|
Lilmissbossy -> RE: Dixie Chicks: Radical Chicks? (7/20/2006 3:11:22 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: herfacechair
Lilmissbossy: Reading your 8 billion posts, it seems everyone is a misguided respondent except you.
No, that is not what I intended with that statement. You stated that a 2002 vote had George Bush as the third most dangerous man in the world. This may be taken as gospel by the Bush detractors, but this occurred in a year where George Bush had enjoyed higher poll numbers back home. Something like that vote would have been laughed out the room by most of the Americans at that time. Still would be laughed at by most this year.
Well curiously, America is not the world, despite your opinions revolving around it.
quote:
Lilmissbossy: Respectfully, I think you just like the sound of your own voice without having an argument of any value.
Actually, I like to rebut a bunch of posts that I don’t agree with. If those posts belong to people that have no intentions of agreeing with anything that I said, the better. However, if you went through and read those posts, you will see that I am presenting a counter argument to those posts that I am rebutting.
Lilmissbossy: LOL CAN SOMEONE PLEASE TELL ME IF HE ANSWERED
Yes, Did you miss this part of the quote? The rest of the quote explains how Iraq was a danger to us.
quote:
Person A builds WMD, Person B deploys them. Person A has everything to lose if his cover is blown. Person B wants to brag to the world about his successful missions. Person A turns over WMD to Person B. Person B sends someone to slaughter thousands of people. Meaning, Iraq builds the WMD, Al-Qaeda deploys its martyrdom brigade with said WMD and kills thousands of Americans on American soil.
Iraq has plausible deniability and Al-Qaeda jumps up and down bragging about its latest accomplishment. They could hide anywhere and attack anywhere. They are not signatories to international treaties. The UN Security Counsel does not bound them, nor do they need to consult another nation for permission to launch an attack.
Their elusiveness and fluidity make them hard to pinpoint. They could take the bullet, unlike an established nation like Iraq. Both have satisfaction that they struck a blow to the heart of their common enemy.
Lilmissbossy: Are you sure?
I am willing to bet on the fact that I came up with the answer quickly. I explained some of my cognitive process in my reply, the one that you quoted.
Lilmissbossy: Or did you think to yourself "I'll just keep typing and hope everybody loses interest without having to provide an answer."
EEERGH! - X -
Sorry, try again…
You are under the assumption that people that do not agree with you in reference to Iraq are doing so as a result of herd mentality. You think that people that support the war are doing so because of some odd reason or another that they can’t figure out, because they are just “jumping the bandwagon”.
My response proved your assumptions wrong. Your reply shows that you are having a hard time coming to grips with the fact that your assumptions about why we support the Iraq war are wrong.
Lilmissbossy: Your self-righteousness, like your answer, is misplaced.
What self righteousness? Are you assuming that I am a bible thumper now?
However, if you bothered reading my replies, you would have seen that I answered your questions. You asked if we could quickly come up with an answer as to why we went into Iraq, and I did. You stated the possibility that we would struggle through it. I proved otherwise. My answers were not misplaced, but right on the mark.
Not on my mark it wasn't. In fact, I disagree with almost everything you type.
quote:
I do recommend that if you see a post that upsets you so much, that you take a step back, breathe deeply, and count down from 10. If you need to, step away and read the post again, it won’t be so upsetting a second time around.
I did. You're still wrong.
quote:
Lilmissbossy: Couldn't you just have said "Yes" ?
Not quite. You were implying that we would use the “Democracy” card as the sole or main justification to go into Iraq. My giving you just a “yes” would not have reflected our position as to why we went into Iraq.
Because the answer is more than just “democracy”. Anybody that assumes that we would use this as the main or sole purpose of going into Iraq is missing the point of why we support the Iraq war.
Now, had you asked if democracy was one of the objectives, then a “yes” would have been warranted, as democracy was one of the objectives for our going into Iraq. It was not, as you would like to assume, that one and all reason that many of us choose as a justification for going in.
That is why a simple “yes” would not have sufficed.
Lilmissbossy: You certainly win my award for the boards most vocal but least informed poster.
You are not the first one that labeled me as the “least” informed poster. However, since you went ahead and stated something that does not reflect reality, I am going to repost what someone on another message board said to a person that essentially said the same thing that you said here (I post as Outspoken):
http://www.brazzilbrief.com/viewtopic.php?t=9768&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=180
quote:
As a person thoroughly schooled in philosophy, with a concentration in logic, Outspoken has demonstrably debunked theories and statements absent of logic and merit.
What he said in the same post that is very applicable to your comments about my being “the least” informed poster:
quote:
No man could produce such responses that illustrate a thorough understanding of the geopolitical circumstance of this "war" and also produce facts to support be ignorant as some have said. I would suggest that you question your own beliefs if someone is presenting an argument that exposes the flaws in your own. To remain strong to debunked theories is as health of breathing your own exhaust. If this sounds unhealth, it is because it is unhealthy.
You claimed that I was the least informed poster, yet you failed to present any logical or factual proof to back your assumptions.
I posted so many things that you STILL haven't addressed.
Watch.
I asked you the question "When did Iraq fly a plane into the side of an American building", which you gave as the reason we invaded Iraq and not China (although I can already hear you typing out a denial to that).
Give me the date and time this happened.
Because even the least informed poster knows that not a single hijacker on 9/11 came from Iraq. Saudi Arabia, yes. United Arab Emirates, yes. Egypt, yes. Lebanon, yes.
But unfortunately for your argument, not Iraq.
quote:
Lilmissbossy: Since when did Iraq fly an aircraft into an American building, HerFaceChair?
This is a loaded question
Let's see how far you'll go to avoid saying the words "they didn't", shall we?
quote:
that (1) does not take into account the true nature of the War on Terrorism and (2) Assumes that the methods of war being used are the exact methods of war used in a conventional war.
Again…
Not too many people understand the true nature of this war, and that is tragic. The media makes things worse by being very selective about how it reports things. This is unfortunate as people need to come up with their own conclusion based on balanced - not slanted - reporting.
Two Chinese Colonels wrote a book titled, “Unrestricted Warfare”, which is basically asymmetrical warfare. They explained how a weaker organization could defeat a powerful nation using methods outside of what others think are normal methods - or manners - of war.
“Whether it be the intrusions of hackers, a major explosion at the World Trade Center, or a bombing attack nby Bin Laden, all of these greatly exceed the frequency bandwidths understood by the American military…. This is because they have never taken into consideration and have even refused to consider means that are contrary to tradition and to select measures of operations other than military means.. (Col. Qiao Liang and Col. Wang Xiangsui, 1999).
“Means contrary to tradition”
Tradition: Threatening nation deploys military to threatened nation. (Iraq was “not” threatening because their military is not capable, etc)
Tradition: Threatening nation is directly responsible for visible attacks on threatened nation. (Iraq did not fly planes into the World Trade Center, therefore, attacking Iraq was “wrong”.)
Unrestricted warfare destroys common norms in favor of tactics outside the imagination of those that refuse to see beyond current war traditions.
Person A builds WMD, Person B deploys them. Person A has everything to lose if his cover is blown. Person B wants to brag to the world about his successful missions. Person A turns over WMD to Person B. Person B sends someone to slaughter thousands of people. Meaning, Iraq builds the WMD, Al-Qaeda deploys its martyrdom brigade with said WMD and kills thousands of Americans on American soil.
Iraq has plausible deniability and Al-Qaeda jumps up and down bragging about its latest accomplishment. They could hide anywhere and attack anywhere. They are not signatories to international treaties. The UN Security Counsel does not bound them, nor do they need to consult another nation for permission to launch an attack.
Their elusiveness and fluidity make them hard to pinpoint. They could take the bullet, unlike an established nation like Iraq. Both have satisfaction that they struck a blow to the heart of their common enemy.
Quite a long way. Interesting that you use the word "elusiveness" towards the end of your post, don'tcha think [;)]
quote:
Lilmissbossy: If you can answer in one sentence you will have a point.
One sentence will not suffice as an answer to that question, as both the question and the following answer would miss the point and not explain the reality of the situation or our position in support of the war.
Waffle, that's called.
quote:
Lilmissbossy: All of the posts you've made, in all the thousands of words, you still lack the basic information to make any credible point at all. Be honest, you just like the sight of your own font.
PSST, I have a secret for you.
I am a “Mustang” officer in the United States Military.
Was I supposed to think your ideas were somehow more impressive because of this statement (which I question anyway).
Because if I think the ideas you're posting are nonsense, I'll exercise my right to say so even if you're the President of the planet.
quote:
I have held a security clearance and have deployed to different parts of the world since the last months of the Cold War. In your terms, since you were collaring your britches with different shades of brown.
Actually, I'm typing this from Lebanon, in the midst of my ongoing battle to prevent Israel killing any more innocent civilians. After I finish my sandwich, I'm off to the far ends of Somalia to see what I can do there.
Anyone can be anything. This is the internet.
quote:
One of the locations includes the topic of our discussion.
I have a brother who is 8 years old. He's a soldier too. He goes on secret missions too. He'll probably grow out of it and join the real world before he reaches 12. [;)]
|
|
|
|
