Freeper E-Mail...Need HELP in response

Need help in responding to this repug. Here is the Letter ...

You don't think Saddam Hussein has anything to to with 9/11?  He was bankrolling Al-Qaeda and was openly offering $25,000 to the families of any homicide bombers that hit American targets!  And if you could ask ANY of the people who enlisted in the service to go fight in Iraq and died (especially Pat Tillman), they would say that their lives were worth freeing the millions of people who lived under the oppression of Saddam Hussein and the Taliban.  The people in that area of the world are raised with hate and blame America for just about everything that is wrong with the war.  As children, they chant and sing about killing Americans and live for the chance to do so.  How long do you think we would be safe here as the next generations grow up?  By bringing freedom to Iraq, we are showing them that live doesn't have to be all pain, anger and fear.  The children growing up will see the difference between us and the people who behead their civilian captives on tv and hopefully will choose freedom.  THAT is how we will win the war on terror.  By killing the ones that are there now and preventing the formation of other groups.  Kerry doesn't have the backbone to make the tough decisions and stand up to a barrage of complaints when he know he has made the right decision.  But then again, he can't make up his mind as to what the right decision would be.  I would have a little respect for him if he would just make a statement and stick with it.  Whether I agreed or not, at least I would respect him for holding to his ideals.
 
Go read the book "Unfit for Command" and if you still think that Kerry is the one that should be our leader, I'll vote for him myself! 

....

Thanks, any links and suggestions would be appreciated.

Pat enlisted after 9/11 to put his life on the line for his country. If he was passionate about fighting Iraq, I'm sure he was misinformed on some level (as the person writing this e-mail clearly was), but most of his combat-related operations happened in Afghanistan, which was an operation most Americans were okay with.

After Election Day all these cultists are going to drink the KoolAid anyway.

Dave Chappelle had a funny sequence on his show about a blind white power fanatic who was also black. When his face was revealed to an adoring audience of bigots, one of them had his head explode from the horror.

I expect there'll be a lot of headless freepers in November.

I just love Chappelle's show :headbang:

http://winningargument.blogspot.com/

If you want to refute what they say, mine it regularly.

Waste of time for the most part, but good luck. :hi:

Leaves out the Saudi's completely. Must have forgotten where the hijackers came from, and the guy who bank rolled em. No evidence has been found to support anything he says. How can you fight with someone lives in a fantasy world. Sounds like one of those people they surveyed. Didn't even get the country where Tillman died right.

a. you cant kill a technique. terrorism is a technique brought about by inequality and oppression. fight inequality and oppression and you beat terrorism.

b. Kerry is able to evaluate a situation and determine whether or not its a good course of action. Sticking with a poor choice is stupid.

c. Iraq was not a hotbed of terrorism like it is now. Insurgents=terrorists. Listen to the news and insert the word terrorist for insurgent every time they use insurgent. There are at least 1 terror attack against americans every day in iraq.

d. Dont talk to me about being christian and in the same sentence talk about killing. Christians that advocate killing are not christians.

e. Osama isnt in iraq. He's in Pakistan.

sation to SUICIDE* bomber's families for attacks on ISRAELIS, but never
for anything against Americans per se and both the congressional and independent Commissions (not to mention Blix and Duelfer) concluded that there was NO useful connection between Hussein and Al Qaida. Someone has been lying to your idiot friend (or perhaps he's just another Kool-aid drinking lying moron himself.)

* not "homicide"

ever since Cheney brought it up in the debate and said Israel is now a lot safer because Saddam is out of business. It was such a stupid statement; I couldn't believe no one called him on it. But Saddam really did offer the $25,000? When was that?

Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. This has been stated by several different investigative commissions and agencies.

Telling someone to read "Unfit for Command" to prove their case, considering that it's already been debunked completely is a lost cause.

Don't think Saddam Hussein has anything to to with 9/11? He was bankrolling Al-Qaeda and was openly offering $25,000 to the families of any homicide bombers that hit American targets!
FALSE He was giving money to israeli suicide bomber families.

And if you could ask ANY of the people who enlisted in the service to go fight in Iraq and died (especially Pat Tillman), they would say that their lives were worth freeing the millions of people who lived under the oppression of Saddam Hussein and the Taliban.

Taliban were NOT part of the SECULAR Govt in Iraq. No one has a bitch about the Afghan war except the part where we cut and run before we did what we promised and the country is full of opium popppies now. They are seperated by IRAN who support BUSH and are buliding nuclear bombs !

The people in that area of the world are raised with hate and blame America for just about everything that is wrong with the war. As children, they chant and sing about killing Americans and live for the chance to do so.
That was true in Afghanistan, and is true in the Madrass(sp) in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. In Iraq the were illegal and the kids didn't hate America. Initially they welcomed us but we messed up so badly they will NOW hate us.

How long do you think we would be safe here as the next generations grow up? By bringing freedom to Iraq, we are showing them that live doesn't have to be all pain, anger and fear.

The Iraqi war has caused the life of these oppressed people to be a friggin nightmare. They can't even go to the store without fearing a bomb and they are no where near free since they can't leave their homes or travel in the countryside. Is hiding in your house a sign of freedom.

The children growing up will see the difference between us and the people who behead their civilian captives on tv and hopefully will choose freedom.

The Saudi Arabian people BUSH is so close to public form of punishment is beheading. WAKE UP they are mad at us for being freinds with oppressive people like the Saudi Royal Family.


THAT is how we will win the war on terror. By killing the ones that are there now and preventing the formation of other groups.

How many will we kill??? And after we obliterate an entire society are we then better than who>>>??

Kerry doesn't have the backbone to make the tough decisions and stand up to a barrage of complaints when he know he has made the right decision.

Hell this man has been fighting with backbone since he was practically a kid. Going up against people like NIXON when he was only 27.

But then again, he can't make up his mind as to what the right decision would be. I would have a little respect for him if he would just make a statement and stick with it. Whether I agreed or not, at least I would respect him for holding to his ideals.


He has made a statement and if you read further than a slogan or 30 second soundbite you would respect him.

As far as the unfit for command trash that John Oneill wrote with his bitter buddies these guys are tearing a nation apart that worked hard to get over Nam. Obviously this person was not alive during the time because only those that were know that these things were not that clear for anyone, and that NIXON tried his best with the full power of the WHITEHOUSE and PENTAGON to find bad info on Kerry and found nothing so how is it some guys with old bitter feelings who cant live with their own guilt put a book of lies together and divide the nation and all of a sudden they found something the full force of the GOVT at the time could not do?

http://www.winbackrespect.org/ads/ad5_wmp.html

A lik

Attacking Israeli targets.

Just like what Saudi Arabia offered them.

on thinking long ago.

Tell him that we have become the most isolated country ever in the world because of Bush's arrogance. People complain about France, but we are now detested on virtually every continent. I use a story: if you move into a new neighborhood and the neighbor across the street doesn't like you, he probably is an asshole. If his neighbor doesn't like you, then maybe they're friends and they've been talking to each other. When you become hated by everyone on the block, it may be time to check out a mirror.

don't think Saddam Hussein has anything to to with 9/11? He was bankrolling Al-Qaeda and was openly offering $25,000 to the families of any homicide bombers that hit American targets!

That was Israel. You are a liar.

And if you could ask ANY of the people who enlisted in the service to go fight in Iraq and died (especially Pat Tillman), they would say that their lives were worth freeing the millions of people who lived under the oppression of Saddam Hussein and the Taliban.

How do you know? What gives you the power to speak for what the dead are supposed to have believed?
Besides, you are aware that the TALIBAN was in Afghanistan, not Iraq, right? And that Saddam Hussein didn't attack us on 9/11?

The people in that area of the world are raised with hate and blame America for just about everything that is wrong with the war.

Nope. Before the invasion Iraq was one of the most industrialized countries in the Middle East, was fairly secular, and was not full of terrorists. Now it is. They blame America for everything that is wrong with the war because we are 90% of the troops, and we are actively hurting the civilian population.

As children, they chant and sing about killing Americans and live for the chance to do so.

How do you know? Back up your claims or I will have to assume they result from your brain injuries.

How long do you think we would be safe here as the next generations grow up?

Are you honest-to-God trying to tell me that as an AMERICAN, a citizen of the most powerful country in history, you are afraid of a third-world country like IRAQ?

By bringing freedom to Iraq, we are showing them that live doesn't have to be all pain, anger and fear.

What specifically shows them that? The abuse at Abu Ghraib? Firebombing Fallujah? Do you think that all the injured children are now happy to be missing arms and legs?
We've shown them more pain, anger, and fear than they have ever experienced before.

The children growing up will see the difference between us and the people who behead their civilian captives on tv and hopefully will choose freedom.

How specifically will they see the difference when they compare the beheading videos to Abu Ghraib, where we tortured (and tortured is exactly what we did to them) prisoners without even bothering to find out who they were, and let some of them die?

THAT is how we will win the war on terror. By killing the ones that are there now and preventing the formation of other groups.

So you honestly think that we can go into a country, kill its citizens, and expect them to like us for it...

Kerry doesn't have the backbone to make the tough decisions and stand up to a barrage of complaints when he know he has made the right decision.

Kerry's shown far more backbone than Bush so far. Just watch the debates.

But then again, he can't make up his mind as to what the right decision would be.

He's been very clear on where he stands. You just can't make up your mind on what words you want to put in his mouth.

I would have a little respect for him if he would just make a statement and stick with it.

No you wouldn't. You'd whine about something else. Freepers only respect people that beat them up.

Whether I agreed or not, at least I would respect him for holding to his ideals.

He has all along. You're still a liar.

First I would ask why a muslum extremist organization who believes in thier flavor of religon as much as many extremist Christians believe in thiers would associate with a secular leader like Sadaam Hussien?
Sadaam Hussain didnt trust or allow extremist like the taliban and al quiada Sadaam was about control.
If he gave these fringe groups who hated him weapons how could he guarantee they wouldnt use them on him..Sadaam really wasnt that beloved he had a shitload of enamies in the world.
He wasnt a good guy he was a pirannah but he was in a tank...We stuck our hand in the tank stirred up the water and alot of good people got bit many consumed and shipped back in the dead of night without honor.
How the hell can bush stop people from getting killed if he doesnt even recognize they are dying...

Can i kick the assholes ass who composed that retarded email..Please!!!!

No one is disputing that Saddam is a bad guy who didn't like us and all that. Nor is anyone disputing that Saddam was dangerous to us and to his own people. However, that is not the pertinent issue.

The pertinent issues are simply:

1) "Was this good strategy?"
2) "Was the strategy effectively implemented?"

This was clearly not good strategy. The cost in lives and treasure to date do not justify the level of threat really presented by Saddam. Indeed, it can be effectively argued that we spent a lot of our blood and money achieving the strategic goals of Iran, which included the elimination of Saddam and the transformation of Iraq into the "next Lebannon". This horrible strategic blunder began with the acceptance of false premises, including:

1) That Saddam had weapons of mass destruction at his disposal.
2) That Saddam was more concerned about hurting us than deterring Iran.
3) That the Iraqis would welcome us a liberators.
4) That we could effectively control a nation of 25 million with an occupation force of approximately 100,000 troops.
5) That the occupation would be self financing through the sale of Iraqi oil.
6) That we could accomplish the above without over taxing our military capability, and retain full readiness to deal with other situations that might emerge.

Even if the strategy had been well conceived, the implementation of the strategy was a disaster that flowed from its flawed premises.

1) Too much emphasis was placed on securing oil fields. Arms dumps were almost ignored. Had there been weapons of mass destruction, we would not have secured them. (Chilling question: Were there WMD after all, and did we allow these weapons to fall into terrorist hands? Have we transformed a manageable threat into an unmanageable one?)

2) Acceptance by the Iraqis was totally dependent upon the perception of a) the honesty and independence of the interim government and b) the effectiveness and speed of the restoration basic services. We blew their country up for the second time in 12 years or so ... we at least had to roughly equal Saddam's performance after the Gulf War. Due to lack of preparation and planning, we have failed. We further chose to work with folk whose reputations in Iraq were questionable (e.g. Chalbi, Allawi).

3) The Iraqi insurgency has transformed from a Phase 1(uncoordinated harassment action) to Phase 3 insurgency (holding territory) in record time. This was enabled in large part by the resentment created by our counter insurgency tactics, which were devised to minimize American casualties in the short run at the expense of increased civilian casualties. These tactics have had the effect of driving the last nails in the coffin of our credibility, and have therefore built support for the insurgents in the general population.

4) We have failed to exploit the tensions between foreign fighters and native insurgents. Our tactics have been more effective at uniting them.

Had Bill Clinton been the perpetrator of this bungled mess, created through sheer incompetence, the Republicans would have been screaming for his head on a pike.

Recently, it has become clear (if you believe Pat Robertson) that Bush believes God told him to invade Iraq.

Ideology and religious faith are poor substitutes for analysis in international affairs, especially when making decisions of war and peace. How can anyone trust George Bush's thought process and judgment at this point?

That email pretty much sums up rightwing moron thinking. I'll address two things:

1. The "war on terror" is not a project in extermination, or an elaborate game of "whack-a-mole." It's a simplistic myth that there are a finite number of "them," and if we just kill "them" that's the end of it. Each person we kill has friends and family. For each person we kill, we create several more people who hate us for it.

In addition, for each bomb we drop, the rest of the world hates us more, as well. Not good.

(It's a shame people are so selfish that they can't see the higher argument -- something about "thou shalt not kill" -- but if they have to see it in light of their own special right to live, explain it that way.)

2. About John Kerry: The idea that he doesn't have "backbone" is pure fiction sold to the voting public by the RNC. The man is a fighter by nature. When he graduated from Yale, he had many options -- yet he chose to fight in Vietnam, and in dangerous duty at that. He turned his boat toward the enemy, and pursued them onshore. George W. Bush made easier, softer choices.

When he returned, Kerry could have stayed silent and gone about establishing a career. Instead he worked with thousands of other veterans and fought the White House. He was 27 and he took on President Nixon with such strength that Nixon feared him. George W. Bush made easier, softer choices.

When Kerry became a lawyer, he chose to be a prosecutor. It would have been an easier road to defend white-collar corporate criminals, but instead he went after criminals of all kinds, and he put them behind bars, sometimes for life. He busted drug rings. He fought against some truly dangerous people, and never backed down. George W. Bush made easier, softer choices.

When Kerry became a Senator, he took on hard projects including the unpopular one of going back to Vietnam to find closure on MIAs and POWs and normalize relations with that country. He took consistent stands against corporate crime, pollution, terrorist funding; and for women's rights, veterans' rights, social justice... His record is clear and it IS consistent. George Bush made easier, softer choices.

When the Pentagon was attacked on 9/11, John Kerry didn't flee. George W. Bush did, afraid to return to Washington. And that was entirely in keeping with the differences their biographies portray -- two men of privilege who made choices that could not be in starker contrast.

uh ... sure. i can put any words I want in dead people's mouths.

How about these:

Eisenhower: "These are the people I was warning you about!"

Lincoln: "This is not MY Republican party!"

Dead soldier from Iraq: "FUCK!"

for the responses, plenty of good info to use!

DUers are GREAT! :yourock: