|
|
Post by wienerpoopie on Jul 31, 2008 14:05:29 GMT -5
Stop bringing up other things and asking questions then? Quote were I did Exactly…you can’t; This is what I want answered: I also don’t think Cuba is our greatest threat, but do find them as much of a threat as Iraq. All I need is someone to justify why Iraq was more of a threat to the U.S. than any other country that supports terrorism. |
|
|
|
Post by kaboobie92 on Jul 31, 2008 14:08:46 GMT -5
It isn't. That is what i just said! We acted irrationally out of 9/11. We are in Iraq now, and we need to get the job done. If we pull out, it will cause massive instability in the middle-east. We got ourselves into this mess, and we need to fix it. The war in Iraq is keeping us safe here I believe though. If we wouldn't have acted out against 9/11 what would stop them from doing it again?
|
|
|
|
Post by wienerpoopie on Jul 31, 2008 14:15:00 GMT -5
I do agree that now were their we need to stay, if we leave now we would be giving terrorists an entire country to frolic in.
|
|
|
|
Post by kaboobie92 on Jul 31, 2008 14:23:27 GMT -5
I do agree that now were their we need to stay, if we leave now we would be giving terrorists an entire country to frolic in. Exactly. See i'm not so stupid after all  |
|
|
|
Post by Fistor on Jul 31, 2008 14:37:05 GMT -5
and they were a threat to the US. Highly debatable. |
|
|
|
Post by scooterfanatic on Jul 31, 2008 14:56:45 GMT -5
It isn't. That is what i just said! We acted irrationally out of 9/11. We are in Iraq now, and we need to get the job done. If we pull out, it will cause massive instability in the middle-east. We got ourselves into this mess, and we need to fix it. The war in Iraq is keeping us safe here I believe though. If we wouldn't have acted out against 9/11 what would stop them from doing it again? The problem I have with those we say we need to "finish the job" is that no one ever can explain HOW this can be accomplished. All I ever get are some vague references to "helping the Iraqi government become more independent." I could really get behind this if someone could tell me SPECIFICALLY what tasks need to be accomplished. This started out as a $50 billion, 2 month war. I'm sure when Bush, Jr. talked about Iraq, many of us envisioned the quick, efficient, and cheap campaign his father waged back in 1990. Occupation is a different animal though, and even Dick Cheney said it would be a disaster in the mid 1990's. Occupations are never clean and they're never cheap. As evil as Saddam was, he brought unprecedented order to an otherwise chaotic region. Obviously, the order he imposed on his people was repressive, but now the Iraqis don't even have a functioning society. I feel it's our responsibility to fix the mess we made and give these people their lives back. There would be more support I think if the operation wasn't so horribly mis-managed and corrupted by the people in charge. If you look at Bush's track-record, he's not competent to be in charge of anything other than a baseball team. Every oil company his father gave him he drove into the ground. As far as acting out in regards to 9/11, we did. We appropriately ousted the Taliban in Afghanistan for harboring the man responsible for attacking us. Then, before the job was done in Afghanistan, the focus was suddenly shifted to Iraq. Hussein was found within months, but today, almost 7 years after the 9/11 tragedy, the man responsible still roams free. There was no controversy with Afghanistan, we were completely justified there. |
|
|
|
Post by wienerpoopie on Jul 31, 2008 15:24:03 GMT -5
It isn't. That is what i just said! We acted irrationally out of 9/11. We are in Iraq now, and we need to get the job done. If we pull out, it will cause massive instability in the middle-east. We got ourselves into this mess, and we need to fix it. The war in Iraq is keeping us safe here I believe though. If we wouldn't have acted out against 9/11 what would stop them from doing it again? If you look at Bush's track-record, he's not competent to be in charge of anything other than a baseball team. You sure about that? |
|
|
|
Post by ratrad on Jul 31, 2008 15:46:54 GMT -5
It isn't. That is what i just said! We acted irrationally out of 9/11. We are in Iraq now, and we need to get the job done. If we pull out, it will cause massive instability in the middle-east. We got ourselves into this mess, and we need to fix it. The war in Iraq is keeping us safe here I believe though. If we wouldn't have acted out against 9/11 what would stop them from doing it again? What is the job? If you can figure that out, I may think about agreeing with you. |
|
|
|
Post by flyersfantn on Jul 31, 2008 15:48:16 GMT -5
It isn't. That is what i just said! We acted irrationally out of 9/11. We are in Iraq now, and we need to get the job done. If we pull out, it will cause massive instability in the middle-east. We got ourselves into this mess, and we need to fix it. The war in Iraq is keeping us safe here I believe though. If we wouldn't have acted out against 9/11 what would stop them from doing it again? What is the job? If you can figure that out, I may think about agreeing with you. Stabilizing Iraq and developing their army to a point where they can take over day to day operations and we might only have to leave a small counter-terroist force behind. I think that this situation is alot closer than alot of people believe. |
|
|
|
Post by ratrad on Jul 31, 2008 15:49:55 GMT -5
If you look at Bush's track-record, he's not competent to be in charge of anything other than a baseball team. Every oil company his father gave him he drove into the ground. I disagree. Bush isn't stupid and he is doing a great job. However, he is doing a great job only for the super rich (his buddies). And he is doing a great job duping people like elrushbo. I repeat, he is not stupid. He is a crooked criminal and is great at it. |
|
|
|
Post by ratrad on Jul 31, 2008 15:53:39 GMT -5
What is the job? If you can figure that out, I may think about agreeing with you. Stabilizing Iraq and developing their army to a point where they can take over day to day operations and we might only have to leave a small counter-terroist force behind. I think that this situation is alot closer than alot of people believe. What is the operational definition of "stabilizing"? What exactly are "day to day" operations in a country in which you don't know who the enemy is? How exactly are we going to do that? What secret information do you have that can prove your last sentence? |
|
|
|
Post by flyersfantn on Jul 31, 2008 17:37:04 GMT -5
Stabilizing Iraq and developing their army to a point where they can take over day to day operations and we might only have to leave a small counter-terroist force behind. I think that this situation is alot closer than alot of people believe. What is the operational definition of "stabilizing"? What exactly are "day to day" operations in a country in which you don't know who the enemy is? How exactly are we going to do that? What secret information do you have that can prove your last sentence? With the way the violence has died down and troop deaths are at the lowest level since the begining of the war, I'd say things are looking up. Day-to-day operations would mean having the Iraqi Army take over all areas of operation from the US military. Stabilizing would mean getting to a point where the terroists cant operate as freely as they want, and at the same time getting the Iraqi army built up to the point where they can take over. Why is this so fuucking hard for you? |
|
|
|
Post by ratrad on Jul 31, 2008 17:47:39 GMT -5
What is the operational definition of "stabilizing"? What exactly are "day to day" operations in a country in which you don't know who the enemy is? How exactly are we going to do that? What secret information do you have that can prove your last sentence? With the way the violence has died down and troop deaths are at the lowest level since the begining of the war, I'd say things are looking up. Day-to-day operations would mean having the Iraqi Army take over all areas of operation from the US military. Stabilizing would mean getting to a point where the terroists cant operate as freely as they want, and at the same time getting the Iraqi army built up to the point where they can take over. Why is this so fuucking hard for you? Sounds good. I look forward to it. |
|
|
|
Post by Mad Dog on Jul 31, 2008 18:25:03 GMT -5
Furthuring on Dasbow's point... They hate everything about America. It's the same as the terrorists. They hate democracy, capitalism, and freedom. The reason why they would get along with Obama is because he is a glorified socialist. And if you disagree read on his policies. Wealth re-distribution, universal healthcare, etc. Most the world hates the U.S. as much as Iraq did, why don’t we invade all of them? And someone needs to answer my above question. Wow, I'm so glad that you have volunteered to be the hate spokes person for the rest of the world, I'm sure the world thanks you |
|
|
|
Post by wienerpoopie on Aug 1, 2008 7:24:37 GMT -5
Most the world hates the U.S. as much as Iraq did, why don’t we invade all of them? And someone needs to answer my above question. Wow, I'm so glad that you have volunteered to be the hate spokes person for the rest of the world, I'm sure the world thanks you Put your head back in the sand were its been for the past 40 years… |
|
|
|
Post by flyersfantn on Aug 1, 2008 10:22:35 GMT -5
Wow, I'm so glad that you have volunteered to be the hate spokes person for the rest of the world, I'm sure the world thanks you Put your head back in the sand were its been for the past 40 years… same thing could be said about you. pot. kettle. you know the deal. |
|
|
|
Post by wienerpoopie on Aug 1, 2008 10:29:06 GMT -5
You believe the entire world is in love with the U.S.?
|
|
|
|
Post by flyersfantn on Aug 1, 2008 10:32:39 GMT -5
You believe the entire world is in love with the U.S.? no but I believe the democrats (not neccessarily (sp?) you) have their heads in the sand when it comes to wanting to pull out of Iraq immediately, no matter what the cost. Maybe I shouldnt have said the same can be said about you, per se, just people on your side of the spectrum. |
|
|
|
Post by wienerpoopie on Aug 1, 2008 10:34:30 GMT -5
You believe the entire world is in love with the U.S.? no but I believe the democrats (not neccessarily (sp?) you) have their heads in the sand when it comes to wanting to pull out of Iraq immediately, no matter what the cost. Maybe I shouldnt have said the same can be said about you, per se, just people on your side of the spectrum. Read the entire thread! |
|
|
|
Post by wienerpoopie on Aug 1, 2008 10:34:39 GMT -5
I do agree that now were their we need to stay, if we leave now we would be giving terrorists an entire country to frolic in. |
|
|
|
Post by flyersfantn on Aug 1, 2008 10:36:39 GMT -5
my bad, forgot about that or didnt read it. I retract the statement in question. (shameless attempt to gain some Karma)
|
|
|
|
Post by wienerpoopie on Aug 1, 2008 10:38:10 GMT -5
No worries, just wanted to clarify…
|
|
|
|
Post by Mad Dog on Aug 3, 2008 12:23:58 GMT -5
The Iraqi people were murdered, tortured, terrorized, and dehumanized for 30 years under Saddam Hussein and you can't rebuild a country over night with those conditions as a back drop.
I can already hear some of you leftists out there thinking "well the U.S. tortured and killed Iraqi's too" blah blah blah Bet you a buck that if that is true ( and too some extent it is) Most if not all of our "victims" are Bathist Hussein sympathizers and insurgents and captured terrorists who nobody should have one ounce of sympathy for.
|
|
|
|
Post by scooterfanatic on Aug 4, 2008 7:32:47 GMT -5
Most if not all of our "victims" are Bathist Hussein sympathizers and insurgents and captured terrorists who nobody should have one ounce of sympathy for. Logical Fallacy: Weasel Words Weasel words informally are ambiguous and cannot be substantiated by facts but are statements utilized to create the illusion of a clear and direct form of communication. They are usually expressed with deliberate imprecision with the intention to mislead the listeners or readers into believing data for which sources are not readily available to them. Tactics that are used include vague generalizations; the use of the passive voice; non-sequitur statements; extrapolating through the use of grammatical devices such as qualifiers and the subjunctive; using euphemisms (e.g., replacing "firing staff" with "streamlining the workforce"). The vagueness of a statement may disguise the validity or the aim of that statement. Generalizing by means of quantifiers, such as "many" or "better", as well as the passive voice ("it has been decided") conceal the full picture. -------------------------------- While it may be true that some of those in Guantanamo are "bathist sympathizers," the problem with the prison camp is the lack of due process. There are reports of some in the camps who have no connection to terrorism but were merely turned over to the US by Afghani farmers for the cash bounty. Source: www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8049868/In this country we try people with evidence, not emotions, not speculation. Condemning guantanamo prisoners into one group is an irrational, emotional response. The conduct of our government in Guantanamo Bay violates the Geneva convention, period. Some of the war supporters love to point out UN resolutions when it comes to Saddam, but when it comes to applying international law to the United States, ooooohhh that threatens our national sovreignty! Not saying I disagree, but the message the Bush Administration is sending to the world with Guantanamo is "We're above the law. Geneva doesn't apply to us." Source: baltimorechronicle.com/geneva_feb02.shtml |
|
|
|
Post by Mad Dog on Aug 4, 2008 18:59:05 GMT -5
Most if not all of our "victims" are Bathist Hussein sympathizers and insurgents and captured terrorists who nobody should have one ounce of sympathy for. Logical Fallacy: Weasel Words [/url][/quote] Weasel words or words of truth that you are trying to blow smoke over? |
|
|
|
Post by patfromportland on Aug 7, 2008 15:31:59 GMT -5
Heres a thought: nobody questioned during WWII when japan attacked us we not only went after japan but also nazi germany. During this decade Al Queda (sp?) attacks us and shortly after we go after Saddam, but its followed by hatred and criticism. Just a thought, not saying if I agree with the war, and this isnt really on topic but I just wanted to put it out there.
|
|
|
|
Post by plungerhand on Aug 7, 2008 15:51:53 GMT -5
Heres a thought: nobody questioned during WWII when japan attacked us we not only went after japan but also nazi germany. During this decade Al Queda (sp?) attacks us and shortly after we go after Saddam, but its followed by hatred and criticism. Just a thought, not saying if I agree with the war, and this isnt really on topic but I just wanted to put it out there. It was easier to fool a nation back then. A whole lot less media. Look at what the Nazi's did to the German people. They didn't know they were losing the war untill the Allies marched on Berlin! |
|
|
|
Post by Mad Dog on Aug 7, 2008 16:16:11 GMT -5
Heres a thought: nobody questioned during WWII when japan attacked us we not only went after japan but also nazi germany. During this decade Al Queda (sp?) attacks us and shortly after we go after Saddam, but its followed by hatred and criticism. Just a thought, not saying if I agree with the war, and this isnt really on topic but I just wanted to put it out there. It was easier to fool a nation back then. A whole lot less media. Look at what the Nazi's did to the German people. They didn't know they were losing the war untill the Allies marched on Berlin! You technically right saying it was easier to "fool a nation" back then, but in reality I don't think Franklin D. Roosevelt(d) was trying to fool anybody. As soon as Japan bombed Pearl Harbor everybody knew the drill. It may have taken a couple of months to actually declare war on Germany, but since Germany and Japan were Allies, it was only a matter of time before we were at war with Germany, and everyone except the staunchest pacifist knew it. I say that is pretty comparable with Afghanistan and Iraq. |
|
|
|
Post by plungerhand on Aug 7, 2008 16:19:08 GMT -5
It was easier to fool a nation back then. A whole lot less media. Look at what the Nazi's did to the German people. They didn't know they were losing the war untill the Allies marched on Berlin! You technically right saying it was easier to "fool a nation" back then, but in reality I don't think Franklin D. Roosevelt(d) was trying to fool anybody. As soon as Japan bombed Pearl Harbor everybody knew the drill. It may have taken a couple of months to actually declare war on Germany, but since Germany and Japan were Allies, it was only a matter of time before we were at war with Germany, and everyone except the staunchest pacifist knew it. I say that is pretty comparable with Afghanistan and Iraq. That's not what I said. People were less informed about current events then, than they are now. The German people were told what to think and read. The Gov controled all media. It wasn't like that here(USA) |
|
|
|
Post by patfromportland on Aug 7, 2008 16:28:34 GMT -5
You technically right saying it was easier to "fool a nation" back then, but in reality I don't think Franklin D. Roosevelt(d) was trying to fool anybody. As soon as Japan bombed Pearl Harbor everybody knew the drill. It may have taken a couple of months to actually declare war on Germany, but since Germany and Japan were Allies, it was only a matter of time before we were at war with Germany, and everyone except the staunchest pacifist knew it. I say that is pretty comparable with Afghanistan and Iraq. That's not what I said. People were less informed about current events then, than they are now. Some people would say that people are less informed now because of the mass media liberal biase, but thats a whole other topic. |
|
