RE: SIGNIFICANT progress ...

RE: SIGNIFICANT progress ... (Full Version)

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

Message

FirmhandKY -> RE: SIGNIFICANT progress ... (4/20/2008 7:04:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy Jefferson's main concern was that the Federalists, who wanted a national bank, a national army, and strong central authority would turn the US into an imperial power along the lines of Great Britain. You are at least 100 years or so too late to be fighting this battle. quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy Adam's great concern was that factious political parties would divide the nation and put party interests before the national interest. You are about 200 years or so too late to be fighting this battle. quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy The WAR in IRAQ has shown each of these chickens come home to roost. 1) The US has in fact become the imperialist, meddling power that Britain was in the 18th Century. The Iraq war showed this? Depending on your definitions, you could make this argument waaaay before the Iraq war. quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy 2) Bush invaded IRAQ to help increase Republican congressional seats in 2002 and to win back the Presidency in 2004. You would have to expound on this concept. Right now, I'm very unconvinced. quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy Arguably neither 1 or 2 is in the national interest. Define "national interest", please. quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy The Reason Firm's post is so, how should we say, laughable, is that the IRAQ war has now lasted longer than WWII and its still such a quagmire that pulling out troops and bringing them home remains a troubling political question. Its a basically a crime against humanity to think of the lives lost and the resources wasted on a badly planned, badly executed, built on lies --- war of agresssion --- that we can't win. I'm not sure I share your understanding of history and international politics. The Iraqi War is actually two wars: 1). The conventional war to unseat Saddam, and then 2) the battle to build a working government in Iraq. You could even make the argument that the conventional war actually started in 1990, when Iraq invaded Kuwait. The conventional fighting in World War II, for the US lasted much longer than the commonly understood, with Roosevelt supporting China prior to Pearl Habor, and with the fighting continuing on for years with stay behind Japanese soldiers in the Pacific. But even that doesn't really give the true scope. You could also make the argument (and it often is) that WWII was actually a continuation of WWI, and that WWII continued through the Cold War, and theoretically includes the Vietnam war. But, more to the point ... Tell me ... after we invaded Germany, how many years was it before it regained it sovereignty? Before it was re-united in it's basic pre-WWII borders? When were the last war crimes held? How long was it after we successfully invaded Japan, before they regained their sovereignty? I'd be careful of using the term "laughable", unless you have a better grasp of what you are claiming. Firm

FirmhandKY -> RE: SIGNIFICANT progress ... (4/20/2008 7:14:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: stella41b Things are going well in Tibet too I guess. But that doesn't justify China's occupation. "Can a nation be free if it oppresses other nations? It cannot." Lenin Interesting point, stella, although I find the use of Lenin as a supporting voice ... questionable. I would say that I see a moral difference between the Chinese invasion and continued occupation and oppression in Tibet, and the US invasion and nation-building in Iraq. Firm

FirmhandKY -> RE: SIGNIFICANT progress ... (4/20/2008 7:17:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Leatherist Hitler made things "better" for aryans by killing off other undesirables. Funny how history repeats itself. Even the jews have become nazis-to the palestinains. They are even segregating them in ghetto called "Gaza". When you become what you claim to despise, it is time to look in the mirror. And when you call good, evil and evil good, your ability to make moral judgement becomes suspect and untrustworthy. Firm

SugarMyChurro -> RE: SIGNIFICANT progress ... (4/20/2008 7:57:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Level That's an incorrect statement. Oh, Ok...so in "Level-World" wars always go according to plan and no innocence get killed as collateral damage. And that's as opposed to real world wars that are barely contained chaos. Gotcha! [:-] Do you also sell bridges?

stella41b -> RE: SIGNIFICANT progress ... (4/20/2008 8:28:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY quote: ORIGINAL: stella41b Things are going well in Tibet too I guess. But that doesn't justify China's occupation. "Can a nation be free if it oppresses other nations? It cannot." Lenin Interesting point, stella, although I find the use of Lenin as a supporting voice ... questionable. I would say that I see a moral difference between the Chinese invasion and continued occupation and oppression in Tibet, and the US invasion and nation-building in Iraq. Firm That's okay, I found your assertion of an American invasion of Germany during World War II to be quite amusing actually. Highly romantic and not much in common with the historical facts. Why would you find the use of Lenin as a supporting voice questionable, Firm? What US invasion and nation-building in Iraq? You do realize, do you not, that Saddam Hussein was in power since 1979 - 16 July 1979? Dictator or not, his government was a working government. So tell me, where were the Americans between 1979 and 1990? This is not to mention the fact that nations are to be left to make their own history. There is to my mind to moral justification to use military force in order to change the government of another sovereign state, not least when the aggressor claims to believe in democracy. As for the 'US invasion' of Iraq. This never happened. The invasion was masterminded using NATO intelligence reports and a strategy worked out between American intelligence, British intelligence and both Polish and Dutch intelligence. The American forces positioned themselves to the north and south of Iraq and waited for the real invasion to be mounted by the 'Coalition forces' made up of predominantly British and Polish forces. The SAS had previously been deployed in Iraq but it was their involvement together with Polish GROM forces who unseated the Saddam Hussein government and when a path was cleared the Americans just rolled their tanks in there. At the time I was commissioned as a translator by both the Polish Industrial Development Agency and by advisors to Wlodzimierz Cimoszewicz who led the Polish coalition contingent throughout. Therefore my sources aren't newspaper reports but are based on what actually happened. Here's another quote for you.. "They deceived us about weapons of mass destruction. That's true. We were taken for a ride." Aleksander Kwasniewski, former Polish president. If this invasion and 'war' (I use the term loosely here as personally I feel 'extortion' applies more) was for morally jusified reasons, then why the deception?

FirmhandKY -> RE: SIGNIFICANT progress ... (4/20/2008 9:56:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: stella41b That's okay, I found your assertion of an American invasion of Germany during World War II to be quite amusing actually. Highly romantic and not much in common with the historical facts. Why would you find the use of Lenin as a supporting voice questionable, Firm? What US invasion and nation-building in Iraq? You do realize, do you not, that Saddam Hussein was in power since 1979 - 16 July 1979? Dictator or not, his government was a working government. So tell me, where were the Americans between 1979 and 1990? This is not to mention the fact that nations are to be left to make their own history. There is to my mind to moral justification to use military force in order to change the government of another sovereign state, not least when the aggressor claims to believe in democracy. As for the 'US invasion' of Iraq. This never happened. The invasion was masterminded using NATO intelligence reports and a strategy worked out between American intelligence, British intelligence and both Polish and Dutch intelligence. The American forces positioned themselves to the north and south of Iraq and waited for the real invasion to be mounted by the 'Coalition forces' made up of predominantly British and Polish forces. The SAS had previously been deployed in Iraq but it was their involvement together with Polish GROM forces who unseated the Saddam Hussein government and when a path was cleared the Americans just rolled their tanks in there. At the time I was commissioned as a translator by both the Polish Industrial Development Agency and by advisors to Wlodzimierz Cimoszewicz who led the Polish coalition contingent throughout. Therefore my sources aren't newspaper reports but are based on what actually happened. Here's another quote for you.. "They deceived us about weapons of mass destruction. That's true. We were taken for a ride." Aleksander Kwasniewski, former Polish president. If this invasion and 'war' (I use the term loosely here as personally I feel 'extortion' applies more) was for morally jusified reasons, then why the deception? First, you are not on-topic, if your goal is to discuss the current situation in Iraq. If you wish to discuss the validity of the invasion - in context of the current political developments within Iraq - then that would be more germane, although not particularly on-topic either. Second, you make many assertions that are either based on an ... unreal ... perception of reality, or you are trying to redefine common concepts and words into something other than how they are generally accepted, so as to make almost the entirety of you post nonsensical. Perhaps a clearer explanation of what your point is would make this discussion more fruitful. Even revisionist history usually has some semblance to reality. As it is, pretty much all I see is a spewing of inaccurate, false and misleading statements that do nothing other than satisfy some deep seated hostility you seem to bear. Firm

OrionTheWolf -> RE: SIGNIFICANT progress ... (4/20/2008 9:58:28 PM)
Firm, one of the problems is that we cannot be effective peace keepers, because we are Americans. The peace keepers need to be able to speak the language and understand or live the culture. Iraqi forces must step up, and I am now of the belief that if the country plunges into civil war, then so be it. The people of Iraq need to learn and stumble forward on their own. What I do feel we need to do is address the Iranian issue, and make sure they stay out of it, and stop assisting fighters crossing the border. Not to mention the possibility of nuclear threat from Iran. the strategic positions of those area can be covered via air, unmanned craft and very few troops. Here is some good reading on the subject http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/cc/Hain.html

stella41b -> RE: SIGNIFICANT progress ... (4/20/2008 10:05:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY quote: ORIGINAL: stella41b That's okay, I found your assertion of an American invasion of Germany during World War II to be quite amusing actually. Highly romantic and not much in common with the historical facts. Why would you find the use of Lenin as a supporting voice questionable, Firm? What US invasion and nation-building in Iraq? You do realize, do you not, that Saddam Hussein was in power since 1979 - 16 July 1979? Dictator or not, his government was a working government. So tell me, where were the Americans between 1979 and 1990? This is not to mention the fact that nations are to be left to make their own history. There is to my mind to moral justification to use military force in order to change the government of another sovereign state, not least when the aggressor claims to believe in democracy. As for the 'US invasion' of Iraq. This never happened. The invasion was masterminded using NATO intelligence reports and a strategy worked out between American intelligence, British intelligence and both Polish and Dutch intelligence. The American forces positioned themselves to the north and south of Iraq and waited for the real invasion to be mounted by the 'Coalition forces' made up of predominantly British and Polish forces. The SAS had previously been deployed in Iraq but it was their involvement together with Polish GROM forces who unseated the Saddam Hussein government and when a path was cleared the Americans just rolled their tanks in there. At the time I was commissioned as a translator by both the Polish Industrial Development Agency and by advisors to Wlodzimierz Cimoszewicz who led the Polish coalition contingent throughout. Therefore my sources aren't newspaper reports but are based on what actually happened. Here's another quote for you.. "They deceived us about weapons of mass destruction. That's true. We were taken for a ride." Aleksander Kwasniewski, former Polish president. If this invasion and 'war' (I use the term loosely here as personally I feel 'extortion' applies more) was for morally jusified reasons, then why the deception? First, you are not on-topic, if your goal is to discuss the current situation in Iraq. If you wish to discuss the validity of the invasion - in context of the current political developments within Iraq - then that would be more germane, although not particularly on-topic either. Second, you make many assertions that are either based on an ... unreal ... perception of reality, or you are trying to redefine common concepts and words into something other than how they are generally accepted, so as to make almost the entirety of you post nonsensical. Perhaps a clearer explanation of what your point is would make this discussion more fruitful. Even revisionist history usually has some semblance to reality. As it is, pretty much all I see is a spewing of inaccurate, false and misleading statements that do nothing other than satisfy some deep seated hostility you seem to bear. Firm I don't know what the problem is here, whether it's not having reasons or logic to back up your arguments or just a lack of comprehension of the English language. Tell you what Firm, you go get a stepladder and come back and let me know, because it appears that the points I'm making are going way over your head. Otherwise I'm through with this thread.

FirmhandKY -> RE: SIGNIFICANT progress ... (4/20/2008 11:03:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: stella41b I don't know what the problem is here, whether it's not having reasons or logic to back up your arguments or just a lack of comprehension of the English language. Tell you what Firm, you go get a stepladder and come back and let me know, because it appears that the points I'm making are going way over your head. Otherwise I'm through with this thread. First, personal attacks are uncalled for, unnecessary and unhelpful. Not to mention against the rules of the forum. Second, you have to start before you can be done. Third, I'm fairly confident that anyone of reasonable intelligence, reading your post once before your latest would have the same head-scratching experience that I had. I simply asked for clarification. Which you refuse to provide. Therefore, unless you are willing to give some kind of explanation for some of your comments (such as "What US invasion of Iraq?"), I don't see that I have any burden on attempting to engage in whatever mind game that you are playing here. Perhaps you were trying to make a point that it was a Coalition operation? And that the invasion of Germany was as well? I'll buy that, to an extent, certainly. If that is your point ... how does that play into the topic of this thread? However, feel free to not respond. You've not substantially contributed to the thread yet, anyway. Firm

SugarMyChurro -> RE: SIGNIFICANT progress ... (4/20/2008 11:38:14 PM)
I think it's interesting that some participants in this thread are so utterly deluded as to think that they are making substantive statements that would be thought intelligent by anyone but a Dittohead.

FirmhandKY -> RE: SIGNIFICANT progress ... (4/20/2008 11:59:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SugarMyChurro I think it's interesting that some participants in this thread are so utterly deluded as to think that they are making substantive statements that would be thought intelligent by anyone but a Dittohead. Do you consider the term "Dittohead" to be pejorative? Firm

SugarMyChurro -> RE: SIGNIFICANT progress ... (4/21/2008 12:12:09 AM)
Read the statement again. The question isn't relevant. But I find it interesting that you think that it is. But no, I would say it's descriptive. It has a meaning and I linked to it. Or did that also escape your attention?

Level -> RE: SIGNIFICANT progress ... (4/21/2008 3:27:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SugarMyChurro quote: ORIGINAL: Level That's an incorrect statement. Oh, Ok...so in "Level-World" wars always go according to plan and no innocence get killed as collateral damage. And that's as opposed to real world wars that are barely contained chaos. Gotcha! [:-] Do you also sell bridges? lol, no, I wasn't referring to things going haywire in a war zone, of course they do. I meant your statement of if you support the war, then you must support all facets of it, including the death of innocents, waterboarding, etc. If you had used "accept responsibility" instead of "support", then you'd at least be pointed in the right direction with your hypothesis. [;)]

TreasureKY -> RE: SIGNIFICANT progress ... (4/21/2008 5:40:14 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SugarMyChurro I think it's interesting that some participants in this thread are so utterly deluded as to think that they are making substantive statements that would be thought intelligent by anyone but a Dittohead. So... you're saying that some participants here make statements that they believe will be accepted as intelligent by all, except those who listen to Limbaugh? And you assert that those participants are wrong in believing that by saying they are "utterly deluded"? Are you saying that Limbaugh listeners will believe those statements are intelligent, too? quote: ORIGINAL: SugarMyChurro Read the statement again. lol... I think you need to.

meatcleaver -> RE: SIGNIFICANT progress ... (4/21/2008 6:12:13 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TreasureKY quote: ORIGINAL: SugarMyChurro ...war is an atrocity. I am sure there are those who would disagree with your opinion wholeheartedly. War may not be preferable or even wise, but in some circumstances it is warranted. There are those who feel and truly believe that some things are worth standing up for, fighting for, and yes... even dying for. You mean there really are idiots who like dying for a lie? Maybe they are just so stupid they deserve to be cannon fodder?

TreasureKY -> RE: SIGNIFICANT progress ... (4/21/2008 6:35:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver You mean there really are idiots who like dying for a lie? Maybe they are just so stupid they deserve to be cannon fodder? sighs There is a difference between "willing" and "liking". My comments were about war in general and about some people who have beliefs in which they are willing to stake their life. I'm sure your disdain is much appreciated by all those who volunteer for service that places them in mortal danger. I'm also fairly certain that you felt your derogatory comments would impress some. Perhaps so... but they've also displayed the cloth from which you are cut.

SugarMyChurro -> RE: SIGNIFICANT progress ... (4/21/2008 6:47:05 AM)
I think you two warmongers are wasted here stateside - you clearly belong where you can sacrifice yourselves to the cause you so wholeheartedly support. You belong where you can oppress and dictate terms to a people that have never done you any harm. I am willing to accept your silence as a sign of your imminent departure for Iraq. I could say that you will be missed, but you won't be.

SugarMyChurro -> RE: SIGNIFICANT progress ... (4/21/2008 6:49:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TreasureKY Are you saying that Limbaugh listeners will believe those statements are intelligent, too? Your grasp of English seems a bit flimsy.

TreasureKY -> RE: SIGNIFICANT progress ... (4/21/2008 6:53:25 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SugarMyChurro Your grasp of English seems a bit flimsy. You are too funny and far too entertaining. [:D]

caitlyn -> RE: SIGNIFICANT progress ... (4/21/2008 7:05:48 AM)
Firm and Treasure ... You know, we are on opposite sides here ... hell, we are on opposite sides of almost all major issues, but if you would be so kind as to accept some free advice from the young and dumb generation ... You cannot win a discussion with self-superior people. You continue to start real and reasoned posts that are worth intelligent discussion (not that I agree with any of your post, mind you), but then get dragged into this babble by those that are just too smart for the rest of us ... just ask them. It's all somewhat pointless. You can only listen to that old and wise Texas saying ... "Those that talk shit ... ain't shit!"

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

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875