To expand on what Avenger said that means that Bush in office is encouraging terrorist attacks.
Does this mean you will call for Bush to apologize for being president december?
D’oh! My fault. Change that to “lunatic theocrat in Lebanon.”
Daniel
There’s a contradiction here. If you were capable of rational debate I’d highlight it for you, but its not worth the effort to argue with a fencepost.
Enjoy,
Steven
Republican porn.
Republican porn indeed. If it didn’t attempt to feature me, and pretty much every other anti-war American, I don’t think it would be worth the time. But that’s ME they’re talking about. It is ME they’re saying is encouraging attacks against our troops.
It’s like seeing your head photoshopped onto Britney Spears. You know it’s a complete bunch of shit, but it is still disturbing.
Enjoy,
Steven
From the OP:
But suppose a particular Democrat, such as Dennis Kucinich, (1) is running for president and (2) sincerely believes the U.S. occupation of Iraq should be ended? Why should he not say that publicly? It’s what he’s running on! Why should he allow himself to be governed by the public pronouncements of Islamic terrorists? Either pulling out of Iraq is a good idea or it isn’t, and Sheik Hassan Nassrallah has no influence over that basic fact.
Kucinich, by the way, wants to not simply pull out of Iraq, but turn it over to the U.N. Most sensible suggestion yet. The Iraqis have no particular reason to hate the U.N., have no reason to blame it for the invasion. And the U.N. has no particular vested interest in Iraq’s oil, nor in making certain the next government of an independent Iraq is pro-U.S. The U.N. is morally qualified for this job; the U.S. is not.
[Moderator Hat ON]
This seems more like rabble-rousing than debate, so I’m tossing it to the Pit. However, Mtgman, while you are in this forum you will not refer to a fellow poster as a “fencepost”, understood?
[Moderator Hat OFF]
[sub]yes ma’am[/sub]
Wow. We’re reaching new lows every day here. I really wish december would stop with these ridiculous threads. It’s an ugly mark on the SDMB.
As for this nonsense, at the very least the thread title should read “Terrorist leader calls for jihad against US in order to remove President Bush”
Cheap, disgusting tactics in play here, december.
Aw shit, there you go accepting responsibility, just when I was about to tell Gaudere it was just a Texas saying, akin to “Can’t teach an old dog new tricks.”
Plus, I now have this image of Britney Spears’ head on your body, and that’s just disturbing as all get-out. :eek:
Lame. December is the real terrorist.
I beleive the opening post of this thread is not a call for debate but a partisan diatribe, and as such should have been posted to IMHO or the Pit.
No. The quoted material demonstrates that Nasrallah, like many political leaders in the region, does not fully understand US culture nor its political system, and how one might exert leverage on it.
Does not follow from the quoted material. Nasrallah’s organization so far has no apparent relation to the recent events in Iraq, and there is no reference in the quoted material to a statement by a Democratic presidential candidate that supports the OP’s assertion.
Candidates shold always be careful what they say in public. The OP, however, needs to provide an example of a candidate not being careful if we are to judge the accuracy of his implied assertion.
The OP has provided no examples of possibly treasonous statements for discussion in this thread, so the question is moot.
The OP has not shown that any particular statement by Dean or anyone else has encouraged attacks on US servicemen. In any event, as others have pointed out, the Bush administration is directly responsible for placing troops in harm’s way in Iraq, thus any apologies should come from the administration first.
- Is it appropriate to note and debate whether anti-war Democratic statements serve to encourage some terrorists?
Why the qualifier “Democrats”, in this case? Is the OP trying to claim that there have been no “anti-war” statements by any member of the GOP or another party?
The direct answer to the OP’s question is yes, if the qualifier is removed. I should point out, however, that the OP has attempted to raise this question numerous times in recent weeks and has yet to convince most respondents that he has a valid point for debate.
It is just a Texas saying, very much akin to “Can’t teach an old dog new tricks.” Quite frankly I consider it far less offensive than being told opposition to the war and working towards getting Bush et. al. out of office is getting soldiers killed. Being called an ally of the guerillas is pretty fucking offensive.
And you’ve got that backwards, My head, HER body. Just focus on the tits.
Oh, and check in to the latest lunch bunch thread. Orgiastic food porn is better than Republican porn any day of the week.
Enjoy,
Steven
I would attack this, but the challenge is gone.
Seriously, in what hideous alternate universe are opponents to an unnecessary war more responsible for the deaths caused by that war than those responsible for the unnecessary war in the first place?
Let me summarize December’s post:
If a Democrat gets elected President, then the Terrorists win. WE CAN’T LET THEM “WIN”.
VOTE REPUBLICAN! WATCH WHAT YOU SAY DEMOCRATS, YOU’RE HELPING TERRORISTS!
It seems to me that if we can just deny Bush the republican nomination we can make everybody happy, right?
Impeach Bush '03!!
McCain in '04!!!
December, why not just come out and call Democrat Terrorists for not supporting Bush 100%
this is a new fucking low.
We’re now in the Pit. What’s done is done. I would be happy to see a debate.
I gather you’re saying that Nasrallah doesn’t understand that continuing attacks wouldn’t hurt Bush’s re-election chances. Or, are you saying he doesn’t understand that a Democrat would be equally stubborn about keeping American troops in Iraq?
Fair enough. However, there’s certainly the possibility that some Hezbollah members may heed his call for jihad. There’s also the possibility that some other terrorist leaders may be saying privately what Nasrallah said publicly.
IMHO the Democrats’ * failure to commit to* to keep troops in Iraq as long as necessary in combination with their plentiful criticism of Bush’s conduct would reasonably hint that they might be more willing to withdraw troops from Iraq than Bush would be.
Fair enough. I admit that this point was a bit forced.
True.
BrainGlutton has cut to the core of the problem:
Clearly a politician who believes the US should now withdraw all our troops from Iraq should say so. OTOH, his saying so may harm the country and encourage our enemies to a degree by indicating disunity. So, there’s a problem.
My answer to BrainGlutton is that this hypothetical candidate should say what he believes, as long as he thinks his saying so has more value than the harm it inadvertantly causes. The rest of us should support the candidate’s right to say what he thinks, but we should also criticize him for the harm he caused (if we think he caused any harm.)
I am annoyed by those Democratic candidates who simply criticize everything Bush does without offering an alternative. They impose the cost of giving an impression of disunity, but without the benefit of forwarding an alternative foreign policy approach.
This is absolute comedy. Thanks for the laugh, d-man! You are raising the bar for satirists everywhere.
Yes, I know he’s serious.
The Decemberverse.
Not to be confused with december’s verse, which is even more hideous.