Who is more dangerous to national security,Khalid Sheikh Mohamed or Cindy Sheehan?

[Smash]

It seems to me that Khalid Sheikh Mohamed is a more dangerous individual. Look at how long he withstood waterboard torture! I am told that he broke several records. But the fact remains that he has been in custody for some time now, and has been supplying vital Intel for the WOT. So in some respects, he aids national security. While Ms. Sheehan (and I have it on good authority that 'Ms.' stands for "lesbian") undermines the war effort with her whiney sound bites and daily jabs at our President. Taking all things into consideration, it is safe to say that Ms. Sheehan is a free roaming enemy of the state. So she lost a son in war, I lost a testicle in Nicaragua in the early 80's, but you don't see me aiding and abetting the Contras, now do you?

[TRIPLE P]

More gold.....thanks Smash.

[Smash]

thank you, i even uesd spell check

[TRIPLE P]

thank you, i even uesd spell check

Clearly....

Now, to answer your question..... OF COURSE Cindy Sheehan is the more dangerous foe to the Red, White, and Blue.... Like you said above, not only does she support terrorism, but is most likely a lesbian....so technically she is battling America on 2 fronts.....taking aim at our troops as well as the sanctity of marriage.

[TheGoodShepherd]

It seems to me that Khalid Sheikh Mohamed is a more dangerous individual. Look at how long he withstood waterboard torture! I am told that he broke several records. But the fact remains that he has been in custody for some time now, and has been supplying vital Intel for the WOT. So in some respects, he aids national security. While Ms. Sheehan (and I have it on good authority that 'Ms.' stands for "lesbian") undermines the war effort with her whiney sound bites and daily jabs at our President. Taking all things into consideration, it is safe to say that Ms. Sheehan is a free roaming enemy of the state. So she lost a son in war, I lost a testicle in Nicaragua in the early 80's, but you don't see me aiding and abetting the Contras, now do you?

Ummmm weren't the Contra's on the American side?

[Smash]

Ummmm weren't the Contra's on the American side?

You tell me what I meant, smarty pants.

[JLB]

Clearly....

Now, to answer your question..... OF COURSE Cindy Sheehan is the more dangerous foe to the Red, White, and Blue.... Like you said above, not only does she support terrorism, but is most likely a lesbian....so technically she is battling America on 2 fronts.....taking aim at our troops as well as the sanctity of marriage.

One part right not the Lesbian part though.
Unless you have special knowledge.
Link Please!

[Smash]

One part right not the Lesbian part though.
Unless you have special knowledge.
Link Please!

Let's just say that some of my firends in the Intel community are keeping a close eye on her every move.

[uppy]

Cindy Sheehan is a traitor to her country

[anEinherjer]

I'm sorry upstart, what part of the First Amendment makes an exception for those who speak out against the President's "war"?

She's not actively advocating the violent overthrow of the US government, so either you're using ridiculous right-wing rhetoric to describe her or you do not understand the meaning of the word "traitor".

Do I agree with her? Not really. But last I checked, she has every right to speak her mind.

[35Pete]

I'm sorry upstart, what part of the First Amendment makes an exception for those who speak out against the President's "war"?

She's not actively advocating the violent overthrow of the US government, so either you're using ridiculous right-wing rhetoric to describe her or you do not understand the meaning of the word "traitor".

Do I agree with her? Not really. But last I checked, she has every right to speak her mind.


I have to agree with this Uppy.

You MUST provide for all speech. Even that which you find offensive.

[TheGoodShepherd]

You tell me what I meant, smarty pants.

Do you know what you meant? I could be wrong. But I'm quite certain "Contras" was the term given to a Nicaraguan Army funded by Uncle Sam. I think you're thinking of the Sandinista junta.

[deconstruction]

Let's just say that some of my firends in the Intel community are keeping a close eye on her every move.

a) Every move? What is this J Edgar Hoover time? She's a protester.
b) Evidence that she is a lesbian?
c) Her sexuality is not a legitimate topic of conversation
d) I fail to see how you can equate someone who has actually killed americans with someone who has not.

[deconstruction]

I'm sorry upstart, what part of the First Amendment makes an exception for those who speak out against the President's "war"?

She's not actively advocating the violent overthrow of the US government, so either you're using ridiculous right-wing rhetoric to describe her or you do not understand the meaning of the word "traitor".

Do I agree with her? Not really. But last I checked, she has every right to speak her mind.

Democracy means many voices. If you want to live in a country with a single voice, why not move to Cuba?

[35Pete]

It seems to me that Khalid Sheikh Mohamed is a more dangerous individual. Look at how long he withstood waterboard torture! I am told that he broke several records. But the fact remains that he has been in custody for some time now, and has been supplying vital Intel for the WOT. So in some respects, he aids national security. While Ms. Sheehan (and I have it on good authority that 'Ms.' stands for "lesbian") undermines the war effort with her whiney sound bites and daily jabs at our President. Taking all things into consideration, it is safe to say that Ms. Sheehan is a free roaming enemy of the state. So she lost a son in war, I lost a testicle in Nicaragua in the early 80's, but you don't see me aiding and abetting the Contras, now do you?

Come on smash. This is pretty foolish. What if she is a lesbian? Does that make her invalid? Who would care? You?

Really. This is a mixed bag. Cindy in my opinion is a loudmouth that started out with good intentions but got caught up in the limelight. That's my beef with her. Is she a danger at all to this country? No. To the contrary. If you believe that the troops are fighting so that she can speak freely, and if that is indeed the case (I don't know about that), then the troops would be performing the noblest of duties, would they not.

Or are they fighting for only certain speech? God I hope not.

[Angus]

Even in custody, KSM is a danger to us. Cindy Sheehan is about as dangerous to the Unites States as Linda Rondstadt.

What is undermining our efforts in Iraq is a lack of success. The lethality of this insurgency/civil war is doing us in, not Cindy Sheehan. If any one thinks that somehow Sunnis would stop fighting Shia and Shia would stop fighting Sunnis if only Cindy Sheehan didn't give them hope that the American people will tire of this war and call the troops home, they haven't been paying attention to the middle east for very long. Israel has never, ever given the message that maybe someday they will just call it quits and yet the violent opposition to their existence and presence goes on and on and on and on.

Why would any Iraqi support the presence of US troops if the presence of US troops does not prevent them from being killed in droves? The Shia want us out so they can obliterate the Sunni and the Sunni want us out because they think, despite their lack of numbers, that they can go back to running the country. They did, despite their minority status, before we came along so they think they can do it again.

The notion that Iraqi troops/police, once trained in sufficient numbers, will be able to accomplish what the best army in the world has failed to accomplish in 3 years of trying is not even worth discussing.

[uppy]

Angus,we need the bases in iraq for the upcomming fight in Iran.

Once we kick over the nuts in Iran we will own the middle east,

and when the oil is gone we will leave.

Look at the big picture and stop thinking about a day by day news

[35Pete]

Angus,we need the bases in iraq for the upcomming fight in Iran.

Once we kick over the nuts in Iran we will own the middle east,

and when the oil is gone we will leave.

Look at the big picture and stop thinking about a day by day news

Jesus Upstart. Do you know what that sounds like? We don't "take over nations".

We didn't do it in Europe. We didn't do it to Japan.

Imperialism. That's what it sounds like.

[Angus]

Jesus Upstart. Do you know what that sounds like? We don't "take over nations".

We didn't do it in Europe. We didn't do it to Japan.

Imperialism. That's what it sounds like.

...it is imperialism.

Sounds like a re-enactment of WWII only in the middle east with us playing the role of Germany (before anyone goes crazy, I don't mean Bush is Hitler or that we are Jew killing Nazis but that, the idea of destroying nations in the ME to steal their oil is similar to Germany's drive to secure oil in WWII and would likely result in a vast alliance arrayed agaisnt us).

Can you imagine if this were really the policy? If I had to imagine a scenario that could lead to the United States becoming a conquered nation, it would start out something like that.

I wonder what assumptions are behind that kind of thinking? Maybe that we are somehow invincible? I don't think people are gung-ho for war unless they have almost no doubt that they will win that war. Maybe we are not unique in this but in my lifetime, I can't remember a military mission being publicly discussed beforehand where the idea that we could lose was seriously considered. Any survey of history would include a long list of powerful nations which fell after entering into unnecessary wars they thought they couldn't lose.

[35Pete]

...it is imperialism.

Sounds like a re-enactment of WWII only in the middle east with us playing the role of Germany (before anyone goes crazy, I don't mean Bush is Hitler or that we are Jew killing Nazis but that, the idea of destroying nations in the ME to steal their oil is similar to Germany's drive to secure oil in WWII and would likely result in a vast alliance arrayed agaisnt us).

Can you imagine if this were really the policy? If I had to imagine a scenario that could lead to the United States becoming a conquered nation, it would start out something like that.

I wonder what assumptions are behind that kind of thinking? Maybe that we are somehow invincible? I don't think people are gung-ho for war unless they have almost no doubt that they will win that war. Maybe we are not unique in this but in my lifetime, I can't remember a military mission being publicly discussed beforehand where the idea that we could lose was seriously considered. Any survey of history would include a long list of powerful nations which fell after entering into unnecessary wars they thought they couldn't lose.

Nice thing about a republic. 2 more years.

No one could vote Hitler out of office. And Hitler didn't have term limits.

In 39' the Germans invaded Poland. By June 1942 the German people were euphoric over a greater German empire. The 3rd Reich. Operation Barbarossa, the invasion of The Soviet Union started out as a smashing success. The euphoria reached a peak. Then came the Russian winter.

By mid 1943 the German people, if they could have would have tossed Hitler out at the polls.

Now I am not comparing Iraq to the Russian winter nor am I comparing the present situation to Germany 43', but we do have safeguards against this.

Term Limits.

[TheGoodShepherd]

Angus,we need the bases in iraq for the upcomming fight in Iran.

Once we kick over the nuts in Iran we will own the middle east,

and when the oil is gone we will leave.

Look at the big picture and stop thinking about a day by day news

Don't be so quick to commit US lives to a bias in the head telling you Iran poses an immediate danger to the physical American being.

Assuming a scenario in which a US president jumps ahead to Iran even existed. The US would need hundreds of thousands of more troops.

Are you in favour of calling up more troops?

Are you ready to support sending more men to fight?

Are you even sure the US can realistically call up more troops without weakening other military positions?

Do you support a draft? You're not going to get the volunteers you'll desperately seek should the US be faced with a such a task. You will be forced to institute a draft.

For someone who professes himself a patriot, you sure do retain a nasty habit of making decisions for Americans you've never met.

[35Pete]

I do not want our COC to commit young men's lives to actions overseas unless it is unavoidable and our national security is at dire risk.

I don't think the Iran situation qualifies for that yet. And I hope that it never does.

[deconstruction]

Don't be so quick to commit US lives to a bias in the head telling you Iran poses an immediate danger to the physical American being.

Assuming a scenario in which a US president jumps ahead to Iran even existed. The US would need hundreds of thousands of more troops.

Are you in favour of calling up more troops?

Are you ready to support sending more men to fight?

Are you even sure the US can realistically call up more troops without weakening other military positions?

Do you support a draft? You're not going to get the volunteers you'll desperately seek should the US be faced with a such a task. You will be forced to institute a draft.

For someone who professes himself a patriot, you sure do retain a nasty habit of making decisions for Americans you've never met.


Invading Iran is not a possibility. We don't have the guns for it. Period.