Fallujah - Page 6

As long as the enemy beheads innocents and uses terrorist tactics against the Iraqi population, I'm not sure that anything should be off limits against these monsters.

having said that, who cares. I thought you want this war over. Whatever it takes to win and get out. Right?

I am against fighting anyone else's war anymore. I am utterly tired of hearing the constant fingernails-on-the-chalkboard whining from the left. I say round up every illegal alien, send them home. Withdraw all monetary help to the world. Spend the money on isolating the US totally. Let the ME and the rest of the world slowly be enveloped by radical Islam. The world will eventually wish that they were a little more forward looking. But hey, that probably wouldn't stop you from complaining. Would it?

I am sick of your lefty debating tactics. Don't address me anymore. I am tired of wasting electrons and my time on you. Half of what you say contains no substance. Your name calling just accentuate your sophomoric debating skills.

Assuming what I know and don't know, and then suggest I study, is a tactic that may work on the pre-pubescents that you are used to debating with, not here.

I really see no productive conversation with you. Do us all a favor and find another forum to sharpen your childish skills. May I suggest www.nick.com or perhaps www.lego.com or maybe even www.yahooligans.com?

My above post applies to you also, if you have to stoop to such measures to feel that you have won or whatever.

I am tired of arguing the same points over and over with you and yours. This whole napalm thing is just another attempt on you part to say "See we told you that Bush is evil and so is Rumsfeld's army."

If the US military used napalm, I am sure they took precautions. I am sick of you lefties decrying everything the military does. Where are all the threads about the constant beheading and dismemberment and torture that your beloved "insurgents" are committed to. Who do you think the US military is firing it's weapons at? Is it innocent Iraqi's that are firing RPGs and setting off roadside bombs?

You jump at every opportunity to accuse the US military of wrongdoing, and it is just disgraceful IMO. You don't see it that way, obviously. So nothing I say will make you change your POV. So what is the point, really?

Perhaps it makes you a hero among your buddies or something. Good luck on that. I don't agree at all. But hey, I am just a redneck, bible thumping, war mongering, racist psychopath. What do I know?

You saw what you wanted to see to make your argument viable.

You're right about one thing. I don't agree with Bush's policies or his governing technique. This is a far cry from just bashing. So get real.

There is very little good to say about Bush. How's that bashing? It's disagreement.

We don't like him running the country and the people who voted for him were doing themselves a disservice as well.

It's ok to disagree with a leader in this country last time I checked. Get it?

Also in the future when Bush does something wrong the people who don't support him will continue to point these things out. We won't just take it on the chin and be silent.

This will continue until he is out of office so get used to it.

This is still not bashing. It's disagreement.

It's just that the things he does wrong are so blatant they stick out like a sore thumb.

Calling this bashing won't change or silence anyone.

I'm sorry but the arguments you make to the contrary have failed to sway anyone. They just don't hold water.

NaplesX, i'm so sorry.

1. i'm sorry i called you a "child" because of your continued refusal to apply the standards that you demanded of others to your own line of thinking. you are absolutely right to call me "childish" for doing this. sorry.

2. thank you very much for enlightening me that pointing out inconsistencies in a debating oponent's logic is a "lefty debating tactic". i wasn't aware of that. since i consider myself neither "left" nor "right" i must avoid such tactics in the future. thank you.

3. i am very sorry that i posted in this forum. i'm sorry that i addressed you. i honestly wasn't aware that i need your permission to do either. sorry.

thank you. i'm sorry.

So why don't you let me have it. teach me a lesson.

Of course you can't do it without calling names and questioning sanity/intelligence/etc..

I am just tired of all you lame excuses for debate. I am more than happy to talk to you as another human being, debating ideas. However that is not what most you people want. You want to win, you want to degrade and disparage.

You say I am off base? Well many a thread can be observed where you have used those very tactics. Saying you don't a couple of times doesn't make it disappear.

Sorry.

These forums are here for debate. There are rules in place to set the stage for that debate. I hate to be the one to break it to you.

As far as the napalm issue, I told you my stance. You called me a racist.

You see, that's where the debate evolves into something else. I don't know what you call it. But it is no longer debate.

I mean, come on, did you just bring up napalm just so that you could call those who disagree with you, racists? I would suggest that is a definite possibility given the way almost every thread yields name calling and juvenile behavior.

Or did you realistically expect everyone just to agree with you?

Hey, I called you a facist for your views on international law, simply because your argumentation was similar to how facists think international problems should be solwed.
Then you told me you didn't want to "get roped into a retarded discussion"... That's a hell of a way to debate...

Well said. Thank you for taking credit for turning the debate into something less respectable.

The point is that you refused to debate your own stupid statement...

No, I refused to engage in childish name calling. There is a difference.

But because I want to be reasonable, and you have lost me, tell me what statement you are talking about. I will be more than happy to defend any statement that I made, if you are willing to be civil.

How 'bout it?

No, you get the credit for that. He's just the one that pointed out that your statement was more fascism than patriotism (patriotism being what I think you imagine it to be). The problem of "something less respectable" (whatever that might mean) comes from your post, not your reaction to it.

If you do indeed believe your statement to be something other than fascism, then perhaps you should argue that point, instead of the usual tactic of calling names while refusing to get pulled into a name-calling contest. You should probably first take a Google minute to review definitions and examples of fascism, though.

Hey FL, How's it going?

No offense to you, but I really would like New to reply, if you don't mind.

As far as the patriotism thing goes, you are commenting on something "being what I think you imagine it to be" as you put. I am struck by your ability to do something like that.

What I said about the US being a superpower is true. The other part about closing the US off from the world was just a statement out of frustration that I realize is not a feasible solution. Just trying to make a point.

Care to venture what that point was?

In the old days this would have been called " Balderdash ".

Now days it's just called " Lame ".

-----------------------------------------------------------
" 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? "

-----------------------------------------------------------

Wasn't he talking about being elite not too long ago?

Let's use definitions for this new tangent that you have embarked upon, shall we:

Elitism - The belief that certain persons or members of certain classes or groups deserve favored treatment by virtue of their perceived superiority, as in intellect, social status, or financial resources.

I suppose that you could apply that definition to the US if you consider it a member of the group of nations that make up the world. Although you are stretching the definition a bit.

The perceived superiority that applies in your new definition would be military and in the form of it's government. and possibly financial resources.

Now i guess a point to clarify would be wether or not you perceive any of these as superior. Or do you not want to make that judgment in favor of PC?

If you view any of these as superior, you then must ask yourself if the perceived superiority deserves any respect or special treatment or diplomacy on the part of the nations that are inferior in those respects.

I say yes. You can read into that what you will or chose to assume anything you wish. Or you could ask me to clarify anything that you are unclear on or that I did not specify. I am not sure that makes me an elitist as it is defined, or even by your own new and improved definition.

Let us not forget religion.

In all honesty, if someone can prove conclusively using well established facts and logic that their views are superior, then they are. It is the beginning insight of something I am calling Hard Pluralism...

NaplesX loves being American because America is strong.

I loved being American because America was "right". That love is fading. America is indeed strong, but America has become wrong. While I am thankful for my passport, I am ashamed of my country. What happens when America goes bankrupt and my passport becomes worthelss? My only love for America at this point is her history.

I hate to say it to you Naples, but America will not be the world's superpower forever. It's likely to fail during your lifetime, if we continue to follow the Republiconmen agenda, which has no interest whatsoever in doing what is "right" and as a result will continue to lose the world's trust and respect. And when America weakens, where will that leave you?

You are a bully and you support bullying. The playground rules do not apply to intelligent adults.

What religion are we talking about?

I think you may mean 'religious philosophy" the US' being Judeo-Christian, and say Iran's being Islamic.

The US government is not ruled by religion like say, the Iranian government. Rather it is ruled by laws based on a "religious philosophy". I see a huge difference.

I don't mean that, and I don't agree. There is a tendency in all religions (and I am taking the Southern Baptist interpretation of Religion, since in short order it may be enforced on us, which has the basic tenet that all Christian Sects are different religions which is fair in a non-parity sort of way) that there views are superior than all others -- case in point, the various schisms that led to greek orthodox and catholicism, catholicism and lutherism, catholicism and calvinism, catholicism and... Each of these religions started out as exactly the same, and they each regard their views as superior and fundamentally different than the others. Our particular brand of government inspired by "religious philosophy" certainly doesn't follow catholic views, or mormon views, or quaker views of government -- it is most aligned with the views of a single religion called, now in the US, Episcopalianism, although elements of religious tolerance were taken from the demands of the quakers and puritans.

What makes all of this acceptable to people not of the Episcopalian faith is that we do have protection against the evils that having a single dominant religion in the US -- the first amendment, thank the founding fathers for that. Their insight and the entire Enlightenment has allowed for the great diversity of Christian Sects found in the US as well as all forms of other Religions. But it is laughable to say we are a country of the Judeo-Christian religious philosophy because there isn't such a thing.

I would argue very strongly that the US is not a Christian nation, i.e. the US does not follow the teachings of Jesus, at all. Does that mean Episcopalianism is not a true "Christion" religion? At least in reference to Southern Episcopalianism, yes. I would go so far as to call it "anti-Christian". As in false prophecy.

What are the undeniable fundamentals of Christ's teachings?

Easy. Be a good person. Be honest, loving, caring, nurturing, kind, selfless, compassionate, tolerant, forgiving and productive.

Dropping Napalm on a city in areas where innocents might live does not follow the teachings of Jesus.

Accepting collateral damage as a byproduct of war does not follow the teachings of Jesus.

Accepting war as a necessary step does not follow the teachings of Jesus.

Exaggerating the truth to convince others that your way is the best way does not follow the teachings of Jesus.

Creating exceptions for rules of human rights does not follow the teachings of Jesus.

Judging others for ANY REASON does not follow the teachings of Jesus.

Jesus never said a single thing indicating that he though being gay was wrong or that he agreed with a literal interpretation of the Old Testament.

Jesus never said a single thing indicating that he though abortion was wrong or that he agreed with a literal interpretation of the Old Testament.

It's time to go back to the REAL fundamentals of Christianity and to expose all of the false prophets for what they really are. Liars and twisters of the word of Jesus.

Man, I love the way people here can read thoughts and intentions. You people need to join the psychic network or something you would make a fortune.

Once again, let's define a few things:

1. You think (your opinion) that America is wrong (extremely sweeping statement).

- First please narrow your statement a bit. If, as I suspect, this opinion of the US is dictated by which political party hold power. I think the term narrow-minded pops into my head.

- there is a huge percentage of people that think just the opposite of you. Are they all wrong that America is wrong?

2. You think the US will be overthrown as the worlds superpower soon.

- OK. Maybe so. But by who? Is this something that you WANT to happen? So many questions...

3. Your words say to me that you think that bringing US forces to bear is being a bully.

- Some (many) would argue that mere threat of force simply isn't always effective.

Your whole post drips with odium for republicans. So I am not sure that you are looking at this from a balanced position. But that's just my opinion.

I really would like you to show me where I have bullied anyone at any time in my whole life. That's OK. I know you like the tactic of casting aspersions so I won't expect that you back any of your accusations up. So don't sweat it.

What I love about America is the freedoms that permeate every aspect of our lives. Right down to the most mundane things that people in other countries would give life and limb to have.

But hey, once again, instead of actual things, feel free to make anything up that you like - another freedom that you have.

No, sorry. You are way wrong. Jesus himself stated the essence of his teachings in Matthew 7:12. That is much different than simply being a "good person". It actually requires governing your actions in direct proportion to how you want to be treated. It's simple yet sweeping.

It also works the other way. If you treat people badly, you will be treated accordingly. So your off-kilter claims that the US just went and attacked an innocent government and continually targets civilians is simply ridiculous, if you believe in divine oversight.

And all of these other claims that Jesus was ok with being gay is decried by the following New Testament scriptures:

Romans 1:24-27, 1 Tim. 1:9-11, Jude 7, 1 Cor 6:9-11, (written by his apostles)

God's view of human life before birth is laid out here:

Psalms 139:13-16 and Exodus 21:22,23

It seems fairly clear that you are wrong, unless of course you selectively accept the words in the bible.

Being a "Christian" and being a follower of The Lord Jesus Christ are two different things, Just ask those of us in the PoMo belief movement.

Here is a list of things that I think America is taking the wrong direction on. These things are generally being criticized by the entire rest of the world:

1. Unilateral action on international matters.
The US does not have a right to do "whatever it wants" regardless of the overall opinion of the rest of the developed world, even on matters the US claims are of "national security". Does the US have the right to defend her borders. Yes, at all times. But once she steps out of her borders, the world should have a voice that is at least respected by the US government enough to carry out further consultation or make further clarification. "Innocent until proven guilty" should be extended to nations, not just individuals. Iraq was not proven guilty of anything the international community saw as significant enough to require a large scale military invasion. That opinion was ignored, the US was wrong about the allegations regarding WMD, and the rest of the world is now of the opinion that the US are a bunch of reckless cowboy assholes.

2. Separation of Church and State. The US is clearly going in the wrong direction here. The US is trying to formulaqte policy and even make constitutional changes based on the RELIGIOUS beliefs of her people. This is absolutely unacceptable.

3. Fiscal policy. The US is the most fiscally irresponsible nation in history. Before we go to war (especially a questionable war), we need to ask ourselves, "can we afford it, even if we want to do it?" We need to more accurately predict the negative economic effects, like reduced trade due to the fact that our trading partners no longer trust us as a nation; like the devaluation of the US dollar due to astronomical debt, etc.


A huge percentage? Since when? Even if we're talking strictly Americans, I'd venture to say that at most 53% of Americans at most disagree with me on all three points above. Is that a "significant percentage"? And even if it's a majority (ignoring the fact that most Bush supporters only support him for only one of the above, not all three), since when does majority of opinion equal correctness? Can the majority be wrong? Hell, yes. And, by the way, the majority of the world thinks the US is wrong. Once again you are giving non-Americans no voice. This is not the ideal upon which America was built.

The Bible has been selectively translated, selectively accepted and selectively interpreted by Christians such as you for ages (deny this if you will, and explain your denial). Meanwhile, please tell me how I'm wrong about what Jesus taught? Even you admit right here that the gospels were not written by Jesus himself (and of course it's well known fact, otherwise you'd probably claim they were). Are you saying that everything said by the apostles is exactly as Jesus taught? Or do you think these people might have had opinions of their own? Hmm...

And dude, everybody knows Paul, especially, had issues.

look, this type of character is dangerous. put a gun in his hand and he will gladly blow your face off, because as he put it: "if you don't play nice, you better prepare for the consequences" . but that really isn't too surprising considering the fact that the US likes to fashion its society around 18th century values.

anyway, back on topic:
saw a fairly lengthy report on the "battle for fallujah" on german news-tv last night.

toward the beginning of the report they interviewed one of the "team-leaders" of the US forces in fallujah. don't ask me what rank he had, but he was one of those in charge of dozens of others. the reporter asked him who "the enemy" was? he answered: "our enemy is satan. he is in there [fallujah]. and we are going to go after him and kill him."

the reporter made an interesting statement at the end: "you can't win a house-to-house war without the support of the population that lives there, and after seeing the pictures from fallujah it is completely unclear how the US expects to acheive that."

concerning the discussion here:
what the rightwing-zealots and the leftwing-zealots don't understand, is that it really isn't important if this war is morally "right" or "wrong". the question is, whether the war is "the intelligent decision". i.e.: is the outcome going to be better than what was before. i.e: NaplesX might believe that he is morally right to blow my face off but it would be a stupid idea because some of my family will go after him and his family and blow their faces off, and so on and so on .... we would end up having a situation far more dire than before. hence: "stupid decision".

Did you come up with that? It's excellent!

Geez! Squirm all you want. I didn't make up this target. You did.

All you do is squirm when cornered. You don't use debate tactics to defend your position.


How am I stretching the definition if by your own admission the world had better go along with us or face the consequences? That puts us in a very particular position. Don't make go to Websters and look up " Elite " for you. I'd drop it now before you get yourself even more entangled.

Geez!

What planet are you from? Just because i disagree with you, doesn't mean that I would kill you just as soon as look at you.

There is no need to overreact with statements that seem to me to be on the virge of slander. It would seem to me that someone that makes up enemies where there are none, is a far more dangerous person. And after that post, you're that guy.

I am just a little curious where that came from. I suggest that you back away from that statement since you don't know me and you are walking on very thin ice.

I just wanna get this straight - just because I don't walk hand-in-hand with the left wing mindset, I am a murderous thug? Please explain to me and the world how you make that leap, if you can even defend that rediculous statement. And how can you expect anyone to take you serious, outside your group of left-wing chearleaders here, if you are going to reach conclusions like that?

Seg that statement shows you may be right about WOT, except it should be the WOIT (war an intellegent thought).

While not directly endorsing this statement you conveniently ignore how wromg a statement like this is. This guy makes an accusation so far out of the realm of civil debate, that you and your fellow pundits would be crying 'troll" and who know what else, if it befell you.

And this guy thinks that he has a grasp on right and wrong. The sheer hupocracy abounds and astounds.

Don't worry. I don't expect anyone to take any action or try to explain. I have come to expect this type of thing and this only proves to me that my expectations were reasonable. I really don't care what this guy says or thinks, but I would hope that you do, since he is joining in your battle, as it were.

Amazing.

Look, Jim I put up with your wackiness because of it's entertainment value. But don't fool yourself into thinking you are some kind of revolutionary deep thinker.

My statement was that the world needs to "play nice" not just go along with whatever the US does blindly. I worded it that way specifically.

There are many examples of the 'world" (Franco-German-Russion) obstructing the US in it's efforts to uphold the UN's mandates. The long Iraqi history with the UN is riddled with such examples.

That was where that statement was directed. I hope I cleared that up for you. If not, let me know.

Maybe my liberal translator is on the fritz, but I don't see where I was doing any squirming in that post. Please, define your view on that concept for me.

i'll give it a try, although i suspect you won't like the answer and will call it "lefty debating tactics".


the above was your position when confronted with the possibility that the majority of the world disagrees with current US foreign policy.

therefore:

variable a = opinion 1 (US gvernment/NaplesX);
variable b = opinion 2 (majority of the world/me);
variable c = consequences (military action/gun);

if (b does not equal a) -> c;

simple. if you still don't understand it then please don't address me anymore. thank you.

I understand your world view just fine. I dissagree. But whatever.

What I was suggesting you explain was your remarks about me. Here let me quote them for you:

"this type of character is dangerous. put a gun in his hand and he will gladly blow your face off"

And like i said, you can't. So don't act like I did anything to insult you even close to that level.

Your illustration only goes to show how truly narrow minded you are. Not to mention you totally ignore the real reason the US is even in Iraq - SH and his many decisions. Let's not even get into how the UN may have played a sugnificant role in creating an environment for this to happen. So your, illustrative equation is quite incomplete.

I don't think the US is blameless, however I do think the blame should be doled according to responsibility.

I can't say that I dissagree with any of that. I am not exactly sure that is happening in the west. I would put out there that what is being attacked here and everywhere is radicalism/fundamentalism - political, religious and philosophical. That may explain the struggle with the far left and far right in this country and in most civilized/democratic nations.