|
xBullx -> RE: US may be drawn into South American war (3/3/2008 7:28:40 PM)
|
Greetings Sinergy,
I'm disappointed; it took you that long to respond and this was the best retort you could muster.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Sinergy
I understand. According to you, you felt this justified calling me names.
Point noted.
Interesting.
Perhaps you could identify this ever so offensive name I cast upon your delicate sensibilities. I went back to find it, as I couldn't recall addressing you as anything other than Sinergy. I'm apparently missing something.
But as noted; you do seem rather sensative about name calling and considering how adept you are at this particular skill it all seems rather hypocritical on your part.
But hey, that's just my perception.
quote:
Clinton actually released a report and a briefing to George W. Bush on Iraq which was ignored by everybody in that administration, largely because it stated that the US would overthrow Saddam Hussein in a week to ten days, and stick us in a quagmire we could not leave because...
1) The locals hate us, but hate each other more, and it was Saddam's dictatorship which kept everybody from killing each other. Clinton's administration did their homework and knew this.
1a) It was AnencephalyBoy's father who sold Saddam the chemical weapons he used against the Kurds, for example.
2) Bush's administration lied to Congress about weapons of mass destruction, and about the link between Saddam Hussein (Iraq) and Al Qaeda.
3) Saddam Hussein had weapons caches placed throughout Iraq and had actively trained his people in the sorts of geurilla tactics and building of IEDs and the like in order to convince Iran (who has wanted to invade and conquer Iraq for decades) to not invade.
3a) The US military was not instructed by their commander in chief and military leaders (Rumsfeld on down) to SECURE these weapon sites, leaving vast quantities of small arms and explosives in the hand of militant extremists.
4) Anybody who invaded Iraq and overthrew Saddam Hussein would simply release the people in Iraq to engage in a full scale civil war among people who have no qualms about destroying the oil infrastructure, et al, which were the reason that the US would invade in the first place. US foreign policy has been built since the 1950s on the support of governments that are strong enough to maintain themselves in power, or foster insurgencies against governments who disagree with our foreign policies. Saddam was there with our blessing, until he started trying to sell his oil for Euros or to the Chinese, at which point the US military-industrial establishment decided it was time to throw him under a bus.
5) The Dipshit in Chief's cabal authorized the use of torture against people not convicted of a crime, and convinced our Congress to suspend the right of Habeas Corpus for American citizens. I have deep ethical issues with my country doing the former, and a great deal of dread that those people you seem to admire could so easily dispense with a right you and I are guaranteed to have by the US Constitution's Bill Of Rights.
It seems I have read a great deal of the same things you have, though I can't recall any articles or documentation where the President was addressed as you have titled him in your comments. Not sure why you seem intent on projecting the possibility that I am an avid supporter of the present President. I'm not much more impressed than you seem to be as to a great many things he has done, but while I seem capable of identifying short comings on both sides of the political aisle you seem rather partisan. But again that is just my opinion.
I must say that you seem quite impressed with your excellent degree of hind sight. If only you had been our President over the past eight years.
Is there a reason you bring every thread back to the same topics and rhetoric? No matter the intent of the thread; sadly enough you have become predictably redundent.
quote:
Why is it important to you that I remember something. You are entitled to believe whatever you want to. Believing something does not make it true.
Was this reader comprehension or another attempt at creating spin on a comment to hopefully distort its intent. Now while it is possible I didn't make myself all that clear, I don't believe that the case. But never the less, I did ask someone elses opinion in the event it was my gramatical error.
They seemed to understand what I was pointing out. It was important to the content of my statement, you see while you have a perceived political agenda, I am open to anyone that can "do it better".
I'm not sure if its bitterness or what, but you seem only to hear a specific melody, and if it plays a tune that is disagreeable to you personally you seem bent on it's destruction, rather like those you seem to despise.
quote:
I have listed lots of sources, including (but not limited to) Cobra II, The Best Democracy Money Can Buy, Dangerous Liasons, American Theocracy, The Patriot Act, The Shia Revival, etc., etc., ad infinitum, in many of my posts. I am not asking you to do any research or even think. Whatever floats your boat. I am not particularly political, as you seem to think I am. I am, however, well read on current events, and unfortunately, the side of the political spectrum who seem to have blood flow to the big head in the United States (since the mid 1980s, if not before) are the liberals. Based on this analysis of who seems to be using their brain, I tend to vote liberal and progressive, because I see the Neo-cons and religious right and big corporations as continually engaging the sorts of incompetencies (Iraq, S&L scandals, mortgage crisis, Recession, Katrina, etc) and illegalities (scandals galore, raping pension funds, etc) that I think elected officials should keep us out of.
I'm afraid you might be the only person here that doesn't see yourself as particularly political. It might be just me, but you sure come off as a man with a political motive.
I would suppose if you have trouble conveying your point it is important in the way of validation to have adequate supporting documentation.
You know something that I have noticed over the years is that for every agenda there is a supporting story.
quote:
I do my job effectively, safely, and quickly, and I expect the people who get elected to political office should do similarly.
I agree that this is the most productive comment of this entire post of yours.
quote:
As far as your "why am I responding to you if you dont care what I think?" I enjoy posting my opinion on message boards and having political or social discussions. This is not synonymous whether caring about what you personally think.
I see............
I think.
quote:
As I stated, I made a personal attack and apologized for it. You made a personal attack and gave me a list of justifications for your behavior.
I suppose some of my comments could have been a bit of an attack, though it wasn't my imtent to be slanderous or belittling and I was trying to be careful to not become petty. I did contribute to the derailing of this thread, but it seemed to me a valid response to what you had already stated.
I will have to inform you of the fact that you will not receive an apology from me so long as you are simply discharging what is in my opinion non-productive rhetoric. That being said; you are more than welcome to retract your own apology.
I will however, apolopgize to the rest of the readers of this thread for yet again derailing a good topic.
I assume XI will be along shortly if we don't behave so while you are welcome to respond, I think I've said plenty on this. Good luck to you.
Live well,
Bull
edited for gramatical content and punctuation.
|
|
|
|
