Kinnera wrote:The world was more safer when Bush was in power with Islamic terrorism pretty much under control. But we all hated him for that and brought Obama to power. Look at the world now. Islamic terrorism has gone out of control. Is it possible to curb it or bring it under control at this point? Who's going to do it?

When he left the office, Bush confidently declared that a few years down the lane, people are going to realize that whatever he did was right and that history is going to be kind to him. I was pretty irritated at his arrogance and foolishness at the time. i am slowly shifting my stance now.

Kinnera wrote:The world was more safer when Bush was in power with Islamic terrorism pretty much under control. But we all hated him for that and brought Obama to power. Look at the world now. Islamic terrorism has gone out of control. Is it possible to curb it or bring it under control at this point? Who's going to do it?

Kinnera wrote:When he left the office, Bush confidently declared that a few years down the lane, people are going to realize that whatever he did was right and that history is going to be kind to him. I was pretty irritated at his arrogance and foolishness at the time. i am slowly shifting my stance now.

Merlot Daruwala wrote:

Kinnera wrote:The world was more safer when Bush was in power with Islamic terrorism pretty much under control. But we all hated him for that and brought Obama to power. Look at the world now. Islamic terrorism has gone out of control. Is it possible to curb it or bring it under control at this point? Who's going to do it?

Yeah, if only he had not cooked up false pretenses and invaded Iraq, that part of the world would have remained stable today, the ISIS would not even exist, and the world would have continued to remain in the same state. The Baathists had completely marginalized the jihadists and no matter how many millions Saudi Arabia funneled into those movements, they couldn't lift a finger without Saddam's or Assad's secret service finding out about it. Today's mess in the Middle East is *entirely* of Bush's making.

>>>>>>ya, isn't that what everyone thought? why saddam and why the poor iraques now? But look at all the savages coming out of that country.  i guess that was a ticking time bomb. Though a bigger crook was controlling the smaller crooks, how long would've continued like that? Sooner or later those guys would've caused trouble. It would've been a question of if, but a question of when. 

Kinnera wrote:When he left the office, Bush confidently declared that a few years down the lane, people are going to realize that whatever he did was right and that history is going to be kind to him. I was pretty irritated at his arrogance and foolishness at the time. i am slowly shifting my stance now.

Kinny, this would make you a natural-born GOP voter, but we now know you only pretend to be dumb. You can now drop the act.

>>>>> Aaaawww! are you in anyway  suggesting that GOP voters are dumb and libby supporters are smart? That's so unfair!  . But, i guess you must be right. You are soooo intelligent. I mean, just think about it. You are from IIM where only super smart ones get in. OMG! I can't imagine how smart you must be. ok, md. i'll take your word. I won't even think abt shifting my stance towards the GOP. Will always pretend to be a libby  . No, i am not even a centrist who can tilt a bit either way. 

Merlot Daruwala wrote:

Kinnera wrote:The world was more safer when Bush was in power with Islamic terrorism pretty much under control. But we all hated him for that and brought Obama to power. Look at the world now. Islamic terrorism has gone out of control. Is it possible to curb it or bring it under control at this point? Who's going to do it?

Yeah, if only he had not cooked up false pretenses and invaded Iraq, that part of the world would have remained stable today, the ISIS would not even exist, and the world would have continued to remain in the same state. The Baathists had completely marginalized the jihadists and no matter how many millions Saudi Arabia funneled into those movements, they couldn't lift a finger without Saddam's or Assad's secret service finding out about it. Today's mess in the Middle East is *entirely* of Bush's making.

Kinnera wrote:When he left the office, Bush confidently declared that a few years down the lane, people are going to realize that whatever he did was right and that history is going to be kind to him. I was pretty irritated at his arrogance and foolishness at the time. i am slowly shifting my stance now.

Kinny, this would make you a natural-born GOP voter, but we now know you only pretend to be dumb. You can now drop the act.

Merlot Daruwala wrote:

Kinnera wrote:The world was more safer when Bush was in power with Islamic terrorism pretty much under control. But we all hated him for that and brought Obama to power. Look at the world now. Islamic terrorism has gone out of control. Is it possible to curb it or bring it under control at this point? Who's going to do it?

Yeah, if only he had not cooked up false pretenses and invaded Iraq, that part of the world would have remained stable today, the ISIS would not even exist, and the world would have continued to remain in the same state. The Baathists had completely marginalized the jihadists and no matter how many millions Saudi Arabia funneled into those movements, they couldn't lift a finger without Saddam's or Assad's secret service finding out about it. Today's mess in the Middle East is *entirely* of Bush's making.

Kinnera wrote:When he left the office, Bush confidently declared that a few years down the lane, people are going to realize that whatever he did was right and that history is going to be kind to him. I was pretty irritated at his arrogance and foolishness at the time. i am slowly shifting my stance now.

Kinny, this would make you a natural-born GOP voter, but we now know you only pretend to be dumb. You can now drop the act.

confuzzled dude wrote:

Kinnera wrote:The world was more safer when Bush was in power with Islamic terrorism pretty much under control. But we all hated him for that and brought Obama to power. Look at the world now. Islamic terrorism has gone out of control. Is it possible to curb it or bring it under control at this point? Who's going to do it?

When he left the office, Bush confidently declared that a few years down the lane, people are going to realize that whatever he did was right and that history is going to be kind to him. I was pretty irritated at his arrogance and foolishness at the time. i am slowly shifting my stance now.

Of course, what about the tens of thousands of innocent civilian lives lost during Iraq war, your heart doesn't bleed for them bcz they belong to a religion you love to hate?  BTW, ISIS represents  failure(s) of Bush doctrine.

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Kinnera wrote:The world was more safer when Bush was in power with Islamic terrorism pretty much under control. But we all hated him for that and brought Obama to power. Look at the world now. Islamic terrorism has gone out of control. Is it possible to curb it or bring it under control at this point? Who's going to do it?

When he left the office, Bush confidently declared that a few years down the lane, people are going to realize that whatever he did was right and that history is going to be kind to him. I was pretty irritated at his arrogance and foolishness at the time. i am slowly shifting my stance now.

Of course, what about the tens of thousands of innocent civilian lives lost during Iraq war, your heart doesn't bleed for them bcz they belong to a religion you love to hate?  BTW, ISIS represents  failure(s) of Bush doctrine.

So you are supporting the ISIS and Islami terrorism?...

OK... Danke.

confuzzled dude wrote:

Merlot Daruwala wrote:

Kinnera wrote:The world was more safer when Bush was in power with Islamic terrorism pretty much under control. But we all hated him for that and brought Obama to power. Look at the world now. Islamic terrorism has gone out of control. Is it possible to curb it or bring it under control at this point? Who's going to do it?

Yeah, if only he had not cooked up false pretenses and invaded Iraq, that part of the world would have remained stable today, the ISIS would not even exist, and the world would have continued to remain in the same state. The Baathists had completely marginalized the jihadists and no matter how many millions Saudi Arabia funneled into those movements, they couldn't lift a finger without Saddam's or Assad's secret service finding out about it. Today's mess in the Middle East is *entirely* of Bush's making.

Kinnera wrote:When he left the office, Bush confidently declared that a few years down the lane, people are going to realize that whatever he did was right and that history is going to be kind to him. I was pretty irritated at his arrogance and foolishness at the time. i am slowly shifting my stance now.

Kinny, this would make you a natural-born GOP voter, but we now know you only pretend to be dumb. You can now drop the act.

Ha Ha Ha! I missed this gem i.e. slowly shifting my stance

Kinnera wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Merlot Daruwala wrote:

Kinnera wrote:The world was more safer when Bush was in power with Islamic terrorism pretty much under control. But we all hated him for that and brought Obama to power. Look at the world now. Islamic terrorism has gone out of control. Is it possible to curb it or bring it under control at this point? Who's going to do it?

Yeah, if only he had not cooked up false pretenses and invaded Iraq, that part of the world would have remained stable today, the ISIS would not even exist, and the world would have continued to remain in the same state. The Baathists had completely marginalized the jihadists and no matter how many millions Saudi Arabia funneled into those movements, they couldn't lift a finger without Saddam's or Assad's secret service finding out about it. Today's mess in the Middle East is *entirely* of Bush's making.

Kinnera wrote:When he left the office, Bush confidently declared that a few years down the lane, people are going to realize that whatever he did was right and that history is going to be kind to him. I was pretty irritated at his arrogance and foolishness at the time. i am slowly shifting my stance now.

Kinny, this would make you a natural-born GOP voter, but we now know you only pretend to be dumb. You can now drop the act.

Ha Ha Ha! I missed this gem i.e. slowly shifting my stance

I don't know what you got from it that you are so gleeful. Shifting my stance=changing my previous opinion that the iraq war was wrong.

My political leanings have been and will always be centrist. i'm a swing voter. I've voted for both the parties at different levels in the past. Voted Obama to power twice. Will I vote for the dems at the center in the next elections? I don't know. I may or may not. Will wait and see. So yeah, basically nothing has changed about my political leanings. Sorry if i burst your bubble.

confuzzled dude wrote:

Kinnera wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Merlot Daruwala wrote:

Kinnera wrote:The world was more safer when Bush was in power with Islamic terrorism pretty much under control. But we all hated him for that and brought Obama to power. Look at the world now. Islamic terrorism has gone out of control. Is it possible to curb it or bring it under control at this point? Who's going to do it?

Yeah, if only he had not cooked up false pretenses and invaded Iraq, that part of the world would have remained stable today, the ISIS would not even exist, and the world would have continued to remain in the same state. The Baathists had completely marginalized the jihadists and no matter how many millions Saudi Arabia funneled into those movements, they couldn't lift a finger without Saddam's or Assad's secret service finding out about it. Today's mess in the Middle East is *entirely* of Bush's making.

Kinnera wrote:When he left the office, Bush confidently declared that a few years down the lane, people are going to realize that whatever he did was right and that history is going to be kind to him. I was pretty irritated at his arrogance and foolishness at the time. i am slowly shifting my stance now.

Kinny, this would make you a natural-born GOP voter, but we now know you only pretend to be dumb. You can now drop the act.

Ha Ha Ha! I missed this gem i.e. slowly shifting my stance

I don't know what you got from it that you are so gleeful. Shifting my stance=changing my previous opinion that the iraq war was wrong.

My political leanings have been and will always be centrist. i'm a swing voter. I've voted for both the parties at different levels in the past. Voted Obama to power twice. Will I vote for the dems at the center in the next elections? I don't know. I may or may not. Will wait and see. So yeah, basically nothing has changed about my political leanings. Sorry if i burst your bubble.

Looks like you're contradicting yourself with your latest explanation. Not going on a full fledged war is the only criteria that changed your mind? If you recall even conservatives were not OKAY with boots on the ground.

** Hmm.. according to your latest opinion.. Iraq war was right?!

Kinnera wrote:
Now you are getting it. Yes, iraq war wasn't totally wrong. I hated Bush with a vengeance for waging the war in Iraq coz i believed that he was going after the wrong guys. I felt that he should've focused more on Afghanistan and Pakistan (and kicked its butt) rather than going after the Iraqis. That's the reason I voted Obama to power.

Why did i change my opinion? The global islami terrorism. It's the same everywhere. Don't get into the justification that 'Bush's policies and his war on Iraq is the reason for ISIS, etc' Bunch of crap! Read my other post above.

confuzzled dude wrote:

Kinnera wrote:
Now you are getting it. Yes, iraq war wasn't totally wrong. I hated Bush with a vengeance for waging the war in Iraq coz i believed that he was going after the wrong guys. I felt that he should've focused more on Afghanistan and Pakistan (and kicked its butt) rather than going after the Iraqis. That's the reason I voted Obama to power.

Why did i change my opinion? The global islami terrorism. It's the same everywhere. Don't get into the justification that 'Bush's policies and his war on Iraq is the reason for ISIS, etc' Bunch of crap! Read my other post above.

How is current president responsible for that?

Kinnera wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Kinnera wrote:
Now you are getting it. Yes, iraq war wasn't totally wrong. I hated Bush with a vengeance for waging the war in Iraq coz i believed that he was going after the wrong guys. I felt that he should've focused more on Afghanistan and Pakistan (and kicked its butt) rather than going after the Iraqis. That's the reason I voted Obama to power.

Why did i change my opinion? The global islami terrorism. It's the same everywhere. Don't get into the justification that 'Bush's policies and his war on Iraq is the reason for ISIS, etc' Bunch of crap! Read my other post above.

How is current president responsible for that?

Did i say he is responsible?

But, I do believe that the President of US should be perceived as a strong leader. He is not viewed as such anymore.
When pulling the troops out, he should've done it slowly and ensured proper stability in the country. He was in a hurry to end the war there and pull the troops out, without foreseeing the dangers of doing so.

confuzzled dude wrote:

Kinnera wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Kinnera wrote:
Now you are getting it. Yes, iraq war wasn't totally wrong. I hated Bush with a vengeance for waging the war in Iraq coz i believed that he was going after the wrong guys. I felt that he should've focused more on Afghanistan and Pakistan (and kicked its butt) rather than going after the Iraqis. That's the reason I voted Obama to power.

Why did i change my opinion? The global islami terrorism. It's the same everywhere. Don't get into the justification that 'Bush's policies and his war on Iraq is the reason for ISIS, etc' Bunch of crap! Read my other post above.

How is current president responsible for that?

Did i say he is responsible?

But, I do believe that the President of US should be perceived as a strong leader. He is not viewed as such anymore.
When pulling the troops out, he should've done it slowly and ensured proper stability in the country. He was in a hurry to end the war there and pull the troops out, without foreseeing the dangers of doing so.

Status of forces agreement was signed off under Bush's administration. And Maliki was appointed by Bush's administration.

Kinnera wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Kinnera wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Kinnera wrote:
Now you are getting it. Yes, iraq war wasn't totally wrong. I hated Bush with a vengeance for waging the war in Iraq coz i believed that he was going after the wrong guys. I felt that he should've focused more on Afghanistan and Pakistan (and kicked its butt) rather than going after the Iraqis. That's the reason I voted Obama to power.

Why did i change my opinion? The global islami terrorism. It's the same everywhere. Don't get into the justification that 'Bush's policies and his war on Iraq is the reason for ISIS, etc' Bunch of crap! Read my other post above.

How is current president responsible for that?

Did i say he is responsible?

But, I do believe that the President of US should be perceived as a strong leader. He is not viewed as such anymore.
When pulling the troops out, he should've done it slowly and ensured proper stability in the country. He was in a hurry to end the war there and pull the troops out, without foreseeing the dangers of doing so.

Status of forces agreement was signed off under Bush's administration. And Maliki was appointed by Bush's administration.

Ya, blame Bush for everything. Obama was/is powerless.

confuzzled dude wrote:

Kinnera wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Kinnera wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:
How is current president responsible for that?

Did i say he is responsible?

But, I do believe that the President of US should be perceived as a strong leader. He is not viewed as such anymore.
When pulling the troops out, he should've done it slowly and ensured proper stability in the country. He was in a hurry to end the war there and pull the troops out, without foreseeing the dangers of doing so.

Status of forces agreement was signed off under Bush's administration. And Maliki was appointed by Bush's administration.

Ya, blame Bush for everything. Obama was/is powerless.

Since you had responded before I edited the previous post. Here again.. If Obama kept spending trillions on Iraq war and economy continued to tank, you would be singing a different tune.

Kinnera wrote:
I would be singing a different tune had islamic terrorism not proliferated and gotten so ugly. I would be still hating Bush with a vengeance.

Kinnera wrote:
But, even when the economy was bad, i believed that the haphazard withdrawal of the troops wasn't a good idea. The ones who were experts of the region were going hoarse on tv explaining how dangerous it is to do so. But..oh well!

confuzzled dude wrote:

Kinnera wrote:
I would be singing a different tune had islamic terrorism not proliferated and gotten so ugly. I would be still hating Bush with a vengeance.

How many innocent civilians were killed during Iraq war and in Afghanistan & Pakistan and how many non-muslims were killed (since you're only concerned about them) due to global islam terrorism, especially in the US? And how many lost their lives due to gun violence in the US during the same period. Do the math yourself.

>>>>it's not how many. It's how dangerous the ideology is and how brutal the killers/suicide bombers who are indoctrinated with the ideology have gotten. If this kind of ideology (their 'destroy the ones who don't believe what we do' ideology) proliferates, it's going to destroy the whole world. Many more innocent lives are going to be lost. Can't compare that with the lives lost due to gun violence. If you are defending this ideology, then you are indirectly saying that's what Islam is all about and that's what it preaches.

Kinnera wrote:
But, even when the economy was bad, i believed that the haphazard withdrawal of the troops wasn't a good idea. The ones who were experts of the region were going hoarse on tv explaining how dangerous it is to do so. But..oh well!

It wasn't haphazard by any means:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S.%E2%80%93Iraq_Status_of_Forces_Agreement

Kinnera wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Kinnera wrote:
I would be singing a different tune had islamic terrorism not proliferated and gotten so ugly. I would be still hating Bush with a vengeance.

How many innocent civilians were killed during Iraq war and in Afghanistan & Pakistan and how many non-muslims were killed (since you're only concerned about them) due to global islam terrorism, especially in the US? And how many lost their lives due to gun violence in the US during the same period. Do the math yourself.

>>>>it's not how many. It's how dangerous the ideology is and how brutal the killers/suicide bombers who are indoctrinated with the ideology have gotten. If this kind of ideology (their 'destroy the ones who don't believe what we do' ideology) proliferates, it's going to destroy the whole world. Many more innocent lives are going to be lost. Can't compare that with the lives lost due to gun violence. If you are defending this ideology, then you are indirectly saying that's what Islam is all about and that's what it preaches.

confuzzled dude wrote:

Kinnera wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Kinnera wrote:
I would be singing a different tune had islamic terrorism not proliferated and gotten so ugly. I would be still hating Bush with a vengeance.

How many innocent civilians were killed during Iraq war and in Afghanistan & Pakistan and how many non-muslims were killed (since you're only concerned about them) due to global islam terrorism, especially in the US? And how many lost their lives due to gun violence in the US during the same period. Do the math yourself.

>>>>it's not how many. It's how dangerous the ideology is and how brutal the killers/suicide bombers who are indoctrinated with the ideology have gotten. If this kind of ideology (their 'destroy the ones who don't believe what we do' ideology) proliferates, it's going to destroy the whole world. Many more innocent lives are going to be lost. Can't compare that with the lives lost due to gun violence. If you are defending this ideology, then you are indirectly saying that's what Islam is all about and that's what it preaches.

Defending ideology? What do you think about our wonderful ally Saudi Arabia which carries out tens of beheadings publicly. What are you doing about it? Are you asking your government to not befriend and support countries with such ideologies?

Kinnera wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Kinnera wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Kinnera wrote:
I would be singing a different tune had islamic terrorism not proliferated and gotten so ugly. I would be still hating Bush with a vengeance.

How many innocent civilians were killed during Iraq war and in Afghanistan & Pakistan and how many non-muslims were killed (since you're only concerned about them) due to global islam terrorism, especially in the US? And how many lost their lives due to gun violence in the US during the same period. Do the math yourself.

>>>>it's not how many. It's how dangerous the ideology is and how brutal the killers/suicide bombers who are indoctrinated with the ideology have gotten. If this kind of ideology (their 'destroy the ones who don't believe what we do' ideology) proliferates, it's going to destroy the whole world. Many more innocent lives are going to be lost. Can't compare that with the lives lost due to gun violence. If you are defending this ideology, then you are indirectly saying that's what Islam is all about and that's what it preaches.

Defending ideology? What do you think about our wonderful ally Saudi Arabia which carries out tens of beheadings publicly. What are you doing about it? Are you asking your government to not befriend and support countries with such ideologies?

It is the law of their land and if that country follows its religious laws, why should anyone else bother about it? It's their own internal matter. But if their religion teaches its followers to kill everyone else who don't follow their religion, then it becomes everyone else's problem. It's a threat to their survival and they need to defend themselves and fight against the ones who pose a threat to their existence. Why is this so hard for you to get? Coz you are a not the 'other'?

confuzzled dude wrote:

Kinnera wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Kinnera wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:
How many innocent civilians were killed during Iraq war and in Afghanistan & Pakistan and how many non-muslims were killed (since you're only concerned about them) due to global islam terrorism, especially in the US? And how many lost their lives due to gun violence in the US during the same period. Do the math yourself.

>>>>it's not how many. It's how dangerous the ideology is and how brutal the killers/suicide bombers who are indoctrinated with the ideology have gotten. If this kind of ideology (their 'destroy the ones who don't believe what we do' ideology) proliferates, it's going to destroy the whole world. Many more innocent lives are going to be lost. Can't compare that with the lives lost due to gun violence. If you are defending this ideology, then you are indirectly saying that's what Islam is all about and that's what it preaches.

Defending ideology? What do you think about our wonderful ally Saudi Arabia which carries out tens of beheadings publicly. What are you doing about it? Are you asking your government to not befriend and support countries with such ideologies?

It is the law of their land and if that country follows its religious laws, why should anyone else bother about it? It's their own internal matter. But if their religion teaches its followers to kill everyone else who don't follow their religion, then it becomes everyone else's problem. It's a threat to their survival and they need to defend themselves and fight against the ones who pose a threat to their existence. Why is this so hard for you to get? Coz you are a not the 'other'?

Since 2nd world war, millions of innocent lives were lost due to unnecessary aggression by America, small kids in Laos and Cambodia are getting killed even till this day, as their lands are contaminated by unexploded cluster bombs but you never seem to care, Coz you are a not the 'other'

Kinnera wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Kinnera wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Kinnera wrote:

>>>>it's not how many. It's how dangerous the ideology is and how brutal the killers/suicide bombers who are indoctrinated with the ideology have gotten. If this kind of ideology (their 'destroy the ones who don't believe what we do' ideology) proliferates, it's going to destroy the whole world. Many more innocent lives are going to be lost. Can't compare that with the lives lost due to gun violence. If you are defending this ideology, then you are indirectly saying that's what Islam is all about and that's what it preaches.

Defending ideology? What do you think about our wonderful ally Saudi Arabia which carries out tens of beheadings publicly. What are you doing about it? Are you asking your government to not befriend and support countries with such ideologies?

It is the law of their land and if that country follows its religious laws, why should anyone else bother about it? It's their own internal matter. But if their religion teaches its followers to kill everyone else who don't follow their religion, then it becomes everyone else's problem. It's a threat to their survival and they need to defend themselves and fight against the ones who pose a threat to their existence. Why is this so hard for you to get? Coz you are a not the 'other'?

Since 2nd world war, millions of innocent lives were lost due to unnecessary aggression by America, small kids in Laos and Cambodia are getting killed even till this day, as their lands are contaminated by unexploded cluster bombs but you never seem to care, Coz you are a not the 'other'

With what ideology did America do that? Annihilate all non-americans?

confuzzled dude wrote:

Kinnera wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Kinnera wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Defending ideology? What do you think about our wonderful ally Saudi Arabia which carries out tens of beheadings publicly. What are you doing about it? Are you asking your government to not befriend and support countries with such ideologies?

It is the law of their land and if that country follows its religious laws, why should anyone else bother about it? It's their own internal matter. But if their religion teaches its followers to kill everyone else who don't follow their religion, then it becomes everyone else's problem. It's a threat to their survival and they need to defend themselves and fight against the ones who pose a threat to their existence. Why is this so hard for you to get? Coz you are a not the 'other'?

Since 2nd world war, millions of innocent lives were lost due to unnecessary aggression by America, small kids in Laos and Cambodia are getting killed even till this day, as their lands are contaminated by unexploded cluster bombs but you never seem to care, Coz you are a not the 'other'

With what ideology did America do that? Annihilate all non-americans?

Forcing democracy on others; Shall we call it Iraq war ideology? In any case, is it OKAY to destroy countries for so called good intentions? But again ISIS's ideology is very similar to Chaddi ideology, you don't seem to have any issues with the latter.

Kinnera wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Kinnera wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Kinnera wrote:
It is the law of their land and if that country follows its religious laws, why should anyone else bother about it? It's their own internal matter. But if their religion teaches its followers to kill everyone else who don't follow their religion, then it becomes everyone else's problem. It's a threat to their survival and they need to defend themselves and fight against the ones who pose a threat to their existence. Why is this so hard for you to get? Coz you are a not the 'other'?

Since 2nd world war, millions of innocent lives were lost due to unnecessary aggression by America, small kids in Laos and Cambodia are getting killed even till this day, as their lands are contaminated by unexploded cluster bombs but you never seem to care, Coz you are a not the 'other'

With what ideology did America do that? Annihilate all non-americans?

Forcing democracy on others; Shall we call it Iraq war ideology? In any case, is it OKAY to destroy countries for so called good intentions? But again ISIS's ideology is very similar to Chaddi ideology, you don't seem to have any issues with the latter.

ROFL@you putting chaddis on par with ISIS. Tell me one thing. Is the ISIS and other jehadi terrorist outfits' ideology of killing or converting all the non-muslims and establishing the islamic and only islamic world on par with what Islam  preaches?

confuzzled dude wrote:

Kinnera wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Kinnera wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:
Since 2nd world war, millions of innocent lives were lost due to unnecessary aggression by America, small kids in Laos and Cambodia are getting killed even till this day, as their lands are contaminated by unexploded cluster bombs but you never seem to care, Coz you are a not the 'other'

With what ideology did America do that? Annihilate all non-americans?

Forcing democracy on others; Shall we call it Iraq war ideology? In any case, is it OKAY to destroy countries for so called good intentions? But again ISIS's ideology is very similar to Chaddi ideology, you don't seem to have any issues with the latter.

ROFL@you putting chaddis on par with ISIS. Tell me one thing. Is the ISIS and other jehadi terrorist outfits' ideology of killing or converting all the non-muslims and establishing the islamic and only islamic world on par with what Islam  preaches?

I never supported any jihadist activity, for that matter any kind of terrorist activity; in fact it was one of the republican presidents that invited Taliban toWH and called them freedom fighters, so much for fighting terrorism

Kinnera wrote:

Merlot Daruwala wrote:

Kinnera wrote:The world was more safer when Bush was in power with Islamic terrorism pretty much under control. But we all hated him for that and brought Obama to power. Look at the world now. Islamic terrorism has gone out of control. Is it possible to curb it or bring it under control at this point? Who's going to do it?

Yeah, if only he had not cooked up false pretenses and invaded Iraq, that part of the world would have remained stable today, the ISIS would not even exist, and the world would have continued to remain in the same state. The Baathists had completely marginalized the jihadists and no matter how many millions Saudi Arabia funneled into those movements, they couldn't lift a finger without Saddam's or Assad's secret service finding out about it. Today's mess in the Middle East is *entirely* of Bush's making.

>>>>>>ya, isn't that what everyone thought? why saddam and why the poor iraques now? But look at all the savages coming out of that country.  i guess that was a ticking time bomb. Though a bigger crook was controlling the smaller crooks, how long would've continued like that? Sooner or later those guys would've caused trouble. It would've been a question of if, but a question of when. 

Kinnera wrote:

Kinnera wrote:When he left the office, Bush confidently declared that a few years down the lane, people are going to realize that whatever he did was right and that history is going to be kind to him. I was pretty irritated at his arrogance and foolishness at the time. i am slowly shifting my stance now.

Merlot Daruwala wrote:Kinny, this would make you a natural-born GOP voter, but we now know you only pretend to be dumb. You can now drop the act.

>>>>> Aaaawww! are you in anyway  suggesting that GOP voters are dumb and libby supporters are smart? That's so unfair!  . But, i guess you must be right. You are soooo intelligent. I mean, just think about it. You are from IIM where only super smart ones get in. OMG! I can't imagine how smart you must be. ok, md. i'll take your word. I won't even think abt shifting my stance towards the GOP. Will always pretend to be a libby  . No, i am not even a centrist who can tilt a bit either way.