[quote]lixy wrote:
On the other hand, we have a twice democratically elected guy who dumps common sense to adopt a “strategy” whom everybody and his sister (including himself) knew was doomed to failure. It really boggles the mind.[/quote]
We talking about Bush here, or Cheney? Obviously, if he thought it would fail, he would not have done it.
My problem with all of this is their lack of anticipating the situation in Iraq after we toppled the government. One would need to look no further than the Israeli/Palestinian trouble in the 90’s and the Lebanon Civil War of the 80’s to see what was going to happen. The insurgents did not change their tactics. We just didn’t figure out a way to stop, counter or anticipate them.
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
We talking about Bush here, or Cheney? Obviously, if he thought it would fail, he would not have done it.
My problem with all of this is their lack of anticipating the situation in Iraq after we toppled the government. One would need to look no further than the Israeli/Palestinian trouble in the 90’s and the Lebanon Civil War of the 80’s to see what was going to happen. The insurgents did not change their tactics. We just didn’t figure out a way to stop, counter or anticipate them.[/quote]
My point exactly. That’s why I’m have a really hard time buying the official position. Americans are clearly not safer after Saddam’s fall, and I can’t see anything the tax-payers have gained from the invasion. There has to be a hidden agenda for the pieces to come together.
I don’t like the theory according to which it was an honest mistake and that administration was clueless. They’ve been warned a gazillion times. Scratch that, they were reminded a gazillion times. They obviously went to a great deal of trouble to sell the war, so there has to be something besides the official line.
Now, which part of Islamists-were-sworn-enemies-of-Saddam did you miss?[/quote]
Why do you continue to press this point?
Saddam allied with anyone that gave him an advantage. Certainly France was a “sworn enemy” - and yet he had oil deals with them. In fact, the entire Oil-for-Food fiasco was an example of Saddam dealing with any taker, regardless of history or ideology, to further his ends.
Islamists, despite their rhetoric, can be trusted to work with anyone who can give them a hand in their nefarious agenda. If Islamists were the purists you think they are, why would al-Qaeda be considering a relationship with MS-13, which some have suggested may be the case?
Saddam hated Israel - nothing more is needed to be a “brother in arms” against the despised Israel and its Western backers. As we have seen from the likes of radical left-wing groups and fundamentalist Muslims, even groups that should have absolutely zilch in common can find common ground in their desire to want to push Israel (and anyone who aids Israel) into the sea.
You keep suggesting Islamists would never, ever, ever have a relationship with Saddam - sounds more like wishful thinking on your part to bolster your anti-war stance. Reasonable people realize the shared desire of mutual destruction of Israel in the Middle East is a tie that binds.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Saddam allied with anyone that gave him an advantage. Certainly France was a “sworn enemy” - and yet he had oil deals with them. In fact, the entire Oil-for-Food fiasco was an example of Saddam dealing with any taker, regardless of history or ideology, to further his ends. [/quote]
Islamists in the country would have been a threat to his rule. I don’t see why you put France in the same level.
Well, it’s more the other way around. i.e: Saddam would not wanna work with them.
What is that? Minority report?
Top government officials in charge of security in Israel asserted that Saddam in charge was better than the terrorist breeding ground you turned Iraq into.
But tell me, are you planning on fucking up every country that’s got issues with Israel? In that case, better hurry up. You’ve got a long road ahead.
All kidding aside, what’s you take on Cheney’s blatant flip-flop?
Islamists in the country would have been a threat to his rule. I don’t see why you put France in the same level.[/quote]
Any Western country post-Gulf War is a “threat to his rule”. The point was that Saddam would work with anyone who he could sell to, work with, or gain advantage from. He was the classic tinpot tyrant - and your insistence that he was a “man of principle” that picked and chose who he would work with is ridiculous.
Nonsense - look at Oil-for-Food. Look at his support of terror elements. Why would you assume Saddam was a “man of principle”? I know why - it fits in with your ideological explanation for a view you prefer, even though the rational facts on the ground suggest the complete opposite.
You are guilty, yet again.
It’s like a broken record with you. Are you immune to learning? Once again, your “foolish consistency” - treating unlike situations alike for no pragmatic sake - has got you into this trouble.
Who has a plan to invading every country that has a problem with Israel? Why would we do that, even if we wanted to? As has been explained to you over and over, there is no logical-moral maxim that states “if we can’t invade all, we can’t invade one…if we invade one, we must invade all”. We may think ten countries “hate” Israel and take out one of them - and there is nothing inconsistent about it.
You have stumbled into this error over and over and over - I beg you, for your sake, correct it.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
So your little cracks about Tbolt holding my dick 2 or 3 days ago is more on your level?
Are you saying that you are not an ass man - but a dick man?
Your hypocrisy is leaking out again, Mr. Thinking Tree. [/quote]
Must you both always attack me at the same time?
As I said to your compatriot, perhaps it is time to move on… in any case, you may notice that during the conversation you both erringly referred to, we were exchanging insults, not jokes. My statement certainly stands.
Onward, or is there more tripe to deal with first?
As I said to your compatriot, perhaps it is time to move on… in any case, you may notice that during the conversation you both erringly referred to, we were exchanging insults, not jokes. My statement certainly stands.
Onward, or is there more tripe to deal with first?[/quote]
Whatever you say there, think-boy. You are the one that had to pop in with your holier-than-thou attitude.
Everything you post is a joke - so there is no difference between an “insult” and a “joke”…or any of your other mind sewage for that matter.
But - if you noticed my very next post I apologized for not reading past you bullshit, and responded immediately upon reading your hypocritical bullshit.
Just shut the fuck up. If you don’t have anything to add to the thread…just don’t post. Honestly…how fucking hard is it for you to sit there and not type up your pussy-filled whining?
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Just shut the fuck up. If you don’t have anything to add to the thread…just don’t post. Honestly…how fucking hard is it for you to sit there and not type up your pussy-filled whining? [/quote]
[quote]vroom wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Just shut the fuck up. If you don’t have anything to add to the thread…just don’t post. Honestly…how fucking hard is it for you to sit there and not type up your pussy-filled whining?
LOL. About as difficult as it is for you…[/quote]
pussy-filled whining? He sounds like a junkyard dog expending himself.
vroom: as he’s quite proud of his Thinking Tree cant and I missed it at the time, care to point me toward the thread where it was introduced? I’ll give my honest appraisal when done.
[quote]Limbic wrote:
vroom: as he’s quite proud of his Thinking Tree cant and I missed it at the time, care to point me toward the thread where it was introduced? I’ll give my honest appraisal when done.[/quote]
Well, it’s been years, so I’m not sure where to point you.
It’s based on the presumption that I am busy thinking, unable to to come to a stance, while everyone else is making a decision and so forth.
Basically, on the boards here I’m always considering inferences, deeper issues, shades of gray, or whatever.
I’m sure if you ask you’ll get a much more insulting interpretation, but at least it will be first hand. Since it is aimed at me I may be missing some vital element of this label and not doing it justice.
Whatever you say there, think-boy. You are the one that had to pop in with your holier-than-thou attitude.
Just shut the fuck up. If you don’t have anything to add to the thread…just don’t post. Honestly…how fucking hard is it for you to sit there and not type up your pussy-filled whining? [/quote]
rainjack, rainjack, rainjack … you must rein-in your blood pressure. Wear your heart rate monitor while logged on to T-Nation if you dare. Report back on the results. LOL
I’ve seen you mention a discussion you had with vroom on the Thinking Tree device. What thread did that originate in? I missed the thread and cannot credit you with the ingenuity you feel it deserves without reading it first.
[quote]vroom wrote:
Limbic wrote:
vroom: as he’s quite proud of his Thinking Tree cant and I missed it at the time, care to point me toward the thread where it was introduced? I’ll give my honest appraisal when done.
Well, it’s been years, so I’m not sure where to point you.
It’s based on the presumption that I am busy thinking, unable to to come to a stance, while everyone else is making a decision and so forth.
Basically, on the boards here I’m always considering inferences, deeper issues, shades of gray, or whatever.
I’m sure if you ask you’ll get a much more insulting interpretation, but at least it will be first hand. Since it is aimed at me I may be missing some vital element of this label and not doing it justice.[/quote]
It sounds like a military-derived condemnation of being “paralyzed-by-participation”. LOL. Scattering of the marbles to keep them diverted …
[quote]Limbic wrote:
rainjack, rainjack, rainjack … you must rein-in your blood pressure. Wear your heart rate monitor while logged on to T-Nation if you dare. Report back on the results. LOL
I’ve seen you mention a discussion you had with vroom on the Thinking Tree device. What thread did that originate in? I missed the thread and cannot credit you with the ingenuity you feel it deserves without reading it first.
Now take three deep breaths and begin typing.[/quote]
When I feel I am in need of medical advice - I will surely find a competent, trained professional to seek it from. But thanks for your concern.