[quote]Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook:
<strong>
Here is a left wing nut liberal at the best. I agree with you except when you disagree with me. Even better,,,, I realize that you can "think clearly" when you think like me but when you think diffrerent (apple trademark) then you are ignroant.
Notice the 2nd quote by Pfflam... Typical liberal has to just as BRussell did in his rant use name calling to make some kind of flawed point.
Name calling. COME ON YOU LIBERAL SLUTS GET A REAL TACTIC.
Fellowship</strong><hr></blockquote>
Here's a right wing conservative nut with PGC at it's best.
[quote]Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook:
<strong>Notice the 2nd quote by Pfflam... Typical liberal has to just as BRussell did in his rant use name calling to make some kind of flawed point.
Name calling. COME ON YOU LIBERAL SLUTS GET A REAL TACTIC.</strong><hr></blockquote>Liberal sluts? Are you hitting on me Fellowship? Because if you are, it's kinda turning me on.
BTW, it takes some seriously non-recursive logic to say stop name calling you liberal sluts!
Are you completely unaware that there is still heavy fighting in Afghanistan? Did you just completely ignore the fact that we needed to get more carriers in the gulf because the planes already positioned there are still doing constant sorties to afghanistan. An, no, this fighting is not against the taliban, it is supporting our 'allied' warlords against others. Hell, did you ever think to check who controls each of the major cities or how they gained that control?
You are so uninformed I wonder how you get through the day without hurting yourself.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I am more aware of world events than you will ever be.
You should get something to do and not use personal attacks to jab at people. All that does is show your true nature.
<strong>Liberal sluts? Are you hitting on me Fellowship? Because if you are, it's kinda turning me on.
BTW, it takes some seriously non-recursive logic to say stop name calling you liberal sluts!
</strong><hr></blockquote>
BRussell I respect you as you know. You did fall into my calculated trap. I did place the name calling in my post to see how well it would sit with you. As you can clearly see name calling is worth zip, zero, nada.
<strong>Look BRussell, I ordinarily respect your ability to think clearly, as I do Groverat's, though he is a bit unnecessarily aggressive . . . but you need to rethink this support of the war
It's one of the biggest mistakes that America will have ever done: it is being driven now almost entirely by the timetables of the military, and the fact that troops have already been deployed . . . we can't have spent that amount and Not Do It.....The timetables are pushing this through even though the so called "proof" has been seen to be flimsy and contrived
I don't disagree entirely with the need for a war, but a war that seemed to grow from this clumsy, idiotic diplomacy by the administration; it's stupid pronouncements, alienating everybody, its lack of plan, its lack of real reconstruction in Afghanistan as a model that it could at least point to in advance, and its increasing lack of support by the world's population . . . this I cannot support
If they step back and start some real sophisticated diplomacy . . .unstead of calling names, paying extortion bribes to so called "allies', and refusing to be clear then I might say ok . . . otherwise it is clearly wrong and I am surprised that you don't recognize it . . .
as it stands the impact will not merely be one of attitudes but one that will truly effect the relationship, materially, of the US to the rest of the world
You can lay the blame for this blundering squarely on Collin Powell. It was a serious mistake for the President to let Collin Powell try and do this multi laterally and through the UN. I just don?t understand what they were thinking. This should have been a unilateral affair, and Iraq breaking the terms of its Cease Fire Agreement should have been ample justification for the war. Letting, France, Germany, Russia, and the other cons in on the action is the height of stupidity. Collin Powell should be given nice military honors and relieved of duty. ASAP.
For Europe is seems that process is so much more important than result. Where as Bush thinks result is more important than process. I'll go with the latter.
In the end it bothers me that Europe can't respect the fact that we are different from them.</strong><hr></blockquote>
One of the selling points of a war with Iraq to Europeans is that Saddam is in violation of UN resolutions. If Bush follows suit, perhaps not violating resolutions, but ignoring them or considering them to be largely inconsequential, he appears little different from Saddam.
In that sense Bush is different from European leaders, he's more like Saddam.
But IMO, we can't judge a policy based on the perceived motivations of those who pursue it, we have to judge it on its own merits.</strong><hr></blockquote>
BRAVO!!!!!!!!
Can I get that framed in a golden frame?
If only other left of center people could make such a statment with their own mouth.
At least you realize that the only way to justify your view is a retreat to make-believe land.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You know I don't know what motivates you but you need to grow up. Do you really like what you are saying when you say such rude things? Does that give you joy? I hope you reflect over your attitude.
Clinton pursued many of the same foreign policies but was far more loved by European politicians and Europublic because he was willing to stroke them off while ignoring them in the end. European politicians are just effete lollygaggers who like to backslap themselves at the end of the day for solving their own contrived problems rather than doing anything in foreign policy of consequence. All they want is for someone to stroke them to clitorgasm and then cuddle. If Bush had done as much he could have gotten his way but he lacks the finesse to do so.
Bush and Saddam should be shot but Chirac and Schroeder deserve bullets to the dome as well. Where is Stalin when we need him?
[quote]Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook:
<strong>
You know I don't know what motivates you but you need to grow up. Do you really like what you are saying when you say such rude things? Does that give you joy? I hope you reflect over your attitude.
[quote]Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook:
<strong>
BRAVO!!!!!!!!
Can I get that framed in a golden frame?
If only other left of center people could make such a statment with their own mouth.
Fellowship</strong><hr></blockquote>
Your constant ridicule of this "slutty liberal left" seems to contradict this notion that you wish ideas to be judged solely by their own merits. Instead of undressing these slutty liberal lefties in your mind, you could instead simply state that you disagree with XXX idea because you believe A, B, and C.
"Hey brother christian with your high and mighty errand. Your actions speak so loud I can't hear a word you're saying."
Your constant ridicule of this "slutty liberal left" seems to contradict this notion that you wish ideas to be judged solely by their own merits. Instead of undressing these slutty liberal lefties in your mind, you could instead simply state that you disagree with XXX idea because you believe A, B, and C.
"Hey brother christian with your high and mighty errand. Your actions speak so loud I can't hear a word you're saying."
-Bad Religion - I Want To Conquer the World</strong><hr></blockquote>
BR you missed it. The name calling I did in that post was calculated for BRussell to read and as I said before it was to see how well the name calling would sit with him. It is to demonstrate that name calling is pointless.
You make a non-issue an issue. Go back and read what I said.
I am curious if any of you can join this with serious consideration and debate.
[quote]Originally posted by BRussell:
<strong>
Even on this Iraq question, where I basically support the Bush policy, this administration has handled it so poorly that now it looks like even the UK is struggling to be with us. I can't believe that this would be happening in a Gore administration, or even a George H. W. Bush administration. These people are just so frackin' incompetent. </strong><hr></blockquote>
You are buying into the wrong arguments BRussell. You are letting the coverage of protesters get under your skin. You lose view of the real issue at hand here. WOMD and the killer over there who is not co-operating with the UN. Bush has given the UN a chance to be the method to deal with Iraq but Bush is not limited to the UN. The US will lead a coalition of nations against Iraq if the UN framework fails to act. I do not feel sorry for Saddam as he has not come clean in the least. I do not see Bush as the one bringing on this war I see Saddam as the one who is asking for it. Saddam has had his chances. Saddam is betting on world opinion to back him and that bet will lose in the end.
I listened to Hamid Karzai (Afghan President) give testimony to the United States Senate Foreign Relations Committee on the changes in Afghanistan. The Afghan people have a new currency that is stable now, 3,000,000 children are in school now including girls. There is a vast (((FREE)) media in Afghanistan now with over 100 newspapers in Kabul alone. Women now participate in the workplace and in university. A new constitution is being drafted and if ratified will be in place by October 2003. This will establish the new democracy and provide the roadmap for free elections set for 2004. There are still issues of extreme islam groups to be addressed within Afghanistan and when President Bush meets with President Karzai today (02/27/03) He will pledge continuing support to the country. The united states has already allocated three billion $US to Afghanistan and Bush will follow through with US support in the wake of an Iraq mission. Why do I bring up President Hamid Karzai? other than the good news he informed the the committee on he was asked a very specific question.... What was his view of the US stance in Iraq. He said that Iraq is a country of great faithful Muslims and that Afghanistan is a muslim country. However he said that he wishes for the Iraqi people what has happened to his country. He said Saddam has controlled his people and it time for them to be set free. The Taliban and Saddam haved much in common and the people of Iraq need to be set free from such control. Speaking of the Taliban read this story:
The war on terrorism is ongoing and likewise with Iraq. The world must act on these evil people who lead terror movements because if they had WOMD they would not think twice to use them on us. This reality is true no matter who is in the White House. These people of hate could care less Democrat, Republican, etc. they hate America for what America is. They want to blow things up to get attention. The world can not afford this freak show the radical islamic terrorists want. We MUST act.
<strong>I'm trying to separate my evaluation of the Bush administration from this particular policy.
My view is that we should have an imminent threat of force to put pressure on Iraq to comply with post-Gulf-War disarmament requirements. In my view, it's clear he hasn't and isn't meeting those requirements, and so the war is the outcome that Sodom has chosen, given the contingencies provided to him.
I just think Bush has bungled it so badly that people who might normally support the policy are instead disagreeing with Bush himself and the way the policy has been pursued, rather than the actual policy itself. When people see this policy, they think of that preemptive force National Security Strategy, and they think of the pre-9/11 unilateralist rhetoric, and they think of the initial Iraq policy which appeared to make war with Iraq an end in search of a means, rather than a means itself, and we think of Bush the oil man, and the son making up for the father's unfinished business, etc. So we perceive it in a context that makes us question the motives of those who are currently pursuing this strategy.
But IMO, we can't judge a policy based on the perceived motivations of those who pursue it, we have to judge it on its own merits.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Never before has BRussell posted so many words at any one time and echoed my exact sentiment.
<strong>I'm trying to separate my evaluation of the Bush administration from this particular policy.
My view is that we should have an imminent threat of force to put pressure on Iraq to comply with post-Gulf-War disarmament requirements. In my view, it's clear he hasn't and isn't meeting those requirements, and so the war is the outcome that Sodom has chosen, given the contingencies provided to him.
I just think Bush has bungled it so badly that people who might normally support the policy are instead disagreeing with Bush himself and the way the policy has been pursued, rather than the actual policy itself. When people see this policy, they think of that preemptive force National Security Strategy, and they think of the pre-9/11 unilateralist rhetoric, and they think of the initial Iraq policy which appeared to make war with Iraq an end in search of a means, rather than a means itself, and we think of Bush the oil man, and the son making up for the father's unfinished business, etc. So we perceive it in a context that makes us question the motives of those who are currently pursuing this strategy.
But IMO, we can't judge a policy based on the perceived motivations of those who pursue it, we have to judge it on its own merits.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I would also agree if this were the actual policy. Which it is not.
Iraq is a stepping stone, and I have that info straight from the horse's mouth. If you argue against that, you are arguing against everything that has been said by Perle, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Feith... for the past 15 years, including and up to today.
So discussing Iraq for the virtue of Iraq is completely irrelevant. Disarming is not the aim in this case. There's no two ways about it. The people leading the movement are saying this left and right.
Comments
<strong>
Here is a left wing nut liberal at the best. I agree with you except when you disagree with me. Even better,,,, I realize that you can "think clearly" when you think like me but when you think diffrerent (apple trademark) then you are ignroant.
Notice the 2nd quote by Pfflam... Typical liberal has to just as BRussell did in his rant use name calling to make some kind of flawed point.
Name calling. COME ON YOU LIBERAL SLUTS GET A REAL TACTIC.
Fellowship</strong><hr></blockquote>
Here's a right wing conservative nut with PGC at it's best.
<strong>Notice the 2nd quote by Pfflam... Typical liberal has to just as BRussell did in his rant use name calling to make some kind of flawed point.
Name calling. COME ON YOU LIBERAL SLUTS GET A REAL TACTIC.</strong><hr></blockquote>Liberal sluts? Are you hitting on me Fellowship? Because if you are, it's kinda turning me on.
BTW, it takes some seriously non-recursive logic to say stop name calling you liberal sluts!
<strong>Fellowship:
it's called politics. Maybe once the ice clears up you can leave your house and learn a thing or two.
<a href="http://rawa.fancymarketing.net/recent2.htm"; target="_blank">RAWA</a>
Are you completely unaware that there is still heavy fighting in Afghanistan? Did you just completely ignore the fact that we needed to get more carriers in the gulf because the planes already positioned there are still doing constant sorties to afghanistan. An, no, this fighting is not against the taliban, it is supporting our 'allied' warlords against others. Hell, did you ever think to check who controls each of the major cities or how they gained that control?
You are so uninformed I wonder how you get through the day without hurting yourself.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I am more aware of world events than you will ever be.
You should get something to do and not use personal attacks to jab at people. All that does is show your true nature.
Fellowship
<strong>Liberal sluts? Are you hitting on me Fellowship? Because if you are, it's kinda turning me on.
BTW, it takes some seriously non-recursive logic to say stop name calling you liberal sluts!
BRussell I respect you as you know. You did fall into my calculated trap. I did place the name calling in my post to see how well it would sit with you. As you can clearly see name calling is worth zip, zero, nada.
Peace
Fellows
<strong>Look BRussell, I ordinarily respect your ability to think clearly, as I do Groverat's, though he is a bit unnecessarily aggressive . . . but you need to rethink this support of the war
It's one of the biggest mistakes that America will have ever done: it is being driven now almost entirely by the timetables of the military, and the fact that troops have already been deployed . . . we can't have spent that amount and Not Do It.....The timetables are pushing this through even though the so called "proof" has been seen to be flimsy and contrived
I don't disagree entirely with the need for a war, but a war that seemed to grow from this clumsy, idiotic diplomacy by the administration; it's stupid pronouncements, alienating everybody, its lack of plan, its lack of real reconstruction in Afghanistan as a model that it could at least point to in advance, and its increasing lack of support by the world's population . . . this I cannot support
If they step back and start some real sophisticated diplomacy . . .unstead of calling names, paying extortion bribes to so called "allies', and refusing to be clear then I might say ok . . . otherwise it is clearly wrong and I am surprised that you don't recognize it . . .
as it stands the impact will not merely be one of attitudes but one that will truly effect the relationship, materially, of the US to the rest of the world
[ 02-27-2003: Message edited by: pfflam ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
You can lay the blame for this blundering squarely on Collin Powell. It was a serious mistake for the President to let Collin Powell try and do this multi laterally and through the UN. I just don?t understand what they were thinking. This should have been a unilateral affair, and Iraq breaking the terms of its Cease Fire Agreement should have been ample justification for the war. Letting, France, Germany, Russia, and the other cons in on the action is the height of stupidity. Collin Powell should be given nice military honors and relieved of duty. ASAP.
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
I am more aware of world events than you will ever be.
<hr></blockquote>
At least you realize that the only way to justify your view is a retreat to make-believe land.
<strong>
For Europe is seems that process is so much more important than result. Where as Bush thinks result is more important than process. I'll go with the latter.
In the end it bothers me that Europe can't respect the fact that we are different from them.</strong><hr></blockquote>
One of the selling points of a war with Iraq to Europeans is that Saddam is in violation of UN resolutions. If Bush follows suit, perhaps not violating resolutions, but ignoring them or considering them to be largely inconsequential, he appears little different from Saddam.
In that sense Bush is different from European leaders, he's more like Saddam.
[ 02-27-2003: Message edited by: RodUK ]</p>
<strong>What does it mean to "open up" to the world?
I don't get the point.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The sad thing is, I'm beginning to believe you truly don't...
[ 02-27-2003: Message edited by: RodUK ]</p>
<strong>
But IMO, we can't judge a policy based on the perceived motivations of those who pursue it, we have to judge it on its own merits.</strong><hr></blockquote>
BRAVO!!!!!!!!
Can I get that framed in a golden frame?
If only other left of center people could make such a statment with their own mouth.
Fellowship
<strong>
At least you realize that the only way to justify your view is a retreat to make-believe land.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You know I don't know what motivates you but you need to grow up. Do you really like what you are saying when you say such rude things? Does that give you joy? I hope you reflect over your attitude.
Fellowship
Bush and Saddam should be shot but Chirac and Schroeder deserve bullets to the dome as well. Where is Stalin when we need him?
<strong>
You know I don't know what motivates you but you need to grow up. Do you really like what you are saying when you say such rude things? Does that give you joy? I hope you reflect over your attitude.
Fellowship</strong><hr></blockquote>
Funny I was expecting someone to say this to you.
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
<strong>
BRAVO!!!!!!!!
Can I get that framed in a golden frame?
If only other left of center people could make such a statment with their own mouth.
Fellowship</strong><hr></blockquote>
Your constant ridicule of this "slutty liberal left" seems to contradict this notion that you wish ideas to be judged solely by their own merits. Instead of undressing these slutty liberal lefties in your mind, you could instead simply state that you disagree with XXX idea because you believe A, B, and C.
"Hey brother christian with your high and mighty errand. Your actions speak so loud I can't hear a word you're saying."
-Bad Religion - I Want To Conquer the World
<strong>
Your constant ridicule of this "slutty liberal left" seems to contradict this notion that you wish ideas to be judged solely by their own merits. Instead of undressing these slutty liberal lefties in your mind, you could instead simply state that you disagree with XXX idea because you believe A, B, and C.
"Hey brother christian with your high and mighty errand. Your actions speak so loud I can't hear a word you're saying."
-Bad Religion - I Want To Conquer the World</strong><hr></blockquote>
BR you missed it. The name calling I did in that post was calculated for BRussell to read and as I said before it was to see how well the name calling would sit with him. It is to demonstrate that name calling is pointless.
You make a non-issue an issue. Go back and read what I said.
Fellowship
I am curious if any of you can join this with serious consideration and debate.
[quote]Originally posted by BRussell:
<strong>
Even on this Iraq question, where I basically support the Bush policy, this administration has handled it so poorly that now it looks like even the UK is struggling to be with us. I can't believe that this would be happening in a Gore administration, or even a George H. W. Bush administration. These people are just so frackin' incompetent. </strong><hr></blockquote>
You are buying into the wrong arguments BRussell. You are letting the coverage of protesters get under your skin. You lose view of the real issue at hand here. WOMD and the killer over there who is not co-operating with the UN. Bush has given the UN a chance to be the method to deal with Iraq but Bush is not limited to the UN. The US will lead a coalition of nations against Iraq if the UN framework fails to act. I do not feel sorry for Saddam as he has not come clean in the least. I do not see Bush as the one bringing on this war I see Saddam as the one who is asking for it. Saddam has had his chances. Saddam is betting on world opinion to back him and that bet will lose in the end.
I listened to Hamid Karzai (Afghan President) give testimony to the United States Senate Foreign Relations Committee on the changes in Afghanistan. The Afghan people have a new currency that is stable now, 3,000,000 children are in school now including girls. There is a vast (((FREE)) media in Afghanistan now with over 100 newspapers in Kabul alone. Women now participate in the workplace and in university. A new constitution is being drafted and if ratified will be in place by October 2003. This will establish the new democracy and provide the roadmap for free elections set for 2004. There are still issues of extreme islam groups to be addressed within Afghanistan and when President Bush meets with President Karzai today (02/27/03) He will pledge continuing support to the country. The united states has already allocated three billion $US to Afghanistan and Bush will follow through with US support in the wake of an Iraq mission. Why do I bring up President Hamid Karzai? other than the good news he informed the the committee on he was asked a very specific question.... What was his view of the US stance in Iraq. He said that Iraq is a country of great faithful Muslims and that Afghanistan is a muslim country. However he said that he wishes for the Iraqi people what has happened to his country. He said Saddam has controlled his people and it time for them to be set free. The Taliban and Saddam haved much in common and the people of Iraq need to be set free from such control. Speaking of the Taliban read this story:
<a href="http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1035778281312&call_pag eid=968332188492&col=968705899037" target="_blank">Link 01</a>
The war on terrorism is ongoing and likewise with Iraq. The world must act on these evil people who lead terror movements because if they had WOMD they would not think twice to use them on us. This reality is true no matter who is in the White House. These people of hate could care less Democrat, Republican, etc. they hate America for what America is. They want to blow things up to get attention. The world can not afford this freak show the radical islamic terrorists want. We MUST act.
Fellowship
<strong>I'm trying to separate my evaluation of the Bush administration from this particular policy.
My view is that we should have an imminent threat of force to put pressure on Iraq to comply with post-Gulf-War disarmament requirements. In my view, it's clear he hasn't and isn't meeting those requirements, and so the war is the outcome that Sodom has chosen, given the contingencies provided to him.
I just think Bush has bungled it so badly that people who might normally support the policy are instead disagreeing with Bush himself and the way the policy has been pursued, rather than the actual policy itself. When people see this policy, they think of that preemptive force National Security Strategy, and they think of the pre-9/11 unilateralist rhetoric, and they think of the initial Iraq policy which appeared to make war with Iraq an end in search of a means, rather than a means itself, and we think of Bush the oil man, and the son making up for the father's unfinished business, etc. So we perceive it in a context that makes us question the motives of those who are currently pursuing this strategy.
But IMO, we can't judge a policy based on the perceived motivations of those who pursue it, we have to judge it on its own merits.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Never before has BRussell posted so many words at any one time and echoed my exact sentiment.
Amazing. :eek:
blah, blah, blah
Fellowship<hr></blockquote>
Since we are repeating posts:
Fellowship:
it's called politics. Maybe once the ice clears up you can leave your house and learn a thing or two.
[ 02-27-2003: Message edited by: giant ]</p>
<strong>I'm trying to separate my evaluation of the Bush administration from this particular policy.
My view is that we should have an imminent threat of force to put pressure on Iraq to comply with post-Gulf-War disarmament requirements. In my view, it's clear he hasn't and isn't meeting those requirements, and so the war is the outcome that Sodom has chosen, given the contingencies provided to him.
I just think Bush has bungled it so badly that people who might normally support the policy are instead disagreeing with Bush himself and the way the policy has been pursued, rather than the actual policy itself. When people see this policy, they think of that preemptive force National Security Strategy, and they think of the pre-9/11 unilateralist rhetoric, and they think of the initial Iraq policy which appeared to make war with Iraq an end in search of a means, rather than a means itself, and we think of Bush the oil man, and the son making up for the father's unfinished business, etc. So we perceive it in a context that makes us question the motives of those who are currently pursuing this strategy.
But IMO, we can't judge a policy based on the perceived motivations of those who pursue it, we have to judge it on its own merits.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I would also agree if this were the actual policy. Which it is not.
Iraq is a stepping stone, and I have that info straight from the horse's mouth. If you argue against that, you are arguing against everything that has been said by Perle, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Feith... for the past 15 years, including and up to today.
So discussing Iraq for the virtue of Iraq is completely irrelevant. Disarming is not the aim in this case. There's no two ways about it. The people leading the movement are saying this left and right.