Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community (https://thetfp.com/tfp/)
-   Tilted Politics (https://thetfp.com/tfp/tilted-politics/)
-   -   Is Ann Coulter the most vile person in America? (https://thetfp.com/tfp/tilted-politics/51656-ann-coulter-most-vile-person-america.html)

Strange Famous 04-07-2004 07:50 AM

Is Ann Coulter the most vile person in America?
 
I think that anyone, regardless of political belief, must be disgusted that this woman's rantings are so heavily publicized. American law may guarantee free speech, but why would anyone publish this sort of thing, other than as an example of awfulness


Quote:


HOW 9-11 HAPPENED
Thu Apr 1, 8:02 PM ET Add Op/Ed - Ann Coulter to My Yahoo!


By Ann Coulter

We don't need a "commission" to find out how 9-11 happened. The truth is in the timeline:


In 1979, President Jimmy Carter allowed the Shah of Iran to be deposed by a mob of Islamic fanatics. A few months later, Muslims stormed the U.S. Embassy in Iran and took American Embassy staff hostage.


Carter retaliated by canceling Iranian visas. He eventually ordered a disastrous and humiliating rescue attempt, crashing helicopters in the desert.


PRESIDENT REAGAN, REPUBLICAN


The day of Reagan's inauguration, the hostages were released.


In 1982, the U.S. Embassy in Beirut was bombed by Muslim extremists.


President Reagan sent U.S. Marines to Beirut.


In 1983, the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut were blown up by Muslim extremists.


Reagan said the U.S. would not surrender, but Democrats threw a hissy fit, introducing a resolution demanding that our troops be withdrawn. Reagan caved in to Democrat caterwauling in an election year and withdrew our troops -- bombing Syrian-controlled areas on the way out. Democrats complained about that, too.


In 1985 an Italian cruise ship, the Achille Lauro, was seized and a 69-year-old American was shot and thrown overboard by Muslim extremists.


Reagan ordered a heart-stopping mission to capture the hijackers after "the allies" promised them safe passage. In a daring operation, American fighter pilots captured the hijackers and turned them over to the Italians -- who then released them to safe harbor in Iraq (news - web sites).


On April 5, 1986, a West Berlin discotheque frequented by U.S. servicemen was bombed by Muslim extremists from the Libyan Embassy in East Berlin, killing an American.


Ten days later, Reagan bombed Libya, despite our dear ally France refusing the use of their airspace. Americans bombed Qaddafi's residence, killing his daughter, and dropped a bomb on the French Embassy "by mistake."


Reagan also stoked a long, bloody war between heinous regimes in Iran and Iraq. All this was while winning a final victory over Soviet totalitarianism.


In December 1988, a passenger jet, Pan Am Flight 103, was bombed over Lockerbie, Scotland, by Muslim extremists.


President-elect George Bush claimed he would continue Reagan's policy of retaliating against terrorism, but did not. Without Reagan to gin her up, even Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher went wobbly, saying there would be no revenge for the bombing.

In early 1991, Bush went to war with Iraq. A majority of Democrats opposed the war, and later complained that Bush didn't "finish off the job" with Saddam.


In February 1993, the World Trade Center was bombed by Muslim fanatics, killing five people and injuring hundreds.

Clinton, advised by Dick Clarke, did nothing.

In October 1993, 18 American troops were killed in a savage firefight in Somalia. The body of one American was dragged through the streets of Mogadishu as the Somalian hordes cheered.

Clinton responded by calling off the hunt for Mohammed Farrah Aidid and ordering our troops home. Osama bin Laden (news - web sites) later told ABC News: "The youth ... realized more than before that the American soldier was a paper tiger and after a few blows ran in defeat."

In November 1995, five Americans were killed and 30 wounded by a car bomb in Saudi Arabia set by Muslim extremists.

Clinton, advised by Dick Clarke, did nothing.

In June 1996, a U.S. Air Force housing complex in Saudi Arabia was bombed by Muslim extremists.

Clinton, advised by Dick Clarke, did nothing.

Months later, Saddam attacked the Kurdish-controlled city of Erbil.

Clinton, advised by Dick Clarke, lobbed some bombs into Iraq hundreds of miles from Saddam's forces.

In November 1997, Iraq refused to allow U.N. weapons inspections to do their jobs and threatened to shoot down a U.S. U-2 spy plane.

Clinton, advised by Dick Clarke, did nothing.

In February 1998, Clinton threatened to bomb Iraq, but called it off when the United Nations (news - web sites) said no.

On Aug. 7, 1998, U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed by Muslim extremists.

Clinton, advised by Dick Clarke, did nothing.

On Aug. 20, Monica Lewinsky appeared for the second time to testify before the grand jury.

Clinton responded by bombing Afghanistan (news - web sites) and Sudan, severely damaging a camel and an aspirin factory.

On Dec. 16, the House of Representatives prepared to impeach Clinton the next day.

Clinton retaliated by ordering major air strikes against Iraq, described by The New York Times as "by far the largest military action in Iraq since the end of the Gulf War (news - web sites) in 1991."

The only time Clinton decided to go to war with anyone in the vicinity of Muslim fanatics was in 1999 -- when Clinton attacked Serbians who were fighting Islamic fanatics.

In October 2000, our warship, the USS Cole (news - web sites), was attacked by Muslim extremists.

Clinton, advised by Dick Clarke, did nothing.


Bush came into office telling his national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice (news - web sites), he was "tired of swatting flies" -- he wanted to eliminate al-Qaida.

On Sept. 11, 2001, when Bush had been in office for barely seven months, 3,000 Americans were murdered in a savage terrorist attack on U.S. soil by Muslim extremists.

Since then, Bush has won two wars against countries that harbored Muslim fanatics, captured Saddam Hussein, immobilized Osama bin Laden, destroyed al-Qaida's base, and begun to create the only functioning democracy in the Middle East other than Israel. Democrats opposed it all -- except their phony support for war with Afghanistan, which they immediately complained about and said would be a Vietnam quagmire. And now they claim to be outraged that in the months before 9-11, Bush did not do everything Democrats opposed doing after 9-11.

What a surprise.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...how911happened

Stare At The Sun 04-07-2004 07:56 AM

Quote:

I think that anyone, regardless of political belief, must be disgusted that this woman's rantings are so heavily publicized. American law may guarantee free speech, but why would anyone publish this sort of thing, other than as an example of awfulness
Because, of a little thing called "the freedom of press". She's well known, and its news. News generates readers, and readers generate advertising. You do realize that newspapers want to make money, and that controvertial stuff like Ann is a sure fire way to get publicity and more readers.

Sorry you don't agree with what she says. I don't agree with what she says, however, disgusted? Not so much.

matthew330 04-07-2004 07:56 AM

Great article, thanks for the post SF.

lurkette 04-07-2004 08:58 AM

Meh. I just ignore her. Her arguments are so biased, so obviously full of logical holes, so spiteful, that it's hard to believe anybody actually takes them seriously, and it's sad that any grain of truth in them gets lost behind her publicity-hounding vendetta against all things liberal. She gets published because she gets attention.

Lebell 04-07-2004 09:09 AM

Aside from a nonsensical title to the thread that has nothing to do with the article, what about it is wrong?

Sparhawk 04-07-2004 09:14 AM

Take your anger out on this:

http://www.thbookservice.com/bookima...c6230_full.jpg

reconmike 04-07-2004 09:23 AM

Everything that I read in that post of her "ranting" is true, so where is the problem?

onetime2 04-07-2004 09:24 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Lebell
Aside from a nonsensical title to the thread that has nothing to do with the article, what about it is wrong?
IMO, she wrongfully praises Republicans for "retaliating against terrorism". No President from Carter forward to Clinton has done anything significant to combat terrorism. The policy was one of ignoring the situation with the hope that a lack of press and reaction would diffuse the situation. Leadership involves doing things that are unpopular when you know they are right. Reagan didn't follow through with his plans and that helped to lead the US toward 9/11.

Additionally, the whole Monica Lewinsky argument is out of place and assinine.

Lebell 04-07-2004 09:28 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by onetime2
IMO, she wrongfully praises Republicans for "retaliating against terrorism". No President from Carter forward to Clinton has done anything significant to combat terrorism. The policy was one of ignoring the situation with the hope that a lack of press and reaction would diffuse the situation. Leadership involves doing things that are unpopular when you know they are right. Reagan didn't follow through with his plans and that helped to lead the US toward 9/11.

Actually, I think he did. I do however think that George Bush Sr. didn't do enough.

Strange Famous 04-07-2004 09:29 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Lebell
Aside from a nonsensical title to the thread that has nothing to do with the article, what about it is wrong?
Implied support of Serbian war crimes against Muslims

Apparent approval of dropping a bomb on the French embassy, which if it was a "mistake" rather than a mistake, would have been an act of war, which at very best would have caused a break down in trade between American and most of Europe which would have damaged both economies

Approval of the policy of inciting war between and arming both Iran and Iraq, a conflict that cost millions of lives - which she believes was Reagan's policy.

Constant demonising of Muslims and approval of violence against Muslim people in retaliation for any crimes carried out by unrelated Muslims 9 (for example - Libya harbors a terrorist who kills a US soldier, therefore America bomb Libya and kill Gaddhafi's daughter and this is great)

The intent of the article is to dehumanize Muslims, and to incite violence against Muslims, in all but words Coulter is calling for a holy war against Islam.

Attempting to politicize a terrorist attack against America and claim it only happened because of Clinton

Constant disregard and contempt for the Muslim victimes of the killings she lists.

An inaccurate and wrong headed understanding of current events... do we really believe, for example, the American actions in Iraq and Afghanistan have made Islam more friendly to America? Do we believe that the chances of American's being killed in conflict with any Islamic groups have now vastly decreased?

Lebell 04-07-2004 09:35 AM

Strange Famous,

I've said it before and I can only say it again:

You and I live in very different worlds.

I can't even begin to talk politics with you because we can't even agree on the facts.

Where I see white, you see black.


So with all sincerity, I wish you peace.

onetime2 04-07-2004 09:39 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Lebell
Actually, I think he did. I do however think that George Bush Sr. didn't do enough.
There's no chance he did enough. The bombing of the US Marine barracks was the first significant instance of the paper tiger syndrome in the face of terrorism. Dropping a couple of bombs is not sufficient. They paid no real price for their attack and they continued their attacks against the US. They got bolder and bolder and killed more and more.

Lebell 04-07-2004 09:41 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by onetime2
There's no chance he did enough. The bombing of the US Marine barracks was the first significant instance of the paper tiger syndrome in the face of terrorism. Dropping a couple of bombs is not sufficient. They paid no real price for their attack and they continued their attacks against the US. They got bolder and bolder and killed more and more.
That I completely agree with.

Unfortunately, that led to the first WTC bombing which Clinton did absolutely nothing in response, which of course led to the second one.

Ustwo 04-07-2004 09:50 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Lebell
That I completely agree with.

Unfortunately, that led to the first WTC bombing which Clinton did absolutely nothing in response, which of course led to the second one.

Lets not forget Somalia, the USS Cole, and the bombings in Africa too.

onetime2 04-07-2004 09:54 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Lebell
Unfortunately, that led to the first WTC bombing which Clinton did absolutely nothing in response, which of course led to the second one.
All the attacks over the last several decades (and the lack of significant response) built off one another.

filtherton 04-07-2004 11:08 AM

She's right. If only clinton hadn't made bush sit around salivating over saddam hussein with his thumb up his ass for the first nine months of his term.

Moving on. I think to be fair, and to follow the logic of the great conservashrew coulter, all future terrorist attacks including the train bombings in madrid should be blamed on the commander in chief george bush. Obviously one cannot ignore the current state of world affairs as being the sole responsibility of that one person.

Watch out! I'm getting "factual" like coulter!!

Sparhawk 04-07-2004 11:24 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Lebell
That I completely agree with.

Unfortunately, that led to the first WTC bombing which Clinton did absolutely nothing in response, which of course led to the second one.

How about capturing those responsible, putting them on trial, and putting them in a 6x8 box for the rest of their lives? Or does that not factor into "absolutely nothing" because Clinton wasn't directly responsible for it?

Averett 04-07-2004 11:25 AM

Quote:

Since then, Bush has won two wars against countries that harbored Muslim fanatics, captured Saddam Hussein, immobilized Osama bin Laden, destroyed al-Qaida's base, and begun to create the only functioning democracy in the Middle East other than Israel.
I bet the families of the soldiers that have been killed since we "won" the war in Iraq would have something to say with this statement.

We obviously haven't won shit there.

filtherton 04-07-2004 11:32 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Averett
I bet the families of the soldiers that have been killed since we "won" the war in Iraq would have something to say with this statement.

We obviously haven't won shit there.


You must have missed the "Mission Accomplished" banner from ye olde aircraft carrier.;)

Averett 04-07-2004 11:37 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by filtherton
You must have missed the "Mission Accomplished" banner from ye olde aircraft carrier.;)
Ooh yeah. Forgot all about that :p

Lebell 04-07-2004 11:44 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sparhawk
How about capturing those responsible, putting them on trial, and putting them in a 6x8 box for the rest of their lives? Or does that not factor into "absolutely nothing" because Clinton wasn't directly responsible for it?
You are right, I should have mentioned that.

But obviously it wasn't enough.

Clinton pruned a branch without going to the root of the evil: The countries and people overseas who financed and supported the bombers.

reconmike 04-07-2004 11:45 AM

It must be nice living life looking through left leaning glasses.

What Coulter was SHOWING was the presidental responses to terrorist attacks.
When someone smacks you upside the head and you DO NOTHING you are perceived as weak.

And when 100 thousand plus foriegn troops are scattered all over your country you have been defeated in a war.

Lebell 04-07-2004 11:47 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by reconmike
It must be nice living life looking through left leaning glasses.

What Coulter was SHOWING was the presidental responses to terrorist attacks.
When someone smacks you upside the head and you DO NOTHING you are perceived as weak.

And when 100 thousand plus foriegn troops are scattered all over your country you have been defeated in a war.

Don't forget, a successfully deposed dictator, the majority of the populace believing they are better off and a few hundred American casualities means it is "Bush's Vietnam".

filtherton 04-07-2004 12:12 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Lebell
Don't forget, a successfully deposed dictator, the majority of the populace believing they are better off and a few hundred American casualities means it is "Bush's Vietnam".
Nope, an increasingly hostile occupation + tenuous grip on the future of iraq + no clear exit strategy = bush's vietnam.

Incidentally, is it still too soon to dust off "quagmire"?

Quote:

Originally posted by reconmike
It must be nice living life looking through left leaning glasses.
It's a lot nicer than getting life on play-by-play from anne coulter.

Quote:

What Coulter was SHOWING was the presidental responses to terrorist attacks.
When someone smacks you upside the head and you DO NOTHING you are perceived as weak.
I guess i missed how we got from her simply SHOWING the presidential response to terrorism to mindless clinton bashing. Not that i love clinton, it just seems like the right treats him like a red-headed step-child while all repubs get a pass.

I was simply showing my perception of the facts that she left out surrounding bush's responses to terrorism.

How is it that iraq is even mentioned in an article about reactions to terrorism? Bush even admitted that iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. He's been dry humping his iraq doll since before he was even inaugurated. That was before terrorism was a big deal to him.

Lebell 04-07-2004 12:25 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by filtherton
Nope, an increasingly hostile occupation + tenuous grip on the future of iraq + no clear exit strategy = bush's vietnam.

Incidentally, is it still too soon to dust off "quagmire"?



I will agree that if we let the hippy crowd run things now like we did in the 60's, then it will turn into a "quagmire".

But right now, there is a strategy that involves using the force necessary to answer attacks and proceeding with our plans even though those attacks are meant to derail them.

Or maybe we could appease everyone like Spain did and win that way. It certainly seems to have worked for them...

http://news.independent.co.uk/europe...p?story=508882

Kadath 04-07-2004 12:49 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Lebell
Or maybe we could appease everyone like Spain did and win that way. It certainly seems to have worked for them...

http://news.independent.co.uk/europe...p?story=508882

So, because "appeasement" (also known as "voting for the party you most agree with") gets the same reaction as pressing the attack (i.e., the continued threat of terrorism) it's a failure? What does that say about our own strategy? Is it a failure as well? I suppose not; our troops are still getting killed.

filtherton 04-07-2004 01:16 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Lebell
I will agree that if we let the hippy crowd run things now like we did in the 60's, then it will turn into a "quagmire".
Hippies like nixon and johnson? Yes, that's right. I forgot that the hippies were responsible for planning major combat strategies and fighting a losing war against an underdog enemy. Sweet revisionism, thy taste is like honeydrops.

Quote:

But right now, there is a strategy that involves using the force necessary to answer attacks and proceeding with our plans even though those attacks are meant to derail them.
I know the strategy. I don't know if it will work. I hate to be pessimistic, but i don't see how this situation could possibly be under control in 90 days when we're due to hand over power.

Quote:

Or maybe we could appease everyone like Spain did and win that way. It certainly seems to have worked for them...
The spanish government is pulling out of a war that most of its people didn't want to participate in. I hope you're aware that the only links iraq has to al qaeda were the ones that have sprouted up as a result of our invasion. Perhaps the people of spain want to concentrate on terrorism as opposed to sacrificing the lives of their countrymen and women for an american grudge-war. This would make sense when you take into account the fact that spain is not pulling out of afghanistan, just iraq.

To you this is appeasement? Fair enough, we're all entitled to interpret events with our own set of eyes. If you want a more accurate image of appeasement, see the u.s. alliance with uzbekistan. C'mon, how ironic is it for an american citizen to denounce another country for appeasement. We're the appeasingest appeasers in appeasington.

Furthermore, you're in no position to judge the bahavior of the spanish. For one, you don't know if they will bow to these demands. They were already going to pull out of iraq. I'd be surprised if they pulled out of afghanistan, but that's just me.

How many threats have they gotten due to their "appeasement"? I've only heard of this one. How many threats has the u.s. gotten with our philosophy of selective non iraq/afghani
appeasment?

irateplatypus 04-07-2004 01:18 PM

i've read this article twice and can't for the life of me justify the title of this thread.

the article is 95% recitation of historical fact. granted, the choice of dates and events were probably tailored to support her intent, but i don't see why this contributes to the idea that she is vile.

if you can disprove the veracity of her writing, do that. if you can't and are still offended, ask yourself why the dry presentation of fact offends you so much and articulate a logically sound response... if you are able.

i must say, on a personal note, that i resent anyone that says we "haven't won shit there." to debate about the merits of our actions is one thing but to deny the efficacy of our military operations displays a lack of knowledge of the situation.

Sparhawk 04-07-2004 01:19 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Lebell
I will agree that if we let the hippy crowd run things now like we did in the 60's, then it will turn into a "quagmire".

But right now, there is a strategy that involves using the force necessary to answer attacks and proceeding with our plans even though those attacks are meant to derail them.

Or maybe we could appease everyone like Spain did and win that way. It certainly seems to have worked for them...

http://news.independent.co.uk/europe...p?story=508882

If you called say General Westmoreland or Richard Nixon a hippy, well, I'd like to see what happens. :D

And I'm not convinced that there is a strategy, except for making sure we wash our hands of it before the election, so it can be touted as another successful battleground in the war on terror.

As for your last bullet, that link is dated yesterday. The new prime minister said several weeks ago that he would withdraw troops from Iraq. But how exactly is he appeasing the fundamentalists when he says he'll be increasing troop levels in Afghanistan?

Strange Famous 04-07-2004 01:20 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by reconmike
It must be nice living life looking through left leaning glasses.

What Coulter was SHOWING was the presidental responses to terrorist attacks.
When someone smacks you upside the head and you DO NOTHING you are perceived as weak.

And when 100 thousand plus foriegn troops are scattered all over your country you have been defeated in a war.

Iraq has definitely lost the war, but I dont see how America have won it? They have plunged the country into a civil war which they are themselves now hopelessly trapped in.

mml 04-07-2004 01:22 PM

As usual, Coulter takes things and lays them out in a manner that fits her view of the world. There is really nothing wrong with this, we all do it to some extent, she is just more viscious than most (and more successful than most). The real thing that got my attention was the lashing out at Clarke. Clearly she got the memo from Mr. Rove and the RNC about doing whatever it takes to slur him without actually addressing the issues he brings up.

As far as being disgusted, no I am not. I am dissapointed that so many people buy into her sludge, but I am proud that I live in a country where she has the right to say these things (and things like McCarthy was a righteous hero) and I have the right to say she is a misguided, self-absorbed fool.(Who, as I have said time and time agiain, is laughing all the way to the bank.)

irateplatypus 04-07-2004 01:39 PM

Strange Famous, do you know what a civil war is?

::in my best Inigo Montoya (from Princess Bride) voice:: You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.

Ustwo 04-07-2004 02:26 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Strange Famous
Iraq has definitely lost the war, but I dont see how America have won it? They have plunged the country into a civil war which they are themselves now hopelessly trapped in.
When the going gets tough, the though give up?

You live in a very different world then ANYONE I know. Its a shame you don't seem happy in it.

There are 5 MILLION Iraqis in and around Bagdad. There are weapons all over the place. If the Iraqi people wanted to kick the US out, they could do so in a matter of hours.

A small % of the militants, spurred on by Syria and Iran, does not a civil war make.

Superbelt 04-07-2004 02:36 PM

Quote:

A small % of the militants, spurred on by Syria and Iran, does not a civil war make.
Talking point directly from Rush. Yes I was listening today.

And it was debunked by the Administration today as well. Now, this is at the press conference that was all over Cable News from 3-4, Fox & CNN and whatever. A reporter pointedly asked Rumsfeld if Iran was contributing to the hostilities in Iraq. Rumsfeld, who we can only assume has more complete intelligence reports than Rush can get his oxycontin stained hands on, said that he has no evidence that Iran is involved in either Manpower or material support of insurgents in Iraq.

Sparhawk 04-07-2004 03:18 PM

Hmmm. While I don't see a civil war, I see the potential for one. But as far as percentages of population being some sort of requirement for civil war/revolution - Lenin took power in Russia with only several thousand Bolsheviks, in a country of 100 million. Our own revolutionary war was fought with relatively small numbers of men in comparison to total population.

Mojo_PeiPei 04-07-2004 06:43 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Superbelt
Talking point directly from Rush. Yes I was listening today.

And it was debunked by the Administration today as well. Now, this is at the press conference that was all over Cable News from 3-4, Fox & CNN and whatever. A reporter pointedly asked Rumsfeld if Iran was contributing to the hostilities in Iraq. Rumsfeld, who we can only assume has more complete intelligence reports than Rush can get his oxycontin stained hands on, said that he has no evidence that Iran is involved in either Manpower or material support of insurgents in Iraq.

I mean I can say either way, but looking at this all historically I'd say there is a solid chance of Iranian agents in Iraq amping the Shiite population. Thats the same reason the Iran-Iraq war was fought. So again I wouldn't be surprised if Iran was on the inside pushing for an Islamic state similar to its own.

fuzyfuzer 04-07-2004 08:15 PM

you know i really do find it interesting that under clarke we did very little compared to today and now that wea re not going his do nothing way he has left and attacking the administration to me this just kind of sounds childish and as it turns out i have lost any respect i had for him

Superbelt 04-07-2004 09:40 PM

Mojo, I understand. And it makes sense to me too.
But it would be in the Admin's best interest to point to and proclaim evidence that Iran is spurning the uprisings in Iraq. That he made it all too clear that we have no evidence that they are providing any support means a lot to me.

Zeld2.0 04-07-2004 10:23 PM

I still find it funny how Vietnam was ruined by "hippies" when the guy who eventually pulled the troops out with an "honorable peace" was Nixon who if you called a hippy would...

Oh who cares fill in the blank

Lebell 04-08-2004 01:00 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Kadath
So, because "appeasement" (also known as "voting for the party you most agree with") gets the same reaction as pressing the attack (i.e., the continued threat of terrorism) it's a failure? What does that say about our own strategy? Is it a failure as well? I suppose not; our troops are still getting killed.
Nonsense and other words.

The socialists were likely to lose until those trains were bombed. The Spanish public then panicked and voted for the socialists who said they would get out of Iraq.

Well guess what, like blackmailers, once you start bargaining with terrorists you never stop.

And yes, troops will continue to get killed because the extremists will not stop.

Just the same way that civilians will continue to be killed even if we pulled out and gave in.

Strange Famous 04-08-2004 01:08 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Lebell
Nonsense and other words.

The socialists were likely to lose until those trains were bombed. The Spanish public then panicked and voted for the socialists who said they would get out of Iraq.

Well guess what, like blackmailers, once you start bargaining with terrorists you never stop.

And yes, troops will continue to get killed because the extremists will not stop.

Just the same way that civilians will continue to be killed even if we pulled out and gave in.

Simply false, before the bombings all predictions were that the Spanish election was neck and neck.

Lebell 04-08-2004 01:13 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by filtherton
[B] Hippies like nixon and johnson? Yes, that's right. I forgot that the hippies were responsible for planning major combat strategies and fighting a losing war against an underdog enemy. Sweet revisionism, thy taste is like honeydrops.

You're great at putting words in other people's mouths.

Hippies I said and hippies I meant.

It was the American public's lack of will as much as Johnson's unwillingness to commit to total war that caused us to lose in Viet Nam.

Calling it "revisionism" is BS, plain and simple.

Quote:

I know the strategy. I don't know if it will work. I hate to be pessimistic, but i don't see how this situation could possibly be under control in 90 days when we're due to hand over power.
Maybe it will, maybe it won't.

Quote:

The spanish government is pulling out of a war that most of its people didn't want to participate in. I hope you're aware that the only links iraq has to al qaeda were the ones that have sprouted up as a result of our invasion.
They haven't "sprung up" so much as there are foreign insurgents in Iraq fighting along side of what is left of Hussein's security forces. That of course and the barbarians that want a civil war so they can step into the power vacuum.

Quote:

Perhaps the people of spain want to concentrate on terrorism as opposed to sacrificing the lives of their countrymen and women for an american grudge-war. This would make sense when you take into account the fact that spain is not pulling out of afghanistan, just iraq.
We'll see if they stay in Afghanistan or not.

And you call it a grudge war, I call it a war we should have finished over 10 years ago, but better late than never.

Hussein is gone and good f***ing riddence.

Quote:


To you this is appeasement? Fair enough, we're all entitled to interpret events with our own set of eyes. If you want a more accurate image of appeasement, see the u.s. alliance with uzbekistan. C'mon, how ironic is it for an american citizen to denounce another country for appeasement. We're the appeasingest appeasers in appeasington.
Believe it or not, I am not a puppet for the government and I agree that we shouldn't support every dictator that agrees with us.

Quote:

Furthermore, you're in no position to judge the bahavior of the spanish. For one, you don't know if they will bow to these demands. They were already going to pull out of iraq. I'd be surprised if they pulled out of afghanistan, but that's just me.
No, I don't know, time will tell.

But I'm in as good a position to judge the Spanish as you are to judge Bush.

Quote:

How many threats have they gotten due to their "appeasement"? I've only heard of this one. How many threats has the u.s. gotten with our philosophy of selective non iraq/afghani
appeasment?
Considering that this threat apparently came from the same people who carried out the bombings, it would seem to me that it is plenty.

So are you saying then that we should aim for the lowest number of threats?

Or better yet, we should be happy if terrorists only kill a couple of hundred Americans instead of a couple of thousand?

No thanks.

You can hide in the flock with the rest, but I prefer to fight back.

Lebell 04-08-2004 01:15 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sparhawk
If you called say General Westmoreland or Richard Nixon a hippy, well, I'd like to see what happens. :D

And I'm not convinced that there is a strategy, except for making sure we wash our hands of it before the election, so it can be touted as another successful battleground in the war on terror.

As for your last bullet, that link is dated yesterday. The new prime minister said several weeks ago that he would withdraw troops from Iraq. But how exactly is he appeasing the fundamentalists when he says he'll be increasing troop levels in Afghanistan?


I believe I've answered your questions in my other recent posts, but let me know if I haven't.

Lebell 04-08-2004 01:16 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Strange Famous
Simply false, before the bombings all predictions were that the Spanish election was neck and neck.
Not "Simply false".

If you want to be technical, the reports I saw had the incumbant party with a slight lead and it was thought they would win.

Of course, after the bombings, they lost by a landslide.

Pacifier 04-08-2004 01:47 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Lebell
Of course, after the bombings, they lost by a landslide.
yep, but not because of the bombing, they lost because of thier actions after the bombing.

and I'm quite happy that this franco lover aznar is gone.

Lebell 04-08-2004 02:00 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Pacifier
yep, but not because of the bombing, they lost because of thier actions after the bombing.


That I believe is your opinion, which is fine.

So far, I don't have any reason to change mine.

analog 04-08-2004 02:03 AM

Massively off-topic.

This thread went off-topic after only 10 posts.

From what I see, you're talking about all kinds of other shit apart from Ann Coulter, and you're yelling at each other about hippies and Spain.

If you'd like to debate hippies and Spain, please start a new thread just for that.

MSD 04-08-2004 07:25 AM

oops

edit: Sorry, the problem with the quick reply box is that it doesn't disappear for moderators when the thread is closed. I had skipped down to the bottom without noticing Analog's post in order to reply to another post.

I've pulled my post to avoid being the asshole who puts his opinion in after the thread is closed.


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:59 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360