RE: write and read the right rant

RE: write and read the right rant (Full Version)

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

Message

cheeba0228 -> RE: write and read the right rant (8/7/2004 7:24:23 AM)
When people choose to live here, I believe thats anotehr way of saying "I may disagree with the things this country does but I acknowledge that it is my home and for better or worse I will defend it till my last." Your free to hate what this country does just not the country itself.

cheeba0228 -> RE: write and read the right rant (8/7/2004 7:27:04 AM)
[:D][:)][;)] YEAH!!!!!![:D][:)][;)] I believe you hit the proverbial nail right on its proverbial head!!!!!! My congrats, applause, salutaions, and praises be unto you for the exact point I was trying to make.

cheeba0228 -> RE: write and read the right rant (8/7/2004 7:31:57 AM)
Battleships are very effective jst not in ship to ship combat anymore. Their purpose has changed. Just at the time of Pearl Harbor they were being used in an old fashioned way that as I said before was more the fault of he who was in charge of the Pacific Fleet. The Admiral at that time made so many mistakes and errors he should have been stripped of his command long ago.

Sinergy -> RE: write and read the right rant (8/7/2004 9:09:00 AM)
quote: The reason we are there is because the incumbent biased media wanted to give us one more phony reason to think there is a spit's worth of difference between the Republicrats and the Demicans. No, the reason we are there is because Shrub was elected president and he decided to send us there. The reason we are staying there is because Shrub, Rumsfeld, and his ilk have created a bad situation and they have no clear exit strategy. At least in Vietnam we were invited to go there. Going there with an actual plan would have saved a lot of people's lives. quote: You ignored this one. Sinergy, your rhetorical flourishes are not defensible. (If you value your fingers, stop waving your arms. ) Sure, what Saddam did or didnt do may have been bad, but is it any worse than Pakistan, North Korea, South Africa in the 1970s, China in the 1990s, Sri Lanka, etc. Sinergy, I know you were trying to be funny, but... You want to fight China? Go ahead. North Korea has hostages in South Korea and Japan. (Seoul is in conventional artillary sights and would last about 5 minutes before completely rubble in a totaly conventional war.) South Africa did not have France and Germany leading the sanction breaking. Pakistan is on our side right now, so is India. Sri Lanka? News to me. How about England, France, and Russia. (Hint: if you invade Russia do it in early spring. ) I dont see a question. I never advocated invading the Soviet Union. Not sure why I would defend that position. I was making the point that a lot of countries have done a lot of bad things, but for some reason we attacked Iraq. quote: See this is the hard part, becasue more than half the locals want us there, and the others would rather kill us. So what do we do abandon those asking for our help just to appease those that would kill us? Which half want us there? Answer my question please. Why is it the responsibility of the United States to go around invading sovereign nations? quote: Do you really think it would be any different in Iraq? If we leave 1/100000th of a second later the Government would be overrun by terrorists and warring factions of the public. there would be no nice live and let live. Once we were out of Iraq they would turn to our forces in Egypt, then in Turkey. Iraq actually had a government before Shrub went there with his war toys. We didnt like that government. But we dont like a lot of governments. Should we invade them all? quote: If your objective is to get everyone to stop hating the US its not possible. Straw man argument. Not interested in engaging in that with you. Next! Sinergy

Thanatosian -> RE: write and read the right rant (8/7/2004 9:12:13 AM)
quote: Can you post links from "liberal" media about that. (You know so they can't attack the source and say, "Of course they said that.") cnn.com - sarin and mustard gas UPI - nuclear missiles quote: ORIGINAL SherriA When he got called on THAT lie all 3, sarin, mustard gas, and nukes are considered WMD --> Bush didnt lie - Iraq had WMD - the quantity they had/might have had is irrelevant - if you possess ONE shell filled with sarin or ONE shell filled with mustard gas or ONE nuke, you possess WMD

dixiedumpling -> RE: write and read the right rant (8/7/2004 11:20:38 AM)
sub4hire, You are so right about the media not presenting an accurate picture of either candidate. Seems like I read that early in the history of television the news was an hour or more every night. Now we have 30 minutes to cram in everything that happened that day. An impossible task. In talking online to people from other countries, I have learned a lot about George Bush (both of them), their history in the oil industry, their connections to the Saudis. It's mind boggling. I've found that people in other countries know more about America's history and our politics than most Americans. Perhaps one reason the news on television is so abbreviated is due to our shrinking attention spans.

Sinergy -> RE: write and read the right rant (8/7/2004 11:44:15 AM)
quote: Perhaps one reason the news on television is so abbreviated is due to our shrinking attention spans. "Im sorry, I wasnt listening" Jeff Bridges, almost every movie he has ever done. feels the coffee cup thrown at him by the police chief of Malibu bounce off his forehead Sinergy

Sinergy -> RE: write and read the right rant (8/7/2004 12:14:32 PM)
Hello, I was asked in an email about a comment I made about North Korea and their statement that Shrub moving troops around would be considered an act of war. My response to that email seemed like it might be appropriate on this thread... ----- While I dislike using infinitive comments, the question really goes to the psychology of the Korean people. North Korea has one of the million person armies (like Saddam had) on the planet, and has been threatening to invade So. Korea since the US built the DMZ in the 1950s. On that note, North Korea has been insisting the US is engaged in acts of war for over 50 years now at any opportunity. The 35,000 (might be 60k, memory is fuzzy atm) or so US troops currently based in South Korea would be overrun and captured in about 45 minutes if North Korea invaded, but this would be considered an act of war by the US, and a Korean war at this point would mean the North Koreans would be blown away by the US retaliation. The reason there are 2 Koreas is because the Chinese in the 1950s sided with one half of them, and the US made a deal with China to split the country in two so there would be no reason for the US to go to war with China. With our current favored trade partner status with China, it is doubtful the Chinese would risk losing the influx of capital they make pirating our inventions and selling us things by siding with North Korea if North Korea chose to start a war. I imagine the Chinese have the leader of North Korea on a very short leash at this point and have said if he starts trouble he is on his own. It is the same sort of idiotic posturing that Saddam used to do. Look where that got Saddam. Unfortunately for the US, the leader we currently have does not seem (to me) to be mature enough to ignore this sort of peurile "put up yer dukes" bantering. There are two questions. Is whether the leader of North Korea insane enough to start a war he knows he cannot possibly win, and will China rush to defend them when Shrub invades? I personally think Korean War II will start a few weeks after the elections if the Simian In Chief is re-elected. Just me, could be wrong, but there you go. Sinergy

jillwfsub4blkdom -> RE: write and read the right rant (8/7/2004 12:48:00 PM)
Sinergy, Very interesting comment. Well i can't say i want to wait and see because i am sure hoping that Bush isn't re-elected. jill

basiasubrosa -> RE: write and read the right rant (8/8/2004 2:05:13 AM)
iwill, iwill <raises hand and waves it around>- But you did not answer my questions, either! <points at #76> In case there was misunderstanding, i never ask rhetorical questions unless i state clearly that they are rhetorical. And i never quite mastered the art of sarcasm, either. [:(] You seemed to be saying something interesting and thought-provoking, so i wanted to figure out what, but could not quite put it together...... quote: one more phony reason to think there is a spit's worth of difference between the Republicrats and the Demicans <snip> Which Ivy League Billionaire are you voting for? Honestly (both parties can kill me) i agree. May i borrow your phrasing? You can probably narrow it down to the Harvard-Yale-Princeton (the HYP) triumvirate, too. Btw, Ralph Nader was also a HYPster (though a rarer on, i'll grant). quote: We are there now. Do you propose we just, "oops, sorry for the mess. Bye-bye." I certainly don't think so. Reconstruction and stabilization will take long and hard work, if we want to prevent a worse relash years down the road. But i do think we ought to make more of an effort to involve non-governmental agencies to moniter and participate in the stabilization process, even if only for the sake of better credibility. It would be nice if we'd let other nations help out a bit more or them or reconcile with them enough so they'd be willing to help (also, even if only for credibility, preferebly for more). But at this point, at least, that is not to be relied on. NGOs are a must now, though. And many of them are simply waiting to be allowed. (I could be wrong, but i think that's what Sinergy tried to say earlier, about getting allies involved, etc. I don't quite recall him saying that we should just leave, pronto. ) Unless there are things that must be hidden (a la the prison scandal?), or the administration simply doesn't care about actual reconstruction (a la Orwellian/Halliburton-esque "all in a day's business"?), i really don't understand why they are not letting all the NGOs in to help out. Again, this isn't a rhetorical question or statement. I really am quite perplexed. Barring reputable human rights groups is just bad PR, at the very least. Working with reputable human rights and international aid groups, on the other hand, could boost PR, morale, and get more work done faster. A bit too naive? Perhaps. <shrug> I'd like to give the administration the benefit of doubt for as long as i can, but they are really really eroding that with all the secrecy and evasiveness.......

basiasubrosa -> RE: write and read the right rant (8/8/2004 3:04:48 AM)
Thanatosian- Thank you for the links. Do you know if there were any follow-ups? I am very curious if they figured out the age of the materials. I don't know what the official opposition line is (if there is one). However i had the impression that a lot of people who opposed the war did so not so much because they thought the president made a blatant lie, but rather because at the time he smudged a lot of lines and did not deliver a clear case. Personally, i had problems because i believe warfare ought to be the very last resort, and i was not convinced that all other diplomatic routes had been exhausted. I heard from several accounts that Saddam had actively sought investigations, even before 9/11, but his requests were revoked repeatedly by Bush's administration. When the inspection team was finally allowed (by the US), the CIA actually monitored and restricted its activity. According to some involved, the reason Saddam refused to let inspectors in the palace was because the CIA insisted that a team of CIA agents must be allowed free entry along with the inspectors. I don't know if all the shady-dealings during the inspection period reached the press at all, or if they are 100% verity. I only learned of all this from several senior diplomats and UN officials who each believed that diplomacy was never given a chance. They might have been unfair in some of their accusations, but i felt they had put forth important questions that the administration kept on evading with high-flown rhetoric or refusing to answer. It was this kind of relentless secrecy that set my alarms off.

iwillserveu -> RE: write and read the right rant (8/8/2004 9:47:39 AM)
quote: No, the reason we are there is because Shrub was elected president and he decided to send us there. And the media said, what, about not going? The WMD were almost a given fact. And what of Congress. I believe that Congress still has the right to declare war. Gulf of Tonkin II, or whatever it was called, where Congresses basically said "Your call Mr. President." was not covered as the abdication it was. Hell, I can't remember its actual name. (If CBS, et al covered it well I would not have to invent Gulf of Tonkin II.) quote: I dont see a question. I never advocated invading the Soviet Union. Not sure why I would defend that position. I was making the point that a lot of countries have done a lot of bad things, but for some reason we attacked Iraq. If your point is other countries are horrible too you allow your opponent to patiently (or sarcastically) explain why invading North Korea is a bad thing. You allow it because in waving your arms you stop pointing at what you want. quote: Iraq actually had a government before Shrub went there with his war toys. We didn’t like that government. But we don’t like a lot of governments. Should we invade them all? Quit changing the subject. We are/were talking about Iraq. Move the topic onto all other countries and accuse me of using a straw-man argument? C'Mon, Sinergy, you can do better than being that transparent in your rhetorical flourishes.

iwillserveu -> RE: write and read the right rant (8/8/2004 10:07:49 AM)
I've heard this idiocy about a Korean war before. Let's actually look at the situation militarily. Why we will not have a Korean war. South Korea would be devastated. Seoul in will in artillery range of the DMZ. The North has hardened bunkers that are only vulnerable for the second it takes for the rocket launcher to get out.. Then they unload on Seoul in a second or two then go back into their mountainside. With only conventional explosives Seoul is rubble in two minutes. The North Koreans LAUNCHED A MISSLE OVER JAPAN. I case you don't know what that means, THE NORTH KOREANS CAN HIT JAPAN. Their nuclear program is so advanced that we detected a radiation leak FROM WHERE WE DIDN'T KNOW THEY HAD A PLANT. For those that don't know what that means, we will take out everything we know about in the first five minutes, but it is provable we DON'T KNOW IT ALL. Add one of the few nukes they have to a long range missile and replace Seoul with Tokyo. [Hell, never mind the nuke if you want. just lots of sarin gas.] If we do invade despite North Korea's holding South Korea and Japan hostage and the Chinese are not on board we might not win. In 1950 they proved that quantity has a quality all its own. We might relearn that lesson. If the Chinese are on board, they get them before the can fire via a coup or infiltration or diplomacy or whatever. An invasion will not happen because it would be costly with no guarantee of success.

iwillserveu -> RE: write and read the right rant (8/8/2004 10:13:13 AM)
Thanks for the links.[:)] How does it feel to be ignored?[&:] I'll steal the links to see if I get a reaction... sarin gas nukes from July 7th I'm interested in the refutation of those beyond the ignoring them.

Thanatosian -> RE: write and read the right rant (8/8/2004 11:56:28 AM)
quote: Do you know if there were any follow-ups? am not aware of any follow ups - as I stated, the media only seemed to give this information (grudgingly) on the day it happened - in my opinion because it ratified what Bush was saying about Saddam having WMD and that does not go along with the medias liberal bias

darkinshadows -> RE: write and read the right rant (8/8/2004 3:15:33 PM)
I must just say that someone here suggested I read here... waves to the someone...giggling quote: ORIGINAL: Estring basia, what would this world be like if the United States never existed? You would have Communism, Nazism and Radical Islam fighting to own the world. The United States has done more good for this world than any country in history. We give more aid to other countries, we save other countries asses ( France ), and we understand that evil needs to be confronted and defeated. It's not an accident that this country is the most powerful and succesful country in the world. And to use that power to spread the ideas of freedom and Democracy seems to be a good use of that power. You of all people should understand that. *blinks in total disbelief*

cheeba0228 -> RE: write and read the right rant (8/8/2004 7:04:15 PM)
I fully agree with you on all points except one. I dont think war woudl break out if Bush were re-elected. I think it would take more than that to start a war. But then again historically wars have been started over less.

cheeba0228 -> RE: write and read the right rant (8/8/2004 7:15:18 PM)
quote: Should we invade them all? No not all just the ones that lie to us, attack us, sponsor terrorist activities against us, harbor international fugitives from us, threaten us, use our aid resources to buy weapons and fund wars, disobey the will of the UN, make an active effort to prevent weapons inspections to ensure compliance with international law, and kill unarmed civilians with illegal weapons of mass destruction. Just those countries Sinergy just those that fulfill all those categories.

cheeba0228 -> RE: write and read the right rant (8/8/2004 7:20:55 PM)
I disagree with your rational but I must say compared to some of the other statements made by people on this board they are very valid and very well thought out reasons. Good job. Like I said i disagree but good job none the less. In resopnse I think that the US didnt want another inspection team just because of what happened to the previous two. It was in their eyes a boy that cried wolf too many times. The US just wasnt about to go through that again. The time for negotiations had ended with the previous 6 years attempts. They just werent about to go at it again with the run arounds and circles and deception. His time for negotiations had run out on him. Once he realized that invasion was unstoppable then he wanted peace. It was a matter of too little too late.

cheeba0228 -> RE: write and read the right rant (8/8/2004 7:29:34 PM)
just to add a minor point. If you have one what exactly is to stop you from getting more? Nice point Thanatosian!!!

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

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125