Something Political

[BigDMcGee 3,352]

I am not trying to be an ass, but the more you talk the more you just show yourself to not really actually know anything. And Big D, RAC, WTF? I take a nap and you guys start really getting it on. Can't a guy get some sleep? I sort of enjoy thinking about both sides of the issue in terms of fighting styles, but really D it's a little insane to take what we do and try to paint it as the same even if we were to just pretend that religion is the real issue, which it isn't. As it is leaders that be do have to try and reconcile there religous beliefs(they can't, Jesus clearly was not for war) yet even in that they have a country and most importantly a way of life to protect, so religion must take a back seat for now, and humankind must take the forefront. The people that are the true target hate mankind... any mankind that does not conform to what they believe, they hate. The difference is this. When the occupation takes place, christian leaders will be 100% behind saying,"Hey,practice your religion, enjoy" whereas if the oppostion wins they will put a sword to your head and say,"Practice our religion, or you will die. You got 10 seconds." It's really that simple. I remember when this all first started, I thought Bush sounded like and idiot, freedom this, freedom that,I just didn't get it. Now, after watching the events of the last few years,I get it. Freedom is at stake, and you brought something up early, the first rule of war. Fight it at somebody elses house.

Um, I wasn't suggesting our goals were the same, I'm just saying the technques used in a war to achieve those goals don't matter. The goals are THE most important part of the whole thing, and the goal of forcing me to live under islamic law is one I'm throughly against, and why I don't have a problem with killing radical muslims, because the world they'd have me live in would be a type of hell for me.

[BigDMcGee 3,352]

thanks a lot Chrozzo.

no fcking shit.. this was exactly the debate I didn't want to get into, 'cause Ive been in it about 10 times prior in this board, and it's really a boring and pointless one, as all of us have fck all's amount of influence on foreign policy..

[Pot Odds RAC 23]

I am not trying to be an ass, but the more you talk the more you just show yourself to not really actually know anything. And Big D, RAC, WTF? I take a nap and you guys start really getting it on. Can't a guy get some sleep? I sort of enjoy thinking about both sides of the issue in terms of fighting styles, but really D it's a little insane to take what we do and try to paint it as the same even if we were to just pretend that religion is the real issue, which it isn't. As it is leaders that be do have to try and reconcile there religous beliefs(they can't, Jesus clearly was not for war) yet even in that they have a country and most importantly a way of life to protect, so religion must take a back seat for now, and humankind must take the forefront. The people that are the true target hate mankind... any mankind that does not conform to what they believe, they hate. The difference is this. When the occupation takes place, christian leaders will be 100% behind saying,"Hey,practice your religion, enjoy" whereas if the oppostion wins they will put a sword to your head and say,"Practice our religion, or you will die. You got 10 seconds." It's really that simple. I remember when this all first started, I thought Bush sounded like and idiot, freedom this, freedom that,I just didn't get it. Now, after watching the events of the last few years,I get it. Freedom is at stake, and you brought something up early, the first rule of war. Fight it at somebody elses house.

Oh, so now you're going to come along and try and be all "rational" and stuff?

[Pot Odds RAC 23]

no fcking shit.. this was exactly the debate I didn't want to get into, 'cause Ive been in it about 10 times prior in this board, and it's really a boring and pointless one, as all of us have fck all's amount of influence on foreign policy..

I apologize for pushing your buttons. I could have handled it better, but choose not to.

[Loismustdie 0]

Um, I wasn't suggesting our goals were the same, I'm just saying the technques used in a war to achieve those goals don't matter. The goals are THE most important part of the whole thing, and the goal of forcing me to live under islamic law is one I'm throughly against, and why I don't have a problem with killing radical muslims, because the world they'd have me live in would be a type of hell for me.

Got you. To reiterate what Yorke said and something I agree with you on is choice number 2 would be great, if we could get the left to just shut up and let these guys do what they do. Covert operations,CIA, let them do what they do and kill bad people and most of all no one has to know. No disclosure to the american people, just keep us in the dark. Educated civilian oversight would be good.

[Loismustdie 0]

Oh, so now you're going to come along and try and be all "rational" and stuff?

Like I said,I took a nap.

[BigDMcGee 3,352]

Got you. To reiterate what Yorke said and something I agree with you on is choice number 2 would be great, if we could get the left to just shut up and let these guys do what they do. Covert operations,CIA, let them do what they do and kill bad people and most of all no one has to know. No disclosure to the american people, just keep us in the dark. Educated civilian oversight would be good.

The problem I have with option number to is the expansion of powers of our intelligence agencies starts the slippery slope. Perhaps we do need to give up some of our rights and protections in order to be safe, but we must be ever vigilant against our government turning into a police state. My fear of living under a religious dictatorship is only matched by my fear of living under a totalitarian, 1984 police state. What is the point of fighting one if we become the other, freedom dies either way. I'm not suggesting, btw, that we've become that police state or are about to become it any time soon, I just think we need to be vigilant against it. That' being said, what the public doesn't know, won't hurt it.. if they want to black opps their way into assassinating members of the saudi royal family that fund terrorists, my only request is they not get caught.

[BigDMcGee 3,352]

I apologize for pushing your buttons. I could have handled it better, but choose not to.

accepted.

[chrozzo 19]

i make the greatest threads of alltimeweeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

[Balloon guy 158]

You know what's really bad? Bush might go down as one of the greatest just for simply sticking with a plan and not backing down. Something as simple as not giving up will win him a place in history as a key figure in the fight against terrorism, and by all accounts dude is a complete id. This is a concept we teach 9 year olds, don't give up, stick to it-- and it puts him in position for greatness. That's fascinating to me.

Might?I'll lay odds

[navybuttons 15]

The problem is he didn't "steal" the presidency, and he didn't start an "unfounded" war.

maybe not. however, i agree w/ coes that he will probably be viewed this way by history.

Those are sound clip mantras repeated by a liberal media trying to politicize the war.

that's ridiculous. to discard someone's views because they are also the same views of the owners of media companies is silly.

You haven't been able to come up with any factual basis for your views.

this is silly too. you get that there's no right and wrong answer? one person looks at the hiroshima and thinks it was a very necessary action, the other looks at it as the worst travesty in the history of humans. there are no facts which support one side or the other. ex: crime drops between 1992 and 1998.republicans say it's because of law enforcement, the passing of the cocaine epidemic, and economic growth.democrats say it's because of clinton's economics and his bill passing.while you might use 9/11 as a reason to invade iraq others use it to show why we shouldn't.dude there are no rules.also, i'm just gonna use posts in this thread to preach my nihilist postmodern bullshit.

[Loismustdie 0]

Might?I'll lay odds

That's why it's fascinating to me. It seems so simple- invades Iraq, takes down bad guy, stays in Iraq to try and build democratic society while bad guys try and stop the process. Meanwhile, naysayers at home scream for years that it can't be done,some go as far- and these are people in high places- to announce that the war is lost, we have lost,they have tried every tactic to sabotage this war in the minds of the public and the dude just keeps his convictions and goes with it. Then,when the word starts getting out that things are going well, progress has been made, silence. A peep here and there, but pretty much silence. That's awesome to me. Of course the silence is just the part where the opposition tries to spin it to where they had a hand in this, Bush couldn't have done this without them. He did, he stuck by the soldiers and the generals and the plan and that goes miles for morale. Absolute miles- it's what leaders do. Yet some people are still dumb enough to think that his legacy will be he stole the presidency. I'm sorry to be so blunt, but how ****ing stupid is that?

[chrozzo 19]

That's why it's fascinating to me. It seems so simple- invades Iraq, takes down bad guy, stays in Iraq to try and build democratic society while bad guys try and stop the process. Meanwhile, naysayers at home scream for years that it can't be done,some go as far- and these are people in high places- to announce that the war is lost, we have lost,they have tried every tactic to sabotage this war in the minds of the public and the dude just keeps his convictions and goes with it. Then,when the word starts getting out that things are going well, progress has been made, silence. A peep here and there, but pretty much silence. That's awesome to me. Of course the silence is just the part where the opposition tries to spin it to where they had a hand in this, Bush couldn't have done this without them. He did, he stuck by the soldiers and the generals and the plan and that goes miles for morale. Absolute miles- it's what leaders do. Yet some people are still dumb enough to think that his legacy will be he stole the presidency. I'm sorry to be so blunt, but how ****ing stupid is that?

lol(my last post in this thread, i dont agree with you, and it ends at that..take care)

[navybuttons 15]

That's why it's fascinating to me. It seems so simple- invades Iraq.

based on false intelligence. i think pretty obviously bush is not to blame for this. i don't think there's some mastermind plan to lie to the american people. i think it was a simple accident of false intelligence. obviously it should never happen, but we're human and i understand that. although, it is somewhat disheartening that my country makes mistakes upon which we go to war. i like to be naive.

takes down bad guy

you're the judge of who's bad?

stays in Iraq to try and build democratic society while bad guys try and stop the process.

you say this like it's an inherent truth that democracy is good. also, why do you assume the insurgents are bad people? they fight for their country and what they believe is right, the same way you or i would do.

to announce that the war is lost, we have lost,they have tried every tactic to sabotage this war in the minds of the public and the dude just keeps his convictions and goes with it. Then,when the word starts getting out that things are going well, progress has been made, silence.

the progress on the war and it's success are still up to debate. there are things that are going well and there are things which could be going a lot better.

Of course the silence is just the part where the opposition tries to spin it to where they had a hand in this

it's called politics. both sides are guilty of it. now i'm not being naive.

He did, he stuck by the soldiers and the generals.

also too, he stuck by himself.

Yet some people are still dumb enough to think that his legacy will be he stole the presidency. I'm sorry to be so blunt, but how ****ing stupid is that?

no more stupid than it is to agree w/ everything the bush administration does. i think of myself as very moderate. of course liberals would think i'm too conservative and vise versa. one of the ways i maintain being a moderate is that i don't care. really, i hate politics and rarely follow it. in summation, i'm your average uniformed 20-something. do you disagree that this makes me more qualified to judge on how bush will be remembered by history? or do you think someone like yourself (who is obviously very pro bush) can give an opinion on how he is generally perceived?

[Zeatrix 0]

I'm sure this debate is strictly for how Americans will view Bush in 10-20 years.Just thought I'd add that in many other parts of the world he WILL be seen as the warmongering anti-environment person some in the states think.But I know you don't care about what the rest of the world thinks, so nevermind

[navybuttons 15]

Just thought I'd add that in many other parts of the world he WILL be seen as the warmongering anti-environment person some in the states think.

and in many others he may be seen as a great president.it's possible.

[coesillian 0]

As I said earlier, I'll stick with the facts on the assessment of results in Iraq: "In a matter of WEEKS under Bush's leadership we toppled a dangerous dictator who had killed tens of thousands of his own people, was a threat to the region, and continually defied UN Sanctions. We defeated an army that at one time was the region's strongest, best trained, and weaponed. In doing so we limited civilian casualties and collateral damage to a minimum. We also limited multi national coalition casualties to an amazingly low number. We set up a new Democracy and gave people a taste of freedom for the first time in their lives helping them hold free elections and continue to help them stabilize and rebuild. All with the (nearly) unanimous support of both houses of Congress a strong international coalition and UN sanctions"

k pots odd you seemed to need to post this twice but your way in left field.

We defeated an army that at one time was the region's strongest, best trained, and weaponed

need I remind you who made Iraq so powerful in the first place, Bush senior.

We also limited multi national coalition casualties to an amazingly low number

well LLY responded to this very well the first time you posted it

Your problem is that you're not counting the years of insurgency, bombings, and terrorism as a byproduct of the war. You can't simply say that we limited civilian casualties during the few days or so it took us to decimate the republican guard and not count the years of civilian casualties that took place after that. So, don't be too proud of the fact that we "won the war" quickly. What is taking place now still counts as a ramification of the war even if we're not currently fighting the republican guard.

All with the (nearly) unanimous support of both houses of Congress a strong international coalition and UN sanctions"

The UN was against the US invasion of Iraq and the International coalition without the US would have been unable to open a can or peanuts. Your assessment of Iraq is way off.

[erac22 0]

We can't smoke cigarettes in bars anymore and you guys are focused on some silly war. GET YOUR PRIORITIES STRAIGHT!!! I guess if America is the standard of freedom, and we're trying to promote freedom in the Middle East, making us less free has the same effect as making them more free. BRILLIANT!

[BigDMcGee 3,352]

We can't smoke cigarettes in bars anymore and you guys are focused on some silly war. GET YOUR PRIORITIES STRAIGHT!!! I guess if America is the standard of freedom, and we're trying to promote freedom in the Middle East, making us less free has the same effect as making them more free. BRILLIANT!

LOL I hope this is missing a SW.

[erac22 0]

LOL I hope this is missing a SW.

sw/2, which means it's half sarcastic, half utter disgust at the direction of domestic policy on both the state and federal level. (i.e. the UIGA, heard of it? ) I choose not to really even think about the war anymore, as it just seems cartoonish at this point. Unless there's a draft (at which point I will most certainly dodge) I will continue to ignore the war and focus my political energy (which is little to begin with) on securing/regaining my own freedoms.

[Pot Odds RAC 23]

need I remind you who made Iraq so powerful in the first place, Bush senior.

The UN was against the US invasion of Iraq and the International coalition without the US would have been unable to open a can or peanuts. Your assessment of Iraq is way off.

ummmm......what?Seriously, if there is a point here, I am missing it.

you're not counting the years of insurgency, bombings, and terrorism as a byproduct of the war.

You're absolutely right, I'm not counting that, because it isn't a "byproduct of the war" and isn't the least bit relevant.You seem to want to revise history with your own narrow opinions instead of facts - good luck with that.

[navybuttons 15]

need I remind you who made Iraq so powerful in the first place, Bush senior.

that has nothing to do with anything being discussed. it is a whole other issue. is worth discussing? maybe. should the u.s. armament of iraq serve as an argument in this debate? i don't think so.

The UN was against the US invasion of Iraq and the International coalition without the US would have been unable to open a can or peanuts. Your assessment of Iraq is way off.

i also agree that the UN was against the invasion of iraq. by UN i mean security council. however, there were the country's own political and financial motives (namely france's and china's) which clearly weighed their decisions (as is the case with most conflicts). IMO the UN is the most worthless crap since crap crapped. it's only redeeming quality is UNICEF. the embezzlement scandal bothered me a lot personally (like seriously), and not i'm not even sure UNICEF can redeem the UN.

International coalition without the US would have been unable to open a can or peanuts.

the US was the spearhead. of course most of what the international coalition did would require US involvement and support. however the idea of an "international coalition" is really silly in my opinion. it's like an ugly head cheerleader with self esteem issues rigging the prom ballots even though she was gonna be queen anyway.

[navybuttons 15]

I'm not counting that, because it isn't a "byproduct of the war" and isn't the least bit relevant.

Yesterday Spc. Donald M. Young, 19, of Helena, Mont., Baghdad, Iraq, died of wounds suffered when an improvised explosive device detonated near his vehicle during combat operations Aug. 7 in Baghdad. He was assigned to the 1st Battalion, 5th Cavalry Regiment, 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 1st Cavalry Division, Fort Hood, Texas.you tell his mother he didn't die in this war and that her sacrifice isn't the least bit relevant to the issues of the US occupation in iraq?

You seem to want to revise history with your own narrow opinions instead of facts - good luck with that.

i think you're doing the exact same thing you just don't realize it.history isn't made of facts, it's made from perceptions and opinions.

[Pot Odds RAC 23]

Yesterday Spc. Donald M. Young, 19, of Helena, Mont., Baghdad, Iraq, died of wounds suffered when an improvised explosive device detonated near his vehicle during combat operations Aug. 7 in Baghdad. He was assigned to the 1st Battalion, 5th Cavalry Regiment, 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 1st Cavalry Division, Fort Hood, Texas.you tell his mother he didn't die in this war and that her sacrifice isn't the least bit relevant to the issues of the US occupation in iraq?

Demagogue much?...but that is what I get for speaking in absolutes. Yes - the casualties that continue to be incurred are not to be ignored. But they are not a "byproduct of the war" they are a byproduct of terrorist attacks, most often inflicted on unarmed civilians.

i think you're doing the exact same thing you just don't realize it.history isn't made of facts, it's made from perceptions and opinions.

You're right and I accept that, I'll just feel the need to fight as much as the "other side" to ensure that their "facts" aren't just shouted louder and more often and therefore turn into de facto FACTS (sans quotes).

[navybuttons 15]

Demagogue

i had to look that word up in a dictionary. you might want to too.

But they are not a "byproduct of the war" they are a byproduct of terrorist attacks, most often inflicted on unarmed civilians.

some might argue that those "terrorist" attacks are a byproduct of the war, and thus the...ever look up the word dictionary in the dictionary? (i use this to bring light to the fact that i'm beggining to, or already have, talked myself into a bottomless hole)have a great friday everyone.