Of course, the Americans and British brought in so much WOMD that it'd be impossible to hide them, even for these bastards, kids who have an entire world of stealth technology at their disposal.
Keep throwing that sh!t out, it's gotta stick someday.
Afghanistan is failing, although not failed. That means it too still has a chance.
If Iraq fails, it'll be a travesty. It's closer to being 'fixed' than Afghanistan though. It'll have an easier time than Afghanistan in the long run.
Israel & Palestine could happen. But it always 'could' happen.
Afghanistan is NOT failing.
How do you view that it is?
I saw a documentary on people in Afghanistan and while culturally the women are still a little afraid to get too liberal too fast the country is MUCH more free than they were under the Taliban regime.
The Taliban went door to door and destroyed musical instruments of afgans who had them for years prior to Taliban control.
I could tell you crime after crime the Taliban did to the people of Afganistan.
The people are MUCH better off now and I too am VERY HAPPY for them. The road goes forward and nothing is complete by any means in Afganistan but for you to say Afganistan has failed is a flat out lie.
You willingly ignore points because you can then write long funny paragraphs that set up and knock down strawmen, which is easier than creating a valid argument.
How many people here believed that the U.S. wasn't in Baghdad? None. But you'll talk about it like every anti-war poster believed it. That's dishonest. Sure, it makes a funny paragraph, funny enough to get you compared to ColanderOfDeath, but it's not honest.
Buddy, that is SO, SO weak!
THAT'S it? That? A wisecrack about that freak, full-of-shit Information Minister claiming (still) that U.S. troops aren't in Baghdad?
What planet would you have to be from to not know?
First off (sigh...here we go...), do you think "here" (AppleInsider) is my only frame of reference or people I respond to or talk to or about? No, it isn't. I actually know two people (an uncle, no less) who thinks that it's all a sham! HE doesn't think we're in Baghdad. He's a full-tilt conspiracy/evil plot guy and he's one of several I know who go WAY out of their way to make all this stuff up! And that Iraqi Information Minister made it a point for nearly two days straight of informing the world that the U.S. is not in Baghdad. So that counts, doesn't it? Anyone doing or saying silly, stupid things is fair game. Just like I am from some of you.
That was very weak, bunge. I thought you had me pinned on something major like saying I was against this war two weeks ago or something like that.
THAT'S what you have on me for "dishonesty"? Try harder next time.
Meanwhile, you're more than free/welcome to skip my "long. funny posts" if they aren't your cup of tea or upset you.
Flip of what Shawn? I am happy for the Iraqi people and so is FOX and Conservative Talk-Radio.
What is all this flip side rhetoric? What are you trying to say?
Fellowship
I'm commenting on the reality that "the spin and accusations being leveled at the supporters of the war" PALES in comparison to the accusations being leveled at those who do not support the war. That's just ridiculous to claim victimhood when the right has been effectively squashing dissent with its iron-fisted, fire and brimstone attacks on those who do not support the war.
Meanwhile, you're more than free/welcome to skip my "long. funny posts" if they aren't your cup of tea or upset you.
Ah, but that's the crucial step. You can 'make jokes', but they're really just straw men. Someone's got to go into the fields and bail up all that hay.
That is as wise a site to post as me posting a site from Rush Limbaugh that says Clinton has failed at X Y or Z.
Get Real for once.
Fellowship
No leftist equivalent to Rush exists, Fellowship. The left counters the hate-speech of the right with humor. It's more like you posting a link from a respected conservative site like the The Weekly Standard.
Ah, but that's the crucial step. You can 'make jokes', but they're really just straw men. Someone's got to go into the fields and bail up all that hay.
Some here seem to harp over the fact that there is not completion of one project so all of the projects are a failure? If you look at eastern europe there are still problems after Kosovo. I do not sit here and say the Clinton led project on Kosovo was a failure.
Bottom line is that you anti-Bush folks cant give one ounce of credit to slow but sure progress. You want it all NOW and if you don't have it all now you deem it a failure.
How are they straw men if it's true? Am I making things up about the anti-war/anti-Bush side? Do ALL of them have to be acting/saying the exact same way for it to be valid? I think most people (here and elsewhere) who aren't blindly entrenched into THEIR way of thinking would know that, on balance, what I've talked about and said and made pokes at is true and is so.
Have not the anti-war/Bush side done, said and behaved in the ways I've talked about? No, not every single one, but I'd say most. That's why it's funny and why it's real.
I couldn't make this stuff up. If I was, there's be your little straw fella.
You're doing that thing again.
Speaking of "straw" and all, you guys are really grasping for them as of late.
Some here seem to harp over the fact that there is not completion of one project so all of the projects are a failure?
Now why don't you go back and reread what I wrote. It was something to the effect of "Afghanistan is failing, although not failed. That means it too still has a chance."
You claimed that it's not. Well, it's certainly regressing, although it hasn't completely regressed. That means it too still has a chance.
Now why don't you go back and reread what I wrote. It was something to the effect of "Afghanistan is failing, although not failed. That means it too still has a chance."
You claimed that it's not. Well, it's certainly regressing, although it hasn't completely regressed. That means it too still has a chance.
Ah, but that's the crucial step. You can 'make jokes', but they're really just straw men. Someone's got to go into the fields and bail up all that hay.
Well then, better grab that pitchfork and some gloves, motherf***er.
I'm just kidding. That just struck me as a real Samuel L. Jackson thing to say, so I did. It's late and I didn't mean it in a harsh, name-calling way. Just immediately sprung to mind.
What an absurd question. If it's true, it's not a straw man argument. That's a red herring if I've ever seen one!
"At this point, I just think it's easier to believe that some people will believe and go for ANYTHING not U.S.-created/supported"
OK. Some people will believe that. No one here, but somewhere in the world some people will believe that. But using that argument here, in this context, is a lie. You were referring to some people [here at AI], even though you didn't say it explicitly. But now you're pretending that you were referring to your uncle or the [mis]Information Minister of Iraq?
I think it's probably more accurate to say that you were over-generalizing to try and 'win' an argument.
Well then, better grab that pitchfork and some gloves, motherf***er.
I'm just kidding. That just struck me as a real Samuel L. Jackson thing to say, so I did. It's late and I didn't mean it in a harsh, name-calling way. Just immediately sprung to mind.
pscates the anti-bush folks will never understand why those of us who are happy for the Iraqi people are so happy and in a joking mood.
How can we be so happy after all? It must be all that oil on our minds LOL! yeah that's it.
It could not be because we are truly happy for the future freedom of the Iraqi people.... NO WAY
And aren't you [bunge] on record as saying that sanctions were working?
FWIW, I seem to recall that moment, as well. Additionally, he was pushing for continued "smart sanctions" (Iraqis be damned and damned indefinitely) as the "alternative solution" to war.
This whole topic reminds me of how it never fails to occur that for once there is a small instance of rightness in the world for all to rejoice with a beer round, but the "Sinead O'Conners" of the world must step in and loudly proclaim "the atrocities" to behold and rip a picture of the Pope in two, simply to piss people off (rather than deliver a real message).
And aren't you on record as saying that sanctions were working?
Sanctions were divided. The first 10 years sucked. The previous six months of inspections were working, and the infusion of intelligent sanctions would have worked along with them.
If I ever sounded like I was saying that our use of sanctions in the 90's was good, then I misspoke or you misread. Sanctions were good on paper, but in practice sucked (I blame the U.S. & U.K. for their over zealous use of the veto.) I hope that makes sense. Well, I hope that clarifies at any rate.
Comments
Originally posted by der Kopf
Of course, the Americans and British brought in so much WOMD that it'd be impossible to hide them, even for these bastards, kids who have an entire world of stealth technology at their disposal.
Keep throwing that sh!t out, it's gotta stick someday.
Originally posted by bunge
Afghanistan is failing, although not failed. That means it too still has a chance.
If Iraq fails, it'll be a travesty. It's closer to being 'fixed' than Afghanistan though. It'll have an easier time than Afghanistan in the long run.
Israel & Palestine could happen. But it always 'could' happen.
Afghanistan is NOT failing.
How do you view that it is?
I saw a documentary on people in Afghanistan and while culturally the women are still a little afraid to get too liberal too fast the country is MUCH more free than they were under the Taliban regime.
The Taliban went door to door and destroyed musical instruments of afgans who had them for years prior to Taliban control.
I could tell you crime after crime the Taliban did to the people of Afganistan.
The people are MUCH better off now and I too am VERY HAPPY for them. The road goes forward and nothing is complete by any means in Afganistan but for you to say Afganistan has failed is a flat out lie.
Fellowship
Originally posted by bunge
You willingly ignore points because you can then write long funny paragraphs that set up and knock down strawmen, which is easier than creating a valid argument.
How many people here believed that the U.S. wasn't in Baghdad? None. But you'll talk about it like every anti-war poster believed it. That's dishonest. Sure, it makes a funny paragraph, funny enough to get you compared to ColanderOfDeath, but it's not honest.
Buddy, that is SO, SO weak!
THAT'S it? That? A wisecrack about that freak, full-of-shit Information Minister claiming (still) that U.S. troops aren't in Baghdad?
What planet would you have to be from to not know?
First off (sigh...here we go...), do you think "here" (AppleInsider) is my only frame of reference or people I respond to or talk to or about? No, it isn't. I actually know two people (an uncle, no less) who thinks that it's all a sham! HE doesn't think we're in Baghdad. He's a full-tilt conspiracy/evil plot guy and he's one of several I know who go WAY out of their way to make all this stuff up! And that Iraqi Information Minister made it a point for nearly two days straight of informing the world that the U.S. is not in Baghdad. So that counts, doesn't it? Anyone doing or saying silly, stupid things is fair game. Just like I am from some of you.
That was very weak, bunge. I thought you had me pinned on something major like saying I was against this war two weeks ago or something like that.
THAT'S what you have on me for "dishonesty"? Try harder next time.
Meanwhile, you're more than free/welcome to skip my "long. funny posts" if they aren't your cup of tea or upset you.
Originally posted by ShawnPatrickJoyce
How about the Last Place We Liberated?
One word:
Salon. They too are anti-Bush Shawn.
That is as wise a site to post as me posting a site from Rush Limbaugh that says Clinton has failed at X Y or Z.
Get Real for once.
Fellowship
Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
Afghanistan is NOT failing.
How do you view that it is?
Why, Fox News of course.
Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
Flip of what Shawn? I am happy for the Iraqi people and so is FOX and Conservative Talk-Radio.
What is all this flip side rhetoric? What are you trying to say?
Fellowship
I'm commenting on the reality that "the spin and accusations being leveled at the supporters of the war" PALES in comparison to the accusations being leveled at those who do not support the war. That's just ridiculous to claim victimhood when the right has been effectively squashing dissent with its iron-fisted, fire and brimstone attacks on those who do not support the war.
Originally posted by pscates
Meanwhile, you're more than free/welcome to skip my "long. funny posts" if they aren't your cup of tea or upset you.
Ah, but that's the crucial step. You can 'make jokes', but they're really just straw men. Someone's got to go into the fields and bail up all that hay.
Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
One word:
Salon. They too are anti-Bush Shawn.
That is as wise a site to post as me posting a site from Rush Limbaugh that says Clinton has failed at X Y or Z.
Get Real for once.
Fellowship
No leftist equivalent to Rush exists, Fellowship. The left counters the hate-speech of the right with humor. It's more like you posting a link from a respected conservative site like the The Weekly Standard.
Originally posted by bunge
Ah, but that's the crucial step. You can 'make jokes', but they're really just straw men. Someone's got to go into the fields and bail up all that hay.
Exactly.
Bottom line is that you anti-Bush folks cant give one ounce of credit to slow but sure progress. You want it all NOW and if you don't have it all now you deem it a failure.
That is not going to fly. Weak weak weak.
Fellowship
Have not the anti-war/Bush side done, said and behaved in the ways I've talked about? No, not every single one, but I'd say most. That's why it's funny and why it's real.
I couldn't make this stuff up. If I was, there's be your little straw fella.
You're doing that thing again.
Speaking of "straw" and all, you guys are really grasping for them as of late.
Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
Some here seem to harp over the fact that there is not completion of one project so all of the projects are a failure?
Now why don't you go back and reread what I wrote. It was something to the effect of "Afghanistan is failing, although not failed. That means it too still has a chance."
You claimed that it's not. Well, it's certainly regressing, although it hasn't completely regressed. That means it too still has a chance.
Is that better?
Originally posted by bunge
Now why don't you go back and reread what I wrote. It was something to the effect of "Afghanistan is failing, although not failed. That means it too still has a chance."
You claimed that it's not. Well, it's certainly regressing, although it hasn't completely regressed. That means it too still has a chance.
Is that better?
very well
Fellows
Originally posted by bunge
Groverat is also on record saying that the sanctions could have been improved to the point of not causing such an absurdly large humanitarian crisis.
And aren't you on record as saying that sanctions were working?
Originally posted by bunge
Ah, but that's the crucial step. You can 'make jokes', but they're really just straw men. Someone's got to go into the fields and bail up all that hay.
Well then, better grab that pitchfork and some gloves, motherf***er.
I'm just kidding. That just struck me as a real Samuel L. Jackson thing to say, so I did. It's late and I didn't mean it in a harsh, name-calling way. Just immediately sprung to mind.
Originally posted by pscates
How are they straw men if it's true?
What an absurd question. If it's true, it's not a straw man argument. That's a red herring if I've ever seen one!
"At this point, I just think it's easier to believe that some people will believe and go for ANYTHING not U.S.-created/supported"
OK. Some people will believe that. No one here, but somewhere in the world some people will believe that. But using that argument here, in this context, is a lie. You were referring to some people [here at AI], even though you didn't say it explicitly. But now you're pretending that you were referring to your uncle or the [mis]Information Minister of Iraq?
I think it's probably more accurate to say that you were over-generalizing to try and 'win' an argument.
Originally posted by pscates
Well then, better grab that pitchfork and some gloves, motherf***er.
I'm just kidding. That just struck me as a real Samuel L. Jackson thing to say, so I did.
I would have laughed out loud if you had spelled it muthaf***er.
Originally posted by pscates
Well then, better grab that pitchfork and some gloves, motherf***er.
I'm just kidding. That just struck me as a real Samuel L. Jackson thing to say, so I did. It's late and I didn't mean it in a harsh, name-calling way. Just immediately sprung to mind.
pscates the anti-bush folks will never understand why those of us who are happy for the Iraqi people are so happy and in a joking mood.
How can we be so happy after all? It must be all that oil on our minds LOL! yeah that's it.
It could not be because we are truly happy for the future freedom of the Iraqi people.... NO WAY
Bush is evil remember!
8)
Fellows
Originally posted by Tulkas
And aren't you [bunge] on record as saying that sanctions were working?
FWIW, I seem to recall that moment, as well. Additionally, he was pushing for continued "smart sanctions" (Iraqis be damned and damned indefinitely) as the "alternative solution" to war.
This whole topic reminds me of how it never fails to occur that for once there is a small instance of rightness in the world for all to rejoice with a beer round, but the "Sinead O'Conners" of the world must step in and loudly proclaim "the atrocities" to behold and rip a picture of the Pope in two, simply to piss people off (rather than deliver a real message).
Originally posted by Tulkas
And aren't you on record as saying that sanctions were working?
Sanctions were divided. The first 10 years sucked. The previous six months of inspections were working, and the infusion of intelligent sanctions would have worked along with them.
If I ever sounded like I was saying that our use of sanctions in the 90's was good, then I misspoke or you misread. Sanctions were good on paper, but in practice sucked (I blame the U.S. & U.K. for their over zealous use of the veto.) I hope that makes sense. Well, I hope that clarifies at any rate.