TMat184 Posted January 31, 2005 Share Posted January 31, 2005 Originally posted by portisizzle Look, I am on a merry go round with you. You were making a sidewards remark about unity and something about necons and their view of unity. There is only one way to unify. That is behind our president and our country. If you do not believe that we should not be unified behind our President and our country in a time of war, then I do not care if you are a liberal or a squash - your wrong. With your words of hostility towards others in this thread one could call you hypocritical when speaking of unity:2cents: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portisizzle Posted January 31, 2005 Share Posted January 31, 2005 Originally posted by TMat184 With your words of hostility towards others in this thread one could call you hypocritical when speaking of unity:2cents: List please....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
du7st Posted January 31, 2005 Share Posted January 31, 2005 Originally posted by portisizzle Look, I am on a merry go round with you. You were making a sidewards remark about unity and something about necons and their view of unity. There is only one way to unify. That is behind our president and our country. If you do not believe that we should not be unified behind President and our country in a time of war, then I do not care if you are a liberal or a squash - your wrong. You thought I somehow have this horrible pit in my stomach when something goes well in Iraq. You jumped to conclusions and were dead wrong. I shouldn't have to state it because it should be obvious but here it goes... I hope Iraq is a huge success. I hope the people there see freedom and through that freedom grow and prosper as a nation. In turn, I hope that helps spread freedom throughout the middle east and even the world. This all helps America to continue its prosperity and that is what I would like to see. Bush couldn't say it any better himself. Are you happy? Now go away. Just say you had no friggin clue what you were blabbering about and let's call it a night. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portisizzle Posted January 31, 2005 Share Posted January 31, 2005 Originally posted by TMat184 With your words of hostility towards others in this thread one could call you hypocritical when speaking of unity:2cents: I need one example of "words of hostility" that would make me a "hypocrite" when I speak of "unity". For the record, I am getting tired of your out of nowhere shots. Debate me or can it. K? :2cents: :2cents: :2cents: My six cents.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted January 31, 2005 Share Posted January 31, 2005 Originally posted by DarkLadyRaven Bin Laden the Koran thumper that he is and friend of Iran that he is is probably not going to anyone who believes outside his strict Ideology and especially to someone the hardline Iranians hate. Sadam allowed liquor stores and Music (gasp) I dont see how strict Ideological person like Laden would even want to compromise with Saddam. Heck Bin Laden hates the Saudi Royals and they are even more conservative than Saddam. Granted its possible for them or anyone in the middle east for that fact to work with Bin Laden ( they all have the goal to see Isreal gone) but does that make it likely --no Bin Laden is something of a xenophobic power hungry whack job...and you may want to check his pockets, but i doubt you will find a "Friends Of Iran" membership card there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portisizzle Posted January 31, 2005 Share Posted January 31, 2005 Originally posted by du7st You thought I somehow have this horrible pit in my stomach when something goes well in Iraq. You jumped to conclusions and were dead wrong. I shouldn't have to state it because it should be obvious but here it goes... I hope Iraq is a huge success. I hope the people there see freedom and through that freedom grow and prosper as a nation. In turn, I hope that helps spread freedom throughout the middle east and even the world. This all helps America to continue its prosperity and that is what I would like to see. Bush couldn't say it any better himself. Are you happy? Now go away. Just say you had no friggin clue what you were blabbering about and let's call it a night. I thought none of the above. I questioned your position on what unity means. I think it is great that you are behind the war. So we can call it a night. But that was not what I was debating. Just go back and look at what I was saying about your post. You will see that I was not thinking about your stomach:) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted January 31, 2005 Share Posted January 31, 2005 Originally posted by stevenaa ChopperDave, Your ideas are noble but your rationale is flawed regarding "at what cost" Or is it that no loss is worth the cost in fighting for the freedom of a muslim country? Do you not think this country had some idea of the tremendous loss of life we'd suffer when we shipped our men off to Europe to fight the very enemy that was hell bent on eradicating the Jewish race? An enemy with the same goal has surfaced and your willing to stand by and watch in the name of sparing American soldiers lives? One difference now is that the Enemy has the stated goal of destroying us enroute to destroying all of Israel. Why is that do you suppose? We both know the answer. We are the only force on this planet that can doom their mission. We stand in their way. That is why they hate us. 1500 deaths is nothing when compared to the loss of life we've suffered in most all other wars in which we've engaged. This is a tremendously small price to pay for the freedom (of their chosing) of millions of fellow HUMANS. American or not, do they not have the same inalienable rights as do you and I? Art is too kind in his call for a liberal's apology. I should think that a great outpouring of shame should be free flowing from anyone who cannot see and admit what an amazing day this is for the Iragi people. As well as for the continual hoping for doom and failure so they could prove their politics. What do you people think is going through the minds of the populus in the regions other oppressed nations. I'd imagine that those that get a true picture of the outcome today will start asking "why can't we voter for our government" Of course they won't be saying it outloud!! We choose Iraq over all the other countries listed in this thread because we had legal recourse to invade. (And Saddam was supporting terrorism by funding terrorist) My God, can you imagine the outcries from Liberals if we'd have tried to invade Iran, Syria or some other terrorist supporting nation. Never could have happened. Now these countries will know we are serious. They will not doubt our threats in the future. And you better believe the tyrants of these nations know full well that the very citizens they oppress would love to have the opportunity just experienced by the average Iraqi. Quite frankly, it doesn't matter what type of government the people of Iraq decide upon. It is their choice, and if it falls on it's face then it will be THEIR failing, not ours. We have given them what they never could have given themselves in the face of the brutal totality of the Saddam regime. The chance to vote for their own freedom. It is in their hands now. mostly a pretty good post, though I always get nervous when people lump all liberals or even most of them in together...but otherwise Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TMat184 Posted January 31, 2005 Share Posted January 31, 2005 Originally posted by portisizzle I need one example of "words of hostility" that would make me a "hypocrite" when I speak of "unity". For the record, I am getting tired of your out of nowhere shots. Debate me or can it. K? :2cents: :2cents: :2cents: My six cents.... You know exactly the hostile posts I am speaking of. I however am no longer going to debate a simpleton. G'night sir, sleep well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DjTj Posted January 31, 2005 Share Posted January 31, 2005 Originally posted by visionary I think the only one of those we would truly have invaded if we had not gone into Iraq would have been Syria, but they were suppsoedly helping us against Al Queda at an unprecedented amount (for them) at the time...though we have since then had plenty of evidence to lead us to think otherwise. Again Iraq was the biggest symbol of totalitarianism in the past decade or so. Taking down Saddam had more symbolic power than going into any other nation would have. And unlike a lot of those nations his government was not only not helping us agianst terrorism, they were deliberately providing shelter and funds to terrorists and of course there were hundreds of Al Queda flunkies (including Zarqawi) up in the north that we had no way of getting at without causing a war with Iraq. In the future we may indeed go into some of thsoe coutnries...most liekly Syria or iran (as a very, very, very last resort) or North Korea if we determine it absolutley neccesary to risk getting nuked. As for Lybia, we have found much less dangerous ways of dealing with them which going into Iraq helped a lot with. Saudia Arabia is a natural enemy of the terrorists and it would be damn stupid to upset things over there too much, except for pushing for reforms. (we have some influence there unlike in Iraq, where we had none). Pakistan is a very similar situation, but totally complicated in other ways, since they are a major ally in the war on terror and also a nuclear power. Indonesia???? yeah we really wanted to get in a war with the biggest muslim democracy in the world...that would have done wonders for our foreign policy and would have started the biggest friggin' Jihad ever, inlcuding a lot of folks who might have otherwise helped us out. ...you picked out one paragraph in my argument and decided to take it apart ... didn't we have a thread earlier about how this wasn't a valid method of debate? I was just listing examples of possible courses of action. Of course Iraq was the easiest and most logical choice - that's why we took it. That doesn't mean it was unequivocally right, and unless we have a time machine we're not going to be able to prove it one way or the other. ...and of course if we took one of the other paths, it wouldn't have been quite the same sort of invasion e.g. Indonesia we would work with their government to target extremists. The important thing is that we're there now and we need to get the job done. Today was a great step towards accomplishing what we wanted to do. ...In the future, please read a few more of my posts before you go ballistic on one paragraph... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portisizzle Posted January 31, 2005 Share Posted January 31, 2005 Originally posted by TMat184 You know exactly the hostile posts I am speaking of. I however am no longer going to debate a simpleton. G'night sir, sleep well. :laugh: Just PM me your list when you get it finished. I know that list must be taking ALL KINDS of time....... Kerry.....:snore: Republican whipping Democrats butt......:whippin: Good Night........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Mike Posted January 31, 2005 Share Posted January 31, 2005 Originally posted by GrimReefa Didn't read the whole thread, but when the Repubs apologize to us for the whole "Oh, the WMDs are there, we just KNOW it", then we'll start talking. They can also apologize for the backdoor draft, for making this country look like Nazis with the prison abuse scandal, and for allowing 9/11 to happen because the National Security Advisor was to preoccupied with Star Wars (someone forgot to tell her the Cold War was over?) to worry about little things like "Bin Laden Determined To Strike U.S.". Dude what planet are you from? We look like Nazis? To who? Morons who have no clue what the real nazis were all about (clue: 6 million jews dead)? There is no moral equivalent to anyone with half a brain. The republicans allowed 9/11 to happen? Under who's administration did bin Laden attack us 8 FREAKI'N TIMES? Clinton had 8 years to do something about UBL but it's Bush's fault for not stopping 9/11 in the 8 months he had, with ZERO actionable intel? Hello? Anybody home? Unfreekin-believable. Someone as misguided and misinformed as you can vote? :doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted January 31, 2005 Share Posted January 31, 2005 Originally posted by DjTj ...you picked out one paragraph in my argument and decided to take it apart ... didn't we have a thread earlier about how this wasn't a valid method of debate? I was just listing examples of possible courses of action. Of course Iraq was the easiest and most logical choice - that's why we took it. That doesn't mean it was unequivocally right, and unless we have a time machine we're not going to be able to prove it one way or the other. ...and of course if we took one of the other paths, it wouldn't have been quite the same sort of invasion e.g. Indonesia we would work with their government to target extremists. The important thing is that we're there now and we need to get the job done. Today was a great step towards accomplishing what we wanted to do. ...In the future, please read a few more of my posts before you go ballistic on one paragraph... LOL, I don't have time to answer every post or especially every part of every post. I answer what needs answering and what I can provide and feel I need to provide, answers to. I do not read every thread either or feel the need to follow etiquite if it gets in the way of informing people who need informing... I replied to that part because it was so outrageously ridiculous and yet still a common view among people who usually do not know what they are talking about that I felt the need to touch on it. As for going balistic...if you want to call it that you may...I call it shining some light where there is none to be found. But I agree with the rest of what you said. except maybe for this... "...and of course if we took one of the other paths, it wouldn't have been quite the same sort of invasion e.g. Indonesia we would work with their government to target extremists." seems a tad niave to me...I could be wrong, but while Indonesia is a democracy they would not want us interfering there and Bush has pretty much pledged not to invade other democracies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJWatson3 Posted January 31, 2005 Share Posted January 31, 2005 ugh. what about a thread lauding the independents of the world world for forming their own opinions. those who don't blindly support the president but are happy for the people of Iraq and have been from the get go. yeah, we get no love. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DjTj Posted January 31, 2005 Share Posted January 31, 2005 Originally posted by visionary LOL, I don't have time to answer every post or especially every part of every post. I answer what needs answering and what I can provide and feel I need to provide, answers to. I do not read every thread either or feel the need to follow etiquite if it gets in the way of informing people who need informing... I replied to that part because it was so outrageously ridiculous and yet still a common view among people who usually do not know what they are talking about that I felt the need to touch on it. As for going balistic...if you want to call it that you may...I call it shining some light where there is none to be found. But I agree with the rest of what you said. except maybe for this... "...and of course if we took one of the other paths, it wouldn't have been quite the same sort of invasion e.g. Indonesia we would work with their government to target extremists." seems a tad niave to me...I could be wrong, but while Indonesia is a democracy they would not want us interfering there and Bush has pretty much pledged not to invade other democracies. Well, that's why Indonesia is a sucky option whereas Iraq was a much better one. Anyway, here's why I was a little testy about you quoting a little part of my argument - Art pointed out in this other thread that liberals always argue by quoting a part of an argument out of context: http://www.extremeskins.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1176290#post1176290 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted January 31, 2005 Share Posted January 31, 2005 Those of you that dont remember: Before the war we had 17 resolutions against them over a 12 year period. Before the war we had an admission that they had weapons (that the UN found) but they destroyed them (that the UN didnt find). Before the war we talked of Him using this on his own people. Before the war we had a fleet outside his borders to make sure the UN inspectors could come back in: With the Democons saying how much it cost each day to do this... Then we had a decision to make: We were almost ALL already there except through the north and we pulled the trigger... You can look back now and say but SEE they didnt have WMD but your being naive. Its like looking at the 7 months of the Bush administration and saying they should have stopped the 3 year attempt to blow up the the WTC/Whitehouse/Capital... Now we have 97% of the Terrorists that are Active in Iraq living and dying everyday. Our Troops are dying also... but if we were fighting these same terrorists all over the world and in our own country wouldnt our troops still be dying? Or would it be civilians and that would make it better.. Yes we work with countries that work with us but also have their hands in the pie. thats the point you get those countries to go as far as they can: SEE 12 YEAR above in resolutions... For those of you that didnt want us to go into IRAQ you sure are bloodthirsty to send our troops into IRAN/SAUDI/NK/SYRIA without a weeks worth of warning ... IRAQ has been not just a minor success. It has been a HUGE success and if it keeps going as it has it will be the biggest accomplishment ever.... You keep predicting Quagmire and Doom and I'll keep prediction Victory and Success and we'll see who is right and who is wrong. Again, let wait another year and see what happens.. and in another year I bet you'll point to 6 months from then as your next line in the sand.... the purple finger doesnt lie. It cant because its permanent... i wish some of the couch potatoes had the same resolve... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpillian Posted January 31, 2005 Share Posted January 31, 2005 The purple finger reminds us that we need to loosen up on the dental floss a bit.... Good post, Thiebar! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted January 31, 2005 Share Posted January 31, 2005 Originally posted by AJWatson3 ugh. what about a thread lauding the independents of the world world for forming their own opinions. those who don't blindly support the president but are happy for the people of Iraq and have been from the get go. yeah, we get no love. Would it have been better for all if Art had phrased the thread should Doves apologize to the Hawks"? I agree that it wasnt just Libs who were against the entire Iraq war effort, but it is easy to believe that way because you mostly saw Democrats and Liberals chanting, Marching, moaning, and b!tching about the effort. I don't think there is a single person here, can be accused of "blindly" supporting the President 100%. I think there are many more who hate President Bush and will 100% disagree with him. I've heard Art, Mad Mike, Portissizzle, etc all take issue with some of the policies. Yet they are seen the same way others are complaining about in reverse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted January 31, 2005 Share Posted January 31, 2005 well, this just as easily could be flipped........ also....all the people who wanted to go to War because they wanted WMD but now are pretending that this is what they were after all the time...... they should apologize also. Nobody should be upset a trial election went off without huge problems. We all should be happy...............happy for the Iraqis that had the balls to go and vote. Kudos to them. and those who pretend this was the main and original goal of the US and our Allies....shame on you. We went to war because Saddam was supposed to be a threat to America. He's always been a threat to his own people, We went to war to protect ourselves 1st.....and setting them up with a working Gov't was a distant 2nd. how's that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted January 31, 2005 Share Posted January 31, 2005 Originally posted by Bufford well, this just as easily could be flipped........ also....all the people who wanted to go to War because they wanted WMD but now are pretending that this is what they were after all the time...... they should apologize also. Nobody should be upset a trial election went off without huge problems. We all should be happy...............happy for the Iraqis that had the balls to go and vote. Kudos to them. and those who pretend this was the main and original goal of the US and our Allies....shame on you. We went to war because Saddam was supposed to be a threat to America. He's always been a threat to his own people, We went to war to protect ourselves 1st.....and setting them up with a working Gov't was a distant 2nd. how's that? Very good, except one thing.....You are wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted January 31, 2005 Share Posted January 31, 2005 ok, how am I wrong? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpillian Posted January 31, 2005 Share Posted January 31, 2005 You're absolutely right, Bufford -- that's why the whole shabang was named "Operation Find Iraq's WMDs and Remove Saddam." Er, wait a sec... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted January 31, 2005 Share Posted January 31, 2005 please, going by the name of the missions. How about going by the words of our leaders before we attacked? hmmmm? You're going to say with a straight face that America's Security was #2 when we went into Iraq? Please do it.........please say that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevenaa Posted January 31, 2005 Share Posted January 31, 2005 CD, Just because Fundamental Extremists will not likely exterminate the numbers that Hitler did, doesn't change their intention to do so. Wouldn't you agree that if we can somehow affect the region in a wholesale way that improves the way of life for them that this would go a long way into easing the tensions in that region? The only way to do that is to plant the seed, help to nurture it and let it spread from within. We could have easily avoided WWII by building up our Navy and becoming isolationist. That would have saved how many hundreds of thousand of American lives. But we can both agree, I'm sure, that it would have been tremendously shortsighted and led to far more disasterous results in the future. We could have used your same rationalization. Why go over and liberate the Europeans from the Germans? Hell, as soon as we leave they'll just let the Germans invade again. So, what's the point. I realize this is a bit simplistic, but it is generally the same situation. We are faced with an enemy. We have choices to make. No one choice is going to satisfy everyone. Please don't take offense at this, but are you biased in your thinking that the average Muslim in the middle east can't aspire to and achieve a better way of life. I understand the complexity of the religious and ethnic problems of the entire region, but do you really think it is entirely impossible for the Muslims of that region to come to a point where enough is enough. Shouldn't seeing their neighbor brethren get the chance to participate in a free election give them all hope. You are either completely cynical or their is a prejudice about the inhabitants of that region. Also, in regards to the problems of the other nations you mention. We absolutely need to be involved in helping to solve those problems. However, we must first make choices about what is in the best interest of our national security. Genocide in Africa, however terrible and grotesque, is not a pressing matter of National Security. Although, given the tendency of those situations to foster terrorism, it could become that way. The problem with you is, you don't seem to see any justification for war in any circumstance. Had we taken military action against Korea, you'd be screaming that we ought to be in Iraq since they've totally disregarded the UN resolutions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted January 31, 2005 Author Share Posted January 31, 2005 Originally posted by Bufford ok, how am I wrong? Because we have protected ourselves. Perhaps the worst aspect to liberal thinking in this is that somehow what's happening in Iraq accomplishes everything BUT protecting the U.S. It's just a strange thing you guys don't seem to get. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted January 31, 2005 Share Posted January 31, 2005 I apologize for thinking we would find mass quantities in Iraq. I was wrong. See its not hard to say your sorry when you are wrong... They are in Syria Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.