A VIDEO THAT WILL FOOL MILLIONS OF PEOPLE!

[luns101]

The only reason you retarded Amerikans are still fighting that thing is because the corporations involved arn't finished sucking you dry.

f*ck Amerika pisses me off.

spoken like a true imbecile.
Good Job!

ROFL, nice one Iz!

To quee's point:

I don't support the Lakers winning any games this year, but I support the players on the team.

[The1exile]

The only reason you retarded Amerikans are still fighting that thing is because the corporations involved arn't finished sucking you dry.

f*ck Amerika pisses me off.

spoken like a true imbecile.
Good Job!

ROFL, nice one Iz!

To quee's point:

I don't support the Lakers winning any games this year, but I support the players on the team.

So... this doesn't silence the anti war crowd, only the (almost nonexistent) anti soldiers crowd?

[qeee1]

I don't support the Lakers winning any games this year, but I support the players on the team.

Sports and by extension sports analogies generally equal the death of my interest in a topic, but I'll give this a go.

Why don't you want them to win games?

Why do you support the players?

How do you support the players?

How does one support the troops and not the war?

[Iz Man]

I don't support the Lakers winning any games this year, but I support the players on the team.

Sports and by extension sports analogies generally equal the death of my interest in a topic, but I'll give this a go.

Why don't you want them to win games?

Why do you support the players?

How do you support the players?

How does one support the troops and not the war?

One can root for a player to do well and the team he plays for to lose.
I certainly don't abide by that thought concerning the war, but it's an answer to your question.
By not supporting the war, does that mean you support the coalition's defeat?
The fact is we are at war. Whether you agreed with the premise for it or not. Therefore you now have a choice:
You can support the troops and hope for a swift victory.
or
You can support the defeat of our troops.

Hopefully you would choose the first option. If you chose the second, then I would call you a traitor and a coward.

[luns101]

Why don't you want them to win games?

Other NBA teams did nothing to the Lakers to provoke them in the first place. These other teams were minding their own business. If the Lakers defeat other NBA teams, it will inflame their hatred against the Lakers even more.

Why do you support the players?

Because many of them had no other options for their lives. It was either make millions of dollars by participating in professional basketball, or get a college degree. Given those choices, they were forced to join a professional sports league. They didn't ask to oppress other teams...they're just following the orders of their coach.

How do you support the players?

I wear a purple & gold ribbon on my shirt until they all return safely to their families upon the completion of the regular season. Hopefully, they will not make the playoffs and cause further pain and suffering.

How does one support the troops and not the war?

In our country, you join the Democratic Party.

[comic boy]

The British Military ( not political ) view was that it was an ill judged engagement but they did as they were asked because that is what they do.
I would have thought that the average soldier in Iraq is doing a good professional job but cant wait to get the hell out of the place. Now even if one does not agree with the original motives for the war then it is absurd not to back ones soldiers, but the best kind of backing might be to tell those in charge to get the boys out ASAP.

[umanouski]

As Hecter said, 9/11 has nothing to do with Iraq. I support all of the western soldiers in Afghanistan, but not in Iraq as it was illegal and none of the original motives (WMD's) were true.

Read the news dude. Even the most anti-war people said go in. It was intelligence that was acted upon.

[daddy1gringo]

As Hecter said, 9/11 has nothing to do with Iraq. I support all of the western soldiers in Afghanistan, but not in Iraq as it was illegal and none of the original motives (WMD's) were true.

This is what never ceases to amaze me. Every accusation in "Farenheit 911" was proven false, that there never were WMD's, that the Bush administration invented the crisis and the connection between 911 and Iraq, etc., but people still quote the lies as facts. Moore finally said " It was just satire for entertainment, it was never supposed to be a serious documentary." Hogwash. He meant it to do exactly what it did. Persuade many people with lies.

Just because the WMD's were gone after months of military buildup and taking ground mile by mile brought us to where they had been doesn't mean they weren't there. We had intelligence from all the best agencies in the world: France, UK, Israel, as well as our own that they were there. He had plenty of time to move them across the border with one of his neighbor/cronies, or just dismantle and hide them. We know for certain that Saddam used chemical/biological weapons on the Kurds. We also know that his oil money helped fund terrorists, and that he let them have training camps in Iraq.

The "Patriot Act" and other internal security measures are woefully inadequate to catch the sleeper cells and prevent another 911, but weak as they are they are already more of an invasion of our privacy than many Americans will tolerate. The only hope is to stop them on their own ground. That's what the war in Iraq is about.

Anybody who says it's "for oil" just isn't thinking. An influx of oil would drop gasoline prices. It's not working too well.

[luns101]

Anybody who says it's "for oil" just isn't thinking.

No blood for oil! Bush lied, people died! Hey Hey, Ho Ho, George Bush has got to go! Make Love...not War! College - Not Combat! How Many Lives Per Gallon?!!

[spurgistan]

Read the news dude. Even the most anti-war people said go in. It was intelligence that was acted upon.

If by everybody you mean practically all American politicians (and possibly British, sorry, I haven't learned much about the march to war in your country) then yeah. If, however, by "the most anti-war people" you include the hundreds of thousands like me who protested the invasion of Iraq from the beginning and marched against it, then no.

[vtmarik]

*shrugs* I think this video is a decent reply to that one:
http://www.zefrank.com/theshow/archives ... 90706.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As to the video at the beginning of this thread: I can't understand where he's coming from, being a pacifist and an old-fashioned transcendentalist, I cannot comprehend wanting to go into a war.

I can comprehend, however, the desire to protect one's home from anyone who wishes it or its people harm. I can also understand the desire to support those who make that decision. With every free breath I take I thank the soldiers who fought for the freedom for me to take that breath in the manner that I see fit.

I support the soldiers who volunteer to put their lives on the line so that I can keep doing what I want to do. I also support the people who help these soldiers, though I do not have the means to support them directly.

I will not pick up a gun and go shoot people in Iraq just because they happen to look like the people who crashed planes into the towers on 9/11. I will not strap on a flack jacket and rush headlong into Afghanistan to help out people who don't want my help.

Partially this is because I don't want to put myself into a position where I could be killed simply on ideological grounds. Also, I am very lazy.

However, I stand as proud as any American content in the knowledge that this is the greatest nation on the planet.

So if for some reason you equate a desire for war to end with some kind of latent hatred of those who fight for America, I have only one thing to say to you: Bite me.

f*ck your black-and-white, with-us-or-with-the-terrorists absolutism. The only people that serves is the terrorists themselves who want to polarize this nation and tear it apart from the inside.

The purpose of terrorism is to disrupt the old routine and replace it with something that resembles the division between the Patriots and the Traitors back in the days of the American Revolution, where you were either on the side of England or the foundling United States.

I hate to say it, but those who shout at anti-war protesters and call them traitors are doing exactly what the terrorists want them to do.

They want to attack the very foundation of our democracy, the idea of pluralism. The concept that there is more than only one right answer.

The moment dissent becomes confused with disloyalty, the nation begins to unravel at its most basic level. It happened with the HUAC hearings in the 1950s when everyone thought that everyone else was a communist bent on destroying our nation because "Commies hate freedom."

In the 1980s anyone who was different was a Satanist, and they were demonized and prosecuted into suicide or exile.

Now, in the 21st century, those who don't buy into the party lines are terrorist sympathizers and should be shunned.


The nation was founded on the idea that one nation can encompass all theories and ideals and still remain a united whole. That very concept is being threatened by nebulous fear and a continuous reminder that we could die at any minute.

Don't let the terrorists get to you too.

[jay_a2j]

Therefore you now have a choice:
You can support the troops and hope for a swift victory.
or
You can support the defeat of our troops.

Hopefully you would choose the first option. If you chose the second, then I would call you a traitor and a coward.

This is beautiful! Iz nailed it here. The sad fact is there are many (not all) Democrats in House/Senate that have put their full weight behind LOSING the war! The constant call for "cutting and running" is a lose/ lose proposition. If we do pull our troops the aftermath of such action would be almost incomprehensible. If we WIN the war we just might have a huge number of Democratic politicians crowding the unemployment line.

*** Note***
Also the thread Title was to attract attention to this thread. LIBERALS can be Democrats or Republicans(or any political affiliation). Although most liberals are on the left side of the isle.

[daddy1gringo]

Anybody who says it's "for oil" just isn't thinking.

No blood for oil! Bush lied, people died! Hey Hey, Ho Ho, George Bush has got to go! Make Love...not War! College - Not Combat! How Many Lives Per Gallon?!!

Yeah, that's what I mean.

[bedub1]

Support Our Troops...Lay a soldier!

[mandalorian2298]

I certainly don't abide by that thought concerning the war, but it's an answer to your question.
By not supporting the war, does that mean you support the coalition's defeat?
The fact is we are at war. Whether you agreed with the premise for it or not. Therefore you now have a choice:
You can support the troops and hope for a swift victory.
or
You can support the defeat of our troops.

Hopefully you would choose the first option. If you chose the second, then I would call you a traitor and a coward.

YAY! *throws a dart into a picture of Oscar Schindler* Take that, you cowardly traitor!

Just because the WMD's were gone after months of military buildup and taking ground mile by mile brought us to where they had been doesn't mean they weren't there.We had intelligence from all the best agencies in the world: France, UK, Israel, as well as our own that they were there. He had plenty of time to move them across the border with one of his neighbor/cronies, or just dismantle and hide them.

You have to admire Saddam's discipline though. Were I a genocidal dictator, I would have used WMDs on the overwhelming millitary might coming my way. But not Saddam. He decided to store it of for a REAL emergency, reluctant to spend his WMDs frivolusly.



"Sadam, we are being attacked by USA, GB and a few othe nations. Should we break out the Weapons of Mass Destruction and massivly destroy them? "

"Oh sure, we will waste our WMDs on a few angry Americans and Brits. And what will happen when the Aliens attack us and we have no more WMDs?! You idiot, put that nerve gas back where you found it! "

"Yes President. Sorry President. "

Anybody who says it's "for oil" just isn't thinking. An influx of oil would drop gasoline prices. It's not working too well.

Lol. Nice job shuting up THOSE idiots! Yes, I said 'idiots' and I'll say 'idiots' again, because a person who didn't notice how much the price of gasoline has droped since the war begun is too stupid to be called anything else!

[MeDeFe]

The price has only gone up here, good job.

[mandalorian2298]

The price has only gone up here, good job.

Oh. Really?
But still, insisting that the oil companies have in some MAGICAL way profited from selling gasoline at higher prices is just silly.

[MeDeFe]

I get the feeling that sarcasm meter still isn't working as it should...

[Aegnor]

Well I always thought that the definition of war is 2 armies fighting each other. I fail seeing the opposing army in your so called "war". When there is no enemy to defeat, don't be surprised that you can't win your "war".

[Stopper]

As Hecter said, 9/11 has nothing to do with Iraq. I support all of the western soldiers in Afghanistan, but not in Iraq as it was illegal and none of the original motives (WMD's) were true.

This is what never ceases to amaze me. Every accusation in "Farenheit 911" was proven false, that there never were WMD's, that the Bush administration invented the crisis and the connection between 911 and Iraq, etc., but people still quote the lies as facts. Moore finally said " It was just satire for entertainment, it was never supposed to be a serious documentary." Hogwash. He meant it to do exactly what it did. Persuade many people with lies.

Just because the WMD's were gone after months of military buildup and taking ground mile by mile brought us to where they had been doesn't mean they weren't there. We had intelligence from all the best agencies in the world: France, UK, Israel, as well as our own that they were there. He had plenty of time to move them across the border with one of his neighbor/cronies, or just dismantle and hide them. We know for certain that Saddam used chemical/biological weapons on the Kurds. We also know that his oil money helped fund terrorists, and that he let them have training camps in Iraq.

The "Patriot Act" and other internal security measures are woefully inadequate to catch the sleeper cells and prevent another 911, but weak as they are they are already more of an invasion of our privacy than many Americans will tolerate. The only hope is to stop them on their own ground. That's what the war in Iraq is about.

Anybody who says it's "for oil" just isn't thinking. An influx of oil would drop gasoline prices. It's not working too well.

Bloody hell. It never fails to amaze me just how much bollocks some people still believe about the Iraq invasion and the run-up to it. You've had nearly five years now to get up-to-speed, so why haven't you?

There are no, and there were no, Weapons of Mass Destruction. Full stop. Only in the furthest recesses of the average far-right-wing lunatic's mind does the barest glimmer of hope that WMD's might yet be uncovered (or found to have been shifted to Syria ) still exist. The Bush administration themselves have dissociated themselves from WMD's, so it's OK, you can stop now.

And to be clear, the Bush administration never had reason to believe that there were WMD's. WMD's was just one of many stories that they came up with to justify an invasion of Iraq. If you're old enough to remember late 2002, then you'll remember those many and varied silly stories - connections between Al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein, "terrorist training camps", "yellow cake", the now-embarassing presentation by Colin Powell at the UN, etc etc - all mud thrown in the hopes that some would stick. In other words, the Bush administration was looking for a reason, any halfway-plausible reason to go to war, and to hell with whether it was actually true or not.

[vtmarik]

Jay and them are right, it isn't a war for oil.

It's a war for the sake of having a war. There will be no end to it because Bush made no plans to end it. Meanwhile, soldiers are dying while REMFs in Congress and the Executive Branch are jacking off.

Hate to break it to you guys, but the overriding purpose of a war is to win. The war's already won, Saddam's gone (since that was the reason we went there if you ignore that whole WMD thing). It's over, we won, let's get it done already.

This wouldn't be so cut and dry if Bush hadn't done that whole "Mission: Accomplished" thing a few years back.

[Iz Man]

I certainly don't abide by that thought concerning the war, but it's an answer to your question.
By not supporting the war, does that mean you support the coalition's defeat?
The fact is we are at war. Whether you agreed with the premise for it or not. Therefore you now have a choice:
You can support the troops and hope for a swift victory.
or
You can support the defeat of our troops.

Hopefully you would choose the first option. If you chose the second, then I would call you a traitor and a coward.

YAY! *throws a dart into a picture of Oscar Schindler* Take that, you cowardly traitor!

Ah, but you won't answer the question, will you?
We are at war. How we got there at this point does not matter.
So do you support the troops and hope for a swift victory?
Or do you hope for defeat?
Simple question, but it puts you in a quandary, doesn't it?
A victory in Iraq would mean a victory for Bush, and we just can't have that now, can we? The far-left in D.C. is in the same predicament, except they can actually do something about it.
The politicians (in D.C., anyway) who have been shouting that this war is unwinnable, our troops are harassing innocent civilians in the dark of night, or that they are murderers in the like of Stalin, Hitler, & Pol Pot, have had the ability to stop the war.
Just not fund it. Its how they "ended" Vietnam.
Without the money, you can't fight the war.
But even those far-lefties know this is not a viable option (see Cambodia & Vietnam post-American withdrawl). They're stuck, so what do they do?
Just keep bashing Bush. As long as the war is being "difficult" he'll look bad, and that's really what counts now; with the premise that a Democrat in the white house in '08 will win "Bush's war", be the savior of the free world, and prove once and for all that Bush was an inept president.
One problem: none of these Dem's running for President has a solution to Iraq, not one.

That, and the surge is actually starting to show some success. "Oh NO!! What will we do if the surge is successful???"

We are at war, so back to the question:
Do you wish for victory, or do you wish for defeat?

[vtmarik]

That, and the surge is actually starting to show some success. "Oh NO!! What will we do if the surge is successful???"

We are at war, so back to the question:
Do you wish for victory, or do you wish for defeat?

Nationalist idiot.

I wish for the soldiers to be home safe so children don't have to grow up without their mothers and fathers.

The mission's accomplished, Saddam's gone, the Iraqis vote now, they've got an assembly-style government, what else is there to win?

[Iz Man]

That, and the surge is actually starting to show some success. "Oh NO!! What will we do if the surge is successful???"

We are at war, so back to the question:
Do you wish for victory, or do you wish for defeat?

Nationalist idiot.

I wish for the soldiers to be home safe so children don't have to grow up without their mothers and fathers.

The mission's accomplished, Saddam's gone, the Iraqis vote now, they've got an assembly-style government, what else is there to win?

Typical. Namecalling right in your first sentence will really validate you point.

So just pull out completely?
If that's a viable solution, then why doesn't the left (who controls the purse strings now) just cut off the funding. That would bring the troops home real quick.

[vtmarik]

Typical. Namecalling right in your first sentence will really validate you point.

So just pull out completely?
If that's a viable solution, then why doesn't the left (who controls the purse strings now) just cut off the funding. That would bring the troops home real quick.

Oh yeah, and give the pro-war crowd a bumper sticker and a rallying cry. Real smart.

How about, instead of pretending that there are no other options between "stay the course" and "cut and run," we look at the problem like mature adults.

We shift our focus from fighting the insurgents directly to training the Iraqi armed forces to do it for us. Then we can keep the necessary number of troops in Iraq to train the Iraqis (which I believe has been a stated goal for at least a year now with no forward progress) and we can bring the rest home to be parents, siblings, and families again.

That way the anti-war crowd gets their draw-down, and the pro-war crowd get to keep watching guns and death while their hands bob up and down on their cocks.