From one that thinks the historic boundaries of the Ottoman empire are equal to those of modern Turkey. In spite of reality libs belive what they want to believe.

Someone needs to wash their bubble again and learn to thoroughly read. Why is it neocons have so much trouble understanding simple English? I try typing as slow as possible, but they still don't get it.

Maibee i nede more airors in my centances lik theres.

And by the way, the historic boundries of the Ottoman Empire have been reduced to what is now known as modern day Turkey as so clearly pointed out in the link Elvis provided.

TheKing and Rory,

here is the quote from TheKing, which Rory seems to attribute to me, and which (after Rory slammed me for this quote) prompted my admission that I dont know much about the history of the middle east beyond the past 50 years.

and Rory responding to (and changing the subject!) a post by me:
Again by all means Im eager to learn about it, and i did some reserarch into the issues prior to the last fifty years you brought up, on my own..i found out very little.....a buncha who-haw about Ismael and Isaac.

So to recap, you slam me for something someone else says. Then when i take the initiative to investigate your ideas and ask you about them, suddenly that is grounds for refuting all my views?

History is important to take into context, no doubt, but I beleive I currently have enough evidence before me in the present to make a judgement on our actions there. by all means tho enlighten me furhter if you can or are willing.

Common tactic from the right seems to be change the subject, when you are busted.....seems apt here. My lack of knowledge of Mid eastern history has what to do with Rove leaking info again?

Gnarley,

"historic boundries of the Ottoman Empire have been reduced " Who gives a shait? Binny and the boys care about the historic boundry.

Chives,

If one was to be historically accurate the confilct stems from Issac and Ishmael the parents of judism and Islam over 4000 years ago. A%0 years ago marks the modern rebirth of the Islamic crusade to drive the infidels from the traditional Islamic holy lands. The founders of this modern movement taught Osama and all the other "radical" Islamist of today.

BTW I heard a new word yesterday, Islamophobic. The BBC is using it. I wonder if it is like Homophobe? MEaning if you are really Islamophobic it is because you really have Islamic tenancies. Wait wait that would be a linear though and that is impossible for the left

------------------------------------------------------------

What you refer to as, "who-haw" is at the very core of the conflict between Muslims and Jews--I can assure you that even though the conflict started over 5,000 years ago the decendents of Abraham's two sons give a lot more credence to it than that.

I'm sorry if I mistakenly assumed you thought OBL was dead (all the lib's voices kind of melt in to one after a while) my bad.

When you make statements like, " Rove is a dirty traitor and worse than Osama"---I don't know whether to laugh, cry or just feel sorry for you.

If you honestly believe that I doubt any polite discourse or exchange of ideas is going to help.

the 'worse than Osama' part was a joke in refernce to AuntyM's thread. My sarcasm doesnt travel well over the net.....I often forget that. I dont believe there is ANYONE worse than Osama, which is why Im upset we dont seem to care about capturing him. Im not for a moment gonna pretend that if we captured Osama (or revealed he is dead for the conspiracy crew) terrorism would poof go away instantly but It would be helpful, afterall your president did say he would get him dead or alive, but then he's said ALOT of things that he hasnt followed thru on. Worst president ever.

Now thats all settled (I'll look further into Ischmael and Isaac later, tho if their upset about an infidels interpretation of holy scripture, their more off their rocker than i had even imagined) back to Rove. Is he a traitor? Not technically, unless you beleive Bush policy is in itself treasonous. Its certainly an upsetting situation however. Its troubling that the rush to present a case for wmds would yeild such flagrant and petty political backstabbing and coverup...dont look good at all. "lets coerce these folks into providing us with an excuse to invade!" is not attractive.

"Its troubling that the rush to present a case for wmds would yeild such flagrant and petty political backstabbing and coverup...dont look good at all. "lets coerce these folks into providing us with an excuse to invade!" is not attractive."


Lets walk in another mans shoes for a minute there Chively.

Lets get our imaginantions out and work with a similar scenario.


Lets say where you live there is a known level 3 Violent and sadistic sex offender from another neighborhood coming to your neighborhood and raping children. He leads a ring of people that are known to be targeting kids. You know his name where he used to live. The police are looking for him.
Your entire family and all your friends familes live in your neighbor hood. You feel it is your responsiblity is to protect your children and hopefully the other kids in the neighborhood.
The police are pretty sure they are on the trail of the sex offender but have no idea if and when they will catch him. Now you also have another level 3 sex offender named Joseph Duncan living in a near by neighborhood. He has attacked several kids in the past. He is known to be curently paying other people to attack and rape kids in even another neighborhood. You have information from a variety of sources that Duncan intends to do your family harm given the opportunity. You go to the police and the other neighborhoods and ask for help dealing with this guy. They say no thanks it is none of our business and besides he is a great customer of ours. The police say we have to wait until we can prove that he has commited a crime against you specifically. Even though he has paid people to attack other families in another neighbor hood who cares? Duncan does several TV interviews and calls you out saying you are a coward and he will kill you and your whole family given the opportunity. Even though there is direct evidence that he has raped and tortured his own children they will do nothing. What would you do ? Would you continue to chase after the first guy and ignore Duncan because he has not actually done anything to you yet. Then turn your house into a fortress and hope that Joseph Duncan stays away? How would you feel if you did nothing and Duncan raped one of your kids?

It took me a while to understand your analogy there Kingy cause I thought we were talking about Rove. Ok, now I see it as an analogy intended to explain why we went into Iraq instead of going after Osama.

Your analogy fails for me, so I will adjust it slightly to better reflect the situation as I see it...keep in mind i was there living and working in the shadows of the wtc when it was bombed.

To use your analogy as a base:
Imagine if you will that a level three sex offender rapes and kills your children on your front porch while you watch helplessly.(sorry but that is what osama did to me and NYC and america, he wasnt just planning to attack he did, and with deadly success). Your Boss just happens to be friends with this guys family, but nonetheless promises to bring him to justice "dead or alive".
Now suppose there is another level three sex offender in the neighborhood next door.
Do you tell the police, please stop looking for the person who killed and raped my children on my own doorstep and go get this other guy who might be planning to rape my children from a million miles away with a fictitious dick instead?

Your Boss thinks its a great idea and says he never gives your childrens murderer much thought. He basically lays off the police looking for your childs murderer then hires his buddys company with your tax dollars to go look for a potential molestor three neighborhoods down instead despite his promises.

If you say anything about it, your neighbors accuse you of loving sex molestors.

Meanwhile the graves of your raped and murdered children haunt you daily, as more graves fill up with your neighbors children searching for the molestor three neighborhoods away who may or may not have attacked your kids, while the one who DID attack your kids laughs.

"Your Boss thinks its a great idea and says he never gives your childrens murderer much thought. He basically lays off the police looking for your childs murderer then hires his buddys company with your tax dollars to go look for a potential molestor three neighborhoods down instead despite his promises."

So you are saying killing or caputing most of the Al queda leadership and all the troops in Afghanistan ammount to quiting and a lay off?

I thought Haliburton was involved in the logistical side and that the 100k + troops where doing the real work in Iraq?

Where you getting that stuff you are smoking

thats the best you can do?

well at least you dont disagree that if someone punches you in the face you dont hit the guy standing next to them, just in case he was planning on hitting you too.

Sayng "I dont think about him much" and diverting the troops and funds from osama to Iraq does amount to a laying off to me, yes.

and as for halliburton allow me to adjust my analogy then thusly:
Your Boss thinks its a great idea, so he lays off the police looking for your childs murderer, reassigns them to look for the guy three neighborhoods over who may or may not be planning on molesting your children, and hires his buddy who is a known crook to clean up the unholy mess they make in the process using your tax dollars.

This other guy three neighborhoods over? Even tho he hasnt raped your children yet, and that other guy we dont give much thought to did, this guy has a really big aids infested dick, so if he DOES ever decide to rape your children its really gonna hurt. Your boss then sends a dozen doctors to check this potential molestor for aids to prove to you that you'd better get him instead of the guy that acually raped your kids. When they come back to your Boss and tell him there's no aids, he and his assistants try to destroy the doctors by revealing their wives are undercover CIA operatives. (had to bring the analogy back on topic )

Chives,

Don't act like Iraq was an innocent bystander. Not only did saddam have his dukes up he had people sneaking around trying to dry gulch us. Even more reason to get popped.

I can think of many times I have punched anyone with in reach for exactly that reason. Couple of frat brawls at the UW in the summer and during apple cup come to mind. Some people prefer to get poped and then call the police and cry. I prefer to have the other guy do the crying . Some people just need to get smacked.

Ex frat/jock fisticuff action? no wonder you think Iraq looks like a good idea..hehe

OKay so someone punches you in the face and its good for you to "punch anyone within reach"? Gotcha. Whats on the agenda for this weekend a little date rape and some smear the queer? Your not one of them guys who beats his wife when the Seahawks loose are ya?

Chives,

OKay so someone punches you in the face and its good for you to "punch anyone within reach"?


Yes if they are involved in the matter.

You see your assumption implies that Iraq was an innocent bystander. You continue that implication with the wife beating analogy.

If my wife was shagging the Seahawks and had most of them trying to kill me and she told me if she ever had the chance she would kill me I would do what ever was needed to protect myself before I went to sleep that night. A liberal on the other hand would try and find someone to blame and want the govt. to protect him then take the wife back and hope she would not bang any more football players. She would switch to the sonics but the liberal would deny it.

nah the Seahawks thingy wasnt supposed to be analogy, just commenting on your seemingly misplaced anger, and tough guy attitude.

Iraq innnocent? nah I dont beleive so. Harboring weapons of Ass destruction? proven to be false. Connection to 9/11? proven to be false. Innocent? no. A threat? perhaps. A threat worthy of dropping (or I'll be kind and say diverting resources from, rather than dropping) the search for the mastermind of the biggest attack on US soil in history? I dont think so, and the evidence to date bears that out. Any more of a threat than Iran? Syria? Saudi Arabia itself? (I know we cant punch them in the face, their our frat buddies!)

Maybe Iraq did need the smackdown. I woulda appreciated it tho if the admin had just said so and told us why rather than concocting a bunch of bogus evidence of wmds, then changing their rationale when they were not found. Perhaps there is a terrificly valid reason for Iraq? but it aint what we been told thus far. That aint cool sending us off to die for our flag without telling us the real reason.

Did you know?
:p
In 1986, just before a crucial debate in the election for governor of Texas, Karl Rove announced that his office had been bugged by the Democrats. It was later claimed that Rove had bugged his own phone to garner media coverage.


In 1992, Rove was fired from the Bush presidential re-election campaign for leaking information to journalist Robert Novak, the same columist who revealed the name of the CIA agent in his column.

Huh, seems like the odds of that happening twice would be fairly slim, but hey, just a couple of facts, nothing to take seriously or anything.

KK

Like a Seahawk would bang your wife. :p

KK,
In the absence of facts you have to go all the back to 1986 to discredit Rove?

the only time politicians tell the truth is when they call eash other liars.

Dans,

I bet it's hard to imagine when you look at yours :p

Chives,

"I woulda appreciated it tho if the admin had just said so and told us why rather than concocting a bunch of bogus evidence of wmds, then changing their rationale when they were not found."

The president listed 10 count them 10 reasons in his justification to congress for going into Irag not just one. All of them valid. Then congress added a few more. Your boy Kerry only listed one reason,WMD. Only an idiot would assert there was not WMD in Iraq at some point prior to the invasion. Every NATO nation supported this notion.

at some point prior? Gee thats swell...the Germans used mustatrd gas in ww1 I guess we should invade them too?

Only an idiot wrould assert that there were no wmds? Your admin has admitted there were probably no wmds. Are you calling Shrub an idiot? I couldnt agree with you more, he is an idiot!

''Iraq did not have the weapons that our intelligence believed were there,'' Bush said, referring to the central rationale cited for the invasion of Iraq. "

http://www.csm.ornl.gov/PR/PR2004/NS-07-12-04.html

http://www.sundayherald.com/33628

http://english.people.com.cn/200410/07/eng20041007_159245.html

Could you provide a link to the ten reasonhe gave congress? I couldnt find it ....and i spent some time looking. All I fund was this....

First, that the Iraqi army would instantly collapse as soon as U.S. forces crossed their border in a "cakewalk."
Second, that Ahmed Chalabi, now charged by our own puppet Iraqi government with money laundering and counterfeiting, would quickly emerge as the popular natural leader of Iraq once President Saddam Hussein was toppled.

Third, that because no serious anti-American guerrilla operations could ever get established Iraq, only a small number of U.S. troops would have to remain after the fall of Saddam.

Fourth, that strong links between Saddam and al-Qaida would be found following our occupation.

Fifth, that overwhelming evidence of weapons of mass destruction would quickly be uncovered by U.S. troops.

Sixth, that the U.S. occupation of Iraq would discredit and weaken al-Qaida throughout the Arab and wider Muslim world.

Seventh, that Iraq would quickly develop a stable democracy after the fall of Saddam.

and that sounds like a buncha liberal bush bashing to me!

seriously Id like to know the ten reasons.

I hope this wasnt one of the reasons he gave?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3118262.stm