Government and power to civilians (1 Viewer)

[FoFa]

Your neighbor calls the police and says you killed someone. The police investigate, find no evidence whatsoever that you did so, but you are tired, foudn guilty, and sent to prison because... they couldn't prove you didn't kill someone.

Or they find a spent case, blood splatter, but no gun or body, so you didn't kill someone?

What does invading the Sudan have to do with anything?

Isn't that the country that Iraqie said they sent the WMD before the invasion?

Would you care to direct me to where I said that?

It's quoted, so it must be true, using your thinking and biased opinions.

Actually, you didn't explain how, you just said it didn't and gave a vague reference to UN directives. I didn't "pretty much say 'Nuh uh'", I said you were wrong and gave reasons. If you could show why my reasons were wrong, then we have a discussion. But you didn't, you just contradicted without anything to back it up.

I did explain, just because you choose to not listen, does not make it less. But as I explained, your reasoning was flawed.

 

[Kraj]

OK, I'm done. Continuing this is a waste of time. Just do me one favor, will ya? If you observe someone being anti-war/anti-Bush and ignoring anything that might challenge their point of view, keep it to yourself. Don't call them out on it like it's a character flaw and don't argue with them. Because you are pro-war/pro-Bush and completely ignore anything that might challenge your point of view. If that's how you wanna be, then fine. Live and let live. But stop being such a hypocrite.

 

[MrsGorilla]

War according to GAAP. Creepy.

Doing a bit of catch up reading in this thread, and I just had to chuckle when I came across this tidbit. You sure have a way with words sometimes...

 

[Kraj]

Thank you!

 

[FoFa]

OK, I'm done. Continuing this is a waste of time.

Because of alternate point of view instead of the rest of these liberals that just march in time and spew the same?

Just do me one favor, will ya? If you observe someone being anti-war/anti-Bush and ignoring anything that might challenge their point of view, keep it to yourself. Don't call them out on it like it's a character flaw and don't argue with them. Because you are pro-war/pro-Bush and completely ignore anything that might challenge your point of view.

Wrong oh, not pro-war. Only pro-Bush cause we aint got nothing better.
I am open for resonable pro/con on the war, other than the same 3 or 4 things that the news keeps spouting, and pretty much has been shown to not be the complete truth, or overlooking other things that disagree or do not support those statements is all. Where you want to place me as a hypocrite, I am more "there are two sides to every story", and when you present only one, I have a tendency to want to present the other. I know that makes me look one sided also, but since you give zero on any of the alternatives, why should I?
Besides, why take it so personal? Me thinks you need to investigate some of the alternatives yourself, instead of just spewing the same news media crapola. And just for the record, I never said Bush didn't lie, he would not be a politician if he didn't.

 

[jsanders]

Because of alternate point of view instead of the rest of these liberals that just march in time and spew the same?

Wrong oh, not pro-war. Only pro-Bush cause we aint got nothing better.
I am open for resonable pro/con on the war, other than the same 3 or 4 things that the news keeps spouting, and pretty much has been shown to not be the complete truth, or overlooking other things that disagree or do not support those statements is all. Where you want to place me as a hypocrite, I am more "there are two sides to every story", and when you present only one, I have a tendency to want to present the other. I know that makes me look one sided also, but since you give zero on any of the alternatives, why should I?
Besides, why take it so personal? Me thinks you need to investigate some of the alternatives yourself, instead of just spewing the same news media crapola. And just for the record, I never said Bush didn't lie, he would not be a politician if he didn't.

Actually Fofa you have yet to backup your claim that this way is in any way reducing our risk of terrorist attacks.

 

[FoFa]

Actually Fofa you have yet to backup your claim that this way is in any way reducing our risk of terrorist attacks.

Have there been any, not in Iraq, against us, since this started?
That is as much proof as there were not any WMD in Iraq that we can find so therefore there was not any.
How bout this, since we can'[t find Bin Laden, maybe he really doesn't exist. I bet Bush is lying about him too.

 

[MrsGorilla]

Thank you!

Your welcome. And the more I think about it, isn't it better that we have a high ratio of money spent versus people who have been killed? Or are people thinking that we aren't "getting our money's worth" because more people haven't been killed? If it were only 48,000 per person killed instead then that would mean a lot more people would have died. Would that justify the cost? It's really kind of a silly argument, when you think about it.

 

[Kraj]

Have there been any, not in Iraq, against us, since this started?

I'm sure you'll happily dismiss any examples that could be provided, but since you asked:

May 12, 2003: Bombings of United States expatriate housing compounds in Saudi Arabia kill 26 and injure 160 in the Riyadh Compound Bombings. Al-Qaeda blamed.
December 6, 2004: Suspected al Qaeda-linked group attacks U.S. consulate in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, killing five local employees.

Not to mention the major attacks against our allies in the war, Britain and Spain, as well as a multitude of lesser attacks that may not have been specifically targeted against the U.S. but westerners in general.

(I also find it hilarious that you are adamant that not finding WMDs isn't proof that they're not there but consider a lack of major terrorist attacks on U.S. soil proof that terrorists are on the run. You point out the flaws in a certain line of logic, and then turn around and use the exact same logic to support your own position.)

 

[jsanders]

Have there been any, not in Iraq, against us, since this started?
That is as much proof as there were not any WMD in Iraq that we can find so therefore there was not any.
How bout this, since we can'[t find Bin Laden, maybe he really doesn't exist. I bet Bush is lying about him too.

Lack of evidence of terrorist activities is in no way a reflection of the effectiveness of the conflict in Iraq.

Don’t you remember the scientific method?

You must confine your experiment to one variable at a time. Since we have implemented multiple remedies simultaneously; we have no way to judge the effectiveness of any of them

 

[Kraj]

Lack of evidence of terrorist activities is in no way a reflection of the effectiveness of the conflict in Iraq.

Well... it could be. We just don't know for sure and it's not anywhere near "proof".

 

[jsanders]

Well... it could be. We just don't know for sure and it's not anywhere near "proof".

Did you just take that out of context?

 

[Matty]

After reading the past few pages, I can't help but think of the "Bear Patrol" scene in The Simpsons:

Later, a full-force Bear Patrol is on watch. Homer watches proudly.

Homer: Not a bear in sight. The Bear Patrol must be working like a
charm.
Lisa: That's spacious reasoning, Dad.
Homer: Thank you, dear.
Lisa: By your logic I could claim that this rock keeps tigers away.
Homer: Oh, how does it work?
Lisa: It doesn't work.
Homer: Uh-huh.
Lisa: It's just a stupid rock.
Homer: Uh-huh.
Lisa: But I don't see any tigers around, do you?
[Homer thinks of this, then pulls out some money]
Homer: Lisa, I want to buy your rock.
[Lisa refuses at first, then takes the exchange]

 

[MrsGorilla]

After reading the past few pages, I can't help but think of the "Bear Patrol" scene in The Simpsons:

.

.

.

 

[FoFa]

May 12, 2003: Bombings of United States expatriate housing compounds in Saudi Arabia kill 26 and injure 160 in the Riyadh Compound Bombings. Al-Qaeda blamed.
December 6, 2004: Suspected al Qaeda-linked group attacks U.S. consulate in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, killing five local employees.

Yes I forgot about those, how ever does show what I meant in that they havn't enough power to move outside their their current little relm.

Not to mention the major attacks against our allies in the war, Britain and Spain, as well as a multitude of lesser attacks that may not have been specifically targeted against the U.S. but westerners in general.

I thought about those, but they were not targeted at the U.S., and I think Spain was targeted because of the political situation there at the time and the extra press it would receive. Location and timing.
And we not the London bombings all done by people living in London? I don'[t actually remember an Al-Quida tie, buit I am sure Col or Rich could enlighten us more.

I also find it hilarious that you are adamant that not finding WMDs isn't proof that they're not there but consider a lack of major terrorist attacks on U.S. soil proof that terrorists are on the run. You point out the flaws in a certain line of logic, and then turn around and use the exact same logic to support your own position.

That was my whole point in doing it. I may not necessarily agree, but using your logic makes it harder for you to disagree without being hypocritical now doesn't it? What I really mean is you need to look a little deeper and I bet you find it is not all black and white as you appear to be painting the picture. I fear you are letting your dislike for Bush cloud your judgement. You keep saying Bush lied about the WMD, but the evidence points to there were in fact some thing along those lines there, in the least places that made parts of WMD. We know he had SCUD missles, that in part is part of the WMD picture. Also both Bush and the UK said at the time, they thought there were WMD there, they had bad information. Doesn't mean he out right lied about it. Now it was right after Desert storm Suddam used airial chemical weapons against the Kurds (wasn't it the Kurds) killing many of them. So we know he had them at that point in time. Honestly now, do you think someone who would do that would just get rid of his stuff? "Oh the UN is threatning me, I better comply." Now does that sound like something coming out of Suddams mouth.

 

[Rich]

Now it was right after Desert storm Suddam used airial chemical weapons against the Kurds (wasn't it the Kurds) killing many of them.

No it wasn't, he attacked the Kurds before Desert Storm, in fact the Kurds have had virtual autonomy for the past fifteen years, the events you're referring too was when the US encouraged the Shites to rise up againt Saddam and then buggered off home to leave them to it.
As for this nonsense you and the liars Bush and Bliar use to justify the invasion, it was just an excuse to try and get the UN on it's side.
Bush wanted a regime change in Iraq before he even got elected, there was no mention of WMD in any of his pre-election speeches, he was simply pandering to the "defending America" clap trap.
He was the biggest threat to world peace not Hussein

 

[Kraj]

Matty.... you said it all.

Also both Bush and the UK said at the time, they thought there were WMD there, they had bad information. Doesn't mean he out right lied about it.

Actually, I've said on many occassions that I don't beleive Bush lied that he thought Iraq had MWDs. What he did lie about was the fact that he had evidence. He didn't. It's a fact. He had one testimony from one source - who was known to be unreliable - and that's what he chose to listen to. He ignored the CIA's policy of verifying information via several sources before considering it reliable intelligence. He ignored any dissenting opinions on the subject. He had little more than a hunch, yet the picture he painted was one of certainty.

And your assumption that my dislike for Bush clouds my judgement is false, and here's why: I've disliked Bush from the first moment I saw him on TV. Still, I supported the invasion of Afghanistan. When he pitched the war in Iraq, I believed it was a bad idea and I was very skeptical but I at least gave him the benefit of the doubt. He said Iraq had or could easily have WMDs; I was willing to believe that. It was only after the war progressed - and everyone under the sun who wasn't directly involved with Bush churned out piles of evidence that contradicted everything Bush said - that I became certain the man is, has and always will be completely full of crap.

Oh, and to paraphrase Rich in a manner a reasonable human being would, the post-Gulf War massacre of the Kurds was carried out by Saddam's elite military force, not via chemical weapons/WMDs.

 

[Matty]

Matty.... you said it all.

I've believed for a while now that nearly every topic could relate to some part of The Simpsons.

 

[MrsGorilla]

I've believed for a while now that nearly every topic could relate to some part of The Simpsons.

I think they've covered just about everything. I find myself constantly being reminded of Simpsons episodes when I see things occurring in real life around me.

 

[jsanders]

Your welcome. And the more I think about it, isn't it better that we have a high ratio of money spent versus people who have been killed? Or are people thinking that we aren't "getting our money's worth" because more people haven't been killed? If it were only 48,000 per person killed instead then that would mean a lot more people would have died. Would that justify the cost? It's really kind of a silly argument, when you think about it.

My point was not that the cost of killing was so high it’s that we didn’t need to go to war (the most expensive endeavor in which mankind participates) in order to visit destruction on terrorism.

In fact, the cost was so high that we are now facing conditions that we are grossly unprepared for.

The military is in a near recruiting crisis and two of our most ardent enemies are developing nuclear weapons.

As Fofa so apply stated, the terrorism that has continued since Iraq is being cultivated within the borders of the intended targets, making a conventional war moot.