RE: One or Two Iraq Questions

RE: One or Two Iraq Questions (Full Version)

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

Message

plantlady64 -> RE: One or Two Iraq Questions (10/21/2005 7:36:36 AM)
Hello Again, I know three in a row, but I just finished reading the whole thread. BTW Bush not only lied to the UN and the American Public. To me those lies were not near as offensive as what he told those troops deployed in Iraq. He promised the path home was through Baghdad & then changing that to well, we're going to be here for a while, I only said that to motivate the troops. That to me was the most offensive breach of trust. They were risking their lives for him and he broke promises and admitted he did that on purpose!!!! To me that would be like a Dom saying he'd respect your safe limits, tying you up, then doing nothing with you but your hard no list & never hearing your safe word. It's an issue of trust & respect. I feel he has no respect from me & can't be trusted. I don’t want to play with him ever again & can’t stop the scene!!!! I don't understand how one patriot in this country can a support a president who reneges on his word to everyone including those who fight to serve and protect us. It's like he says what you want to hear. He could care less if the words coming out of his mouth are the truth. He manipulates you enough he can run you over on his way by with no integrity or compassion for anyone. The worst part is it's not only us that see his true colors. The thing he's best at is enabling other opposing countries to make their people agree to hate us more as he misrepresents what our forefathers stood for. He’s done more for the American haters position of our country in my opinion than Saddam or Bin Laden ever did. I think many other people hate the USA now than in any war we’ve fought in. The word Honor in his book only pertains to the titles of his court buddies he greases the palms of, it's not a human trait he projects or upholds or values. I wish he was never born, as having to share the same soil of our country with him leaves very little room for integrity oriented people to walk around here with their heads up. Sincerely, Sub suzanne

DesertRat -> RE: One or Two Iraq Questions (10/21/2005 9:20:13 AM)
Hello, suzanne: We have disagreed on some things recently, but in your last post you said what is in my heart and said it more eloquently than I have been able to do. Bob ~edited because I ended a sentence with a preposition....and have way too much time on my hands.~

Manawyddan -> RE: One or Two Iraq Questions (10/22/2005 5:52:35 AM)
Merc, based on what you say, is it never reasonable to criticise a governmental policy if it involved putting soldiers or law-enforcement officials at risk?

Lordandmaster -> RE: One or Two Iraq Questions (10/22/2005 6:32:07 AM)
Anyone want to know what causes terrorism? Here, this causes terrorism: http://hrw.org/reports/2005/us0905/

frenchpet -> RE: One or Two Iraq Questions (10/22/2005 7:02:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster Anyone want to know what causes terrorism? I'd like to know how to know who is a terrorist. Because sometimes terrorists are called resistants, maquisards, partisans ...or minutemen. How do you know the good guys from the bad guys ? I thought the good guys were those who defended their land against invaders, but it seems to be more complex than that. It's so confusing to me.

Lordandmaster -> RE: One or Two Iraq Questions (10/22/2005 8:23:03 AM)
Well, my definitions are easy, because as far as I'm concerned being a "terrorist" has nothing to do with being good or bad. (Deciding who is "good" and who is "bad" is basically bad foreign policy anyway.) Remember when Menachem Begin was considered a terrorist? They don't say that too often anymore because he won. "Terrorists," by my definition, are combatants with some political or religious goal who deliberately select civilian targets because they have calculated that they cannot succeed in an ordinary military confrontation.

JohnWarren -> RE: One or Two Iraq Questions (10/22/2005 9:06:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster Well, my definitions are easy, because as far as I'm concerned being a "terrorist" has nothing to do with being good or bad. (Deciding who is "good" and who is "bad" is basically bad foreign policy anyway.) Remember when Menachem Begin was considered a terrorist? They don't say that too often anymore because he won. "Terrorists," by my definition, are combatants with some political or religious goal who deliberately select civilian targets because they have calculated that they cannot succeed in an ordinary military confrontation. That pretty much resonates with me. Of course, I come from a family of Torys who spent a century in Nova Scotia after having all they owned burned and stolen. I don't have much respect for TV shows as far as accuracy goes but they may have reached a nadir when West Wing's writers had President Bartlet say "in the long run, terrorists never win... never. I guess Sam Adams, Vladimir Ulyanov (Lenin), Ho Chi Minh, Joseph Vissarionovich Djugashvili, (Stalin), Pol Pot, Menachem Begin, Mao Zedong, Jomo Kenyatta, George Grivas and all the other successful ones were just misunderstood. Terrorists have been around for a long time and when I was at university I spent a good deal of time trying to get inside their heads. Now that I'm older and have some first hand experience, I know how to get in their heads: 185 grain 7mm at 3000 fps.

DesertRat -> RE: One or Two Iraq Questions (10/22/2005 10:00:39 AM)
Not that word games matter but, as far as definitions go, one man's terrorist is another's heroic freedom fighter. Kinda like a plant in my yard: If I like it, then it's a plant and a positive part of the landscaping. If I don't like it, it's a weed. I suppose there can be validity to branding someone a terrorist, but in today's emotional climate the term can also be used as an inflammatory rhetorical tool--propaganda, in other words. I think it's better to look at actions and the results that stem from them, rather than reach for a handy label. And John: I am wondering if the terrorists whose heads you got into are now hailed as heroes in their own country, and if you might be viewed there as a terrorist assassin? Not to attack you, but just to underscore a point you made yourself. Was a bullet in the head the only way to get into Sam Adams' head? What about Washington and Franklin? Shouldn't those mad dogs have been put to sleep? Jesus....listen to me....I sound like some kinda 'Hanoi Jane' type character...not my intent. Just wanting to reinforce the point that words can lose their meaning...or be misused. Bob

Mercnbeth -> RE: One or Two Iraq Questions (10/22/2005 10:10:40 AM)
quote: Sam Adams, Vladimir Ulyanov (Lenin), Ho Chi Minh, Joseph Vissarionovich Djugashvili, (Stalin), Pol Pot, Menachem Begin, Mao Zedong, Jomo Kenyatta, George Grivas and all the other successful ones were just misunderstood. There is one difference. In all the above, the people fought for and on land they considered "home". Unless you consider the southern tip of Manhattan or the British subway system ancestral homes of the Muslims the comparison isn't accurate. Since we are sharing the definition of terrorist, I'll offer my thoughts. A Terrorist is someone who wages war on an innocent civilian population removed and uninvited by the indigenous population having a stated goal of total destruction and elimination of opposing philosophical thought.

Lordandmaster -> RE: One or Two Iraq Questions (10/22/2005 11:06:01 AM)
What does "an innocent civilian population removed and uninvited by the indigenous population" mean? quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth A Terrorist is someone who wages war on an innocent civilian population removed and uninvited by the indigenous population having a stated goal of total destruction and elimination of opposing philosophical thought.

JohnWarren -> RE: One or Two Iraq Questions (10/22/2005 11:30:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesertRat Not that word games matter but, as far as definitions go, one man's terrorist is another's heroic freedom fighter. Kinda like a plant in my yard: If I like it, then it's a plant and a positive part of the landscaping. If I don't like it, it's a weed. I suppose there can be validity to branding someone a terrorist, but in today's emotional climate the term can also be used as an inflammatory rhetorical tool--propaganda, in other words. I think it's better to look at actions and the results that stem from them, rather than reach for a handy label. I am looking at actions. Know the actions of each of these. quote: And John: I am wondering if the terrorists whose heads you got into are now hailed as heroes in their own country, and if you might be viewed there as a terrorist assassin? Not to attack you, but just to underscore a point you made yourself. Was a bullet in the head the only way to get into Sam Adams' head? What about Washington and Franklin? Shouldn't those mad dogs have been put to sleep? Jesus....listen to me....I sound like some kinda 'Hanoi Jane' type character...not my intent. Just wanting to reinforce the point that words can lose their meaning...or be misused. Bob Bottom line. If you want my respect don't attack civilians and destroy civilian property without good reason. Rewriting history because a person won doesn't make that person "good" in my view despite how many school kids think he's great. You'll notice I didn't put Washington on the list. He's a good example of trying (war is a sloppy business) to try to obey the rules while fighting an enemy. Adams is a whole different kettle of fish since he used his authority to destroy competitors and enrich himself.

JohnWarren -> RE: One or Two Iraq Questions (10/22/2005 11:40:51 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth quote: Sam Adams, Vladimir Ulyanov (Lenin), Ho Chi Minh, Joseph Vissarionovich Djugashvili, (Stalin), Pol Pot, Menachem Begin, Mao Zedong, Jomo Kenyatta, George Grivas and all the other successful ones were just misunderstood. There is one difference. In all the above, the people fought for and on land they considered "home". Unless you consider the southern tip of Manhattan or the British subway system ancestral homes of the Muslims the comparison isn't accurate. Since we are sharing the definition of terrorist, I'll offer my thoughts. A Terrorist is someone who wages war on an innocent civilian population removed and uninvited by the indigenous population having a stated goal of total destruction and elimination of opposing philosophical thought. OK, then for you it's OK to kill innocent civilians as long as they are your innocent civilians. I guess you can live with that. I guess it is a definition. Oh, Stalin wasn't a Russian and Menachem Begin was born in Brisk. Jomo Kenyatta was a Kikuyu and most of the people killed by his Mau Mau were members of the Maasai and other tribes (very few white were actually victims).

frenchpet -> RE: One or Two Iraq Questions (10/22/2005 11:53:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth Since we are sharing the definition of terrorist, I'll offer my thoughts. A Terrorist is someone who wages war on an innocent civilian population removed and uninvited by the indigenous population having a stated goal of total destruction and elimination of opposing philosophical thought. It seems to me you are referring to the attempted destruction of the native american nations, by the european settlers and later by the US of A, but I'm not sure it makes your point. So, what were you referring to ? edited for a typo and to add that as John said, Stalin wasn't russian but gruzian. In fact, Russian people have hardly ever had russian leaders, a bit like the brits who have had roman, norman, french, scottish and german kings and queens (the "Windsor" family is no exception, the family of the last tsar were their cousins...). In Russia the list includes Swedes, Mongols, Germans, Ukrainian, Gruzian.

DesertRat -> RE: One or Two Iraq Questions (10/22/2005 12:52:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JohnWarren quote: ORIGINAL: DesertRat Not that word games matter but, as far as definitions go, one man's terrorist is another's heroic freedom fighter. Kinda like a plant in my yard: If I like it, then it's a plant and a positive part of the landscaping. If I don't like it, it's a weed. I suppose there can be validity to branding someone a terrorist, but in today's emotional climate the term can also be used as an inflammatory rhetorical tool--propaganda, in other words. I think it's better to look at actions and the results that stem from them, rather than reach for a handy label. I am looking at actions. Know the actions of each of these. quote: And John: I am wondering if the terrorists whose heads you got into are now hailed as heroes in their own country, and if you might be viewed there as a terrorist assassin? Not to attack you, but just to underscore a point you made yourself. Was a bullet in the head the only way to get into Sam Adams' head? What about Washington and Franklin? Shouldn't those mad dogs have been put to sleep? Jesus....listen to me....I sound like some kinda 'Hanoi Jane' type character...not my intent. Just wanting to reinforce the point that words can lose their meaning...or be misused. Bob Bottom line. If you want my respect don't attack civilians and destroy civilian property without good reason. Rewriting history because a person won doesn't make that person "good" in my view despite how many school kids think he's great. You'll notice I didn't put Washington on the list. He's a good example of trying (war is a sloppy business) to try to obey the rules while fighting an enemy. Adams is a whole different kettle of fish since he used his authority to destroy competitors and enrich himself. Thanks for the reply. I don't know much about Sam Adams aside from the name. I'll let myself learn more about him in the future. As for Washington, I grew up thinking of him as a great man and, as I learn more, my admiration for him grows. I think he was a true embodiment of the founding principles of this nation. Bob

JohnWarren -> RE: One or Two Iraq Questions (10/22/2005 2:23:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesertRat Thanks for the reply. I don't know much about Sam Adams aside from the name. I'll let myself learn more about him in the future. As for Washington, I grew up thinking of him as a great man and, as I learn more, my admiration for him grows. I think he was a true embodiment of the founding principles of this nation. Bob He was pretty much the ideal of Cincinnatus. He took power when it was needed and gave it back when it could have corrupted him. It really was amazing at how many "good people" were in the American Revolution, but it sure didn't keep out the riff-raff. Still it scores a lot better than most of the later ones.

pantera -> RE: One or Two Iraq Questions (11/17/2005 10:37:42 AM)
I found this article.....here's the link- http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/11/16/122915.shtml

chgodomcouple -> RE: One or Two Iraq Questions (11/17/2005 2:47:43 PM)
Damn... I go to bed and wake up and BOOM! 7 pages worth of political debate I get all stressed out just reading the first two... i wont bother arguing my point of view because most things i would have said were already said... A.S. oh i think i will stay away from this topic and go to more happy ones

JohnWarren -> RE: One or Two Iraq Questions (11/17/2005 3:12:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: chgodomcouple Damn... I go to bed and wake up and BOOM! 7 pages worth of political debate You must get a long night there. Except for an attempt by a Bush supporter to get the thread going again, it's been dead since sometime around October 20th or so.

pantera -> RE: One or Two Iraq Questions (11/22/2005 12:17:10 PM)
Go W! Go W! Actually, I would be more of a supporter if he ended the dry foot-wet foot law and instead took a little more seriously securing our Mexican border-

rankandefile -> RE: One or Two Iraq Questions (12/1/2005 11:08:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster Well, my definitions are easy, because as far as I'm concerned being a "terrorist" has nothing to do with being good or bad. (Deciding who is "good" and who is "bad" is basically bad foreign policy anyway.) Remember when Menachem Begin was considered a terrorist? They don't say that too often anymore because he won. "Terrorists," by my definition, are combatants with some political or religious goal who deliberately select civilian targets because they have calculated that they cannot succeed in an ordinary military confrontation. Both terrorism and terrorist cannot be defined without incriminating our own country. To paraphrase President Bush, any country that aids or houses "terrorists" is a target in the war on terrorism. I've been looking up his speech trying to find the direct quote. Any help? So what about our support of terrorists in Nicaragua? We encouraged the attack of "soft targets" (agricultural cooperatives, health clinics, etc.). WE are the leading supporters of terrorism. Always have been, always will be.

Page: << < prev 4 5 6 [7] 8 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0390625