jon_forward
Active Member
Originally posted by spillmind
and you guys did great not debating one point and only resorting to insults!
highly commendable.
why should anyone debate with you. you never post a link[reputable] ..your post are mostly rants and raves and when someone does engaged you, you are the one to start name calling. act like a person and be treated as such. Insult and be insulted.
who was tossing scuds at Israel during Desert storm?
quote from spilly:" you mean has the guts to send our boys, but not his kids? to serve in the national guard but not be a foot soldier? to flex his machismo by landing on an aircraft carrier"
can you name one president that has put his kids in harms way? just one? google away!
quote;"there's a much larger picture here, and you cannot lump all of those countries together as only understanding force. who exactly are you calling a terrorist?"
why not? the counties that support terrorist's are third world piss-ant countrys that oppress and lie to their people, so they can be controlled. open your eyes spilly, G.W. is making the world safer. sorry it wasnt done by someone of your liking.
quote;"(hint: it's because we are 'free') "
Bravo! finally something in your post that makes sense. Yes Its because the terrorist fear what we have ,freedom , plain and simple. If the people the terrorist run roughshod on were free the terrorist would have the power that the have today. to hear you , terrorism was invented by the president, nice try! If G.W 's predicessors [sp] would have exercised prudent judgement wewouldnt be where we are today.
re-read your first post in this thread and you tell me if what you posted wasnt 1. insulting 2. demeaning 3. totally disrespectful
and without merit.
spillmind
Member
what the??? HOW? with violence? PROVE it's safer. google away!
oh if life were only that simple. name all the muslim friends you have, better yet, name just five. even still, you are hardly an expert on the collective anti-american mentality. you say it's because we are free, and you tune out all the coups we've staged, all the countries we've armed to fight each other. i've got your links right here, bub.
when i can find a smattering, i do dig it!
the figure was in question, not the happenings.
maybe you missed this: i don't love saddam. nor would i ever condone any crimes he committed on humanity. it was this sheepish mentality that automatically absolves the US of wrongdoings, painting us as saints, and saddam as the anti-christ. it's ok when we arm countries to fight and KILL other people, as long as it's in our best national interest, right???Syntax_Divinity
Member
I totally hear you spill. Not so much your advocation of your political positions and assertions, but on the fact that so many people on this board don't really want to engage in debate. DK, OCA, mntbiker, and smell the coffee seem to be the few that will debate an issue for its substance, not a bunch of semantic garbage and petty insults.
jon_forward
Active Member
we are far from perfect, how is 600 lives lost worse than 5000? 50000? 100,000? freedom aint cheap bub! get some air, you need itOriginally posted by spillmind
what the??? HOW? with violence? PROVE it's safer. google away!
___________________________________________________
have we had an attack lately?
____________________________________________________
oh if life were only that simple. name all the muslim friends you have, better yet, name just five. even still, you are hardly an expert on the collective anti-american mentality. you say it's because we are free, and you tune out all the coups we've staged, all the countries we've armed to fight each other. i've got your links right here, bub.
____________________________________________________
I only have one, he has denounced the whole ME as insanity
____________________________________________________
I have been a harsh critic of John Kerry. The criticism has been about his political career, not his military service to our country. I have only called into question the circumstances around his receiving the purple hearts. I don't criticize anyone's military contributions. I have a great deal of respect for veterans.
I also don't think military service makes one bit of difference when it comes to who is going to next lead our country. I do think someone's political career does make a difference though. Take away Kerry's military service and you have a man that has not had a stance in many years in the political arena. HE chose to bring his military service into the picture, likely because he knew he had nothing else positive to speak of. It's only natural that his actions directly after leaving Vietnam would be brought up.
Anyway, I know this was off topic. I just found it funny when you used me as part of your argument without stating specifics.
DKSuddeth
Senior Member
quoted from jon_forward
with all due respect jon, this HARDLY demonstrates anything since there was a 7 year time span between attacks on the WTC buildings, or on our soil for that matter.
Using this argument as justification that the country is now safer is like me saying clintons economic policies were the best of any president, since it was only in the last year of his presidency that the economy started to slide.
with all due respect jon, this HARDLY demonstrates anything since there was a 7 year time span between attacks on the WTC buildings, or on our soil for that matter.
Using this argument as justification that the country is now safer is like me saying clintons economic policies were the best of any president, since it was only in the last year of his presidency that the economy started to slide.
I agree, to an extent. I think Al Qaeda, now more than ever, would like to strike at the USA. At the same time, I think we are better positioned to thwart these attacks and better prepared should one succeed. My main concern is how the public would deal with such an attack if and when one does occur. We should never allow terrorism to change our stance on ridding the world of these scumbags. I think we need to stay the course and keep chipping away at them. I really do believe the world is already better off with the actions we have taken thus far. Keep in mind it's barely been a year and many terrorists have been killed and captured. What will we do to these terrorist given 10, 20 or 30 years? It sounds like a long time, but a relatively short time if we expect to pass on freedom and freedom from fear to our children.
I will oppose any incoming president that thinks we should change course. We started this war on terror and we need to see it through.
E
eric
Guest
- Thread starter
- #30
Well said Jim !
We are in it for the long haul, and only persistence will win this war and assure the safety of our nation !
We are in it for the long haul, and only persistence will win this war and assure the safety of our nation !
S
st8_o_mind
Guest
- Thread starter
- #31
It is difficult to read this thread and not see a similarity between the White House’s attacks on Clark’s credibility and the attempts to undermine the credibility of Spill by those who responded. I guess it is back to “shoot the messenger.” Spill wrote a thoughtful critique of a post and in response got some childish name-calling, devoid of substance and irrelevant to the arguments put forth by either spill or the original poster.
With respect to the substance of the postings, I agree with much of what Spill wrote but would add two points. First, Iraq did not attack the United States, Al-Qaida did. I think that attacking the murdering freaks that flew airplanes into our buildings should have been Bush's priority, not fighting Iraq.
Second, if Bush felt that Saddam had to be removed by force for the reasons posted in the original post then he should have made that case to the Congress, the publlic and the international community. He chose a different course, basing his reasons for invading Iraq on reasons that have proven false.
With respect to the substance of the postings, I agree with much of what Spill wrote but would add two points. First, Iraq did not attack the United States, Al-Qaida did. I think that attacking the murdering freaks that flew airplanes into our buildings should have been Bush's priority, not fighting Iraq.
Second, if Bush felt that Saddam had to be removed by force for the reasons posted in the original post then he should have made that case to the Congress, the publlic and the international community. He chose a different course, basing his reasons for invading Iraq on reasons that have proven false.
S
st8_o_mind
Guest
- Thread starter
- #33
You wrote: “wrong again” but you were clearly responding to my second point and ignoring the first. I would be curious to read your thoughts on the first point. Is it true that we were attacked by Al Quida nor Iraq or is that also “wrong again?”
I assume that when you wrote that the reasons given for the war against Iraq “were always about the resolutions” you were referring to the UN sanctions. Thus you stand on the rather shaking ground of claiming that the US invaded Iraq over the objection of the UN to enforce the sanctions of the UN.
I assume that when you wrote that the reasons given for the war against Iraq “were always about the resolutions” you were referring to the UN sanctions. Thus you stand on the rather shaking ground of claiming that the US invaded Iraq over the objection of the UN to enforce the sanctions of the UN.
S
st8_o_mind
Guest
- Thread starter
- #34
oops, twice I wrote "sanctions" when I ment "resolutions." I assume you all figured that out but I make this correction nonetheless.
E
eric
Guest
- Thread starter
- #35
If the UN does not have the backbone to enforce it's own resolutions, then one of two things should happen. Either we will take care of business, or we must withdraw from this useless organization. By the way Jim was talking about resoultions not sanctions, 1441 ring a bell ?
As far as your first point is concerned did we not invade and rid Afganistan of the Taliban ?
As far as your first point is concerned did we not invade and rid Afganistan of the Taliban ?
Yes, Al Qaeda attacked us on our soil, not Iraq. That doesn't mean we ignore 12 years of failed resolutions and a growing threat to the region.
And I don't stand on shaky ground. They were clearly in breach of the resolutions. Those on shaky ground are those that vowed to veto the war vote - and then we find out later they had some shady activities going on with Saddam and Iraq.
I suggest you read all the resolutions. The UN vote was for the resolutions and enforcing them. Iraq refused to comply. Resolutions were enforced. End of story.
News flash St8,
Those freaks were killed in the crashes . The rest of the terrorist network IS being actively pursued , even without the OK of the Democrat party . Every move our Administration makes is being overanalysed by every clown that can get on camera . President is criticized for everything he does or doesn't do . Most of the world felt that Saddam was a threat to the region and given his track record and ego was surely working on and in possession of serious weapons . If these would have been used the President would have been criticized for not doing something about a guy that all intelligence was saying was a serious threat . He did do something about this pile of camel shit and now all of the Monday morning quaterbacks want to say how it could have been done better . The fact is that nobody really knows . In 91 , Saddam had his entire Air Force flown out of the country so it wouldn't get destroyed or captured , why wouldn't he have done exactly the same thing with weapons that he couldn't afford to be caught with . Saddam had confidence that his buddies in the UN and Chirac , Schroeder , would keep the U.S. from actually attacking . If he would have used WMDs , Iraq would be nothing but an oil spot in the desert , he wasn't that stupid . If 30 MIGs could be hidden under the sand without detection , what makes you think that some 18 wheelers full of Chemical or bio weaponry couldn't also be under a couple hundred feet of sand?I am amazed that the Bush haters would gladly believe garbage like Saddam over the President of their own country . The fact that they haven't found them yet tells me that this President didn't even consider decieving the American public and the world by planting some that could have been uncovered in the early stages of the war .
What am I doing wasting all of this time , the weather conditions are perfect , I'm going play golf . . . later
S
st8_o_mind
Guest
- Thread starter
- #38
You wrote: Yes, Al Qaeda attacked us on our soil, not Iraq. That doesn't mean we ignore 12 years of failed resolutions and a growing threat to the region.
You remind me of that expression: Yes, but other than that Mrs. Lincoln, how did you like the play?.” Iraq did not attack the US. Saddam is in jail, Osama is planning his next bombing.
You wrote: I suggest you read all the resolutions.
That is a bit condescending. Actually IÂ’ve been to Iraq. Haw you?
You wrote: “The UN vote was for the resolutions and enforcing them.”
That is simply not true. There was no vote in the UN to authorize the war, or the “enforcement mechanism.” The majority of the Security Council, particularly the non-aligned states led by Mexico (who had neither a veto nor contracts with Iraq) argued that the inspectors should be given more time to complete their work. President Bush, in a nationally televised address promised to seek a war resolution say at the time that the countries should “show their cards.” But when it became clear that Bush would lose the vote, the resolution was dropped.
You wrote: Iraq refused to comply. Resolutions were enforced.
If Iraq refused to comply, where are the WMD? Which resolution was enforced by the invasion of Iraq?
You wrote: End of story.
Another American was killed in Iraq yesterday. It is not the end of anything. A lot of American kids are paying with their lives and limbs to fight a war against a country those posed no immanent threat the US, meanwhile, Al-Quaeda lives on.
End of Story.
You remind me of that expression: Yes, but other than that Mrs. Lincoln, how did you like the play?.” Iraq did not attack the US. Saddam is in jail, Osama is planning his next bombing.
You wrote: I suggest you read all the resolutions.
That is a bit condescending. Actually IÂ’ve been to Iraq. Haw you?
You wrote: “The UN vote was for the resolutions and enforcing them.”
That is simply not true. There was no vote in the UN to authorize the war, or the “enforcement mechanism.” The majority of the Security Council, particularly the non-aligned states led by Mexico (who had neither a veto nor contracts with Iraq) argued that the inspectors should be given more time to complete their work. President Bush, in a nationally televised address promised to seek a war resolution say at the time that the countries should “show their cards.” But when it became clear that Bush would lose the vote, the resolution was dropped.
You wrote: Iraq refused to comply. Resolutions were enforced.
If Iraq refused to comply, where are the WMD? Which resolution was enforced by the invasion of Iraq?
You wrote: End of story.
Another American was killed in Iraq yesterday. It is not the end of anything. A lot of American kids are paying with their lives and limbs to fight a war against a country those posed no immanent threat the US, meanwhile, Al-Quaeda lives on.
End of Story.
E
eric
Guest
- Thread starter
- #39
So you are saying until Bin Laden is captured we should sit by and not go after other threats ?
I think we can walk and chew gum at the same time. Also keep in mind that it was the US that carried the burden during desert storm and it was the US that signed the cease fire agreements in the desert. I think 12 years was more than enough time for inspections and I am damn glad we did not rely on the UN to enforce their own resolutions, being the imputent body they are !
I think we can walk and chew gum at the same time. Also keep in mind that it was the US that carried the burden during desert storm and it was the US that signed the cease fire agreements in the desert. I think 12 years was more than enough time for inspections and I am damn glad we did not rely on the UN to enforce their own resolutions, being the imputent body they are !
jon_forward
Active Member
ZThe UN cant agree on what color the sky is let alone anything else. 12 years and saddam thought , through his bribing of france, germany and russia that G.W wouldnt make a move without UN approval. saddam was wrong[again] he is out of power and that is that. The stated reason for going to Iraq was reguime change, if WMD were found, great, if not, the removal of saddam was the #1 goal. If you wish to argue this point, my brother will set you straight. approx 2 years in Iraq, NCB officer, Master Gunny in the corp. If you were there you would know this, I suspect that what you are stating is YHO, thats all. The UN is a gutless, clueless org that has no place at this time in the world. 12 years and saddam told the world to kiss his ass, welp, kissit we didnt, Kick it we did.
Similar threads
New Topics
-
Anticipate, Speculate, and Honest Debate on the Imminent Return of Kilmar Abrego Garcia- Started by Seymour Flops
- Replies: 8
-
-
-
-
