O'reilly Vs. Moore

[clocker]

Originally posted by Rat Faced@3 August 2004 - 17:07
Pakistan.

Do i win a cookie?

Well RF, if you hurry into the chat room I believe there is a last Oreo that the stoners in the "legalize Drugs" thread haven't discovered yet.

[3RA1N1AC]

Originally posted by SuperJude™@3 August 2004 - 14:45
Israel, the only democratic country in the Middle East, treated again and again like the problem because they "occupy Palestine" when what about the other country carved out for a muslim population mentioned above?

not precisely the same thing, Pakistan and Palestine. the region that would become Pakistan was already predominantly Muslim at the time of that country's creation. a very small percentage of the people were Sikhs, and an even smaller percentage were Hindus. people can argue in circles about whether the Palestinians have a historical claim to Israel, and it shouldn't be too hard to find a pro-Israel organization which'll gladly tell you that there's really no such thing as a Palestinian so the Palestinians should all shove off to Jordan or Lebanon or wherever. imho, it's sorta like telling all Canadians to move to the U.S. or all New Zealanders to move to Australia 'cause they're all the same anyway... or pretty similar, at least.

the creation of Pakistan was less controversial 'cause they didn't have to dissolve another nation and evict its people in order to do it. the people who live in Pakistan now are pretty much the same people who lived there before it was "carved out." some people did oppose it, though. if it lends any moral authority, it doesn't hurt to point out that Gandhi opposed the severing of Pakistan from India. but then again, he was also against the creation of a new Jewish state out of Palestine.

[vidcc]

Originally posted by spinningfreemanny@3 August 2004 - 11:10
But, if you think that the current infadia is remotely akin to the mindset and methods of WW2, Then its you my friend that has to read a history book.

Times change but underlying results are similar

All i am trying to figure out is where you draw the line of acceptable, you appear to think that anything is acceptable as long as it agrees with American actions but the same standards do not apply in reverse.
I make this statement from the impression I get reading your posts.

Yes, I know that your trying to give me perspective form Iraq's point of view, but the simple truth is that I don't harbor perspectives of crazy dictators and terrorists.

How can you therefore be just if you are unable to accept any other view than your own on the basis of your pre defined criteria?
Again you bring up terrorist, where is your hard evidence ( suspecting someone is not the same as that person being guilty by the way )

Remember as Americans we get to democratically elect our leaders. The people of the lands we invade have no say in who we elect so why do we feel that we have a say in their land?

Aaaaand, hitting the final point: I'm not a have it all out Bush defender; This is my arguement for the Iraqi war, not his. In fact I disagree with him on many issues (the ignoring of Sudan and the refusal of support to uproot the Hamas terrorists spring to mind, but thats another topic).

I haven't suggested that you are defending Bush but you do seem to be quoting from the Bush book of excuses sometimes

[BigBank_Hank]

Originally posted by Busyman@3 August 2004 - 15:10
Someone tell me why I should vote for Bush, please?
(I know I'm off from my post but please oblige)

edit: Oh and btw I am not rich.

If I may let me turn this question around on you: why are you going to vote for Kerry? Just because he isn’t Bush? What do you see in him that makes you think that he will be a better leader than Bush?

[vidcc]

Originally posted by BigBank_Hank+4 August 2004 - 12:23--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (BigBank_Hank @ 4 August 2004 - 12:23)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Busyman@3 August 2004 - 15:10
Someone tell me why I should vote for Bush, please?
(I know I&#39;m off from my post but please oblige)

edit: Oh and btw I am not rich.

If I may let me turn this question around on you: why are you going to vote for Kerry? Just because he isn’t Bush? What do you see in him that makes you think that he will be a better leader than Bush? [/b][/quote]
kerry

bush

Read their manifestos and make up your our minds

[Busyman]

Originally posted by BigBank_Hank+4 August 2004 - 14:23--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (BigBank_Hank @ 4 August 2004 - 14:23)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Busyman@3 August 2004 - 15:10
Someone tell me why I should vote for Bush, please?
(I know I&#39;m off from my post but please oblige)

edit: Oh and btw I am not rich.

If I may let me turn this question around on you: why are you going to vote for Kerry? Just because he isn’t Bush? What do you see in him that makes you think that he will be a better leader than Bush? [/b][/quote]
Answering a question with a question?

[Busyman]

Originally posted by vidcc@4 August 2004 - 13:08

Aaaaand, hitting the final point: I&#39;m not a have it all out Bush defender; This is my arguement for the Iraqi war, not his. In fact I disagree with him on many issues (the ignoring of Sudan and the refusal of support to uproot the Hamas terrorists spring to mind, but thats another topic).

I haven&#39;t suggested that you are defending Bush but you do seem to be quoting from the Bush book of excuses sometimes

Yes, yes, it&#39;s called Bush defending.

[spinningfreemanny]

Originally posted by vidcc+4 August 2004 - 17:08--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (vidcc &#064; 4 August 2004 - 17:08)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-spinningfreemanny@3 August 2004 - 11:10
But, if you think that the current infadia is remotely akin to the mindset and methods of WW2, Then its you my friend that has to read a history book.

Times change but underlying results are similar

All i am trying to figure out is where you draw the line of acceptable, you appear to think that anything is acceptable as long as it agrees with American actions but the same standards do not apply in reverse.
I make this statement from the impression I get reading your posts.

Yes, I know that your trying to give me perspective form Iraq&#39;s point of view, but the simple truth is that I don&#39;t harbor perspectives of crazy dictators and terrorists.

How can you therefore be just if you are unable to accept any other view than your own on the basis of your pre defined criteria?
Again you bring up terrorist, where is your hard evidence ( suspecting someone is not the same as that person being guilty by the way )

Remember as Americans we get to democratically elect our leaders. The people of the lands we invade have no say in who we elect so why do we feel that we have a say in their land?

Aaaaand, hitting the final point: I&#39;m not a have it all out Bush defender; This is my arguement for the Iraqi war, not his. In fact I disagree with him on many issues (the ignoring of Sudan and the refusal of support to uproot the Hamas terrorists spring to mind, but thats another topic).

I haven&#39;t suggested that you are defending Bush but you do seem to be quoting from the Bush book of excuses sometimes [/b][/quote]
The political arena changed with 9-11; It was a huge wake up call to the U.S. that there was a call to action to be made against the United States&#39; enemies;Thats why it saddens me that Spain does not act on the aggressor; instead vouching for hiding and ultimately giving their countries control to the influence of madmen. We should always have ours and our allies interests first.


I have neve made any pre defined criteria; In fact I&#39;ve made it a point to specify that most situations are unique from each other. Where is your line though vidcc? Do American civilians have to die in order for action?

I&#39;m convinced that Hussein would not pass an opportunity to hurt the United States; he had every reason to and no reason not to.

Soon Iraq will be able to democratically elect their leaders too; whens the last time they were able to do that? maybe never.

Edit: pressed tab and enter...automatic post when you use internet explorer

[clocker]

Originally posted by spinningfreemanny@4 August 2004 - 17:24


I&#39;m convinced that Hussein would not pass an opportunity to hurt the United States; he had every reason to and no reason not to.

Both true ( probably).
However, did he have the means to do anything about his not-so-secret desires?

NOPE.

[BigBank_Hank]

Originally posted by Busyman+4 August 2004 - 18:04--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Busyman @ 4 August 2004 - 18:04)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by BigBank_Hank@4 August 2004 - 14:23
<!--QuoteBegin-Busyman

@3 August 2004 - 15:10
Someone tell me why I should vote for Bush, please?
(I know I&#39;m off from my post but please oblige)

edit: Oh and btw I am not rich.

If I may let me turn this question around on you: why are you going to vote for Kerry? Just because he isn’t Bush? What do you see in him that makes you think that he will be a better leader than Bush?

Answering a question with a question? [/b][/quote]
Busy I know that you remember the thread that you made called Bush and the good he’s done, you even referenced it recently in a post. I pointed out a number of positive things that the President has done during his term. There’s no need for you and I to go over this again.

That brings me to my question. Why vote for Kerry?