RE: Dixie Chicks: Radical Chicks?

RE: Dixie Chicks: Radical Chicks? (Full Version)

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

Message

SCORPIOXXX -> RE: Dixie Chicks: Radical Chicks? (7/20/2006 6:58:50 PM)
Yep, that good ol' Dominant Pop culture -- eventually it assimilates anyone and all, if the cash register rings... Always has, always will... "In America you buy the whiskey and get the ideology, in China you buy the ideology and get the whisky"

herfacechair -> RE: Dixie Chicks: Radical Chicks? (7/20/2006 7:48:16 PM)
Lilmissbossy, before you address any of my posts, please answer these questions (Questions asked prior to your first reply to me): Lilmissbossy: Going to jail = everyone in Guantanamo Bay? Question: The detainees in Guantanamo Bay are there because.. (A) They were captured on the battle field as they were trying to fight against our troops, were involved with terrorism one way or another and were captured overseas, etc… (B) They were American citizens who disagreed with the Bush Administration while exercising their freedom of speech and expression on U.S. soil… Here is a review for the above pop quiz: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4715916 Lilmissbossy: Dying = you shouldn't need to ask. Let me simplify this. How many American citizens are dying in concentration camps on US soil - or elsewhere - as a result of their badmouthing the Administration on U.S. soil?

herfacechair -> RE: Dixie Chicks: Radical Chicks? (7/20/2006 7:49:45 PM)
EnglishDomNW: You're really killing this thread, and any form of debate, herfacechair. Considering that the other side has not presented me with any convincing evidence that they are right, and considering that their positions don’t stand up to scrutiny, I would say this would not be off the mark. EnglishDomNW: I think i'll just leave you to post another 40, 40 posts are nothing. I’ve argued across 40 pages in one thread, and I even argued in a thread that reached 225 + pages. Don’t know how many threads I argued across there though. EnglishDomNW: but just some advice. The whole point of debate is to exchange views and opinions, not spam the board with your own in some slightly disturbing determination to be right. And views/opinions are being exchanged. You see, I see the views and opinions of the posters that I disagree with, read their posts, disagree with them, and post my assessments. If theses posters send a second round my way, the process repeats and I send my response back. So you see, views and opinions are being exchanged. But when both sides of the argument have no intentions of agreeing with each other, you can’t expect that much “finding the middle ground”. Meaning, just because views and opinions are being exchanged, that does not meant that either side has to agree with the others. Finally, considering that I am addressing multiple people with multiple posts, it would only be natural that my responses come one after another. I don’t call that spamming the thread. That is just how it works.

herfacechair -> RE: Dixie Chicks: Radical Chicks? (7/20/2006 7:51:33 PM)
Arpig: I read over your replies to my post, and I simply do not accept your premise. Whether you accept my premise or not, it is very applicable to what we are talking about in reference to Natalie Maines. A celebrity using her status and resource in badmouthing our Commander in Chief during time of war gives our enemies ammunition for their propaganda machine. Your not accepting this reality does not make it “wrong” or “false”. A perfect example is this is the loads of Fahrenheit 9/11 DVDs that were confiscated during raids of terrorist holdouts. In fact, the Stolen Valor documentary shows how effectively the enemy used celebrity statements as part of their propaganda programs. Many a POW was demoralized by words spoken by Celebs failing to exercise responsibility for what they are about to say. Arpig: Natalie Maines has the right to say what she wants, when she wants, Nobody is arguing that she has no rights to say what she wants and when she wants. In fact, go back to any one of my posts and show me where I specifically stated that she does not have the right to free speech. I have argued that she has the right to free speech, and that she has a responsibility to look at the consequences of what she says. Arpig: and I seriously doubt her saying what she did would in any way benefit the amorphous "enemy" you are so afraid of. ROTFLMFAO! Actually, what she did say can be used as part of the the enemy’s propaganda machine. You have a successful American saying that she is ashamed that President Bush comes from her state. That could be twisted, taken out of context, and used as part of a collection of anti bush statements. Now, picture this. The Iraqis are keeping tabs on what is said in our news. Of most importance to them is their feelings of whether we are going to have the will to remain and complete the mission in Iraq. You have those that will not cooperate with us unless they have assurance that we would stay there until we complete our mission. Then you have those that are titering on the edge. Shall they join the rest of the Iraqis, or remain with the resistance? A propaganda piece - put together by the terrorists - can use her voice defending that statement, along with other dissenting voices, to effectively paint a picture of our “will” to stay in Iraq. Their messages express lack of confidence. If she does not have confidence in the president, of more and more Americans are getting impatient with the war, then what do others feel? She is an opinion leader. Together with the other dissenting voices, her voice can be enough to push this guy to NOT cooperate with us. After all, if you remembered five or six friends and family members summarily executed because they were part of the post Gulf War uprising - where they thought we were going to be with them all the way - you would be looking out for good ol number one and assume that this is going to happen again in the future. The dissenting voices in America solidifies that negative prediction. Arpig: What she did was not treason, what she did was her duty as an American, she spoke out when she disagreed with the actions taken in her name by those elected to represent her. Where, in my posts, do I say that she committed treason? Again, in order to commit treason, you would have to knowingly aid and abet the enemy. She thought she did what was good for the country. But that does not dismiss the fact that what she said - and her subsequent defences of what she said - can be used by the enemy as part of their propaganda machine. What she voiced was more in line with what the terrorists thought. I mean, 10 out of 10 terrorists agree, “BUSH BAD!” The terrorists don’t have such a high opinion of Bush and they do lambast him. They share the similar views as the Bush detractors. Expressing an opinion that closely aligns with that of the terrorist does not make you a traitor - unless you are actively doing this in an attempt to aid and abet them. But it does make someone an additional spokesperson for the people that we are fighting. So no, she did not commit treason. However, she effectively became a mouthpiece for the terrorists when she expressed shame over Bush. There is a term for people that do that. Arpig: As simple as that. I agree, plain and simple, she unwittingly became a mouthpiece for the enemy when she made her remarks about Bush and continues to do so each time she defends those words. Arpig: You apparently seem to have swallowed the entire line of supporting the troops means supporting everything the President does. No, this is what I said: Supporting the troops includes supporting their chain of command up to the president, and their mission. Now, let us break this down. (1) Supporting the troops (Engaged in the tactical aspects of war) (2) Supporting the chain of command up to the president (this are the guys carrying out the strategic and operational goals of the U.S. in regards to Iraq and the Middle East) (3) and their mission (Successfully completing the Iraq mission and winning the greater war on terrorism) All three go hand in hand. What I am saying here is that you not only support the troops, but the other aspects that will contribute to their successfully completing the mission that they are carrying out. If one of our vehicles hits a road side bomb, and we take casualties, and the resulting response includes our resolve getting stronger, the president’s support goes up, and more people wanting the terrorist’s head on a platter (instead of dissolving into a “I told you so, we should not have gone in there in the first place), and the terrorists don’t see us as getting phased by this attack, the terrorists would give up. And they would do it in a heartbeat, heres why… The Iraqi people are watching our attitudes. They have access to the news. They are worried about their safety. Deep down inside, they want the U.S. to stay long enough for the Iraqi government to be able to kick butt and take names. They remember the last time they went along with us. Unfortunately, many of those that went along with us ended up in a mass grave. (Post Gulf War uprising) They want to know that we mean business, that we are here to stay. However, the news that they are getting is that popular support for the war is going down, the president is losing support, and people are demanding that we pull the troops out of Iraq and redeploy them back to the U.S. THAT is going to get them thinking that we are losing the will to fight over there, and that it would be a matter of time that we DO cut and run. Self preservation kicks in and many would refuse to cooperate with us in rooting out the terrorists. Which causes our stay over there to be a long one. They would refuse to cooperate because they know that should we cut and run out of there, those that went along with us are going to get summarily executed. And you know what one of their favorite execution methods is. No amount of the anti war/dissenters words affirming that we need to stay there until our job is complete is going to reassure many of these Iraqis that we will be there. Now, if they saw nothing but resolve and full support for the president, the war, and the military, and they saw that each casualty did not get us to bulge in our resolve, did not get our dissenters into a “Out of Iraq Now” frenzy, they would have confidence in our word that we will stay there until our job is complete. In fact, they would dime the terrorists out without second thought. Starting to see where support for the troops go hand in hand with support for their mission? We are there to stay. The enemy is counting on the dissenters to prevent that from happening. The Bush distractors and the dissenters are actually doing more harm to the troops - they claim to support - than help. Arpig: Well guess what, your President was chosen specifically because he isn't particularly intelligent and could be counted on to do what he was told by Dick Cheney and his corproate backers. No. He was selected because he represented what the majority of the American voters wanted. The majority of the electorate also rejected everything that Kerry stood for.

herfacechair -> RE: Dixie Chicks: Radical Chicks? (7/20/2006 7:53:49 PM)
Saraheli: Their support for charities does not help 'the enemy's' cause, but stating her opinion does? That depends on the opinion being stated. If her opinion is more aligned with what our enemies think, she automatically becomes “Exhibit A” for them to prove their point in their propaganda efforts. Now, when they are speaking out loud for a charity, they are not saying anything of value to the enemy. Hence, they are not helping the enemy’s cause. Saraheli: There are many people that support 'the enemy's' opinion all around the world, even some republicans. Which makes them part of the problem instead of the solution. Unlike a large portion of the world, we don’t believe in appeasement. We don’t believe in hoping that the problem would go away, or that the problem would settle itself. They did that for Iraq for years, until we dropped our foot with them. Keep in mind that we do have support around the world, albait not as much as those that oppose us. The Israelis, for example, are behind us. But again, If you had to deal with terrorism, and have been fighting it for a while, you tend to understand the counter terrorist action done by other counties. Saraheli: She didn't say she supported terrorism, she said she didn't like Bush, there is a BIG difference. Nor did my posts say that she said she supported terrorism. You could condemn terrorism till your face turns blue. If you turn around and badmouth our Commander In Chief, who is actively leading a fight against the terrorists, you provide the terrorists with the ammunition they need for propaganda purposes. She did not say that she supported terrorism. For all practical purposes, she condemns it. But that does not stop her from acting as a mouthpiece for our enemy without even realizing it. Saraheli: As for nobody wanting to look at your pet elephant, you can't look at what isn't there, That is like saying that nobody sees germs because they don’t exist. The elephant in the room is the responsibility that comes with our freedom of speech. Our being responsible for what we say, and holding our tongue when what we say can be used against us, is not only REAL, it is cold hard reality. Hence, the elephant in the room that nobody sees. Saraheli: they're fundamentalist muslims, they would never listen to what a woman says. But that will not stop them from using a woman’s words - or a woman herself - to their advantage. Saraheli: Are you really so unsure of Bush's position Unsure? WRONG. I KNOW George Bush’s position when it comes to the War on Terrorism. Saraheli: that you think people shouldn't make public statements that don't support Bush? If you read my posts, you will see WHERE I delineate when it would be wiser to hold their tongue about Bush and the War. Put simply, public statements casting doubt on Bush adds to the uncertainty of our allies in Iraq of whether we will stay or cut and run with our tails between our legs. Lets not forget what happened in Vietnam. Saraheli: How exactly will 'the enemy' use a statement against Bush by one person? That ONE statement can be mixed with other dissenting statement to be used by the enemy to stop people from working with us. Here, let me explain… The Iraqi people are watching our attitudes. They have access to the news. They are worried about their safety. Deep down inside, they want the U.S. to stay long enough for the Iraqi government to be able to kick butt and take names. They remember the last time they went along with us. Unfortunately, many of those that went along with us ended up in a mass grave. (Post Gulf War uprising) They want to know that we mean business, that we are here to stay. However, the news that they are getting is that popular support for the war is going down, the president is losing support, and people are demanding that we pull the troops out of Iraq and redeploy them back to the U.S. THAT is going to get them thinking that we are losing the will to fight over there, and that it would be a matter of time that we DO cut and run. Self preservation kicks in and many would refuse to cooperate with us in rooting out the terrorists. Which causes our stay over there to be a long one. They would refuse to cooperate because they know that should we cut and run out of there, those that went along with us are going to get summarily executed. And you know what one of their favorite execution methods is. No amount of the anti war/dissenters words affirming their support for the troops, or affirming that we need to stay there until our job is complete, is going to reassure many of these Iraqis that we will stay rather than cut and run. Now, if they saw nothing but resolve and full support for the president, the war, and the military, and they saw that each casualty did not get us to bulge in our resolve, did not get our dissenters into a “Out of Iraq Now” frenzy, they would have confidence in our word that we will stay there until our job is complete. In fact, they would dime the terrorists out without second thought. The president is adamant that we are going to stay the course. But, when you have people criticizing him using a misguided thought process, THAT is going to have more weight in the eyes of the enemy and in the eyes of the people that we are trying to help. That gives them (the enemy) hope that enough people would undermine him to the point that he would not have the support he needs to stay the course. Saraheli: Natalie Maines isn't the be-all-end-all, they realize that, they probably give less credence to what she says than people in the West. Negative. If it casts doubt on their enemies - and Bush is one of their major enemies - they will give it ALLOT of credence. If you don’t believe me, talk to the Vietnam Veterans who spent years in captivity in Vietnam. Words that many people in the states may have taken for granted were effectively used by the Vietnamese to lower POW moral. In the terrorists case, it could be used to convince someone that America does not have the will, that all they have to do is hold on and it will be a matter of time before the dissenters have their way. Saraheli: Celebrities who do things the general public do not like are usually put out of the spotlight and fast. Or they're the celebrities who are celebrities Because we hate them Not quite. It depends on what they did that the general public did not like. In Natalie’s case, she badmouthed the Commander in Chief at a time when he was coordinating the engagement of the enemies that threatened our interests. She suffered a backlash with her fans in the form of CD burnings and boycotts. Saraheli: Natalie Maines and The Dixie Chicks are fairly popular still, and not because we all hate them. You can still be popular even when allot of people hate you, so your statement is beside the point. The Dixie Chicks could have more listeners now had it not been for the people that refuse to listen to their songs, attend their concerts, or buy their CDs. That is an opportunity cost that is almost forever sunk. Even if they don’t need these other audiences, that is a reminder of how much more they could be making over what they are making now. Kind of like a swimmer that wins the 50 meter freestyle on a time that is 10 seconds slower than his fastest time. Saraheli: And again, I fail to see how her statement is going to be used to their advantage... Again, That ONE statement can be mixed with other dissenting statement to be used by the enemy to stop people from working with us. Here, let me explain.. The Iraqi people are watching our attitudes. They have access to the news. They are worried about their safety. Deep down inside, they want the U.S. to stay long enough for the Iraqi government to be able to kick butt and take names. They remember the last time they went along with us. Unfortunately, many of those that went along with us ended up in a mass grave. (Post Gulf War uprising) They want to know that we mean business, that we are here to stay. However, the news that they are getting is that popular support for the war is going down, the president is losing support, and people are demanding that we pull the troops out of Iraq and redeploy them back to the U.S. THAT is going to get them thinking that we are losing the will to fight over there, and that it would be a matter of time that we DO cut and run. Self preservation kicks in and many would refuse to cooperate with us in rooting out the terrorists. Which causes our stay over there to be a long one. They would refuse to cooperate because they know that should we cut and run out of there, those that went along with us are going to get summarily executed. And you know what one of their favorite execution methods is. No amount of the anti war/dissenters words affirming that we need to stay there until our job is complete is going to reassure many of these Iraqis that we will be there. Now, if they saw nothing but resolve and full support for the president, the war, and the military, and they saw that each casualty did not get us to bulge in our resolve, did not get our dissenters into a “Out of Iraq Now” frenzy, they would have confidence in our word that we will stay there until our job is complete. In fact, they would dime the terrorists out without second thought. The president is adamant that we are going to stay the course. But when you have people criticizing him using misguided thought processes, THAT is going to have more weight in the eyes of the enemy and in the eyes of the people that we are trying to help. That gives them (the enemy) hope that enough people would undermine him to the point that he would have no other choice but to cut and run. Saraheli: Maybe she did think of what 'they' would make out of it, and realized that 'they' wouldn't care one way or another. Actually, she was not thinking about that at all. She voiced her discontent with the Commander in Chief’s decision to meet an asymmetrical threat head on. She did not see the big picture, just the fact that he refused to heed the advice of other like minded people. If she thought that the enemy would “not care” about what she said, then she would be severely misguided about how our enemies work. Saraheli: As for the point of her post not being about getting her opinion heard as loudly as a public figure...were we reading the same post? YES, we were talking about the same post. I understood CLEARLY where feastie (sp) was coming from. You have these pop corn farts that think - or act - like they are better or wiser than the people who are actually carrying out the policies that they are criticizing. And many of them don’t realize that we don’t see them on the same pedestal that they see themselves in. What feastie (sp) did was voice a thought that is shared by many of the “red voters”. Saraheli: I wasn't confusing a political agenda with a political opinion. That's why I said political agenda, I would have thought that was obvious. No, it is not obvious. There is a difference between a political agenda and an opinion. An agenda is an action plan. An opinion is just that, an opinion. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/agenda “Something to be done, especially an item on a program or list.” - agenda Where, in this definition, does it describe an opinion? Saraheli: Judging by your posts, and the things you say, I'd guess you fall into the latter category. Your claims that I am one of those that “don’t know any better” was made by someone on another board, who claimed that I was “ignorant” when I was making a point about the war that we are involved with. Read and enjoy: 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: 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. Saraheli: I sense the recurring theme of 'enemies', propaganda. Because it addresses the recurring theme that “they have the right to free speech” that is not accompanied by the “responsibility that comes with our freedom of speech.” Saraheli: Are you worried about something? No, I am not worried about anything, just pointing out a reality that people keep ignoring, given the asymmetrical war that we are involved with. Saraheli: Do you know things we don't? I don’t mean to sound crass and vein, but I have to tell it like it is. Judging by the posts that I am rebutting, that is a resounding YES! However, the information is available, in public libraries, book stores, the internet, etc, that would let many of those that I am rebutting catch up. I would recommend watching POW documentaries where the POW’s talk about the negative impact that certain celebrity’s irresponsible use of their freedom of speech had on them… Saraheli: Are You in touch with the enemy … do you run the propaganda machine? You don’t have to be in touch with the enemy - or run their propaganda machine - to know that they eat up on anti Bush, anti U.S. military, anti US theme speeches, etc. When batches of Fahrenheit 9/11 DVD’s are captured in terrorist safe house raids, a reasonable person HAS to know that the enemy eats up on anti Bush/America drivel. You don’t have to be in touch with the enemy - or be involved with their propaganda efforts - to know that they will use these things to our side’s disadvantage and their side’s advantage, especially given the tales of our Vietnam POWs. You don’t have to be in touch with the enemy - or be involved with their propaganda efforts - to know that they eat up on these things when there are numerous examples in history illustrating that they do these things. Saraheli: If the right-wingers hadn't made such a fuss about it, nobody would have even Heard about it, outside of a small column inside some entertainment magazine. WRONG. The left wing media eats up on things like that. They eat up on anything that does not reflect well on the President or any efforts being carried out by him. If you don’t believe me, compare and contrast the reports we get coming out of Iraq when there are casualties that day, or when there are no casualties that day. Our enemy has access to our left wing media outlets, using history as an example: http://www.amigospais-guaracabuya.org/oagmb009.php "What we still don't understand is why you Americans stopped the bombing of Hanoi. You had us on the ropes. If you had pressed us a little harder, just for another day or two, we were ready to surrender! It was the same at the battles of TET. You defeated us! We knew it, and we thought you knew it. But, we were elated to notice the media were definitely helping us. They were causing more disruption in America than we could in the battlefields. Yes, we were ready to surrender. You had won!" - From the memoirs of General Vo Nguyen Giap, the North Vietnamese general Pay particular attention to the underlined section of the comment.

herfacechair -> RE: Dixie Chicks: Radical Chicks? (7/20/2006 7:55:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Arpig For all of you who are throwing out your Dixie Chicks CD's, are you also going to throw out your Springsteen? He was Very critical of Bush, and his policies at the New Orleans Jazz Festival. If the opinions of one Dixie Chick would aid the enemy, surely the opinion of an internationally respected artist like Springsteen will win the war for them. He is one of the celebs that I don’t listen to anymore.

herfacechair -> RE: Dixie Chicks: Radical Chicks? (7/20/2006 7:57:10 PM)
meatcleaver: Those 6,000 would have been alive if it wasn't for an illegal invasion by the USA and Britain based on lies. The majority of the Iraqis would beg to differ with you. Many of them were prepared to commit suicide had we decided to call off the invasion. Many of them see the current situation as better than when Sadman was in power. As for the illegal invasion, I don’t see anywhere in our constitution where we have to get international approval before we take on a necessary security operation. The U.N. was created to meet symmetrical threats, like what we faced during World War II. We are now involved in asymmetrical warfare. The United Nations is not organized to meet the asymmetrical threats, in fact, it has been pretty much ineffective when dealing with the current assymetrical war. To top it off, they did not have any rules covering asymmetrical threats and how to react to major asymmetrical threats. We took an asymmetrical action that was not covered by the U.N. bylaws or rules; hence we did not break any U.N. laws. They would have to have asymmetrical warfare procedures in place that we would have to violate, but they had none. If the U.N. does not adjust to address the current asymmetrical warfare environment that we are in right now, it will be nothing but a useless behemoth. As for as “based on lies” Lets say, for the sake of argument, that all of my posts were on this one thread. I subsequently tell one of my friends that I have an X + 100 amount of posts on this forum. Between the time I tell him that I have all of these posts and the time that he comes here to verify my claim, the moderators delete this thread. In the process of this thread being deleted, my post counter goes down to zero. My friend sees that I have zero posts, not X + 100 as I originally claimed. Would my X + 100 post claim make me a “liar”? Remember, he can come back and told me that he found no evidence that I made X + 100 posts on this message board. meatcleaver: It is irrelvant who killed them, the USA and Britain destabilised a country and allowed chaos to ensue. Actually, it is. The terrorists are killing most of the civilians, while the Coalition is going out of its way to avoid civilian casualties. Why are they killing more and more civilians? To intimidate them from embracing freedom, something that the majority of them want. Like Germany and Japan after World War II, and the U.S. South after the Civil War, there is going to be some chaos and instability before stability returns. Even in the post Civil War South and Post World War II Germany, we met and fought a resistance that was trying to restore the old order. What is really tragic is that the CNN, BBC, New York Crimes et al seem to have amnesia when it comes to these perspectives. meatcleaver: I got the figures from the news BBC, CNN, EuropaNews, Dutch, German, French, Turkish, Spanish news, take your pick, all their figures are pretty similar. If you get your news from the New York times you will probably get different figures because they don't report most Arab deaths. So we should resort to a bunch of criminally left biased news reports to get the “facts” of what is going on in Iraq? I’ve read too many articles from the news sources that you mentioned that made CNN and New York Times seem “fair and balanced”. If they don’t report how those deaths are occurring - most of which is being done in the hands of the terrorists - and the reader walks out with a bad impression of the U.K and the U.S., the journalist just got away with journalistic miscarriage. meatcleaver: Your stance is the one that is crap because you obviously don't read or listen to the news. Very ironic statement concerning the news sources listed in the proceeding statement. His presenting facts that are not reported by the media does not make his stance “crap”.

herfacechair -> RE: Dixie Chicks: Radical Chicks? (7/20/2006 7:59:14 PM)
meatcleaver: Since to the average Arab, the USA/Israel/Britain are seen as their version of the axis of evil, which has proved internationally far more deadly than Bush's axis of evil, these figures are relevant. They are seen as the powers creating chaos in the middle east and the reason for so much radicalism and growth of terrorism in the region. Since Bush has declared this is a war on terrorism and Israel is claiming they are fighting the same war (as part of the excuse for over reacting) such deaths are relevant. http://observer.guardian.co.uk/worldview/story/0,11581,845725,00.html quote: ORIGINAL: OSAMA BIN LADEN (e) Your forces occupy our countries; you spread your military bases throughout them; you corrupt our lands, and you besiege our sanctities, to protect the security of the Jews and to ensure the continuity of your pillage of our treasures. (g) You have supported the Jews in their idea that Jerusalem is their eternal capital, and agreed to move your embassy there. With your help and under your protection, the Israelis are planning to destroy the Al-Aqsa mosque. Under the protection of your weapons, Sharon entered the Al-Aqsa mosque, to pollute it as a preparation to capture and destroy it. (2) These tragedies and calamities are only a few examples of your oppression and aggression against us. It is commanded by our religion and intellect that the oppressed have a right to return the aggression. Do not await anything from us but Jihad, resistance and revenge. Is it in any way rational to expect that after America has attacked us for more than half a century, that we will then leave her to live in security and peace?!! NOTE: I DON’T see meatcleaver as a traitor.

herfacechair -> RE: Dixie Chicks: Radical Chicks? (7/20/2006 8:00:58 PM)
irishbynature: I agree....and when she said what she did...she made it clear her first concern was the troops being sent into an ill thought out war with NO exit plan. It appears Natalie was correct...and again, to Ms. Natalie Maines.....I will repeat her lyrics for Mr. Bush: Actually, she was wrong. As with past wars, the exit plan was implemented after we completed our mission. I doubt that we sent our forces into World War II knowing full well what our exit plan was going to be like. In fact, we fought an insurgency in Germany for approximately three years after World War II ended. Not only was Natalie WRONG, it appears that she has no clue about strategic and operational military planning. And her concern about the troops going into harms way for what she assumed was an “ill thought out war” - I wonder if she knew the fact that most of the troops that she supported DID NOT see the war as “ill thought out”, and that the majority was in full support of the president and his plans?

Arpig -> RE: Dixie Chicks: Radical Chicks? (7/20/2006 8:02:42 PM)
quote: No. He was selected because he represented what the majority of the American voters wanted. The majority of the electorate also rejected everything that Kerry stood for. Actually, he was selected long before anybody got the choice to vote for him. The fact that he was selected is the reason why you got the chance to vote for (or against) him. When choosing their candidate, they wanted an appealing and obedient good fella, and they got one. And as for this infamous proaganda...can you cite a single example where her words were actually used by your "enemy"? Thought not.....happy landings dude, I am wishing I had some of whatever the hell it is you have been smoking.

herfacechair -> RE: Dixie Chicks: Radical Chicks? (7/20/2006 8:05:54 PM)
Lilmissbossy: Well curiously, America is not the world, despite your opinions revolving around it. Contrary to your intentionally misinterpreting my posts, nowhere in that statement that you quoted was I saying that America was the world. In fact, my original response to the statement “that most people saw Bush as the third dangerous man”, clearly took a stab at the criminally biased reporting that took place in foreign news networks. You know, how they like to wave our “dirty laundry” in hopes that you guys don’t see the flaws in your own system and way of thinking. Add to that how they tend to turn a blind eye to incriminating information dealing with the bad guys. Lilmissbossy: Not on my mark it wasn't. In fact, I disagree with almost everything you type. This is an example of what I was talking about with regards to your stereotyping people that support the war. Included in that stereotype is your assumption of why they support that war. You expected me to fall in that assumption, which is why I was not on your mark. But the reality is that your question does not capture the problem that we are dealing with, And severely misses the point behind the fact that the war on terrorism is more than just Al-Qaeda and 9/11. Talking about marks. Your mark was 180 degrees off target. Mine was right on target. OF COURSE I would not have made your mark. :roll: Lilmissbossy: I did. You're still wrong. Actually, NO. Your posts don’t reflect that that you did. Lilmissbossy: I posted so many things that you STILL haven't addressed. WRONG. I have addressed every single point that you sent my way. The fact that it does not fit the stereotypical response that you expect from someone that supports the war does not change the fact that I answered your questions - and explained why they could not be answered the way that you wanted them answered. Lilmissbossy: Watch. You mean watch you try to get me to disregard why your question is not applicable to the war on terrorism? How could I not “watch”? Lilmissbossy: 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 And I answered your question directly. There is more to going into Iraq than to establish democracy, and there is more to the war on terror than 9/11. THAT is reality. You refuse to recognize that reality, which leads to your refusing to accept the fact that I answered your questions directly. Lilmissbossy: (although I can already hear you typing out a denial to that). What is there to deny? I answered your question truthfully and factually in a way that proved your assumptions and stereotypes wrong. The war on terrorism is more than just 9/11 and Al-Qaeda. Lilmissbossy: Give me the date and time this happened. A symmetrical warfare concept statement that is not applicable to the asymmetrical war that we are currently involved with. Redirect that question to reflect asymmetrical warfare, so that you will get a response that reflects our current reality. Lilmissbossy: 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. Actually, the least informed posters don’t know - or refuse to see - the asymmetrical warfare aspects of the Global War on Terrorism, and consistently narrow their views of the War on Terrorism to just 9/11 and Al-Qaeda. 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. Iraq under Saddam WAS a part of the asymmetrical threat that we had to deal with. And anybody thinking that in order to be a threat, you have to be directly responsible for 9/11, needs to come to grips with reality. Lilmissbossy: Let's see how far you'll go to avoid saying the words "they didn't", shall we? Because war on terrorism is MORE than just 9/11 and Al-Qaeda. Your question erroneously assumes that it does. Redirect your question to reflect asymmetrical warfare, and you will get a short answer. Lilmissbossy: Quite a long way. Interesting that you use the word "elusiveness" towards the end of your post, don'tcha think And notice how quick you are willing to accuse me of being “elusive” when I was being straight forward, yet you refuse to elusiveness as it relates to the war on terrorism as it relates to the reality of the threat Saddam posed to us. Lilmissbossy: Waffle, that's called. WRONG. Your question is loaded and you know it. Your question does not cover the true nature of the war that we are engaged in, and assumes that the war on terrorism is only about 9/11 and Al-Qaeda. Here, let me simplify this for you… Using your line of reasoning, a person that hires a hit man would not be tried for murder, because he was not the one that committed the murder. Your question is equivalent to this defense lawyer question: Did Mr. Doe kill Joe Victim? All I want is a yes or no! (When Mr. Doe was the one that hired the hit man) Starting to see the flaw in your reasoning? If you want to see a straightforward question, one that is not loaded, go to the questions that I you have neglected to answer, the ones that I have asked you. (That is, if you have not done so.) If you already did, go back and look at what I wrote. That is an example of a question that is not loaded. Lilmissbossy: Was I supposed to think your ideas were somehow more impressive because of this statement (which I question anyway). Let’s put it this way. If you are perplexed that the person that you are debating with refuses your theory that you can put fire out with gasoline, don’t tell that person that they have no credibility in what they are talking about. Because that person that you are arguing with may be a fireman. Lilmissbossy: Because if I think the ideas you're posting are nonsense, Your statement to what I said kinds of reminds me of when I was a teenager. I thought that many of what my parents were saying was complete nonsense. It was not until I got out into the real world that I realized that what they said made perfect sense. HINT: There is a lesson in there for you. Lilmissbossy: I'll exercise my right to say so even if you're the President of the planet. Nobody is arguing against your right to say whatever you want. Just bear in mind that you take stock of your experiences compared to that of the person that you are talking to before you accuse them of not having any credibility in what they are talking about. Lilmissbossy: 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. OK, I am willing to prove to someone that I am who I say I am. If you are willing to accept this, I will pick a poster, show them some documentation, then have them come here and verify that I am who I say I am. Just let me know and I will contact a poster that I trust. Lilmissbossy: 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. ROTFLMFAO! An 18 year old talking about joining the real world! But I did not know that you played soldier with your brother and went on secret missions. That makes you a great older sister. However, I don’t know what the recruiting laws in the UK are, but you may be old enough to join the real army or marines.

herfacechair -> RE: Dixie Chicks: Radical Chicks? (7/20/2006 8:07:10 PM)
Level: Hmmm. No, I'm right. No, your explanation failed to stand up to scrutiny. You’re wrong.

herfacechair -> RE: Dixie Chicks: Radical Chicks? (7/20/2006 8:09:07 PM)
UtopianRanger: Now I see why all the crows are circling. You see crows? In some places in the world, crows are seen as a bad omen - by those sighting the birds. BEWARE! Heh Heh.. UtopianRanger: I hammered your ass the last time you and ole' bob tried to defend the Patriot Act. ROTFLMFAO! [sm=biggrin.gif][sm=whoa.gif][sm=lol.gif] WRONG! You DID NOT hammer me when I was defending the Patriot Act. Your arguments, as well as the arguments of your allies, were weak and I was able to use the very words of the Patriot Act to prove your side wrong. I was going to come back the next day and do a complete sweep and prove everybody else on your side wrong when the thread was pulled. UtopianRanger: Now your back again, rippn’ the Dixie girls? I was back before this, to test a new tactic that would allow me a chance to dismantle every liberal argument - or the ones that I picked - and prove them wrong. It worked like a charm and I am using that tactic here. As far as ripping the Dixie girls? No, just telling it like it is about one of them failing to exercise responsibility with her freedom of speech.

herfacechair -> RE: Dixie Chicks: Radical Chicks? (7/20/2006 8:10:56 PM)
Lilmissbossy: I'd trust the BBC for impartiality over any other news source on Earth. I beg to differ. For example, I saw a BBC article talking about the success that British snipers had in simultaneously taking out would be homicide bombers. The words, “rare success”, was not some “chance” selection of words. That was BIASED and did not reflect reality. The Brits and the rest of the coalition were - and still are - enjoying success in Iraq, kicking butt and taking names. Their success was ANYTHING but rare. Impartiality my butt! I’ve lost the number of times that I have rolled my eyes at blatant journalistic bias while reading BBC articles. They make CNN look fair and balanced. Lilmissbossy: Any news service that gets attacked by both the Left and the Right has to be doing something properly. Any news service that is so far to the left that even regular lefties are to the right by their standards is bound to be attacked by both the left and the right.

herfacechair -> RE: Dixie Chicks: Radical Chicks? (7/20/2006 8:12:17 PM)
darkinshadows: WHAT DOES IT FUCKING MATTER HOW MANY DIED WHETHER THEY ARE JEW, MUSLIM OR CHRISTIAN. PEOPLE ARE FUCKING DYING. It does matter, especially when the media does not do a good job in respecting the fact that we are at war, and that the bad guys - in their opposition to democracy - are causing allot of deaths. One of the biggest complaints that the troops have about the media’s conduct in theater is their refusal to film or report things that would put the war into proper perspective. We are at war with a group that wants to eventually replace the West - and the rest of the world - with something else. It does matter when the media wants to make the U.S. and U.K. come out as the bad guys when the reality is that we are doing humankind a favor. darkinshadows: Please don't try and justify death through war just because your bloody 'president' (and our shitless PM) can't get their asses into gear and prefere to act like spoilt brats. Both the President and the PM did the right thing. Both know the real threat that we are facing and both stood up against the wrong advice - even though the majority of the world community fell on the wrong side of the equation. I would beg to differ about them “not” being able to get their “asses’ in gear. They did get their “asses” in gear. It was the rest of the world - dragging its knuckles on the ground - that could not get its ass in gear.

herfacechair -> RE: Dixie Chicks: Radical Chicks? (7/20/2006 8:13:41 PM)
Alumbrado: But it is just a fantasy (much like the one about the Dixie Chicks' careers being ruined by a vengeful President.and his legions of loyal followers). But people deciding not to purchase concert tickets or their CD’s - fans who otherwise would have done so - is no fantasy. You did point out one thing that is right, the idea that Bush and his followers went out of their way to wreck the Dixie Chicks is nothing but that, a fantasy. Alumbrado: In the real world, there is no monolithic 'American Media', acting in lockstep to keep people from knowing 'The Truth'. UMM, not quite. Yes, they are not acting in lock step with each other. But, when you have a journalistic population whose liberal representation is so out of proportion with that in the general population, you tend to have a group of people - who think alike - present their perspectives to their audiences. As the author of “Bias” puts it, the bias comes natural. Alumbrado: There are a handful of extremely greedy multi-national coporations who find it useful to create the notion of being on one side or the other (politically, socially, or nationally) to churn profits...and a whole lot of gullible fish who fall for the illusion. Bread and circuses.... works every time. The people working within the news network determine - by the news that they chose to show - which side of the political spectrum they land on. When you have a situation where the majority of the journalists are liberals themselves, there is a tendency to present news that they (mostly liberal editors/journalists) see as news worthy. Unfortunately, bias and perceptions play a strong role. I mean, if everybody in the office things that a news piece is a bad idea, and everybody happens to be a liberal, what’s stopping the editor from thinking that he is printing something that he/she thinks is mainstream?

herfacechair -> RE: Dixie Chicks: Radical Chicks? (7/20/2006 8:14:48 PM)
irishbynature: The American media shelters us unto our own little island. Many other countries knew of the genocide in Africa (1994-etc)....but all we heard was about Bosnia. Actually, from watching American news/reading articles during the 90’s, I got an earful of the genocide that was going on in Africa.

herfacechair -> RE: Dixie Chicks: Radical Chicks? (7/20/2006 8:16:57 PM)
CrappyDom: It makes the American terrorist actions against the British seem quite outragious doesn't it? I mean the British were JUST trying to keep order and all... Hmmm, this orange is round, just like an apple, so it must be an apple! Yah that’s it, this orange is actually an apple! However, our patriots are nowhere near comparable to the terrorists that we are fighting. Once you start taking groups that don’t fit the terrorist definition and start labeling them as terrorists, you start going on a slippery slope. For example, some colonials were nailed to the tree bark with a bayonet and left for death by the British soldiers. They killed civilians that were not even involved with the patriots. Does that make the British terrorists themselves? Starting to see the flaw in assuming that the patriots are comparable to terrorists? CrappyDom: Or how the whiny Republicans who love to speak of how brave they are and how willing they are to send others off to fight for them... You do realize that the majority of the military vote went to President Bush, do you? Remember how democrat operatives scrutinized overseas military votes that were coming in because - GASP - the majority in the military tended to vote Republican? The majority of the people doing the fighting ARE republicans. There are a mix of Democrats and independents to, but there is also a big chuck of republicans in the military. This idea that the Republicans are somebody else to fight for them is lame. Don’t remember reading accounts of FDR fighting from the trenches during World War II. CrappyDom: seem to believe that others should always turn the other cheek and when oppressed, Don’t see us telling the Israelis to turn the other cheek. And it appears that we would block any move by the U.N. that would put Israel at a disadvantage. CrappyDom: people should just calmly wait for things to get better. If that were the case, we would NOT have invaded Iraq. We would have just let them calmly wait for things to get better. CrappyDom: If someone kills your friends or families you write it off as an accident or at least something done to further good and not only shouldn't get pissed off you should smile and wave at those who killed them. Nope, don’t see 9/11 or the acts of the terrorists in Iraq, or the actions of Hezbolla (sp), Hamas (sp) et all as “furthering the good”. I don’t think that the American people, the Iraqis, or the Israelis would see things your way either. CrappyDom: Before someone writes me off as pussy assed liberal, if I had been the one in charge of going into Afghanistan I would have arranged for accidents to every single warloard, friend and foe alike, along with their first born. That way nobody has a solid claim on leadership and the chairs are up for grabs. You then sit down all polite like with the second born, with the third and fourth born out in the living room and have a quiet talk. Explain the facts of life to them, that you will be making them richer than their fathers EVER dreamed of as long as they play ball, if they don't their balls will explode. “ seem to believe that others should always turn the other cheek and when oppressed, people should just calmly wait for things to get better. If someone kills your friends or families you write it off as an accident or at least something done to further good and not only shouldn't get pissed off you should smile and wave at those who killed them” - CrappyDom: I don’t know how familiar you are with how the extended family works, but if you kill of the first born, the second born is going to expect to inherit what the first born was to receive. Now, if you kill of the second born as well, guess what? The third born is going to be rubbing his hands together. But that is not all, you see, they are not going to sit down calmly with you after you had killed members of their family. Starting to see the picture? Because the terrorists in Iraq don’t, and that is one of the reasons their future is doomed. When you kill hundreds of people in the market place, Iraqis are going to stop protecting your terrorist butt and will dime you out instead. quote: ORIGINAL: CrappyDom You make it clear, corruption is fixed at 20% and their path to riches isn't stealing a bigger percent but in making sure there is more to steal. Then we start pouring the money in, building roads, dams, irrigation projects, schools, and other vital infrastructure. We then establish agricultural exports, subsidize them for a decade or two so that they develop both a system of laws, run their country by them and have an economy that only makes people rich if they run it like a half assed civilized place. Anyone steps out of line, they have an accident and the third born takes over. If nobody steps out of line, you kill off a couple anyway just so the fucking point is clear. The whole fucking key to this crap, and the Romans made it work for a 1,000 years, is to make it more profitable to have a stable and functioning economy and government than it is to fight and cause trouble. Not quite. The Romans allowed the conquered people to manage local affairs and to practice local customs. They managed the “national” level of activity, with support from the locals. What you suggest here would fail in the long term. What we are doing in Iraq and Afghanistan right now will have a long term impact, like what we did in Germany and Japan. CrappyDom: Problem for the world is Bushco figured out a way to make more money by fucking the world up than by fixing it. Of course it only works for the short term but that is about as far as those idiots can see. Bush has turned America into a third world country, we just haven't got there yet, but our fate is pretty well sealed. Not quite. George Bush could have made more money buy accepting lucrative oil deals with Sadman. What we are doing in Iraq and Afghanistan is going to have a long term impact - a good one - in that region and in the world. Once Iraq and Afghanistan become thriving democracies, it would only be a matter of time before the face of the rest of the region changes over and that entire region becomes democratic. It is going to take a while before this happens, but it is going to happen. A second asymmetrical warfare tactic that we are using that too many people are not aware of is that we are setting up free trade agreements with Middle Eastern countries. We turn that region into a thriving democracy, people will be less inclined to slam aircraft into buildings.

ModeratorEleven -> RE: Dixie Chicks: Radical Chicks? (7/20/2006 8:18:06 PM)
To everyone: Please try and keep the discussion civil and free of insults. Thank you, XI

Arpig -> RE: Dixie Chicks: Radical Chicks? (7/20/2006 8:18:53 PM)
So far I have not seen a single arguement dismantled. What I have seen is you repeating yourself over and over. You say she was wrong to do what she did, your reasoning is fallacious, and so far you have not provided a single piece of evidence of the damage she supposedly did to the US. I say she wasn't wrong to do what she did, my proof...simple, nothing happened, there was no great propaganda campaign launched by Dr. Evil and his legion of uber-baddies...what part of that is beyond your grasp. You cannot dismantle my position, since I do not subscribe to your basic premise, that there are a huge number of evil-doers out there hanging on Natalie Maines' every word. Sorry, just don't buy it. It is ridiculous, and you are making yourself look like a complete fool by continuing to spam away at great length without actually saying anything that couldn't have been covered in a single post. Go back to whatever neo-con fantasy land you crawled out of, the real world has little use, and less need of you and your opinions. Ta-ta-for-now [:)]

Page: << < prev 13 14 [15] 16 17 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625