Can talking heads be civil?

[Annie]

Sigh. Look at the title for this thread. Then notice that I was called "sick". I proved my point. I expected as much. Good night.

Good night Matts. If I was 'uncivil' let me know.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Sigh. Look at the title for this thread. Then notice that I was called "sick". I proved my point. I expected as much. Good night.

Any excuse to tuck tail and run. So like a lib.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

The truck story was not proven. There was no WMD. There was no direct link. There was no immanent threat. At the end of all this, what we had was a trigger happy president eager for us to muscle our way in for regime change. If I interpret your comments correctly, what you are saying that we were justified in invading Iraq and forcing change because we might be able to persuade surrounding nations to become democratic. Wow! We sure lead by example. Hey Iran, pay attention and become democratic or you could be next.

Note: I think that abortion should be illegal except in cases in which the mother's health is in danger, rape, and incest. I think that the National Education Association and the National Endowment for the Arts should not receive tax support. I think that minimum wage should not be increased. I do think that there should be harsher prison sentences for violent criminals. I think that these are Conservative positions. Just because I don't think that we were justified in going to war in Iraq does not mean that I back Saddam. I won't honor the personal attack with a like reply, but I think that personal attacks against those who post messages are not allowed. Am I correct?

You can't say there was no wmd with 100% certainty. It's logically wrong. You cannot prove it wasn't moved. There were connections from saddams regime to terror groups. The 9/11 commission said no "operational" relationship on specifically the 9/11 event. If there were truly NO RELATIONSHIPS, they would have said NO RELATIONSHIP, but they didn't. A link is a link. You're so biased matt. Another thing about moderates is usually they're libs lying about it like you.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

The truck story was not proven. There was no WMD. There was no direct link. There was no immanent threat. At the end of all this, what we had was a trigger happy president eager for us to muscle our way in for regime change. If I interpret your comments correctly, what you are saying that we were justified in invading Iraq and forcing change because we might be able to persuade surrounding nations to become democratic. Wow! We sure lead by example. Hey Iran, pay attention and become democratic or you could be next.

Note: I think that abortion should be illegal except in cases in which the mother's health is in danger, rape, and incest. I think that the National Education Association and the National Endowment for the Arts should not receive tax support. I think that minimum wage should not be increased. I do think that there should be harsher prison sentences for violent criminals. I think that these are Conservative positions. Just because I don't think that we were justified in going to war in Iraq does not mean that I back Saddam. I won't honor the personal attack with a like reply, but I think that personal attacks against those who post messages are not allowed. Am I correct?

You can't have it both ways. Everybody said there were WMDs. Even your side.

Saddam was given plenty of notice. He could have prevented the war himself. He didn't. Bush had drawn the line in the sand and Saddam stepped over it. That's the kind of bully he was as he was used to the apologists backing off. He actually used WMDs on his OWN people. What makes you think he wouldn't have used them again?

Your apologist friends think we should have coddled Saddam. Now your apologist friends think we should coddle the islamofascists - even after continuing attacks. On one hand they condemn the terrorist attacks in London and on the other hand they blame the U.S. You guys still want to have it both ways. Is this what a moderate is?

 

[Gabriella84]

If there were WMDs, then WHERE ARE THEY? Where is the proof? You didn't find them. numbnuts! Just saying they are there is NOT proof!!

He actually used WMDs on his OWN people. What makes you think he wouldn't have used them again?

Oh please! Saddam murdered the Kurds with poison gas he bought legally from the Dow Chemical Comapny.

 

[Annie]

If there were WMDs, then WHERE ARE THEY? Where is the proof? You didn't find them. numbnuts! Just saying they are there is NOT proof!!



Oh please! Saddam murdered the Kurds with poison gas he bought legally from the Dow Chemical Comapny.

That I want a link to. Thanks in advance, since you always answer!

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Gabby. WMD was just a part of the argument. He kicked out inspectors, refused to comply with resolutions, on and on. He sure as hell ACTED like he had them. Why do you give Saddam the benefit of the doubt? Oh wait, I know, you're safeguarding our reputation around the world by keeping us honest. Bullshit, you're bending over backwards to side with evil.

 

[Said1]

If there were WMDs, then WHERE ARE THEY? Where is the proof? You didn't find them. numbnuts! Just saying they are there is NOT proof!!

Same with saying they didn't/don't exist, kitty.

Oh please! Saddam murdered the Kurds with poison gas he bought legally from the Dow Chemical Comapny.

Well, that makes me feel better. He gased people with legally bought chemical weapons. Wow, talk about a load off! Good thing he didn't have more, he may have done it again!

 

[Said1]

Gabby. WMD was just a part of the argument. He kicked out inspectors, refused to comply with resolutions, on and on. He sure as hell ACTED like he had them. Why do you give Saddam the benefit of the doubt? Oh wait, I know, you're safeguarding our reputation around the world by keeping us honest. Bullshit, you're bending over backwards to side with evil.

What was he had to do in order to lift UN "enforced" sanctions?

And what sanctions prohibited books and education (I know, wrong thread, but poor Gabster is so forgetful.......pls think of this as post it).

 

[Gem]

Gabby,

The very same reports that stated there were no WMD found in Iraq stated that it was absolutely obvious that Saddam needed to be removed from power and that he was planning and able to restart his nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons programs the moment the inspectors left and the UN looked away.

With that in mind, and keeping in mind that this was from the report that Democrats and Liberals were cheering about because it said there were no WMD...what the anti-war crowd wanted to do instead of invading Iraq would have allowed Saddam to do what he did best...wait out his enemies and then continue doing whatever he wanted to do...in this case, make weapons. The report PROVES this.

We can discuss whether post-war planning sucked, whether the troops had enough armor or supplies...but discussion about whether or not it was right to go in and remove Saddam is, in my opinion after reading the Inspector's reports, null and void.

Saddam was waiting the UN and the US out. He was going to show the UN inspectors that nothing was going on...and when they left, he was going to bring his scientists back, with all the plans, materials, and items needed for production, and he was going to start again...and the UN would have looked the other way as he did.

 

[ThomasPaine]

The United States must remake the Islamic world or die trying, because they WILL die trying to kill us and end Western civilization.

Please clarify what you mean by remaking the Islamic world. Be specific.

Look at London. These folks want us DEAD PERIOD. Our way of life erased. Our beliefs erased. The United States is the only nation, with our great ally Great Britain, which is willing and able to stop Militant Islam. Their goal is clear: the eradication of Western civilization and it's political beliefs (Democracy), it's economic system (Capitalism), and, of course ultimately, it's religious beliefs (Christianity).

Small groups of radical militant Muslims are committing terrorist acts. I agree that we should stop them. Western civilizations consists of more religions than Christianity. Islam is practiced in the USA and many Muslims oppose terrorism.

The fight in Iraq is vital to this overall struggle. It's a beginning in the region in a country we A. Had an ongoing conflict with that was violating terms of the Gulf War peace accord.

Wasn't that peace accord via the UN. Wasn't it up to the UN to decide if Iraq was following the terms? Also, hasn't the USA ever disobeyed the UN?

B. Had a corrupt vicious murdering dictator as its leader.

Okay. So if nations have corrupt vicious murdering dictators, then the USA is justified in attacking those nations? China and North Korea better look out!

C. Was centrally placed in the Middle East so as to further our influence in the region.

I don't think that a good way to influence other nations is by attacking its neighbors, unless your goal is to influence them through intimidation. Just look at world opinion of the US after our invasion.

D. Could, if things went according to plan, rework the political systems of the Middle East by introducing democracy and hopefully diswaging the citizens from killing us. Hope I've made myself clear. If you've any questions just ask.

We did not introduce democracy. We practically imposed it. I wonder how the USA will respond if Iraq elects a leader that opposes the USA. I'm not a conspiracy buff but I suspect that the US military will be influencing the election one way or another so that we get pro-USA leaders in power. Anyway, all things considered, the Iraq war was not justified. With what little it accomplished, the cost (in money and reputation) was too great. It further strengthened the notion that the USA is imperialistic and will get what it wants one way or another.

Remake the Islamic world as in bring them nto the 21st century. Self governing people have less tendencies to want to kill others.

Oh yeah the West is more than Christianity. Baloney. Ever read a history book bucko? The West IS Christianity. Despite some VERY small minorities of other religions. (Imported I might add)
The problem is that basically Islam and Islamists support what the terrorists are doing. Spreading their religion through warfare and physical intimidation is Standard Operating Procedure for Islam. (See Mohamed it's founder) Notice how few (Damn near none) of the worlds Islamic community condemns the terrorists acts. They approve of it and hope they succeed.
I DID NOT say we ousted Hussein only because he was a corrupt dictator but as a part of the overall plan. And yes, my friend, in the end China and N. Korea BETTER look out. N. Korea has practically threatened the US with nuclear war and a Chinese general did just that the other day in stating China would attack the US with nukes should we defend Taiwan.http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/071505A.shtml

The United States is, by it's invasion of Iraq, trying to intimidate the region. You really just don't understand the realpolitik thing do you?

Yes we introduced Democracy by practically imposing it. Hopefully for the Iraqis sake they'll be able to keep it.
Overall you did not combat my argument or directly address my points. You, like so many liberals, are operating under a childish understanding of Global politics. It's dog eat dog, and the big dog rules. Especially after some punk bastards have killed some of the big dogs folks and promise to kill more.
Islam has a very sick quotient to it. It approves the use of violence in spreading its' religion and promoting its' interests. To not understand this, and more dangerously to not act accordingly, is to invite future attack. The Islamic world must be remade. It must be convinced to stop its attempt to control the world through terrorism or face harsh military reprisals.

Believe me when, far more likely than if, another attack is made within our borders or on US interests abroad, the whiny ass liberals like yourself that misunderstand international politics and want to kowtow to Islam, will be singing a tune of "Bush didn't do enough".
Childish isolationism, which refuses to address the real threat from Islam, is the absolute worst response possible to terrorism. Yet that is what the left offers. They are fools and, God willing, we will not follow their lead in the war on terror.

 

[Abbey Normal]

The difference here is that Moore seems to be a true believer whereas Limbaugh is more of an entertainer/comedian type.

No, the difference is that the left loves to latch on to big-mouth Hollywood morons every chance they get.

 

[Abbey Normal]

That I want a link to. Thanks in advance, since you always answer!

LOL!

 

[Nuc]

No, the difference is that the left loves to latch on to big-mouth Hollywood morons every chance they get.

Abbey Normal's signature:
__________________
Political correctness is just tyranny with manners. -Heston

I hope you can laugh at the irony of this.

 

[mattskramer]

Any excuse to tuck tail and run. So like a lib.

Uh. No. I didn't "tuck tail and run". I have a family, a demanding job, and my own health that needs my regular attention. I don't have time to stay at this computer constantly posting messages. I have a life outside the Internet. Do you?

You can't say there was no wmd with 100% certainty. It's logically wrong. You cannot prove it wasn't moved. There were connections from saddams regime to terror groups. The 9/11 commission said no "operational" relationship on specifically the 9/11 event. If there were truly NO RELATIONSHIPS, they would have said NO RELATIONSHIP, but they didn't. A link is a link. You're so biased matt. Another thing about moderates is usually they're libs lying about it like you.

Fair enough. I may be mistaken. I can't say with 100% certainty that there were no WMD. I may have been mistaken but I did not lie. To lie includes a desire to deceive. There is a difference between telling something that is incorrect and telling a lie. There might be 5-inch tall plaid elephants having 3 legs and 2 trunks. Just because such creatures have not been found does not mean that they don't exist. Point taken. Oh. The commission said that there was on operational relationship. Okay. There was no significant "operational" link. You do like to stretch things, don't you. Would a shot gun be a WMD?

Saddam was given plenty of notice. He could have prevented the war himself....

How could Saddam have prevented the war? He said there were not WMD. I doubt that Saddam could have prevented the war. Bush wanted the war. He wanted regime changed and he was going to have it no matter what.

Your apologist friends think we should have coddled Saddam. Now your apologist friends think we should coddle the islamofascists - even after continuing attacks. On one hand they condemn the terrorist attacks in London and on the other hand they blame the U.S. You guys still want to have it both ways. Is this what a moderate is?

My apologist friends, whoever they are, don't speak for me and I don't speak for them. I never said that we should have coddled Saddam. You mentioned them and You guys. I don't speak for them and those guys. I do not blame the US for the terrorist attacks in London. If you what their position on the WOT and their explanation then ask them. If you have a question abut my position, then ask me. I understand that it may be difficult for you to keep from making generalizations and erroneous assumptions about me, but let's try.

Remake the Islamic world as in bring them into the 21st century. Self governing people have less tendencies to want to kill others.

Have you checked your calendar with respect to world geography lately? Except for some time-zone changes, if it is the 21st Century here, it is also the 21st Century there. Just because they don't have our conveniences or believe in our way of life does not mean that the people don't exist in the same year in which we exist. How arrogant of you to think otherwise. Review the way the USA treated the Blacks and the American Indians. Review the history of war between Ireland and England. Review the about the "School of the Americas". Just because a nation has "self-governing people" does not mean that it has less of a tendency to want to kill others. Even if I am mistaken, is it your position that the USA is justified in imposing democracy on all other nations so that, supposedly, they will be less inclined to want to kill others?

Oh yeah the West is more than Christianity. Baloney. Ever read a history book bucko? The West IS Christianity. Despite some VERY small minorities of other religions. (Imported I might add).

You are wrong, but I will not claim that you lied. You may merely be mistaken. Yes, I read many history books. I will not stoop to name-calling. Some of the founding fathers were not even Christians. Non-imported non-Christians live in the West. I happen to be one of them.

The problem is that basically Islam and Islamists support what the terrorists are doing. Spreading their religion through warfare and physical intimidation is Standard Operating Procedure for Islam. (See Mohamed it's founder) Notice how few (Damn near none) of the worlds Islamic community condemns the terrorists acts. They approve of it and hope they succeed.

People who follow Islam are called Muslims, not Islamists. Having said that, Islam does not support terrorism under any circumstances. Muslims may misinterpret and misapply the teachings of Islam. Terrorism goes against every principle in Islam. If a Muslim engages in terrorism, he is not following Islam. He may be wrongly using the name of Islam for political or financial gain. Hamza Yusuf, an Islamic scholar, has made several comments about Islam and terrorism. "The Prophet Muhammad said, 'Do not kill women or children or noncombatants and do not kill old people or religious people....'"

A meeting of the most influential Muslim clerics in the world, called the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), was held in October. The 56-nation OIC represents 1.2 billion Muslims. The OIC president stated, "We assert our utter rejection of these attacks and assert that confronting them must not touch innocent civilians and must not extend beyond those who carried out those attacks."

See http://www.awesomelibrary.org/Muslims.html for more information.

In a summary response to the rest of your post: I have addressed your points. If you don't believe this to be the case, provide specifics. If and went we are attached again, I hope that we will respond appropriately and attack the specific people or groups that attacked us - not go after an entire nation that had practically nothing to do with it. Much of the rest of your post uses gross fallacious reasoning that it does not warrant a thorough reply. I do not want to kowtow to Islam to any greater degree than I want to kowtow to Christianity. Don't be a fortuneteller, for I doubt that I will ever sing "Bush didn't do enough" even if he ever does not do enough

 

[dilloduck]

How could Saddam have prevented the war? He said there were not WMD. I doubt that Saddam could have prevented the war. Bush wanted the war. He wanted regime changed and he was going to have it no matter what.

Before the war even started, Saddam and his family were offered an opportunity to disband his government and free passage to any country that would take him.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Any excuse to tuck tail and run. So like a lib.

Uh. No. I didn't "tuck tail and run". I have a family, a demanding job, and my own health that needs my regular attention. I don't have time to stay at this computer constantly posting messages. I have a life outside the Internet. Do you?

You can't say there was no wmd with 100% certainty. It's logically wrong. You cannot prove it wasn't moved. There were connections from saddams regime to terror groups. The 9/11 commission said no "operational" relationship on specifically the 9/11 event. If there were truly NO RELATIONSHIPS, they would have said NO RELATIONSHIP, but they didn't. A link is a link. You're so biased matt. Another thing about moderates is usually they're libs lying about it like you.

Fair enough. I may be mistaken. I can't say with 100% certainty that there were no WMD. I may have been mistaken but I did not lie. To lie includes a desire to deceive. There is a difference between telling something that is incorrect and telling a lie. There might be 5-inch tall plaid elephants having 3 legs and 2 trunks. Just because such creatures have not been found does not mean that they don't exist. Point taken. Oh. The commission said that there was on operational relationship. Okay. There was no significant "operational" link. You do like to stretch things, don't you. Would a shot gun be a WMD?

Saddam was given plenty of notice. He could have prevented the war himself....

How could Saddam have prevented the war? He said there were not WMD. I doubt that Saddam could have prevented the war. Bush wanted the war. He wanted regime changed and he was going to have it no matter what.

Your apologist friends think we should have coddled Saddam. Now your apologist friends think we should coddle the islamofascists - even after continuing attacks. On one hand they condemn the terrorist attacks in London and on the other hand they blame the U.S. You guys still want to have it both ways. Is this what a moderate is?

My apologist friends, whoever they are, don't speak for me and I don't speak for them. I never said that we should have coddled Saddam. You mentioned them and You guys. I don't speak for them and those guys. I do not blame the US for the terrorist attacks in London. If you what their position on the WOT and their explanation then ask them. If you have a question abut my position, then ask me. I understand that it may be difficult for you to keep from making generalizations and erroneous assumptions about me, but let's try.

Remake the Islamic world as in bring them into the 21st century. Self governing people have less tendencies to want to kill others.

Have you checked your calendar with respect to world geography lately? Except for some time-zone changes, if it is the 21st Century here, it is also the 21st Century there. Just because they don't have our conveniences or believe in our way of life does not mean that the people don't exist in the same year in which we exist. How arrogant of you to think otherwise. Review the way the USA treated the Blacks and the American Indians. Review the history of war between Ireland and England. Review the about the "School of the Americas". Just because a nation has "self-governing people" does not mean that it has less of a tendency to want to kill others. Even if I am mistaken, is it your position that the USA is justified in imposing democracy on all other nations so that, supposedly, they will be less inclined to want to kill others?

Oh yeah the West is more than Christianity. Baloney. Ever read a history book bucko? The West IS Christianity. Despite some VERY small minorities of other religions. (Imported I might add).

You are wrong, but I will not claim that you lied. You may merely be mistaken. Yes, I read many history books. I will not stoop to name-calling. Some of the founding fathers were not even Christians. Non-imported non-Christians live in the West. I happen to be one of them.

The problem is that basically Islam and Islamists support what the terrorists are doing. Spreading their religion through warfare and physical intimidation is Standard Operating Procedure for Islam. (See Mohamed it's founder) Notice how few (Damn near none) of the worlds Islamic community condemns the terrorists acts. They approve of it and hope they succeed.

People who follow Islam are called Muslims, not Islamists. Having said that, Islam does not support terrorism under any circumstances. Muslims may misinterpret and misapply the teachings of Islam. Terrorism goes against every principle in Islam. If a Muslim engages in terrorism, he is not following Islam. He may be wrongly using the name of Islam for political or financial gain. Hamza Yusuf, an Islamic scholar, has made several comments about Islam and terrorism. "The Prophet Muhammad said, 'Do not kill women or children or noncombatants and do not kill old people or religious people....'"

A meeting of the most influential Muslim clerics in the world, called the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), was held in October. The 56-nation OIC represents 1.2 billion Muslims. The OIC president stated, "We assert our utter rejection of these attacks and assert that confronting them must not touch innocent civilians and must not extend beyond those who carried out those attacks."

See http://www.awesomelibrary.org/Muslims.html for more information.

In a summary response to the rest of your post: I have addressed your points. If you don't believe this to be the case, provide specifics. If and went we are attached again, I hope that we will respond appropriately and attack the specific people or groups that attacked us - not go after an entire nation that had practically nothing to do with it. Much of the rest of your post uses gross fallacious reasoning that it does not warrant a thorough reply. I do not want to kowtow to Islam to any greater degree than I want to kowtow to Christianity. Don't be a fortuneteller, for I doubt that I will ever sing "Bush didn't do enough" even if he ever does not do enough

Matt. Just do one post at a time. No one want to wade through your crap. Are you familiar with the quote button? It formats responses very nicely.

 

[mattskramer]

Matt. Just do one post at a time. No one want to wade through your crap. Are you familiar with the quote button? It formats responses very nicely.

Awwww. I just don't have the time to do it that way. I'm confident that you can find a comment that you made and my reply within that "long" post.

 

[mattskramer]

Before the war even started, Saddam and his family were offered an opportunity to disband his government and free passage to any country that would take him.

LOL - Yeah. Okay. I don't like the way you run your country. Get out and we won't invade. Seems fair to me - not!

 

[mattskramer]

You can't say there was no wmd with 100% certainty. It's logically wrong. You cannot prove it wasn't moved. There were connections from saddams regime to terror groups. The 9/11 commission said no "operational" relationship on specifically the 9/11 event. If there were truly NO RELATIONSHIPS, they would have said NO RELATIONSHIP, but they didn't. A link is a link. You're so biased matt. Another thing about moderates is usually they're libs lying about it like you.

Okay. Here is my reply:
Fair enough. I may be mistaken. I can't say with 100% certainty that there were no WMD. I may have been mistaken but I did not lie. To lie includes a desire to deceive. There is a difference between telling something that is incorrect and telling a lie. There might be 5-inch tall plaid elephants having 3 legs and 2 trunks. Just because such creatures have not been found does not mean that they don't exist. Point taken. Oh. The commission said that there was on operational relationship. Okay. There was no significant "operational" link. You do like to stretch things, don't you. Would a shot gun be a WMD?