I have tried to understand what that have to do with the situation discussed here but I simply fail to ...
That's your problem. The examples given are very clear to follow.
Also, if the "population" doesn't appreciate the necessity of these measures, than like I said earlier, fsck them. Leave. And let them once again enjoy the company of the Baathist thugs, because obviously life was much freer under their rule.
Then my mind is warped, because when I had to go to the airport and get on a plane while watching National Guard soldiers stand around with M-16's I didn't think I was living in a police state. I'm sure if I had started acting like I had a bomb, a gun, or actually using either of those, I would have been shot.
Quote:
Originally posted by bunge
You see, acting like you have a bomb or a gun is an assault. Leaving your house is not. Big difference. Getting on an airplane is not the same as visiting a friend or relative in the next town over. There's no comparison.
As midwinter said, they can't come and go freely.
What a strange day.... I agree with bunge and disagree with Trumptman
I have tried to understand what that have to do with the situation discussed here but I simply fail to. Please show how your post applies to the situation in Iraq in any way.
Don't worry about it. Mika's just buying time before he gets banned again. What's this, the third or fourth time?
I think your need to see goodness in the Iraq situation is leading you down a blind alley.
Let's say it again: occupying US military forces have surrounded an Iraqi town with razor wire and are controlling entrance and egress through a single checkpoint, gaurded by soldiers with automatic wepaons and a mandate to use lethal force if anyone tries to run the checkpoint, backed up by armed patrols to make sure no one comes or goes by another route.
And this is no reason for concern because in America there are certain rules of access such as freeway ramps.
How can you expect anyone to take this line of reasoning seriously?
If your town were surrounded by the occupying forces of a foreign government who could shoot you if you tried to leave by means other than their designated checkpoint would that be OK with you?
If so, you would make a lovely collaborationist/quisling, but you have no right to call yourself a patriot or a lover of freedom. Remember freedom? It was ostensible reason #4 for invading Iraq in the first place.
I think your need to see goodness in the Iraq situation is leading you down a blind alley.
Let's say it again: occupying US military forces have surrounded an Iraqi town with razor wire and are controlling entrance and egress through a single checkpoint, gaurded by soldiers with automatic wepaons and a mandate to use lethal force if anyone tries to run the checkpoint, backed up by armed patrols to make sure no one comes or goes by another route.
And this is no reason for concern because in America there are certain rules of access such as freeway ramps.
How can you expect anyone to take this line of reasoning seriously?
If your town were surrounded by the occupying forces of a foreign government who could shoot you if you tried to leave by means other than their designated checkpoint would that be OK with you?
If so, you would make a lovely collaborationist/quisling, but you have no right to call yourself a patriot or a lover of freedom. Remember freedom? It was ostensible reason #4 for invading Iraq in the first place.
Don't worry about it. Mika's just buying time before he gets banned again. What's this, the third or fourth time?
Maybe this is your wish come true..
You know, for someone who brags so vocally about being a librarian, you are extremely narrow minded and intolerant of descenting points of view. The fact that you so eagerly wish to shut me up, and time and again resorted to the lowest possible tactics, only exposes you for what you are. You have the same instincts as a Nazi.
Absurdity. It is no more a requirement that you work in a certain place or drive there than it is that you use the airport. People have to use the airport for their jobs and their work. It is a mode of travel just like a car. It was picked out because that is what the terrorists used and that is why I make the comparisons I do. If the terrorists had used moving vans filled with explosives. I wouldn't call it a repressive police state if there were checkpoints stopping vans.
How often do you use an airport? And how often do you go to a supermarked?
Its quite different if almost every person every day is checked by military forces than a minority is checked once in a while (and a very small minority checked daily). And its quite different if you are checked for your own safety and if you are checked for the security of someone who is occupying your country.
Its not about morals or principles but what is smart to do if your goal is to have the iraqis seeing US as their pal. If you really believe that the iraqis only see this as a small inconvenience like the checks in the airport is for you you really need a reality check just like the liberal distanced-from-the-reality foreign policy of your administration.
That's your problem. The examples given are very clear to follow.
No its not.
Quote:
Originally posted by majorspunk
Also, if the "population" doesn't appreciate the necessity of these measures, than like I said earlier, fsck them. Leave. And let them once again enjoy the company of the Baathist thugs, because obviously life was much freer under their rule.
"Lets invade their country because in our great knowledge we know they are going to love us for doing so. They don´t greet us with flowers and kisses? Well then they are wrong and $$$$ them."
Beginning to remind me of 70s Marxist ideas. If the world doesn´t fit our model its not the model thats wrong but the world.
Answer me this oh snickering snickerdoodles, if you wished to leave and enter that town 30 times in one day, could you do so under the terms we read in the article?
I'll clarify it for you since you have comprehension problems.
Limited:
Route to one checkpoint
Not Limited:
Number of times per day you can leave or enter
Time of day you can leave or enter
Who can enter or leave
Nick
Edit: It does appear upon my review that some villages do have curfews. So their time of leaving is limited at night.
How often do you use an airport? And how often do you go to a supermarked?
Its quite different if almost every person every day is checked by military forces than a minority is checked once in a while (and a very small minority checked daily). And its quite different if you are checked for your own safety and if you are checked for the security of someone who is occupying your country.
Its not about morals or principles but what is smart to do if your goal is to have the iraqis seeing US as their pal. If you really believe that the iraqis only see this as a small inconvenience like the checks in the airport is for you you really need a reality check just like the liberal distanced-from-the-reality foreign policy of your administration.
I seem to recall something about pleasing all the people all the time...hmmmm...
The article actually mentioned that there were Iraqi's who understood the measures and why they were in place.
Likewise since the continued attacks could slow attempts to train and put in place the police and troops that would allow Iraq to become sovereign again, and is being done by those who wish to return to the prior regime, it can also be seen as for the benefit of the Iraqi's as well.
As for the Iraqi opinion on it, it showed some supportive views and dissenting views in the article. If you have something that shows more opinions, a poll or survey, you are welcome to post it. The photos I saw in the article just showed a bunch of cars rolling past a checkpoint.
well now you're saying they're pretty much free to do as they want, but earlier you were saying screw 'em, they all have rocket launchers and are trying to kill our troops.
hmm, i'm having comprehension problems.
maybe because i'm hearing two voices, or is it just your hypocritical echo?
If you don't wish to "understand" something, than it is your problem. It is certainly not mine. I made my point. And others made theirs. And I'm not going to indulge you in your silly games.
Regards the rest of your silly post. There's nothing wrong with the US "model". If the Iraqis don't like it, they can keep their Baathist "model". Just don't whine about the US not going all the way, like you did the previous Gulf War. You people are hyper critical of everything that doesn't smell of pinko liberalism. It very obvious, it matters not what is done, but who it is done by. Rashumon kept asking what is the difference between the Kosavo operation and the Iraq operation. None of you leftist here were able to give him a straight answer. That's because there is no difference. But you still tried to call the Iraqi operation illegal, because it's a republican that now holds office.
I seem to recall something about pleasing all the people all the time...hmmmm...
The article actually mentioned that there were Iraqi's who understood the measures and why they were in place.
Likewise since the continued attacks could slow attempts to train and put in place the police and troops that would allow Iraq to become sovereign again, and is being done by those who wish to return to the prior regime, it can also be seen as for the benefit of the Iraqi's as well.
As for the Iraqi opinion on it, it showed some supportive views and dissenting views in the article. If you have something that shows more opinions, a poll or survey, you are welcome to post it. The photos I saw in the article just showed a bunch of cars rolling past a checkpoint.
Nick
Nothing beat the upfront humiliation of having to show pass signs you can´t´read to troops from a foreign country while trying to do everyday stuff. What long time benefits you get from that is lost on the negativety produced right here and now.
Come on Nick. Stop playing those games. At least say its nessesary for the safety of the troops regardless of the negative side effects. Thats a position I can understand. This kind of arguing you do here doesn´t serve you right.
Regards the rest of your silly post. There's nothing wrong with the US "model". If the Iraqis don't like it, they can keep their Baathist "model".
Oh yeah. The "my way or the high way"-way. Lets keep the boogyman in reserve. If you don´t coorporate then we´ll send in Saddam again. It doesn´t sound like you have a natural limit for what you think the Iraqis should endure as a thanks for their liberation? "We need 10.000 of your best men to slave at the oil rigs to pay for the war or we will send Saddam back on you".
Quote:
Originally posted by majorspunk
You people...
Oh yeah Mika all right
Quote:
Originally posted by majorspunk
...are hyper critical of everything that doesn't smell of pinko liberalism. It very obvious, it matters not what is done, but who it is done by. Rashumon kept asking what is the difference between the Kosavo operation and the Iraq operation. None of you leftist here were able to give him a straight answer. That's because there is no difference. But you still tried to call the Iraqi operation illegal, because it's a republican that now holds office.
Funny. Because I have spend DAYS discussing with left wingers here that regard the Kosovo war as MORE illegal than the Iraqi operations. Get your head out of the sand.
No difference between Iraq and Kosovo eh? The fasst one is that the Iraqi war was argued from a self defence POW that had no real life backing. Kosovo from ethnic cleansning on a huge scale happening over short span of time that the european countries did nothing to prevent.
Comments
Originally posted by Anders
I have tried to understand what that have to do with the situation discussed here but I simply fail to ...
That's your problem. The examples given are very clear to follow.
Also, if the "population" doesn't appreciate the necessity of these measures, than like I said earlier, fsck them. Leave. And let them once again enjoy the company of the Baathist thugs, because obviously life was much freer under their rule.
Then my mind is warped, because when I had to go to the airport and get on a plane while watching National Guard soldiers stand around with M-16's I didn't think I was living in a police state. I'm sure if I had started acting like I had a bomb, a gun, or actually using either of those, I would have been shot.
Originally posted by bunge
You see, acting like you have a bomb or a gun is an assault. Leaving your house is not. Big difference. Getting on an airplane is not the same as visiting a friend or relative in the next town over. There's no comparison.
As midwinter said, they can't come and go freely.
What a strange day.... I agree with bunge and disagree with Trumptman
and no I am not sick or feeling ill.
Originally posted by Anders
I have tried to understand what that have to do with the situation discussed here but I simply fail to. Please show how your post applies to the situation in Iraq in any way.
Don't worry about it. Mika's just buying time before he gets banned again. What's this, the third or fourth time?
Originally posted by trumptman
...limiting how you enter and leave a town does not limit your ability to enter and leave that town....
Heh.
I think your need to see goodness in the Iraq situation is leading you down a blind alley.
Let's say it again: occupying US military forces have surrounded an Iraqi town with razor wire and are controlling entrance and egress through a single checkpoint, gaurded by soldiers with automatic wepaons and a mandate to use lethal force if anyone tries to run the checkpoint, backed up by armed patrols to make sure no one comes or goes by another route.
And this is no reason for concern because in America there are certain rules of access such as freeway ramps.
How can you expect anyone to take this line of reasoning seriously?
If your town were surrounded by the occupying forces of a foreign government who could shoot you if you tried to leave by means other than their designated checkpoint would that be OK with you?
If so, you would make a lovely collaborationist/quisling, but you have no right to call yourself a patriot or a lover of freedom. Remember freedom? It was ostensible reason #4 for invading Iraq in the first place.
Originally posted by addabox
Trumpt,
I think your need to see goodness in the Iraq situation is leading you down a blind alley.
Let's say it again: occupying US military forces have surrounded an Iraqi town with razor wire and are controlling entrance and egress through a single checkpoint, gaurded by soldiers with automatic wepaons and a mandate to use lethal force if anyone tries to run the checkpoint, backed up by armed patrols to make sure no one comes or goes by another route.
And this is no reason for concern because in America there are certain rules of access such as freeway ramps.
How can you expect anyone to take this line of reasoning seriously?
If your town were surrounded by the occupying forces of a foreign government who could shoot you if you tried to leave by means other than their designated checkpoint would that be OK with you?
If so, you would make a lovely collaborationist/quisling, but you have no right to call yourself a patriot or a lover of freedom. Remember freedom? It was ostensible reason #4 for invading Iraq in the first place.
bingo
Originally posted by giant
Don't worry about it. Mika's just buying time before he gets banned again. What's this, the third or fourth time?
Maybe this is your wish come true..
You know, for someone who brags so vocally about being a librarian, you are extremely narrow minded and intolerant of descenting points of view. The fact that you so eagerly wish to shut me up, and time and again resorted to the lowest possible tactics, only exposes you for what you are. You have the same instincts as a Nazi.
Originally posted by trumptman
Absurdity. It is no more a requirement that you work in a certain place or drive there than it is that you use the airport. People have to use the airport for their jobs and their work. It is a mode of travel just like a car. It was picked out because that is what the terrorists used and that is why I make the comparisons I do. If the terrorists had used moving vans filled with explosives. I wouldn't call it a repressive police state if there were checkpoints stopping vans.
How often do you use an airport? And how often do you go to a supermarked?
Its quite different if almost every person every day is checked by military forces than a minority is checked once in a while (and a very small minority checked daily). And its quite different if you are checked for your own safety and if you are checked for the security of someone who is occupying your country.
Its not about morals or principles but what is smart to do if your goal is to have the iraqis seeing US as their pal. If you really believe that the iraqis only see this as a small inconvenience like the checks in the airport is for you you really need a reality check just like the liberal distanced-from-the-reality foreign policy of your administration.
Originally posted by majorspunk
That's your problem. The examples given are very clear to follow.
No its not.
Originally posted by majorspunk
Also, if the "population" doesn't appreciate the necessity of these measures, than like I said earlier, fsck them. Leave. And let them once again enjoy the company of the Baathist thugs, because obviously life was much freer under their rule.
"Lets invade their country because in our great knowledge we know they are going to love us for doing so. They don´t greet us with flowers and kisses? Well then they are wrong and $$$$ them."
Beginning to remind me of 70s Marxist ideas. If the world doesn´t fit our model its not the model thats wrong but the world.
Originally posted by trumptman
...limiting how you enter and leave a town does not limit your ability to enter and leave that town...
The hits keep on coming...
Originally posted by midwinter
Heh.
Originally posted by ShawnJ
The hits keep on coming...
Answer me this oh snickering snickerdoodles, if you wished to leave and enter that town 30 times in one day, could you do so under the terms we read in the article?
I'll clarify it for you since you have comprehension problems.
Limited:
Route to one checkpoint
Not Limited:
Number of times per day you can leave or enter
Time of day you can leave or enter
Who can enter or leave
Nick
Edit: It does appear upon my review that some villages do have curfews. So their time of leaving is limited at night.
Originally posted by Anders
How often do you use an airport? And how often do you go to a supermarked?
Its quite different if almost every person every day is checked by military forces than a minority is checked once in a while (and a very small minority checked daily). And its quite different if you are checked for your own safety and if you are checked for the security of someone who is occupying your country.
Its not about morals or principles but what is smart to do if your goal is to have the iraqis seeing US as their pal. If you really believe that the iraqis only see this as a small inconvenience like the checks in the airport is for you you really need a reality check just like the liberal distanced-from-the-reality foreign policy of your administration.
I seem to recall something about pleasing all the people all the time...hmmmm...
The article actually mentioned that there were Iraqi's who understood the measures and why they were in place.
Likewise since the continued attacks could slow attempts to train and put in place the police and troops that would allow Iraq to become sovereign again, and is being done by those who wish to return to the prior regime, it can also be seen as for the benefit of the Iraqi's as well.
As for the Iraqi opinion on it, it showed some supportive views and dissenting views in the article. If you have something that shows more opinions, a poll or survey, you are welcome to post it. The photos I saw in the article just showed a bunch of cars rolling past a checkpoint.
Nick
hmm, i'm having comprehension problems.
maybe because i'm hearing two voices, or is it just your hypocritical echo?
Originally posted by Anders
No its not.
If you don't wish to "understand" something, than it is your problem. It is certainly not mine. I made my point. And others made theirs. And I'm not going to indulge you in your silly games.
Regards the rest of your silly post. There's nothing wrong with the US "model". If the Iraqis don't like it, they can keep their Baathist "model". Just don't whine about the US not going all the way, like you did the previous Gulf War. You people are hyper critical of everything that doesn't smell of pinko liberalism. It very obvious, it matters not what is done, but who it is done by. Rashumon kept asking what is the difference between the Kosavo operation and the Iraq operation. None of you leftist here were able to give him a straight answer. That's because there is no difference. But you still tried to call the Iraqi operation illegal, because it's a republican that now holds office.
Originally posted by trumptman
I seem to recall something about pleasing all the people all the time...hmmmm...
The article actually mentioned that there were Iraqi's who understood the measures and why they were in place.
Likewise since the continued attacks could slow attempts to train and put in place the police and troops that would allow Iraq to become sovereign again, and is being done by those who wish to return to the prior regime, it can also be seen as for the benefit of the Iraqi's as well.
As for the Iraqi opinion on it, it showed some supportive views and dissenting views in the article. If you have something that shows more opinions, a poll or survey, you are welcome to post it. The photos I saw in the article just showed a bunch of cars rolling past a checkpoint.
Nick
Nothing beat the upfront humiliation of having to show pass signs you can´t´read to troops from a foreign country while trying to do everyday stuff. What long time benefits you get from that is lost on the negativety produced right here and now.
Come on Nick. Stop playing those games. At least say its nessesary for the safety of the troops regardless of the negative side effects. Thats a position I can understand. This kind of arguing you do here doesn´t serve you right.
Originally posted by majorspunk
descenting points of view
what is a descenting point of view? a point of view that doesn't smell?
a point of view that has had the odor removed?
you don't qualify sparky.
Originally posted by superkarate monkeydeathcar
what is a descenting point of view? a point of view that doesn't smell?
a point of view that has had the odor removed?
you don't qualify sparky.
It's point of view that doesn't smell of pinko liberalism.
Originally posted by majorspunk
Regards the rest of your silly post. There's nothing wrong with the US "model". If the Iraqis don't like it, they can keep their Baathist "model".
Oh yeah. The "my way or the high way"-way. Lets keep the boogyman in reserve. If you don´t coorporate then we´ll send in Saddam again. It doesn´t sound like you have a natural limit for what you think the Iraqis should endure as a thanks for their liberation? "We need 10.000 of your best men to slave at the oil rigs to pay for the war or we will send Saddam back on you".
Originally posted by majorspunk
You people...
Oh yeah Mika all right
Originally posted by majorspunk
...are hyper critical of everything that doesn't smell of pinko liberalism. It very obvious, it matters not what is done, but who it is done by. Rashumon kept asking what is the difference between the Kosavo operation and the Iraq operation. None of you leftist here were able to give him a straight answer. That's because there is no difference. But you still tried to call the Iraqi operation illegal, because it's a republican that now holds office.
Funny. Because I have spend DAYS discussing with left wingers here that regard the Kosovo war as MORE illegal than the Iraqi operations. Get your head out of the sand.
No difference between Iraq and Kosovo eh? The fasst one is that the Iraqi war was argued from a self defence POW that had no real life backing. Kosovo from ethnic cleansning on a huge scale happening over short span of time that the european countries did nothing to prevent.
Originally posted by majorspunk
It's point of view that doesn't smell of pinko liberalism.
pinko liberalism!
it is 1972 again!
hey edith get me a beer!