This is not a full scale guerilla war. That's all I'm saying. Obviously what's happening right now is not good news. I think right now I'd call it a major security problem. But I don't like semantics, so I'll end it there. Things need to improve, I agree.
I think you're a little off here. It may not seem like a full scale guerilla war, but that's only because the country didn't really have any weapons by the time we invaded. Their arsenal was depleted. So if we could hypothesize for a moment that Iraq had as many weapons as Vietnam did, what kind of situation would we be facing right now?
I think things would be orders of magnitude worse. Just my guess.
1. We don't live in a direct Democracy. The winners of elections make decisions. From what you're saying, the President should only lay out a strong agenda if he wins a certain percentage of the vote. Ridiculous.
2. The Republican Party, though upset about spending, is not jumping ship with regards to Bush. Sorry to inform you of that.
3. Kerry conservative enough to win Republican votes? Wow. I think you need to look at some polling data. Republican enthusiasm for Bush is almost unanimous, and greater than Democratic enthusiasm for Kerry. As far as Kerry being conservative, well that's pretty much the funniest thing ever posted on AO.
Delusional.
I've heard more republicans speak out about their leader than in any other time in my life.
The naysayers predicted many many thousands of US deaths. The naysayers we wouldn't take Baghdad. The naysayers said we wouldn't get Saddam. What we have hear is a serious security situation. Have there been mistakes made? Of course. But overall, Iraq is in far better shape thatn it was a year ago. Children are going to school and learning about something other than Saddam. Schools are being built. Water quality, electric service and the local economy have all improved dramtically. They protested in Baghdad the other day. Let me say that again...THEY PROTESTED. Sure, it was against the US and our "occupation". But they were allowed to protest! Oh, the irony.
Hey! SDW!
Nope! Sorry wrong again. The naysayers said exactly what is happening right now. That we'd be stuck with this for years.
Yeah things are sooooo much better there now. Buildings are blowing up, prisoners tortured, and tons of our money being spent. Which won't fix a thing because we'll have to be there for at least the rest of my lifetime ( 20 to 30 years ).
The naysayers predicted many many thousands of US deaths. The naysayers we wouldn't take Baghdad. The naysayers said we wouldn't get Saddam. What we have hear is a serious security situation. Have there been mistakes made? Of course. But overall, Iraq is in far better shape thatn it was a year ago. Children are going to school and learning about something other than Saddam. Schools are being built. Water quality, electric service and the local economy have all improved dramtically. They protested in Baghdad the other day. Let me say that again...THEY PROTESTED. Sure, it was against the US and our "occupation". But they were allowed to protest! Oh, the irony.
Really, SDW, I know of no "nay-sayers" who said that we wouldn't take Baghdad or get Saddam. That's silly.
Just to refresh your memory, the anti-war thinking went like this:
Invading Iraq would lead to more terrorists, not fewer. It would result in a prolonged occupation that would erode regional security, not enhance it.
The Bush administration's case for war was riddled with inconsistencies and dubious assertions, such as Iraqi ties to al Qaeda, the presence of a full blown nuclear program, the presence of vast storehouses of biological weapons, and some kind of unmanned drone that could reach american shores. To name a few.
Well I'll be damned. Right on all counts. Maybe citing the "nay-sayers" isn't such a great strategy, at least if you limit yourself to what was actually being said.
And you can't show WHY. Your position is illogical.
Oh, right. I can't say "Bush is the worst president of my lifetime" without "facts" to back it up!
Well then, I imagine that you believe YOUR position that Bush is NOT the worst president we've had in modern times, is completely logical (unlike my position).
But I can't express an opinion as general as that, without "showing you why?"
Ummm... Get bent.
Show ME why Bush is a better president than Carter, Nixon, Ford, Clinton, etc.
Based on his actions, statements, etc., compared to the actions, statements, etc. of previous Administrations (I remember all the way back to Nixon), I find this to the the worst Administration we've ever had. That's my opinion... disagree all you want, but don't call it illogical and demand that I back it up. There is NO logic in your argument!
If you are still wondering WHY myself and others hold the opinion that Bush is the worst president in modern times, then try reading some of the many, many threads about Bush and you will find many reasons that many people (including myself) can't wait for this joke of a leader to get run back to Crawford Texas on a rail.
Oh, right. I can't say "Bush is the worst president of my lifetime" without "facts" to back it up!
Well then, I imagine that you believe YOUR position that Bush is NOT the worst president we've had in modern times, is completely logical (unlike my position).
But I can't express an opinion as general as that, without "showing you why?"
Ummm... Get bent.
Show ME why Bush is a better president than Carter, Nixon, Ford, Clinton, etc.
Based on his actions, statements, etc., compared to the actions, statements, etc. of previous Administrations (I remember all the way back to Nixon), I find this to the the worst Administration we've ever had. That's my opinion... disagree all you want, but don't call it illogical and demand that I back it up. There is NO logic in your argument!
If you are still wondering WHY myself and others hold the opinion that Bush is the worst president in modern times, then try reading some of the many, many threads about Bush and you will find many reasons that many people (including myself) can't wait for this joke of a leader to get run back to Crawford Texas on a rail.
And you can't show WHY. Your position is illogical.
Actually, not to discount all that has been appropriately said about this statement, but stating a position is not illogical unless certain aspects of that position do not jive well together, like say, believing that WMD exist(ed) while admitting there is no evidence for it. You see SDW, it is both logically wrong (heh) and inappropriate to call a position illogical because you see no defense of the position. It isn't a matter of whether you can see a logical argument for a position, but rather whether the person who makes that position has views and beliefs that jive well with their position.
In all honesty, and after reading your rants and everyone else's rants (except perhaps the paranoid among us), you are the most illogical person on these boards. At least jimmac, ShawnJ, trumptman, and Scott etc etc make statements and express ideas that have a coherence to them, sometimes, and perhaps often on faulty assumptions, but at least they have coherence. You have expressed nothing but incoherent thoughts, and when facts have been presented to you that challenge those beliefs you run into your little shell of "well, this is like it is, and I am thus right."
Actually, not to discount all that has been appropriately said about this statement, but stating a position is not illogical unless certain aspects of that position do not jive well together, like say, believing that WMD exist(ed) while admitting there is no evidence for it. You see SDW, it is both logically wrong (heh) and inappropriate to call a position illogical because you see no defense of the position. It isn't a matter of whether you can see a logical argument for a position, but rather whether the person who makes that position has views and beliefs that jive well with their position.
In all honesty, and after reading your rants and everyone else's rants (except perhaps the paranoid among us), you are the most illogical person on these boards. At least jimmac, ShawnJ, trumptman, and Scott etc etc make statements and express ideas that have a coherence to them, sometimes, and perhaps often on faulty assumptions, but at least they have coherence. You have expressed nothing but incoherent thoughts, and when facts have been presented to you that challenge those beliefs you run into your little shell of "well, this is like it is, and I am thus right."
*stretch*
The problem with SDW's MO is that he always asks for " proof " or something. When you supply proof to bolster your position he either says nothing ( until the next time you talk with him about it. In which case you have to do it all over again like you've said nothing ) or it's from a source that he discounts like CNN ( " The criminal liberal media " ). That's why I don't go to great lengths any more to dig up stuff for him. Even if I did he'd stick his fingers in his ears and go nya, nya, nya, oooooooooooooohhhhhh! I can't hear you!
So to talk with him logically about this is a waste of time.
It's just that what he says is such load of BS I feel compelled to say something. He's pretty verbal with his opinions as well so it's a little difficult to ignore.
The problem with SDW's MO is that he always asks for " proof " or something. When you supply proof to bolster your position he either says nothing ( until the next time you talk with him about it. In which case you have to do it all over again like you've said nothing ) or it's from a source that he discounts like CNN ( " The criminal liberal media " ). That's why I don't go to great lengths any more to dig up stuff for him. Even if I did he'd stick his fingers in his ears and go nya, nya, nya, oooooooooooooohhhhhh! I can't hear you!
So to talk with him logically about this is a waste of time.
It's just that what he says is such load of BS I feel compelled to say something. He's pretty verbal with his opinions as well so it's a little difficult to ignore.
That's a pretty good analysis of his "style". To further elaborate, besides jumping all over links from CNN, etc., he will present as "proof" of his positions a link (which is just an editorial, not an actual news article) to the National Review or American Spectator or something similar, and act surprised when we dismiss it as being a politically-based site that comes in slightly to the right of Rush Limbaugh and Attila The Hun.
So, we should either expect to hear nothing from him again here, or he will show up slinging mud till the thread gets locked.
Nope! Sorry wrong again. The naysayers said exactly what is happening right now. That we'd be stuck with this for years.
Yeah things are sooooo much better there now. Buildings are blowing up, prisoners tortured, and tons of our money being spent. Which won't fix a thing because we'll have to be there for at least the rest of my lifetime ( 20 to 30 years ).
Really, SDW, I know of no "nay-sayers" who said that we wouldn't take Baghdad or get Saddam. That's silly.
Just to refresh your memory, the anti-war thinking went like this:
Invading Iraq would lead to more terrorists, not fewer. It would result in a prolonged occupation that would erode regional security, not enhance it.
The Bush administration's case for war was riddled with inconsistencies and dubious assertions, such as Iraqi ties to al Qaeda, the presence of a full blown nuclear program, the presence of vast storehouses of biological weapons, and some kind of unmanned drone that could reach american shores. To name a few.
Well I'll be damned. Right on all counts. Maybe citing the "nay-sayers" isn't such a great strategy, at least if you limit yourself to what was actually being said.
Well...can you demonstrate that we've created more terrorists? Did anyone say we'd be there a year and leave? I didn't hear anyone say that.
Oh, right. I can't say "Bush is the worst president of my lifetime" without "facts" to back it up!
Well then, I imagine that you believe YOUR position that Bush is NOT the worst president we've had in modern times, is completely logical (unlike my position).
But I can't express an opinion as general as that, without "showing you why?"
Ummm... Get bent.
Show ME why Bush is a better president than Carter, Nixon, Ford, Clinton, etc.
Based on his actions, statements, etc., compared to the actions, statements, etc. of previous Administrations (I remember all the way back to Nixon), I find this to the the worst Administration we've ever had. That's my opinion... disagree all you want, but don't call it illogical and demand that I back it up. There is NO logic in your argument!
If you are still wondering WHY myself and others hold the opinion that Bush is the worst president in modern times, then try reading some of the many, many threads about Bush and you will find many reasons that many people (including myself) can't wait for this joke of a leader to get run back to Crawford Texas on a rail.
It must be nice to post in a place where nearly everyone agrees with you. I put little faith in the majority political opinion on AO.
As for Bush, I've already mentioned why I like him. If you need a recap, I'll be sure to elaborate.
As for Bush, I've already mentioned why I like him. If you need a recap, I'll be sure to elaborate.
So what makes YOUR opinion any more special and unchallengable than mine?. Like I said, there is no shortage of information on why I don't like Bush. Your calling my opinion "illogical" and demanding that it be supported is completely hypocritical, and most ironically, completely illogical.
Except that's not the way it works. You're just spewing forth rhetoric.
The preamble of the constitution is just rhetoric?
You, sir, disgust me.
Edit: After being humbly corrected by midwinter.... I am forced to admit my error... This should read: the spirit of the gettysburg address is just rhetoric?
Comments
Originally posted by SDW2001
This is not a full scale guerilla war. That's all I'm saying. Obviously what's happening right now is not good news. I think right now I'd call it a major security problem. But I don't like semantics, so I'll end it there. Things need to improve, I agree.
I think you're a little off here. It may not seem like a full scale guerilla war, but that's only because the country didn't really have any weapons by the time we invaded. Their arsenal was depleted. So if we could hypothesize for a moment that Iraq had as many weapons as Vietnam did, what kind of situation would we be facing right now?
I think things would be orders of magnitude worse. Just my guess.
how long have we had Saddam in custody? I'm surprised we've gotten no (relevant WMD) information out of him
Originally posted by SDW2001
And you can't show WHY. Your position is illogical.
It's you that are illogical and in denial!
Originally posted by SDW2001
1. We don't live in a direct Democracy. The winners of elections make decisions. From what you're saying, the President should only lay out a strong agenda if he wins a certain percentage of the vote. Ridiculous.
2. The Republican Party, though upset about spending, is not jumping ship with regards to Bush. Sorry to inform you of that.
3. Kerry conservative enough to win Republican votes? Wow. I think you need to look at some polling data. Republican enthusiasm for Bush is almost unanimous, and greater than Democratic enthusiasm for Kerry. As far as Kerry being conservative, well that's pretty much the funniest thing ever posted on AO.
Delusional.
I've heard more republicans speak out about their leader than in any other time in my life.
Originally posted by SDW2001
The naysayers predicted many many thousands of US deaths. The naysayers we wouldn't take Baghdad. The naysayers said we wouldn't get Saddam. What we have hear is a serious security situation. Have there been mistakes made? Of course. But overall, Iraq is in far better shape thatn it was a year ago. Children are going to school and learning about something other than Saddam. Schools are being built. Water quality, electric service and the local economy have all improved dramtically. They protested in Baghdad the other day. Let me say that again...THEY PROTESTED. Sure, it was against the US and our "occupation". But they were allowed to protest! Oh, the irony.
Hey! SDW!
Nope! Sorry wrong again. The naysayers said exactly what is happening right now. That we'd be stuck with this for years.
Yeah things are sooooo much better there now. Buildings are blowing up, prisoners tortured, and tons of our money being spent. Which won't fix a thing because we'll have to be there for at least the rest of my lifetime ( 20 to 30 years ).
God you are so full of it.
America is waking up also :http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/...war/index.html
Originally posted by SDW2001
The naysayers predicted many many thousands of US deaths. The naysayers we wouldn't take Baghdad. The naysayers said we wouldn't get Saddam. What we have hear is a serious security situation. Have there been mistakes made? Of course. But overall, Iraq is in far better shape thatn it was a year ago. Children are going to school and learning about something other than Saddam. Schools are being built. Water quality, electric service and the local economy have all improved dramtically. They protested in Baghdad the other day. Let me say that again...THEY PROTESTED. Sure, it was against the US and our "occupation". But they were allowed to protest! Oh, the irony.
Really, SDW, I know of no "nay-sayers" who said that we wouldn't take Baghdad or get Saddam. That's silly.
Just to refresh your memory, the anti-war thinking went like this:
Invading Iraq would lead to more terrorists, not fewer. It would result in a prolonged occupation that would erode regional security, not enhance it.
The Bush administration's case for war was riddled with inconsistencies and dubious assertions, such as Iraqi ties to al Qaeda, the presence of a full blown nuclear program, the presence of vast storehouses of biological weapons, and some kind of unmanned drone that could reach american shores. To name a few.
Well I'll be damned. Right on all counts. Maybe citing the "nay-sayers" isn't such a great strategy, at least if you limit yourself to what was actually being said.
Originally posted by SDW2001
And you can't show WHY. Your position is illogical.
Oh, right. I can't say "Bush is the worst president of my lifetime" without "facts" to back it up!
Well then, I imagine that you believe YOUR position that Bush is NOT the worst president we've had in modern times, is completely logical (unlike my position).
But I can't express an opinion as general as that, without "showing you why?"
Ummm... Get bent.
Show ME why Bush is a better president than Carter, Nixon, Ford, Clinton, etc.
Based on his actions, statements, etc., compared to the actions, statements, etc. of previous Administrations (I remember all the way back to Nixon), I find this to the the worst Administration we've ever had. That's my opinion... disagree all you want, but don't call it illogical and demand that I back it up. There is NO logic in your argument!
If you are still wondering WHY myself and others hold the opinion that Bush is the worst president in modern times, then try reading some of the many, many threads about Bush and you will find many reasons that many people (including myself) can't wait for this joke of a leader to get run back to Crawford Texas on a rail.
Originally posted by FormerLurker
Oh, right. I can't say "Bush is the worst president of my lifetime" without "facts" to back it up!
Well then, I imagine that you believe YOUR position that Bush is NOT the worst president we've had in modern times, is completely logical (unlike my position).
But I can't express an opinion as general as that, without "showing you why?"
Ummm... Get bent.
Show ME why Bush is a better president than Carter, Nixon, Ford, Clinton, etc.
Based on his actions, statements, etc., compared to the actions, statements, etc. of previous Administrations (I remember all the way back to Nixon), I find this to the the worst Administration we've ever had. That's my opinion... disagree all you want, but don't call it illogical and demand that I back it up. There is NO logic in your argument!
If you are still wondering WHY myself and others hold the opinion that Bush is the worst president in modern times, then try reading some of the many, many threads about Bush and you will find many reasons that many people (including myself) can't wait for this joke of a leader to get run back to Crawford Texas on a rail.
Well said!
Originally posted by SDW2001
And you can't show WHY. Your position is illogical.
Actually, not to discount all that has been appropriately said about this statement, but stating a position is not illogical unless certain aspects of that position do not jive well together, like say, believing that WMD exist(ed) while admitting there is no evidence for it. You see SDW, it is both logically wrong (heh) and inappropriate to call a position illogical because you see no defense of the position. It isn't a matter of whether you can see a logical argument for a position, but rather whether the person who makes that position has views and beliefs that jive well with their position.
In all honesty, and after reading your rants and everyone else's rants (except perhaps the paranoid among us), you are the most illogical person on these boards. At least jimmac, ShawnJ, trumptman, and Scott etc etc make statements and express ideas that have a coherence to them, sometimes, and perhaps often on faulty assumptions, but at least they have coherence. You have expressed nothing but incoherent thoughts, and when facts have been presented to you that challenge those beliefs you run into your little shell of "well, this is like it is, and I am thus right."
*stretch*
Originally posted by billybobsky
Actually, not to discount all that has been appropriately said about this statement, but stating a position is not illogical unless certain aspects of that position do not jive well together, like say, believing that WMD exist(ed) while admitting there is no evidence for it. You see SDW, it is both logically wrong (heh) and inappropriate to call a position illogical because you see no defense of the position. It isn't a matter of whether you can see a logical argument for a position, but rather whether the person who makes that position has views and beliefs that jive well with their position.
In all honesty, and after reading your rants and everyone else's rants (except perhaps the paranoid among us), you are the most illogical person on these boards. At least jimmac, ShawnJ, trumptman, and Scott etc etc make statements and express ideas that have a coherence to them, sometimes, and perhaps often on faulty assumptions, but at least they have coherence. You have expressed nothing but incoherent thoughts, and when facts have been presented to you that challenge those beliefs you run into your little shell of "well, this is like it is, and I am thus right."
*stretch*
The problem with SDW's MO is that he always asks for " proof " or something. When you supply proof to bolster your position he either says nothing ( until the next time you talk with him about it. In which case you have to do it all over again like you've said nothing ) or it's from a source that he discounts like CNN ( " The criminal liberal media " ). That's why I don't go to great lengths any more to dig up stuff for him. Even if I did he'd stick his fingers in his ears and go nya, nya, nya, oooooooooooooohhhhhh! I can't hear you!
So to talk with him logically about this is a waste of time.
It's just that what he says is such load of BS I feel compelled to say something. He's pretty verbal with his opinions as well so it's a little difficult to ignore.
Originally posted by jimmac
The problem with SDW's MO is that he always asks for " proof " or something. When you supply proof to bolster your position he either says nothing ( until the next time you talk with him about it. In which case you have to do it all over again like you've said nothing ) or it's from a source that he discounts like CNN ( " The criminal liberal media " ). That's why I don't go to great lengths any more to dig up stuff for him. Even if I did he'd stick his fingers in his ears and go nya, nya, nya, oooooooooooooohhhhhh! I can't hear you!
So to talk with him logically about this is a waste of time.
It's just that what he says is such load of BS I feel compelled to say something. He's pretty verbal with his opinions as well so it's a little difficult to ignore.
That's a pretty good analysis of his "style". To further elaborate, besides jumping all over links from CNN, etc., he will present as "proof" of his positions a link (which is just an editorial, not an actual news article) to the National Review or American Spectator or something similar, and act surprised when we dismiss it as being a politically-based site that comes in slightly to the right of Rush Limbaugh and Attila The Hun.
So, we should either expect to hear nothing from him again here, or he will show up slinging mud till the thread gets locked.
Originally posted by jimmac
Delusional.
I've heard more republicans speak out about their leader than in any other time in my life.
And I've heard many Democrats speak of how they don't like Kerry.
Originally posted by jimmac
Hey! SDW!
Nope! Sorry wrong again. The naysayers said exactly what is happening right now. That we'd be stuck with this for years.
Yeah things are sooooo much better there now. Buildings are blowing up, prisoners tortured, and tons of our money being spent. Which won't fix a thing because we'll have to be there for at least the rest of my lifetime ( 20 to 30 years ).
God you are so full of it.
America is waking up also :http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/...war/index.html
We won't be there for 20 or 30 years. You have no justification for that statement. And yes, things are better.
Oh look...another CNN link!
Originally posted by addabox
Really, SDW, I know of no "nay-sayers" who said that we wouldn't take Baghdad or get Saddam. That's silly.
Just to refresh your memory, the anti-war thinking went like this:
Invading Iraq would lead to more terrorists, not fewer. It would result in a prolonged occupation that would erode regional security, not enhance it.
The Bush administration's case for war was riddled with inconsistencies and dubious assertions, such as Iraqi ties to al Qaeda, the presence of a full blown nuclear program, the presence of vast storehouses of biological weapons, and some kind of unmanned drone that could reach american shores. To name a few.
Well I'll be damned. Right on all counts. Maybe citing the "nay-sayers" isn't such a great strategy, at least if you limit yourself to what was actually being said.
Well...can you demonstrate that we've created more terrorists? Did anyone say we'd be there a year and leave? I didn't hear anyone say that.
Originally posted by Harald
Government of the people, for the people, by the people? Ring a bell?
Except that's not the way it works. You're just spewing forth rhetoric.
Originally posted by FormerLurker
Oh, right. I can't say "Bush is the worst president of my lifetime" without "facts" to back it up!
Well then, I imagine that you believe YOUR position that Bush is NOT the worst president we've had in modern times, is completely logical (unlike my position).
But I can't express an opinion as general as that, without "showing you why?"
Ummm... Get bent.
Show ME why Bush is a better president than Carter, Nixon, Ford, Clinton, etc.
Based on his actions, statements, etc., compared to the actions, statements, etc. of previous Administrations (I remember all the way back to Nixon), I find this to the the worst Administration we've ever had. That's my opinion... disagree all you want, but don't call it illogical and demand that I back it up. There is NO logic in your argument!
If you are still wondering WHY myself and others hold the opinion that Bush is the worst president in modern times, then try reading some of the many, many threads about Bush and you will find many reasons that many people (including myself) can't wait for this joke of a leader to get run back to Crawford Texas on a rail.
It must be nice to post in a place where nearly everyone agrees with you. I put little faith in the majority political opinion on AO.
As for Bush, I've already mentioned why I like him. If you need a recap, I'll be sure to elaborate.
Originally posted by SDW2001
It must be nice to post in a place where nearly everyone agrees with you. I put little faith in the majority political opinion on AO.
As for Bush, I've already mentioned why I like him. If you need a recap, I'll be sure to elaborate.
Well, if you made sense other people would agree with you here.
SDW at his finest.......
Originally posted by SDW2001
As for Bush, I've already mentioned why I like him. If you need a recap, I'll be sure to elaborate.
So what makes YOUR opinion any more special and unchallengable than mine?. Like I said, there is no shortage of information on why I don't like Bush. Your calling my opinion "illogical" and demanding that it be supported is completely hypocritical, and most ironically, completely illogical.
Originally posted by SDW2001
We won't be there for 20 or 30 years. You have no justification for that statement. And yes, things are better.
Oh look...another CNN link!
Funny other occupations of a similar nature have lasted that long.....and longer.
-----------------------------------------------------------
" Oh look...another CNN link! "
-----------------------------------------------------------
Thank you for proving my point.
Originally posted by SDW2001
Except that's not the way it works. You're just spewing forth rhetoric.
The preamble of the constitution is just rhetoric?
You, sir, disgust me.
Edit: After being humbly corrected by midwinter.... I am forced to admit my error... This should read: the spirit of the gettysburg address is just rhetoric?