So I'm going along on my merry internet way, when I come across this:
http://www.altpr.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=208&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0
The most important part being the quote of Bill O'Reilly:
O'REILLY: Because look ... when 2 percent of the population feels that you're doing them a favor, just forget it, you're not going to win. You're not going to win. And I don't have any respect by and large for the Iraqi people at all. I have no respect for them. I think that they're a prehistoric group that is -- yeah, there's excuses.
Sure, they're terrorized, they've never known freedom, all of that. There's excuses. I understand. But I don't have to respect them because you know when you have Americans dying trying to you know institute some kind of democracy there, and 2 percent of the people appreciate it, you know, it's time to -- time to wise up. And this teaches us a big lesson, that we cannot intervene in the Muslim world ever again. What we can do is bomb the living daylights out of them, just like we did in the Balkans. Just as we did in the Balkans. Bomb the living daylights out of them. But no more ground troops, no more hearts and minds, ain't going to work.
I don't believe this guy. I have never heard from him, however, I have heard of him, and now I'm just terrified of the guy!
I mean, let me get this straight. The mission failed, and I could go into the specifics of whose fault that was and why, but lets' just imagine for a second it failed because the Iraqis were - as Mr. O'Reilly seems to feel - freedom-haters who didn't give a rats ass about the sacrifice of Americans. In this sort of a setting, O'Reilly thinks the best thing to do is bomb and kill them as long as the Americans want. Why?? Why the hell?? I mean, if he's for pulling out and no more interventions, I can see several logical reasons why. And If he was for sticking it out, I can see the train of thought that would lead to that too. But someone who thinks they should leave so no more Americans die, yet continue to kill muslims indiscriminately.
But why? To what end? If you're not there to rebuild the country, or even to loot and conquer it, why even bother killing them? Are they a threat still? They're already the third world and bombed to hell, I don't see how they could be threatening, but even if they were, is violence the only answer? It just seems so pointless. Stop the fighting, leave them where they are, but for Gods' sake don't stop bombing the place. Why?
http://www.altpr.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=208&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0
The most important part being the quote of Bill O'Reilly:
O'REILLY: Because look ... when 2 percent of the population feels that you're doing them a favor, just forget it, you're not going to win. You're not going to win. And I don't have any respect by and large for the Iraqi people at all. I have no respect for them. I think that they're a prehistoric group that is -- yeah, there's excuses.
Sure, they're terrorized, they've never known freedom, all of that. There's excuses. I understand. But I don't have to respect them because you know when you have Americans dying trying to you know institute some kind of democracy there, and 2 percent of the people appreciate it, you know, it's time to -- time to wise up. And this teaches us a big lesson, that we cannot intervene in the Muslim world ever again. What we can do is bomb the living daylights out of them, just like we did in the Balkans. Just as we did in the Balkans. Bomb the living daylights out of them. But no more ground troops, no more hearts and minds, ain't going to work.
I don't believe this guy. I have never heard from him, however, I have heard of him, and now I'm just terrified of the guy!
I mean, let me get this straight. The mission failed, and I could go into the specifics of whose fault that was and why, but lets' just imagine for a second it failed because the Iraqis were - as Mr. O'Reilly seems to feel - freedom-haters who didn't give a rats ass about the sacrifice of Americans. In this sort of a setting, O'Reilly thinks the best thing to do is bomb and kill them as long as the Americans want. Why?? Why the hell?? I mean, if he's for pulling out and no more interventions, I can see several logical reasons why. And If he was for sticking it out, I can see the train of thought that would lead to that too. But someone who thinks they should leave so no more Americans die, yet continue to kill muslims indiscriminately.
But why? To what end? If you're not there to rebuild the country, or even to loot and conquer it, why even bother killing them? Are they a threat still? They're already the third world and bombed to hell, I don't see how they could be threatening, but even if they were, is violence the only answer? It just seems so pointless. Stop the fighting, leave them where they are, but for Gods' sake don't stop bombing the place. Why?