How to Foster Anti-War Sentiment among Americans

Like this old post, where you talk about ignorant Americans?

Or this one where you sought sympathy for an al qaida terrorist?

Or this thread where you were defending those that stone women to death?

Here's one of my old posts pointing out some of the unbelievable things you've supported in the past.

Here's a thread where you were defending terrorists in Iraq.

Here's a thread where you were defending rape. Only because muslims were responsible though. God forbid if it were a Christian or Jew

Here's one where you were honing your anti-semitism skills.

There's so many more. They all have the same theme....nothing but contempt for Jews, Christians, the US, Israel, Soldiers and of course, dmoz. Never a bad word for a terrorist.

In fact, your second post upon signing up for DP was nothing less than an attempt to bash the US. What a surprise! Some things never change and yes, some things are worth review.

No better friend does a terrorist have.

 

Kind of funny going 2 years back in time and seeing some of the replies from members I haven´t seen in ages. One thing that will never change however is comments like this one http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showpost.php?p=290133&postcount=40

 

Instead of putting a stupid title to a thread that you are too stupid to understand, why don't you post what do you think is wrong with my posting?

I stand by all those posts and time has shown that I was right. For example what you call terrorist support, is exactly the position that US supreme court accepted later one and forced this administration to obey by the law.

How about you link to your posts of shock & awe and winning the war and Bush is so great and let's see if you can stand by it today and what has been the judgment of time?

 

Fortunately while one can rewrite history, they cannot rewrite their posts. Who you support, who you defend, who you never have a bad word for say as much about you as who you do have persistent bad words for.

You're not fooling anyway, we all know.

 

I agree my posts are there, so show me where was I wrong. Do you mean I was wrong to predict this mess that is called Iraq along time ago when you were still talking about shock & awe and mission accomplished?

 

Read them, gworld. The comments of yesterday are no less accurate today. How many others have started a thread seeking support and sympathy for a terrorist?

 

I haven't had time to comment but the title and initial insert in this thread have to be one of the dumbest things I've seen here.

All it takes is an incompetent and misleading/lying administration.

What a dumb comment and a dumb excerpt from someone. In the late 1960's and early 1970's there was amazing levels of anti-war sentiment among Americans without the internet and terrorists.

All it took then were two incompetent and misleading/lying administrations: Johnson and Nixon.

But don't ask me. Ask two guys who were close with W. Two guys who worked for him and with him and knew him inside out:

Mathew Dowd, former senior political consultant who started working for Bush in 1999 and was a key member of his campaigns.

What did Dowd say recently? Kerry was right.

LOL. Right out of the mouth of a senior inside Bush dude.

Who is the other? Vic Gold. Long term Republican political worker and writer. Co-authored a book with Lynne Cheney. Was asked to write bio's about Bush and Cheney for the 2001 inaugeration. Friend of W's dad.

Gold's new book: "Invasion of the Party Snatchers: How the Holy-Rollers and the Neo-Cons Destroyed the GOP."

Were these two heavyweight Republican and Bush supporters influenced by some stupid infantile description of an inane strategy.

No they were simply exposed to lies and incompetency.

Tends to foster anti-war sentiment among Americans every time.

 

Democrats often say things like that. So much so, they rarely have any meaning.

Are you saying you agree with islamists that fostering anti-American sentiment is a great idea, but being aware of it is bad? Or should we just leave it to people who are American and are in fact anti-American and would sell their country out over blind hatred of their president?

Kerry was right about what? Selling his country out by fabricating a story about being sent to Cambodia during Christmas to bring discredit to his country and continuing with the lie all these years, until we found out in 2004 that it was all one big lie? What do we call that, Earl?

Perhaps he was right about Kerry directly meeting with enemies of our country to discuss terms of surrender and action items his group could take on behalf of our enemies back home, while STILL a Naval Officer? What do we call that, Earl?

Maybe he was saying Kerry was right, for throwing away his medals/ribbons, they lying about it, then having them re-issued?

I could go on, but one could write a book about the times Kerry has sold out his country and continues to do so today. In fact, someone did and it ultimately prevented a traitor from serving in a position to benefit the enemies of our country any more than he already has.

 

Here is something worthwhile to read in comparison to Bush's approach to the war in Iraq.

Excerpts from Franklin Roosevelt's state of the union speach in early 1942 about one month after the attack on pearl harbour.

This speach could have been inserted into any thread here at dp P&R when there are comments about Bush winning the war or how to really win...

It also has to do with uniting the nation and creating a shared sense of purpose.

Things Bush never did and still doesn't.

When the war in Iraq was about to start General Shinesky publicly stated that the US needed hundreds of thousands of more troops than Bush/Rumsfeld/Cheney were committing (and had).

After making his statements Shinesky was banished and essentially dropped from sight by the Administration. That was a clear signal by the administration. don't argue with us. Don't disagree with how we do things.

When Rumsfeld was questioned in 2004 about lack of armour for humvees he responded as follows

"You go to war with the army you have not the army you want."

How different is that from the words of a guy who won a war...a larger war.

What a pack of cr@p to the public.

Dowd is particularly incensed on how Bush has failed the American public and not directed an effort against Islamic fundamentalism through an effort at uniting Americans in a realistic way.

Dowd, who worked on bad-mouthing Kerry in the 2004 election feels Kerry is correct in that we should pull out of Iraq.

Dowd, obviously didn't get to this point by reading or putting value to extraneous unimportant garbage ideas about faking and spreading nonsense in forums.

He was there...working for and becoming totally disillusioned with an administration that has lied and been incompetent.

Who needs little innocuous commentary in forums by "sneaks" when the administration is the one damaging itself.

 

There's no chance of uniting a country when democrats have done everything within their power to divide our country. Hell, no one could unite this country with democrats standing in the way. As I posted last month, America does not support democrats desire to be defeated in wars.

So Dowd feels Kerry was right? (who the hell is Dowd and why have I never heard of him before?)
http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20070131-121249-1084r.htm

As I've pointed out before, Earl...both you and Democrats as a whole, spent a year crying about "more troops, we need more troops" despite what generals at the time said, and when Bush gives you what you want, what do you do in return? "We need less troops, now, less!"

That's exactly what Kerry did, exactly what you've done. What a shame!

In regards to the armor, is this the armor that Kerry himself voted for, then voted against? LMAO! It can't get any more hypocritical than that! Kerry himself didn't want to support our troops (no surprise there!) and now they are at it again.

 

Earl,

We've pretty much had this same conversation before. And not too very long ago. For a refresher:

http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showthread.php?t=234462

I thought it was a rather cordial exchange of ideas, but I see we both seem to share the same ideas.

The one thing I'll add to this is, Democrats spent most of the 90s calling for war with saddam. Their intelligence about wmd, their calls (including jawn carry himself) to attack Iraq were forefront in their policies.

Exit stage left, Clinton, who passed on said intelligence to the Bush administration. Ultimately, Bush gave the democrats what they had been calling for, for years...war with Iraq. We know this to be true by their historical positions.

Bush gives the democrats what they want...war with Iraq. Things go well, until a huge surge of terrorists coming in from neighboring countries. When times get tough, democrats do what they do best. Revise their positions and call for surrender.

Democrats call for more troops, as did Kerry above and as you have done in the past. Once again, Bush gives democrats what they want, more troops. What do democrats do? Revise their position again, now against more troops.

It's a continuous pattern throughout the last eight years of being for, then being against something. Not for the sake of our country, but for the sake of blind hatred towards a president.

Democrats wanted war. Bush gave it to them. Now all they do is whine about it.

 

We probably never should have gone to war in Iraq. Not at that time. Not with the reasons Bush pushed.

Bush was, amongst other things, pushing the threat of an Iraq with nuclear weapons. This was amazingly false.

If the administration wanted to work on hard evidence they never would have played that argument. The evidence was powerful that it wasn't true.

The administration didn't look at the true facts. They overstated a case.

We didn't have the troop levels. Bush's dad understood this in 91 and wrote about that in Time magazine in the latter part of the 90's.

Its clear W didn't want to even hear that.

Instead of being honest with Americans he has been dishonest. There are so many examples its mind boggling.

Different Americans have different levels of distrust of Bush. There are some on the more radical left who disliked Bush from the start. Similarly, there are radical neo-cons on the right that sheeple-like jump to at every Bush statement as the only truth.

Fortunately most Americans are in neither group. The majority of Americans have grown weary and disbelieving of an administration that can't seem to get anything right. Amazingly, more and more Republicans are counted in that group. Amazingly, a greater number of former Bush insiders are joining that group.

The Iraq war is sucking the strength and lifeblood from America. I think that its present condition will simply drain the best of America.

We would be stronger by getting out sooner and reassessing how to deal with what I believe will be a long struggle between the West and Islamic fundamentalism. In that process we will have a better opportunity to get stronger rather than get drained.

I don't believe there is an easy way out. That is the issue I believe is the toughest for those who think first about Western/American interests.

Nobody--not one Democrat ever cried out for 21,000 (now 28,000) extra American troops in Iraq. Nobody ever asked wanted or cried out for that. That is another Bush idea.

What is so fooked about that idea is that our troops are so overstretched we can't get to that number till June or July.

Virtually everything he has come up with is whacked, distorted, and makes no sense. That is why growing numbers of all Americans are so fed up.

Of the many rediculous Bush/Cheney arguments I love the one about if we don't fight the "enemy"/terrorists/ etc over there we will fight them here.

So in the same short time period when Bush announced his surge...the Brits were announcing a withdrawal of about 1500 troops.

According to Bush/Cheney and all the followers that should mean that America is totally safe....all the terrorists are going over to Britain. (Hey AGS--you better duck you are in the line of fire!!!

Anti war sentiment has grown because of actions/inactions/lying/mistruths/ and incompetency. It doesn't take innocuous forum comments.

 

It would be rather time consuming to contend all the falsehoods in your last post, Earl. Sadly, when I do take the time to do such, as with Kerry above, you simply ignore them and offer a fresh batch of untruthful statements.

The administration had the same intelligence democrats had in the 90s and were calling for war with Iraq over. If, as you suggest, Bush lied about such, Democrats lied about it long before he was ever in office. But that doesn't interest you. Blind hatred.

Anti-war sentiment has grown because of the very reason in the initial post of this thread and because liberals are, by nature, liars and do not care about facts. They only care about the message.

 

I've come to the conclusion that Liberals have to be lied to in order to get them to do anything.

If you want a conservative to cut back on greenhouse gases you tell them that the air is terrible and they'll save money to boot by having more efficient vehicles, light bulbs, etc.

Liberals on the other hand won't budge until you tell them polar bears are dying and islands are sinking.

WMDs were only one of dozens are reasons we went to war with Iraq. If Liberals didn't have to feel personally afraid before they did anything about anything they wouldn't care about WMDs not being there. They'd accept that ONE thing was just a lie put out by Saddam himself that everyone fell for but that there countless other good reasons to be there anyway.

 

It is ironic that the same strategy that USA used to bring down the soviet union will be the cause of USA's downfall also. It will not take more than 20 years for USA to join UK and France in the rank of former super powers and every year in Iraq will just make this process faster.

 

lied to and told that they are victims.

 

I try to pay as little attention to politics as possible, and I think the average American does too, and I think the main reason why is because when you read through a thread like this objectively, what stands out most is that both views have their big gaping holes, and most of the energy is spent trying to prove those big gaping holes aren't there or in exposing the other's big gaping holes. But personally, I sleep better at night knowing there are people on both sides willing to expend all their energy to promote their side of the issue. It seems to create a balance that keeps everyone in check. I'm sure some of you would like nothing less then for every last person to have your point of view, and it makes you blind to the fact that there is no silver bullet that you can shoot at every issue and get the same result. There is no point of view that can look the same way at capitalism and then look the same way at the real life story of a homeless person without some sort of rationalizing or making exceptions to your point of view. And the same goes for socialism and the man whos dreams of doing something great are crushed by the system.

I guess what I have to say is that for every one of you who thinks they have it figured out and would never be swayed in your beliefs, there is an opposite who feels just as strongly, and the reality is that you're both wrong about some things, just the opposite things.

I would like to witness one political discussion in my lifetime where each side agrees to talk honestly about all the things wrong with their own views rather then all the things wrong with the other's views. It might just shock me into paying more attention to politics, were I to witness this.

 

Do you bookmark all your garbage posts GT?

I'm an expert in forum administration and you always seem to have a previous garbage post of yours to counter the current garbage post of yours.

Or do you use the search option and filter through your own posts and wade through the garbage to find the garbage?

 

He doesn´t like posting the same thing again and again like some members here do.

 

But that is exactly what he does buddy.

And d16man just mimics him too which makes matters a whole lot worse for us all.