lothario,
see above posts on vast differences between al-AQSA and al-QUAEDA. what about the irish-americans who support the IRA? are they somehow supporting bin laden? according to the chain of logic you’ve demonstrated, they are.
OK Genius…Are you saying he didn’t mean a “Global Test” when he said “Global Test”.
Maybe it was the subtle nuance I missed in my 3rd. grade English class.
He lost because nobody in their right mind could see him as the leader of the Free World.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
The question was not whether you support him or not, it was what have you found amiss in this administration. Do you think that he has handled this war with no mistakes? What you fail to realize is, criticizing the administration does not equal non-support of the protection of this country. I see much wrong, some of it mentioned in that article that started this thread…I am also in the military so I seriously doubt you realistically support this country’s motives like I, and everyone else who is active duty, do on a daily basis. Again, do you think Bush has made no mistakes in the handling of this war?
Pointing out the wrong does not make anyone a traitor and neither does it mean they do not support this country. This isn’t about patriotism but about what could be corrected if people quit making this some personal issue as far as who they voted for. You make this personal by even avoiding the question. By avoiding talking about the war efforts, you show that you are biased and refuse to ackowledge anything that needs to be corrected. I have no doubt that you usually also only follow news that supports your way of thinking. You clearly lack the ability or desire to see any of these issues from both sides in order to get a better picture.
That, and that alone, is the only reason you are fine with losing freedoms that are part of what made America different from every other country in the first place.[/quote]
I answered your question, yet I get the “ProfX lecture” on who I am? geez…
Look - you don’t know me, you said as much. Don’t think you can put me in a box. Which is what you have repeatedly tried to do on this thread. I won’t see this issue the way you do and you can’t deride me into changing my mind.
You are an ABBer who so adamantly dislikes Bush, that you have become a member of the tin-foil hat brigade. You can make up excuses all you want, but your anti-Bush blather is wearing thin with me.
I support the president’s war on terror. Period. Is that to hard to grasp? Evidently for you, support is a word that you can’t comprehend.
Do you think this board sits with baited breath waiting to know what you think about me? You are the one taking this personal - just look at your posts.
I answered your question. Was it not the answer you were looking for? Did you want me to rail against the President about Iraq?
Your shame tactics won’t work. Your “Big brother is coming for us” scare tactics won’t work. You say the same shit in every post. And yet I still find your position on this just as wrong as the vote you cast for Kerry.
[quote]hedo wrote:
He lost because nobody in their right mind could see him as the leader of the Free World.[/quote]
Gee, that would mean about 49 million people in this country have all lost their minds. It must feel great to walk around thinking you are better (or at least more sane) than half of the people in the country. Everyone else is clearly inferior to your massive intellect.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
I support the president’s war on terror. Period. Is that to hard to grasp? Evidently for you, support is a word that you can’t comprehend.
[/quote]
Which basically means you will agree with anything that is done as far as this war is concerned. That makes you the last person whose voice needs to be heard anytime a decision is challenged on this board. By your own admission, we can already map out the response. You should put it as your signature line:
“Whatever this thread is about, I agree with what Bush did”. You see, that way no one is confused. In fact, you don’t even have to follow current events. Your opinion is duly noted for future reference.
It does. I love my massive intellect.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Which basically means you will agree with anything that is done as far as this war is concerned. That makes you the last person whose voice needs to be heard anytime a decision is challenged on this board. By your own admission, we can already map out the response. You should put it as your signature line:
“Whatever this thread is about, I agree with what Bush did”. You see, that way no one is confused. In fact, you don’t even have to follow current events. Your opinion is duly noted for future reference.[/quote]
So, according to the all-knowing Professor, only those who disagree with the President are allowed to voice an opinion here? And your blather about the gov’t taking away your rights trumps your desire to do the same for those that support the President? That’s some handy information to know right there.
Tell me one thing - who ordained you as the forum-master? Or better yet - who in the hell gave you this power to decide who’s opinions are valid, and who’s are bullshit?
For someone who thinks my opinion is worthless, you certainly have wasted an inordinate amount of your time responding to me, and my ilk. Shouldn’t you be re-shaping your foil hat or doing something a tad bit more useful?
ProfX wrote:
“Amazingly, many seem to still think otherwise. If military muscle was that much of a consideration for our “enemies” they wouldn’t still be trying so hard. We severely underestimated their belief system and the thoughts of forcing democracy on them make me wonder if the general public truly thinks the average Iraq-native thinks like they do. Propoganda tactics and public relations should have been employed heavily long before now…but that is a little hard to do when you rush into war…especially one that we supposedly already won but are still fighting and losing soldiers in. I also liked the part about how our soldiers in the field don’t have the needed armour to shield against attacks…but we have more than enough resources to make sure Barry Bonds doesn’t break any more records.”
What is the point of your post? Are you thinking of ways to win the conflict? Are there any helpful suggestions? Or is it more of the, “Better quit because we didn’t anticipate every contingency.”
By the way, please shitcan the “rush to war” crap. Do the math: 2003-1991= TWELVE YEARS.
BB,
Excellent posts. Glad to see the brass is adapting to the changing circumstances.
JeffR
Prof X wrote:
“Now, could you explain why, when Kerry claimed being flexible was an asset, many conservatives claimed that this was why they were NOT voting for him? Amazing, a man gets voted into office because he is “unwaivering” only to become “flexible” within the next month…yet you all don’t see the irony? I am in awe.”
“I actually voted for the President’s 87 billion dollar reconstruction package before I voted against it.”
“The wrong war, in the wrong place, at the wrong time”
“The Grand Diversion.”
Flexible? We have another word for that where I come from.
JeffR
[quote]JeffR wrote:
What is the point of your post? Are you thinking of ways to win the conflict? Are there any helpful suggestions? Or is it more of the, “Better quit because we didn’t anticipate every contingency.”
By the way, please shitcan the “rush to war” crap. Do the math: 2003-1991= TWELVE YEARS.[/quote]
The main issue I raised in this thread is the soldiers lack of armour. Solution? Get more armour.
As far as the rush to war, we went to war when we did due to false intel. Please do not act as if this was put off until we could take it no more and we just had to rush in at that point in time. It is as if you try to forget the reasons we were told about why we went to war when we did. Some of us don’t forget that easily.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
So, according to the all-knowing Professor, only those who disagree with the President are allowed to voice an opinion here? And your blather about the gov’t taking away your rights trumps your desire to do the same for those that support the President? That’s some handy information to know right there.
[/quote]
It isn’t about being allowed to do anything, however, when you plainly tell me that no matter what the issue, you agree with what Bush does, it shows that your opinion is therefore invalid. No matter what we bring up, you claim to agree with Bush and that you will in the future. That means arguments with you on the subject mean little because your mind is already decided.
ProX,
“…but we have more than enough resources to make sure Barry Bonds doesn’t break any more records.”
This is the new ‘we can’t give our troops what they need but we have plenty of time to devote to steroids’ lack of priority complaint. I believe it is the new thing, the next ‘it idea’ in coffeeshops and internet whine-fests, replacing the old ‘it ideas’ of jobless recovery, imperial oil jingoism, and violent overthrow of the wall between church and state. Question: what’ll be the next anti-Bush fad, and will it include Lindsey Lohan?
The feds are just leaning on major league baseball to clean up its act before some juiced-up freak croaks on the field during the national pasttime. The feds feel a sense of entitlement to lord over baseball - and it should, since the US government grants MLB an antitrust exception.
I don’t have a problem with criticizing Bush. But Congressmen have a lot of issues to deal with, and steroid abuse by professional athletes that make millions under the aegis of federal monopoly protection is one of them, at the moment. So is clean air.
This is actually a place where I criticize Bush myself, however. When Congressmen of both parties were packing the budget with all sorts of fat pork for their local constituents, Bush should have rattled his veto sabre and shamed them, declaring the money would be better spent on military supply and higher wages for serving men and women.
But, he fact that the feds want to pressure MLB into doing something about steroids doesn’t mean that the administration isn’t addressing military issues. It’s not a zero-sum game, Washington is a big place.
ProX,
“As far as the rush to war, we went to war when we did due to false intel. Please do not act as if this was put off until we could take it no more and we just had to rush in at that point in time. It is as if you try to forget the reasons we were told about why we went to war when we did. Some of us don’t forget that easily.”
Quite the revisionist. We didn’t have false intelligence, we had mistaken and incomplete intelligence, and so did the other members of the UNSC.
Dealing with Saddam had been put off for twelve years - if left to the inept UN, it would have gone on idefinitely until a major power decided it was long enough, or until Saddam was able to reconstitute weapons systems after the sanctions were lifted.
I distinctly remember why we went to war, and they are all valid. There was no rush to war - figure the 12 years of being at war with Iraq, then Bush got Congressional approval, took the issue to the UN, got a Resolution, gave diplomatic ultimatums, and allowed Saddam a chance to prove whether he had disarmed or not.
This is a rush? Not to a reasonable person.
You don’t have to like Bush’s decision for strategic reasons - but I highly suggest to secure yourself to the warm embrace of reality.
ProfessorX:
“The main issue I raised in this thread is the soldiers lack of armour. Solution? Get more armour.”
Ok. If that is needed, I’m sure it will be provided.
“As far as the rush to war, we went to war when we did due to false intel.”
You talking WMD? I would appreciate it if BB WOULD POST ALL THE WMD WE HAVE FOUND IN IRAQ SINCE THE START. Not to mention, the weaponry that hussein didn’t declare to the U.N. that we have found. Not to mention how ever much has made it’s way across the borders into Syria or into Jordanian scrap heaps.
“Please do not act as if this was put off until we could take it no more and we just had to rush in at that point in time. It is as if you try to forget the reasons we were told about why we went to war when we did. Some of us don’t forget that easily.”
I’m am trully tired of typing the fifty or so reasons we went to war. 9/11 and the threat of biological/chemical/conventional/
nuclear terrorism was felt by most of us to be enough of a reason to invade. We ARE NOT GOING TO BE WARNED ABOUT AN ATTACK FROM THESE STATES. 9/11 is all the warning we are ever going to get.
It’s your perogative to continue to oppose the war.
I would ask you to post a reasonable alternative to the attack on Iraq. Could it have been avoided? Is there any possibility that France/Germany/Russia WOULD HAVE EVER OFFERED GROUND TROOPS?
JeffR
[quote]Professor X wrote:
It isn’t about being allowed to do anything, however, when you plainly tell me that no matter what the issue, you agree with what Bush does, it shows that your opinion is therefore invalid. No matter what we bring up, you claim to agree with Bush and that you will in the future. That means arguments with you on the subject mean little because your mind is already decided.[/quote]
I never said “that no matter what the issue, I agree with what Bush does”
Did you even read my post where I listed my disagreements with the President? Evidently not.
You’re painting with very a broad brush. I support the President in the War on Terror. I will stand by his decisions because he is the CIC.
I didn’t say that I always agree with Bush. You said that. As if you have the right to think and speak for me.
We’re supposed to be debating the decisions of the President wrt the war in Iraq, and the War on Terror. Why do you want to silence those who support the President (which is one side of the debate) and let those that disagree(the other side of the debate) discuss ad nauseum? That doesn’t sound like a debate to me.
Are you saying that the President’s opinion is invalid as well?
ProfX wrote:
“the sky is falling, it would appear to create a literal “Big Brother” and give “him” the legal right to take away any privacy anyone even thought they had.”
Ok.
Question number one: What does 9/11 mean to you in a security context?
Two: If you think we need increased intel, how do we get it?
Three: If you agree that pre-9/11 intel. was inadequate, how do we reform it with a minimum of civil rights violations?
I am very curious to hear your responses. So far, you’ve talked about what you object to. I’m encouraging you to go beyond partisan whining into the realm of creative thought.
Good luck!!!
JeffR
Prof X wrote:
“No, I insinuate that those who voted for Bush greatly overlooked the potential to create a government that has gained more power in one term than under any other president…all while sending thousands of troops ill-equiped to war.”
Man, you are on a roll!!!
Wrong, wrong, and more wrong.
Do you think Abraham Lincoln was our finest President? Was he top two? Top three at least?
Ever been to his monument?
Recall, he suspended the writ of Habeus Corpus. He imprisioned reporters/activists/irregulars without trial. He banished Copperheads to the Confederacy. FAR AND AWAY, HE ASSUMED MORE POWER THAN ANY PRESIDENT IN HIS FIRST TERM.
He even sent hundreds of thousands of ill-trained volunteers/conscripts to war where they died in the hundreds of thousands.
There were plenty of people in the North who echoed your EXACT WORDS. Imagine if we had listened to them then?
It would serve you right if someday we met at the base of the George W. Bush Monument to World Democracy partially paid for by the grateful citizens of Iraq.
JeffR
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
But, he fact that the feds want to pressure MLB into doing something about steroids doesn’t mean that the administration isn’t addressing military issues. It’s not a zero-sum game, Washington is a big place.[/quote]
No, what we do know from the article above, which is what started this thread, is that the soldiers have needs that are not being met. If LIVES are that important, I would think that would take priority over whether some guy in baseball took anabolics. Let’s see…War…Baseball. Ah, I can see how they are equally balanced. Yes, I will point that out and it isn’t illogical to do so.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Quite the revisionist. We didn’t have false intelligence, we had mistaken and incomplete intelligence, and so did the other members of the UNSC.
[/quote]
Ok, mistaken intel does not mean the same as false intel. Yes, I can see the large difference there. thank you for pointing that out to me before I let that huge mistake slip by.
[quote]
I distinctly remember why we went to war, and they are all valid. There was no rush to war - figure the 12 years of being at war with Iraq, then Bush got Congressional approval, took the issue to the UN, got a Resolution, gave diplomatic ultimatums, and allowed Saddam a chance to prove whether he had disarmed or not.
This is a rush? Not to a reasonable person.
You don’t have to like Bush’s decision for strategic reasons - but I highly suggest to secure yourself to the warm embrace of reality. [/quote]
So reality does not include the WTC tragedy and the fact that the American people at the time were looking for revenge for that tragedy? Are you truly saying that had the WTC tragedy not occurred that we would have invaded at the exact same time that we did? Please enlighten me with how we were about to go to war before the 9/11 and let me know about the plans that were in place on 9/10 to hit Saddam.
Jeffy, you forgot to mention that we have irrefutable proof from Sri Lankan intelligence that Saddam was working with Darth Vader and Dr. Evil to acquire technology from the Vulcans that would have enabled him to build the dreaded Death Ray!