[quote]Vegita wrote:
Pthen I gave mine that being in Iraq would actually support not detract from the WOT. You gave reasons why it would detract, I gave reasons why it would support, and at the end or our discussion, you yourself said, time will tell. [/quote]
Wrong. I said time will tell to THIS statement by you:
"given the fact that al-queda is bombing the citizenry of iraq at this point, I would find it hard to believe they will garner any further “support” other than those they scare into supporting them, and the longer we show our resolve, the less al-queda will be able to scare the peoples of the middle east. "
Time will tell whether the people in Iraq will support terrorists. What does that have to do with my comment about Saddam being substituted for Osama? At least keep the argument straight if you are going to start pointing fingers.
[quote]
Basically what I’m trying to tell you is that I probably won’t be exchanging any ideas with you due to your complete lack of being open minded and objective. I’m not saying you needed to embrace my ideas as they are gospel or anything, but to state you don’t see how they can exist tells me something about you. Also, I know you probably don’t care, but you know… just making sure ya know. Feel free to disregard this message as well.
V[/quote]
Please. Who is being close minded if you can’t even keep facts straight about what statement I am responding to? I quoted you directly yet you are now claiming that I said “time will tell” about whether the War supports the War on Terror?
[quote]Joe Weider wrote:
nope, just referring to how you’d stopped talking to the other side and were now patting yourself on the back with the help of moriarty etc.
Careful about accusing me of lying, Professor Strawman.[/quote]
You mean I was doing something that you do on a regular basis? The shame.
[i]Former intelligence official Larry Johnson last week first disclosed the 2004 increase in his Web log, saying the 2004 numbers would rise at least 655 from about 172 in 2003.
Waxman’s letter said that of the about 650 significant attacks last year, about 300 reflected violence in India and Pakistan, leaving some 350 attacks elsewhere in the world – double the total 2003 count.
He suggested this reflected enhanced U.S. efforts to monitor media reports of violence, thereby leading to the identification of “many more attacks in India and Pakistan related to Kashmir.” He also said congressional aides were told of about 198 attacks in
Iraq in 2004, up from 22 in 2003.[/i]
Do you even read what you post as proof? half of the increase came from India/pakistani attacks. More of a feud than terrorism.
Your article goes on to state the of the 300 some-odd attacks 198 of them were in Iraq.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Vegita wrote:
Pthen I gave mine that being in Iraq would actually support not detract from the WOT. You gave reasons why it would detract, I gave reasons why it would support, and at the end or our discussion, you yourself said, time will tell.
Wrong. I said time will tell to THIS statement by you:
"given the fact that al-queda is bombing the citizenry of iraq at this point, I would find it hard to believe they will garner any further “support” other than those they scare into supporting them, and the longer we show our resolve, the less al-queda will be able to scare the peoples of the middle east. "
Time will tell whether the people in Iraq will support terrorists. What does that have to do with my comment about Saddam being substituted for Osama? At least keep the argument straight if you are going to start pointing fingers.
Basically what I’m trying to tell you is that I probably won’t be exchanging any ideas with you due to your complete lack of being open minded and objective. I’m not saying you needed to embrace my ideas as they are gospel or anything, but to state you don’t see how they can exist tells me something about you. Also, I know you probably don’t care, but you know… just making sure ya know. Feel free to disregard this message as well.
V
Please. Who is being close minded if you can’t even keep facts straight about what statement I am responding to? I quoted you directly yet you are now claiming that I said “time will tell” about whether the War supports the War on Terror?
[/quote]
Misusing the quote function is silly, Why would you chop off one line of what you were responding to? Did it save that much room? or were you trying to hide the fact that the opening statement of that sentance was “so to summarize” which would lead me to beleive you were responding to the whole discussion, not just the last thought. Obviously you realize that too now otherwise you wouldn’t have chopped a few words off my quote.
[quote]vroom wrote:
I think that “choosing who will face terrorist attacks” is better than having the enemy choose, no?
I’m not trying to imply otherwise.
However, and this is purely hypothetical as well, the money spent on Iraq and this war very well could have prevented further attacks against American interests as well.
Billions of dollars of border security, spying and covert ops is a lot!
Note, that I’m not talking about the war on Afghanistan, which is generally agreed to have been waged for the purpose of rooting out terorrism by both left and right.[/quote]
vroom
This was your post that I responded to.
YOU inferred that the money would be better spent on border patrols and spying.
My retort was that we can’t possibly spend enough to make our borders 100% safe. I also added the extra security would be positive, but more was needed than that at this time. That was certainly behind our decision to attack.
You talk about putting words in your mouth, please let’s stick to what’s written and not the fact that my opinion happens to agree with someone you’ve taken a personal dislike to. In fact, you can’t even be fair with Jeff or Joe or ZEB because of your personal feelings.
It would now appear that I have fallen into that catagory. Please go back and reread at your leisure–I have. There are no attacks towards you, no putting words in your mouth, no nothing except responses to yours and others queries.
There is no such inference. I suggested that it might have been a viable alternative. What part of discussing the viability of other unused options turns this into a partisan statement?
Prior to that, in this thread, there was discussion about whether or not attacking Iraq had made us safer. I’m saying that it is not the only course of action that may have made us safer. It sounds like you might even agree in theory.
I also acknowledged, which nobody seems to recognize when clamoring that I’m “against war” or against anything that Bush does, that Afghanistan was a good place to go to war. So, the fact I back some actions and am only pointing out that an alternative exists, not that it would have been better – how the hell can any of us know that – could indicate I’m not pushing an agenda.
Are some others pushing an agenda based on those types of issues, maybe so, but the damned issues themselves are not an agenda and they are worth discussing.
So, of course, have any opinion you like. But, if you attach an agenda to me that I don’t have, you bet I’ll be annoyed about it. Tough nuts.
Rainjack, I’ll happily admit that sometimes it is used in a partisan way, but that doesn’t mean the issue itself is truly partisan. Of course ABB’ers will latch onto each and every issue and use it to attack Bush.
However, how the hell can we have a discussion on anything if I can’t even talk about issues that ABB’ers use? Is there anything left?
My take, the issues themselves, or consideration of them, are not the thing that is partisan. It is the way they are used or that alternative viewpoints and interpretations are considered or rejected.
I’ve tossed out some alternative viewpoints and some issues that bear scrutiny. Other than drawing massive inferences in what I say based on the fact those issues have been used in partisan discussions, there is nothing partisan in it.
Dammit, if I wanted to be partisan and play partisan politics, I would… and it would be a different ballgame with respect to my posts.
[quote]Vegita wrote:
Misusing the quote function is silly, Why would you chop off one line of what you were responding to? Did it save that much room? or were you trying to hide the fact that the opening statement of that sentance was “so to summarize” which would lead me to beleive you were responding to the whole discussion, not just the last thought. Obviously you realize that too now otherwise you wouldn’t have chopped a few words off my quote.
V[/quote]
Now you really do sound silly. If “so to summarize” is followed by what I quoted, doesn’t that mean that what I quoted is what you summarized? Good Gawd, you are arguing what exactly? I responded to what you wrote specifically. In summary means that you are about to summarize in the words to follow. That means that what I quoted was a condensed version of what you had to say…to which I replied “time will tell”. Is that clear enough for you or are remedial classes necessary? If I were referring to ANYTHING else, I would have quoted that. I didn’t.
No such inference–it’s right there quoted by you in the thread I responded to.
I did agree that an upgrade on security would be a positive as well, but countered that by saying more was needed than increasing our budget on security.
I said we needed to take it to the terrorist to show our steadfastness and resolve in this matter.
It’s odd how in each reply you and Prof have to throw some crap in there about the people who follow Bush blindly, and how above those people you both are because you think for yourself. Just because you disagree with the masses, does not make you some independant brilliant thinker.
I’ll talk personal opinion with you all damn day, but then you can’t compare me to others as a defense.
Get off your high horse and quit taking every opposition to your belief as some personal attack. Quite frankly, for someone outside governing area of the President, You seem to take most of his decisions more personal than most.
I wasn’t referring to you individually, vroom. I’m sure you have wonderful ideas - some damn fung-shui ideas.
But the problem is that the partisan left has co-opted your position to be ABB. Yes the left is partisan, here. Check voting records under Clinton, and again under Bush.
In as much as you want to be heard - the noise of a thousand spoiled, partisan babies drowns you out. So much so that anything you say that even approaches the ideas of the demented anti-war peaceniks is largely ignored, or thought to be just another left-wing partisan bullshit party. (See any post by professorX for proof of incessant partisan whining)
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Do you even read what you post as proof? half of the increase came from India/pakistani attacks. More of a feud than terrorism.
Your article goes on to state the of the 300 some-odd attacks 198 of them were in Iraq.
What proof, professor?[/quote]
You can’t be serious. Did you even read this:
[quote]The State Department last year initially released erroneous figures that understated the attacks and casualties in 2003 and used the figures to argue that the Bush administration was prevailing in the war on terrorism.
It later said the number of people killed and injured in 2003 was more than double its original count and said “significant” terrorist attacks – those that kill or seriously injure someone, cause more than $10,000 in damage or attempt to do either of those things – rose to a 20-year high of 175.
The State Department last week unleashed a new debate about the numbers by saying it would no longer release them in its annual terrorism report but that the newly created National Counterterrorism Center that compiles the data would do so.
[/quote]
or this:
I stated that terrorists attacks had increased. This agrees with that statement and your argument is where?
The State Department LIED. It is written in bold faced type yet you went skirting around it to argue about what equals a feud? Prove your statement now.
How can you sit there and say your views and posts are non-partisan. Is it coincidence that you consistantly line up to the left?
The left is not a bad thing vroom. You can align yourself as you’d like. I’m saying that don’t then say it is non-partisan.
Nobody cares if you believe one way or another. It is your constant crying that you aren’t liberal and therefore we can’t understand what you meant by your post. We understand vroom.
Believe it or not, anyone taking the time to come down here tilts one way or the other. That, in and of itself, does not detract from their post/viewpoint. So quit using it as an argument/excuse why we are inferring your statements one way when they were really meant to be neutral.
You post a link that both sides can use as proof to their argument and then claim victory.
Every link supplied by someone opposing you has been cast aside as propaganda. Unworthy of your response or any critical thinking on your part. Yet this one article, written by a known anti-administration zealot, is your proof you are right.
Could you cliff note it a little better for us so only the stuff that recognizes yuor opinion is available to us.
You’ve left us enough clues as to your value system, thought process, and ability to accept anything that differs from your position. We no longer accept any more from you except the same old argument. You pick and choose, and yes try to bully your way through each post and poster.
Give me a fucking break. A religious and moral man can’t shoot the bird and do anything else most of us probably do on a daily basis?? I consider myself a religious and moral man, and I probably do all that shit every 10 minutes. (HAHA) As usual, people making a mountain out of a mole-hill. RLTW
OH NOESSSS BUSH HAS A MIDDLE FINGER!!! AND HE INCORRECTLY CARRIES THAT PEICE OF SHIT HE CALLS A DOG!!! Quick! Let’s debate about something totatly different!
You have a patient that comes in. Female, 25, five foot three, 145 pounds. No history of illness, except for very occasional flareups of endometriosis. Physically active. No regular medications. In fact, she doesn’t take anything except a generic multivitamin.
She complains of blurring in her left eye and eye watering. Other than the monocular vision loss, there is no apparent pain or swelling.
You post a link that both sides can use as proof to their argument and then claim victory.
Every link supplied by someone opposing you has been cast aside as propaganda. [/quote]
Bullshit. Vegita just posted a link and we both agreed on the content and what he was trying to say. I don’t agree with his personal stance on the war issue, however. That is the second time in this thread you have been caught doing that. Please, make it three times.
