RE: One or Two Iraq Questions

RE: One or Two Iraq Questions (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Polls and Other Random Stupidity

Message

BlkTallFullfig -> RE: One or Two Iraq Questions (10/3/2005 8:54:29 PM)
quote: LordandMaster BTK??? That's something else entirely. She's BTF. Holy Shit Merc, I've been called a lot of things, but please not BTK... [sm=lol.gif][sm=lol.gif] I'm all about peace, love, and maybe a spanking when necessary. M

onceburned -> RE: One or Two Iraq Questions (10/3/2005 10:00:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BlkTallFullfig Holy Shit Merc, I've been called a lot of things, but please not BTK... [sm=lol.gif][sm=lol.gif] Huh? Are you telling us you have never been to Witchita?

BlkTallFullfig -> RE: One or Two Iraq Questions (10/3/2005 11:49:49 PM)
quote: Huh? Are you telling us you have never been to Witchita? Are you trying to reveal where we met, I thought you said it was our secret. [&:] just kidding [:)]M

Mercnbeth -> RE: One or Two Iraq Questions (10/4/2005 11:15:38 AM)
quote: Holy Shit Merc, I've been called a lot of things, but please not BTK... BTF! HA! BIG BIG ERROR - SORRY! SORRY! SORRY! When you come out to LA I'll have you apply the appropriate punishment to beth's ass for that error. (You didn't think you'd get mine did you?) [8D] Weird thing is the K and F aren't even next to each other on the keyboard. I know, you know I have nothing but love for you!

UtopianRanger -> RE: One or Two Iraq Questions (10/5/2005 10:31:47 AM)
quote: I'm not opposed to that at all. For crying out loud, I use to think that being president was the most powerful position in the world. You can make or break countries, change lives for better or worse with the signiture of a pen, and pardon anyone with crimes against the US. Yet, the president dosen't have the power to get away with having a blow job with someone other than his wife. What kind of power is that when you can't even get a blow job without having to let the whole country know about it? FDR, Kennedy, Ben Franklin, and such didn't have a any problems with having affairs outside there marriage. What makes it such a big deal now? Is the president not the if not one of the most powerful person in the world? It's been said that folks tend to overpersonalize the role of the president - I think thats true. I think in looking at the Iraq war and some of the other actions by the administration when dealing with preceived hostile foreign powers, one needs to look no farther than all the ''Straus'' diciples that act as advisors and hold cabinet level posts as the driving force behind these positions. If you go way back and look at some of the predacesors to this administration, they all brought different things to the table. Some brought wall street and the urgent need to preserve and expand capitalism throughout the lands, while others brought the halls of cambridge as means to enlighten. But if you study this administration and all the cronies involved, you'll find that their background lies in war and military might, and as it seems, many more are now wondering if this is the best approach. - The Ranger

Lordandmaster -> RE: One or Two Iraq Questions (10/5/2005 6:09:08 PM)
Well, yes, but all of those cabinet members are cabinet members because of the President. And none of them had the power to throw our nation into a war. Only the President did and does. (Congress is SUPPOSED to have that power, but they've handed it over on a platter.) quote: ORIGINAL: UtopianRanger It's been said that folks tend to overpersonalize the role of the president - I think thats true. I think in looking at the Iraq war and some of the other actions by the administration when dealing with preceived hostile foreign powers, one needs to look no farther than all the ''Straus'' diciples that act as advisors and hold cabinet level posts as the driving force behind these positions. If you go way back and look at some of the predacesors to this administration, they all brought different things to the table. Some brought wall street and the urgent need to preserve and expand capitalism throughout the lands, while others brought the halls of cambridge as means to enlighten. But if you study this administration and all the cronies involved, you'll find that their background lies in war and military might, and as it seems, many more are now wondering if this is the best approach.

mnottertail -> RE: One or Two Iraq Questions (10/5/2005 6:38:37 PM)
Well of course Lam, you are only talking theoretically (you know that statement is dripping scarcasm...) it is not a war......it is only a war on terror, ask Ike ask Lyndon ask ronnierottencrotch. There is a flaw in the way things are set up for checks and balances.....an administration who is of the same party of the majority in congress.... It don't work right. In Minnesota it was quoted at one time that 20,000 laws are being passed a year and no law is passed to give freedom to all, it is for the purpose of withdrawing freedom from some aspect of the populus. Give me a president that has his (or her, I could give a fuck) priorities in order i.e. I believe in getting as many blowjobs as I can..... Not one who failed in business, was a middlin actor wants to avenge his daddy or went to the 'right' schools with a B.A. in Communication from Gumshoe, ND university (or even Harvard) who is gonna hip us to his wisdom and fix the world's problems, because he is the sole interpreter of YHWH's wisdom from late night visits with pretzels. If anyone thinks that one should be given the power to move 220+M people in some conservative or liberal direction........well all I can say is .. Quit watching CNN, listening to Rush or Paul Harvey or Hannity and Colmbs or the spin zone and wise up. Oh, joy rapture I have a brain (scarecrow, The wizard of oz). There is no magic out there, in the lofty world of politics.

UtopianRanger -> RE: One or Two Iraq Questions (10/6/2005 12:48:24 AM)
quote: Well, yes, but all of those cabinet members are cabinet members because of the President. And none of them had the power to throw our nation into a war. Very true; but the Devil's in the details... The cabinet picks for the most part, are what lent him credibility to get elected in his first campaign against Al Gore. After being asked the question by reporters '' who are the heads state for India and Indonesia'' and then not having the answer, really hurt him bad. So those advisors and future cabinet picks were needed and vital in exploiting the one sure weakness in the Gore campaign , which was foreign policy. Those picks, like-minded-in-thought and obviously a nesesicity at the time, wield enormous collective bargaining power, and have propelled this administrations policies on their current course. I hate to let Bush off the hook, but to me, he's nothing more than a figurehead. It's the whole neocon collective that's behind the decision making. - The Ranger

Lordandmaster -> RE: One or Two Iraq Questions (10/6/2005 4:25:24 AM)
I know what you're saying, but the fact that he keeps picking his friends for important posts tells me that he's more than just a figurehead. He's also not an idiot; he's just adept at assuming a persona that has paid dividends at the polling station. It induces his opposition to underestimate him, and obviously plays well among the anti-intellectual redneck crowd that is hardly benefiting from his policies. I don't think it cost him anything that he couldn't name the heads of India or Indonesia. On the contrary, I bet it won him a few votes in places like Kansas or Nebraska. ("God damn! Now THERE is one of us! I'm not voting for one of those lily-livered, latte-drinkin' elitists.") Besides, even if he is a figurehead, he's responsible for being a figurehead. He's the guy the nation voted for. I'm no fan of Condaleeza Rice and all those other people, but they'd be nothing without Bush. Rice would still be teaching undergraduates at Stanford and fantasizing about being the baseball commissioner or something. Edited to add: Just by coincidence, this report came out today. Bush now says God told him to invade Iraq. I think that's significant. We invaded Iraq because God (allegedly) told HIM to invade--not Condy Rice or anyone else. http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20051006/ts_alt_afp/mideastbritainusiraq_051006214432 quote: ORIGINAL: UtopianRanger I hate to let Bush off the hook, but to me, he's nothing more than a figurehead. It's the whole neocon collective that's behind the decision making.

pantera -> RE: One or Two Iraq Questions (10/7/2005 11:56:25 AM)
quote: No decision, even the decisions to take no action, is without consequence. Exactly- like I read in an article by Walter Williams (IMO one of the best economists and columnists)- there is always the posibility that one can be wrong. You may be wrong by acting when you are not supposed to- You may be wrong by not acting when you are supossed to- All we can do is weigh the consecuences of action vs. inaction... and opt for the one with less catastrophic consequences. I think we made the best choice when we went into Iraq...and those who strongly claim that they oppose the war, are the first that would be hammering Bush for NOT doing anything if Saddam would have attacked this country with WMDs (those that don't exist, even though they were used in the past and there is no proof they have been destroy)-

pantera -> RE: One or Two Iraq Questions (10/7/2005 12:01:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth I guess I'm just as confused when I hear arguments from those supporting our troops but not the war. They seem to miss the consequences of their position too. There is no such thing- you can not support the troops and oppose the war. You may CARE for our troops, you may wish them no harm, but in order to fully support them you must support their mission.

DesertRat -> RE: One or Two Iraq Questions (10/7/2005 12:30:15 PM)
Well, in my opinion it is possible to support the people and be against their mission. You disagree? That is just your opinion and nothing more. If you believe the WMD lies, then I am pretty unlikely to value your views, though I don't begrudge your having them. If you are right, and being against the war means I don't support the troops, then I guess "not supporting the troops" is not such a bad thing after all. However, I have a good friend who just finished serving with the 82nd Airborne Division (but he might be recalled), and he and his service buddies DON"T feel my being against the war shows a lack of support for them. Not everyone buys your spin. GeorgeW seems to be having similar problems with a lack of spin compliance, come to think of it. Bob

JohnWarren -> RE: One or Two Iraq Questions (10/7/2005 12:31:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pantera quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth I guess I'm just as confused when I hear arguments from those supporting our troops but not the war. They seem to miss the consequences of their position too. There is no such thing- you can not support the troops and oppose the war. You may CARE for our troops, you may wish them no harm, but in order to fully support them you must support their mission. False binary. The death rate at Fort Campbell is a lot lower than in Bagdad. Really support them; bring them home. The people who really don't support the troops are folks like you who celebrate each death (see, it goes both ways) and Bush who has not attended a single funeral and who lied to both the country and the UN so he could prove his manhood, As a young second lieutentant, I had to write a number of letters to grieving wives and mothers and another war that should never have been fought. Death is never pretty; it's sometimes necessary, but I and a lot of other people didn't and don't see any necessity for our citizens to die in Iraq. Saying you support the troops and want to keep them in that hellhole is like saying you love your car and to prove it you are entering it in a demolition derby.

pantera -> RE: One or Two Iraq Questions (10/10/2005 5:22:27 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesertRat Well, in my opinion it is possible to support the people and be against their mission. You disagree? That is just your opinion and nothing more. it is not just my opinion, it's a fact. Do you disagree? Of course you do! but then again, you think that we can fight terrorism with "words" and "dialogue"...and "good will" ... and "cumbayá"... and wrinting poems...and dancing naked... (ok..I'm getting carried away)- and it would be very easy of me to not support the troops' mission from the confort of my home, while I get my nails done and all that stuff that women do, while real men are fighting to protect my whiny ass over here.... but I'm not, because I understand it is not as simple as saying "war is just wrong because it kills peolpe". quote: If you are right, and being against the war means I don't support the troops, then I guess "not supporting the troops" is not such a bad thing after all. Bob that I respect a lot better than saying you do when you don't- (you may feel like you do support them...but remember... I said that it was impossible...and that is a fact because I said it was ;) )

pantera -> RE: One or Two Iraq Questions (10/10/2005 5:27:56 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JohnWarren False binary. The death rate at Fort Campbell is a lot lower than in Bagdad. Really support them; bring them home. retreat.... how brave lieutetant!!!! quote: The people who really don't support the troops are folks like you who celebrate each death [;)] you got me!!!! I had even started to read the post seriously!!!

JohnWarren -> RE: One or Two Iraq Questions (10/10/2005 5:55:31 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pantera quote: ORIGINAL: JohnWarren False binary. The death rate at Fort Campbell is a lot lower than in Bagdad. Really support them; bring them home. retreat.... how brave lieutetant!!!! It's only the fools who haven't been in combat who see retreat as somehow dishonorable. Anyone who has been there know there are situations where the tactical reality has changed or the original assessment was wrong. One of the reasons that countries lose war is that leaders adopt a "not one inch of our sacred soil" policy. It's rigid and stupid and it costs lives. Flexibility is the way to fight. There is an excellent book called "From the Jaws of Victory."

pantera -> RE: One or Two Iraq Questions (10/10/2005 6:00:21 AM)
I agree, but a most of the "not foolish (LOL!!!)" people have HAVE been in combat, that ARE in combat think that we should stay there and get the job done (which it would have been done a lot faster if americans and the rest of the world would have supported the troops). So why should I think that you are right just because you say that you have been in actual combat and that we should retreat?

DesertRat -> RE: One or Two Iraq Questions (10/10/2005 9:07:31 AM)
You seem to think your opinions are facts, and that shows a real lack of reasoning on your part. You also make a lot of assumptions about the 'cumbaya' and flower power stuff. hmmm...lots of Americans and (according to you) people around the world 'not supporting the troops'.....gee, maybe they're right....duh... Short version: Whether you're capable of understanding it or not, your opinions are just that. If you expect people to adopt them as fact based solely on your patriotic fervor, you set yourself up for failure. Why should I believe you? Bob

pantera -> RE: One or Two Iraq Questions (10/11/2005 5:54:55 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesertRat your opinions are facts that's because I'm smart :D thanks for noticing!! quote: ...lots of Americans nah- not that many ...really- most of us know who the real enemy is (not Bush btw) and know that we need to fight them, and fight them hard- quote: Why should I believe you? Bob I don't expect everybody to agree with me...there has to be people that are wrong!!!!

JohnWarren -> RE: One or Two Iraq Questions (10/11/2005 6:49:59 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pantera quote: ORIGINAL: DesertRat your opinions are facts that's because I'm smart :D thanks for noticing!! I think we have a real smoking gun of a lack of intellectual honor here since what Desert Rat actually wrote was "You seem to think your opinions are facts, and that shows a real lack of reasoning on your part." I'll keep this in mind whenever I see any further postings from you.

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

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125