we don't belong militarily in foreign lands. I'm more of an isolationist. All our troops should be on American soil but that is just not reasonably possible right now. We have an enemy out there that wants to kill us because they don't like our way of life and have struck us once and are trying to do it again every single day.
We'll agree to disagree. I don't want to quarrel anymore. Go watch that video of the guy imitating Dog if you haven't already. It's a well-deserved laugh for the both of us...:)

Here is where you are wrong.

Why wait until we're attacked with a nuclear weapon of any kind? Whats the logic behind that?

And it's not only Al-Queda. Hamas is a larger organization than Al-Queda and if you had the news on today you know what's happened. Hamas and Hezzbollah have American blood on their hands and their goals are pretty much the same as Al_queda.

I'm afraid denying that this war's objective by the enemy is any different from Hitler's a serious mistake.

Al-Queda has already attacked us, they will not stop trying until we have the guts to create a final solution for them.

We'll agree to disagree. I don't want to quarrel anymore. Go watch that video of the guy imitating Dog if you haven't already. It's a well-deserved laugh for the both of us...:)

I don't know why but I can't link it up in Mozilla.

They don't have the capacity to take us over from abroad but beware of the enemy within Mod. That's what I've been saying.

And if all you say about global economy and after affects of a nuclear strike in the mideast was true then that would also happen if we tried it as a response to one being set off in this country by an operative as you suggested. What's the difference? Why wait till hundreds of thousands of americans are dead in the streets for such a harsh response?

Like I said Hamas and Hezbollah already have the blood of americans on their hands to say it's only about the destruction of Israel is shortsighted.

I can never recall a time in history when americans were killed and no response by our government, can you? You can also add Iran to that list because they are killing our soldiers as we speak, yet still no response by our government.

Listen I already went into the world conflicts of Islam. All those conflicts have basically one premise. Islamic imperialism. It's also been historically written about as far back as 632AD.

People like Bin Laden and other fanatics are doing nothing more than what Muhhamed was trying to accomplish back in 632.

Maybe I'm ringing an early warning bell on this but I do not think this is going to stop anytime soon.

We as Americans are not blameless. I would be the first one to tell you we don't belong militarily in foreign lands. I'm more of an isolationist. All our troops should be on American soil but that is just not reasonably possible right now. We have an enemy out there that wants to kill us because they don't like our way of life and have struck us once and are trying to do it again every single day.


Would you consider the Crusaders to be terrorists? Because you are saying that Muhammad is one. If you honestly believe that, then you must think the Crusaders were terrorists too. By the way, you may want to look up what fundamentalist means. Do you see every Muslim interpreting the Koran the way fundamentalists do? Well, there is a reason for that, because the fundamentalists have taken their own twisted interpretation of the texts.
By the way, based on your comparison of fighting al Qaeda to fighting Nazi Germany, you clearly have no clue what you're talking about.
This is a very complex issue. Please do some reading. Al Qaeda is one entity in the fight against terrorism. Syria and Iran are connected with terrorism but not through al Qaeda, but rather with Hezbollah and with other Shiite elements. Hezbollah and especially Hamas though are primarily more localized in scope. They should be fought but in a different manner, and with a lot of Israeli and moderate Arab assistance. This can be done due to internal politics of the region. It is primarily a local matter in the first place mainly having to do with Palestine situation and Israel's seizure of the Golan Heights.
Al Qaeda is the most dangerous globally. You must first understand the situation before making pronouncements. In a Big Spot, you clearly have no clue what you are talking about and that's why you keep giving very uninformed, backward views.

I've stated before that America's position in Iraq is increasing the proliferation of global terrorism. The war has created a terrorist haven that is bad for America and the rest of the world. America needs to be out of Iraq by the Summer of 2008. The military has performed gallantly and with great honor and has done what it was called on to do. It has been let down by neo-con fanatics that have poorly managed this war. America should remain in the region but by Summer of 2008 (frankly it should be sooner than that), American troops should not be patrolling the streets of Iraqi cities like beat cops. It is the Iraqis country and they have to fight for it. The situation there can only be solved politically. Regretfully, the most likely outcome will be a president friendly with Iran...much like it is now. Anybody with half a brain could have foreseen that coming. The leader will most likely be a Shiite fundamentalist. American troops should redeploy to other areas in the Middle East like Kuwait and others to ensure strategic security.

Very importantly, America needs to step up its forces in Afghanistan. Al Qaeda is the greatest threat to American security. Not through them taken over our civilization or whatever, but rather through shere terrorism. They must be hit right at the heart along the Pakistan/Afghanistan border. Troop levels must be stepped up substantially in order to fight the tough fight over there. You do remember that it was Bin Laden that attacked us? Once we strike at the heart of their operations in Pakistan/Afghanistan, we would have sawed off the head of the entire global operation.

Also, America has to improve its own national security defenses. Most of the containers coming into this country are not checked. If we are to be serious about fighting terrorism and protecting our country in the homeland, the government needs to be proactive and be vigilant and step up security checks along both borders, especially among cargo shipments coming into our ports. That is absolutely crucial! All these measures need to be done.

Right now none of these measures are being done and the status quo is nothing more than a failing strategy.

I can never recall a time in history when americans were killed and no response by our government, can you? You can also add Iran to that list because they are killing our soldiers as we speak, yet still no response by our government.
Where are you getting your news from? Iran is reacting to us, not us to them. We're obviously putting in place a strategy to at a minimum display a great show of force, or possibly even provoke a response. Given the situation in Iraq and elsewhere in that region, it's amazing Iran hasn't built a nuclear weapon already. They'd be crazy not to build one. I mean, I obviously don't want them to have one, but come on. They know what happens when you have a nuclear weapon: You get left alone (or dealt with economically, through capital flight and other mechanisms). See North Korea. Or China. When you don't have one: See Iraq. Also, a big part of the equation is the fact that Iran has indicated that it wants its oil trade to be dealt with in Euros, rather than dollars (this has already happened with some of its customers). http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/03/27/business/euros.php

Would you consider the Crusaders to be terrorists? Because you are saying that Muhammad is one. If you honestly believe that, then you must think the Crusaders were terrorists too. By the way, you may want to look up what fundamentalist means. Do you see every Muslim interpreting the Koran the way fundamentalists do? Well, there is a reason for that, because the fundamentalists have taken their own twisted interpretation of the texts.
By the way, based on your comparison of fighting al Qaeda to fighting Nazi Germany, you clearly have no clue what you're talking about.
This is a very complex issue. Please do some reading. Al Qaeda is one entity in the fight against terrorism. Syria and Iran are connected with terrorism but not through al Qaeda, but rather with Hezbollah and with other Shiite elements. Hezbollah and especially Hamas though are primarily more localized in scope. They should be fought but in a different manner, and with a lot of Israeli and moderate Arab assistance. This can be done due to internal politics of the region. It is primarily a local matter in the first place mainly having to do with Palestine situation and Israel's seizure of the Golan Heights.
Al Qaeda is the most dangerous globally. You must first understand the situation before making pronouncements. In a Big Spot, you clearly have no clue what you are talking about and that's why you keep giving very uninformed, backward views.

I've stated before that America's position in Iraq is increasing the proliferation of global terrorism. The war has created a terrorist haven that is bad for America and the rest of the world. America needs to be out of Iraq by the Summer of 2008. The military has performed gallantly and with great honor and has done what it was called on to do. It has been let down by neo-con fanatics that have poorly managed this war. America should remain in the region but by Summer of 2008 (frankly it should be sooner than that), American troops should not be patrolling the streets of Iraqi cities like beat cops. It is the Iraqis country and they have to fight for it. The situation there can only be solved politically. Regretfully, the most likely outcome will be a president friendly with Iran...much like it is now. Anybody with half a brain could have foreseen hat coming. The leader will most likely be a Shiite fundamentalist. American troops should redeploy to other areas in the Middle East like Kuwait and others to ensure strategic security.

Very importantly, America needs to step up its forces in Afghanistan. Al Qaeda is the greatest threat to American security. Not through them taken over our civilization or whatever, but rather through shere terrorism. They must be hit right at the heart along the Pakistan/Afghanistan border. Troop levels must be stepped up substantially in order to fight the tough fight over there. You do remember that it was Bin Laden that attacked us? Once we strike at the heart of their operations in Pakistan/Afghanistan, we would have sawed off the head of the entire global operation.

Also, America has to improve its own national security defenses. Most of the containers coming into this country are not checked. If we are to be serious about fighting terrorism and protecting our country in the homeland, the government needs to be proactive and be vigilant and step up security checks along the border, especially among cargo shipments coming into our ports. All these measures need to be done.

Right now none of these measures are being done and the status quo is nothing more than a failing strategy.

My arguments have nothing to do with containers or border checks those are separate topics for another day. Your strategy of re-deployment is ridiculous.
What do you want, to set up bases in Kuwait and wait till we decide they've killed each other enough to move into Iraq and try and separate them like little children? Send them to their rooms with no dinner?

I'll surprise you Tarboro, I want the redeployment back to this country. Nobody likes war but sometimes it's necessary.

Al Queda leaders are hiding in Pakistan, we haven't gone into Pakistan because of the fragile nature of the Pakistani government. I'd be shocked SHOCKED I tell you if Bin Laden was captured in Afghanistan.

Even if he was captured or killed it would only make a small dent in the global war on Al Queda. Bin Laden doesn't come across to as a stupid man and therefore I'm sure he's planned for his organizations future after his demise.

Where are you getting your news from? Iran is reacting to us, not us to them. We're obviously putting in place a strategy to at a minimum display a great show of force, or possibly even provoke a response. Given the situation in Iraq and elsewhere in that region, it's amazing Iran hasn't built a nuclear weapon already. They'd be crazy not to build one. I mean, I obviously don't want them to have one, but come on. They know what happens when you have a nuclear weapon: You get left alone (or dealt with economically, through capital flight and other mechanisms). See North Korea. Or China. When you don't have one: See Iraq. Also, a big part of the equation is the fact that Iran has indicated that it wants its oil trade to be dealt with in Euros, rather than dollars (this has already happened with some of its customers). http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/03/27/business/euros.php

So your saying they aren't killing our soldiers? What are they reacting to? They know we don't have the capacity right now to attack them that's why they are attacking our soldiers the way they are. Do you think if the Iranian government feared we would obliterate them they would be involved in Iraq?

My arguments have nothing to do with containers or border checks those are separate topics for another day. Your strategy of re-deployment is ridiculous.
What do you want, to set up bases in Kuwait and wait till we decide they've killed each other enough to move into Iraq and try and separate them like little children? Send them to their rooms with no dinner?

I'll surprise you Tarboro, I want the redeployment back to this country. Nobody likes war but sometimes it's necessary.

Al Queda leaders are hiding in Pakistan, we haven't gone into Pakistan because of the fragile nature of the Pakistani government. I'd be shocked SHOCKED I tell you if Bin Laden was captured in Afghanistan.

Even if he was captured or killed it would only make a small dent in the global war on Al Queda. Bin Laden doesn't come across to as a stupid man and therefore I'm sure he's planned for his organizations future after his demise.

Most troops should return to the U.S. or be transfered to Afghanistan. But we already have basis in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, and in these times some of the troops in Iraq should rotate through there. It is for strategic reasons.

Also, the fight in Afghanistan is not just to kill Bin Laden. Al Qaeda is much more than him. However, we have to get serious about taking their operation down in Pakistan/Afghanistan. Once we do that, it saws a major component of their global outreach.

Also, Hamas and Hezbollah have different aims than al Qaeda.
I'll gladly discuss this issue with other people on this board, because most everybody here knows what their talking about and knows the issues. In a Big Spot, you have shown that you have no idea what you are talking about. The majority of your points are best left ignored because they are so ill informed. I do encourage you to continue to post, because it is a perfect exhibit for everybody to see the mindset of the radical, rightwing fringe in this country influenced by Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh.

So your saying they aren't killing our soldiers? What are they reacting to? They know we don't have the capacity right now to attack them that's why they are attacking our soldiers the way they are. Do you think if the Iranian government feared we would obliterate them they would be involved in Iraq?
It's very complicated, obviously, and I don't pretend to know exactly what is going on. Hell, our own security agencies are often at odds over what's going on. But from what I can gather so far, it isn't correct to say Iran is killing our soldiers. There are elements inside Iran that are feeding weapons to the Iraqi resistance, but it isn't coming from the Iranian government. That information comes from U.S. military sources, which I will look for now (I don't think I have anything bookmarked). Remember too, our soldiers are part of an illegal occupation that has destroyed a country right next to them. They've probably shown remarkable restraint, given the circumstances.

Ban me if you want but I never said I didn't want to go after Bin Laden in Pakistan. I said the US Government wasn't going after him in Pakistan. I could care less about their fragile government Mod, get it right.

You see me as someone who has extreme views because he loves his country and wants the best for it. I see you and Tarboro and ICD as appeasers who just want to redeploy and let the UN figure out how to win this thing.

Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't the UN mandate Saddam be removed if he wasn't compliant?
I think I'm done, too, Big Spot. I mean, if you don't realize that the "Saddam wasn't compliant" line was complete BS, then I just don't know what to say. I thought even the extreme right had abandoned that reasoning at this point. And you're invoking the U.N? What if I invoked the U.N. to make an argument for something? Wouldn't you tell me it's irrelevant, a la Bolton et al? Anyway, the answer to the question is the U.N Security Council Debates were divided and quite contentious, as is often the case. The U.S. was pressing for removal militarily, while other countries were pressing for more sanctions (Russia probably wanted Hussein to stay, because they had decent relations with the regime. The same might be said of France). In the end, it doesn't matter, because the U.S. rarely follows the will of the international community anyway. If the U.N. wants to endorse what the U.S. wants to do, then fine, it's a great thing to have. If not, then it's irrelevant, and it may as well not exist. Anyway, the question is largely inconsequential, because as we know, inspectors were allowed in numerous times, never found anything, a story was concocted and presented brilliantly in a performance for the ages by Colin Powell, and an illegal war and occupation were the result, with almost 4000 Americans dead, countless maimed, and close to a million Iraqis dead, mostly innocent women and children guilty of nothing more than being in the wrong place.

Incidentally, any other country does that and their leaders are facing a war crimes tribunal.

Well I'm being banned so this is my last post here so here goes.

Saddam was thought to have built up nuclear weapons all the way back through the Clinton Administration. It wasn't only US intelligence that thought he had it, it was British intelligence that claimed he had them. Countries like Russia and France were obviously on the take from Saddam and that is why they weren't onboard.

The information was wrong and it was a mistake but we're in it now and redeploying or retreating is not the answer. I have no use for the UN but mentioned them only because the argument for an "Illegal War" usually comes from people who like to bow at the alter of the UN everytime there is a crisis somewhere in the world.

You three like to call me names and think I'm a right wing extremist for these views and that really doesn't bother me as much as you think it does. I'm not going to have a fit and complain like left wingers do when they are called extremists.

You all got your panties in a twist because I called for a nuclear solution but you watch and see, this conflict will not go away until nukes get involved.

The terrorists are going to acquire nukes and will not hesitate to use them. They will probably be passed to them by a nuclear active Iran which you said yourself you wouldn't blame the Iranians for developing in face of US actions in Iraq.

At the very least they will use them on Israel which will draw us into some nuclear action ourselves in defense of the only ally we have in the region.

I'm tired of the Mod calling me and my opinions stupid and threatening to ban me. I did nothing wrong except state an opinion that was unpopular and immediately got attacked, so be it.

Anyhow, I'm done I don't dislike any of you and can take things on a message board with a grain of salt.

It was nice to be able to post alongside you.

Bye.

Al Queda leaders are hiding in Pakistan, we haven't gone into Pakistan because of the fragile nature of the Pakistani government. I'd be shocked SHOCKED I tell you if Bin Laden was captured in Afghanistan.

Even if he was captured or killed it would only make a small dent in the global war on Al Queda. Bin Laden doesn't come across to as a stupid man and therefore I'm sure he's planned for his organizations future after his demise.
I don't know what "the fragile nature of the Pakistani government" means. If it means the country is basically run by the ISI, then I think you're onto something. But why aren't more questions being asked about Pakistan and this shadowy organization? I would imagine it's because the ISI, which has had close ties to the CIA over the years (not unusual), has some damning information about Saudi links to 911 (as well as CIA drug trafficking, among other things, but that's a story for a different day). At any rate, investigations should probably be centering on Saeed Sheikh, more than Bin Laden or anyone else. But they don't seem to be, for whatever reason. And it's interesting to note that we're so deeply involved in Iraq, with virtually no ties to Al-Qaeda, when Pakistan, which had much closer ties to Al-Qaeda than anyone else, is being almost completely ignored. Make of it what you will.

Big Spot: I never called you any names or even ever referred to you as a right-winger. The only thing I alluded to was to keep watching Fox News. My tone can be harsh at times, but I've never called anyone any names on this board. Also, Tarboro, mod, and I are not in cahoots. If you go back and read the posts, you'll see that our views are not identical in the least.

I don't dislike you either.

MSNBC reporting that Rudy's kids have dropped his last name and have taken another last name.

In addition, MSNBC reporting that on Rudy's web site there is no mention of his children, as if they never existed.

For all those that support Rudy here is a question for you : Why hasn't Rudy made even one trip to Iraq ???? Is he afraid ????

Heck, even Hilllary has made several trips there !

Rudy is a phony.

For all those that support Rudy here is a question for you : Why hasn't Rudy made even one trip to Iraq ???? Is he afraid ????

Heck, even Hilllary has made several trips there !


Annother question; for a guy who is so gung ho to send other people's kids over to fight , how come Rudy spent the Viet Nam years hiding under the covers? In 1969, while clerking for Federal Judge Lloyd MacMahon, Rudy's student deferment ran out and he became eligible for the draft. Rudy applied for a deferrment was turned down. So Rudy had Judge MacMahon write a few letters and, presto, he got his deferment.

This is the same Judge MacMahon who wrote a few letters getting the church to allow Rudy to marry his second cousin, Regina Peruggi, in 1968. In
1983, Rudy remembered they were second cousins and got others to pressure the Catholic church to annul the marriage on that ground so Rudy could marry Donna Hanover.

Rudy is another phony -- only much worse.

Rudy is another phony -- only much worse.

speaking of phonies, please let us know when hillary clinton sends chelsea over to enlist.

Too bad Rudy doesn't talk to his kids or even have a relationship with them.

Too bad Rudy doesn't talk to his kids or even have a relationship with them.

Can I deduce from that comment that you think George W. Bush and George HW Bush were great Presidents because they have such great relationships with their children? That would seem to be your reasoning. Ronald Reagan seems to have some troubles with some of his children from his two marriages, so I guess that makes him a bad President. Gerald Ford got along famously with his kids, you must have loved him. Jimmy Carter sent his only daughter to D.C. public schools surrounded by a phalanx of Secret Service, and she grew up to be just the weirdest post-60's hippie kid imaginable. The Clintons showed much better sense with Chelsea, sending her to an intergrated upper class private school, where she was able to mix with her socio-economic peers and grew up normal with real friends like other kids. Ofcourse, I doubt if there was too much bed sharing (if you get my drift) between her Mom and Pop after his catting around as Govenor of Arkansas. But they do have a great political marriage and isn't that better than being happy? I know you didn't vote for John Kerry in 2004 out of disgust with him hooking up with crazy Terry Heinz just because his campaign needed her dough to jump start, or he was dead back at the early primaries. I myself, do feel for Terry. She was once really married to Republican Senator John Heinz, a rising star pointed for the Presidency until he died in a tragic airplane crash. Terry was never the same after that. I understand. Do you? Or are you too upset with Rudy's relationship with his children from his former spouse to care?

Actually, I never said Rudy or anyone else was a great parent or wasn't. You inferred that. God knows how. Rudy is like both Bushes.

Actually, I never said Rudy or anyone else was a great parent or wasn't. You inferred that. God knows how. Rudy is like both Bushes.

You said:
"Too bad Rudy doesn't talk to his kids or even have a relationship with them."

If that's not a criticism from you, what is it ?
If you didn't mean to imply it means he'll be a bad POTUS, why did you post it?

You said:
"Too bad Rudy doesn't talk to his kids or even have a relationship with them."

If that's not a criticism from you, what is it ?
If you didn't mean to imply it means he'll be a bad POTUS, why did you post it?

I criticize Rudy for his parental "skills" and I advance the notion that the way he has acted as a parent to his kids show significant charachter flaws which should be considered in judging him as a future president. Granted, nobody's perfect but come on. We are talking about a guy who:


* paraded his mistress around in public and made no attempt to hide that he was having an affair, presumably with the understanding that his kids could read the papers.

* announced to his wife and kids that he was seeking a divorce at a press conference!

* Hired the notorious Raul Felder (ask any NYC attorney what that means) in the divorce proceeding. Felder promptly referred to Ms. Giuliani as an "uncaring mother" who stayed in a dead marriage for "twisted motives." and made her sound like the interloper "howling like a stuck pig," who would have to be pulled "from the chain of the chandeliers" to remove her from Gracie mansion.

* Doesn't even mention his kids on his websight, which is probably a good idea since both of them seldom even speak to him and neither are participating in his campaign.

speaking of phonies, please let us know when hillary clinton sends chelsea over to enlist.

She will as soon as Bush sends the twins.

A little testy aren't you m2b. Maybe you have a lot more common with Rudy. How is Rudy any better than any other candidate --in all parties?