RE: Why have we waited so long to send more troops?

RE: Why have we waited so long to send more troops? (Full Version)

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

Message

Sinergy -> RE: Why have we waited so long to send more troops? (1/10/2007 11:27:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle quote: I cannot really think of any President since World War 2 who did not have the preservation of the Isreali occupation and control of a former Muslim country as a foremost priority. I need to ask for the same clarification. Do you mean the Government of The State of Israel's occupation? I think we need to focus on destroying all religious nationalism, and it's time for all religious governments to go the way of ... well... archaic, obsolete things... It's late, I'm tired, pick your own humorous nouns... A lot of people invaded what is now Isreal and installed a government there for the Jewish people. These same people worked with the western powers (US, Britain, etc) in order to gain currency to support their country. They also worked with the Soviet Union to gain Jewish refugee settlers. I loaned a book on this to strumpet so I dont recall the name off the top of my head, but the Soviet Union had a quid pro quo deal with the USSR; give us US military secrets and we will give you refugees. I am not sure that doing away with religion based governments will solve the problem. The problem is INTOLERANCE of other people. If a bunch of people want to bow down and warship the great God named DutchPigShitBarge and devote their lives to the furtherance of the Coming Of The Great Charmin, I really dont have a problem with this. It is when these same people insist that I and my children pray the Psalms of the Forever Static ShitScow in school or be forever damned to an eternity of TiedUpToTheDock that I have a problem with it. Just me, could be wrong, but there you go. Sinergy

Sinergy -> RE: Why have we waited so long to send more troops? (1/10/2007 11:43:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Solinear The cause of this problem is that we can't trust anyone else to do anything competently and refuse to teach them to. Halliburton - they must be the only company that can competently put Iraq back together, only... wait... they haven't gotten a damn thing done yet, nor have half of the rest of the contracting companies that are sucking craploads of money out of our government. I have very little faith in my government and it will stay that way for a long time. As many people here know, trust is earned and trust lost is twice as hard to earn back. Halliburton et al have done such a fabulous job fixing New Orleans. Unfortunately, I worked in Aerospaz for years and have seen first hand that continuance of the government funding is the first principle. Providing a quality product for the money one is paid for it is a distant second. Sinergy

FirmhandKY -> RE: Why have we waited so long to send more troops? (1/11/2007 1:29:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy I dont recall anybody using the words "illiterate," "wanna-be dictator," or "easily angered" to describe Clinton, Carter, Wilson, Jackson, etc. These men were all highly educated, did not wish to rule the world, and were more interested in creating consensus than conflict. Clinton's behavior showed that "intelligent" and "educated" do not necessarily mean "moral", "honest" or "principled". Wilson ... have to go and refresh on that one. Unfettered idealism comes to mind. Jackson?!! Damn! Encourged the "spoils system"? Any idea about how he let the White House get trashed on a regular basis? Educated? You sure? "Easily angered"? Hell yes! He fought a lot of duels, and even killed a man in one, once. I never said Clinton had principles. I said he was educated and intelligent. There is a difference. www.dictionary.com A lot of people fought duels during that time period. What is your point? Was he controlled by his temper? Or are you trying to use the intellectual fallacy that the societal value systems currently in vogue in the United States apply in all time periods throughout history? Jackson was an excellent rhetorician with extensive education (by the standards of the day) meaning that he was well read and skilled in read, writing, debate, etc. One of the things he stated is that Corporation's should be outlawed because they lacked an inner moral sensibility. Wilson was college educated, and developed the United Nations as an attempt to try to prevent the sort of intertangling alliances which drew most of the world into a devastating war (World War 1) because there was no forum by which sovereign nations could air grievances and redress wrongs. After World War 2, when it was started up again the powers that won World War 2 demanded veto power. Since that time, the United Nations has been basically useless to do anything. I cannot really think of any President since World War 2 who did not have the preservation of the Isreali occupation and control of a former Muslim country as a foremost priority. Seems a bit intellectually dishonest to think that Carter started the whole debacle. Although, it does not shock me that you think so. General comment: Ya know, Sin ... everything you write in these type of discussions: Contains factual errors, is skewed to be about unrelated points to the main one(s) I respond to, is vague, and/or is intentionally insulting. Your main point was that Bush was is a "bad man", and you listed a lot of his supposed failings. You then hold up past Democratic presidents as examplars of probity, intelligence, calm rationality and perfection. I state that they were all men, and all of them had their issues, good and bad. You try to slip-slide away in your normal manner. If you'd put down that one propaganda book by Kevin Phillips that you are constantly droning on about (I'd drop any Howard Zinn that you may have read as well), and read some real history, you'd find out that the world isn't all as black and white as you wish to make it out to be. Specific points about some of your posts since my last: 1. I never said Clinton had principles. I said he was educated and intelligent. There is a difference. I never said he wasn't educated and intelligent. I said, in addition to those personal attributes, he has moral and ethical problems. There is a difference. Intentionally skewed. 2. A lot of people fought duels during that time period. What is your point? Over 100 duels, and killing a man the way he did in one duel, in violation of the American version of the Code Duello, is indicative of a man who has a temper. Skewed. 3. Jackson was an excellent rhetorician with extensive education (by the standards of the day) meaning that he was well read and skilled in read, writing, debate, etc. Jackson wasn't very well educated at all, even in comparison to his day. He was barely literate most of his life, and never had a formal education. You are simply redefining your terms. Skewed. 4. Wilson ... developed the United Nations ... Eleanor Roosevelt had more responsibility for the UN than Wilson. Now, if you had said the League of Nations, I might have agreed with you. Factual error. 5. Seems a bit intellectually dishonest to think that Carter started the whole debacle. Since I made no such claim, I'm not sure how to respond other than say "huh?" Skewed. Factual error. Intentionally insulting. 6. Although, it does not shock me that you think so. Insulting and, in combination with your previous sentence, a great example of attacking a straw-man. Skewed. Intentionally insulting. 7. A lot of people invaded what is now Isreal and installed a government there for the Jewish people. Pray tell me, what does this sentence actually mean? A lot of people invaded ... and installed a Jewish government? huh? Would you mind sourcing this statement? Which countries invaded the area and installed a Jewish government? How many times? Dates? Vague. Skewed. Factual error. 8. These same people worked with the western powers (US, Britain, etc) in order to gain currency to support their country. They also worked with the Soviet Union to gain Jewish refugee settlers. Vague. Really, really vague. 9. ... but the Soviet Union had a quid pro quo deal with the USSR; give us US military secrets and we will give you refugees. The Soviet Union and the USSR were ... the same thing. USSR stands for the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, commonly called "the Soviet Union". Factual error. Second half ("give us military secrets") is vague. 10. ... want to bow down and warship the great God named DutchPigShitBarge ... A reference to an entirely different thread that I started, and in a post of yours completely unrelated to anything I've said in this thread. Intentionally insulting. *** Lordy, you writings are simply ... rich. FirmKY

farglebargle -> RE: Why have we waited so long to send more troops? (1/11/2007 7:26:10 AM)
I dunno. You got a POINT BY POINT model indictment, which was very detailed, and very focused and if I recall correctly, you did NOT list each numbered or lettered section you had issue with, and give citations to support your defense against the point, as requested. Asking for responses to match the source isn't unreasonable, and asking for cites is pretty standard, but I've not seen a cogent response. Therefore, your attempting to take someone to task for vaugueness and lack of focus is amusing.

losttreasure -> RE: Why have we waited so long to send more troops? (1/11/2007 7:38:52 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle I dunno. You got a POINT BY POINT model indictment, which was very detailed, and very focused and if I recall correctly, you did NOT list each numbered or lettered section you had issue with, and give citations to support your defense against the point, as requested. Good grief... are you still banging on about that so-called "model indictment"?

farglebargle -> RE: Why have we waited so long to send more troops? (1/11/2007 7:55:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: losttreasure quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle I dunno. You got a POINT BY POINT model indictment, which was very detailed, and very focused and if I recall correctly, you did NOT list each numbered or lettered section you had issue with, and give citations to support your defense against the point, as requested. Good grief... are you still banging on about that so-called "model indictment"? No, it's the CRIMES alleged that I continue to rally for the investigeation and potential prosecution, though despite your misunderstanding not in this case. If you followed the thread, it's clear that I'm only bringing it up as an example of his own lack of attentiveness, as he hypocritically attempts to call someone out for the same. But as long as you brought it up, if Bush didn't DO ANYTHING WRONG, what does he have to fear from a Grand Jury?

FirmhandKY -> RE: Why have we waited so long to send more troops? (1/11/2007 8:15:26 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle I dunno. You got a POINT BY POINT model indictment, which was very detailed, and very focused and if I recall correctly, you did NOT list each numbered or lettered section you had issue with, and give citations to support your defense against the point, as requested. Asking for responses to match the source isn't unreasonable, and asking for cites is pretty standard, but I've not seen a cogent response. Therefore, your attempting to take someone to task for vaugueness and lack of focus is amusing. Not at all. First, as you fail to mention, the first of your three post about the "indictment" I certainly did do a point by point rebuttal. See my post 158. The second, and the third posts of yours simply aren't relevant, because even if the actions described are accurate, the assumption is of bad faith, lying and conspiracy, when in reality (as I said in post 184): There is nothing in the fantasy "indictment" that isn't either a policy difference, a misunderstanding, the best knowledge at the time, acceptable "ad spin" as defined by the courts, or normal political soothsaying. And in post 166: Just because something was said that you disagree with, isn't a prima facie case of either "conspiracy" or "intent to deceive" in a legalistic sense (or even a common one). In other words, you are assuming guilt first and then projecting your belief onto all the actions and statements made by any of the principles cited. Not "innocent" until proven guilty. Not even open-minded. However, I did tell you I was prepared to discuss any three of the specific allegations you copied from some anonyomous source on the web in post 209: Give me the ... lets say ... top three "examples" that Bush et al "violated the law" and let's discuss them. Your choice, pick whatever you wish. But, you ignored this and just spewed on about the righteousness of your cause. You aren't really interested in discussion. Your interest is in preaching. Or, at least it seems that way. Your real intent seems to be attempting to snow me under with massive amounts of minutiae that really aren't pertinent, in the hopes that I'll go away, and leave you to your flock. If I make a statement of "fact" and it's challenged, I'll source it. If I someone wishes to know where I obtained my data, I'll cite it. Critical thinking requires a process of vetting the reliablity and pertinence of the source material, and a skepticism about motives and methods. When you refuse to even tell us where you obtained your information, and I googled and came up with a name (and likely a non de plume) with absolutely zero confirmable background ... well ... it makes me suspicious about your entire case, if I were not already. Your and sinergy's current tactic seems to be to be avoiding all cites and sources, based on my "supposed" inability or unwillingness to read them. False. Skewed. Factual error. Doesn't help your case. FirmKY

michaelOfGeorgia -> RE: Why have we waited so long to send more troops? (1/11/2007 8:18:48 AM)
why did we even bother sending them at all...could have just sent in an air strike and been done with it...just bomb the hell out of the country. afterall, bin ladin probably isn't even any where near that country now anyway. America was way to slow in their response. now, it's all a waste of time, money and people.

FirmhandKY -> RE: Why have we waited so long to send more troops? (1/11/2007 8:26:49 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle No, it's the CRIMES alleged that I continue to rally for the investigeation and potential prosecution, though despite your misunderstanding not in this case. If you followed the thread, it's clear that I'm only bringing it up as an example of his own lack of attentiveness, as he hypocritically attempts to call someone out for the same. But as long as you brought it up, if Bush didn't DO ANYTHING WRONG, what does he have to fear from a Grand Jury? Ok buddy, tell me ... where has this mav-a-lous piece of legal scholarship been submitted to a Grand Jury? What is stopping "Vega" from going forward? Or any prosecutor? Ahh, no need for you to reply. We both know the answer. It hasn't. Even if a decent prosecutor can get a ham sandwhich indicted, this piece of fantasy won't do it, and "she" knows it. "She" is trying to sell a book. You seem like a perfect customer. Since you have her email address, why not just send her $19.95 in tribute via Paypal, and maybe she'll give you a phone number, and you do can establish a more intimate relationship? That is ... if "she" is a "she" at all. [:D] FirmKY

Sinergy -> RE: Why have we waited so long to send more troops? (1/11/2007 9:28:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY Your main point was that Bush was is a "bad man", and you listed a lot of his supposed failings. You then hold up past Democratic presidents as examplars of probity, intelligence, calm rationality and perfection. I state that they were all men, and all of them had their issues, good and bad. Lovely sentiment. It is, however, a non sequiter. I was discussing the fact that Monkeyboy has intellectual and reasoning ability failures in a discussion about his ability to cognate, and you throw in morals. quote: If you'd put down that one propaganda book by Kevin Phillips that you are constantly droning on about (I'd drop any Howard Zinn that you may have read as well), and read some real history, you'd find out that the world isn't all as black and white as you wish to make it out to be. What exactly does this mean? I never said that the world is black and white. I also "droned on" about a bunch of books, I doubt you have bothered to read any of them. Monkeyboy is the one who thinks in terms of black and white. I suspect you have not read any of the sources I have sited on that issue. quote: I never said he wasn't educated and intelligent. I said, in addition to those personal attributes, he has moral and ethical problems. There is a difference. Intentionally skewed. You said that, did you? quote: Clinton's behavior showed that "intelligent" and "educated" do not necessarily mean "moral", "honest" or "principled" I dont see anything in that sentence which indicates "in addition to those attributes." Feel free to clarify. Your response is a somewhat of a non sequiter to what I said. We can discuss his moral failings as well, but that is not what I was talking about. I was responding (as, I suppose, you were) to the comment that Monkeyboy and Co. are evil. My point was that Monkeyboy is a cretin, and Co. are evil and using his lack of cognitive abilities and emotional flaws to control him. quote: 3. Jackson was an excellent rhetorician with extensive education (by the standards of the day) meaning that he was well read and skilled in read, writing, debate, etc. Jackson wasn't very well educated at all, even in comparison to his day. He was barely literate most of his life, and never had a formal education. You are simply redefining your terms. Skewed. Have you read any of the things he wrote or transcripts of his speeches? quote: 4. Wilson ... developed the United Nations ... Eleanor Roosevelt had more responsibility for the UN than Wilson. Now, if you had said the League of Nations, I might have agreed with you. Factual error. My bad. I get my world organizations mixed up. quote: 5. Seems a bit intellectually dishonest to think that Carter started the whole debacle. Since I made no such claim, I'm not sure how to respond other than say "huh?" You are right. I misunderstood. You said that Carter's current project involves the destruction of the state of Isreal. Any reputable source material would be interesting to read. quote: 7. A lot of people invaded what is now Isreal and installed a government there for the Jewish people. Pray tell me, what does this sentence actually mean? A lot of people invaded ... and installed a Jewish government? huh? Will take me a minute to find sources. What basically happened at the end of WW2 is the Jewish people wanted to leave Europe and nobody else wanted them. Perhaps they were simply given money and weapons to do it themselves. quote: 8. These same people worked with the western powers (US, Britain, etc) in order to gain currency to support their country. They also worked with the Soviet Union to gain Jewish refugee settlers. Vague. Really, really vague. 9. ... but the Soviet Union had a quid pro quo deal with the USSR; give us US military secrets and we will give you refugees. The Soviet Union and the USSR were ... the same thing. USSR stands for the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, commonly called "the Soviet Union". Typo on my part. Should read the USSR had a deal with Isreal. I believe I loaned the book out. I will get the title for you. Your comments about my naming all "Democrats" is, I suppose, correct. I am not really a hard core supporter of the Democrats, and did not really realize that all the people I named are considered "Democrats" in this day and age. Technically, Jackson was a "Democrat-Republican" which eventually morphed in to the Democratic party. These were aligned against the "National-Republicans" or "Adams Republicans." Sinergy

caitlyn -> RE: Why have we waited so long to send more troops? (1/11/2007 11:17:55 AM)
Procopius is very enlightening in this instance. Everyone thought Justinian was an idiot also, because he was a poor speaking, country bumpkin, and the Byzantine elite refused to believe that "someone like him", Peter Sabbatius adopted by the Emperor Justin, could actually be playing them all.

FirmhandKY -> RE: Why have we waited so long to send more troops? (1/11/2007 11:18:34 AM)
Sinergy, Well, first, thank you for addressing my points in your reply, and even accepting that you made some errors. It happens to us all, and it makes for a more enjoyable experience, and gives one greater credibility when they admit their mistakes. Now, back to the barricades .... quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY Your main point was that Bush was is a "bad man", and you listed a lot of his supposed failings. You then hold up past Democratic presidents as examplars of probity, intelligence, calm rationality and perfection. I state that they were all men, and all of them had their issues, good and bad. Lovely sentiment. It is, however, a non sequiter. I was discussing the fact that Monkeyboy has intellectual and reasoning ability failures in a discussion about his ability to cognate, and you throw in morals. Not a non sequitur at all. You were making a moral judgement about Bush: quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy I was responding (as, I suppose, you were) to the comment that Monkeyboy and Co. are evil. My point was that Monkeyboy is a cretin, and Co. are evil and using his lack of cognitive abilities and emotional flaws to control him. Someone else took exception (sleazy, I think) and said your description fit (a lot, many, most) politicians. You came back and said that Clinton, Jackson, et al weren't like that. I rebutted you, and gave some off-the-top-of-my-head examples of how your list of Democratic politicians weren't the faultless people you seemed to have claimed. If that's your definition of a non sequitur, well, then I guess we'll just have to disagree. quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy quote: ORIGINAL: FirmKY If you'd put down that one propaganda book by Kevin Phillips that you are constantly droning on about (I'd drop any Howard Zinn that you may have read as well), and read some real history, you'd find out that the world isn't all as black and white as you wish to make it out to be. What exactly does this mean? I never said that the world is black and white. I also "droned on" about a bunch of books, I doubt you have bothered to read any of them. Monkeyboy is the one who thinks in terms of black and white. I suspect you have not read any of the sources I have sited on that issue. What it means is that you have posted about that Phillips book and the "religious right" at least three, and perhaps four times that I've read. The thing is, Phillips is an ideologue. You like him because he is preaching to the choir to you, and he simply reinforces all of your prior prejudices and beliefs. I'm suggesting you also attempt to read other authors who are somewhat less politically motivated, to get a more balanced picture. Maybe even read some authors who you disagree with, from time to time. quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy quote: ORIGINAL: FirmKY I never said he wasn't educated and intelligent. I said, in addition to those personal attributes, he has moral and ethical problems. There is a difference. You said that, did you? quote: ORIGINAL: FirmKY Clinton's behavior showed that "intelligent" and "educated" do not necessarily mean "moral", "honest" or "principled" I dont see anything in that sentence which indicates "in addition to those attributes." Feel free to clarify. Your response is a somewhat of a non sequiter to what I said. We can discuss his moral failings as well, but that is not what I was talking about. I feel no need to clarify. I think the words, meanings and concepts are pretty clear to most everyone else already. Not sure what your issue is with non sequiturs. I do think your brain and logic tracks a bit differently than most other people, so perhaps the disconnects aren't actual, as much as they are apparent for you. Sometimes that might be a good thing, sometimes it might not be. FirmKY

juliaoceania -> RE: Why have we waited so long to send more troops? (1/11/2007 11:52:56 AM)
quote: I rebutted you, and gave some off-the-top-of-my-head examples of how your list of Democratic politicians weren't the faultless people you seemed to have claimed. OMG straw manism everywhere, he never claimed any politician was faultless, how silly.

farglebargle -> RE: Why have we waited so long to send more troops? (1/11/2007 2:29:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle I dunno. You got a POINT BY POINT model indictment, which was very detailed, and very focused and if I recall correctly, you did NOT list each numbered or lettered section you had issue with, and give citations to support your defense against the point, as requested. Asking for responses to match the source isn't unreasonable, and asking for cites is pretty standard, but I've not seen a cogent response. Therefore, your attempting to take someone to task for vaugueness and lack of focus is amusing. Not at all. First, as you fail to mention, the first of your three post about the "indictment" I certainly did do a point by point rebuttal. See my post 158. [blockqoute] 14. Congress is a "department of the United States" within the meaning of Section 371. In addition, hearings regarding funding for military action and authorization to use military force are "lawful functions" of Congress. uhhh .... ok. shrugs [/blockqoute] Wow. Such eloquence. No wonder I missed the insightful counter arguments to each of the 60 or 70 issues presented.

farglebargle -> RE: Why have we waited so long to send more troops? (1/11/2007 2:33:02 PM)
quote: "She" is trying to sell a book. Big fucking deal. That doesn't change the fact that Bush broke the law when he took money Congress gave him for Afghanistan and started war operations against Iraq WITHOUT CONGRESSIONAL APPROVAL. Since the AUMF is founded on lies, is it valid? And what would it take to recind it?

WyrdRich -> RE: Why have we waited so long to send more troops? (1/11/2007 2:46:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania quote: ORIGINAL: WyrdRich FR How does such a lousy orator get elected President? He has his Daddy's friends buy it for him[:D] Certainly a possibility, Julia, but I never got my check in '04. I'm more inclined to think it's an indictment of the two total losers the Dems have put up against him, and the base of the Dems who selected them.

MzMia -> RE: Why have we waited so long to send more troops? (1/11/2007 7:44:39 PM)
LOL fargle I thought I was the only one that had flashbacks. I think many people will be having flashbacks the way things are going.

subfever -> RE: Why have we waited so long to send more troops? (1/11/2007 9:41:19 PM)
quote: (I'd drop any Howard Zinn that you may have read as well) What's your problem with Howard Zinn?

thompsonx -> RE: Why have we waited so long to send more troops? (1/11/2007 10:17:09 PM)
This is just a general observation: The term "stratigic hamlit" seems similar to what the administration wants to do in Iraq with the reinforcing of this or that town. Now it did not work in Viet Nam but perhaps it will work in Iraq. Wastemorland said he only needed another 50,000 troops to finish mopping up in Viet Nam and was unsuccessful with another 500,000 but then perhaps it will work in Iraq. We will teach the army of South Viet Nam to protect them selves from the dirty commies...well that did not work but perhaps it will work in Iraq. If we loose Viet Nam to the commies the whole of south east asia will fall to the commies...now Col. Sanders and Big macs abound in Viet Nam... I dunno but from the perspective of 60+ years and a few wars it seems sooooo similar. Same mud different day.... The only reason any one starts a war is so they can go fuck their victims women and take their dope. All the rhetoric about "supporting the toops" "national honor" "world opinion" is just so much crap ...the world sees us as a bunch of facist thugs whos only goal is to rip off whom ever we can. thompson

juliaoceania -> RE: Why have we waited so long to send more troops? (1/11/2007 10:22:21 PM)
quote: Certainly a possibility, Julia, but I never got my check in '04. I'm more inclined to think it's an indictment of the two total losers the Dems have put up against him, and the base of the Dems who selected them. You know you maybe right, except Al Gore got more votes. I just thought I would point that out. Kerry has the charisma of a used tampon.... I am well aware of his flaws. But it would also be extremely myopic not to take into account that historically speaking the most well funded candidate takes the office of president. So Bush had more money and he won. I do not know if any oponent could have beaten his war chest. Just an observation

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

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875