RE: So THIS is progress (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message

Real0ne -> RE: So THIS is progress (5/27/2007 9:47:02 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
Did the diversion of our resources and attention from Afghanistan allow OBL to escape and the Taliban to reorganize? How was that conducive to wiping out all muslim fundamentalist terror groups?


if we wanted obl we would have had him a long time ago, you think gw is going to arrest hi8s pals?  NOT



Sanity -> RE: So THIS is progress (5/27/2007 9:47:38 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: caitlyn
At what point does this become the definition of insanity ... doing the same thing again and again, and expecting a different outcome?


the day the war mongers wrote the letter bill clintom waaaaaaay back in 1997 to take over iraq


RealOne is right. Then again, it is what they were saying before the invasion, before President Bush was ever elected in the first place, isn't it.



farglebargle -> RE: So THIS is progress (5/27/2007 9:54:22 AM)

Yeah, but Bush CHOSE TO COMMIT FRAUD, by lying and otherwise making fraudulent representations to The People and Congress about the abilities, and intent of Iraq.

Clinton CHOSE TO COMMIT PERJURY, by lying about getting his dick sucked by an ADULT WOMAN.




CuriousLord -> RE: So THIS is progress (5/27/2007 9:54:44 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

Yes. Here's the thing. Way *I* see it the ONLY WAY OUT with honor and integrity is this simple plan:

1) Give *EVERY* Iraqi who can hold one, an assault rifle and crate of ammunition. ( Thousand dollars each )

2) Tell *EVERY* Iraqi: "Get together with your neighbors and Organize into a Militia to defend your neighborhood, village, city.

3) Good Luck, May Allah Be Merciful and GOOD BYE.

No-one can secure The Iraqi People BUT The Iraqi People.


You mean no one can secure the social stability of the Iraqi people but the Iraqi people.  This is, in the sense that they must consent, understandable.  Still, what do you think the American Revolution and aftermath would've been like in a world where people can make bombs and are beyond the classical European ideals of who's targetable and who's not?


quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

Hey, perhaps that's what the Cultural Expectations are? Does George Bush have the required balls to do what's needed to surpress the violence? No. In fact NO Constitutional Republic could *ever* be successful in that.


You seem to dislike him, though, despite "hav[ing] the required balls", to some degree, to begin trying to deal with this problem, despite plummeting approval ratings and both political and social pressure?

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

Pournelle suggested that after 9/11, the Marines march from one end of Afghanistan to the other, removing the existing Taliban government, and anyone too dumb to get out of their way, or stupid enough to take a shot at them.

THEN WE COME HOME. Secure in the knowledge that IF a government takes hold which is a similar threat, The Marines could simple GO BACK.


That works great, when you're not considering the innocent lives such a foreign government may neglect, or even take, after such a withdraw.

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

This solves the VERY REAL PROBLEM of using Elite Combat Troops as Military Occupation Police.


So does using a portion of our nukes to level the country into one ashened crater.


quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

And we see exactly how effective THAT strategy is in Iraq, don't we.


I'd still be in favor of the nuke idea.



popeye1250 -> RE: So THIS is progress (5/27/2007 9:55:29 AM)

And then we have John McCain telling us that if we don't fight them over there they'll follow us here.
Ah,.....John, they're already here thanks to that wide open Mexican Border!



Real0ne -> RE: So THIS is progress (5/27/2007 9:57:27 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle
"There is no military solution to a problem like that in Iraq, to the insurgency of Iraq," Petraeus told a news conference, adding that political negotiations were crucial to forging any lasting peace.


"If we don't win in Iraq, it will signal the beginning of the end for life as we know it. We'll all be either dead, or bowing down to Mecca within 25 years."

Statement issued at a joint press conference signed by Al Gore, John Kerry, Bill Clinton, and Jimmy Carter.


So you face mecca and pray to jesus, (who would know), but how do you escape a tyrannical gov?




farglebargle -> RE: So THIS is progress (5/27/2007 9:58:45 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: CuriousLord

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

Yes. Here's the thing. Way *I* see it the ONLY WAY OUT with honor and integrity is this simple plan:

1) Give *EVERY* Iraqi who can hold one, an assault rifle and crate of ammunition. ( Thousand dollars each )

2) Tell *EVERY* Iraqi: "Get together with your neighbors and Organize into a Militia to defend your neighborhood, village, city.

3) Good Luck, May Allah Be Merciful and GOOD BYE.

No-one can secure The Iraqi People BUT The Iraqi People.


You mean no one can secure the social stability of the Iraqi people but the Iraqi people. This is, in the sense that they must consent, understandable. Still, what do you think the American Revolution and aftermath would've been like in a world where people can make bombs and are beyond the classical European ideals of who's targetable and who's not?


"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

quote:


quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

Hey, perhaps that's what the Cultural Expectations are? Does George Bush have the required balls to do what's needed to surpress the violence? No. In fact NO Constitutional Republic could *ever* be successful in that.


You seem to dislike him, though, despite "hav[ing] the required balls", to some degree, to begin trying to deal with this problem, despite plummeting approval ratings and both political and social pressure?


How do you deal with the problem by continuing a failed policy?

Last I heard, Iraqi Parliament was going to go into recess for 2 months. Guess THEY don't feel any need to get anything done...

quote:



quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

Pournelle suggested that after 9/11, the Marines march from one end of Afghanistan to the other, removing the existing Taliban government, and anyone too dumb to get out of their way, or stupid enough to take a shot at them.

THEN WE COME HOME. Secure in the knowledge that IF a government takes hold which is a similar threat, The Marines could simple GO BACK.


That works great, when you're not considering the innocent lives such a foreign government may neglect, or even take, after such a withdraw.


Fuck 'em. They got guns, let THEM see to THEIR OWN SECURITY. I don't see "Afghanistan" or "Iraq" listed as a State in the Union, do you?

They ain't our PROPERTY to protect, either, are they?

quote:



quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

This solves the VERY REAL PROBLEM of using Elite Combat Troops as Military Occupation Police.


So does using a portion of our nukes to level the country into one ashened crater.


Hey, while you're at it, don't forget the "showers" and ovens, eh?

quote:




quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

And we see exactly how effective THAT strategy is in Iraq, don't we.


I'd still be in favor of the nuke idea.


It's an opinion.




Real0ne -> RE: So THIS is progress (5/27/2007 10:03:27 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250

And then we have John McCain telling us that if we don't fight them over there they'll follow us here.
Ah,.....John, they're already here thanks to that wide open Mexican Border!


Mccains argument was one i used at first because it seemed logical and to a cewrtain extent it is, however you never kill a tree by clipping the leaves, it all gets back to planting our asses on their land against the will of their people and refusal to leave.

No one here would like some foreigner building a house on their property.



Real0ne -> RE: So THIS is progress (5/27/2007 10:07:15 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."


yup and our wonderful senator coggs is t5rying to run a bill through to require all firearms to be registered in a fed database, thus giving copnsent to be under the control of the federal government and removing it from the states.  so i have to go to that meeting and nicely voice my opinion, speaking of mission creep and infringing.



CuriousLord -> RE: So THIS is progress (5/27/2007 10:18:08 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."


"Arms", context, refers to muskets and the such, does it not?  Or would you argue that "arms" would include nuclear weapons, that any sociopath living in New York could just go buy one the day his girlfriend dumps him?

This is not to say that I hold the founding fathers of America as the end-all of political philosophy.  Their solution was better than the previous- this does not make it perfect.

Unless, of course, you like explosions.  It's fair enough to say that many do- when they're not personally involved.


quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

How do you deal with the problem by continuing a failed policy?


How is a specific figurehead paramount to a policy?
How is the current policy failed?

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

Last I heard, Iraqi Parliament was going to go into recess for 2 months. Guess THEY don't feel any need to get anything done...


In what argument would you contend that recess equates to apathy?

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

quote:

That works great, when you're not considering the innocent lives such a foreign government may neglect, or even take, after such a withdraw.


Fuck 'em. They got guns, let THEM see to THEIR OWN SECURITY. I don't see "Afghanistan" or "Iraq" listed as a State in the Union, do you?

They ain't our PROPERTY to protect, either, are they?


Then this is to say that a human life is the responsibility of its governing body, and not the concern of humanity outside of the institution of government?


quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

quote:

So does using a portion of our nukes to level the country into one ashened crater.


Hey, while you're at it, don't forget the "showers" and ovens, eh?


Are you claiming the US has used chemical showers and ovens to kill Iraqis?  If not, what is the relevance of this?

It appears you're arguing that a troubled foreign government should be left alone to deal with its issues.  Bringing up a Nazi-era reference to the Germans killing off their citizens during the time when outsiders were too apathetic to act based on their own well-beings seems to be in determent to your own point.

Edit:  Are you citing precidicence for apathy towards the plight of another nation as being internationally acceptable?



selfbnd411 -> RE: So THIS is progress (5/27/2007 10:25:30 AM)

I supported the war then to protect our access to ME oil.  I don't really care about 600,000 iraqis dead or 600,000,000.  Iraqis should worry about their prosperity and we'll worry about ours.  That is the only legitimate basis for any foreign policy: a concert of nations each seeking out their own self interest.  No nation can ever truly have it all, though, so the result is a common ground; a place where all nations get most of what they want.

I opposed the war the minute it became clear that the war was not being fought for America's self interest; it was being fought to serve the political and personal ends of the bushies.



CuriousLord -> RE: So THIS is progress (5/27/2007 10:30:17 AM)

I rather doubt the war was ever meant to protect oil.  Intelligence officials, accurately, predicted that many Iraqi oil fields would be torched the moment we went in.

Is production back to near-normal levels yet?



dcnovice -> RE: So THIS is progress (5/27/2007 10:32:35 AM)

quote:

I don't really care about 600,000 iraqis dead or 600,000,000. 


Oh my.



caitlyn -> RE: So THIS is progress (5/27/2007 10:37:26 AM)

A very honest admission.
 
For whatever it's worth (and that may not be much), you just went up a notch. [:D]



CuriousLord -> RE: So THIS is progress (5/27/2007 10:38:05 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

quote:

I don't really care about 600,000 iraqis dead or 600,000,000. 


Oh my.


I'm still trying to figure out if he was meaning that literally or not.



farglebargle -> RE: So THIS is progress (5/27/2007 10:49:01 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: CuriousLord

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."


"Arms", context, refers to muskets and the such, does it not?


Of course not. If they MEANT muskets, given the amount of time they took to draft the Amendment, then they would have SAID "Muskets".

Arms means Arms. What else could it mean?

It's only got 4 letters. I don't see a whole lotta wiggle room.

quote:


Or would you argue that "arms" would include nuclear weapons, that any sociopath living in New York could just go buy one the day his girlfriend dumps him?


Why do you hate Private Property Rights, which underpin all other freedoms???


quote:



quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

How do you deal with the problem by continuing a failed policy?


How is a speicifc figurehead paramount to a policy?
How is the current policy failed?


Well, we're still dying and killing in Iraq. That's a failure.

quote:


quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

Last I heard, Iraqi Parliament was going to go into recess for 2 months. Guess THEY don't feel any need to get anything done...


In what argument would you contend that recess equates to apathy?


Well, round these parts, if there work that needs don't you stick to it until it's done.


quote:


quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

quote:

That works great, when you're not considering the innocent lives such a foreign government may neglect, or even take, after such a withdraw.


Fuck 'em. They got guns, let THEM see to THEIR OWN SECURITY. I don't see "Afghanistan" or "Iraq" listed as a State in the Union, do you?

They ain't our PROPERTY to protect, either, are they?


Then this is to say that a human life is the responsibility of its governing body, and not the concern of humanity outside of the institution of government?



Well, not really. It's just not the concern of the United States Government. The UN, perhaps....

The Iraqi Government, definitely.



quote:


quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

quote:

So does using a portion of our nukes to level the country into one ashened crater.


Hey, while you're at it, don't forget the "showers" and ovens, eh?


Are you claiming the US has used chemical showers and ovens to kill Iraqis? If not, what is the relevance of this?



You brought up nuking parts of Iraq, I mentioned that traditionally, the showers and ovens were used for the same purpose.

quote:



It appears you're arguing that a troubled foreign government should be left alone to deal with its issues. Bringing up a Nazi-era reference to the Germans killing off their citizens during the time when outsiders were too apathetic to act based on their own well-beings seems to be in determent to your own point.


If PRESCOTT BUSH didn't actively assist the Nazis and Hitler, 6 million more Jews might be alive today. So maybe I don't think much of the Family in the first place.




dcnovice -> RE: So THIS is progress (5/27/2007 10:51:49 AM)

quote:

Of course not. If they MEANT muskets, given the amount of time they took to draft the Amendment, then they would have SAID "Muskets".

Arms means Arms. What else could it mean?


I think CL's point is that arms were far more limited--and far less lethal--when the Second Amendment was passed. I'm not sure the framers quite envisioned teen gang members with AK-47s.



dcnovice -> RE: So THIS is progress (5/27/2007 10:53:13 AM)

quote:

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."


My reaction to that is always "Fine. If you want to bear arms, join the well-regulated militia." [:)]



farglebargle -> RE: So THIS is progress (5/27/2007 11:14:41 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

quote:

Of course not. If they MEANT muskets, given the amount of time they took to draft the Amendment, then they would have SAID "Muskets".

Arms means Arms. What else could it mean?


I think CL's point is that arms were far more limited--and far less lethal--when the Second Amendment was passed. I'm not sure the framers quite envisioned teen gang members with AK-47s.


Well, if that's the logic, then they didn't mean Bladed Weapons, did they?

Or did they mean "Bladed Weapons", and SMOOTHBORE muskets, but not rifled barrels?

Or did they mean "Bladed Weapons less than 10", Smoothbore muskets no larger than 40 caliber?

No, that's the "LIBERAL INTERPRETATION" favored by the Hamiltonians. And we all know what THEIR agenda is.

Arms means Arms. "Shall Not Be Infringed" means "Shall Not Be Infringed".

To contend otherwise is to claim illiteracy.




farglebargle -> RE: So THIS is progress (5/27/2007 11:15:54 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

quote:

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."


My reaction to that is always "Fine. If you want to bear arms, join the well-regulated militia." [:)]


So? Who's to say that A Militia of One isn't well regulated?

SELF-REGULATION is what FREE MEN AND WOMEN DO.

And btw, the COMMA is there for a reason.



Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875