Printable View
Then why do you continue to engage it it?Quote:
Agenda driven nonsense is odious to me.
Why don't you give me some examples of exactly how Iraq threatened our national security that even begin to compare to the attack of 9/11?
Where are the secret underground Iraqi terror cells in the US?
How many Iraqis were involved in the Trade Center bombing?
Where are the fundamentalist Iraqi mullahs calling for jihad on the US?
that doesn't contradict what i'd implied, at all. the average American cares more about the Alamo, Pearl Harbor and 9/11 because it happened here.Quote:
Originally posted by SuperJude™@31 July 2004 - 23:49
Or have you possibly considered that maybe, just maybe, 9-11 may be tangible to certain people like myself? Ever EVER think about things like that? Events you may not know a damn thing about?
I am sure it would not fit your world view...
...
Cause you are sheep. I have a reason to think about 9-11 there guy, while I am sure in your life you have done a lot of sitting on your ass opinionating.
"you care more about 9/11 than the nth U.S.-backed atrocity in the third world 'cause it happened here and you feel a personal connection to it."
"oh yeah? well i've got news for you. i care more about 9/11 than the nth U.S.-backed atrocity in the third world 'cause it happened here and i feel a personal connection to it. you ever think of that?"
spinningfreemanny said that people value some lives more highly than others, depending on where their sympathies lie, but he might have meant that only liberals do it in order to send patriots on a guilt trip. i agree that people do it, and it's wrong, but i wouldn't say it's all a liberal conspiracy to beat down the morale of freedom-loving patriots with totally irrelevant gory trivia. maybe there is such a thing as a healthy awareness of such trivia, so when the time comes that our leaders say something like "look what they did to us. we don't do horrible things to other countries. thus, we now have moral justification to do whatever the heck we want to country A, country B, and country C... who may or may not be connected to 9/11 and WMD," you can see that there's something not quite right about their claim. but the world doesn't suddenly become a huge worthless dingleberry on Satan's backside just because it can't operate on the premise that the U.S. is simultaneously a babe in the woods and a superhero, either.
as for sitting and opinionating: why does this sort of remark about qualifications for opinionating always end up favoring the person who makes it? "here's who's qualified to have an opinion, and i happen to be among that group. here's who's not qualified, and --surprise, surprise-- it's you and all the armchair quarterbacks like yourself." people always manage to set the qualifications up in such a way that they are perfectly qualified, and everyone who disagrees is completely unqualified.
Well you appear to be one that likes to move the goalposts.Quote:
Originally posted by vidcc+2 August 2004 - 00:31--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (vidcc @ 2 August 2004 - 00:31)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-spinningfreemanny@1 August 2004 - 18:16
It doesn't matter if all they find is an old crowbar that hussein used to beat people with, his right to be a leader is void.
can you place that same thinking to our own leaders?
If a mistake is made and we invade an innocent country do you feel that the leader has voided his right to lead?
My whole point is that if we are going to proclaim ourselves the rightious world police then we can't be hypocritical and apply lesser standards to ourselves or do you believe that mistakes can be made because the price is worth it as long as it's not americans paying that price?...i notice you didn't comment on that bit. [/b][/quote]
Your right; I support the U.S.'s action on different grounds then the President; and your also right about iraq as a country being innocent. The problem is that their regime is guilty and that's why we went there in the first place; President Bush made that very clear when action started.
if we were in Iraq's place, and our president explicitly committed genocide against his own countrymen and disobeyed 10 resolutions under the threat of war then, yes, our leaders have voided their right to lead. (This though is inherently next to impossible with good ol' democracy. Remember congress decreed action in Iraq for the president to impliment.)
I don't know what your talking about when you infer that the U.S. is not paying the price; our soldiers are dying every day for Iraq's freedom, with the reward simply being that there is no longer a dictator in Iraq that will disrupt freedom.
Iraq and Afghanistan are two completely different animals.Quote:
Originally posted by hobbes@1 August 2004 - 21:09
One has burned us on 9/11, and we strike the other before it has such an opportunity.
Did you notice that the US is not engaging in "shock and awe" in Iraq, currently. Why, because it is more an Afghanistan situation now. Dropping bombs does not equal victory. I agree, now that we are into guerilla warfare, there is little difference between Iraq and Afghanistan currently. See how hard it is to stifle the insugents, just like it is hard to catch 1 man being escorted cave to cave.
Initially, in Iraq, we had to uproot the government to put Saddam and the insurgents on the run, now the battle is more akin to the guerilla warfare which charcterizes the conflict in Afghanistan.
As for Al Queda and Iraq, how many times do I have to say that a connection is not relevant in any way.
Iraq is about quenching the ember before it sparks to flame. If you could have managed to address this the first time, instead of resorting to alter ego "sprocket", maybe we could cover some new ground here.
For those not really in the know, I am a liberal who is fighting "bullshit" as I see it. Agenda driven nonsense is odious to me.
Guerilla warfare in a basic dirt land doesn't compare to densely populated cities where it's much harder to discern friend and foe.
If the effort for Iraq was put forth in Afghanistan. We'd have Bin Laden.
Of that's right, there wasn't really a "plan" after the tank and jet fighting.
Iraq was a means to flex. Imminent threat was never proven.
It was sold to hearts and minds after 911.
The connection was made by Bush.
Do you think we would be in Iraq if there was no 911?
It would have been a harder sell, that's for sure.
We still have Syria, Iran, and North Korea to go.
No Ko seems to be deserving of a more ramming in the ass. They are basically saying, "Fuck you we are getting nukes motherfucker".
There are the lot that like that "well Bush took action" stance.
It seems a real threat has presented itself and Bush is left sitting on the fence.
Hmmm...we got Saddam but no WMD. That's a wash because he was another dictator. Yes, another dictator. We spent billions to take down....another dictator.
I would almost be inlcined to wish Bush would stay in office but well..there are domestic issues to be taken care of and we can't fuck up here and abroad for 4 more years. <_<
Quote:
Originally posted by spinningfreemanny+2 August 2004 - 01:21--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (spinningfreemanny @ 2 August 2004 - 01:21)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Your right; I support the U.S.'s action on different grounds then the President; and your also right about iraq as a country being innocent. The problem is that their regime is guilty and that's why we went there in the first place; President Bush made that very clear when action started.
if we were in Iraq's place, and our president explicitly committed genocide against his own countrymen and disobeyed 10 resolutions under the threat of war then, yes, our leaders have voided their right to lead. (This though is inherently next to impossible with good ol' democracy. Remember congress decreed action in Iraq for the president to impliment.)
I don't know what your talking about when you infer that the U.S. is not paying the price; our soldiers are dying every day for Iraq's freedom, with the reward simply being that there is no longer a dictator in Iraq that will disrupt freedom. [/b]
Iraq's is guilty of what exactly?
How does that relate to sending ground troops at a cost of billions of dollars and closing in on 1000 American lives lost?
<!--QuoteBegin-spinningfreemanny@ 2 August 2004 - 01:21
our soldiers are dying every day for Iraq's freedom, with the reward simply being that there is no longer a dictator in Iraq that will disrupt freedom.[/quote]
Ya gotta be shittin' me!!! :lol: :lol: :lol:
That's like sayin' that Bush is a sharp leader or somethin'. <_<
lol, read up on my last couple of posts; CAREFULLY
and sorry for believing in such a cliche word as freedom. Actually no, I'm not sorry at all.Quote:
your also right about iraq as a country being innocent
Okay newbie,Quote:
Originally posted by spinningfreemanny@2 August 2004 - 02:39
lol, read up on my last couple of posts; CAREFULLY
and sorry for believing in such a cliche word as freedom. Actually no, I'm not sorry at all.Quote:
your also right about iraq as a country being innocent
Remember Bush's ultimatum to Iraq?
You know, the one to disarm?
What if............
Saddam obliged and allowed the inspectors free reign?
Would we be at war?
Where would this supposed "initial mission" just to topple a dictator be?
Sit down.
Okay newbie,Quote:
Originally posted by Busyman+2 August 2004 - 07:10--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Busyman @ 2 August 2004 - 07:10)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-spinningfreemanny@2 August 2004 - 02:39
lol, read up on my last couple of posts; CAREFULLY
and sorry for believing in such a cliche word as freedom. Actually no, I'm not sorry at all.Quote:
your also right about iraq as a country being innocent
Remember Bush's ultimatum to Iraq?
You know, the one to disarm?
What if............
Saddam obliged and allowed the inspectors free reign?
Would we be at war?
Where would this supposed "initial mission" just to topple a dictator be?
Sit down. [/b][/quote]
Sorry, maybe its just my tiny newbe brain trying to grasp this heavy revelation that your laying down, but, He didn't oblige and inspectors never had free reign, so now he's gonna die.
aaaand, you don't have to act like an ass to get your point across; whatever that might be.
Sorry, maybe its just my tiny newbe brain trying to grasp this heavy revelation that your laying down, but, He didn't oblige and inspectors never had free reign, so now he's gonna die.Quote:
Originally posted by spinningfreemanny+2 August 2004 - 04:01--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (spinningfreemanny @ 2 August 2004 - 04:01)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Quote:
Originally posted by Busyman@2 August 2004 - 07:10
<!--QuoteBegin-spinningfreemanny
Quote:
@2 August 2004 - 02:39
lol, read up on my last couple of posts; CAREFULLY
and sorry for believing in such a cliche word as freedom. Actually no, I'm not sorry at all.Quote:
your also right about iraq as a country being innocent
Okay newbie,
Remember Bush's ultimatum to Iraq?
You know, the one to disarm?
What if............
Saddam obliged and allowed the inspectors free reign?
Would we be at war?
Where would this supposed "initial mission" just to topple a dictator be?
Sit down.
aaaand, you don't have to act like an ass to get your point across; whatever that might be. [/b][/quote]
Well newbie,
It's great that you have a total grasp of the situation.
The point is that 900+ troops are dead fighting for a freedom of a people that before the war was sold to you, under a different pretense I might add, you gave 2 shits about. Now all of a sudden we went in to free the Iraqi people.
Do you actually shovel that shit or do you just lay in it?
If your family member died for this war you would be singing a different tune but alas, you and they are safe and sound, free to spout about bullshit.
Our soldiers die because inspectors were not allowed in (if you buy that even).
Remember Clocker, I stated quite clearly the first time I made the analogy that it only holds if Bush firmly believed, couldn't sleep at night, butterflies in the stomach, that Saddam, despite years of attempted disarmament still had WMD.Quote:
Originally posted by clocker@2 August 2004 - 00:09
Then why do you continue to engage it it?Quote:
Agenda driven nonsense is odious to me.
Why don't you give me some examples of exactly how Iraq threatened our national security that even begin to compare to the attack of 9/11?
Where are the secret underground Iraqi terror cells in the US?
How many Iraqis were involved in the Trade Center bombing?
Where are the fundamentalist Iraqi mullahs calling for jihad on the US?
If Saddam were found to have had WMD, I would have been satisfied. When you go back to the World News section at the onset of the war, we were all focusing on WMD. I don't remember any talk here that Saddam was behind 9/11 in cahoots with Bin Laden. I will grant you some do believe that, but more the level headed thinkers here were not sold on that.
I then went on to say that I have my doubts about this, I am very troubled by Bush not finding WMD, in fact, I believe I started a thread called "The Retrospective War" well over a year ago.
As for Afghanistan, I cannot recall, at the time of invasion, that people were upset that not enough troops were sent. It seems that this became obvious some time in the future. The retrospective historians are at it again. Bin Laden won, he had the home field advantage.
The implication is that Bush is only willing to go Gung Ho for his oil cronies in Iraq, and really is a bit ambivalent about finding a guy who blew up the WTC, as killing him really won't help pad his wallet. I consider Bush human enough to feel as personally scarred by 9/11 as I am.
I don't have an agenda Clocker, I'm trying to look at things from both sides. I have serious doubts about Bush, but my analogy was my attempt to give him the benefit of the doubt, and look at the situation from that vantage point.