Ok Boys! - Page 3

SigmaChiGuy · #1 10-07-2004, 12:39 PM

Not finding WMD in Iraq so far, does not mean they are there, or were there and moved out pre-war.

Thats like saying "I'm going to scowr the state of Texas and look for Mexicans". Eventually, you'll find one.

KSigkid · #2 10-07-2004, 12:41 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Shortfuse
Heck to all these patroits in here. Why don't you sign up? The enlistment people are taking EVERYBODY, trust me.

But I guess it's cool to be patriotic when you don't have to look at the buisness end of a AK-47

Sorry, but that's NONE of your damn business. For you to ask questions like that, then use the condescending eyeroll is absolutely out of line.

Stick with your argument, not with statements like these.

Rudey · #3 10-07-2004, 12:46 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by KSigkid
Sorry, but that's NONE of your damn business. For you to ask questions like that, then use the condescending eyeroll is absolutely out of line.

Stick with your argument, not with statements like these.

Don't let him get to you. He make illogical statements all the time because he doesn't read.

-Rudey

RACooper · #4 10-07-2004, 12:50 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by KSig RC
This is well-put and fair, even though i don't agree with the path or premise (which we're just going to have to see that we have differing views on world politics and the US role therein, it is what it is).

That said - will you agree that stabilizing the middle east is the only way to actually 'fight' terrorism?

Stabilizing the Middle East isn't the "only" way to actually fight terrorism... because terrorism doesn't only happen in the Middle East nor is it solely motivated by the politics or religions of the region.

RACooper · #5 10-07-2004, 12:55 PM

While of course most of the focus is on how this report will play in the current US elections; with each party putting their own unique spin on the content... I have to wonder how it will affect Bush's closest Ally abroad in Iraq - Tony Blair. It was a tough fight for him to convince his party (which he really didn't succeed all that well in) to give him the needed backing for commiting British forces in Iraq; his selling point was the much lauded WMD capability of Saddam - now Blair's footing is even more precarious following this report.

Rudey · #6 10-07-2004, 01:03 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by RACooper
Stabilizing the Middle East isn't the "only" way to actually fight terrorism... because terrorism doesn't only happen in the Middle East nor is it solely motivated by the politics or religions of the region.

What an empty statement if I ever read one.

-Rudey

RACooper · #7 10-07-2004, 01:15 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Rudey
What an empty statement if I ever read one.

-Rudey

Huh?????

DeltAlum · #8 10-07-2004, 01:44 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Rudey
Do you blame yourself for voting for these men and for representing your interests as well?

Your getting silly. First, how do you know that I voted for anyone who voted for any of these things?

Second, I know you love your little deflect the topic games, but I'm not playing.

($200 for a wine and cheese party?)

Rudey · #9 10-07-2004, 01:49 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by DeltAlum
Your getting silly. First, how do you know that I voted for anyone who voted for any of these things?

Second, I know you love your little deflect the topic games, but I'm not playing.

($200 for a wine and cheese party?)

Now, now don't make accusations that you can't back Mr. Rather.

At the end of the day, WMD was one of the reasons. This study doesn't completely account for the WMD (I can't and it seems nobody can sadly). Additionally this war was voted for by Kerry, Edwards, and Bush along with many other lawmakers (elected to represent voter interests) who relied on the intelligence community to make their decision.

-Rudey

KSig RC · #10 10-07-2004, 01:51 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by RACooper
Stabilizing the Middle East isn't the "only" way to actually fight terrorism... because terrorism doesn't only happen in the Middle East nor is it solely motivated by the politics or religions of the region.

OK - this is true, but it is a total strawman.

Restatement: the anti-American, pro-radical Islam terrorism that we are currently at war with can only be fought through stabilization of the region.

RACoop - the motivation via politics and religion is immaterial to this statement, can you tell me why?

Kevin · #11 10-07-2004, 02:15 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by KSig RC
This is well-put and fair, even though i don't agree with the path or premise (which we're just going to have to see that we have differing views on world politics and the US role therein, it is what it is).

That said - will you agree that stabilizing the middle east is the only way to actually 'fight' terrorism?

It's one essential piece to the puzzle.

I think the key is to 'civilize' the middle-east and the rest of the Muslim world. Support for terrorism has become a cultural and religious value. Until that changes, it'll continue to be something that those societies support either overtly or otherwise as we see in Gaza.

What needs to happen is real social change. This military action I think is an imporatant part of that.

Love_Spell_6 · #12 10-07-2004, 02:50 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ktsnake
It's one essential piece to the puzzle.

I think the key is to 'civilize' the middle-east and the rest of the Muslim world. Support for terrorism has become a cultural and religious value. Until that changes, it'll continue to be something that those societies support either overtly or otherwise as we see in Gaza.

What needs to happen is real social change. This military action I think is an imporatant part of that.

I think u make a good point here. Its nice to place blame and use the benefit of hindsight and say what we should have and could have done..and the fact that there were no WMD's is something Dubya needs to take responsibility for.

At the same time...the fact that ALL the intelligence said the same thing and he personally got a call from Putin saying we were going to get attacked etc. how could he not go in? And this is not all on Bush...didn't Kerry vote to go in as well and say that Hussein was a threat? I'm more concerned with how all those folks (Republican and Democrat) got duped rather than to just point the finger...

Kevin · #13 10-07-2004, 03:59 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Love_Spell_6
I think u make a good point here. Its nice to place blame and use the benefit of hindsight and say what we should have and could have done..and the fact that there were no WMD's is something Dubya needs to take responsibility for.

At the same time...the fact that ALL the intelligence said the same thing and he personally got a call from Putin saying we were going to get attacked etc. how could he not go in? And this is not all on Bush...didn't Kerry vote to go in as well and say that Hussein was a threat? I'm more concerned with how all those folks (Republican and Democrat) got duped rather than to just point the finger...

(from dictionary.com)

group·think

The act or practice of reasoning or decision-making by a group, especially when characterized by uncritical acceptance or conformity to prevailing points of view.

hoosier · #14 10-07-2004, 05:50 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Shortfuse
Ummmm, I just posted a article, where do you see assertions? Please find a way to dispute the article.

The United States didn't go to war because Saddam is a brutal dictator.

We went to War because of WMD (THE MAIN REASON) which what was fed to most of Congress (sidenote, that is why I can excuse Senator Kerry for voting for the war). People WE knew what Saddam had.

Fellas just find a way to dispute the article, no need for attacks. Admit it, Bush was wrong and let us move on.

I'm glad Saddam is no longer killing his own people, gassing them, and burying them alive. I'm glad the Iraqi and Afghan women can go to school, vote, work, and dress decently as they choose.

I'm glad Saddam is not a threat to Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.

Everyone - W, JFK, and you and I - belived Saddam had WMD when the war began, altho apparently he had shipped them to Syria.

He was prepared - financially too - to resume producton of WMD as soon as the UN "inspectors" left his country.

I'm still mad that 3,000 of our people were killed by the Muslim terrorists, and that one of their supporters (he was giving $25,000 to the families of suicide bombers/terrorists) is in jail, and another one is either dead or hiding out in Syria or Afgan., not even able to use a cell phone.

Although the media wing of the Democratic campaign have taken a few sentnces from the report and headlined them, much of the full report tells an opposite story.

PhiPsiRuss · #15 10-07-2004, 06:13 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Shortfuse
Awww, come on. I know you Bush backers are reading it. There's been a few visits to this thread already.

Oh I see, just hiding and hoping it'll go away.

But you see there's something about TRUTH.

It never leaves, it stares u right in the face 24/7. With cold, watching eyes.

Why is it that people who always profess to know the TRUTH are the most ignorant people around? Without exception.

Anyway, there are two facts that render the report irrelevant. The first is that Iraq was a totalitarian society, and therefore an accurate assessment of anything in Iraq was impossible to obtain. The second is that Saddam Hussein has said that he was deliberately leaking false information to inflate perceptions of his military capability.

20/20 hindsight is just too clear for these "geniuses" who espouse the TRUTH.