See, now I’m castigated for being a lefty, but I don’t like the implications of this quip.
To me, that says we should back down from terrorist threats. I disagree.
There are roads to peace, but allowing threats of terrorism or violence to cow us isn’t appropriate.
Heh, that doesn’t mean we should go around attacking every country that we don’t like either…
[quote]vroom wrote:
Now, if you have nothing better to say than “stop the cheerleading”, I sugggest you find something else to do. Have you considered taking up crochet?
Are you on crack?
I outlined some reasonable areas of disagreement that both sides need to be able to admit concerning the other… in counterpoint to your usual blather.
The word cheerleading wasn’t even in my post.
Nice try.[/quote]
No, but you have pretty much made the phrase your motto, and you last line did say something along the lines of “stop the partisanship”.
My point is - find a different schtick. The partisanship thing is way played. And you offered nothing but the obvious. Hardly ground breaking stuff.
This war has been made a partisan issue. To not see that is just fucking ignorant.
[quote]danweltmann wrote:
There’s a good Christion, go murder 100,000 without a clue why, then ask questions LATER! Pathetic. Remember your words, when terrorists escalate this war to nuclear.[/quote]
It would be nice if you would attempt to make a fucking point without regurgitating the George Soros bullshit that has been disproven in theis forum countless times.
Please - for the love of everything good and holy, don’t post again until you can grab a fucking clue. They even hand them out at the door if you open your eyes anfd look around.
See vroom? this dill hole is as partisan as anyone. But he’s worse - he is completely ignorant of reality, and is engorged on kool-aid. Where is your reprimand of this guy?
I have a feeling you will not disprove your own partisanship by blasting him for cheerleading. But I could be wrong.
[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
I beg your pardon? Please explain.[/quote]
Germany is neck deep in the OFF scandal, right along with the Frenchies. You had a good reason for being against invasion of Iraq, and it had nothing to do with WMD’s. It had to do with the greed of your government.
[quote]Anyway, the question remains if the US would have waged war without the “threat” WoMD.
Of course there was a bunch of other reasons, (like, Saddam is an ass) but WoMD was the fear-instilling key argument to win public opinion.[/quote]
No - WMD is the only reason that wound up being wrong. That is what the press, and the ABB/pro-terrorist crowd has latched on to. America was more than ready to go to war to stop the spread of state sponsored terrorism. We did the right thing whether the Euro terrorist lovers like it or not.
I’m not about to do your research for you. If all you are going on is the propaganda bullshit that you have been spoonfed, that is not my problem. This very subject has been discussed ad nauseum here. Do a search.
[quote]No, but you have pretty much made the phrase your motto, and you last line did say something along the lines of “stop the partisanship”.
My point is - find a different schtick. The partisanship thing is way played. And you offered nothing but the obvious. Hardly ground breaking stuff.
This war has been made a partisan issue. To not see that is just fucking ignorant.[/quote]
The holidays are over… the hate filled Rainjack is back.
I call it like I see it. Why do you always try to get me to change what I prefer to focus on? I see many people, including you, stuck harping on party lines (and at times cheerleading). It is non-productive.
Hurling partisan insults and talking points back and forth accomplishes exactly squat. If you are happy trying to yell loudest and declare yourself the winner, go ahead and knock yourself out.
Everything is a partisan issue. That’s part of the problem. I’m pointing that out. Don’t like it? Tough.
Anyhow, to give you more of an explanation than you deserve… some people (other than yourself) are probably not aware of when they are cheerleading or participating in pure partisanship. Bringing it back to the underlying basics helps to find some common ground for reasonable discussion.
I know you don’t actually enjoy reasonable discussion very much, but life is tough all over.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
danweltmann wrote:
There’s a good Christion, go murder 100,000 without a clue why, then ask questions LATER! Pathetic. Remember your words, when terrorists escalate this war to nuclear.
It would be nice if you would attempt to make a fucking point without regurgitating the George Soros bullshit that has been disproven in theis forum countless times.
Please - for the love of everything good and holy, don’t post again until you can grab a fucking clue. They even hand them out at the door if you open your eyes anfd look around.
See vroom? this dill hole is as partisan as anyone. But he’s worse - he is completely ignorant of reality, and is engorged on kool-aid. Where is your reprimand of this guy?
I have a feeling you will not disprove your own partisanship by blasting him for cheerleading. But I could be wrong. [/quote]
With the likes of idiots like you around, this forum doesn’t prove much. As for grabbing a clue, read some Chomsky, maybe you’ll wake up.
This is why the world is laughing at the US, the recurring scare tactics over Iraq, Vietnam, Nicaragua, Panama, Guatemala, etc. Hoooooly shit, when will you smell the bullshit? Nobody’s attacking the US, certainly no country, as for the CIA trained Osama, he’s just hitting back.
As for George Soros, whatever he said, here’s a pattern:
First the USS Cole, then the WTC in 1993, then 9/11. What do you need, World War Fucking Three for you to get the message about US aggression and its consequences? The Germans and the Japanese learned this lesson after the Second one.
What’s it going to take?
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Schwarzfahrer wrote:
I beg your pardon? Please explain.
Germany is neck deep in the OFF scandal, right along with the Frenchies. You had a good reason for being against invasion of Iraq, and it had nothing to do with WMD’s. It had to do with the greed of your government.
Anyway, the question remains if the US would have waged war without the “threat” WoMD.
Of course there was a bunch of other reasons, (like, Saddam is an ass) but WoMD was the fear-instilling key argument to win public opinion.
No - WMD is the only reason that wound up being wrong. That is what the press, and the ABB/pro-terrorist crowd has latched on to. America was more than ready to go to war to stop the spread of state sponsored terrorism. We did the right thing whether the Euro terrorist lovers like it or not.
If there were so many other good OFFICIAL reasons, perhaps someone could be so kind and post them?
I’m not about to do your research for you. If all you are going on is the propaganda bullshit that you have been spoonfed, that is not my problem. This very subject has been discussed ad nauseum here. Do a search.
[/quote]
Shit man, stop watching Fox, Robertson and whatever else you’re on, and look up the definition of the word propaganda.
That war, according to article 51 of the UN charter, was a war crime.
[quote]vroom wrote:
I know you don’t actually enjoy reasonable discussion very much, but life is tough all over.[/quote]
When you annoint yourself as the arbitor of “reasonable” - I have a problem with it. Mainly because you are as partisan as the next guy, and you don’t even recognize it. You even phrase your “let’s all hold hands, and find common ground” statements from a left-wing perspective. I find it more than slightly disingenuous, and even a little condescending.
[quote]danweltmann wrote:
As for George Soros, whatever he said, here’s a pattern:
First the USS Cole, then the WTC in 1993, then 9/11. What do you need, World War Fucking Three for you to get the message about US aggression and its consequences? The Germans and the Japanese learned this lesson after the Second one.
What’s it going to take?
[/quote]
The Germans didn’t learn shit - even after two good old fashioned ass whoopins’. The only reason the Europe isn’t goose-stepping to and from indoctrination school right now is becasue of the U.S. stepping in and doing what the pacifist infested Western Europeans have been histrically to stupid to do - that is sniff out and stop tyranny. Europe has learned nothing from the 20th century.
For you to miss that little tid-bit of history just proves how stupid you really are. Now run along and read some more fucking Chomsky. I’m sure he will come in handy if the U.S. ever stops doing what it does, and you are forced to pray 5 times a day to a God not of you choosing.
[quote]danweltmann wrote:
Shit man, stop watching Fox, Robertson and whatever else you’re on, and look up the definition of the word propaganda.
That war, according to article 51 of the UN charter, was a war crime.
[/quote]
Maybe it’s not Soros’ B.S. you are swallowing. You sound more like a daily Kos type of idiot.
Lay out GWB’s violations of Article 51. I’d love to see you can do anything other than regurgitate pro-terrorist jiz.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
When you annoint yourself as the arbitor of “reasonable” - I have a problem with it. Mainly because you are as partisan as the next guy, and you don’t even recognize it. You even phrase your “let’s all hold hands, and find common ground” statements from a left-wing perspective. I find it more than slightly disingenuous, and even a little condescending. [/quote]
Rainjack,
Think about it… everyone here is their own personal arbiter of what is reasonable.
However, I am not “as partisan as the next guy”. Partisan implies more than simply having viewpoints similar to those espoused by one side or the other.
The fact I lean left and the fact you lean right does not mean we have to be partisan about the presentation of our viewpoints.
The fact you assume I have some strange lefty views is where you start to go wrong. You characterize my statements well beyond what I have said or implied. I don’t know whether you do it on purpose or not, but it is funny to watch.
Anyway, highlighting the underlying basics of the issue, has nothing to do with “lets all hold hands”. It is about making it possible for those that haven’t been thinking for themselves to get down to the underlying issues and think about them from first principles.
Yes, I know. You appear to disapprove of the fact that I prefer to think about things. The fact is I like to consider the issues, the underlying issues, and then develop a viewpoint based on the application of my principles.
As a lefty, my viewpoint will differ from yours, but it won’t be because I’ve read some political talking points or because I’m trying to support a party or an administration. It will be because I’ve developed my own opinion and I’ll be able to elucidate that opinion and show how I arrived there.
Partisanship and cheerleading imply a lot more than simple agreement with certain left or right leaning viewpoints.
Finally, isn’t the whole point of the forums to give people the opportunity to present their opinion, to allow them to voice their conclusions as they act as their own personal arbiter of right and wrong with respect to world events?
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Germany is neck deep in the OFF scandal, right along with the Frenchies. You had a good reason for being against invasion of Iraq, and it had nothing to do with WMD’s. It had to do with the greed of your government.
We did the right thing whether the Euro terrorist lovers like it or not.
I’m not about to do your research for you. If all you are going on is the propaganda bullshit that you have been spoonfed, that is not my problem. This very subject has been discussed ad nauseum here. Do a search.
[/quote]
Euro terrorist lovers. Off scandal. Greed of your government.
I see. You seem to have some kind of information source I lack- please enlighten me, I honestly don’t know what you’re talking about.
Concerning the other reasons for going to war: You did get me wrong. I simply meant there are no good ones.
The positve side effects which followed the war are by no means officially arguable.
[quote]DB297 wrote:
slimjim wrote:
I have to say, for better or worse, the one quality I appreciate in Bush is his steadfast determination. He has not wavered once in his decision to invade Iraq. It is a blessing and a curse that he continues to stick to his guns, but I can admire him for this.
Benjamin Franklin: The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.
wow if there was ever a time a quote was taken out of context this was it and please don’t don’t tell me to break it down for you barney style playa
[/quote]
I don’t think that is something to admire.
For the record - you do way more than just lean left.
You are nearly as objective as you think you are. That is what I was trying to say. In almost every one of these type of threads where you start to wax ‘objective’ - your musings spring from a left-wing point of view. There is nothing wrong with that - and admitting it is the first step to a cure.
Seriously, I am not the only one that sees your attempts as a very thinly veiled attempt to make the right look as stupid and partisan as you seem to think we are.
We have had this same stupid volley and return so many times it is not even fun anymore. BUT - just because I support the administration wrt the GWOT does not make my postions cheerleading.
Have you ever stopped to think that maybe GWB agrees with me? That I might have had problems with state sponsored terrorism before 9/11?
How is it cheerleading if I have been anti-islamofascist since 1978 when terrorists in Iran took 52 people hostage? It has taken the better part of 25 years for someone to step up and do something about a problem that has been festering for a quarter century.
[quote]slimjim wrote:
I have to say, for better or worse, the one quality I appreciate in Bush is his steadfast determination. He has not wavered once in his decision to invade Iraq. It is a blessing and a curse that he continues to stick to his guns, but I can admire him for this. [/quote]
I agree. Steadfastness is what is necessary when fighting terrorism. I’m not so sure that Iraq and terrorism are related based on the intelligence information that we have, and I think cover-ups only make the party look dumber than they already look. It could just as easily be a dem in office making mistakes and the reps would bash them. I’m just afraid that with a dem in office we would have sat on our hands after 9/11. Bush has shown to be a determined and emotional leader. It’s easy to make mistakes under emotional conditions. I think 9/11 constitutes emotoinal.
That being said, the most glaring mistake that is obviously a result of an emotional not-well-thought-out decision, is not the one to attack Iraq, but not plan on how to rebuild, re-establish gov’t, and get out. So, that’s where Bush and the rep’s screwed up. The Dem’s probably would have screwed it up too - but not from their perspective, only from the republican’s. The joke’s really on us. A dictator would not have screwed up at all because he would have killed everybody who disagreed with his decision and executed his plan and the people to perfection.
I have a brother who’s in Iraq for the third time. I here all of the debate and there is no right or wrong only what is. We would have wound up somewhere else under other leadership whether it be Somalia, Bosnia, Equador, etc. So we are there and we don’t know how the fuck to get out. Bush’s voice isn’t as strong as it used to be because he knows that we need to get out of there as the rest of the nation watches as he fumbles his feet around. Would you want to be in his shoes? Nope. I wouldn’t either.
I wouldn’t want to be in some other politicians shoes, who would have been in office if Bush weren’t there, that didn’t respond to 9/11 and resulted in subsequent boughts with terrorism and the nation watched as he fumbled shit up.Maybe thousands of soldiers wouldn’t have died, maybe thousands of civilians would have. That couldn’t have been a Conservative or Liberal could it?? Never… it would have been a moderate that tried to please everybody. But during the last election they sounded alot alike.
If you hear a noise in your house in the middle of the night, do you lay around and wait for the intruder to find you scared in bed, or do you pick up your gun and defend your house. I’m sure some people would lie there hoping the noise was the wind, lie there scared, and lie there defenseless when the intruder came in on him. Is either way right? No. Maybe it was just the wind. Or maybe you’d rather let yourself die than kill somebody else. If you would then you are an idiot in my humble opinion.
But my brother and a lot of those guys are out there looking for that intruder so that we can sleep at night without wondering was it the wind or is it some goddamn terrorist. That’s why we are in Iraq… even though it was an emtional decision with the current consequences, and probably having family ties especially for Mr. Bush.
The very sad part is that innocent people die in Iraq too. If I was one of those members families, I would hate the United States and take up arms against it and die. But if I was one of the oppressed I’d fight along side with us and recognized this is war.
Anyway… I we are an ever judging nation, none of the people on this thread including myself could do not better or worse than Mr. Bush as we don’t have the slightest idea of what it takes to be President in this democratic government and society of free speech that will crucify your every move. Didn’t we crucify Clinton? Yeah but he deserved it right?? Shit… and Bush don’t? Who makes that call? But I think one reason Bush is taking such a valant stance is because he had the balls to do it. That’s it. Why does Jimmy jump on the grenade thrown in the middle of his platoon. Did he want to die? Or did he just have that in him? Did he want to further the cause of his affiliated party? Nope. I think Bush just had that in him. He just found out he was a leader after 9/11. That momentum carried him into the disaster that is now IRAQ. But the principle behind it all was there.
Defense of the people of America, not the debate of how to defend America. I think he’s stumbling, bumbling, and looking pretty stupid right now. My brother’s morale is a lot lower than it was during his first of three tours to Iraq, but he believes in the principle of defending this country and believes that George Bush supports that principle in as much truth as can be mustered in a politician… which ain’t a hellofalot. But that’s more than any other leader we’ve had in a while.
So anyway… I didn’t even read this thread, but I can imagine where it went. But most everybody agree’s we need to come home… even a lot of supporters of Bush (around where I live and work). But as far as the intention, the belief, the backbone, the human emotion that politicians are too scared to display, the boldness to act when no one else would… man that was something rarely seen and I am glad I was alive to see it. As far as the deception in the lies… I think we don’t know shit as far as what goes on to run this country, defend this country and the wool is over our eyes even for those educated ones.
We see ourselves as this upright, or we see ourselves upright, democratic country when we are just a bunch of liars trying to make money and/or help others so that we feel good about ourselves. It really isn’t about you… it’s about me. Just like any other country. But we live in the USA, and that’s what we have to defend. Thanks for standing up for this liar right here Bush, and thanks to guys like my brother who are fighting for my freedom while I sit on my ass playing politics and kissing ass and lying for some cause that makes me want to vomit because it’s hard to see the truth in it after you see the motives adn people behind it.
Thanks for standing up for something - which is what a leader does. If you dont’ stand up for something then you stand for nothing. And if you stand up for everything, it ain’t really standing up any more it’s just not ever sitting down. My freedom is after 5 o’clock, in the walls of my house, after Friday on Satudrday and Sunday… and if I had ever lived in a third world country I’d appreciate a whole lot more than that. If you lose security, you lose the very walls you live in, that’s what fear is. Bush’s intention was that we not live in fear. Regardless of what is going on now (we need to get the fuck home), that’s how we got where we are now… I believe. My brother wants to survive foremost, get home to his family second, and defend his country third. Those priorities may seem out of line to some but oh well each to his own. But to keep his morale up he tries to remember why we got there in the first place.
Remember that those keeping Iraq from freedom are nothing more than criminal terrorists that arent’ even native to that country and just want to kill some American’s because they hate our society. Our fight is far from over… it’s coming somewhere else after we leave Iraq. I hope whatever human being, Democrat, Republican, Afrogehamamama… takes office next, continues to defend our security. I don’t know what the hell I was trying to say, but I said it. I’m probably not going to participate in going back and forth with opinions on my thread. I think the whole political discussion is pointless. Which is why I posted. What a paradox.
[quote]The Mage wrote:
Xvim wrote:
The Bush administration lied to get the public behind the war. You either don’t mind/care or you do. Personally I think the war in Iraq needed to happen, I never believed the stories about WMD’s but that didn’t really effect my opinion on ousting Saddam. I don’t have a problem with the War, I have a problem with the way it was prosecuted and the lies told to justify it.
What lie? If he lied, you need to prove it. (You also need to realize I have pointed this out hundreds of times, and nobody can truly challenge this.)
Again, In order to prove a lie, you need to prove that the weapons were not there when Bush said they were there, not after, but at the time.
Then you need to prove he knew it at the time he said it, and the overwhelming evidence is in the other direction, supporting the he actually believed they were there.
And for the billionth time I hope you are not trying to say being incorrect means you are lying. That means that anyone who missed a question on a test is a liar.
So if he didn’t actually lie, does that mean you have no complaint about him ousting Saddam now?
Now children, we need to progress this discussion, not spew hate, lies, or propaganda. Nor must we believe it. This discussion needs to progress, not get stuck in this stupid quandary of a debate we are in. Stuck repeating the same things over and over and over.[/quote]
GOOD POINT MAGE!
[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
Euro terrorist lovers. Off scandal. Greed of your government.
I see. You seem to have some kind of information source I lack- please enlighten me, I honestly don’t know what you’re talking about.[/quote]
Do you remember the ethnic uprising in France just a few weeks ago? It is a direct result of the apologist, apathetic attitude Europe has taken towards the muslem world. Within that apathy Europe has allowed islamo-fascism a foothold. To not be against this cancer of mankind is to be in favor of it. Hence Euro terrorist lovers.
OFF = U.N. Oil For Food scandal. I’ll leave it to you to research that topic on your own, as it is pretty well documented right here in theis forum.
[quote]Concerning the other reasons for going to war: You did get me wrong. I simply meant there are no good ones.
The positve side effects which followed the war are by no means officially arguable.
[/quote]
I apologize if I misunderstood what you wrote. There are way too many Bush/America haters here to not think that someone that is against the war is not colored by their hatred. I am sorry that made a bad assumption on your position.
schwarzfahrer wrote:
“Euro terrorist lovers. Off scandal. Greed of your government.
I see. You seem to have some kind of information source I lack- please enlighten me, I honestly don’t know what you’re talking about.”
I’ll step in here. The germans were the number one supplier of arms to saddams regime starting in the early 1980’s.
Go ahead and look it up.
Or, you can research my posts and you may learn something.
I’m glad I could help.
“Concerning the other reasons for going to war: You did get me wrong. I simply meant there are no good ones.”
Really? Support of terrorism, threatening our allies, trying to assassinate our former President, firing on our planes, gassing, murdering, invading, cutting of oil to further his agenda, consistently breaking the Gulf War Cease Fire agreements. Need I go on?
“The positve side effects which followed the war are by no means officially arguable.”
That’s true. Please take a peek at what the reasons for invasions were. You can go right ahead and do your own research. If you (and other pinheads) decide to focus on one issue only, that is your deal.
Oh, as far as imminent threat goes, 911 SHOULD HAVE shown that a government who is supports terrorists (including al qaeda) and has a history of possession and use of WMD, is actively hostile to the U.S. could lead some reasonable people to assume it was an imminent threat.
A to B to C. It’s a relatively easy extrapolation to make.
Good luck!!!
JeffR
Some members of the right wing posse in these parts engage in some very suspect logic and regurgitate talking points and do a lot of cheerleading.
That is what makes them look stupid and partisan, nothing I say will ever accomplish that.
Statements that imply a left leaning viewpoint needs a “cure” are what make you look stupid and partisan. Don’t blame me for that.
If some of those folks in the right wing posse would acknowledge facts or at least reasonable points of contention, such as I outline from time to time, that would do a lot to show they weren’t just fanatical partisan hacks.
I go out of my way to make sure I do that from time to time, such as when applauding Bush during his acceptance of responsibility during the Katrina crisis. Most of the other folks on the left decried it as pure politics.
Even in the “Meeting of the Minds” thread, I’ve said I would be impressed if this was but a beginning. Most of the adamant left will not say something like that.
I don’t think you even see these things…
danweltmann wrote:
Does anyone else enjoy it when a german comes on trying to act holier-than-thou?
You do know your own recent history?
Yes?
Good?
“With the likes of idiots like you around, this forum doesn’t prove much. As for grabbing a clue, read some Chomsky, maybe you’ll wake up.”
Wake up in a tree owned by the state?
No, thanks.
“This is why the world is laughing at the US,”
Laughing? Note: “germany/france/russia” are not the rest of the world.
Oh, we’ve been watching your unemployment numbers.
You might want to use your energy elsewhere.
“the recurring scare tactics over Iraq, Vietnam, Nicaragua, Panama, Guatemala, etc. Hoooooly shit, when will you smell the bullshit?”
I’m sorry, are you castigating the United States for “scare tactics?”
Shall we talk about the ABSOLUTE HORROR of your foreign policy?
“Nobody’s attacking the US, certainly no country, as for the CIA trained Osama, he’s just hitting back.”
Really? Do you get newsprint in prussia?
You might have noticed the World Trade Centers don’t exist.
Oh, do you admire osama?
“As for George Soros, whatever he said, here’s a pattern:
First the USS Cole, then the WTC in 1993, then 9/11. What do you need, World War Fucking Three for you to get the message about US aggression and its consequences?”
Do you think those attacks were justified?
“The Germans and the Japanese learned this lesson after the Second one.
What’s it going to take?”
It’s unfortunate YOU didn’t learn to recognize and deal with an aggressive dictator. The parallels between saddam and some of your past leaders are unmistakable.
JeffR