Fallujah - Page 5

You're talking about arrogance?

And you talk about mantras. The right and Bush's should be " It's someone elses' fault ".

God! Doesn't president stand behing anything he does?

The left haven't turned anything into anything. The truth is Bush stated a falsehood to get the support to start the war in Iraq pure and simple. Time has not and will not change this fact. And your wanting to sweep it under the rug won't either.

Also your constant attack on Giant is also telling as you know he's more in tune with things than most people. That bothers you I know. Your going on about people not being taken seriously and leading no where is also telling.

On the contrary sir it's you who are not taken seriously.

I think the picture and caption are pretty funny though.

"Marines are clearing houses after the US-led offensive in Falluja"

Check out the equipment the Marine in the picture uses for clearing houses... I'm guessing those have a small informative label on the side.

"Point at house. Push button. If there is more house to clear, see instructions on another, unused bazooka."

Yes I saw pictures of that this morning. And you know ( being 51 and having watched this kind of thing on tv before ) I thought of Vietnam. That's what this stupid war and occupation reminds me of.

Whatever happens after we leave the effect on Iraq will be negligable. Just like South Vietnam. We'll have gotten what we wanted though.

Look.

Since this president was elected into office, you and many like you have attributed every bad thing to him. Which is fine, you're entitled to that opinion. But... the truth is, that's not even a reasonable position to have.

If you think that it is, you need only look at the election results, or at least I do. You may read it totally different, but what I saw was a decisive victory by a president with a well defined agenda - a four year old one, no less.

Now I know that you will say, "yeah well JK got the second most votes ever...", but what counts is GWB got the most and actually won. It is a fact you will have to come to grips with.

Even the loudest voices against Bush have fallen silent after this election. 3 years of ridiculous conspiracy theories and viscous attacks on every talk show and debate forum did nothing more than anger more people than it actually persuaded.

I think GWB has stood behind his decisions and the majority of the US stands behind him. Calling a large chunk of the population "stupid" is not going to make you many friends. But really you don't want any of those stupid red state, bible thumping, rednecks as friends anyway, right?

NaplesX, you're making quite big a leap of faith when you say over half of the US support Bush. What I see is that 30% of the population entitled to vote bothered to come to the polls and tangibly support him. Even in that 30%, you can't really tell how many "Not Kerry" votes were given. People might hate both, but still go with the one they perceive as the lesser evil. In a different voting system like runoff voting, you'd see more accurately how many voters *really* supported the candidates.

Contrary to your implicit assumption, whether or not there is majority support for a person, the person can be a bad choice. The majority is frequently wrong, if not stupid. Politics deal with economics, foreign relations, intelligence, war, crime. The average person has a poor grasp of most of those subjects. How can you expect him to make a well informed choice?

I like the elite tone to your posting. Was that on purpose?

Well, the majority of the world stands against him and his decisions.
But i guess that doesn't really count ,does it?

And, why would anyone want a stupid, bible thumping redneck as a friend?

Of course its not a reasonable position to have. That's why you made it up, it's so easy to refute. Nobody on this board has "attributed every bad thing" to Bush. We have been quite vocal about his actual failings, which are overt and plentiful.



An election that could have been won or lost by the swing of a few hundred thousand votes in Ohio cannot be called a "decisive victory" in any version of reality. You can call it the Mandate of the Heavens, if you want, but it's still just solemn gibberish.

How about running down that "well defined agenda" for us? My list here shows maybe sort of privatizing Social Security, but no details at all; hanging tough on tax cuts; and something something something Iraq honor freedom something something. Did I miss anything?


While hallucinogenics are fun for occasional, recreational use, long term abuse can lead to sever side effects, including the complete inability to distinguish between the voices in one's head and actual occurrences in the environment. Such a condition can lead to embarrassingly "out-of-touch" pronouncements and should be treated by a physician immediately.


I prefer "implacably evil" to "stupid", but whatever. Lots of scary, dangerous people are given to "standing behind their decisions", so that in and of itself is not a description of good character, as you seem to believe. Standing behind bad decisions, even when overwhelming evidence has made it clear that your initial idea was wrong or unworkable, is called "crazy".

I mean, you get that, right? If I decide that the neighbors are planning to kill me, and I set about an elaborate scheme of preemptive response, and burst into their living room and pull the bookcase away from the wall, shouting "behold the tunnel they have nefariously bored through the wall in order to focus their death ray on my person!", and my brazen gesture reveals neither death ray nor tunnel but only innocuous living room wall, and my response is "I nevertheless stand by my decision to disrupt my neighbors plan to kill me", and lack of any and all evidence of such a plot does not deter me but rather, somewhat eerily, actually increases my resolve to "stand by my decision", well then, I am one crazy motherfucker.


At any rate, I put "making friends", particularly with people who get all pumped up about throwing their lot in with crazy motherfuckers, pretty low on my list of to-dos.

Use any word you like, but a slim majority of the voting population (sort of) endorsing a world view doesn't, in any ethical, moral or logical system, make that world view somehow beyond reproach, or the people who don't endorse it "elitists". Or are you willing to argue that every majoritarian horror show visited upon minority populations during the 20th century was simply the right and proper working out of the will of the people?

And please don't start with the "how dare you compare the United States with those bad countries and their bad people of bad character" shit.

There is nothing magic about the US that makes it immune from the abuses of power. God doesn't work especially hard to keep our shores free of
tyranny (although I have this depressing feeling that you sort of think that).

And the quickest way I know of for the American experiment to come to grief is if some percentage of its citizens take to thinking of themselves as somehow embodying a kind of uber American-ness that stands in opposition to less than truly American "others". That they are imbued with a mystical bond to the "heartland" that gives them, and them alone, the right to "citizenship", while regarding the "others" as barely tolerable aliens that have no respect for the "values" that are the birthright of the "real" Americans.

Oh darn, I'm describing the rise of fascism again. Sorry Naples, you've never said anything to suggest you subscribe to this style of thought.

You're imagining that tone. But if something like that helps you avoid answering the actual content of my post, carry on.

Actually what you describe seems a lot like the way the elite treat the rest of america. But anywho...

I really like the way you just make up and fabricate my supposed thoughts, right before everyones eyes. I guess that is what you have to resort to.

typical.

Well that might even factor in slightly if GWB was running for Kofi Annon's position, but it has nothing to do with the position of "President of the United States" That would be like electing a county commissioner based on the national vote.

So, NO world opinion has no place in US choice of leaders.

Deal with it.

You described the largest group of voters ever to elect a president as "stupid", all while disparaging the constitutional method for electing a president. You also suggest that you - one person - knows more than the majority of voters. I am not even sure that you could get more elitist than that.

tell me where I read your words wrong.

One more quick point:


You are stupid. You do not understand us. I don't attribute every bad thing to Bush. I attribute it also to Condi Rice, Don Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Dick Cheney, John Ashcroft, Porter Goss, Tom DeLay and all the people like him in Congress (every Republican but the Northeast ones and mavericks like McCain who think for themselves)...Well I think you get the idea. If it can fit in your small cranium.

Now back on topic.

Napalm. Why should we have to THINK about it? I thought it was illegal? Then again so are weapons in space, and developing "bunker buster" nukes. Someone should sue Bush, again, for this. Go John Edwards!!!

I think that getting news from AJ is a dangerous and irresponsible thing to do, since they aid the enemy every chance they get.

look, i couldn't give a rats ass who the americans elect as their president.

i wholy agree with you that if the majority of the americans want bush to be president, then that should be respected. i was merely trying to make the subtle point that if the majority of the world doesn't want the americans fucking around in iraq , well then that should be respected as well.

I love the way you guys always make my points for me.

What about if the US doesn't want the world undermining it's security?

Like the way Russia, France, Germany among others that have done just that through the UN and it's programs. This is the "world" that we are talking about, no? Let's not play "world" games.

Who cares if the reason they didn't want the US in Iraq was purely monetary.

You should really take a bit more time to think about your replies.

What if the world doesn't want the US undermining it's security?

Who cares if the reason the US wanted to be in iraq was purely monetary?



on the one hand, you demand that a minority respects the decision of the majority (elections).
on the other hand, you find it perfectly acceptable that a minority disrespects the decision of the majority (iraq).

well, i guess, with respect to iraq things are different because the minority are the elitist americans and the majority are just stupid other worldlers ...

This is just drival.

Look,

Nobody's attributed every bad thing to Bush. That's a popular fabrication on the conservative Bush supporter side. Just certain bad things.

True things.

If you think ( wishful thinking on your part ) that Bush's detractors have gone silent after the election you're in for a disappointment.

In the extreme.

This will be a very hard 4 years for Bush to stay out of the mud. Just like Clinton they'll be looking into every little thing with a vigilance.

And something you should be looking at. Bush barely won. No landslide or even close. There is still a large group ( almost half the population of the country ) out there who don't like Bush.

In case you need a reminder : http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/

51% to 48% is hardly resounding.

Can you do the math here?

So I suggest instead of sticking your head in the ground and pretending that it's not the way things are that you learn to deal with it.

Please don't even try to fabricate or spin it into something else. It ( like so many things that come from the conservative side now days ) just isn't the truth.

As far as the population being stupid......I only think they're half stupid. If you get my meaning

I did not call the US voters stupid. I said your assertion was complete bullshit - "many people believe 'X', therefore 'X' must be true".

Ever hear the saying "a camel is a horse designed by a committee"?

You are also incorrect about that I disparaged the US voting system. What I did was to point out that in my opinion there are better ones. I can't understand how that can be construed as disparaging - unless if you take status quo as gospel and all change is necessarily bad. This seems a likely explanation seeing how you take care to mention that the voting system is 'constitutional', which has absolutely no bearing on the intrinsic worth of the voting system, but serves to show the 'established' status of the system.

The 'world' that you are so concerned about is Russia, Germany and France.

These nations worked with a known terrorist government (Iraq) knowing that they were undermining the worlds security and the integrity of their own beloved UN. The fact that you see more of a threat in the US than you do with SH and his corrupt government and dealings, proves to me that you have totally missed the point.

As far as majority and minority goes, the US is the world's superpower. I think it behooves the rest of the world to play nice or prepare for the consequences. Those are simple schoolyard rules. Why is that so hard for you to understand?

Err... No, the "world" is agrees overwhelmingly that right now, the US is the biggest treath to world security...

some quick google results:
the EU
UK
South Korea


Oh, you're supporting facism? That's nice to know...

I love the way you lefties keep making things up.

I never asserted what you claim. I asserted that "many people voted 'X' and his known agenda, therefore 'X' must have the support of the majority of voters"

But hey feel free to make things up to prop up whatever point you are trying to make.

Yes, of course that is exactly what I am supporting.

I love it. Keep it coming.

Jim,

I have personally read your posts over the last year. And it seems to this poster that you have blamed every imaginable thing on Bush. Granted, I may be exaggerating saying "everything", but I think it is save to say you have nothing good to say about Bush.

I have seen thread after thread which you have chimed right in on, bashing Bush. So please, I beg of you, don't act like you are just an innocent bystander.

So do you think the world should be governed by "schoolyard rules" or not?

I am not going to let you rope me into some retarded conversation about how things should be.

I will however point out to you that most things in life and politics are governed, in the end, by schoolyard type rules. So, if you like you can get on your computer and type word after word complaining about the way things are, or you can accept it and work to change things that you can.

I'm not saying that things may not one day become like the scenes out of "Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure" where everyone has learned, in that case, through music to live together peacefully and play fairly.

It could happen. I think it may be a while, considering that some of the countries in the UN choose undermine very organization they belong to.

Like the US you mean?

Yeah! That is exactly what I mean. Man you are good! NOT.

Germany, France, Russia being the worst offenders. But there are many others to put on that list.

But hey, focus on America. And while you are at it, ignore the fact that the US is actually taking action to try to change the future for good.

Some examples would be nice. I'm especially interetsted in knowing what Germany has done to undermine the UN lately... As in post WWII...?

Once again, I will not let you drag me in that direction. Read the news. Do a google for "UN Oil For Food". Read up on who sold banned weapons to Iraq when they were under sanction.

But hey, maybe you did all that and you just want to argue, for argument's sake. Or maybe you just want to ignore things you don't agree with or that might change your world view.

Whatever. Good try.

Answer the question.
What has Germany done to undermine the UN?

And compare that to the US.
(keywords: Preemptive war, Kyoto, International criminal court, UN members fee, Use of veto, landmines and so on...)

How about you just make your point. That would be nice.

Iraqi Red Crescent seems to believe 6000 people may have been killed in Falluja.
yet the US still claims they killed about 1200 insurgents?

I did. You failed to respond. twice.

look child, even the overwhelming majority of the population of bush's only noteworthy ally, england, is against the invasion of iraq.
quite frankly, i am not surprised that a typical american has such a limited grasp of the world.


yeah, so did 2/3 of your beloved administration. didn't keep you from supporting them, now did it?



i'm afraid, you're the one who missed the point. (as i mentioned earlier, you should take more time thinking your answers through). i don't see the US as a threat as long as they doesn't meddle in foreign affairs. a brief study of recent history would open your eyes (as long as you are willing) to a long list of failures or wrongdoings thru US involvement.


you're trolling. if not and that is the best argument you can come up with, then you are really starting to bore me.