Democrats & Liberals Archives

How to Lose War on Terrorism

While the Bush Administration is busy telling us that we must seek victory in Iraq because it is the central front on terror, it is voting at the UN against a resolution for an international treaty to curb the illicit trade in guns and other light weapons. U.S is the ONLY country in the world that voted NO! Sheer stupidity! This is an excellent example of what U.S. should do if we want to LOSE the war on terrorism.

For years many prominent people have tried to get the UN to do something about the illegal proliferation of small weapons. These weapons bring about dissident movements and civil wars, gangsterism and terrorism, and genocides such as are occurring in Darfur and other African nations. The entire world is engulfed in crime, which is but a short jump to terrorism.

The following six Nobel laureates signed a letter urging the adoption of the international treaty by the UN:

  • Archbishop Desmond Titu of South Africa
  • The Dalai Lama of Tibet
  • President Oscar Arias of Costa Rica
  • Shirin Ebadi of Iran
  • Mohamed El Baradei, the top U.N. nuclear watchdog
  • Lech Walesa, former Polish president and anti-communist labor leader
The UN voted, and it makes me sick to report the results. 139 countries voted in favor of a resolution to create an international treaty to curb the illicit trade in small arms and 24 abstained. Only 1 country, the United States, voted NO.

Everybody knows U.S. is the greatest source of small arms. Did we vote against the resolution in order to benefit the American arms industry? Were we afraid of the National Rifle Association? Or do we want to be free to arm dissidents in order to produce "regime changes" in countries we dislike?

Whatever the reason, it is no good. America voting NO for this resolution is the second biggest mistake (Iraq is first) we have made in the war against terrorists. Without fighting, here we have an opportunity to make the world a little bit safer, somewhat less criminal, a bit less accommodating to terrorists. And unbelievably, we voted against it.

It's ridiculous and outrageous to place the welfare of the American arms industry above the welfare of the entire country. If we want to lose the war against the terrorists, let's stick to this decision. If we want to reduce the number of terrorists in the world, we must change our position. U.S. must vote YES!

Posted by Paul Siegel at October 27, 2006 8:37 PM
Comments
Comment #190933

Paul:

Especially since the resolution is against ILLEGAL sale of these arms.

Posted by: womanmarine at October 27, 2006 8:39 PM
Comment #190936

Yes, and who gets to decide what is “illegal?”

The UN? No thank you.

We’d quickly find out that it was “illegal” to supply arms to our allies—such as Israel—but Russia, China, Pakistan and others would continue to just sell arms to absolutely anybody willing to pay. And meanwhile, as usual, the US would be condemned around the world for the tiniest infraction while everybody else got a pass for wholesale violations.

The US has the strictest guidelines in the world about transfer of arms out of country, much higher even than the measures proposed by this UN proposal.

Paul’s post should note (but doesn’t) that Russia, China, India and Pakistan didn’t vote for this either—they just abstained, as they’d have no intention of ever abiding by it anyway.

Posted by: Neo-Con Pilsner at October 27, 2006 8:59 PM
Comment #190942

Paul

Which is better putting your opinion of something that is probably nothing more then UN smoke and mirrors or not voting at all.

Also the last paragraph tells it all.

“The resolution, which was sponsored by Argentina, Australia, Costa Rica, Finland, Japan, Kenya and Britain, calls for the establishment of a group of experts to look at the feasibility, scope and parameters of the treaty, which must report back to the first committee by the fall of 2008. “

All this was was a vote to create a committee to come back in 2 years and blow more smoke.

Posted by: Keith at October 27, 2006 9:33 PM
Comment #190948

Keith, I agree.

The UN doesn’t have the ability, the will, or the means to enforce laws such as these, but they nevertheless continue to live and vote in a dream-world totally disconnected from the planet Earth. As if anybody cares what they “vote” for.

As if their zillions of rules and resolutions backed up by no muscle and no spine made any impression outside the social circles of diplomatic cocktail parties in Manhattan.

Why don’t they just vote for world peace and get it over with? Of course, it would happen if they’d only vote for it. Why not vote to make everybody rich and good-looking while they’re at it?

If they can’t stop nuclear proliferation with all of their hot air, how are they going to regulate the production and sale of small arms? They can’t. They won’t. They haven’t.

What will they do if somebody breaks these laws? Vote to condemn them, that’s what. And that’s only if some member of the security council doesn’t decide that such a vote of condemnation is “too provocative.”

I think that the UN should move its headquarters to Venezuala, actually. Or Cuba. Maybe even Rwanda or the suburbs of Paris.

Posted by: Neo-Con Pilsner at October 27, 2006 9:54 PM
Comment #190952

“Paul’s post should note (but doesn’t) that Russia, China, India and Pakistan didn’t vote for this either—they just abstained, as they’d have no intention of ever abiding by it anyway.”

But, his link paves the way.

Please read: http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1596102006

I quote: “The resolution was adopted by the UN general assembly committee dealing with disarmament issues with 139 countries voting in favour and 24 abstentions, including Russia and China, both major arms-producing countries. There was one No vote, registered by the United States.”

One freakin’ NO vote!

Geez, how can you vote for disarmament while you’re busy figuring out new ways to torture people? An abstention is not equal to a “nay”!

I assume this all has to do with winning hearts and minds. Or maybe peace is only spelled peice in GW’s vocabuluminary.

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at October 27, 2006 10:15 PM
Comment #190953

No surprise right-wingers do like the the UN. No they do not have much enforcment capability but if you really want to hear shrieks just suggest they be given the force es to impliment their rules. As it is they do have some moral autority. I forget who asked ‘How many armies has the Pope?”
Maybe if there was really global arms control we could avoid stupid things like St.Reagan giving arms to what is now the Talaban,now useing those same arms to kill our troops,or the US suppling arms to both sides in the Iran-Iraq war.How to win friends.

Posted by: BillS at October 27, 2006 10:20 PM
Comment #190955

“The UN doesn’t have the ability, the will, or the means to enforce laws such as these”

The UN is not some miraculous private or personal entity! The will of the UN can only succeed through the effort of each member. As with all organizations the strongest and most disciplined member sets the example.

What kind of example have we provided lately? Or, well, maybe we’re not the strongest and most disciplined, eh?

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at October 27, 2006 10:22 PM
Comment #190962

BillS, it was Stalin who asked “How many divisions does the pope have?”

But let right-wingers decide whether or not to “shriek” about the UN being given enforcement ability over their rules when they actually show the backbone to make it happen. Don’t ask the US, though, to pay for their backbone implant in the same way that we pick up most of the bills for their giant cocktail party in Manhattan.

The UN is a debating society, one where every degenerate, criminal and castrated impotent is invited. Nothing less, nothing more.

Posted by: Neo-Con Pilsner at October 27, 2006 10:41 PM
Comment #190972

KD

From the article:

“This is not a good foreign policy,” said Amnesty International’s Hughes, who acknowledged that the U.S. laws on weapons manufacturing and supply were “relatively stronger”. “

Which means that we probably voted no because the standards they were talking about were lower than ours. Or, it could be that it would end up costing US taxpayers a lot of money without any return.

Posted by: Keith at October 27, 2006 10:58 PM
Comment #190980

Keith, that was the reason given for our no vote: our laws are actually much, much stronger than those proposed by the UN.

I don’t what if anything this would cost our taxpayers, but the real issue that is we must not surrender an ounce of our sovereignty to the corrupt and impotent UN.

Posted by: Neo-Con Pilsner at October 27, 2006 11:18 PM
Comment #190990

Keith,

Be sure to finish the quote: “we had to vote against it in order to maintain our higher standards.”

I assume those are the same higher standards that have caused us to debate what torture techniques are OK and which are not.

Actually that’s Richard Grenell’s quote, but spin is spin. What amazes me is that everyone expects the UN to be some magical answer to the worlds problems. It’s one part of a plan to achieve world peace.

Are the results always good? Hell no. Do the results even come close to meeting expectations? Hell no. But, let’s not give up. At least this brings forth an exchange of ideas and ideals that would otherwise go unheard.

It’s odd that the “die-hard” Bush/Iraq-backers are still willing to support his stay the course BS but they’re ready to toss the UN altogether. It’s just mind boggling.

On one hand we must have immediate results and OTOH we must “stay the course”. Just amazing!

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at October 27, 2006 11:42 PM
Comment #190993

“we must not surrender an ounce of our sovereignty to the corrupt and impotent UN.”

How the hell do you get to surrendering sovereignty from here?

Do you honestly believe that participating in the UN somehow diminishes our right to exist as a sovereign state? Our foreign held debt is much more of a threat. Maybe the Chinese will cut us a break on interest if we add Ho Chi Minh’s image to Mt. Rushmore.

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at October 27, 2006 11:52 PM
Comment #191006

KD

Actually we’ve been willing to toss the UN for more than 6 years.

Let’s see what have they done for the world lately.

Oil for Food

UN troops in the Congo

Just to name a couple

Posted by: Keith at October 28, 2006 12:47 AM
Comment #191018
Do you honestly believe that participating in the UN somehow diminishes our right to exist as a sovereign state?

To exist? No. They can’t even threaten Kim Jong Il’s or Saddam Hussein’s right to exist. They don’t have that kind of power. All they can do is talk, and usually they don’t even that very well. In global political terms, they can’t even tie their shoes or go potty by themselves.

They are just supremely annoying, self-righteous, corrupt, stupid, and pointless. This could be tolerated if they weren’t also so expensive—a bill that we pay far more than our fair share of. And what do we get for our money? The privilege of being yapped at by dogs.

Also, they sit a nice piece of Manhattan real estate that could be better put to use as a shopping center or parking lot.

Posted by: Neo-Con Pilsner at October 28, 2006 1:13 AM
Comment #191029

Oh no, haliburton has been busted again. (Fox News) The greatest example of waste, fraud and abuse in the history of America. The Republican Iraq Scandal. It will make the oil for food scandal look like peanuts. The republicans and haliburton had better be on their knees praying to the God that wants republicans to win because when the democrats take over, the covers will be yanked off and the republican coverup will be exposed.

Posted by: jlw at October 28, 2006 1:48 AM
Comment #191030

jlw

OOOh, they stretched the regulations. Have you ever had a business? Would you like your competitors to know everything that you charged for your services? They did not hide anything from the government.

Posted by: Keith at October 28, 2006 1:53 AM
Comment #191033


Keith: they violated the rules of their contract. If you owned a company that was trying to compete with haliburton and you found out that they were hiding information that you were entitled to know would you be happy about it? If you found out that a company was ripping off the American taxpayers in a time of war would you consider that a treasonous act?

Posted by: jlw at October 28, 2006 2:36 AM
Comment #191050

The ramifications of this UN resolution are the first step in a plan to disarm America, pure and simple. The US is nowhere near the largest supplier of small arms, the former Soviet Union has that honor. The bulk of these conflicts with piss-ant “armies” are being fought using AKs. Furthermore, where firearms have been cut off, such as Rwanda, the people there just turned to machetes, clubs, whatever was available. Its like Archie Bunker once said when confronted by Gloria about the number of people killed by handguns asking her, “Would it make you feel any better, little gowl, if they was pushed outta windows?” Murderers are murders, taking away a weapon will just make them more creative in finding another weapon.

Posted by: 1LT B at October 28, 2006 4:29 AM
Comment #191053

Exactly how would voting yes for this make us lower our standards?

Posted by: womanmarine at October 28, 2006 5:37 AM
Comment #191061

The UN is a debating society, one where every degenerate, criminal and castrated impotent is invited. Nothing less, nothing more.

Posted by: Neo-Con Pilsner at October 27, 2006 10:41 PM

Similiar to the last three Republican administrations, so why would that bother you?

Posted by: expatUSA_Indonesia at October 28, 2006 7:40 AM
Comment #191076

If you want to the lose the War or Terror this is how it will happen:

1. Go to the UN for worthless reseloutions
2. Kill the Patriot Act
3. End wire tapping of terror suspects
4. Pretend that this is not a clash of civilizations
5. Keep being PC
6. And cut and run from Iraq

Posted by: Eric The Red at October 28, 2006 10:06 AM
Comment #191227

Just a comment on the Helliburton thing: Organized Criminals raping our country for all it’s worth, with the full participation, and blessing of, Cheney-in-Charge.

Posted by: Ralphy D at October 28, 2006 8:50 PM
Comment #191228

dear eric the red,
gee that was simple!perhaps by using your thinking we might win the war on terror and end up losing the last vestiges of our constitution and what we used to call a free country…just hand over all our rights to an administration with a president with a deep oil background, a vice-president formally a ceo from a company getting billion dollar no bid contracts and a deep oil company infrastructure building past, a sec of state, formerly on the board of mobil/exxon and on and on. yep, just hand it all over to to these cats, with no possible vested interests and we know that every night we can sleep soundly, knowing the oil industries, i mean we, will be well protected. right! hawaiian don

Posted by: hawaiian don at October 28, 2006 8:51 PM
Comment #191232

Paul,

“While the Bush Administration is busy telling us that we must seek victory in Iraq because it is the central front on terror …. “

So what is your response to the Osama Administration and their view that the central front of the terror war is in Iraq?

Posted by: NobleNation at October 28, 2006 9:04 PM
Comment #191234

Keith, If its a no bid contract what competition are you refering to? If the agreement between the Govt and Halliburton calls for disclosure should they not be required to disclose?

Posted by: j2t2 at October 28, 2006 9:13 PM
Comment #191235

Eric the Red,
We have followed the path of Bush the terribile, who coincidentally happens to agree with you,and yet after the early victory came …well not much. Is your strategy based on the long term or just the next quarter?

Posted by: j2t2 at October 28, 2006 9:17 PM
Comment #191271

In keeping with the title of this thread, I can sum up “How to Lose War on Terrorism” with three words. CUT AND RUN. or another three words. ELECT A DEMOCRAT. or another three. FOLLOW JOHN KERRY.

Posted by: tomd at October 29, 2006 3:52 AM
Comment #191278

dear warriors(on terror),
you can’t win a war, when there is no tangible opponent. you can’t declare war on an ideology. we not doning battle on a field as did the crusaders. what we must do is shore up our defenses, continue to me more vigilant and always just a bit more clever.we must use our monies and technologies in these venues. using heavy equipment such as jets, armored vehicles etc., will never stop on a singular minded madman with a bomb. money needs to be put into new methods of detection of explosives, all the while outhinking the plotting opponent in his bunker, concieving new methods of terror, when the old ones become obsolete. we are appoaching 1 trillion dollars spending in this supposed war and we are losing and shall can continue to do so because we are fighting an opponent on their terms. the upside of this is that the suppliers of traditional military materiel are smiling all the way to the bank…while our future is being mortgaged ond our infrastructures deteriorate.hawaiian don

Posted by: hawaiian don at October 29, 2006 7:30 AM
Comment #191430

Pilsner,

This could be tolerated if they weren’t also so expensive—a bill that we pay far more than our fair share of.

Check again, american taxpayers don’t pay their whatever share of UN since years now. It’s a debt, not a credit. Stop whinning about UN being expansive, as your country is in debt regarding his UN ratified funding, not the reverse.

And what do we get for our money? The privilege of being yapped at by dogs.

And being remembered that you get nothing for your money, as you’re in reality in DEBT!

Also, they sit a nice piece of Manhattan real estate that could be better put to use as a shopping center or parking lot.

And this piece of Manhattan is not US property, but an international property, as with any ambassy, national or supranational.

But I’ll bet many nations will be happy to host any international body headquaters. It actually create jobs more tnat a parking lot or even a shopping center…, mind you.

But, go on, if you want to transform an international body which happens to be the unique example in world nations history of a supra-national common effort to handle international affairs with a temple for consumerism or cars addiction.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at October 30, 2006 9:33 AM
Comment #191438

tomd,

In keeping with the title of this thread, I can sum up “How to Lose War on Terrorism” with three words. CUT AND RUN. or another three words. ELECT A DEMOCRAT. or another three. FOLLOW JOHN KERRY.

What about STAY THE COURSE, or BUSH KNOW BETTER or even TOMD POINTLESS RETHORIC?
Three words, all.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at October 30, 2006 10:28 AM
Comment #191439

If you want to the lose the War or Terror this is how it will happen:

1. Fear terrorists.

It’s why I think this war is already lost.


Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at October 30, 2006 10:32 AM
Comment #191443

The ramifications of this UN resolution are the first step in a plan to disarm America, pure and simple. The US is nowhere near the largest supplier of small arms, the former Soviet Union has that honor. The bulk of these conflicts with piss-ant “armies” are being fought using AKs. Furthermore, where firearms have been cut off, such as Rwanda, the people there just turned to machetes, clubs, whatever was available.


1LT B,

Its like Archie Bunker once said when confronted by Gloria about the number of people killed by handguns asking her, “Would it make you feel any better, little gowl, if they was pushed outta windows?” Murderers are murders, taking away a weapon will just make them more creative in finding another weapon.

But guns have a much higher deadly rate than a machete, a club or whatever, thanks for fire distance and ammo magazines.

We have no moral obligation to make their weaponary more effective. Except if you consider the money we get in exchange a moral obligation, that is…

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at October 30, 2006 10:41 AM
Comment #191487

Phillipe,

You may have a point there. Just the other day the crawl at the bottom of CNN pointed out that Russia is now the top arms dealer in the world. Wanna guess who came in second? I’ll give you a hint, it wasn’t the US. Who, you may ask, is this evil country that deals arms to brutal crackpot third worlders? The answer: France! Maybe if you guys build more weapons plants you can finally whip that 10% unemployment issue and maybe beat the Russians and gain some national pride. Hell, if you can’t sell out of France, maybe you can sell weapons to your contented Muslims, you know, the ones that Chirac compared favorably to American blacks while taking cheap shots post-Katrina.

Oh, and based on numbers, the huge majority of Africans killed in Rwanda, Somalia, the Sudan and any number of failed African states have been killed by machetes or clubs.

Posted by: 1LT B at October 30, 2006 1:30 PM
Comment #191651

Hey tomd,
‘Cut and Run’ from what? Haven’t you heard the good news?!? Our fearless (cheer)leader declared “Mission Accomplished” in Iraq about THREE FREAKIN YEARS AGO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! So it must be over, right? right? right? What are you talking about, they told us no longer than 6 months and no more than 7 billion. Huh? It’s been over three years and 300,000,000,000 dollars. For Gods sake man, Stay the course of Insanity!!!

Posted by: Ralphy D at October 30, 2006 9:37 PM
Comment #191811

1LT B,

Just the other day the crawl at the bottom of CNN pointed out that Russia is now the top arms dealer in the world. Wanna guess who came in second? I’ll give you a hint, it wasn’t the US. Who, you may ask, is this evil country that deals arms to brutal crackpot third worlders? The answer: France!

Then they got SIPRI Yearbook 2006 facts wrong at CNN:

The five largest suppliers in the period 2001–2005 were Russia, the USA, France, Germany and the UK, in order according to the SIPRI trend-indicator value. The combined exports from EU member states made it the third largest exporter of major conventional weapons.
Russia and the USA each accounted for roughly 30 per cent of global deliveries of major weapons.
In 2005 the five largest suppliers accounted for over 80 per cent of total deliveries.
—— SIPRI Yearbook 2006, Chapter 10: International arms transfers

My best guess is they are, as you seem too, confusing arms transfer deliveries with agreements:

In 2005, Russia ranked first in arms transfer agreements with developing nations with $7 billions or 23.2% of these agreements. France was second with $6.3 billion or 20.9% of such agreements. The United States was third with $6.2 billion or 20.5%. In 2005, the United States ranked first in the value of arms deliveries to developing nations at $8.1 billions or 45.8% of all such deliveries. Russia ranked second at $2.7 billion or 15.2% of such deliveries. The United Kingdom ranked third at $2.4 billion or 13.6% of such deliveries. —- Conventional Arms Transfers to Developing Nations, 1998-2005, page 2

Notice how much France is well ranked on arms transfer agreements, right near US, but totally fail to delivery it as France is not even the third supplier to actually deliver arms. Seems France is good a signing agreement but bad at securing them, even with arms transfer. ;-)
Meanwhile, USA delivered in 2005 45% of all arms traded with developing nations, ranked first.

When it come to sales, whatever the product, I guess actual deliveries are more important than signing several agreements, right? And we could guess that most developing nations who purchase arms from US don’t only buy the most expensive one. I failed to see how most african nations could even afford one F-16, or Abrahm M-1 or any latest US weaponry.
Another interesting indicator here is the deliveries values *rate*. They’re not down.

I’m not the one claiming this, your own Congressional Research Service is. Confirmed by SIPRI.

Anyway, doesn’t make France an angel on this topic, agreed, but at least we don’t voted against the creation of a commission about a future small arms treaty…

Maybe if you guys build more weapons plants you can finally whip that 10% unemployment issue and maybe beat the Russians and gain some national pride.

First, it’s now 8.8%, not anymore 10%, second unemployment rates are not computed the same way in every nation so it’s hard to compare them just on rate values and last, but not least, there is NO pride to gain from selling weapons.
I’m not proud France being an major arms world dealer, believe me.
But I’m not ashamed that my country opposed the idea of small arms treaty, because he didn’t. Only your did.

Hell, if you can’t sell out of France, maybe you can sell weapons to your contented Muslims, you know, the ones that Chirac compared favorably to American blacks while taking cheap shots post-Katrina.

You seem to confuse France with a nation where people are allowed to own and enventually use hand guns. Check again, french are not.

Oh, and based on numbers, the huge majority of Africans killed in Rwanda, Somalia, the Sudan and any number of failed African states have been killed by machetes or clubs.

Then go figure how much it would be if everyone had a gun…
At least, some people could run faster than the guy with a machete or a club behind him/her. AFAIK, no one run faster than bullets.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at October 31, 2006 11:51 AM
Comment #194348

YOU LEFT WING DEMOCRATS ARE IDIOTS…YOU TALK ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION A LOT WHEN IT IS YOUR INFAMOUS
FASCIST JANET RENO UNDER CLINTON WHO RAIDED AMERICANS JUST BECAUSE THEY WERE LABELED CHRISTIANS?
YOU ARE BUNCH OF IDIOTIC MUSLIM LOVING MORONS WHO DON’T DESERVE TO LIVE IN A FREE LAND OR SO CALLED FREE. UNDER YOUR LEFT WING AGENDAS, GIVE RIGHTS TO MUSLIMS AND MUSLIM TERRORIST ABOVE ALL OTHERS.
IT’S OK FOR THEM TO TORTURE AND BEHEAD INCLUDING YOUR OWN JOURNALISTS, BUT WATER BOARDING IS SO BAD AND USING DOGS TO HOWL AT POOR OL INSURGENTS…BUNCH OF COWARDS AND HYPOCRITES ARE THE LIBERAL DEMOCRATS WHO SUPPORT GAY EXTREMIST AND DEFEND MUSLIMS? (YOU ARE ALL INSANE, MUSLIM COUNTRIES WOULD HAVE ALL OF YOU EXECUTED WITH THEIR SICK RELIGION CALLED ISLAM)
THIS IS A WAR BETWEEN THE WORLD AND THE MUSLIM WORLD. THEY ARE OUT TO FORCE THEIR SHARIA LAW THRU JIHAD DOWN YOUR STUPID IDIOTIC LIBERAL FACES.
WAKE UP AND STOP LIVING IN LA..LA LAND!
NUKING THE MIDDLE EAST AND THE ENTIRE MUSLIM WORLD IS THE BEST SOLUTION TO A WORLDWIDE CANCER CALLED ISLAM.

AMERICA WOULD BE MUCH FREE WITHOUT DEMOCRATS, MUSLIMS AND ILLEGAL ALIENS…
WE DON’T NEED 1 MILLION MUSLIMS IN THE U.S. AND 12 MILLION ILLITERATE AND LAW BREAKING MEXICANS WHO DON’T EVEN WANT TO ASSIMILATE LIKE THE ILLEGAL ALIENS AND GAYS WHO WANT TO CHANGE THE WHOLE WORLD INTO THEIR BELIEFS. IT’S TOO BAD THERE AREN’T TWO EARTHS, CUZ ALL THE SICKOS LIKE DEMOCRATS, MUSLIMS, GAYS, ILLEGALS WOULD HAVE THEIR OWN PLANET TO SCREW UP!


Posted by: jim watson at November 9, 2006 9:34 PM
Comment #194350

the democrats believe this “CAN’T WE JUST GET ALONG!”
their famous leader RODNEY KING!
President bush was WRONG that he was actually too weak and too sympathetic towards the muslim countries…he’s more of a DEMOCRAT yet the democrats hate him so much.

We should have just let the RUSSIANs invade iraq and afghanistan, they’d do a much better job outside our help. The afghanis only messed up the soviet’s plan cause the U.S. supplied and helped them. Smart countries do not make friends with ANY MUSLIM COUNTRY. MUSLIMS ARE THE PROBLEM AND ALWAYS WILL BE, ISLAM IS THE BIGGEST CANCER MORE SO THAN NAZI GERMANY OR IMPERIAL JAPAN.
That cancer has been growing in human history and the CRUSADE was a good thing, there needs to be a CRUSADE 2 AND 3, but not with the U.S. because the U.S. have too many cowards in it’s political parties both the democrats and republicans and too many people who are AMERICANS that are cowards in this generation. We have the most uneducated and irrational VOTERS who vote according to EMOTION and lies rather than RESEARCH AND FACT FINDING.
What happens in a democracy like the U.S. if the illegal aliens are the MAJORITY and votes?
there won’t be a UNITED STATES, it will be part of MEXICO, one of the most corrupt countries in the planet besides MUSLIM COUNTRIES.
So democracy has it’s flaws, you can have the majority winning, but it doesn’t mean it’s the right thing for the NATION!
If the majority of the voters are nation of islam, you think you’d have a DEMOCRACY? it would turn into a ISLAMIC COUNTRY rather than a DEMOCRATIC UNITED STATES. AMERICANS need to WAKE UP and see the many people who are trying to destroy it particularly the FAR LEFT WING BASE of the democratic party and some in the FAR RIGHT wing of the republican party who are buddy, buddies with the saudis and islamic countries including MEXICO!
What made a AMERICA GREAT is because of all the RACES in this country, not because MEXICAN ONLY, OR AFRICANS ONLY. These two sick parties are selling off all AMERICANS cause they are giving favoritism towards either african american, illegal mexicans or hispanics or the muslim world.
By amnesty and by our continued support of the middle east.
What about all the other races that are just being ignored and discriminated against by both parties, such as the chinese, and other asians, russians, east indians and the real native of this country, the AMERICAN INDIANS…they can have their casinos but they can’t be PRESIDENT, the two parties would rather have an ILLEGAL mexican than those other groups, whatever happened to EQUAL TREATMENT UNDER THE LAW? It’s ok to be muslim, and respect their religion by not condemning or making fun of MUHAMMED, but it’s ok to persecute CHRISTIANS, JEWS and JESUS, the nation used to be built by CHRISTIANS not MUSLIMS or ATHEISTS and GAYS and definitely not MEXICANS….
It was built by ALL AMERICANS who are of all RACES AND CULTURES OF THE WORLD. It’s too bad it is headed in the wrong direction with favoritism towards these other groups which will eventually cause all kinds of racial tensions among all the races that consider themselves AMERICAN. It is worth fighting a civil to keep AMERICA from turning into part of MEXICO OR AN ISLAMIC COUNTRY which many of these groups are trying to do with their ILLEGAL INVASION OF MEXICO and BRAINWASHING OF ACCEPTANCE OF ISLAM BY THE MUSLIM WORLD.
Both of these groups are equally and more RACIST than the neo nazi groups, cuz they are coming to change AMERICA AND THE WEST by the millions by refusing to ASSIMILATE and forcing their BELIEFS AND CULTURES ON EVERYONE ELSE!
Another world war is coming because just like what the AXIS POWERS did in world war 2, these GROUPS are doing the same thing!

Posted by: jim watson at November 9, 2006 9:56 PM
Comment #362609

The timing was Coach Factory Outlet no expectation that the investigators would find anything. When the archaeologists initially checked city Coach Factory Outlet records, they were unable to find any indication that a building had been on the propery before Coach Outlet Online 1886. We’re ecstatic about what we found,” said Robert K. Antozzi, the city’s coordinator for the courthouse Coach Online Outlet project. “Now we have a major expansion of the story of Fredericksburg, and that’s really exciting.Shortly Coach Factory Online into the dig, the crew discovered a sandstone cellar wall — a clue that something was preserved below. When Coach Outlet Store Online they dug at another location, it found a brick wall flush against the sidewalk on Princess Anne Street, Coach Outlet Store which runs through downtown. fighting organizations and to funnel both lethal and nonlethal military Coach Factory Stores aid to the rebels. It should unite units of the Free Syrian Army, various militias and brigades in each Coach Handbags Outlet city and large groups of defectors. I certainly get the fact that your daddy’s Republican Party cannot Coach Factory Store win relying singularly on white voters and evangelicals alone as critical as I believe those voters Coach Factory Online are to a majority coalition,” Mr. Reed said. “The good news for conservatives is there are many of Coach Outlet those who have not always felt welcome in our ranks who share our values.This is a once-in-a-lifetime Coach Factory Outlet chance,” said Mr. Kiser, 53, as Brynn Stewart, the project manager, nodded beside him. With the project Coach Outlet Store Online paused, the team raced to document what they concluded was the basement of a building set afire shortly Coach Outlet Online after the Battle of Fredericksburg. The timing was opportune because the battle’s 150-year anniversary is in December, and Fredericksburg has Coach Outlet been preparing to mark the sesquicentennial.

Posted by: Coach Factory Online at March 10, 2013 7:31 AM
Post a comment