1 in 5 Democrats Say World Will Be Better Off if U.S. Loses War

Can anyone here explain to me how they came to their conclusion? I'm not sure how they could think by losing the war in Iraq anyone would be better off, except fanatics of course.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,299374,00.html

 

Just 1 in 5? I would have figured this would be more like 4 out of 5.

I suspect many democrats/liberals (not much a difference anymore) would sell out their country to actively seek defeat, simply because of their hatred for GWB. GWB will be gone in a year. America will stand the test of time for infinity.

 

It's more than likely because they think america having a permanent base in the middle east will do nothing but wind up the surrounding countries. Antagonising people isn't a smart thing to do, America didn't like it when Russia wanted a base in Cuba. As the saying goes, Think of what you are doing around the world in terms of how you would feel if it was done to you.

By the way i love how Fox illustrate the Iraq war by showing a soldier giving a kid sweets. This is a more fitting picture to illustrate what's going on.

 

Notice the high levels of "don't know" answers on that side(pdf)? Pretty sure most of those can be translated to: Uh, that's how I feel but I can't tell the truth, so my final answer is "I don't know."

 

Yeah, that would have made the results more real from my experience on political forums.

Looks like someone just sprinkled a little muslim propaganda on the thread too. Not that it needed any seasoning

 

I'm not going to click show message, not in the mood for him tonight.

 

lmao took the time to come back to quote the ignore message though.. funny little racist.

 

Nothing to miss. He's just doing the usual projecting. One standard for him, another for everyone else.

God forbid we get him talking about Jews again. The whole forum would come to a stall.

 

What the hell, let's have some fun, it's Friday!



lmao took the time to come back to quote the ignore message though.. funny little racist.

Classic pull! Good job, good job.
Only thing is, I don't remember being a racist
You're not referring to all my anti-islam posts, are you?
Certainly a man of such great intelligence knows that muslims are not a race, right?

It's such a generic and commonly used pull for stox, this racist thing, he has accidents and pulls it on the wrong threads. Or maybe he considers the left to be a race all it's own? That I may actually agree with. Hell, they could be a whole new species of human for all we know!

 

Someone better tell Shawn to allocate some more resources to mysql

 

I was referring to your admission that you are against mixed race partnerships.

By the way, How does it feel to be on a piece of string? You have referenced my posts more since you have had me on "ignore" than you did before.

 

Democrats think appeasement works.

 

What was the headline again, I don't remember.
Was it marriage, babies, or dating?

 

The democrats/liberals hate America. In the 70's they hated Nixon and love the Viet Cong. In the 80's they hated Reagan and loved the reds. Now they hate Bush and love the muslim terrorists.

 

Not much has changed, has it? Now days, they are suddenly converting to the republican party to vote for a libertarian who has pledged not to defend America. They can't figure out who they are

I was happier when they were infiltraitoring the democrat party, where they belong!

 

Has anyone proven that Terrorism can be stopped without diplomacy?

Please cite examples.

 

If that is the case, why did the Democrats go to war with the Viet Cong?

And if that is the case, why did the US under Clinton continue to bomb Iraq prior to GWB coming into office? Why did GWB promise a humble foreign policy as compared to Clinton in his first run at the Presidency, citing no need for nation building?

And please, don't compare Nixon or Bush to Reagan. Reagan collapsed the USSR without having to engage in a direct confrontation, or sacrificing 1,000s of American lives like Nixon and Bush. I think we can all agree that the USSR was a much bigger, intimidating and dangerous opponent than Al Quaida or North Vietnam.

 

Things haven't changes since the days of Hanoi Jane. Before the Iraq war Sean Penn went to Baghdad to support Saddam Hussein. Now the American haters want to kiss Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's butt.

 

Didn't we support Hussein for over a decade, providing weapons for him to fight Iran with? Since you earlier referenced Reagan, perhaps it's time for you lighten up, and just realize that Sean Penn was continuing his foreign policy.

Btw, Ahmadinejad is not the political power in Iran. The "Supreme Leader", Khamenei is. Ahmadinejad is just a symbolic leader, and a mentally handicapped mouthpiece. Kissing his butt could be viewed as an act of compassion.

 

Yeah, even some in this thread!

Probably next, they'll bring up why we supported saddam, yet never clearly understanding the concept of "allies." Nor understanding that "allies" are not always forever.