Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6

 

2006-09-14 05:45:20
Lazzars
Member
+4|6645

motherdear wrote:

bullshit the us didn't get allowed to make a regime change in iraq because of that the mission in the first golf war was to stop the iraqs in kuwait and then push them back into iraq and get them to surrender.
exactly, try being the important word in my statment

motherdear wrote:

though if they had been given half a chance i guess that saddam would have been out in 92
and the latest war only proves this fact, we went it for "WMDs" and insted attempted to change the whole country to what we think is best for it

motherdear wrote:

secondly the us didn't even try to make a regime change in vietnam back in 1967 they defended a countrie that asked for help to defend them self againts another country
oh really? who asked? south vietnam? those guys were just puppets put there since the US needed an anti communist presence in south east asia

motherdear wrote:

think about it, if they hadn't helped them back then that would have been even worse and people would get a serious grudge against the us because of that they thought of them as selfish bastards that don't care about other people wven through they have the hardware and soldiers to help them.
if i remember the US did very little in the way of "helping" the people of vietnam by leveling most of their country and making vast tracks of land unfarmable

motherdear wrote:

so think about this stuff before you accuse the us of just invading other countries
i do, it helps with the justification


people don't hate america because they are solely impreialistic and hugly economicly selfish its partly because you guys always assume your actions are right even when your walking into a grey area. if you take on the role of "international peacekeepers" you have to stick to the rules, ie what are the laws for war and not go making up facts
2006-09-14 06:40:33
Vub
The Power of Two
+188|6492|Sydney, Australia
It's ironic how the US if forcefully imposing upon countries the values of freedom and democracy.
2006-09-14 06:41:14
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6579|SE London

KX500Racer wrote:

Geez, we got a greenie in the house here too!!!!  Global warming is a bunch of B.S.!!!  And Al Gore???? You gotta be kidding me.  I'm not the biggest fan of Bush but come on,  AL GORE????

Don't even get me started on the Wilderness Act.  I'm a die hard desert racer and I'm fed up with these tree-huggin' greenies shutting down riding areas.  Let people ENJOY the land.  Mother nature will take care of itself.
How anyone can call global warming a 'bunch of BS' is beyond me. It demonstrates such a complete level of ignorance on the subject that is really astonishing.

Maybe you should actually read something about global warming rather than dismissing it as irrelevant.

You could start here. Fleder presents a lot of interesting views about the causes of global warming - which is an undeniable reality. I don't agree with those views, but they are well thought out and well presented - unlike your ignorant ramblings.

Mother nature will take care of itself, that is not in doubt. Global warming presents no threat to the planet, which is quite resilient - it's people that global warming threatens, through drought and flooding primarily.
2006-09-14 11:01:24
IRONCHEF
Member
+385|6488|Northern California
COMMENTING ON ORIGINAL THREAD QUESTION:

First of all, the catchy slogan "Global War on Terror" is a total misnomer, and is not something that can be fought with weapons.  If someone has a virus, treating the symptoms will not cure the illness.  Likewise, a world with a religious/political disease cannot be cured by attacking countries or individuals.  The root of said religious/political warfare is ideology..or better yet, it's the learning of said principles that causes the disease.

Bush would do well to make ammends with those who oppose us.  But diplomacy is not his style, so that will never happen.  And yes, making ammends..showing a level of humility and effort to try to understand WHY someone flew airplanes into our buildings IS more important than simply avenging their deaths. 

People in this country, and few around the world actually think the 911 attacks were unprovoked and, dare I say, "undeserving."  But the truth is, our foreign policy (as stated as the reason by said 911 attackers) has driven them to do what they did.  The matter of attacking us on 911 has nothing to do with killing us because we believe in freedom and democracy...that's a total joke.  It has EVERYTHING to do with:

1) Supporting Israel since 1947 and sustaining that barbarous country with the means to inflict true terrorism on their Arab, Persian, and Asian neighbors.  Even using the UN to inflict terror on Israel's neighbors..specifically the Palestinians.

2) US Foreign Policy which stabs in the back those we once supported, exploits other countries or groups for political and financial gain, and punishes militarily or starves nations that oppose it.

So how do you win the WAR ON TERROR?  First, educate people that there is no such thing (see here).  Secondly, educate Americans as to why we've inherited this ongoing hatred and declarations of jihad.  Then work on actual diplomacy...stop playing games and saying "we'll recognize you as a government when you let women vote, or stop circumcizing your women.." and say, "we'll make peace, even though we will not trade with you until you act humanely towards your people."  Peace should not take priority AFTER politics, and peace should not be toyed around with.

An example of of how we should not toy with peace is how Condi Rice ignored Amedinejad's request for debate with Bush calling it "a distraction."  In reality, that is exactly the type of thing they should have jumped on..it's something that will create debate, dialogue, and possibly solutions.  If Bush and Amedinejad actually met in person, communicated clearly, and expressed themselves..there would at least be solid ground to work on.  If Bush took Amedinjad fishing in his freshly stocked lake in Crawford, maybe the two leaders could find some common ground with each other personally..Both are power hungry evil doers, surely they could find some common ground.  And this is how grown ups make peace. 

Anyway, there is no military victory for the war on terror, only making peace/friends with the enemies.  The day the Iranian soccer team stops calling us the Great Satan, is the day we have victory.  The day ordinary iraqis get to be heard, get to be compensated and apologized to for American wrongdoing is the day victory will occur.  The day Osama bin Laden comes out of his cave and decides to attack someone else is the day we'll have victory.  And yes, if peace is made, then prosecution should not occur.  In fact, I'd say that as long as Bush goes unpunished, so too should Osama bin Laden.  Both have killed innocents, both have done it based on twisted, evil ideology..only one has done 10x more killing (Bush) than the other.

Peace is Victory.
2006-09-14 12:32:55
Horseman 77
Banned
+160|6835

CameronPoe wrote:

I feel like introducing a fiery new topic....

With respect to this so called 'war on terror':
1) Can a battle against an abstract concept be 'won'?.
1a. There is nothing abstract about battle or being attacked. It is won, Not one more attack. Our Armed Forces have been successful in keeping us safe.

CameronPoe wrote:

2) What form will 'victory' take?.
2a. Past tense: It took this form. Attacks Dropped off to nothing. Over a period of five years, not one more attack occurs. Americans become so complacent in their security they bitch about the "inconvenience" of it.
The enemy is confined to hiding in caves, maybe detonating a bomb that kills their own people 2/3s of the time. " just like the die hard Nazis and Japanese did

CameronPoe wrote:

3) Can 'victory' be achieved at all?.
3a. Redundant question See 2a

CameronPoe wrote:

4) Is this 'war on terror' just rhetoric, serving as a convenient label for western nations actions abroad given that the handy pretext of the Cold War has been removed?.
4a. Now this I find abstract, I don't really know what you are trying to ask.

CameronPoe wrote:

5) How do you see 'victory' being achieved?.
5a. Redundant question See line 2a

CameronPoe wrote:

6) How long will this 'war on terror' take?.
6a The war is won. We are occupying the enemy's land like we did in Germany and Japan for eight years. One more year of occupation may be necessary, maybe less. If conservatives hold power, our enemies will get the message that the limp-wristed, asinine people they hear and see on TV are not a representation of Americas Will, determination, commitment and seriousness in her own well being.

If a Landslide election puts liberals back in power again, Forever. Either scenario American can handle easily.
Liberals do not make up our Armed Forces, our men and women in Uniform are informed and capable and know what to do.

CameronPoe wrote:

7) Who are 'the terrorists'?.
Why are you asking these questions? lol
7a. People who attack us, " Our enemies, enemy soldiers, patriots, insurgents ( add your own ).
Because of policies ( good or bad ) our country has put in place over the past sixty years.

CameronPoe wrote:

PS What do YOU define as 'terror'?.
Being scared, Steven Kings " The Shining ". I think what you mean to ask is how I define my enemies attacks. War, Armed protest, Violence (add your own). Our enemies are to smart to wear a uniform This allows us to call them what we like, even if we do give them all the same rights our own citizens have. We do not get a reciprocal agreement.



CameronPoe wrote:

Flame on.
Not necessary. I find you intelligent and insightful, your views are not always aliened with mine to a precise degree on this topic.
2006-09-14 12:44:41
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6579|SE London

Horseman 77 wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

I feel like introducing a fiery new topic....

With respect to this so called 'war on terror':
1) Can a battle against an abstract concept be 'won'?.
1a. There is nothing abstract about battle or being attacked. It is won, Not one more attack. Our Armed Forces have been successful in keeping us safe.

CameronPoe wrote:

2) What form will 'victory' take?.
2a. Past tense: It took this form. Attacks Dropped off to nothing. Over a period of five years, not one more attack occurs. Americans become so complacent in their security they bitch about the "inconvenience" of it.
The enemy is confined to hiding in caves, maybe detonating a bomb that kills their own people 2/3s of the time. " just like the die hard Nazis and Japanese did

CameronPoe wrote:

3) Can 'victory' be achieved at all?.
3a. Redundant question See 2a

CameronPoe wrote:

4) Is this 'war on terror' just rhetoric, serving as a convenient label for western nations actions abroad given that the handy pretext of the Cold War has been removed?.
4a. Now this I find abstract, I don't really know what you are trying to ask.

CameronPoe wrote:

5) How do you see 'victory' being achieved?.
5a. Redundant question See line 2a

CameronPoe wrote:

6) How long will this 'war on terror' take?.
6a The war is won. We are occupying the enemy's land like we did in Germany and Japan for eight years. One more year of occupation may be necessary, maybe less. If conservatives hold power, our enemies will get the message that the limp-wristed, asinine people they hear and see on TV are not a representation of Americas Will, determination, commitment and seriousness in her own well being.

If a Landslide election puts liberals back in power again, Forever. Either scenario American can handle easily.
Liberals do not make up our Armed Forces, our men and women in Uniform are informed and capable and know what to do.

CameronPoe wrote:

7) Who are 'the terrorists'?.
Why are you asking these questions? lol
7a. People who attack us, " Our enemies, enemy soldiers, patriots, insurgents ( add your own ).
Because of policies ( good or bad ) our country has put in place over the past sixty years.

CameronPoe wrote:

PS What do YOU define as 'terror'?.
Being scared, Steven Kings " The Shining ". I think what you mean to ask is how I define my enemies attacks. War, Armed protest, Violence (add your own). Our enemies are to smart to wear a uniform This allows us to call them what we like, even if we do give them all the same rights our own citizens have. We do not get a reciprocal agreement.



CameronPoe wrote:

Flame on.
Not necessary. I find you intelligent and insightful, your views are not always aliened with mine to a precise degree on this topic.
lol.

That post is a joke isn't it?

How can you claim the war on terror is won? How can you describe all enemies of the US as terrorists? It just doesn't make any sort of literal sense. You are using English words, but they don't seem to have the same meaning.

If this post is for real, then I think you really need to re-evaluate your understanding of what terrorism is and what a war on terror entails.
2006-09-14 12:47:28
King_County_Downy
shitfaced
+2,791|6595|Seattle

What ever happened to "The War on Drugs"? Aren't we still in that war? If so, who's winning?
Sober enough to know what I'm doing, drunk enough to really enjoy doing it
2006-09-14 12:47:54
IRONCHEF
Member
+385|6488|Northern California
Horseman, you astound me.  Please explain how we've acheived victory?  Is it because of lack of attacks that you decided we're victorious?  That's about as realistic a statement as saying tomorrow won't come because it's not midnight yet.

Further, how much do you think our enemies are laughing as we, the land of the free, who have in the course of 5 years have lost more civil and constitutional rights in one blow than we've ever lost....in the name of fighting a pretend war. 

How have we won if the person who declared war on us, who took responsibility for the 911 attacks is still out and about making videos, training and planning new attacks?  And even if he were killed, do you REALLY think it's over?  Do you really think we've won this made up war?

Fool.  You are a serious tool of the shit you watch and read.
2006-09-14 12:49:14
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6579|SE London

King_County_Downy wrote:

What ever happened to "The War on Drugs"? Aren't we still in that war? If so, who's winning?
War on drugs is a very similar example. A war that can't be won.

Could be in theory, but in practice it's not going to happen. Same with terrorism.
2006-09-14 13:19:14
Pug
UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate
+652|6539|Texas - Bigger than France

IRONCHEF wrote:

An example of of how we should not toy with peace is how Condi Rice ignored Amedinejad's request for debate with Bush calling it "a distraction."  In reality, that is exactly the type of thing they should have jumped on..it's something that will create debate, dialogue, and possibly solutions.  If Bush and Amedinejad actually met in person, communicated clearly, and expressed themselves..there would at least be solid ground to work on.  If Bush took Amedinjad fishing in his freshly stocked lake in Crawford, maybe the two leaders could find some common ground with each other personally..Both are power hungry evil doers, surely they could find some common ground.  And this is how grown ups make peace.
I'm not arguing about your post - I think it's a well thought out opinion.  I agree/disagree with a few points...but they've been argued ad naseum.

But I'd like to single out the excerpt above.  It was to my understanding that the US has had months (years?) of diplomacy with Iran re: nuclear enrichment.  Iran also has had many negotiations with other nations as well.  In fact currently there is a negotiation occurring re: nuclear enrichment.  Linky: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14798504/

What I don't get here, is that the council that is currently meeting with Iran is composed of six nations.  I believe that after years of negotiations on this topic - nuclear enrichment - and the rejection of incentive packages is plenty of diplomacy.  So now it's up to the UN to work through this.

So I ask you this:
Do you feel that a debate with Bush will increase or decrease the chances of the current diplomatic actions being acceptable to both sides?

Is "jumping" on the debate going to bring up anything new after years of unsuccessful negotiations?

Why just Bush?  Why not the rest of the countries on the UN committee as well?

I believe a debate would derail future negotiations.  I think Amedinjad knows this.  It was a ploy...I think you know that as well. 

So "jumping on the opportunity" - if you mean diplomacy - US has failed either by putting too many "you must do" or "you must not" - or US has failed because Iran simply doesn't want to reach a deal.  And if you are talking about "jumping", I did a search - there's stories back to 2004 - "Iran rejects nuclear enrichment talks".  So what HASN'T been debated by now?
2006-09-14 13:56:53
Horseman 77
Banned
+160|6835

Horseman 77 wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

I feel like introducing a fiery new topic....

With respect to this so called 'war on terror':
1) Can a battle against an abstract concept be 'won'?.
1a. There is nothing abstract about battle or being attacked. It is won, Not one more attack. Our Armed Forces have been successful in keeping us safe.

CameronPoe wrote:

2) What form will 'victory' take?.
2a. Past tense: It took this form. Attacks Dropped off to nothing. Over a period of five years, not one more attack occurs. Americans become so complacent in their security they bitch about the "inconvenience" of it.
The enemy is confined to hiding in caves, maybe detonating a bomb that kills their own people 2/3s of the time. " just like the die hard Nazis and Japanese did

CameronPoe wrote:

3) Can 'victory' be achieved at all?.
3a. Redundant question See 2a

CameronPoe wrote:

4) Is this 'war on terror' just rhetoric, serving as a convenient label for western nations actions abroad given that the handy pretext of the Cold War has been removed?.
4a. Now this I find abstract, I don't really know what you are trying to ask.

CameronPoe wrote:

5) How do you see 'victory' being achieved?.
5a. Redundant question See line 2a

CameronPoe wrote:

6) How long will this 'war on terror' take?.
6a The war is won. We are occupying the enemy's land like we did in Germany and Japan for eight years. One more year of occupation may be necessary, maybe less. If conservatives hold power, our enemies will get the message that the limp-wristed, asinine people they hear and see on TV are not a representation of Americas Will, determination, commitment and seriousness in her own well being.

If a Landslide election puts liberals back in power again, Forever. Either scenario American can handle easily.
Liberals do not make up our Armed Forces, our men and women in Uniform are informed and capable and know what to do.

CameronPoe wrote:

7) Who are 'the terrorists'?.
Why are you asking these questions? lol
7a. People who attack us, " Our enemies, enemy soldiers, patriots, insurgents ( add your own ).
Because of policies ( good or bad ) our country has put in place over the past sixty years.

CameronPoe wrote:

PS What do YOU define as 'terror'?.
Being scared, Steven Kings " The Shining ". I think what you mean to ask is how I define my enemies attacks. War, Armed protest, Violence (add your own). Our enemies are to smart to wear a uniform This allows us to call them what we like, even if we do give them all the same rights our own citizens have. We do not get a reciprocal agreement.



CameronPoe wrote:

Flame on.
Not necessary. I find you intelligent and insightful, your views are not always aliened with mine to a precise degree on this topic.

Bertster7 wrote:

lol.
That post is a joke isn't it? .
No. That remark is an unwarranted insult isn't it?
Is that what passes for an informed argument with your peers?
It would produce something different in my City, is it because you are not in it that you can behave like that?

Bertster7 wrote:

How can you claim the war on terror is won?.
Read 2a.

Bertster7 wrote:

How can you describe all enemies of the US as terrorists?.
I didn't.

Bertster7 wrote:

It just doesn't make any sort of literal sense. You are using English words, but they don't seem to have the same meaning..
Than re-read carefully

Bertster7 wrote:

If this post is for real, then I think you really need to re-evaluate your understanding of what terrorism is and what a war on terror entails.
I think I answered every question with a brief ( clear cut ) explanation. If you bought your own opinion, insights or facts to the argument, I don't see them or any rebuttal for that matter. Just your observation that I am wrong.

Rather than giving me a ( homework assignment ) which you have yet to prove you are qualified to do.
Perhaps you ought to make the basis for you observations known.

I do not attempt to curry favor with my opinion nor do I feel the need to parrot others for approval. Everyone would do well to bring their own thoughts to the argument. No insults are needed.

Last edited by Horseman 77 (2006-09-14 13:58:57)

2006-09-14 14:19:53
IRONCHEF
Member
+385|6488|Northern California
Pug,

Well, to begin with, I don't understand WHY it's a problem that Iran wants nukes..if they truly are making weapons with it (and yes, it's impossible to know if they are based on UN/US reports sayings so in light of obvious propaganda efforts in almost every sphere of influence known to man).  Seriously, what arrogance and absolute recklessness is it to tell one country they can or can't develop nuclear fuel and weaponry.  What makes us so righteous to think only people "like us" can have nukes?  What about India and Pakistan?  Is it because we are in financial bed with India that it's ok?  Is it because Musharraf was bribed to be our friend that we didn't raise stink over them developing nukes?  Why then was Iran singled out, or North Korea for that matter?  Oh, because they're our enemies.....  How fucking gay is that?  "We can't make friends with them so let's bully them into submission."  Truly the acts of a cowardly, inept nation.

So on to your post, which I appreciate for it's objectable content and your mature and tactful nature.

Yes, there's been some dialogue, negotiations, and "diplomacy."  But when you corner one of the participants in a debate, give them ultimatums and threats, it's hardly a diplomatic scenario.  Bush and Ahmedinejad having 1 on 1 talks together, or fishing together, or dueling each other with pistols for the right to proceed...would be fruitful.  I'm not saying that any of the suggestions I've made would ever happen, but they're sure possible.

The long and short of it is...Iran will (if not already) possess nuclear weapons.  We (the world) should move on towards what to do next...  And no, hostilities, sanctions, and other forms of oppression are not the answer..those things are what will cause private sales to a new age of "suicide bombers" that the world has never seen.  Israel and major US cities would disappear.  So NO to sanctions, oppression, "watchdogs", etc.  YES to general dialogue.  "What's your favorite color?"  "How about a US/Iran soccer challenge?"  "How about opening your country to US time shares to generate tourist revenues?"  "How about a McDonalds?" (just kidding)  This is the kind of thing that should have taken place BEFORE the nuclear age hit Iran.  When you call them an Axis of Evil member..hell yes they're gonna hasten their nuclear development! lol
2006-09-14 14:31:56
Pug
UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate
+652|6539|Texas - Bigger than France

IRONCHEF wrote:

Pug,

Well, to begin with, I don't understand WHY it's a problem that Iran wants nukes..if they truly are making weapons with it (and yes, it's impossible to know if they are based on UN/US reports sayings so in light of obvious propaganda efforts in almost every sphere of influence known to man).  Seriously, what arrogance and absolute recklessness is it to tell one country they can or can't develop nuclear fuel and weaponry.  What makes us so righteous to think only people "like us" can have nukes?  What about India and Pakistan?  Is it because we are in financial bed with India that it's ok?  Is it because Musharraf was bribed to be our friend that we didn't raise stink over them developing nukes?  Why then was Iran singled out, or North Korea for that matter?  Oh, because they're our enemies.....  How fucking gay is that?  "We can't make friends with them so let's bully them into submission."  Truly the acts of a cowardly, inept nation.

So on to your post, which I appreciate for it's objectable content and your mature and tactful nature.

Yes, there's been some dialogue, negotiations, and "diplomacy."  But when you corner one of the participants in a debate, give them ultimatums and threats, it's hardly a diplomatic scenario.  Bush and Ahmedinejad having 1 on 1 talks together, or fishing together, or dueling each other with pistols for the right to proceed...would be fruitful.  I'm not saying that any of the suggestions I've made would ever happen, but they're sure possible.

The long and short of it is...Iran will (if not already) possess nuclear weapons.  We (the world) should move on towards what to do next...  And no, hostilities, sanctions, and other forms of oppression are not the answer..those things are what will cause private sales to a new age of "suicide bombers" that the world has never seen.  Israel and major US cities would disappear.  So NO to sanctions, oppression, "watchdogs", etc.  YES to general dialogue.  "What's your favorite color?"  "How about a US/Iran soccer challenge?"  "How about opening your country to US time shares to generate tourist revenues?"  "How about a McDonalds?" (just kidding)  This is the kind of thing that should have taken place BEFORE the nuclear age hit Iran.  When you call them an Axis of Evil member..hell yes they're gonna hasten their nuclear development! lol
I have to agree with you there as well - I do think that we can see that Iran will become a lot like Iraq if it occurs.  To be honest, I don't think that military action will occur against Iran.  There will be plenty of sanctions however.

Annddd dang...it looks like my 3 year old son wants to play with his preschool program now so I have to get off the computer...I'll have to get back to you later...I have an interesting point to make....
2006-09-14 14:54:52
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6579|SE London

Horseman 77 wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

lol.
That post is a joke isn't it? .
No. That remark is an unwarranted insult isn't it?
Is that what passes for an informed argument with your peers?
It would produce something different in my City, is it because you are not in it that you can behave like that?
I thought you probably were joking, your post made so little sense. I see now that you really do believe your own rantings, I find it hard to believe that anybody else could though. None of your points made even the slightest bit of sense.

Horseman 77 wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

How can you claim the war on terror is won?.
Read 2a.
Your 2a

Horseman 77 wrote:

Past tense: It took this form. Attacks Dropped off to nothing. Over a period of five years, not one more attack occurs. Americans become so complacent in their security they bitch about the "inconvenience" of it.
Attacks have not dropped off to nothing, terrorist activity is at some of the highest levels that have ever been seen. The war on terror is far from over.

The very fact that I have recently read posts on this forum by Americans who have stated they are afraid to fly these days shows that the effects of terrorism are felt to this day (I have seen numerous other interviews with people who say they are afraid to fly these days, usually Americans) in the US despite the fact there has not been an attack on US soil. There have been attempts that have been thwarted, the recent liquid explosive aboard a plane that was set to explode above the US for example. Increased security is yet another example that the war on terror is far from over, this additional security does cause inconvenience. This inconvenience that people are forced to endure is yet another by product of the war on terror.

You make a number of claims which simply are not true. Indeed some of your claims even support the idea that a war on terror is ongoing.

Horseman 77 wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

How can you describe all enemies of the US as terrorists?.
I didn't.
Yes. You did.

Horseman 77 wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

7) Who are 'the terrorists'?.
7a. People who attack us, " Our enemies, enemy soldiers, patriots, insurgents
Who are the terrorists? "Our enemies, enemy soldiers" etc. You described enemies of the US as terrorists, including enemy soldiers. That's not what terrorists are. Enemy soldiers cannot be terrorists, it can't happen. They can be war criminals, or even terrorists outside of their capacity as soldiers, but their being soldiers who are enemies of the US in no way makes them terrorists.

Horseman 77 wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

It just doesn't make any sort of literal sense. You are using English words, but they don't seem to have the same meaning..
Than re-read carefully
I did, several times. It makes less and less sense each time I read it. It is the meaning of the words I think you have messed up on, not just the terrible grammar you use to express your ideas, which does not help with clarity.

Horseman 77 wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

If this post is for real, then I think you really need to re-evaluate your understanding of what terrorism is and what a war on terror entails.
I think I answered every question with a brief ( clear cut ) explanation. If you bought your own opinion, insights or facts to the argument, I don't see them or any rebuttal for that matter. Just your observation that I am wrong.

Rather than giving me a ( homework assignment ) which you have yet to prove you are qualified to do.
Perhaps you ought to make the basis for you observations known.

I do not attempt to curry favor with my opinion nor do I feel the need to parrot others for approval. Everyone would do well to bring their own thoughts to the argument. No insults are needed.
Those aren't thoughts for argument. There is a difference.

You could not find a single person involved in the 'war on terror' who would call the war on terror over. It is not over. Your opinions aren't backed up by any sort of fact, you have made a ridiculous argument.
If you are going to make such outrageous claims, you need evidence to back up what you say. You have none, because there is none.
2006-09-14 16:23:33
Horseman 77
Banned
+160|6835
Bertster7 wrote: How can you describe all enemies of the US as terrorists?.

I didn't say. " all enemies of the US are terrorists? "

CameronPoe wrote: 7) Who are 'the terrorists'?.

7a. People who attack us, " Our enemies, enemy soldiers, patriots, insurgents, etc. ( add your own )

So you can clearly see, I described the Terrorist.

The Terrorist are our enemies. Not all our enemies are Terrorists.

I gave reasons for my observations ( you can read them again ) Any politician would realize its suicide to call the War over. I am not running for office so I can afford to call it like I see it. I would have told you that Japan was beaten well before The Hiroshima bomb was dropped,

Japan had been reduced to using suicide bombers, Ring any bells ?

I can appreciate the fact that you are confused by the text, however I do not believe I can correct that.

Sorry.

Last edited by Horseman 77 (2006-09-14 16:34:21)

2006-09-14 16:27:12
stryyker
bad touch
+1,682|6717|California

There is no victory in a war against Ideology.
2006-09-14 16:29:02
Marconius
One-eyed Wonder Mod
+368|6691|San Francisco
Don't worry Bertster, pretty much all of Horseman's writing reads exactly like that...something akin to an e.e. cummings poem gone completely wrong.
2006-09-14 16:47:51
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6579|SE London

Horseman 77 wrote:

Bertster7 wrote: How can you describe all enemies of the US as terrorists?.

I didn't say. " all enemies of the US are terrorists? "

CameronPoe wrote: 7) Who are 'the terrorists'?.

7a. People who attack us, " Our enemies, enemy soldiers, patriots, insurgents, etc. ( add your own )

So you can clearly see, I described the Terrorist.

The Terrorist are our enemies. Not all our enemies are Terrorists.

I gave reasons for my observations ( you can read them again ) Any politician would realize its suicide to call the War over. I am not running for office so I can afford to call it like I see it. I would have told you that Japan was beaten well before The Hiroshima bomb was dropped,

Japan had been reduced to using suicide bombers, Ring any bells ?

I can appreciate the fact that you are confused by the text, however I do not believe I can correct that.

Sorry.
I was confused by the text because the meaning of what you have written is exactly how I have interpreted it. Maybe if you can't get your ideas across properly you should try taking an English class, as your writing standards clearly are not up to the job of expressing your ideas coherently.

You didn't describe the terrorists. In direct answer to the question "Who are the terrorists?" you replied "Our enemies, enemy soldiers, patriots, insurgents, etc.". There is no ambiguity in that statement, except perhaps in your head. "Our enemies" is a grossly sweeping statement which might not have been what you meant, but is what you said.

Inteligence that has been released indicates there is actually more terrorist activity now than prior to the war on terror. Kind of quashes your theory about the war on terror being over. Al-Qaeda are still active, Abu Sayyaf are still active, Jemaah Islamiyah are still active. How is the war over? Has Bin Laden been captured while I wasn't looking? Terrorist attacks are actually up, the effects of terrorism are felt throughout the world and anti-terrorist proceedures have cost governments involved in the war on terror (which is a global war) a massive amount.

The war on terror is far from over, it's only just begun.
2006-09-14 16:59:20
Marconius
One-eyed Wonder Mod
+368|6691|San Francisco
Wow, horseman, what is your infatuation with my quote about holding Italy in high regard?  Just trying to display a complete lack of reading comprehension again (that post and my e.e. cummings quip not having an inkling of relation whatsoever)?
2006-09-14 17:02:06
Horseman 77
Banned
+160|6835

Marconius wrote:

Don't worry Bertster, pretty much all of Horseman's writing reads exactly like that...something akin to an e.e. cummings poem gone completely wrong.
This is Classic Marconius.

I make a post. It isn't in keeping with the lock step and chant "of Bush sux and the Sky is falling!".
So I am attacked for my failure to See "The Emperors New Clothes "
I do not respond with insult. instead I rephrase my statements for clarity.

Marconius steps in with a feeble attempt to taunt.

Something he would ban for, A classic case of " Power to the Powerless ".
What a petty, little, feeble, pitiful tyrant.

The epitome of everything he swears to oppose.

Not all liberals are frauds but this one is. He lies even to himself.

PS I am not afraid to travel by air, I realize you are bert, You said so. Do not presume to speak for us all.
I will let you have the last insult as it appears thats all we have today. toodles !

Marconius wrote:

Italy, you can say "Ciao bella!" to the pretty girls on the sidewalk, and they'll actually respond positively to you rather than thinking you're a creep.
sound familiar ?

PS why would they think " your a creep " ? Do tell !

Now ban me you talentless artist ! The classic fall back position for all of life's total losers.

Last edited by Horseman 77 (2006-09-14 17:03:31)

2006-09-14 17:09:21
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6579|SE London

Horseman 77 wrote:

PS I am not afraid to travel by air, I realize you are bert, You said so. Do not presume to speak for us all.
I will let you have the last insult as it appears thats all we have today. toodles !
I'm certainly not afraid to travel by air. Where did I say that? You're making it up. I have posted several times that by letting terrorists scare people from flying the war on terror is being lost. I am not afraid of terrorists in any way shape or form. Why not? Because I am extremely unlikely to ever encounter a terrorist, so I have nothing to fear. If I was attacked by terrorists that attitude would probably change - but I haven't been and the chances of me being attacked by terrorists are almost non existent.
2006-09-14 17:12:40
Marconius
One-eyed Wonder Mod
+368|6691|San Francisco
A swing and a MISS...

Anyways, back on topic,

that argument that "we have won" because we have had no attacks in the past 5 years (despite the bombings in other countries that are supporting our Invasion (and the recent skirmish in one of our embassies)) doesn't really hold any weight when you apply Causality to it.

They attacked us, we went after them, thus bringing the fight to their doorstep.  Our subsequent invasion of Iraq has completely destabilized the region, and now it's just a power play between Israel, Syria, Afghanistan, Iran, and Pakistan, with our forces stuck directly in the middle.  I'd say that they very fact that people like Horseman and I are so diametrically opposed to one another is a representation of how the Terrorists that attacked us have won one of their goals...the political machines of this country spun the emotions in several different ways, and that is splitting our country apart via the blending of Nationalism and Patriotism.

We are no longer unified as a country, and are no longer peacefully living amongst one another as in pre-9/11, when all of our issues were domestic in nature.  People are being Democrats and Republicans before they are being Americans, and people are applying labels as such in an incendiary nature now that lives are directly on the line.
2006-09-14 17:20:49
Pug
UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate
+652|6539|Texas - Bigger than France

Pug wrote:

IRONCHEF wrote:

Pug,

Well, to begin with, I don't understand WHY it's a problem that Iran wants nukes..if they truly are making weapons with it (and yes, it's impossible to know if they are based on UN/US reports sayings so in light of obvious propaganda efforts in almost every sphere of influence known to man).  Seriously, what arrogance and absolute recklessness is it to tell one country they can or can't develop nuclear fuel and weaponry.  What makes us so righteous to think only people "like us" can have nukes?  What about India and Pakistan?  Is it because we are in financial bed with India that it's ok?  Is it because Musharraf was bribed to be our friend that we didn't raise stink over them developing nukes?  Why then was Iran singled out, or North Korea for that matter?  Oh, because they're our enemies.....  How fucking gay is that?  "We can't make friends with them so let's bully them into submission."  Truly the acts of a cowardly, inept nation.

So on to your post, which I appreciate for it's objectable content and your mature and tactful nature.

Yes, there's been some dialogue, negotiations, and "diplomacy."  But when you corner one of the participants in a debate, give them ultimatums and threats, it's hardly a diplomatic scenario.  Bush and Ahmedinejad having 1 on 1 talks together, or fishing together, or dueling each other with pistols for the right to proceed...would be fruitful.  I'm not saying that any of the suggestions I've made would ever happen, but they're sure possible.

The long and short of it is...Iran will (if not already) possess nuclear weapons.  We (the world) should move on towards what to do next...  And no, hostilities, sanctions, and other forms of oppression are not the answer..those things are what will cause private sales to a new age of "suicide bombers" that the world has never seen.  Israel and major US cities would disappear.  So NO to sanctions, oppression, "watchdogs", etc.  YES to general dialogue.  "What's your favorite color?"  "How about a US/Iran soccer challenge?"  "How about opening your country to US time shares to generate tourist revenues?"  "How about a McDonalds?" (just kidding)  This is the kind of thing that should have taken place BEFORE the nuclear age hit Iran.  When you call them an Axis of Evil member..hell yes they're gonna hasten their nuclear development! lol
I have to agree with you there as well - I do think that we can see that Iran will become a lot like Iraq if it occurs.  To be honest, I don't think that military action will occur against Iran.  There will be plenty of sanctions however.

Annddd dang...it looks like my 3 year old son wants to play with his preschool program now so I have to get off the computer...I'll have to get back to you later...I have an interesting point to make....
Ok, back.

I'm not sure it began as a threat in negotiations.  It's built up to that - Iran has rejected a package, which they want...but there's too many "we want you to do this or that" which they don't like.  So now they are negotiating under the threat of UN sanctions.

As far as Bush to Iran prez (sorry, don't feel like spelling his name) face to face negotiations...I don't think its a good idea.  If both leaders were strong negotiators, it would work.  Bush and the other guy have proven they aren't, in my opinion.  Examples of the types of leader who could pull off something like that for comparison - Napolean, Churchill, Carter, Jefferson, and Gorbachev.  I do not think Bush or the other guy are in that category - they are too steeped in their own logic.  So instead, I believe that the diplomatic core is better suited for these negotiations.  What does Bush know about Iran?  What does Iran prez know about the US?

I am for diplomacy.  I am for compromising and paying whatever reparations are necessary...but it goes both ways.  I also am for rolling tanks in there if we have just cause.  In truth, there will not be just cause unless there's some sort of terrorist link (and it will have to be a big enough link to cause all nations to want to go into Iran).

As far as the threat of nukes - its not a threat for the US beyond military bases, etc.  The real threat is Europe...really Israel.  I believe the Bush administration is pressing the "we don't want them to have nukes" along with the other UN members because of the unsavory links Iran has with known terrorist organizations. 

We all agree that the likelihood of a nuclear event is extremely slim.  But compare Iran with, say Brazil.  Brazil gets nukes, Iran gets nukes.  Iran is more likely than Brazil.  Of course, the odds are like 10M to 1 compared to 5M to 1.  I see no problem with blocking the development of WMDs across the globe.  I do not want more nukes.  Even if the US develops more nukes, I don't want them either...

This was good - all I wanted to do was disagree with the statement that a televised debate between leaders was not a good idea.  Diplomacy yes - debate no.
2006-09-14 17:22:58
Horseman 77
Banned
+160|6835
To a liberal bringing War to the Enemy is a bad thing. By your own account, They are hunting insurgents down themselves. Seems like Iraqis are motivated to fight our enemies. Where was the last al queda leader killed excatly? would you like to tell us ?


This is Classic Marconius.

I make a post. It isn't in keeping with the lock step and chant "of Bush sux and the Sky is falling!".
So I am attacked for my failure to See "The Emperors New Clothes "
I do not respond with insult. instead I rephrase my statements for clarity.

Marconius steps in with a feeble attempt to taunt.

Something he would ban for, A classic case of " Power to the Powerless ".
What a petty, little, feeble, pitiful tyrant.

The epitome of everything he swears to oppose.

Not all liberals are frauds but this one is. He lies even to himself.


Marconius wrote:

in Italy, you can say "Ciao bella!" to the pretty girls on the sidewalk, and they'll actually respond positively to you rather than thinking you're a creep.
sound familiar ?

PS why would they think " your a creep " ? Do tell !

Now ban me you talentless artist ! The classic fall back position for all of life's total losers

now drop some names and get your shine box
2006-09-14 17:39:26
alpinestar
Member
+304|6594|New York City baby.

CameronPoe wrote:

I feel like introducing a fiery new topic....

With respect to this so called 'war on terror':
1) Can a battle against an abstract concept be 'won'?
2) What form will 'victory' take?
3) Can 'victory' be achieved at all?
4) Is this 'war on terror' just rhetoric, serving as a convenient label for western nations actions abroad given that the handy pretext of the Cold War has been removed?
5) How do you see 'victory' being achieved?
6) How long will this 'war on terror' take?
7) Who are 'the terrorists'?

PS What do YOU define as 'terror'?

Flame on.
Terror = anyone who opposes the NWO.

 

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard