In fact that "screw em let em fend for themselves" kind of attitude seems more akin to a conservative point of world affairs to me.
Seems ironic to me when the anti-war/peace/human rights crowd calls for us to leave a nation to torture and terror by its own leaders. Seems ironic when people bitch about not having support from the U.N. when this action is *strengthening* the U.N.'s authority by enforcing a resolution that other nations saw fit to neuter instead of following through with.
That guy is a freaking fool. Actually I think that photo is fake. The guy is pro-war and made that sign to be a bad example of anti-war. There are very few anti-war people who think that way. If I was anywhere and I saw someone holding a sign like that I'd rip it out of his hands and give him an "impeach Bush" sign instead.
I think we established that in another thread (that he is an anti-anti war guy).
An old tactic to make your enemy look bad by doing something on his territory. If I remember correctly thats what more people claimed Saddam did yesterday with the bombs on the marked places. Hitler did the same to have an argument for abandoning the way of democracy.
In fact that "screw em let em fend for themselves" kind of attitude seems more akin to a conservative point of world affairs to me.
Seems ironic to me when the anti-war/peace/human rights crowd calls for us to leave a nation to torture and terror by its own leaders. Seems ironic when people bitch about not having support from the U.N. when this action is *strengthening* the U.N.'s authority by enforcing a resolution that other nations saw fit to neuter instead of following through with.
go to www.protestwarrior.com and you'll see where I got the pic. It's ironically ironic if you ask me. The guy is not pro-war per say but anti-anti-war. He made the sign and blended in just nicely with the anti-war crowd. I guess as long as you have a sign your in.
I think we established that in another thread (that he is an anti-anti war guy).
An old tactic to make your enemy look bad by doing something on his territory. If I remember correctly thats what more people claimed Saddam did yesterday with the bombs on the marked places. Hitler did the same to have an argument for abandoning the way of democracy.
Except when anti-anti-war people do this it is not on the same scale as what Saddam does. This is a peaceful way of mixing up the signals.
" This thread is yet another example of the anti-war sentiment up on their soapbox offering plenty of criticism but no solution. Half the anti-war people agree that Saddam is a baaaahd man, that he hates the US, that he tortures and terrorizes his people, yet they have zero solutions. More sanction? Just ignore him and hope he goes away? What alternatives people? If you don't have another solution why the hell should we bother listening to you? "
You left out the fact that those people hate us also. Or did you think that's going to magically change when Saddam's gone? Once again dviant is a master at ignoring what he/she doesn't want to see. Why should I bother listening to someone who just likes to listen to himself? You're an idiot if you continue to apply western logic and values to this situation. Tell me what happens after we've been there for years ( and don't think we won't ) spent tons of money and they still resent us being there?
Ah, but you're debate technique is to just ignore the parts of the argument that don't fit you're viewpoint. Then we " don't have an answer ".
Another thing where's the logic here? You didn't answer my question from before. You glossed over it. There's lots of " baaaaad men " in the world. Are you realistically suggesting we take them all on? If not why are we taking just this one action? Where's the logic dviant? Where's the logic? Could it be this is for another motivation? Hmmm?
This is what I mean when I say, "tell me of a terrorist group whose main bitch is our handling of Iraq" meaning, "What terrorist group out there attacks us or threatens to attack us because of the way we've handled the Iraq situation."
Oh ye of little understanding.
I find it interesting that you unhesitatingly ask this question. Even more telling that you ask it twice and not see how silly it is.
was your foresight so clear that you saw Bosnia lay the ground-work for al-qaeda? Hell, if you have folks going nuts over US troops simply based in Saudi Arabia, think how they will react to a full-on invasion of an arab country.
I didn't change the question, I clarified. Apparently you thought I was asking for a terrorist organization that disliked Iraq, that was obviously not the topic.
I was asking for terrorists who would attack the US (hence the bit in parentheses) whose main bitch was Iraq; meaning, they hate the US because of what goes on in Iraq.
Whatever. It's really not important, and I wasn't attempting to imply anything. I was just saying that at the top of this page you asked one thing, and then later you said you asked something else.
Either way, my point stands:
Quote:
Actually Osama's big problem was how our military was in Saudi Arabia. We've been slaughtering the Iraqi people for 12 years, don't you think that would've pissed off a few terrorists?
Well, 15-20 years ago we were most definitely NOT slaughtering the Iraqis. They were our buddies. And before that, we were helping out the "freedom fighters" in Afghanistan (see Reagan's proclamation of National Afghanistan Day in March of 1982).
Note the timeline here:
1980s, OBL is more or less cool with us, no terrorist attacks on US targets.
1990s, we invade Iraq, and we place troops in Saudi (I'd love to be proven wrong here, but I don't think we ever had troops there before) and OBL sees that as an attack on Islam and an affront.
1993, first WTC bombing by al Qaeda
1998, embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania by al Qaeda
2000, USS Cole bombing by al Qaeda
2001 WTC and Pentagon attack by al Qaeda
I think we're arguing over a pretty fine point here (your point that OBL doesn't like our tanks and guns in SA, and mine that they wouldn't be there if it weren't for our initial invasion of Iraq, as well as that our invasion of Iraq registered as an attack upon Islam). So at least on that front, I don't think we're in all that much disagreement, considering that all of these things are bound up together in the nightmare that is US foreign policy in the region.
There are a whole host of other factors (US policy in Israel, US support for the saudi regime, US policy toward Egypt, US policy in Bosnia and Kosovo, etc).
At any rate, it occurred to me earlier that your initial question about some other terrorist group with the reach and resources who's pissed at us because of our actions in Iraq is a little problematic, considering that al Qaeda is probably the only organization out there with the resources to do something as remarkable as the WTC attacks (that took LOADS of money to pull off). al Qaeda, regardless of their disdain for Hussein, is still going to perveice ANY action by us in a Muslim country as an attack on Islam. Most of the Islamic extremist/terrorist organizations will do so.
Oh, yeah, and everyone bitches and whines when the US does mind its own business... Aren't these the same people who want us to take care of labor conditions in China, free Tibet and stop Japanese whaling? But to do anything about the slaughtering of a population is taboo?
Perhaps I'm being too, what, ideological, but I think the richest, most powerful nation in the world might have some burden to bear to make the rest of the world a better place.
I didn't change the question, I clarified. Apparently you thought I was asking for a terrorist organization that disliked Iraq, that was obviously not the topic.
I was asking for terrorists who would attack the US (hence the bit in parentheses) whose main bitch was Iraq; meaning, they hate the US because of what goes on in Iraq.
Actually Osama's big problem was how our military was in Saudi Arabia. We've been slaughtering the Iraqi people for 12 years, don't you think that would've pissed off a few terrorists?
Groverat Groverat Groverat. You should know by now that Bunge et al are not big on reading comprehension. It is the quick point score on his knee jerk reactions that he is going for. Why think when you can spout off without actually understanding the argument of the other side? I have had enough arguments with you and others on this board to know that you need to think about what the point is before you reply, and if you are not sure, ask. (ahh the old days of arguing over Islam and the Koran, good times... )
So throwing our weight around is making the world a better place? Don't kid yourself twenty years from now it won't be Saddam but it'll be someone else. Also Saddam is just one small thorn in the side of the world. I'm much more concerned about N. Korea. Of course taking them on would be a much more serious proposition.
There are many solutions suggested. Continued inspections and release of sanctions are the two most important ones. Continued pressure for action only when it is supported by global concensus.
Sorry, these aren't the "instant" solutions you're looking for. Actually, there's no such thing as an "instant" solution. It has been obvious that this sorry attempt at an instant solution is creating a far worse situation than the one it is designed to address.
Continued research and long-term resolution of a problem doesn't equal tolerance of that problem. Impatient, rushed action is just plain recklessness.
Tonton how is it that you do not see that the real issue is Iraqi compliance? We are going to have plenty of inspections when this is all over. You will have you inspections. The difference is that Saddam will be gone and Iraq will be disarmed. Saddam had every chance to come clean and he did NOT. It was his choice.
You should know by now that Bunge et al are not big on reading comprehension.
NoahJ, you should know by now that it's impossible for a rational and intelligent human being to comprehend someone as dogmatic and blind as some of you conservatives are.
NoahJ, you should know by now that it's impossible for a rational and intelligent human being to comprehend someone as dogmatic and blind as some of you conservatives are.
Get real bunge. I would say the liberals the world over need to get over their blind hate of Bush and America. Talk about dogmatic TRASH. Look at the war protestors. There my friend is your dogmatic TRASH. Blind are those who say they are are for "peace"
Yeah... Peace for their sorry a** but not for Iraqis.
You are blind bunge as are the other liberals of this world.
Get real bunge. I would say the liberals the world over need to get over their blind hate of Bush
This is my favorite new line of rhetoric coming out of the right. I first heard it on Rush a few months ago, and got a good chuckle out of it. That's right. Liberals just don't like Bush as a person. And thus the reason they don't fall in line and behave properly is not that they're politically opposed to anything. It's because they just don't like the guy. And that makes them petty and infantile.
I love it.
Get this straight: Bush seems like a nice enough guy. I don't know him. I doub't very seriously if you do either. But just because someone is a nice guy doesn't mean that we ought therefore to agree with everything that comes out of his mouth. I, and most of the other lefty-types on this board, have very real political differences with the current administration. It's not petty. It's not infantile. It's politics.
Comments
In fact that "screw em let em fend for themselves" kind of attitude seems more akin to a conservative point of world affairs to me.
Seems ironic to me when the anti-war/peace/human rights crowd calls for us to leave a nation to torture and terror by its own leaders. Seems ironic when people bitch about not having support from the U.N. when this action is *strengthening* the U.N.'s authority by enforcing a resolution that other nations saw fit to neuter instead of following through with.
Originally posted by tonton
That guy is a freaking fool. Actually I think that photo is fake. The guy is pro-war and made that sign to be a bad example of anti-war. There are very few anti-war people who think that way. If I was anywhere and I saw someone holding a sign like that I'd rip it out of his hands and give him an "impeach Bush" sign instead.
I think we established that in another thread (that he is an anti-anti war guy).
An old tactic to make your enemy look bad by doing something on his territory. If I remember correctly thats what more people claimed Saddam did yesterday with the bombs on the marked places. Hitler did the same to have an argument for abandoning the way of democracy.
Originally posted by groverat
I didn't change the question, I clarified.
Originally posted by dviant
This thread is yet another example of the anti-war sentiment up on their soapbox offering plenty of criticism but no solution.
That's just a lie.
Originally posted by bunge
That's just a lie.
What an empty statement. Wheres the solution Bunge? Please do point it out.
Originally posted by dviant
Is that really a solution Outsider?
In fact that "screw em let em fend for themselves" kind of attitude seems more akin to a conservative point of world affairs to me.
Seems ironic to me when the anti-war/peace/human rights crowd calls for us to leave a nation to torture and terror by its own leaders. Seems ironic when people bitch about not having support from the U.N. when this action is *strengthening* the U.N.'s authority by enforcing a resolution that other nations saw fit to neuter instead of following through with.
go to www.protestwarrior.com and you'll see where I got the pic.
Originally posted by Anders the White
I think we established that in another thread (that he is an anti-anti war guy).
An old tactic to make your enemy look bad by doing something on his territory. If I remember correctly thats what more people claimed Saddam did yesterday with the bombs on the marked places. Hitler did the same to have an argument for abandoning the way of democracy.
Except when anti-anti-war people do this it is not on the same scale as what Saddam does. This is a peaceful way of mixing up the signals.
" This thread is yet another example of the anti-war sentiment up on their soapbox offering plenty of criticism but no solution. Half the anti-war people agree that Saddam is a baaaahd man, that he hates the US, that he tortures and terrorizes his people, yet they have zero solutions. More sanction? Just ignore him and hope he goes away? What alternatives people? If you don't have another solution why the hell should we bother listening to you? "
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You left out the fact that those people hate us also. Or did you think that's going to magically change when Saddam's gone? Once again dviant is a master at ignoring what he/she doesn't want to see. Why should I bother listening to someone who just likes to listen to himself? You're an idiot if you continue to apply western logic and values to this situation. Tell me what happens after we've been there for years ( and don't think we won't ) spent tons of money and they still resent us being there?
Ah, but you're debate technique is to just ignore the parts of the argument that don't fit you're viewpoint. Then we " don't have an answer ".
Another thing where's the logic here? You didn't answer my question from before. You glossed over it. There's lots of " baaaaad men " in the world. Are you realistically suggesting we take them all on? If not why are we taking just this one action? Where's the logic dviant? Where's the logic? Could it be this is for another motivation? Hmmm?
Originally posted by groverat
Oh ye of little understanding.
This is what I mean when I say, "tell me of a terrorist group whose main bitch is our handling of Iraq" meaning, "What terrorist group out there attacks us or threatens to attack us because of the way we've handled the Iraq situation."
Oh ye of little understanding.
I find it interesting that you unhesitatingly ask this question. Even more telling that you ask it twice and not see how silly it is.
was your foresight so clear that you saw Bosnia lay the ground-work for al-qaeda? Hell, if you have folks going nuts over US troops simply based in Saudi Arabia, think how they will react to a full-on invasion of an arab country.
Originally posted by groverat
I didn't change the question, I clarified. Apparently you thought I was asking for a terrorist organization that disliked Iraq, that was obviously not the topic.
I was asking for terrorists who would attack the US (hence the bit in parentheses) whose main bitch was Iraq; meaning, they hate the US because of what goes on in Iraq.
Whatever. It's really not important, and I wasn't attempting to imply anything. I was just saying that at the top of this page you asked one thing, and then later you said you asked something else.
Either way, my point stands:
Actually Osama's big problem was how our military was in Saudi Arabia. We've been slaughtering the Iraqi people for 12 years, don't you think that would've pissed off a few terrorists?
Well, 15-20 years ago we were most definitely NOT slaughtering the Iraqis. They were our buddies. And before that, we were helping out the "freedom fighters" in Afghanistan (see Reagan's proclamation of National Afghanistan Day in March of 1982).
Note the timeline here:
1980s, OBL is more or less cool with us, no terrorist attacks on US targets.
1990s, we invade Iraq, and we place troops in Saudi (I'd love to be proven wrong here, but I don't think we ever had troops there before) and OBL sees that as an attack on Islam and an affront.
1993, first WTC bombing by al Qaeda
1998, embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania by al Qaeda
2000, USS Cole bombing by al Qaeda
2001 WTC and Pentagon attack by al Qaeda
I think we're arguing over a pretty fine point here (your point that OBL doesn't like our tanks and guns in SA, and mine that they wouldn't be there if it weren't for our initial invasion of Iraq, as well as that our invasion of Iraq registered as an attack upon Islam). So at least on that front, I don't think we're in all that much disagreement, considering that all of these things are bound up together in the nightmare that is US foreign policy in the region.
There are a whole host of other factors (US policy in Israel, US support for the saudi regime, US policy toward Egypt, US policy in Bosnia and Kosovo, etc).
At any rate, it occurred to me earlier that your initial question about some other terrorist group with the reach and resources who's pissed at us because of our actions in Iraq is a little problematic, considering that al Qaeda is probably the only organization out there with the resources to do something as remarkable as the WTC attacks (that took LOADS of money to pull off). al Qaeda, regardless of their disdain for Hussein, is still going to perveice ANY action by us in a Muslim country as an attack on Islam. Most of the Islamic extremist/terrorist organizations will do so.
Cheers
Scott
Originally posted by BuonRotto
Oh, yeah, and everyone bitches and whines when the US does mind its own business... Aren't these the same people who want us to take care of labor conditions in China, free Tibet and stop Japanese whaling? But to do anything about the slaughtering of a population is taboo?
Perhaps I'm being too, what, ideological, but I think the richest, most powerful nation in the world might have some burden to bear to make the rest of the world a better place.
EXACTLY!
Originally posted by Outsider
We were trying a 13 year-long solution before but we just couldn't wait one more year.
Yeah, there's a lot of things about the rationals they use for this action that just don't wash.
Originally posted by groverat
I didn't change the question, I clarified. Apparently you thought I was asking for a terrorist organization that disliked Iraq, that was obviously not the topic.
I was asking for terrorists who would attack the US (hence the bit in parentheses) whose main bitch was Iraq; meaning, they hate the US because of what goes on in Iraq.
Actually Osama's big problem was how our military was in Saudi Arabia. We've been slaughtering the Iraqi people for 12 years, don't you think that would've pissed off a few terrorists?
Groverat Groverat Groverat. You should know by now that Bunge et al are not big on reading comprehension. It is the quick point score on his knee jerk reactions that he is going for. Why think when you can spout off without actually understanding the argument of the other side? I have had enough arguments with you and others on this board to know that you need to think about what the point is before you reply, and if you are not sure, ask. (ahh the old days of arguing over Islam and the Koran, good times...
Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
EXACTLY!
So throwing our weight around is making the world a better place? Don't kid yourself twenty years from now it won't be Saddam but it'll be someone else. Also Saddam is just one small thorn in the side of the world. I'm much more concerned about N. Korea. Of course taking them on would be a much more serious proposition.
Originally posted by tonton
There are many solutions suggested. Continued inspections and release of sanctions are the two most important ones. Continued pressure for action only when it is supported by global concensus.
Sorry, these aren't the "instant" solutions you're looking for. Actually, there's no such thing as an "instant" solution. It has been obvious that this sorry attempt at an instant solution is creating a far worse situation than the one it is designed to address.
Continued research and long-term resolution of a problem doesn't equal tolerance of that problem. Impatient, rushed action is just plain recklessness.
Tonton how is it that you do not see that the real issue is Iraqi compliance? We are going to have plenty of inspections when this is all over. You will have you inspections. The difference is that Saddam will be gone and Iraq will be disarmed. Saddam had every chance to come clean and he did NOT. It was his choice.
Fellowship
Originally posted by NoahJ
You should know by now that Bunge et al are not big on reading comprehension.
NoahJ, you should know by now that it's impossible for a rational and intelligent human being to comprehend someone as dogmatic and blind as some of you conservatives are.
Originally posted by bunge
NoahJ, you should know by now that it's impossible for a rational and intelligent human being to comprehend someone as dogmatic and blind as some of you conservatives are.
Get real bunge. I would say the liberals the world over need to get over their blind hate of Bush and America. Talk about dogmatic TRASH. Look at the war protestors. There my friend is your dogmatic TRASH. Blind are those who say they are are for "peace"
Yeah... Peace for their sorry a** but not for Iraqis.
You are blind bunge as are the other liberals of this world.
Fellowship
Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
Get real bunge. I would say the liberals the world over need to get over their blind hate of Bush
This is my favorite new line of rhetoric coming out of the right. I first heard it on Rush a few months ago, and got a good chuckle out of it. That's right. Liberals just don't like Bush as a person. And thus the reason they don't fall in line and behave properly is not that they're politically opposed to anything. It's because they just don't like the guy. And that makes them petty and infantile.
I love it.
Get this straight: Bush seems like a nice enough guy. I don't know him. I doub't very seriously if you do either. But just because someone is a nice guy doesn't mean that we ought therefore to agree with everything that comes out of his mouth. I, and most of the other lefty-types on this board, have very real political differences with the current administration. It's not petty. It's not infantile. It's politics.
Cheers
Scott