no, he’s a creepy stalker. he actually researched my personal info and started calling me by my real name 20 minutes into this post, which indicates that he had become obcessed with me some time prior and awaited, with one hand on keyboard, for me to post something. presumably that i might phear teh prcaldouche: urban dwelling whiteman who has driven through mexican neighborhoods and lived fight on!!!!

jummy on July 11, 2007 at 2:19 PM

No wonder that cry-baby jummy found my Sherlock Holmes joke offensive. He thinks everyone is a stalker. This guy is paranoid. Probably has the admins on speed dial. What a joke. Well there’s my 2 minute laugh of the day.

EXERPT:

It’s not far-fetched, therefore, to consider what economists call a counterfactual — what things would look like today if the U.S. had not invaded Iraq.

First, U.S. troops would still be in Saudi Arabia. Our troops were there because of the Saudis’ fear of an Iraqi attack. We should recall that one of the principal reasons Osama bin Laden cited for attacking us — not only on 9/11, but for many years before — was that U.S. troops were supposedly defiling the Muslim holy places in Saudi Arabia. As absurd as this seems to us, it apparently resonated with the Mohamed Attas of this world. With Saddam still in power, American arms would be necessary to protect Saudi Arabia, and our presence there would still be a continuing irritant among militants and a source of al Qaeda-inspired terrorist attacks against the United States around the world.

Imagine, also, trying to persuade Iran to abandon the development of nuclear weapons when Iraq — which had attacked Iran — was actively engaged in doing exactly that. We hope now to change Iran’s course through economic sanctions — a difficult prospect to be sure — but that would be a hopeless quest if its leaders and population believed they needed nuclear weapons to deter Iraq. Once it became clear that Iran would develop nuclear weapons, many Sunni Arab nations would want a nuclear deterrent, and Israel’s position would be hideously complicated.

Then there are Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in the Palestinian territories. Before Saddam was deposed by the U.S. invasion, he was bidding for leadership of the Arab world in its opposition to Israel and U.S. policy in the Mideast. We can now see the resources he would have brought to bear in that effort. Saddam was a Sunni leader of a Shiite country. As he watched the Islamic world becoming more fundamentalist, he too became more overtly religious. Undoubtedly, he saw himself as the new Nasser, the one person who could unite the Arab and perhaps the Islamic world against the West and Israel. If he had remained in power, he would now be contesting with Iran for sponsorship of Hezbollah and Hamas. With these two regional powers competing in their militancy against Israel, there would be little chance of a Mideast peace any time soon. Gaza, now under Hamas control, would become a protectorate of Iraq, and the effectiveness of the West’s financial boycott would have been nullified.

Saddam’s interest in driving the U.S. out of the Middle East would be coincident with those of al Qaeda and he would have the weapons of mass destruction that al Qaeda has been seeking. We could never be sure that if we opposed Saddam — say, in another Iraqi invasion of Kuwait — he would not make weapons of mass destruction available to al Qaeda.

In short, it would be difficult to construct a scenario in which the ultimate outcome of events in Iraq today would be as negative for the United States as a world in which Saddam remained in control of Iraq.

Bush lost me when he attacked Iraq, and opened the door for even more Iranian influence in the region, by the creation of a power vacuum in Iraq. The failure to control the Iraqi borders only made matters worse for me. If you are waging war in Iraq, and can’t, or won’t, control the Iraqi borders, just how incompetent is your alleged war against terror, when you refuse to protect America’s borders?

The war in Iraq was the cake, and the lack of control over our own borders is the icing. I don’t trust, Bush. I don’t trust his judgment.

Michael in MI on July 11, 2007 at 5:30 PM

Well stated, Michael.

What kind of idiotic nonsense is that?

Are people that stupid that they stop supporting things, just because a politician pisses them off?

That just tells me that those people never supported the issue to begin with.

I support issues, not politicians. I support politicians who support my issues.

People either support the war effort or they do not and if they support the war effort, they will support the politicians who are executing that war effort, no matter what other issues on which they are at odds.

Remember the 2004 election. Many social liberals supported President Bush for re-election, because they supported the war effort. They did not support President Bush, they supported the war effort, so they put their support behind the only person who they saw would execute the war effort. There is a difference.

Those people who are withdrawing their support for the war effort because they are pissed off about illegal immigration are fools and no better than the dhimmicrat traitors.

This war is not about our petty political differences and has nothing to do with conservative or liberal, DNC or GOP. Would people have given up on World War II, because some domestic policy pissed them off? Yeah, smart move there.

Let’s stop all the stupid hysterics and focus here, people. This war is going to last a long time and it is necessary to fight it. Quelling insurgencies are said to take 9 years. Come September 2007, we will have been with the current COIN strategy for 9 months. Our military is damn good, but it cannot succeed in a 9 year strategy in 9 months. People better get it through their heads that this is going to take a long time and if we don’t dig in and defeat the Islamic Totalitarians now, it will be MUCH, MUCH worse later.

i noticed that the stalker put the transcription marks on everything but my spelling of his handle. i guess he’s the one spelling it wrong.

jummy on July 11, 2007 at 4:42 PM

Yes, Justin/clemtoe/jummy, I cyberstalked you by going on YouTube, by watching you call yourself by your first name during one of your videos, and now by calling you your first name here on this forum.

You are a silly little man. Haha!

I think you’re the one stalking me. I was on this thread first. Vaya con Dios!

tickleddragon on July 11, 2007 at 4:37 PM

why would i check my spelling when people with nothing to say can do it for me?

i noticed that the stalker put the transcription marks on everything but my spelling of his handle. i guess he’s the one spelling it wrong.

jummy on July 11, 2007 at 2:19 PM

I’m sorry..is that English. You type like a teenager on a cell phone. You ever heard of CAPITAL letters? Or spelling? Or grammar? Or punctuation?

In order to be taken seriously, you need to know how to communicate intelligently.

Bush is trying to create “will of the people” in Iraq, but doesn’t seem to think much of it at home.

Witness that 71% of Americans, in a Gallup poll which is probably about as accurate as any of them, want American troops all out of Iraq by April 2008.

Yet he has insisted on actually increasing the number of American troops there and as far as he is concerned indefinitely.

Depending on the poll somewhere around that percent of Americans were and are against his CIR.

Yet he insisted on pushing it and doing so repeatedly.

Most Americans want the laws enforced and a wall or fence built on our southern border.

He has pretty much refused to do either.

History is not going to speak kindly of him.

RushBaby on July 11, 2007 at 2:50 PM

likewise

my real name
jummy on July 11, 2007 at 2:19 PM

So your name is Justin? How do you do, glad to know ya, nice meeting you, and all that good stuff.

no, he’s a creepy stalker. he actually researched my personal info and started calling me by my real name 20 minutes into this post, which indicates that he had become obcessed (sic) with me some time prior and awaited, with one hand on keyboard, for me to post something. presumably that i (sic) might phear(sic) teh(sic) prcaldouche: urban dwelling whiteman who has driven through mexican neighborhoods and lived fight on!!!!

jummy on July 11, 2007 at 2:19 PM

You gave us your YouTube profile name “ClemToe.” I either watched some of your videos or looked at your profile, I can’t remember which. It wasn’t too hard, lunatic.

BTW, why does all of your commentary degenerate into some pathetic reference about your target’s sexuality? Speaking of obsession. Heh.

tickleddragon on July 11, 2007 at 1:49 PM

no, he’s a creepy stalker. he actually researched my personal info and started calling me by my real name 20 minutes into this post, which indicates that he had become obcessed with me some time prior and awaited, with one hand on keyboard, for me to post something. presumably that i might phear teh prcaldouche: urban dwelling whiteman who has driven through mexican neighborhoods and lived fight on!!!!

i have to correct you on that. you’re a creepy stalker who follows up on my every post regardless of whether you have anything to say.

jummy on July 11, 2007 at 1:16 PM

Oh, now you’re just paranoid. It couldn’t be that PRCalDude actually reads the same threads you do, eh. Pull out the tinfoil hat, you pitiful looney.

You’re just bitter because no one here agrees with your “support-despite-any-slight” bs. We were stabbed in the back by the very people we supported over the last 6 years. A person with common sense knows when to stop backing a back-stabber. Obviously, you have no common sense. But then, your comments pretty much illustrate that.

Why don’t you and tomas just go off and have a picnic together, rather than harrassing the rest of us?

i bet you’re under a skin every night.

PRCalDude: “do me, william pierce!!!” XD

jummy on July 11, 2007 at 1:31 PM

Haha! Good one. I enjoy your straw men arguments.