BF2S Forums World War III Announced

Torin wrote:

While you see the situation in Iraq as planting the seed of freedom, I see it as planting the seed of dissention for all those in the middle east that hate the US. You see this as saving the Iraqi people and hopefully allowing for the spread of democracy through the reason, I see this as taunting the terrorists and provoking them to unite against us. Only time will tell whether democracy is successful in Iraq, whether the government being created will be able to control the nation and all the insurgent elements we drew into it. However, time has already shown the damage we have caused, and the enormous catalyst for terrorism that we have been. We already have evidence and records of all we have done to promote terrorism, to fuel the fire, to expand the war between Christianity and Islam. As of now, we have not reached the long-term positive goals that people say will transform the middle east, but we have proven how much damage we can cause with our mere presence.

I never suggested to tuck and run, I merely question the reasons for ever getting into this situation to begin with. Had we not started a war in Iraq, we wouldn't need to spend hundreds of millions, wouldn't need to tuck and run. But we did, and here we are.

I fully understand what your are saying. Nobody knows for sure what the future will bring. Anyone can see anything the way they want. It's more or less I hope i suppose. Attitude is everything. It is the only thing we have full control over. Perhaps because I pray and hope for the best i do in fact have that vision of the future.

lowing wrote:

sorry unorginalnuttah..........disagreeing with you on the meaning of anything is NOT a mis-quote.

You still don't get it.  And you still won't drop it.

Oh wait, you're trying to be sarcastic by giving an example of a misquote: "disagreeing with you on the meaning of anything is NOT a mis-quote. "  Hmmm, that's a misquote because I didn't say that disagreeing with me on the meaning of anything is a misquote.

I said that saying I said something that I didn't is a mis-quote, and you are doing that again within that very sentence, I can see that you understand the practice of misquoting very well.  Now time to get a grip on the theory and you might notice when you do it.  I'm sick of you squirming, bring half facts, and your inability to understand why or when many of your arguments hold no water; your 'evidence' of the world agreeing with 'INTEL' on Iraq was just as flawed as your argument with me now.  Maybe you don't realise that false representation in direct and indirect quoting can still be called misquoting.

Last edited by UnOriginalNuttah (2006-05-16 04:39:32)

spacebandit72 wrote:

well, my opinion... our country (U.S.) is so screwed up. I support Bush for my own reasons.
Think for one moment about what he has to do. 911 happens... the people want something done. What does he do? Everyone (Dem&Rep) decided to go to Iraq. This is not something you can retract after a month of being there.
Bush is in a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation.
If he just left the whole thing alone... people would be pissed.
I'm not saying war is good or that Bush is the best guy for the job. I'm stating the facts.

Imagine what might happen if the U.S. found a way to expedite the process of leaving Iraq safley and we decide to just leave the middle east alone.
That would give any terrorists free reign and time to build forces. A bit paranoid? maby but if and when another terrorist attack happens in the U.S. It will always be Bush's fault.

Before I get any negative karma... I want it to be very clear... I do not like either party. They are all corrupt and liars! I support Bush because he is in office and has a crappy job weeding through all the bullshit. I'm sure he never woke up in the morning thinking "I think I'll start wwIII and kill thousands of my own people for the fun of it."

sorry fo going on. bit off topic my bad.

Your citing his reasoning for stirring (public) support for the war in Iraq is done so in an misconceived manner. The war in Afghanistan was the one marked as an action of retaliation. IMHO, venturing into Iraq was the consummation of completely unrelated bullshit - as seen through the confusion of 9/11's aftermath. If you can find the article (from the US Congress) listing the reasons for beginning this war, you can see it's all pretty irrelevant to the justification largely hinged onto Bush's motivational speeches. Considering both wars, there have been analysts producing quite the number of reports leaning towards the affluent seeking to gain...greater affluence. I don't think we can ever know with such certainty whether or not these analysts are correct.

Sinseewee,
Xietsu

(P.S. Take for example [in another context generally irrelevant to this thread's actual topic] the author of this thread, and you will understand how easily messages can be misunderstood so easily. I don't support George W. Bush, but you can see so simply how this person has created this thread in an attempt to scoff at another of this president's actions - one of which doesn't deserve such. Are there other decisions of his that do? Surely so. But honestly, kinda' foolhardy to establish a footing against someone who makes mistakes and then have trouble in even your attempts to demark their failings.)

Last edited by Xietsu (2006-05-16 06:49:38)

Xietsu wrote:

(P.S. Take for example [in another context generally irrelevant to this thread's actual topic] the author of this thread, and you will understand how easily messages can be misunderstood so easily. I don't support George W. Bush, but you can see so simply how this person has created this thread in an attempt to scoff at another of this president's actions - one of which doesn't deserve such. Are there other decisions of his that do? Surely so.

You can see that can you?  I started this thread because I wanted to see how many people would jump up and agree with Bush (it was quite a few) and how many people would disagree, and then what arguments each side would present to support their views.  You know, a discussion?

It's funny how you question my motives, when I have every right to debate whether we are in world war, and if (as I believe) we aren't what the best way to prevent war is (I said UN, the reason it was established in the first place).  Another World War will affect me, my family, my children, their children and so on, and be another permanent blight on history.  You would think that the so-called leaders of the free world would understand why using that terminology could be considered quite insensitive.... well, many people would, but not you it seems.

Xietsu wrote:

But honestly, kinda' foolhardy to establish a footing against someone who makes mistakes and then have trouble in even your attempts to demark their failings.)

Maybe the reason that I've 'had trouble in my attempts to demark his failings' is because Duyba and his massive cockups wasn't the subject of the thread.  There had been a few WWIII comments in other threads, I saw the news article, I started the thread.  I didn't start it to debate whether a Bush is 1 or 2 inches from an arsehole, but the find out whether or not people on these forums considered this to be WWIII, and have some reasoned debate on the issues surrounding the subject.  And I am glad that such a range of issues has been brought into it, even if some people have trouble following the pace or the reasons that discussion digresses in the first place.

Anyway, thanks for coming on to the thread and trying to tell me why I started it.  And sorry to hear your pessimistic view that the rich may or may not be using war to gain greater affluence, but there's nothing we can do to prove it or stop them anyway.

Xietsu wrote:

By pointing out how you wanted see how many people would "jump up and agree with Bush", you're merely supporting that this was an effort of yours to scoff at his stance.

If you say so.  The actual truth is that some people had been throwing the phrase WWIII around in other threads (go on and do a search if you don't believe me).  I saw the article, and used it as the basis of a new thread.  Simple as that. 

Xietsu wrote:

Conceptually, affects are so variable and so subjective. To say that a war isn't a World war until it affects you, your family, and generations to come, is so shortsighted. By that notion, all wars are "World" wars. If you already have a preconceived, hardlined view on what makes a World War a World War (as you have just fleshed out), then having this discussion is meaningless.

Google "define:world war".  Why are the preconceptions I get from dictionaries and history relevent anyway? For me this is a chance to explore why other people think this is WWIII.  Even if everyone walks away with exactly the same views they started with, it is still worth discussion to try and gain better understanding.

Xietsu wrote:

I'm also curious as to how a view is pessimistic when such flexibility is provided. You clearly show to me that you understand that I feel that the wealthy may have had a hand in the current situation (involving the US and a select group of Middle Eastern countries), but then you preface such comprehension with miscomprehension. That's like saying if you believe that armageddon may or may not come, that you are a pessimist. When in reality, it's being a realist given the circumstances (not so with my analogy, but applicable in this actual case [in the case of my armageddon analogy, it would be foolhardy to believe that armageddon won't come - we all know stars explode]).

For Rizzle (My Pizzles),
Xietsu

I was merely contrasting it to the ever optimistic view I hold that eventually the truth will be known about true motives behind many of the current events today and that humanity will learn enough from it's past to eliminate war.  Saying "I don't think we can ever know with such certainty whether or not these analysts are correct" sounds quite pessimistic to me, but that is just my opinion.  You stated your beliefs on the motives and feelings behind my words, why act shocked if I do the same?

wow i got -1 karma from 2 ppl on this post, damn im on a roll. Honestly tho if your helo chrashes and ppl throw shit at you When YOUR trying to HELP them, that just boggles my mind. so who ever gave me the -1 if i offended you im sorry. no hard feelings

UnOriginalNuttah wrote:

I started this thread because I wanted to see how many people would jump up and agree with Bush

The major point seems to be that you got the ( WWIII ) quote entirely out of context.
It doesn't require me to take the next step and " agree or disagree ".

Can we hook you two guys up to a Generator ? where do you get the Energy ? ah to be young again.

lowing wrote:

I never quoted you and I never said you "said" a thing......you make statements and I counter them. I make statements and you ignore them or deflect them off in another direction. you have done this on many posts.

Look, I can't be bothered to cater to your delusions any more.  You have your story, I have mine.

lowing wrote:

Kinda like the post when I cornered you on my observation that you love to protest everything and are very out spoken on allot of issues, yet you don't defend your right your and your freedom to do so. Everyone else does it for you. You completely ignored the post twice. Now is your chance to explain this if you can. But please don't try and explain yourself like Marconius does and make personal attacks on me and call me names. Try responding to the questions or comments for a change.

But I did respond, and I probably have more answers to this question than you.  There is no point to having the right to free speech if no-one uses it.  If no-one uses it there is no way to know if it exists.  Defending free speech is more than just agreeing with the official version of how it must be defended.  It's funny that you think war can save free speech from a threat from external sources, when the reality is the suppression of statement of thought is coming from within.  Feel free to keep on believing that the danger is from whoever the government tells you is the danger, I'll keep believing it's from sources closer to home.  You think I'm not defending free speech, I think I am.  Now drop it.  And go and read up on the work of the EFF if you want to find out more on the real threat.  This page might be a good starting point: http://www.eff.org/Censorship/Censorware/

lowing wrote:

Horseman 77 wrote:

Can we hook you two guys up to a Generator ? where do you get the Energy ? ah to be young again.

LMAO.....notice it being ignored again.....?????

Yeah, whatever. I've got a wife, a life, and I'm in the middle of my finals on top of all the other work I do to pay the bills, and I couldn't give a flying fuck if you think that I'm ignoring you.

Why does it bother you so much?  Because you think ignoring your unfounded allegations makes them true? Because you think if you tell me I'm wrong often enough and spout the same tire old nonsense I'll change my mind? Sorry, but it will take more than some recycled old rubbish I've heard a thousand times before to change my mind about most of the issues which are important to me.

Gotta run, doing a final year project presentation in half an hour.

^^^ Last Word Addict

UnOriginalNuttah wrote:

^^^ Last Word Addict

Nope not at all............I would love for you to have the last word if you would plainly address, and justify your attitude as to how you can be all for protesting and civil disobedience, but refuse to defend your right and freedom to do it, or acknowledge that it needs defending. Why do you let others defend it for you, then complain about how it is done?...... Stop dancing and answer, once and for all, the damn question.

I have to tell you both, I got lost somewhere in between. What exactly are you two arguing about ?

Wasn't this supposed to be about the upcoming WWIII ?