Conservative Group Airs Pro-Bush(War) Ad

[DEMON CUNT]

Originally posted by Warham
He's only brilliant to you, nobody else here.

And yet you lack the ability to engage in the meaningful discussion that you were pretending to crave during your recent cries to the webmasters.

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
You speak for the entire board now, WarBOT?

I elect Warham to speak for the entire board.

It is settled then.

[Warham]

Originally posted by DEMON CUNT
And yet you lack the ability to engage in the meaningful discussion that you were pretending to crave during your recent cries to the webmasters.

I think you're getting confused, Demon.

When have I 'cried' to webmasters lately? I haven't been around for three months.

[Warham]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
No, it was "cut&run," it inspired the Iranians for years to come.

Let's not forget Jimmy Carter's part regarding Iran, shall we?

[Warham]

Originally posted by DEMON CUNT
More than you, neocon dummy.

I did notice that you are unable to address my more meaningful comments in this thread.

Like I said before, I don't google shit pics as well as you do, so it'll be hard to retort your more 'meaningful' replies.

[Ellyllions]

What would really be funny is if the Dems win majority, end up having to follow the same route as the one being followed now, and still fail at this "war" on terrorism. Despite all the bullshit debates.

Where will you all be then?

Lounge had it partly right. The people at the Pentagon are the ones making the judgements on all the fronts were facing. It's not the Senators or President's job to investigate what's going on. They rely solely on the reports given to them by the Generals who are controlling the troops. Who are the Generals? They're highly competitve people who want to be spoken of in history books and documentaries as "greats".

But the politics have us EXACTLY where they want us, taking the blame all the way to the top leaving the real fuck-ups alone. What does the top do? Goes to the Generals asking why/what/how and the Generals are saying, "Malarky, we've got them on the run."

The reason I put the word "war" in quotes is because I'm beginning to equate this terrorism war to the "war" on drugs. That's still going on ya know? That "war"...and this one is looking more and more like it. If we were to catch Bin Laden would terrorism stop? No. Would we just drop our weapons and stop? No. Because it's not one man, one entitiy running the show. The people who are committing terrorism in the name of whatever "cause" are multiplying just as they always have. Reasons change, tactics change, people merge from one group to another...just like in the war on drugs. Drugs change, shipping routes change, more people get involved for whatever reason. It's not going to stop and no one can stop it. Terrorists don't wear uniforms just like drug czars don't have "Drug dealer" stamped across their foreheads.

You can't predict human behavior to the point of completely controlling it because you can't control someone's thoughts. So in essence, it doesn't matter what political affiliation the Administration, Senate, Congress, Judicial system happens to be. This is an ongoing battle with people who may or may not be terrorists today but change their minds tomorrow. People who believe a fundamental premise that they're fulfilling an idea or prophecy. It's a lost cause on both sides. They'll continue to push their agenda, and we'll continue to try to stop them. It's going to end up with nothing but a series of battles throughout our history that cannot be defined.

The "war" is on and it will be on for a very long time.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
Let's not forget Jimmy Carter's part regarding Iran, shall we?

Can you be more specific?

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by BigBadBrian
I elect Warham to speak for the entire board.

It is settled then.

Sorry, you're mentality has to be at least at the level of an 18-year-old to get a vote. You don't qualify.

[Ellyllions]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Sorry, you're mentality has to be at least at the level of an 18-year-old to get a vote. You don't qualify.

Does it count if you just want to be 18 forever?

[DEMON CUNT]

Originally posted by Warham
I think you're getting confused, Demon.

When have I 'cried' to webmasters lately? I haven't been around for three months.

Again, you participated in the feedback to webmaster thread about this forum turning to shit.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Ellyllions
What would really be funny is if the Dems win majority, end up having to follow the same route as the one being followed now, and still fail at this "war" on terrorism. Despite all the bullshit debates.

Where will you all be then?

...

This is just speculation. In fact, I'd like to know what the definition of "losing the War on Terror" is, since there seems to be no adequate definition of "victory" either.

Is it that an "Islamofascist Caliphate" will take over the Middle East? LMFAO!

The Dems may also have increased flexibility of dealing with Iraq, since they don't have to "save face" like the Repub. Admin. bent on not taking the blame for their policy-abortions.

[DEMON CUNT]

Originally posted by Warham
Like I said before, I don't google shit pics as well as you do, so it'll be hard to retort your more 'meaningful' replies.

Said thre giant gaping neocon pussy.

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by DEMON CUNT
Again, you participated in the feedback to webmaster thread about this forum turning to shit.

There's no harm in participating in such a thread.

This forum has turned to crap...since a few certain people joined and no noting of engaging in meaningful debate.

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Sorry, you're mentality has to be at least at the level of an 18-year-old to get a vote. You don't qualify.

Good response.

I will pray for the pitiful existence you must endure.

[Ellyllions]

Isn't supposing that the Dems "may also have increased flexibility of dealing with Iraq" speculation as well? I mean do the terrorists divide their decisions based on American Party lines? "American" has a definition in the Middle East which could very well mean that anyone "American" might have to "save face".....(?)

In my mind "losing the war on terror" and "victory" are both perception based. Kind of like the Israel/Hezbollah battle. When each side has their own perception of win/lose then it depends on what each individual chooses to perceive as the answer.

Lots of grey area....no black and white conclusion.

Does thousands dead signify victory or loss? Depends on who's side your on doesn't it....

I don't see victory on either side in this battle. Just like the war on drugs. Terrorists keep coming and we keep coming. Back and forth like a tennis match that won't end.