> So, to counter his weak argument, I took an > example where Hitler was alive today and the > Holocaust was BLANKETED all over the TV. Would > we not have the "right" to take him out? This is not a good comparison at all. The Holocaust wasn't broadcast at the time, even though the governemnt probably knew about it. Even if people knew about it, it probably would not have helped send the US to war - many Americans at the time did not have a particularly good feeling about Jewish people. Americans right now don't care about the Kurds. Thousands were being killed just after the Gulf War, fighting a civil war we asked them to fight. We did not lift a finger to help them, even though their horrible story was shown on CNN constantly. Instead, Americans care about Americans (which should be the case). And we havn't had anything blanketed all over the TV that gives the impression that we are under threat.
Everything appears so clear to you doesnt it? But seen the historical context your comparison is ridiculous. Spejic said very cleary and correctly where your "example" is off track. I have to admit that I have often thought critically of people that use terms like "linnear connection" that dont mean anything but are meant to sound like rethorical devices. You dont fool anyone who ever touched a book.
Ok, I thought I just got thru saying I was not making a comparison between Hitler and Hussein? I dare you to walk down the street right now and ask 10 Americans about the Kurdish situation. I'm willing to bet you nine of them...no, I'll bet you all 10 will not be able to identify the region or conflict that the Kurds are involved in. Again, my scenarios were in response to Jason (correct spelling - despite what his parents think) McCullough's blanket statements. I made no comments about the current Iraqi situation. Some of you might actually be surprised to know what my actual position on Iraq is, although I'll leave that for another thread.
Dude, you see this here thing ---> ' That's an apostrophe...familiarize yourself with it. It's used in such words as doesn't and don't, but then again I'm (<-- Hey! another one!) sure it's (<-- And again!) just an oversight on your part since you're (<-- Apostrophe's are fun!!) such a wily veteran of "books".
on powell. he's a smart guy. and yes he is the most moderate republican i know asides from myself. half the reason he is on board was because bush tacked him on there to get more votes. everyone knew that then. everyone knows that now. bush doesn't listen to him much. half the reason he's not in the news everyday is because his clean up work isn't stuff the media wants. they don't want you to know when things are getting better. because then they can't report on it with the same flare. on bush. the terrorist attacks couldn't have happened at a worse time for us and a better time for him. no one listened when people cried. "wait" everyone wanted revenge. and like in those 50's horror movies you created a robot to destroy (bush) because no one eff's with america! of course being stupid and blind with your 9/11 "patriotism" which you purchased at walmart or target and placed on your car. you watched the robot blow up caves and told it to keep going regardless of the cost. well the robot still wants to kill and has spent millions and you want it to stop all of a sudden. but the robot always turns on the scientist and kills him and gets loose until the hero comes and stops the robot. unfortunately i don't see a hero in our future. all i see is the robot breaking loose. AMERICANS created a monster by not setting up a situation where W. needed to be careful with his plans. you told him to kill. and he acted on that. when i was a kind in georiga we were tought that once a dog gets the smell of blood in it's snout after killing they say it'll keep on killing and you should put it down. this dog has blood all over it. can you put it down? laymans terms: we gave bush the get out of jail free card and no one bothered to put a clause on it saying it has to be given back.
Jacen is right and you're wrong, and I highlighted the word which shows this. In your Hitler example, it wouldn't have been "just" those things.
Don't you DARE question my patriotism. Are you seriously suggesting that we should not have attacked Afghanistan?? Are yiou suggesting that we should have freely allowed Osama Bin Laden to sit around with his stores of kidney juice and gunpowder under the cover of a government?? Are you Bill Clinton?? I can't believe I'm f****ing responding to a post that uses bad science fiction and huntin' lessons from the backwoods of Georgia to analyze foreign policy decisions. Anyway, for better or worse, Colin Powell comes from the school of army generals who were deeply wounded by their Vietnam experience. It's the reason that the top brass of the army has become so risk averse that the junior officers have openly pondered the point of their existence. Tommy Franks is also of this school, for which not having ground troops available at Tora Bora is the ultimate conclusion. POwell.s views are clearly out of step with the rest of the administration and, in my view, with the times. As for the arguments about Iraq, I would love to see one of you lefties actually argue the issues rather than go around accusing the administration of being stupid. I know this is typically the only arrow in yoiur quiver, (Reagan, Quayle and now Bush), but it would be much more satisfying if you laid out an actual argument, as a few of you, but far from the majority, have done. This is the particularly the case when there is a perfectly good argument for intervention -- the government of this country believes that a country sitting just north of the world's biggest oil supplier ruled by a violent dictator with a history of invading neighbors and clear hostility towards this country is getting close to acquiring nuclear weapons. War may not be the best remedy, but there is clearly a decent case that it is.
Interesting line of questions there...I think all he was saying is the entire country gave GW a little more "gung ho" military freedom than necessary. Instead of taking out just the taliban and Osama/al Queda, they have pretty much be planning a clean sweep of the entire middle east, despite the lack proof and support to do so. Still doesnt mean we should go in there and clean house just becuase we're a little worried that Saddam and Iraq might be up to something. Let's see some proof GW, not just a bunch of BS we ususally get about "evil-doers", whatever the hell that means.
Originally posted by Ghost Are you seriously suggesting that we should not have attacked Afghanistan?? Are yiou suggesting that we should have freely allowed Osama Bin Laden to sit around with his stores of kidney juice and gunpowder under the cover of a government?? Are you Bill Clinton?? 1. i'm not questioning your patriotism ghost at least you have a political stance on things. however. last time i checked Osama is still sitting around with stores of kidney juice and gunpowder. and if he isn't his sons are. and his chain of command. how long have we been in afghanistan? i think some people don't even realise we're still there running around in the mountains. he's just biding his time. think how long he waited to strike after the weak retaliation on his chem weapons site. if anyone thinks we're truely hindering him from getting his work done. they're wrong. we're slowing him down. but he is smart. very smart. and if he was doing this right then he's already got something waiting. he's already made the point very clear that he's got nothing to lose. 2. i'm not pointing the finger at the administration i'm pointing the finger at the popular opinon that is allowing this to go on. WE are the ones who are putting the bombs into those mountians and running around who knows where in the middle east getting ready to "hunt out more al qaida and regimes that support terrorism" there in lies the problem. we let W play army when we said HUNT OUT TERRORISM. last time i checked terrorism has been around for hundreds upon hundreds of years. and the american people were dumb enough to think some money and bombs was going to stop it all. also. how many of those flags have come down since 9/11? how many were around for about a month? war in this situation is not a remedy. right now we have one immediate threat. where as the rest of the arab world is keeping quiet. i promise you the minute we attack iraq all hell will break loose. the middle east of today has become the balkans of the 1900's don't let your patriotism blind you from reality. keeping our country safe is very important to me and i would go fight in a minute if i deemed it neccessary. but it's not time yet. and i will stay and watch and hope we don't make more mistakes. also. the whole science fiction analogy was aimed at those who wouldn't understand me going off on a rant about power balances and how we gave it all and didn't keep hardly any. i was just making my point. and there's nothing wrong with hunting stories from georgia. alot of wisdom comes from old men who have seen more than you and i combined
> Don't you DARE question my patriotism. I don't know about your patriotism, but irish has a point. Putting a flag on a SUV is the most fake and worthless kind of patriotism there is, and it is the kind that has swept the nation after Sept 11. A patriot would be willing to give up comforts in order to better his nation. Driving that SUV means giving even more money to the people that want to see this nation hurt. And what did Bush do after the attacks? Did he try to use it to change our behavior, to somehow become stronger, leaner, purposeful, united? No, he asked us to spend more. I don't think there has ever been a stupider command from any leader in human history.
perfectly good? well obviously not so perfect considering every other country in the world has not seen the evidence that GW sees in his rose colored glasses. i, like most moderates and liberals, would really like to see this evidence that sadam is acquiring nuclear weapons and weapons of mass distruction b/c to this point nobody; not the american people, not any foreign governments, and not un weapons inspectors have seen this evidence that GW seems to see. provide us with proof and i am all for it, until then...
Don't apologize for the Matlock approach. It makes as much sense sometimes as the ivory tower windbag approach.
Well this thread has gotten just a bit out of hand. As for the ideas Ian apparently has about me personally: 1: I am not 15 years old; I'm 22. While not everyone on these boards always agrees with me (it'd be a boring place if they did) Ian is the only one who has publicly said that he thinks I'm a child. After 4 years, I think more would have said so if it had any basis. Some (including Alberto in another thread on the politics board) have guessed my age almost exactly. 2: My parents had nothing to do with the spelling of my user name. As I have stated numerous times over the last 4 years, my user name is a pseudonym derived from a novel. Therefore, in that context, "Jason" is not the correct spelling. Back to the actual issue. All I asked for was proof. Any democratic nation that will take their governments word on something this serious without asking for proof is asking for trouble. Our government lies as a hobby. Why so many people are ready to invade another nation (no matter how crappy that other nation's ruler may be) based solely on the word of SOME of the people in our government is beyond me. Ian, you DID try to compare Hussein and Hitler, and no amount of backtracking after the fact can remove your foot from your mouth. I think you realized that, and since that time, rather than argue actual points, you've reverted to attacking people's age, user-names and grammar abilities, all the while using the word "Dude" more than an 80's sitcom. It's time to give it up. You've lost. JMac
Ok, dude, when you post the exact quote of mine where I compared or put Hitler or Hussein on equal footing then I'd like to see it. Until then, you have no credibility. And, I still think you're 15.
There you go Ian. This was your response to my comment that we don't have the right to change another countries government through military force. It's obviously a thinly veiled comment pointing to the reports that Hussein gassed his own people (a point you've been obsessing over for the last week or so.) Thus, you compared Hitler gassing the Jewish people to Hussein. JMac
Dude, you've got to do better than that. That weak attempt will get you kicked off the junior high school debating team.
English translation: "I can't refute your actual argument, so I'll insult you personally and hope nobody notices." Nice try, but your act has gotten stale. When you actually have some point to make in the argument, come on back, but if all you can do is insult my age, username, debate skills and others grammar, just go home and lick your wounds. JMac
Dude, if you're going to insinuate that I compared Hitler to Hussein, at least find a quote of mine where I used both of their names in the same sentence. The quote you cited above makes no reference to Hussein whatsoever. Ergo, you have no case and have been summarily refuted.
For starters, I didn't insinuate it; I stated it. Insinuating something is entirely different. Not only that, but many others recognize the fact that you were making a direct comparison as well. As to your post: Yes, in that one post that was quoted, you made no reference to Hussein. Trouble is, that post was in response to one I posted, referring to the Iraq situation. Thus, by posting what you did, in response to my post about Hussein, you compared the two. If we were to believe your version, you apparently just tossed in a totally off topic remark about Hitler in a thread about Hussein. JMac PS: For the love of God, PLEASE stop saying "Dude" so much. Unless you happen to be a teenager or a ninja turtle, using the word Dude that much makes you sound like an imbecile.
Ian is wrong. Again. Don't you get tired of it? Ian, when you wrote You put it under something Jacen wrote Jacen is clearly criticizing Bush's justification for attacking Iraq. And you are clearly defending it by comparing the current problem to Hitler's Germany ca. 1938. (Of course, is especially stupid because the Holocaust didn't begin until a few years later.) What other possible interpretation is there? Tell me how I'm wrong, if I am. But I just don't see any other possible meanings here.