Comments on: America Is Losing The War On Terror

By: Frank_D

Frank_D — Wed, 03 May 2006 19:05:41 +0000

Saudi Arabia and Dubai have been American allies for years.

Your idea that this is why Bush backed off of the use of the word “crusade” is as much speculation as is mine.

Why don’t you admit it. You’ll have plenty of opportunities to harass me in the future.

By: Impor

Impor — Wed, 03 May 2006 19:05:07 +0000

Saudi Arabia & Dubai, both have despotic Muslim royal families
Saudi Arabia & Dubai, both share a border, ie. proximity
Saudi Arabia & Dubai, both historically friendly to the Bush family

therefore, ie. hence, the relation, ie. no crusade…

Take you’re own advice!

By: Frank_D

Frank_D — Wed, 03 May 2006 13:05:14 +0000

Impor: It is better to keep silent, and be thought a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.

“hence the relation”?
hence (hns) pron. adv.
1. For this reason; therefore: handmade and hence expensive.
2. From this source: They grew up in the Sudan; hence their interest in Nubian art.

I guess they all look alike, eh, fool?
The only true thing you ve said in this long exchange has been that the possessive of you is spelled “your.”

By: Impor

Impor — Wed, 03 May 2006 09:05:37 +0000

Frank, 1st the possessive is written as your, though it is pronounced the same as you’re, which is a conjunction of you and are. 2nd the subjects of the sentence you quote, Saudi Royal family and Dubai are joined by the word “and” because they are both physically proximate, governmentally similar and historically friendly to the Bush family, hence the relation. 3rd the only true thing you’ve said in this long exchange has been “Dubai is not Saudi Arabia& ” Verstehen Schatzie?

By: Frank_D

Frank_D — Wed, 03 May 2006 01:05:48 +0000

You’re clever idea falls apart when one realizes that Dubai is not Saudi Arabia…
Capisca?

By: Impor

Impor — Tue, 02 May 2006 20:05:41 +0000

Frank-Here we go, read slowly and think about the words. Put very simply they tried to make the Dubai ports deal because of the long standing close ties. They failed to close the deal, ie. ‘backed off’, because of lack of support in their own party. Capiche?

attempted Dubai Port Deal=close ties
“backed off” Dubai Port Deal=no Republican (majority legislative party) support

PS. I’m trying to be as obvious as possible but I’m afraid this will have to be my last go at it. If this doesn’t make sense to you I’m sorry, its as simple as I can make it.

By: Frank_D

Frank_D — Tue, 02 May 2006 15:05:36 +0000

As you may or may not know the Bush family has a long history of close and continuing cooperation with the Saudi royal family [emphasis added to enhance Impor’s {lack of} reading comprehension skills - fd] and the monarchical rulers of the Emirates, ie. Dubai (see backed off ports deal), etc., who last time I looked were Muslim.
a) I didn’t deny that there was a cooperation between Bush (and about 6 other Presidents) to Saudi Arabia. As a matter of fact, can you recall an administration — since the “Oil Era” — that hasn’t had close ties to Saudi Arabia. They were our allies in WWI, before they were even called “Saudi” Arabia.
b) That has nothing to with Dubai.
c) Now, since you are either unable or unwilling to reiterate the “obvious relationship” you referred to, I guess we’ll never know the connection between the “close ties with the Arabs” and the failure to close the Dubai deal. Since you can’t connect the two, I suspect there is none, which was the case before you made your nonsensical comment.
See, the difference between you and me is that I can explain myself.

By: Impor

Impor — Tue, 02 May 2006 05:05:49 +0000

Frank- are you telling me you never saw the video clip of the Saudi Crown Prince and GW walking across the White House lawn holding hands? That wasn’t a cliche, that was an actual real time historical example of “a long history of close and continuing cooperation with the Saudi royal family and the monarchical rulers of the Emirates, ie. Dubai.” Self evident reiteration ahoy……. PS. You didn’t answer my Pete King point about Bush losing the support of the majority of his own party over the Dubai ports deal. Cat got your tongue… err, fingers?

By: frameone

frameone — Tue, 02 May 2006 02:05:05 +0000

“1. Where the threat of terror is just a nuisance.”

Ya, but a nuisance for who? Us? the Iraqis? The Isrealis? The Indonesians? Who? And if we “lose” the war on terror what happens? What does that world look like?

By: factcheck

factcheck — Tue, 02 May 2006 01:05:02 +0000

Winning the war on terror can mean two things

1. Where the threat of terror is just a nuisance.
2. Where every potential terrorist has been murdered.

Kerry was mocked for #1, but it is clear that #2 is not possible. Not that Mr. “I don’t think much about him” is trying to fight either.

By: frameone

frameone — Tue, 02 May 2006 00:05:35 +0000

“Frame, it means you aren t clapping hard enough.”

Ya, I ought to be ashamed of myself.

But seriously, Jay says we can lose the “war on terror” but what exactly does it mean to “lose” the war on terror? What would that even entail?

By: frameone

frameone — Tue, 02 May 2006 00:05:07 +0000

Hell, Oliver says were losing the war on terror. But since no one has given me a reasonable picture of what “winning” the war on terror would look like (democracies as far as they eye could see, I gather, or at least, as far as Cheney can throw a barrell of oil) I have even less of a sense of what “losing” it would mean.

By: Frank_D

Frank_D — Mon, 01 May 2006 22:05:06 +0000

“the relation is too self evident for me to reiterate” = I didn’t know what I was talking about. I cobbled together a few cliches, assumig the left wing groundlings would eat it up.
So sorry.
Lanternbearer sounds Semanticleo changed his user ID. All metaphor, no meaning.
Roni, as usual, is a horse’s ass. BTW, how’s your sister Ricea, and your brother Beefa?

By: Impor

Impor — Mon, 01 May 2006 21:05:48 +0000

Geez Frank, I guess I really got under your skin, so sorry. The reason GW backed off the port deal is guys like the congressman from New York, Pete King, Elephant Party, who led a charge in the loyalist wing of congress against the deal. The Donkey’s didn’t even have to put any effort into shooting that one down. As to your second question, the relation is too self evident for me to reiterate.

By: Roni

Roni — Mon, 01 May 2006 19:05:54 +0000

whoa, Whoa, WHOA, Lantern Bearer! Careful, careful with the non-everything-the-Bush-administration-is-doing-is-absolutely-right thoughts. You don’t want to be challenged to visit Frank_D in New York to be reminded what a punk you are, do you?

By: factcheck

factcheck — Mon, 01 May 2006 19:05:11 +0000

Frame, it means you aren’t clapping hard enough.

By: frameone

frameone — Mon, 01 May 2006 16:05:56 +0000

“Perhaps not, duros. But it certainly can be lost.”

Meaing what exactly, Jay?

By: Lanternbearer

Lanternbearer — Mon, 01 May 2006 15:05:03 +0000

It is quite tragic to realize that the bulk of what passes here for comment is empty apologetics and drivel from a collection of notes laboriously written down with a dull pencil while wanking off to Plush Rimjob. You know little of Roosevelt and Lincoln. Your cut and paste tripe is straight from League of the South. Any statement that starts with, “I heard that . . . is empty and vacuous. You are wall taggers with no art. You are grunting bonobos.

The emperor is slipping into further darkness while the dark lords around him quietly slip off to insert stingray spines into their reproductives so that they may whirl and divine the blood splatters.

This is a dangerous presidency. It heads a corrosive administration given to its own narrow ends. These narrow ends are not the stuff we have had much experience with. Retro militarism and march to empire has never had a whiff of a chance in the long arc of history.

You had a Constitution that is now considered a mere piece of paper, Weasels. You had a fine Army that you allowed to be picked apart and placed as a burnt offering by your proto-temple culture.

The bathtub in which you were prepared to drown the Republic, is now looming before you in the form of the November 2006 midterms. It is written in the Book of Lantern Bearer 1, 15, that an androgynous makeup mule will lead them into the depths of perdition.

Let us now bid fare-thee-well to the Glory Hole wing and remnant of a once reasonably sane Republican Party.

Up the Constitution! Up the Bill of Rights! Up the Great Union of free people. .

Lantern Bearer

By: Frank_D

Frank_D — Mon, 01 May 2006 11:05:54 +0000

As you may or may not know the Bush family has a long history of close and continuing cooperation with the Saudi royal family and the monarchical rulers of the Emirates, ie. Dubai (see backed off ports deal), etc., who last time I looked were Muslim. You really should review your posts before putting forth such facile points.

If the Bush family has such “close ties” with Dubai, then why would he “back off” the “ports deal”?
You might also want to consider what this sentence, “The real reason that he backed off …” has to do with this sentence, “As you may or may not know… ”
You really should review your posts before you make a complete ass of yourself.

By: Frank_D

Frank_D — Mon, 01 May 2006 02:04:49 +0000

Thanks for your input…
I’ll file it under, “Nothing said…”