McCain’s Chilling Project for America

[SuspectCorner]

John McCain’s Chilling Project for America

By Elliot Cohen ~ Posted on Jun 12, 2008


John McCain has long been a major player in a radical militaristic group driven by an ideology of global expansionism and dominance attained through perpetual, pre-emptive, unilateral, multiple wars. The credo of this group is “the end justifies the means,” and the end of establishing the United States as the world’s sole superpower justifies, in its estimation, anything from military control over the information on the Internet to the use of genocidal biological weapons. Over its two terms, the George W. Bush administration has planted the seeds for this geopolitical master plan, and now appears to be counting on the McCain administration, if one comes to power, to nurture it.

The Road Map to War

The blueprint for this “new order” was drafted in February 1992, at the end of the George H.W. Bush administration when Defense Department staffers Paul Wolfowitz, I. Lewis Libby and Zalmay Khalilzad, acting under then-Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney, drafted the Defense Planning Guidance (DPG). This document, also known as the “Wolfowitz Doctrine,” was an unofficial, internal document that advocated massive increases in defense spending for purposes of strategic proliferation and buildup of the military in order to establish the pre-eminence of the United States as the world’s sole superpower. Advocating pre-emptive attacks with nuclear, chemical or biological weapons, it proclaimed that “the U.S. must show the leadership necessary to establish and protect a new order that holds the promise of convincing potential competitors that they need not aspire to a greater role or pursue a more aggressive posture to protect their legitimate interests.” The document was also quite clear about what should be the United States’ main objective in the Middle East, especially with regard to Iraq and Iran, which was to “remain the predominant outside power in the region and preserve U.S. and Western access to the region’s oil.” The Wolfowitz Doctrine was leaked to The New York Times and The Washington Post, which published excerpts from it. Amid a public outcry, President George H.W. Bush retracted the document, and it was substantially revised.

The original mission of the Wolfowitz Doctrine was not lost, however. In 1997, William Kristol and Robert Kagan founded The Project for the New American Century (PNAC), a nongovernment political action organization that sought to develop and advocate for the militant, geopolitical tenets contained in the Wolfowitz Doctrine. PNAC’s original members included Wolfowitz, Cheney, Khalilzad, Libby, John Bolton, Elliott Abrams, Donald Rumsfeld, William J. Bennett, and other soon-to-be high officers in the Bush administration.

McCain’s Ties to PNAC

John McCain’s connection to PNAC can be traced back to before its formation in 1997. In fact, he was president of the New Citizenship Project, founded by Kristol in 1994. This organization was parent to PNAC, and served as its chief fundraising organ.

McCain also worked cooperatively with PNAC and Wolfowitz in attempting to overthrow the Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq. In 1998, he co-sponsored the Iraq Liberation Act—drafted by PNAC—which decreed “regime change” in Iraq to be U.S. policy, and which appropriated $97 million in U.S. military aid to the Iraqi National Congress (INC). The INC was a group of anti-Hussein Iraqi militants whose purpose was to instigate a national uprising against Hussein. It was led by Ahmed Chalabi, the Iraqi informant whose subsequent faulty intelligence—claims that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and ties to al-Qaida—was used to sell the Iraq war to the American public. In 2004, in response to accusations that he deliberately misled U.S. intelligence agencies, Chalabi glibly stated, “We are heroes in error.”

McCain also was co-chair (with Sen. Joseph Lieberman) of The Committee for the Liberation of Iraq (CLI). Established by PNAC in late 2002, this committee continued to finance Chalabi’s INC with millions of taxpayer dollars, until shortly after the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, when it was discontinued. In 2004, McCain became a signatory of PNAC, ironically signing on to a PNAC letter condemning Russian President Vladimir Putin’s foreign policy for its return to the “rhetoric of militarism and empire.”

McCain has accordingly been a foot soldier for PNAC from its inception, and, although this organization is no longer in existence, its ideology and its signatories (many of whom now serve as advisers to the McCain presidential campaign) are still very much active.

The Master Plan

In September 2000, prior to the presidential election that year, PNAC carefully formulated its chief tenets in a document called Rebuilding America’s Defenses (RAD). This document, which was intended to guide the incoming administration, had a substantial influence on the policies set by the Bush administration and is likely to do the same for a McCain administration if McCain becomes president. Here are some of the recommendations of the RAD report:

Fighting and winning multiple, simultaneous major wars

Among its core missions was the rebuilding of America’s defenses sufficient to “fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars.” And it explicitly advocated sending troops into Iraq regardless of whether Saddam Hussein was in power. According to RAD, “While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.”

The RAD report also admonished, “Iran may well prove as large a threat to U.S. interests in the Gulf as Iraq has. And even should U.S.-Iranian relations improve, retaining forward-based forces in the region would still be an essential element in U.S. security strategy given the longstanding American interests in the region.” Therefore, it had both Iraq and Iran in its sight as zones of multiple, simultaneous major wars for purposes of advancing “longstanding American interests in the region”—in particular, its oil.

McCain’s recent chanting of “bomb, bomb, bomb; bomb, bomb Iran” to the beat of an old Beach Boys tune, his suggestion that the war with Iraq might last 100 years and his recent statement that the war in Afghanistan might also last 100 years—all of these pronouncements are clearly in concert with the PNAC mission to “fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars.”

RAD also stressed the need to have additional forces equipped to handle ongoing “constabulary” duties such as enforcement of no-fly zones and other operations that fell short of full theater wars. It claimed that unless the military was so equipped, its ability to fight and win multiple, simultaneous wars would be impaired. Along these same lines, McCain has recently stated, ‘’It’s time to end the disingenuous practice of stating that we have a two-war strategy when we are paying for only a one-war military. Either we must change our strategy—and accept the risks—or we must properly fund and structure our military.’’

Designing and deploying global missile defense systems

RAD also emphasized, as an additional core value, the need to “transform U.S. forces to exploit the ‘revolution in military affairs.’ ” This included the design and deployment of a global ballistic missile defense system consisting of land-, sea-, air- and space-based components said to be capable of shielding the U.S. and its allies from “limited strikes” in the future by “rogue” nations such as Iraq, North Korea and Iran.

Along these lines, McCain has maintained that a ballistic missile defense system was “indispensable”—even if this meant reneging on the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty of 1972 at the expense of angering the Russians. Unfortunately, while RAD acknowledged the “limited” efficacy of such a weapons system (presumably because it cannot realistically provide a bulletproof shield, especially against large-scale missile attacks), neither it nor McCain addressed the problem that deployment of such a system could be destabilizing: It could encourage escalation, instead of de-escalation, of ballistic missile arsenals by nations that fear becoming sitting ducks, and might even provoke a pre-emptive strike. Further, there is still the question of whether the creation of such costly, national defense shields is even technologically feasible.

The use of genocidal biological warfare for political expediency

Not only did RAD advocate the design and deployment of defensive weaponry, it also stressed the updating of conventional offensive weapons including cruise missiles along with stealthy strike aircraft and longer-range Air Force strike aircraft. But it went further in its offensive posture by envisioning and supporting the use of genotype-specific biological warfare. According to RAD, “… advanced forms of biological warfare that can ‘target’ specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool.” In this chilling statement, a double standard is evident. In the hands of al-Qaida, such genocidal weapons would belong to “the realm of terror,” but in those of the U.S., they would be “politically useful tools.”

Rejection of the United Nations

PNAC’s double standard is also inherent in its rejection of the idea of a cooperative, neutral effort among the nations of the world to address world problems, including the problem of Iraq. “Nor can the United States assume a UN-like stance of neutrality,” states the RAD report. “The preponderance of American power is so great and its global interests so wide that it cannot pretend to be indifferent to the political outcome in the Balkans, the Persian Gulf or even when it deploys forces in Africa. Finally, these missions demand forces basically configured for combat.” Accordingly, a McCain administration founded on a PNAC platform of self-interested exercise of force would oppose giving the United Nations any central role in setting and implementing foreign affairs policy.

Control of space and cyberspace

PNAC’s quest for global domination transcends any literal meaning of the geopolitical, and extends also to the control, rather than the sharing, of outer space. It also has serious implications for cyber freedom. Thus the RAD report states, “Much as control of the high seas—and the protection of international commerce—defined global powers in the past, so will control of the new ‘international commons’ be a key to world power in the future. An America incapable of protecting its interests or that of its allies in space or the ‘infosphere’ will find it difficult to exert global political leadership. ... Access to and use of cyberspace and the Internet are emerging elements in global commerce, politics and power. Any nation wishing to assert itself globally must take account of this other new ‘global commons.’ ”

There is a difference between protecting the Internet from a cyber attack and controlling it. The former is defensive while the latter is offensive. But RAD also advocated going on the offensive. It stated that “an offensive capability could offer America’s military and political leaders an invaluable tool in disabling an adversary in a decisive manner.”

However, state control of cyberspace for political purposes can have serious implications for the Fourth Amendment right to privacy. The Bush administration has already engaged in mass illegal spying on the phone and e-mail messages of millions of Americans through its National Security Agency (NSA) surveillance program. As a result of copying these messages and depositing them into an NSA computer database, it began to assemble a massive “Total Information Awareness” computer network. The FBI has also begun to develop and integrate such personal data with a biometric database that includes digital iris prints and facial images. Combine this with other computerized databases including credit card information, banking records and health files, and the result is an incredible ability to exercise power and control over anyone deemed by a political leader to be an “adversary”—including journalists, political opponents and others who might not see eye to eye with the administration.

In concert with the PNAC mission of control over cyberspace, McCain has supported making warrantless spying on American citizens legal. When asked if he believed that Bush’s warrantless surveillance program was legal, McCain responded, “You know, I don’t think so, but why not come to Congress? We can sort this out. ... I think they will get that authority, whatever is reasonable and needed, and increased abilities to monitor communications are clearly in order.”

Consistent with his conviction that such extended powers should be granted to the president, McCain has also recently voted for Senate Bill S.2248, which vacates substantial civil liberties protections included in the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). In contrast to the 1978 FISA, S.2248 would allow the president, acting through the attorney general, to spy on the phone and e-mail communications of Americans without individual court warrants or the need to judicially show probable cause.

Despite the fact that McCain has said that Bush’s NSA spying program was not legal, he has also supported granting retroactive legal immunity to the telecommunication companies (such as AT&T and Verizon) that helped Bush illegally spy on millions of Americans. This means that he has openly admitted that the Bush administration acted unlawfully in eavesdropping on Americans’ phone and e-mail messages, while at the same time opted for taking away their legal right to redress this violation. And this unequivocally means that McCain is prepared to allow executive authority to trump the rule of law.

Meet the McCain Team

Given John McCain’s firm allegiance to the core missions of PNAC, it should come as no surprise that many of the old PNAC guard have shown up as foreign policy advisers in McCain’s current presidential campaign, and are likely re-emerge as high officials in his administration if he becomes president. Here are snapshots of some of these potential members of a McCain Cabinet, giving their PNAC profiles, their advisory capacities in the McCain 2008 presidential campaign, and their politics.

William Kristol
Editor and founder of Washington-based political magazine, Weekly Standard.
PNAC co-founder.
Foreign policy adviser.
Has consistently been wrong in his foreign policy analyses regarding Iraq. For example, on March 5, 2003, he stated, “I think we’ll be vindicated when we discover the weapons of mass destruction and when we liberate the people of Iraq.”

Robert Kagan
Served in State Department in Reagan administration on Policy Planning Staff.
PNAC co-founder.
Foreign policy adviser.
Has defended global expansionism by claiming it is an American tradition: “Americans’ belief in the possibility of global transformation—the ‘messianic’ impulse—is and always has been the more dominant strain in the nation’s character.”

Randy Scheunemann
Former adviser to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.
Co-director and executive director of Committee for Liberation of Iraq.
Defense and foreign policy coordinator.
With regard to recent National Intelligence Estimate finding that Iran discontinued its nuclear weapons program in 2003, stated “a careful reading of the NIE indicates that it is misleading.” And he claimed that the NIE harmed our efforts to achieve a “greater diplomatic consensus” to crack down on Iran.

James Woolsey
Director of CIA, Clinton administration, 1993-1995. (Reported to have met only twice with Clinton during time as CIA chief.)
PNAC signatory.
Energy and national security adviser.
Speaking to a group of college students in 2003 about Iraq, he stated that “… the United States is engaged in World War IV.” Described the Cold War as the third world war. Then said, “This fourth world war, I think, will last considerably longer than either World Wars I or II did for us. Hopefully not the full four-plus decades of the Cold War.”

John R. Bolton
Former U.S. ambassador to U.N. (Nomination to U.N. rejected by Senate, but George W. Bush put him in place on a recess appointment. Name floated for possible secretary of state for McCain.
PNAC director.
Ardent supporter of McCain for president in 2009.
Publicly derided the United Nations: In 1994, he stated “there is no United Nations. There is an international community that occasionally can be led by the only real power left in the world, and that’s the United States, when it suits our interest, and when we can get others to go along.” Advocates attacking Iran.

Robert B. Zollick
President, World Bank.
PNAC signatory.
Announced in 2006 he would be joining McCain presidential campaign for domestic and foreign policy but instead replaced Wolfowitz as president of World Bank in 2007.
Has touted virtues of corporate globalization under the rubric of “comprehensive free trade.” But as Kevin Watkins, head researcher for Oxfan, stated, he pays no heed to the effects of the “blind pursuit of US economic and corporate special interests” on the world’s poor.

Gary Schmitt
American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research (home to other PNAC members including Wolfowitz and Pearle.)
PNAC director.
Foreign policy adviser.
Defended warrantless eavesdropping on Americans by claiming that Constitution “created a unitary chief executive. That chief executive could, in times of war or emergency, act with the decisiveness, dispatch and, yes, secrecy, needed to protect the country and its citizens.”

Richard L. Armitage
Former deputy secretary of state in George W. Bush administration.
PNAC signatory.
Foreign policy adviser.
By his own admission, was responsible for leaking CIA agent Valerie Plame’s CIA identity to the press. Allegedly involved in Iran-Contra affair during Reagan administration.

Max Boot
Council on Foreign Relations.
PNAC signatory.
Foreign policy adviser.
Stating that U.S. should “unambiguously ... embrace its imperial role,” has advocated attacking other Middle East countries in addition to Iraq and Iran, including Syria. Said McCain’s “bellicose aura” could “scare the snot out of our enemies,” who “would be more afraid to mess with him” than with other then-potential presidential candidates.

Henry A. Kissinger
President Nixon’s secretary of state.
Embraces expansionist power politics.
Consultant.
Played major role in secret bombings of Cambodia during Nixon administration as well as having had alleged involvement in covert assassination plots and human rights violations in Latin America.

What’s in Store for Us if McCain Becomes President

That McCain has surrounded himself with such like-minded advisers who support the narrow PNAC agenda speaks to his unwillingness to hear and consider alternative perspectives. In fact, six out of 10 civilian foreign advisers to McCain are PNAC veterans. Even the newly appointed deputy communications director of the McCain campaign, Michael Goldfard, has been a research associate for PNAC. A die-hard adherent of the “unitary authority” of the chief executive, he recently stated that the framers of the United States Constitution advocated an “executive with near dictatorial power in pursuing foreign policy and war.”

Add to this list other major PNAC figures such as Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Pearle, Zalmay Khalilzad, and Dick Cheney who would probably play a significant role in a McCain administration and it is clear in what direction this nation would be moving.

A McCain administration would be likely to:


Invest incredible amounts of money in sustaining multiple, simultaneous wars overseas at the expense of neglecting pressing concerns at home, including the economy, health care, the environment and education.

Stockpile nuclear weapons, while seeking to prohibit its adversaries from having them.

Attempt to shield the U.S. with a multilayered missile defense system based on land, at sea, in the air and in space, while demanding that nations that are not its allies become sitting ducks.

Strive to develop more potent chemical and biological weapons—not to mention the genotype-specific variety, while at the same time claiming to be fighting a “war on terror.”

Legalize “Total Information Awareness”—going through all Americans’ phone calls, e-mail messages and other personal records without needing probable cause.

Take control of the Internet, globally using it as an offensive political weapon—while claiming to be spreading democracy throughout the world.

Dispense with checks and balances in favor of the “unitary executive authority” of the president.

Alienate nations that refuse to join our war coalitions.

Deny that there is (or can be) a United Nations.


A McCain administration would rule by fear, perceive right in terms of military might and subscribe to the idea of “do as I say and not as I do.” As a consequence, instead of rebuilding the image of America as a model of justice and civility, it would further sully respect for this nation throughout the world.


Elliot D. Cohen, Ph.D., is a political analyst and media critic. His most recent book is “The Last Days of Democracy: How Big Media and Power-Hungry Government Are Turning America Into a Dictatorship.” He was first-prize winner of the 2007 Project Censored Award.


http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20080612_john_mccains_chilling_project_for_america/

[burmafrd]

And you have the nerve to call out some of the sources we use?

[SuspectCorner]

And you have the nerve to call out some of the sources we use?

A source is a source
of course of course
that is unless it's a talking horse
if you've never met a talking horse
- talk to Mr. Burm... <jk ya Burmy>

[burmafrd]

Little hard to get on your high horse about some of the garbage spewed about Obama when you post crap like this.

[zrinkill]

:lmao:

Did they cause 9/11 ?


This post is exactly what I was talking about here
http://cowboyszone.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2116851&postcount=65

Pure BS just like the Obama is a terrorist muslim crap.

Both sides do it and then complain about the other doing it to them.

Both sides are pathetic.

[Rackat]

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y37/Rackat/funnies/tinfoilhat1.jpg

[Bach]

Obama advocates killing kittens.

[zrinkill]

Obama advocates killing kittens.

I heard he eats them soaked in Jew blood .....

[Bach]

I heard he eats them soaked in Jew blood .....

He was quoted as saying it "tastes like chicken".

[BrAinPaiNt]

Back in the late 80's-early 90's a industrial band called Ministry put out a song called NWO (new world order).

This thread reminds me of that song/video.

pay attention towards the end (about the 4:07 mark) and you might hear a voice sample you recognize.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PlcvJjRvT7c

[zrinkill]

Back in the late 80's-early 90's a industrial band called Ministry put out a song called NWO (new world order).

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v210/zrinkill/nwo1en.jpg

[AtlCB]

Back in the late 80's-early 90's a industrial band called Ministry put out a song called NWO (new world order).

This thread reminds me of that song/video.

pay attention towards the end (about the 4:07 mark) and you might hear a voice sample you recognize.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PlcvJjRvT7cBush Sr?

[AtlCB]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v210/zrinkill/nwo1en.jpg

:lmao: :lmao: :lmao:

[Heisenberg]

http://nerdvana.freedomblogging.com/files/2008/03/i-want-to-believe.jpg

[BrAinPaiNt]

Bush Sr?

Yes, it was taken from one of his speeches.

[DFWJC]

Oh well, I guess if there are those who think Obama has hidden agendas of 1) coming out of his Muslim closet and punishing the infidels and/or 2) making the USA a pure socialist state worshipping the UN and funnelling all assest to the non-working poor or the African nations....then I guess can be equally crazy clowns that post stuff like this about McCain's agenda.

[AtlCB]

http://nerdvana.freedomblogging.com/files/2008/03/i-want-to-believe.jpg

:lmao2: :lmao2: :lmao2:

[BrAinPaiNt]

Oh well, I guess if there are those who think Obama has hidden agendas of 1) coming out of his Muslim closet and punishing the infidels and/or 2) making the USA a pure socialist state worshipping the UN and funnelling all assest to the non-working poor or the African nations....then I guess can be equally crazy clowns that post stuff like this about McCain's agenda.

McCarthy would like to have a word with you Mister Pinko. ;) :p:

[DFWJC]

McCarthy would like to have a word with you Mister Pinko. ;) :p:

If I'm not heard from in the next few days....:grin2:

[AtlCB]

If I'm not heard from in the next few days....:grin2:
I bet Brain sees a few of those smiles. :lmao:

[DFWJC]

I bet Brain sees a few of those smiles. :lmao:

Brain...they're doggin' your 'hood again.....just plain wrong.

[burmafrd]

What is really sad is that McCarthy turned out to be right about Russian Agents in the US government. It took 30-40 years to find them but they were there. NOwhere near as many as he claimed, but a lot more then anyone really thought. And they did a lot of damage. The Walkers, Ames, and that other FBI agent could have REALLY hurt us if the cold war had not gone the way it did.

[SuspectCorner]

What is really sad is that McCarthy turned out to be right about Russian Agents in the US government. It took 30-40 years to find them but they were there. NOwhere near as many as he claimed, but a lot more then anyone really thought. And they did a lot of damage. The Walkers, Ames, and that other FBI agent could have REALLY hurt us if the cold war had not gone the way it did.

And so, predictably, Burm comes to the defense of Joseph McCarthy...

[silverbear]

And so, predictably, Burm comes to the defense of Joseph McCarthy...

Hey, a boy's gotta have role models... for Burm, it's Attila the Hun, and Joseph McCarthy...

He probably thinks Hitler is misunderstood, too...

[SuspectCorner]

Hey, a boy's gotta have role models... for Burm, it's Attila the Hun, and Joseph McCarthy...

He probably thinks Hitler is misunderstood, too...

I'll give him this - the guy is nothing short of consistant. :eek:

[Cajuncowboy]

I'll give him this - the guy is nothing short of consistant. :eek:

Suspect, you do realize he IS factually correct though, right?

[SuspectCorner]

Suspect, you do realize he IS factually correct though, right?

Oh, but let's overlook the trampling-on of the Constitutional Rights of the haystack as we hold up the needle and exclaim "Got it! See... I told you so!"

If that is an example of "correct"... please let me be wrong everyday for the rest of my life. <hooboy - here it comes... congratulatory posts along the lines of "mission accomplished Suspect!" :)>

[Cajuncowboy]

Oh, but let's overlook the trampling-on of the Constitutional Rights of the haystack as we hold up the needle and exclaim "Got it! See... I told you so!"

If that is an example of "correct"... please let me be wrong everyday for the rest of my life. <hooboy - here it comes... congratulatory posts along the lines of "mission accomplished Suspect!" :)>

Is it so hard to acknowledge that he was at least correct in what he said?

He wasn't talking about the Constitution. He simply mentioned that McCarthy was right to a degree.

No one is saying overlook anything. But what burm is saying is that there was reason for concern and it was proven correct.

[CowboyFan74]

http://www.militarymagnets.com/images/T220_Peace_Through_Superior_Firepower.jpg

My favorite t-shirt when I was 12:laugh1:

[SuspectCorner]

Is it so hard to acknowledge that he was at least correct in what he said?

He wasn't talking about the Constitution. He simply mentioned that McCarthy was right to a degree.

No one is saying overlook anything. But what burm is saying is that there was reason for concern and it was proven correct.

Yes, Burm was technically correct. But you gotta cover a whole lotta "wrong" before you arrive at the "right" part. Too much, really.

[burmafrd]

Something you clearly know very little about.

[burmafrd]

McCarthy was a contemptible worm who happened to be right about one thing. I frankly would put more then a few others in the same boat with him- Nixon being one(china, foreign policy), Carter (and human rights emphasis) another.
Its like that Moron George Clooney claiming that liberals have never been on the wrong side of anything. I could start there with the appeasement of Communism, the Nuclear Freeze, mollycoddling Castro, etc.

[DWelch1775]

My ADD kicked in and I couldn't finish it. Why don't u write a book or something. Way to long man.

[BrAinPaiNt]

http://www.militarymagnets.com/images/T220_Peace_Through_Superior_Firepower.jpg

My favorite t-shirt when I was 12:laugh1:

http://www.humandeath.de/Multimedia/Repka_Megadeth_peace.jpg

[Rackat]

There’s an old and true, military motto, “Si vis pacem, para bellum” from Flavius Vegetius Renatus circa 375 AD: “If you want peace, prepare for war.” When you want something badly enough, you will fight for it. It’s the old, “Live free or die” kind of approach. Watch what people do and you will see their true level of commitment.

“There are two sides to every issue” Ayn Rand said, “one side is right and the other is wrong, but the middle is always evil. The man who is wrong still retains some respect for truth, if only by accepting the responsibility of choice. But the man in the middle is the knave who blanks out the truth…”

Fence sitters and cowards exist in a moral fog where they never really commit to anything but their hatred of success. Achievers are prepared to fight to the death. Sidney Sheldon said: “The foolish think the Eagle weak, and easy to bring to heel. The Eagle's wings are silken, but its claws are made of steel.”

Right or wrong, we are at war. I appreciate seeing everyone's views because for the most part, there are no fence sitters in this forum. One side is right, the other wrong, and only time will tell which side is which. As for myself, I will support our troops, back our Commanders, and wish for victory for my country. War is an instrument of the government to utilize when other types of diplomacy do not work. There is no diplomacy with terrorists and fanatics.

[zrinkill]

There is no diplomacy with terrorists and fanatics.

Truest statement I have seen in a while.

[silverbear]

McCarthy was a contemptible worm who happened to be right about one thing

That's why I say he's your role model... I keep hoping that one day, you too will be right about one thing... :D

[Rackat]

That's why I say he's your role model... I keep hoping that one day, you too will be right about one thing... :D
Burm is "Right" on almost everything. Just as you are "Left" on almost everything. LOL:cool:

[silverbear]

There is no diplomacy with terrorists and fanatics.

Let's say for the sake of argument that's true... I mean, I don't think it is, but let's say your black and white view of the world is entirely correct...

Now, tell me how you BEAT terrorists and fanatics...

I'm completely serious about that, if you are indeed a student of military science, you know that it's damn near impossible to beat a terrorist enemy defending its homeland... we couldn't do it in Vietnam, the Russians couldn't do it in Afghanistan, and now, we're five years into trying to beat a terrorist enemy in Iraq, and I don't see us as being very close to "victory"... and of course, the Israelis have been battling terrorism for sixty years now, with no "victory"... think about that...

So, if the only way to deal with them is to go to war with them, how do you beat them??

Answer-- there's only one possible way, and it's an alternative we're not willing to seriously consider... the total annihilation of the enemy, i.e., the mass slaughter of every Muslim in the world...

You feelin' that bloodthirsty?? Because that's the ONLY way you're ever gonna "win" against these fanatics... every time we kill one, we turn his sons into instant terrorists... it's been that way for decades over there...

[burmafrd]

I take no offense at the truth, rackat.

The problem with the liberals is that if things don't go their way, then they say everyone else is wrong and they sit on the sidelines and pout.

[trickblue]

I take no offense at the truth, rackat.

The problem with the liberals is that if things don't go their way, then they find an activist judge who WILL rule their way.

Fixed that for you burm... ;)

[Rackat]

Let's say for the sake of argument that's true... I mean, I don't think it is, but let's say your black and white view of the world is entirely correct...

Now, tell me how you BEAT terrorists and fanatics...

I'm completely serious about that, if you are indeed a student of military science, you know that it's damn near impossible to beat a terrorist enemy defending its homeland... we couldn't do it in Vietnam, the Russians couldn't do it in Afghanistan, and now, we're five years into trying to beat a terrorist enemy in Iraq, and I don't see us as being very close to "victory"... and of course, the Israelis have been battling terrorism for sixty years now, with no "victory"... think about that...

So, if the only way to deal with them is to go to war with them, how do you beat them??

Answer-- there's only one possible way, and it's an alternative we're not willing to seriously consider... the total annihilation of the enemy, i.e., the mass slaughter of every Muslim in the world...

You feelin' that bloodthirsty?? Because that's the ONLY way you're ever gonna "win" against these fanatics... every time we kill one, we turn his sons into instant terrorists... it's been that way for decades over there...

You’ve answered your own question. But, it is not all there is to the answer. Not all muslims are terrorists or fanatics, just as not all Christians are hypocrites.

Total annihilation is not necessary, but 95% annihilation may be. We have the tools needed to destroy the terrorists and fanatics, but the peaceniks are unwilling to use them. I have to tell you in all honesty that I have no problem whatsoever admitting that I would rather see them dead than see my family killed by a dirty nuclear bomb. Darwin was right in one thing for certain: survival of the fittest.

We either adapt and overcome, or risk extermination ourselves. Call me biased, call me a warmonger, call me an *** or whatever else you want to come up with, but the bottom line for me is survival of my family, my country, and my culture. The stated goal of the Islamic teaching is world domination of their religion. Well, I guess I am one of those uneducated rednecks, because I’d rather see them dead than be forced into a religion and my family subjugated by Islamic teaching of the fanatics.

Fortunately for everyone, there are those that follow Islam that are as educated and willing to live and let live as there those in this country who are Christian and can see the value in working together rather than killing each other. What we really need to do is to kill off the extremists on both sides that keep us at odds. And yes, I men kill them off. Everyone can have their own beliefs, so long as they are not forced on anyone else.

A universal law should be that any person or group that kills in the name of religion should be immediately exterminated.

But, that will never happen. One day we will find that we will either be muslim, or dead.

[burmafrd]

Like your version better Rackat. Love how all these libs talk about will of the people but as soon as the people do something they do not like they look for a Lib judge to OVERTURN THEIR VOTES.

[SuspectCorner]

You’ve answered your own question. But, it is not all there is to the answer. Not all muslims are terrorists or fanatics, just as not all Christians are hypocrites.

Total annihilation is not necessary, but 95% annihilation may be. We have the tools needed to destroy the terrorists and fanatics, but the peaceniks are unwilling to use them. I have to tell you in all honesty that I have no problem whatsoever admitting that I would rather see them dead than see my family killed by a dirty nuclear bomb. Darwin was right in one thing for certain: survival of the fittest.

We either adapt and overcome, or risk extermination ourselves. Call me biased, call me a warmonger, call me an *** or whatever else you want to come up with, but the bottom line for me is survival of my family, my country, and my culture. The stated goal of the Islamic teaching is world domination of their religion. Well, I guess I am one of those uneducated rednecks, because I’d rather see them dead than be forced into a religion and my family subjugated by Islamic teaching of the fanatics.

Fortunately for everyone, there are those that follow Islam that are as educated and willing to live and let live as there those in this country who are Christian and can see the value in working together rather than killing each other. What we really need to do is to kill off the extremists on both sides that keep us at odds. And yes, I men kill them off. Everyone can have their own beliefs, so long as they are not forced on anyone else.

A universal law should be that any person or group that kills in the name of religion should be immediately exterminated.

But, that will never happen. One day we will find that we will either be muslim, or dead.

But you would never get to meet or know them because your ridiculous Rambo-esque scenario of a foreign policy would allow you as much chance of that happening - as your hitting the lotto.

But what do I know as I'm a just a "fence-sitting coward" in the midst of "a moral fog".

If you represent clarity.... "waiter, more fog please!" :rolleyes:

[hank2k]

But you would never get to meet or know them because your ridiculous Rambo-esque scenario of a foreign policy would allow you as much chance of that happening - as your hitting the lotto.

But what do I know as I'm a just a "fence-sitting coward" in the midst of "a moral fog".

If you represent clarity.... "waiter, more fog please!" :rolleyes:


You're trying to talk sensibly with a guy who says we may have to kill off nearly 2 billion of the worlds people?

[hank2k]

Like your version better Rackat. Love how all these libs talk about will of the people but as soon as the people do something they do not like they look for a Lib judge to OVERTURN THEIR VOTES.



The will of the people will speak loudly pretty soon. ;)
http://time-blog.com/real_clear_politics/2008/06/fl_oh_pa_polls_obama_leads_acr.html

[burmafrd]

Hank and suspect- a match made in Liberal heaven.


ooooppppss.

Sorry- you guys do not believe in religion.

[SuspectCorner]

Hank and suspect- a match made in Liberal heaven.


ooooppppss.

Sorry- you guys do not believe in religion.

Fortunately, that's an understanding between myself and an infinite power that doesn't require your blessing in the deal. Let's just stick to politics Burm - which is like inviting the one-legged man to an... well, you know the rest.

[hank2k]

Hank and suspect- a match made in Liberal heaven.


ooooppppss.

Sorry- you guys do not believe in religion.

Lookout burm,http://z.about.com/d/atheism/1/7/U/2/3/The-Atheist-e.jpg Im comin for ya!

[silverbear]

You’ve answered your own question. But, it is not all there is to the answer. Not all muslims are terrorists or fanatics, just as not all Christians are hypocrites.

Total annihilation is not necessary, but 95% annihilation may be.

And you're comfortable with that?? You advocate wiping out 95 per cent of the Muslim population in the world??

At this point, we have nothing more to talk about... I don't consider "kill 'em all, let God sort 'em out" to be a viable world view...

[Rackat]

But you would never get to meet or know them because your ridiculous Rambo-esque scenario of a foreign policy would allow you as much chance of that happening - as your hitting the lotto.

But what do I know as I'm a just a "fence-sitting coward" in the midst of "a moral fog".

If you represent clarity.... "waiter, more fog please!"

Rambo-esque? Not so much. I would prefer not to fight at all. But since we have not been given a choice, we must fight. I don’t know about you, other than your admission to being a coward, but if there is a fight there is only one of two possible outcomes. I choose to do as much as possible to ensure that my family, country, and culture are victorious. History proves over and over again that to the victor go the spoils. My ancestors at first welcomed, then lived on the same level with, then were subjugated by the Europeans. I am sure that if the original Indians knew what was to eventually happen to their race, they would have killed every shipload of Europeans as they came ashore. But they didn’t know. The radical Islamics and terrorsists have came right out and told us their plan for our future. Knowing what their plan is for me, my family, and my country, I still have no problem telling you that I would rather it be them than us.

You're trying to talk sensibly with a guy who says we may have to kill off nearly 2 billion of the worlds people?
The key word being “may”. I also said that there are intelligent people on both sides that could help us stop the killing. But are they willing to do what it takes? Or, will they as history shows, wait until it is too late? The logical conclusion to war is victory or defeat. I choose victory. You can be as sanctimonious and you’d like, but at the end of the day if you choose defeat or annihilation of your family, culture, and country rather than doing whatever it takes for survival, then I fell sorry for you.

And you're comfortable with that?? You advocate wiping out 95 per cent of the Muslim population in the world??

At this point, we have nothing more to talk about... I don't consider "kill 'em all, let God sort 'em out" to be a viable world view...
I am comfortable with everything I have stated in this thread. However, I would like to clarify that you, and the others I have responded to, took the 95% to be my “stance” and that I am advocatign 95% annihilation when I am not. I said it may take that much, but that there are people on both sides that could keep it from getting that far. I did not advocate it, only acknowledged that it may come to that point.

And you are right Bear, we have nothing else to talk about. A man that is unwilling to do whatever it takes to protect his family and country is not worth talking to. You should put me on ignore. Good day.

[silverbear]

[quote]And you are right Bear, we have nothing else to talk about. A man that is unwilling to do whatever it takes to protect his family and country is not worth talking to. You should put me on ignore. Good day.

Oh, no need to ignore you, I'm just done arguing with you on this topic... I'm not pissed at you or anything, but if your answer is really to kill the world's Muslims, then you're too far out there on this subject to engage further...

I'm sure there will be other topics down the line that we'll have entertaining discussions about, LOL...

[AtlCB]

Lookout burm,http://z.about.com/d/atheism/1/7/U/2/3/The-Atheist-e.jpg Im comin for ya!
You have nothing on me. I scored the 6th level of hell on the Dante's inferno quiz.

[silverbear]

[COLOR=black]

[FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=3]Rambo-esque? Not so much. I would prefer not to fight at all. But since we have not been given a choice, we must fight.

Yeah, we couldn't do something smart, like get out of the Middle East and let them settle their own problems...

Why do you think they want to kill us?? I mean, other than the fact we have people like you, who don't want to totally annihilate every Muslim in the world, they figure killing 95 per cent of them will be good enough... they hate us because we're in their Holy Land, telling them how they ought to live, setting up our own regimes (which started LONG before we ousted Saddam)...

I guess it hasn't occurred to you that Adolf Hitler thought the same thing about the Jews... what role models you've chosen!!!

Anyway, I digress... we don't "have" to fight, we can try treating those countries with a little freakin' RESPECT... do that, and they'll pretty much lose the reasons they have for hating us, for wanting us dead...

[Rackat]

Yeah, we couldn't do something smart, like get out of the Middle East and let them settle their own problems...

Why do you think they want to kill us?? I mean, other than the fact we have people like you, who don't want to totally annihilate every Muslim in the world, they figure killing 95 per cent of them will be good enough... they hate us because we're in their Holy Land, telling them how they ought to live, setting up our own regimes (which started LONG before we ousted Saddam)...

I guess it hasn't occurred to you that Adolf Hitler thought the same thing about the Jews... what role models you've chosen!!!

Anyway, I digress... we don't "have" to fight, we can try treating those countries with a little freakin' RESPECT... do that, and they'll pretty much lose the reasons they have for hating us, for wanting us dead...
Either you are intentionally obtuse or seriously stupid. Because I have read your views in other threads, I will give the benefit of the doubt and go with intentionally obtuse. However, I do have to laugh at the Hitler comments. It shows you've already lost. When in doubt, tie the opposition to Hitler or call him a Nazi.

You're hingeing your disagreement on the figure of 95% and casting aspersion on me for stating that it may take that much to make the terrorists stop and the countries that harbor and support them quit doing so. How about if I change it to 10%? Would that be more palatable to you?

Would you be satisfied if they "only" killed 10% of the US? Or 1%? Should we license the terrorists like we license deer and turkey hunters? "Here is your license Ahmed, you are allowed three buildings and no more than 1,000 citizens." What amount of your fellow citizens and our allies citizens have to be murdered by these people before it is okay with you to do whatever it takes to stop them?

You talk about respect as though it would do any good. Until the redical sects of Islam are eradicated, no one will live in peace, not even the Muslims themselves.

I didn't start this fight, but because it is there I have to make a choice on which side I am going for and how far I am willing to go to protect my family, country, and culture. Obviously, I am willing to go further to protect it than you are.

I would appreciate it if we could leave the name calling and casting of aspersion out of this, but if you continue with them, I will as well.

[burmafrd]

Very well said Rack. I wish I had the patience to respond like that but when dealing with SB and those types I have very little.
These are the same people who would have been cheering on Chamberlin in Munich.

[silverbear]

Either you are intentionally obtuse or seriously stupid. Because I have read your views in other threads, I will give the benefit of the doubt and go with intentionally obtuse.

Another right winger who can't argue without personal insults... why am I unsurprised??

Suffice it to say that I am less than impressed with your intelligence, either... anybody who thinks that wiping out everybody you hate is the way to go is not a towering intellect...

However, I do have to laugh at the Hitler comments. It shows you've already lost. When in doubt, tie the opposition to Hitler or call him a Nazi.

It ain't my fault you just advocated the slaughter of a whole race of people, because of their religion... that's PRECISELY what Hitler was doing with the Jews, making the comparison entirely apt...

You're hingeing your disagreement on the figure of 95%

A figure YOU introduced into the conversation...

You talk about respect as though it would do any good.

If our foreign policy was based on respecting other nations, it would do a LOT of good... it would keep us from thinking we get to run the world the way we want to, which is apparently this administration's attitude-- "we won the Cold War, now we're in charge"...

Until the redical sects of Islam are eradicated, no one will live in peace, not even the Muslims themselves.

And every time we kill one of those radicals, we create more...

I didn't start this fight,

Yeah, as an American, you did... so did I, as an American... we're ALL responsible for what our nation does... Iraq didn't invade us, we invaded them, and we had no legitimate reason for doing so...

Beyond that, guys like YOU are the reason Muslims hate us so extremely... they're taught that us "infidels" want to destroy Islam, want to wipe it off the face of the earth... and guys that talk like you do, that advocate the slaughter of 95 per cent of the Muslims in the world (I presume that also means the Muslims who live here in the United States and are good, loyal Americans; and how do we decide which 5 per cent gets to live??), send them the message that what they've been taught is TRUE...

Your proposed approach to solving this problem is a recipe for World War III, perhaps even Armageddon...

but because it is there I have to make a choice on which side I am going for and how far I am willing to go to protect my family, country, and culture. Obviously, I am willing to go further to protect it than you are.

Actually, you distort what I believe, which is of course typical of the way you righties argue... my argument is that there's no NEED to go to that extreme, or anywhere close to it...

If and when they ever attack us en masse, of course I'd say kill every one of them in the invading army, if possible... but you ignore that WE'RE the aggressor here, that those terrorists have REASONS for hating us... and we've given them many of those reasons...

IOW, what doesn't seem to sink through your skull is that we're WRONG in what we're doing in the Middle East right now... in fact, this is the wrongest thing my country has done in my lifetime, and I'm thoroughly ashamed of us...

So we don't need to wipe the Arabs out, we need to stop screwin' with them...

I would appreciate it if we could leave the name calling and casting of aspersion out of this, but if you continue with them, I will as well.

All one needs to do is go back and reread the first line of this post from you to see the utter hypocrisy in this last line...

I said that what you advocate is no different from what Hitler did, and it isn't... that isn't "name calling", that's telling the truth... you advocate the systematic extremination of anybody of the Islamic faith, he tried real hard to systematically exterminate Jews... you said that Muslims are the enemy, and as such deserve death, that's pretty much what Hitler said about the Jews...

And even then, I didn't call you a Hitler wannabe, I merely said that apparently, the guy's a role model for you... given what you advocate, it was a fair observation...

Nope, I've just gone back and reread what I've posted in response to you in this thread, and I have NOT personally insulted you at any point... I have tried to argue with you factually...

Certainly, at no point have I called you "obtuse"... I guess I just pissed you off with too many facts...

[silverbear]

Very well said Rack. I wish I had the patience to respond like that but when dealing with SB

You dodge me because you can't hang with me on the facts, because I'm better informed than you are...

These are the same people who would have been cheering on Chamberlin in Munich.

I'm going to assume you're referring to Neville CHAMBERLAIN, and that analogy is asinine... nobody's suggesting we "appease" Arab terrorists...

Doing the right thing is not appeasement... we are not currently doing the right thing in the Middle East...

[Rackat]

Another right winger who can't argue without personal insults... why am I unsurprised??

Hello Pot, meet Kettle.

Suffice it to say that I am less than impressed with your intelligence, either... anybody who thinks that wiping out everybody you hate is the way to go is not a towering intellect...
I don't care whether you are impressed or not. I love all the red herrings you throw out in your arguments. You act as though your statements are the be all end all of the conversation when in actuality it is a deflection away from the discussion. Some of the people on this forum may not see it, but there are a lot that do. You see, i didn't advocate killing everyone I hate. But that is what you are arguing. Again, I go back to you being intentionally obtuse because a stupid person could not come up with such a good deflection of the argument. Rather than attack my actual argument, you intentionally misconstrue my statements, then attack based on a faulty premise. To be honest, I am less than impressed by your debating skills and find your intellect lacking as well.


It ain't my fault you just advocated the slaughter of a whole race of people, because of their religion... that's PRECISELY what Hitler was doing with the Jews, making the comparison entirely apt...
It is not an apt comparison because I was not advocating the slaughter of an entire race. But you go right on misconstruing what I said and arguing that faulty premise. The more you do the more ignorant you appear. It suits you to a T.


A figure YOU introduced into the conversation... Which was clarified.



If our foreign policy was based on respecting other nations, it would do a LOT of good... it would keep us from thinking we get to run the world the way we want to, which is apparently this administration's attitude-- "we won the Cold War, now we're in charge"...
You're not the brightest bulb in the chandelier, are you?


And every time we kill one of those radicals, we create more... So your answer is to let them kill us. Good plan Gomer.



Yeah, as an American, you did... so did I, as an American... we're ALL responsible for what our nation does... Iraq didn't invade us, we invaded them, and we had no legitimate reason for doing so... You don't know your history too well, do you? There is a laundry list of UN resolutions that were broken by Saddam, as well as his disregarding of the agreement under which the cease fire was declared. Do you know the difference between a cease fire and surrender? The first time his anti aircraft batteries fired on an Coalition plane after the cease fire, the peace that was brokered was null and void and we had a legitimate reason to re-engage our forces in Iraq. You really need to read more history, bub.

Beyond that, guys like YOU are the reason Muslims hate us so extremely... they're taught that us "infidels" want to destroy Islam, want to wipe it off the face of the earth... and guys that talk like you do, that advocate the slaughter of 95 per cent of the Muslims in the world (I presume that also means the Muslims who live here in the United States and are good, loyal Americans; and how do we decide which 5 per cent gets to live??), send them the message that what they've been taught is TRUE... You really are a card. I don't hate all muslims. How can I? I don't know all the Muslims. The ones that I have a problem with are the extreme Muslims who take literally the teaching of the Quoran that all infidels are to be converted or killed. But, I also feel the same way about the Christians that literally interpret the Bible so as to justify their killing. It doens't mean I hate all Christians. I would and do advocate neutralizing them as well.

Your proposed approach to solving this problem is a recipe for World War III, perhaps even Armageddon... My proposed approach is to fight them the way they are fighting us. No mercy, no second chance. If they are on the battle field or caught perpetrating a terrorist act, they die. Unlike the terrorists, we try and avoid innocent casualities while they actively seek innocent casualties. Yet you feel the United States is in the wrong.



Actually, you distort what I believe, which is of course typical of the way you righties argue... my argument is that there's no NEED to go to that extreme, or anywhere close to it... Does it make you feel better to put me in a box and mark it "righty"? Does that justify to you the namecalling and snide remarks? I've said many times on this forum that I am an Independant. I don't like the Republicans and I don't like the Democrats. I am fiscally conservative and socially liberal. If you want to label me, that is your problem. I could retaliate by calling you a "lefty", but that would be redundant. As for your argument, I agree, there is no need to go to that extreme...if we can get the extremists to stop their terrorist activities and work in a civilized manner for change.

If and when they ever attack us en masse, of course I'd say kill every one of them in the invading army, if possible... but you ignore that WE'RE the aggressor here, that those terrorists have REASONS for hating us... and we've given them many of those reasons...
I didn't ignore anything. What you are overlooking, either purposefully to bolster your argument, or unintentionally because you just don't know, is that TERRORISTS DON"T HAVE STANDING ARMIES. If they had standing armies we could kick their tails quickly and end this damnable conflict. But, we have to deal with cells of terrorists hiding in countries that claim to be our allies instead.

IOW, what doesn't seem to sink through your skull is that we're WRONG in what we're doing in the Middle East right now... in fact, this is the wrongest thing my country has done in my lifetime, and I'm thoroughly ashamed of us... IOW, your OPINION is that we're wrong. If you are so ashamed of us, there is always France. They enjoy a good surrender. You'd fit in well there.

So we don't need to wipe the Arabs out, we need to stop screwin' with them...
LOL.


All one needs to do is go back and reread the first line of this post from you to see the utter hypocrisy in this last line... Umm, hello again Pot. LOL.

I said that what you advocate is no different from what Hitler did, and it isn't... that isn't "name calling", that's telling the truth... you advocate the systematic extremination of anybody of the Islamic faith, he tried real hard to systematically exterminate Jews... you said that Muslims are the enemy, and as such deserve death, that's pretty much what Hitler said about the Jews... No, that is not what I advocated. You're trying to argue semantics. Good luck with that.

And even then, I didn't call you a Hitler wannabe, I merely said that apparently, the guy's a role model for you... given what you advocate, it was a fair observation... Right...... I guess that Richard Simmons is your role model, given what you advocate.

Nope, I've just gone back and reread what I've posted in response to you in this thread, and I have NOT personally insulted you at any point... I have tried to argue with you factually...Right.....with quite a few snide remarks thrown in for good measure along with some comparisons that were meant to cast aspersion. But nooooo, you never did anything that wasn't "factual". :lmao2:

Certainly, at no point have I called you "obtuse"... I guess I just pissed you off with too many facts...
Umm, Bear, your facts are nothing more than your opinion stated as truth. That isn't "fact". But you go right on believing it is if it helps you sleep at night.

[silverbear]

Hello Pot, meet Kettle.

Tell you what, show me any insult I've thrown your way in this thread...

Like I said, the Hitler thing is entirely valid in my mind, for the reasons that I've already outlined... I didn't say you were Hitler, or like Hitler, I was merely pointing out that you were talking exactly like he did about the Jews...

Again, I think that's entirely legitimate... if you're offended by that, then perhaps that's an indication that my comment hit a little close to home, that you recognized the validity of what I was saying...

I have debated with you fairly, without the ad hominem...


I love all the red herrings you throw out in your arguments. You act as though your statements are the be all end all of the conversation

Try to deny that I back my arguments with facts, and research those arguments so as to provide links to authoritative takes on the subject...

Basically, it's pretty clear that what you really don't like about my arguing style is that I back it up with facts, and I don't back down... and of course, what I believe, supported by the facts I've learned, is radically opposed to your views...

So try to engage me in debate, on the facts, rather than on your distaste for me, and see if your arguments stand up to my rebuttal... if you can't do that, kindly take a mile hike off a half-mile pier, 'cause I'm not gonna let myself get banned by slingin' insults with you... just trust me when I say if we DID play that game, you'd come out on the short end there, too... I'm really good at that game...

Some of the people on this forum may not see it, but there are a lot that do.

The "lot" that do tend to be as far right as you are... I welcome their disdain...

And on the flip side, I'm pretty popular with a number of folks in here because I stand up to you and your crowd, and get you apoplectic with my debating abilities... a few of them are lurkers who have PM'ed me to give me an attaboy...

Naturally, they tend NOT to be the hard core righties...

Finally, there's a small group of posters in here who disagree with my politics on just about everything, and still respect my ability to state, and defend, my arguments...

So basically, if you think it bothers me for even one second that you allude to folks in here who dislike me, you're delusional... truth is, I don't care much for a lot of them, either...

You see, i didn't advocate killing everyone I hate.

No, you just think we should kill 95 per cent of the world's Muslims... how completely silly of me to think you have to hate them to feel that way about them... or do you often feel like killing 95 per cent of people you LIKE??

Again, I go back to you being intentionally obtuse because a stupid person could not come up with such a good deflection of the argument.

Well, I can put an end to this pitiful semantic tapdancing, by quoting what happened earlier... we'll let the readers decide if I "deflected" your argument or not:

In post 35 of this thread, you kicked things off by opining (I'm gonna summarize here, for brevity's sake, anybody interested in reading the whole thing can go to post 35) about "fence sitters and cowards", then went on to state that "right or wrong, we are at war"... you concluded by saying "there is no diplomacy with terrorists and fanatics"...

This is clearly you saying we ought not even ATTEMPT a diplomatic solution, that there IS no diplomatic solution, and that all-out war is the only POSSIBLE answer...

Now tell me, have I mischaracterized your initial argument??

In response to that, in post 39 I write:

"Let's say for the sake of argument that's true... I mean, I don't think it is, but let's say your black and white view of the world is entirely correct...

Now, tell me how you BEAT terrorists and fanatics...

I went on to point out that in Vietnam, we were not able to defeat a guerilla/terrorist enemy defending his homeland, in Afghanistan the Soviets were not able to defeat a guerilla/terrorist enemy defending his homeland, the Israelis have not been able to defeat a guerilla/terrorist enemy for over 60 years now...

That's the kind of war we'll have to fight if we decide to go for ultimate victory the way you propose, and it was perfectly valid for me to point out that you cannot beat an enemy of that type, a guerrila force defending its homeland from a foreign invader, and that the only way you CAN win such a war is to wipe them off the face of the earth...

I then asked if you were willing to go that far... and in post 42, I got your answer:

Total annihilation is not necessary, but 95% annihilation may be.

YOUR WORDS, my man... a direct quote... take your best shot at spinning that...

The rest of your post was a silly, bordering on asinine, rant, that basically assumed that radical Islamic terrorists could DEFEAT us... about how you didn't want to be forced to adopt another religion, stuff like that...

That's just ridiculous, hoss... really, that's you dissing your own country... all those putzes can do is what they've been doing, kill some of us from time to time... they don't stand a snowball's chance in Hades of ever "beating" us...

But the thing is, I don't think you're really serious about that, I don't believe for a second that you're really worried that Islamic terrorists could defeat our country... nope, what I think you were doing is pretty much what Dubya did to get us to go along with invading Iraq, engaging in ridiculous doomsday scenarios to SCARE us into going along with your bloodthirsty agenda...

Rather than attack my actual argument, you intentionally misconstrue my statements,

You said very directly that you'd back annihilating 95 per cent of the world's Muslims... that was your "actual argument", and that's what I attacked...

To be honest, I am less than impressed by your debating skills and find your intellect lacking as well.

Said the man who's just engaged in the most pathetic semantic tapdancing, trying to get himself out of the corner he painted himself into with a ridiculously savage, bloodthirsty remark...

It is not an apt comparison because I was not advocating the slaughter of an entire race.

No, just 95 per cent of an entire RELIGION...

You're not the brightest bulb in the chandelier, are you?

LOL... I have a hunch you'll be getting a PM from a moderator in the near future... when you do, know that I had nothing to do with it... well, except to make you so pissed that you broke the rules of the board...

My bad...

So your answer is to let them kill us. Good plan Gomer.

Actually, that's not my plan at all... it's interesting that the only two possibilities you can come up with are total war, or total surrender...

See if you can think real hard, and figure out what I really DO think we ought to do... if you come up stumped, just ask me, and I'll be glad to tell you...

What's ironic, is your proposed approach would put your family in FAR greater danger than any they're in now...

You don't know your history too well, do you?

Apparently, you don't even know your forum history too well... if you did, you'd know that I've dispatched the lame argument you're about to try to run past me on numerous occasions before...

There is a laundry list of UN resolutions that were broken by Saddam, as well as his disregarding of the agreement under which the cease fire was declared. Do you know the difference between a cease fire and surrender? The first time his anti aircraft batteries fired on an Coalition plane after the cease fire, the peace that was brokered was null and void and we had a legitimate reason to re-engage our forces in Iraq. You really need to read more history, bub.

I'm fully aware of everything you just wrote, and the answer is stunningly simple-- we are NOT the UN... that organization did not choose to enforce their own sanctions, and they did NOT support our invasion... we did that entirely outside of them, and thus we cannot invoke their authority as an excuse for what we did... we did not have the right to act unilaterally on their behalf...

You really are a card. I don't hate all muslims. How can I? I don't know all the Muslims. The ones that I have a problem with are the extreme Muslims who take literally the teaching of the Quoran that all infidels are to be converted or killed.

I actually believe you, I think you had a brief moron moment when you wrote the line about annihilating 95 per cent of the Muslims... I think you got worked up, and were trying to make a point, and you just got carried away... I don't think, at least I certainly HOPE, that you'd really be comfortable with doing something like that... but you DID say it, and if you don't mean it, perhaps you ought to renounce what you said there...

But, I also feel the same way about the Christians that literally interpret the Bible so as to justify their killing. It doens't mean I hate all Christians. I would and do advocate neutralizing them as well.

I know you're gonna take this as an insult, but I don't mean it that way-- if you really mean the stuff you're saying, you're one of the most bloodthirsty individuals I've ever met... in fact, you'd fit right in with those Arab savages beheading their enemies... I could see you doing that, with some glee...

My proposed approach is to fight them the way they are fighting us. No mercy, no second chance. If they are on the battle field or caught perpetrating a terrorist act, they die. Unlike the terrorists, we try and avoid innocent casualities while they actively seek innocent casualties. Yet you feel the United States is in the wrong.

OK, I can live with that, but for one important little consideration-- you can't beat them by doing that little... and I KNOW we're in the wrong; we had no legitimate reason to invade Iraq, and we are directly responsible for the chaos those folks are living under now... the thing is, the chaos will continue so long as we remain there...

We started this war, and we were wrong to do so... the really annoying thing is, we've accomplished absolutely nothing good for our country by doing so... on the contrary, this war is the biggest reason our economy is in the mess it's in...

Now, I'm not naive, I know what's gonna happen if we do leave is a bloody civil war... but eventually, we're going to have to leave, so that bloodshed is quite inevitable... all we do by remaining there is prolong the moment that they can get around to settling their scores and figuring out what kind of government they want running the show...

And you know what, it's THEIR right to determine such things for themselves... even if they have to spill a lot of blood getting there... who are we to force our version of "democracy" on them?? Did they ASK us to set up a government for them??

Does it make you feel better to put me in a box and mark it "righty"?

Am I wrong to characterize you as a conservative?? Or are you ashamed to be known as a "righty"??

If I had wished to insult your conservatism, I would have called you something like a neandercon, or a knuckle-dragging zealot... I didn't figure "righty" was an INSULT...

Does that justify to you the namecalling and snide remarks?

Chuckle... you're pretty thin-skinned, aren't you?? Folks are being called a LOT worse than what I've called you in this thread, and not broken any rules around here... oh my GAWD, I called you a "righty"...

I've said many times on this forum that I am an Independant. I don't like the Republicans and I don't like the Democrats.

It's entirel y possible to be an Independent AND a conservative, just as it's possible to be liberal and an independent...

I am fiscally conservative and socially liberal.

You advocate killing 95 per cent of all Muslims, and call yourself a social liberal??

A true social liberal would be opposed to the death penalty for convicted murderers, they're not gonna advocate the mass slaughter of ANYBODY...

I'm sorry, but you fool yourself if you think you're socially liberal... but it's perfectly OK to be right of center, so long as you're not too far right... when you started talking about your views on how to combat Islamic terror, you moved a good bit too far to the right... that's pretty draconian stuff...

I could retaliate by calling you a "lefty", but that would be redundant.

IOW, you clearly consider me one... so it seems you're as guilty of judging as you accuse me of being...

The difference is, I don't care if you call me a "lefty"... truth is, I don't care what names anybody calls me, and I never have... and "lefty" doesn't bother me at all...

As for your argument, I agree, there is no need to go to that extreme...

Hallelujah!!! I can't tell you how happy I am to read those words... I really didn't like thinking so little of you, I was beyond astonished when I read what you wrote...

To stop arguing for a minute, I think you took my initial response to you as an attack on you, and that factored into your approach... but I wasn't attacking you with that post, I was asking you a serious question, pointing out what I perceived as a flaw in your argument... IOW, I think you got a little bent out of shape by reading something more into my words than was really there... you perceived insults where I was really just stating and defending my argument forcefully... if you reread this thread, I again invite you to point out to me where you thought I was being insulting...

if we can get the extremists to stop their terrorist activities and work in a civilized manner for change.

We can do a lot to sway them in that direction by getting out of their country, IMO... if you stop giving them reasons to hate you, you stop giving them reasons to want to kill you... they hate us because we've been messing in their politics, effecting regime change to suit us, for literally decades... go study up on how the Shah of Iran stayed in power so long, for example, and you might begin to understand why the Iranians hate us... and now, they REALLY hate us, because we're an invading infidel army occupying Islamic lands...

The problem is, we'll never completely eliminate Arab anger at us so long as we continue to enable Israel to continue to exist (and no, I'm NOT saying we should abandon Israel, I'm just pointing out one big obstacle toward achieving final peace over there)...

I ask you, is it really "extremist" of them to hate us, after all the things we've done to them?? I then ask you how civilized it was of us to invade Iraq, and bring about the chaos they have there now??

Perhaps we need to get past the "we're the good guys, they're the bad guys" mindset, and look at what we've done wrong, and figure out how to make some amends... we had built up some credit with the Arab world in Kuwait, but we've long ago pissed away that goodwill...

What you are overlooking, either purposefully to bolster your argument, or unintentionally because you just don't know, is that TERRORISTS DON"T HAVE STANDING ARMIES. If they had standing armies we could kick their tails quickly and end this damnable conflict. But, we have to deal with cells of terrorists hiding in countries that claim to be our allies instead.

To the contrary, I addressed that VERY directly, with my comments about Vietnam, Afghanistan and the Palestinians... you must not be paying attention...

I said that in the 20th Century, time and again smaller, less well-armed guerilla armies defending their homelands have beaten back superior armies... I said that basically, you can't win that kind of war, and you can't-- unless you're ready to go the total annihilation route...

Yes, if they'd stand and fight us in a conventional battle, we'd wipe them out in short order... but that's never gonna happen, is it??

IOW, your OPINION is that we're wrong.

No, son, it's a fact... you might be unwilling to admit it to yourself, but you're being dishonest with yourself if you don't...

We were told we should invade Iraq because they had these stockpiles of WMDs that they could use against us... "we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud" was the cliche we heard over and over again...

We found no WMDs... there goes that justification for invading...

We were told that we should invade Iraq because Saddam was a coconspirator in the attack on 9/11... I knew when I heard that line of bovine fecal matter that it wasn't true, because I DID know my history, and I knew that Osama bin Laden had financed anti-Saddam Kurds who were rebelling in the north of Iraq... does Saddam strike you as the kind of guy who'd cozy up to another guy who tried to help have him overthrown?? I knew that the TRUTH was that the two basically despised each other...

So I knew the attempts to link Saddam to al-Qaida would not hold up as a justification for invading, and history has judged that to be the case... there goes that justification for invading...

We were told that we needed to invade Iraq to enforce UN sanctions that Hussein had violated... I've already dealt with that one; show me where in the UN charter it gives us the right to act independently of the UN, without their backing, to enforce their resolutions...

There goes that justification for invading, too...

Those are the reasons we were given for invading Iraq... and in the fullness of time, every last one of them has been revealed to be bogus...

So, we invaded Iraq with no LEGITIMATE justification... and if that ain't wrong, what is??

If you are so ashamed of us, there is always France.

Ahhh, the ol' "America, love it or leave it"... and you say you're not a right winger...

ROTFLMAO...

Thanks anyway, but I'm gonna stick around and see if I can help my country get back to doing right again... it appears that the first step is to throw all the neocons out of office...

They enjoy a good surrender. You'd fit in well there.

Insults only work if they bear some relation to the truth; absent that, they're just STUPID...

Show me where I advocated "surrender"...

And you whine about me distorting YOUR arguments... :D

I'll ignore the rest of your juvenile insult fest... I just hope the mods let you off with a warning, rather than an infraction...

[Vintage]

But, that will never happen. One day we will find that we will either be muslim, or dead.

LOL. Did you watch that movie heavyq posted the other day, too?



Now, tell me how you BEAT terrorists and fanatics...



The reality of it is, you can't. You have to do your best to limit them, make it hard for them to recruit, plan, operate, carry out acts, etc.

[Bach]

Can I get the abridged version?

[zrinkill]

Now, tell me how you BEAT terrorists and fanatics.You introduce real freedom and prosperity to the people they recruit.

You give them the ability to better themselves and their families.

You kill the leaders of the terrorist who are trying to oppress them.

You give them pride in themselves and their Country.

You act as their protectors ..... not their occupiers.

Simple steps really ...... just hard to actually carry out when the Country is divided as we are at home.

We have made many mistakes in Iraq .... but we are on the right track and can still be better off for it in the long run.

.
.
.
.
.

[Vintage]

Anyway, I digress... we don't "have" to fight, we can try treating those countries with a little freakin' RESPECT... do that, and they'll pretty much lose the reasons they have for hating us, for wanting us dead...
__________________



Thing is, we aren't dealing with states here. Assuming you are talking about terrorism in general; those are non state actors. Showing states respect isn't the same as showing terrorists respect. Additionally, we are trying to fight an asymetrical war with a morphous population that doesn't have state defined boundaries. Its a lot more complex.

Showing other states' respect won't change the terrorists' political goals.

That is not to say our foreign policy has been the greatest or couldn't use improvement - it could. But changing our foreign policy won't stop the terrorists from trying to take out civilian targets. Their broad political goals stem beyond that.

[Vintage]

Can I get the abridged version?


If I said what I wanted to say, I'd just get the thread locked.

Crap.

[Vintage]

You introduce real freedom and prosperity to the people they recruit.


Agreed. You have to show them that we can provide better for them than the terrorists could....or better yet, that their actual country's government can provide for them better than the terrorists could.


You give them the ability to better themselves and their families.


Agreed. You have to be committed to help building their infastructure. It takes time and financial committments.


You kill the leaders of the terrorist who are trying to oppress them.

At the very least, you have to remove them of power.


You act as their protectors ..... not their occupiers.


We've failed horribly here in Iraq. And by me, I mean the Bush administration.



We have made many mistakes in Iraq .... but we are on the right track and can still be better off for it in the long run.

.
.
.
.
.

I agree we are on the right track.

Hopefully this administration has learned. Or perhaps its Patraeus simply cleaning it up.

Either way, this administration should not be trusted to handle Iran.

[silverbear]

Can I get the abridged version?

No...

How's that for brevity?? :D

[silverbear]

You introduce real freedom and prosperity to the people they recruit.

You give them the ability to better themselves and their families.

You kill the leaders of the terrorist who are trying to oppress them.

You give them pride in themselves and their Country.

You act as their protectors ..... not their occupiers.

Seems to me we've been trying that for five years or more now... doesn't seem to be taking from where I sit...

but we are on the right track

Uhhh, no, we're not... it appears you're not familiar with how guerilla wars go... we had "lulls" in the violence in Vietnam too, one of the big one came right before North Vietnam's biggest attack, the Tet Offensive...

In a guerilla war, brief downticks in violence just mean that the enemy is regrouping, moving somewhere else to attack you... but ultimately, we're not even CLOSE to a peaceful, stable Iraq... and as long as Sunnis hate Shiites who hate Kurds, a peaceful, stable Iraq is gonna be next to impossible to achieve...

and can still be better off for it in the long run.

I honestly don't see the first benefit coming to us from this war... but I can see how it's wrecked our economy (or at least, played a major role in wrecking our economy)...

[silverbear]

Thing is, we aren't dealing with states here. Assuming you are talking about terrorism in general; those are non state actors. Showing states respect isn't the same as showing terrorists respect. Additionally, we are trying to fight an asymetrical war with a morphous population that doesn't have state defined boundaries. Its a lot more complex.

I'm really talking more about showing the entire Arab (Islamic) world more respect...

Showing other states' respect won't change the terrorists' political goals.

But it might lead those states to stop supporting the terrorists... they depend on that support to exist...

[zrinkill]

Either way, this administration should not be trusted to handle Iran.

Although I have been accused of being a "Bush Homer" in the past .... I agree with this.

Mostly because the Iran situation needs to be resolved without the Iraq baggage hanging over it.

Even if the Bush administration were capable of handling it in the right way (which I admit is very questionable), opponents of Bush would only hinder whatever course of action was being attempted.

The Iran situation is to important to allow that type of nonsense.

[zrinkill]

Uhhh, no, we're not... it appears you're not familiar with how guerilla wars go...

Come on Bear ...... you know my background. Do you really believe that?

We just disagree on how the War is now going. In my view General Petraeus has really turned it around .... and the differences in the invaders pulling back to regroup and retreating in disarray is astounding.

This is not Vietnam ..... not even close to anyone with any Military background.

[Vintage]

I'm really talking more about showing the entire Arab (Islamic) world more respect...



But it might lead those states to stop supporting the terrorists... they depend on that support to exist...

For all intents and purposes, we show Saudi Arabia a decent amount of respect.

Yet, they have problems with terrorism inside their country, because fundamentalists inside of Saudi Arabia do not like the pro-US leaning Kingdom. Don't forget, Osama was plenty upset when S.A. allowed the US to come in and push Iraq out of Kuwait. He wanted the Muhajideen to do that.

Anyway, Wahhabism is one of the fundamentalist sects within Islam and parts of Saudi Arabia practice this to an extreme form (for instance, they view Shia Muslims as infidels - please correct me if I am wrong Sultan of Six)

Anyways, showing Saudi Arabia respect isn't the same as showing Wahhabism respect. And its hard to show the Wahhabism sect respect when we are basically viewed as Infidels. And even if we did, it wouldn't stop terrorism.

I agree, we need to work on our Arab-US relations.

But there are parts of it that, in reality, we cannot control.

In any case, just because a state doesn't support terrorism doesn't mean terrorism will end in that state either. Pakistan has poor contol over its tribal areas. Even if they were gung ho "anti-terrrorism" its doubtful anything would change in that part of Pakistan.

I agree with your overall theme of your message that we do need to display better foreign policy/relations with other actors. I guess my disagreement comes in where this can be applied, realistically. And how much can be done, realistically.

Because like it or not, we are going to have to maintain some control in parts of the Middle East to thwart terrorism.

And we haven't even broached the subject of SE Asia yet either. That's where a majority of Islam is practiced; not the Middle East. That would be my guess where the next wave comes from.

[Ben_n_austin]

Little hard to get on your high horse about some of the garbage spewed about Obama when you post crap like this.

McCain is a war monger. The general idea is pretty right on....

[vta]

Agreed. You have to show them that we can provide better for them than the terrorists could....or better yet, that their actual country's government can provide for them better than the terrorists could.



Agreed. You have to be committed to help building their infastructure. It takes time and financial committments.


At the very least, you have to remove them of power.



We've failed horribly here in Iraq. And by me, I mean the Bush administration.




I agree we are on the right track.

Hopefully this administration has learned. Or perhaps its Patraeus simply cleaning it up.

Either way, this administration should not be trusted to handle Iran.

The U.S. isn't going to have to handle Iran, really. If you look at all that's happening in Iraq recently a clear picture starts to form: a legitimate Government, which makes it clear it will deal civilly with Iran's own Government.

It's saying we are a legitimate government, not to be undermined by Iran and not to be used by the United States- as al Maliki assured last week that it would not allow Iraq to be used as a launching pad to attack Iran.

On the ground, enforcing civil law and dismantling Iranian backed militia's, town to town and province to province, it's also letting Iran know just how serious it is about not being undermined.

I'm not so naive to believe that Iraq isn't under the United States direct influence; our country is shrewd enough to be behind what al Maliki is saying. Allowing for a proxy diplomacy to form, between us and Iran.

[zrinkill]

McCain is a war monger.

Oh good grief.

Anytime we start having a real good discussion ..... someone like this shows up, says something stupid, and everyone retreats back to their original corner.

.
.
.
.

[Rackat]

I'll get to the rest of your post as soon as I can. But I want to ask you what you think I will get an infraction for from the Mods?

I'll ignore the rest of your juvenile insult fest... I just hope the mods let you off with a warning, rather than an infraction...

[vta]

Seems to me we've been trying that for five years or more now... doesn't seem to be taking from where I sit...



Uhhh, no, we're not... it appears you're not familiar with how guerilla wars go... we had "lulls" in the violence in Vietnam too, one of the big one came right before North Vietnam's biggest attack, the Tet Offensive...

In a guerilla war, brief downticks in violence just mean that the enemy is regrouping, moving somewhere else to attack you... but ultimately, we're not even CLOSE to a peaceful, stable Iraq... and as long as Sunnis hate Shiites who hate Kurds, a peaceful, stable Iraq is gonna be next to impossible to achieve...



I honestly don't see the first benefit coming to us from this war... but I can see how it's wrecked our economy (or at least, played a major role in wrecking our economy)...

Don't take it as an insult, but I truly believe you don't want to see the benefits of this war. From your post's, you've made it clear you think it was /is a dirty, partisan contrived construct which you feel is grounded solely in on immoral basis.

Iraq is forming itself into a very legitimate state, with strong leadership, not at all grounded in the kind of behaviour it's previous regime was founded on.

Having such an ally, on the border of a hostile entity, (Iran) is beneficial. With a common ally, both the U.S. and Iran will have a partner who's interest is to broker peace or compromise between the two.

You might not feel it was worth it, but our international dealings are a major source of our countries ability to remain powerful and it's people living good.

al Qeada has been effectively decimated and Iran's militia's are being handled by Iraq. There is going to be more violence- a sudden halt in violence cannot be realistically expected, but the 'guerilla war' is nearing it's end.

Peace in that region is beneficial to all of us and to think simply respecting these people or leaving the region is going bring it about is not at all realistic. There are hardened ideologies, born of years of conflict and it can't be turned off with a kind word.

The effects of this war are going to be viewed much more favorably in the future, because history writes a much better acconting than initial reaction.

[AtlCB]

I'll get to the rest of your post as soon as I can. But I want to ask you what you think I will get an infraction for from the Mods?




Silverbear is the biggest hypocrite when it comes to insults. He dishes them out, but throws a major fit when he believes someone insults him.

[Vintage]

The U.S. isn't going to have to handle Iran, really. If you look at all that's happening in Iraq recently a clear picture starts to form: a legitimate Government, which makes it clear it will deal civilly with Iran's own Government.

It's saying we are a legitimate government, not to be undermined by Iran and not to be used by the United States- as al Maliki assured last week that it would not allow Iraq to be used as a launching pad to attack Iran.

On the ground, enforcing civil law and dismantling Iranian backed militia's, town to town and province to province, it's also letting Iran know just how serious it is about not being undermined.

I'm not so naive to believe that Iraq isn't under the United States direct influence; our country is shrewd enough to be behind what al Maliki is saying. Allowing for a proxy diplomacy to form, between us and Iran.

I mean in regards to the Iranian gov't and its pursuit of nuclear weapons.

Not their meddling in Iraq.

[Ben_n_austin]

Thanks anyway, but I'm gonna stick around and see if I can help my country get back to doing right again... it appears that the first step is to throw all the neocons out of office...



Insults only work if they bear some relation to the truth; absent that, they're just STUPID...

Show me where I advocated "surrender"...

And you whine about me distorting YOUR arguments... :D

I'll ignore the rest of your juvenile insult fest... I just hope the mods let you off with a warning, rather than an infraction...

Most people don't understand the term neo-con.

FYI, neo = new. Con = conservative.

And yes, they do want a globalized "new world order". And they're all crazy. They exist. Believe it.

[ConcordCowboy]

http://fube.ca/images/posts/lk_four_horsemen5.jpg

[Rackat]

http://fube.ca/images/posts/lk_four_horsemen5.jpg
OK, that one got a chuckle from me. :D

[ConcordCowboy]

OK, that one got a chuckle from me. :D

Yeah that one made me giggle too. :p:

[Ben_n_austin]

Oh good grief.

Anytime we start having a real good discussion ..... someone like this shows up, says something stupid, and everyone retreats back to their original corner.

.
.
.
.


Oh, poor Zrin, someone pisses on his waving-the-flag-parade and he cries like a baby. As far as I knew, the thread could keep going.

Do you have superman vision. Can you see through the computer to see why "everyone retreated"?

.
.
.
.

Oh. That's what I thought, you don't like people who question your beloved government.

I've always had little respect for you as a poster because you're so reactionary and belligerent when someone opposes you're view.
.
.
.
.
The trend continues.

[Ben_n_austin]

Yeah that one made me giggle too. :p:


If you guys don't stop joking, you're going to ruin Zrinkill's cry party.

[Ben_n_austin]

There’s an old and true, military motto, “Si vis pacem, para bellum” from Flavius Vegetius Renatus circa 375 AD: “If you want peace, prepare for war.” When you want something badly enough, you will fight for it. It’s the old, “Live free or die” kind of approach. Watch what people do and you will see their true level of commitment.

“There are two sides to every issue” Ayn Rand said, “one side is right and the other is wrong, but the middle is always evil. The man who is wrong still retains some respect for truth, if only by accepting the responsibility of choice. But the man in the middle is the knave who blanks out the truth…”

Fence sitters and cowards exist in a moral fog where they never really commit to anything but their hatred of success. Achievers are prepared to fight to the death. Sidney Sheldon said: “The foolish think the Eagle weak, and easy to bring to heel. The Eagle's wings are silken, but its claws are made of steel.”

Right or wrong, we are at war. I appreciate seeing everyone's views because for the most part, there are no fence sitters in this forum. One side is right, the other wrong, and only time will tell which side is which. As for myself, I will support our troops, back our Commanders, and wish for victory for my country. War is an instrument of the government to utilize when other types of diplomacy do not work. There is no diplomacy with terrorists and fanatics.

You're whole argument--even your famous quotes are fallacious. Is it not possible for both sides to be wrong? Can someone not have some morally right set of principles allowing them to see "both" sides as fallacious?

Your argument consists of 'either or' logic all the way through your post.

When two sides are battling for fallacious causes, only the fool sees no other option. -- Ben_n_austin

[ConcordCowboy]

http://bp1.blogger.com/_j_Bcf_6uMS4/Rinsija0w2I/AAAAAAAAAhQ/X9cPhcy5Qf4/s400/stmccain-warmongers.jpg

[Ben_n_austin]

http://bp1.blogger.com/_j_Bcf_6uMS4/Rinsija0w2I/AAAAAAAAAhQ/X9cPhcy5Qf4/s400/stmccain-warmongers.jpg


http://img295.imageshack.us/img295/9412/thebestofthemickeymouseif8.jpg

Don't use the M word. Instead of "monger", we use "mouse".

Mmm'kay?

[zrinkill]

Oh, poor Zrin, someone pisses on his waving-the-flag-parade and he cries like a baby. As far as I knew, the thread could keep going.

Oh. That's what I thought, you don't like people who question your beloved government.

I've always had little respect for you as a poster because you're so reactionary and belligerent when someone opposes you're view.



Looks like the kid got his little feelings hurt again ....

Thank God you have little respect for me "as a poster" ..... if you did I would have to rethink my whole direction.

I question my Government all the time .... I just do not make stupid statements like "so and so is a War monger .... or so and so is a terrorist"

I leave that to "people" like you.

As far as being reactionary and belligerent ...... I think many people who share your political opinions on this board would disagree with you.

[zrinkill]

http://fube.ca/images/posts/lk_four_horsemen5.jpg


:laugh2:

[Viper]

http://fube.ca/images/posts/lk_four_horsemen5.jpg

The other three must represent Obama.

[ConcordCowboy]

The other three must represent Obama.

OK I just knew the wet blanket was going to show up sometime.

:p:

[Ben_n_austin]

Looks like the kid got his little feelings hurt again ....

Thank God you have little respect for me "as a poster" ..... if you did I would have to rethink my whole direction.

I question my Government all the time .... I just do not make stupid statements like "so and so is a War monger .... or so and so is a terrorist"

I leave that to "people" like you.

As far as being reactionary and belligerent ...... I think many people who share your political opinions on this board would disagree with you.

I will say, "monger" is sort of a harsh word. But when you openly advocate war in the future, that's what you are to me.

[Bach]

The other three must represent Obama.

:lmao:

[zrinkill]

I will say, "monger" is sort of a harsh word. But when you openly advocate war in the future, that's what you are to me.

FDR and JFK would be shocked.

[Ben_n_austin]

FDR and JFK would be shocked.

Nice try, but text book apples to oranges.

.
.
.
.

Try again?

[Rackat]

Tell you what, show me any insult I've thrown your way in this thread...
So the condescending insulting comments don't count in your mind?
Like I said, the Hitler thing is entirely valid in my mind, for the reasons that I've already outlined... I didn't say you were Hitler, or like Hitler, I was merely pointing out that you were talking exactly like he did about the Jews...

Right. In your mind I am sure a lot of things are valid. There are people called psychiatrists that can help with that.


I have debated with you fairly, without the ad hominem...
Righty, Hitler as a “role model”, various other invectives. No ad hominem’s there. LOL

Try to deny that I back my arguments with facts, and research those arguments so as to provide links to authoritative takes on the subject...

Basically, it's pretty clear that what you really don't like about my arguing style is that I back it up with facts, and I don't back down... and of course, what I believe, supported by the facts I've learned, is radically opposed to your views...

So try to engage me in debate, on the facts, rather than on your distaste for me, and see if your arguments stand up to my rebuttal... if you can't do that, kindly take a mile hike off a half-mile pier, 'cause I'm not gonna let myself get banned by slingin' insults with you... just trust me when I say if we DID play that game, you'd come out on the short end there, too... I'm really good at that game...

Show me the “fact” in your arguments. What I don’t like about your arguing style is that you intentionally misconstrue statements and attack based upon the misconstrued statement and act as if it were the truth. In fact all you have done is show your lack of character. As for insults, I would remind you that it was not I that cast the first stone in that regard. If your debating style is to cast aspersion upon the opposition, then you have no style at all. As for the insults, I’m sure you have a lot of the “Your Mamma” type stuff, lol.

The "lot" that do tend to be as far right as you are... I welcome their disdain...
Really? You welcome it? Well, I hope you continue to get as much as you deserve. :)

And on the flip side, I'm pretty popular with a number of folks in here because I stand up to you and your crowd, and get you apoplectic with my debating abilities... a few of them are lurkers who have PM'ed me to give me an attaboy...
How nice for you. Did you frame them and hang them on your wall?

Finally, there's a small group of posters in here who disagree with my politics on just about everything, and still respect my ability to state, and defend, my arguments...

So basically, if you think it bothers me for even one second that you allude to folks in here who dislike me, you're delusional... truth is, I don't care much for a lot of them, either...

Well, basically, I don’t care if it “bothers” you or not. I find it humorous that it causes you enough emotional strife that you have to tell me all about the PM’s you’ve received. And, to be honest, I didn’t say they disliked you, I said they were aware that a lot of your “style” is using red herrings to deflect the argument to a purposefully misconstrued statement from your opponent which you attack.


No, you just think we should kill 95 per cent of the world's Muslims... how completely silly of me to think you have to hate them to feel that way about them... or do you often feel like killing 95 per cent of people you LIKE??

Well, I can put an end to this pitiful semantic tapdancing, by quoting what happened earlier... we'll let the readers decide if I "deflected" your argument or not:

In post 35 of this thread, you kicked things off by opining (I'm gonna summarize here, for brevity's sake, anybody interested in reading the whole thing can go to post 35) about "fence sitters and cowards", then went on to state that "right or wrong, we are at war"... you concluded by saying "there is no diplomacy with terrorists and fanatics"...

This is clearly you saying we ought not even ATTEMPT a diplomatic solution, that there IS no diplomatic solution, and that all-out war is the only POSSIBLE answer...

Now tell me, have I mischaracterized your initial argument??

In response to that, in post 39 I write:



I went on to point out that in Vietnam, we were not able to defeat a guerilla/terrorist enemy defending his homeland, in Afghanistan the Soviets were not able to defeat a guerilla/terrorist enemy defending his homeland, the Israelis have not been able to defeat a guerilla/terrorist enemy for over 60 years now...

That's the kind of war we'll have to fight if we decide to go for ultimate victory the way you propose, and it was perfectly valid for me to point out that you cannot beat an enemy of that type, a guerrila force defending its homeland from a foreign invader, and that the only way you CAN win such a war is to wipe them off the face of the earth...

I then asked if you were willing to go that far... and in post 42, I got your answer:



YOUR WORDS, my man... a direct quote... take your best shot at spinning that...

OK, I am going to type slowly so that you don’t miss this. Please re-read it as many times as you need to and feel free to ask questions if you still don’t understand. Ready?

To protect my family, my country, and my way of life from the extremists that would kill us and impose their religious ideology on us, I am willing to do whatever it takes to stop it. If, in this war, that means that we have to kill 95% of the terrorists, so be it. You took one part of my statement, and ran with it. By definition that is “taking it out of context”.

“Total annihilation is not necessary, but 95% annihilation may be.”

That statement by itself with your commentary does sound bad. But, taken in context, it amazingly changes:

Total annihilation is not necessary, but 95% annihilation may be. We have the tools needed to destroy the terrorists and fanatics, but the peaceniks are unwilling to use them. I have to tell you in all honesty that I have no problem whatsoever admitting that I would rather see them dead than see my family killed by a dirty nuclear bomb. Darwin was right in one thing for certain: survival of the fittest.

Please note the underlined sentence. Now, if you want to keep using that same 95% line, at least have the decency to use it in context. Or are you so bereft of honor that you will continue along the same line?

The rest of your post was a silly, bordering on asinine, rant, that basically assumed that radical Islamic terrorists could DEFEAT us... about how you didn't want to be forced to adopt another religion, stuff like that...

That's just ridiculous, hoss... really, that's you dissing your own country... all those putzes can do is what they've been doing, kill some of us from time to time... they don't stand a snowball's chance in Hades of ever "beating" us...

But the thing is, I don't think you're really serious about that, I don't believe for a second that you're really worried that Islamic terrorists could defeat our country... nope, what I think you were doing is pretty much what Dubya did to get us to go along with invading Iraq, engaging in ridiculous doomsday scenarios to SCARE us into going along with your bloodthirsty agenda...
How many bombs will it take for you to take the threat seriously? How many people have to die? Until it actually happened, 9.11 was a “what if” scenario. What if a terrorist cell got 4-5 dirty bombs into our country and detonated them in say NYC, LA, Dallas, Chicago, and Philadelphia? What do you think would happen? And are you willing to take that chance when we have the means and wherewithal to stop it from happening? How long would our economy stay afloat in such a scenario? Defeat is not always military, but economic. Ask the former USSR.

Yeah, the extremist Muslims and the terrorist’s stated goals is the destruction of the US, but “I” am trying to scare you. That’s funny.

You said very directly that you'd back annihilating 95 per cent of the world's Muslims... that was your "actual argument", and that's what I attacked...

Said the man who's just engaged in the most pathetic semantic tapdancing, trying to get himself out of the corner he painted himself into with a ridiculously savage, bloodthirsty remark...



No, just 95 per cent of an entire RELIGION...

I want to ensure you didn’t miss this the first time around, so here it is again.
To protect my family, my country, and my way of life from the extremists that would kill us and impose their religious ideology on us, I am willing to do whatever it takes to stop it. If, in this war, that means that we have to kill 95% of the terrorists, so be it. You took one part of my statement, and ran with it. By definition that is “taking it out of context”.

“Total annihilation is not necessary, but 95% annihilation may be.”

That statement by itself with your commentary does sound bad. But, taken in context, it amazingly changes:

Total annihilation is not necessary, but 95% annihilation may be. We have the tools needed to destroy the terrorists and fanatics, but the peaceniks are unwilling to use them. I have to tell you in all honesty that I have no problem whatsoever admitting that I would rather see them dead than see my family killed by a dirty nuclear bomb. Darwin was right in one thing for certain: survival of the fittest.

Please note the underlined sentence. Now, if you want to keep using that same 95% line, at least have the decency to use it in context. Or are you so bereft of honor that you will continue along the same line?


LOL... I have a hunch you'll be getting a PM from a moderator in the near future... when you do, know that I had nothing to do with it... well, except to make you so pissed that you broke the rules of the board...

My bad...
If I do get one, I would hope that in fairness it would be above board and that you will get one as well. You see, I responded to your aspersions and insulting posts to me, I did not initiate it.


Actually, that's not my plan at all... it's interesting that the only two possibilities you can come up with are total war, or total surrender...

See if you can think real hard, and figure out what I really DO think we ought to do... if you come up stumped, just ask me, and I'll be glad to tell you...

What's ironic, is your proposed approach would put your family in FAR greater danger than any they're in now...
If your posts on this forum are an indication of what you would do, then I really don’t care. Thanks anyway.


Apparently, you don't even know your forum history too well... if you did, you'd know that I've dispatched the lame argument you're about to try to run past me on numerous occasions before...

I'm fully aware of everything you just wrote, and the answer is stunningly simple-- we are NOT the UN... that organization did not choose to enforce their own sanctions, and they did NOT support our invasion... we did that entirely outside of them, and thus we cannot invoke their authority as an excuse for what we did... we did not have the right to act unilaterally on their behalf...
You’ve dispatched it? Wow! So, you can read my mind and see my argument that I haven’t stated? Get outta here! Really? So, you do know the difference between cease fire and surrender then?


I actually believe you, I think you had a brief moron moment when you wrote the line about annihilating 95 per cent of the Muslims... I think you got worked up, and were trying to make a point, and you just got carried away... I don't think, at least I certainly HOPE, that you'd really be comfortable with doing something like that... but you DID say it, and if you don't mean it, perhaps you ought to renounce what you said there...
Do I need to go back and put the whole quote in context for you again Bear? Or are you going to keep debating on a half truth that you’re trying to pass off as what I said?


I know you're gonna take this as an insult, but I don't mean it that way-- if you really mean the stuff you're saying, you're one of the most bloodthirsty individuals I've ever met... in fact, you'd fit right in with those Arab savages beheading their enemies... I could see you doing that, with some glee...
I take no pleasure in death. I think perhaps you had a brief moron moment to even suggest it. As a Corpsman it was my duty to take care of the wounded, ours and theirs. But what I understand that you don’t seem to grasp is that not everyone wants to sit down and talk about it. Some people would actually just rather kill us. If a rabid dog came into your yard would you shoot it, or try to pet it and make it feel better about its condition?


OK, I can live with that, but for one important little consideration-- you can't beat them by doing that little... and I KNOW we're in the wrong; we had no legitimate reason to invade Iraq, and we are directly responsible for the chaos those folks are living under now... the thing is, the chaos will continue so long as we remain there...
We can agree to disagree on whether we are right or wrong to invade Iraq. But to suggest that it remains chaos and that it is not getting better for their country means that you do not even read the articles posted in this forum that clearly state otherwise.

We started this war, and we were wrong to do so... the really annoying thing is, we've accomplished absolutely nothing good for our country by doing so... on the contrary, this war is the biggest reason our economy is in the mess it's in...
Again, you feel it was wrong to invade, I don’t. Amazingly, our economy tanked when the Democrats won a majority of seats in the House. Hmmmmm, coincidence? When for the entire time prior to that the economy continued to grow, and joblessness remained at less than 6%? I think the economy has more to do with the Democrat controlled legislature than the war. But, that is my opinion.


Now, I'm not naive, I know what's gonna happen if we do leave is a bloody civil war... but eventually, we're going to have to leave, so that bloodshed is quite inevitable... all we do by remaining there is prolong the moment that they can get around to settling their scores and figuring out what kind of government they want running the show...

And you know what, it's THEIR right to determine such things for themselves... even if they have to spill a lot of blood getting there... who are we to force our version of "democracy" on them?? Did they ASK us to set up a government for them??
They are determining their destiny. They are telling the US what they will and will not do. As a matter of fact, there was an article posted on that in this forum. As for leaving, you are naïve if you believe that we will be out of there even by the end of the next President’s term.


Am I wrong to characterize you as a conservative?? Or are you ashamed to be known as a "righty"??

If I had wished to insult your conservatism, I would have called you something like a neandercon, or a knuckle-dragging zealot... I didn't figure "righty" was an INSULT...
I guess you just missed the part where I stated I was a fiscal conservative?

Chuckle... you're pretty thin-skinned, aren't you?? Folks are being called a LOT worse than what I've called you in this thread, and not broken any rules around here... oh my GAWD, I called you a "righty"...
Oh, that’s funny. All through the thread you insisted you didn’t name call or insult, then admit that you did. That’s a hoot.


It's entirel y possible to be an Independent AND a conservative, just as it's possible to be liberal and an independent...
Who’d a thunk it?


You advocate killing 95 per cent of all Muslims, and call yourself a social liberal??

A true social liberal would be opposed to the death penalty for convicted murderers, they're not gonna advocate the mass slaughter of ANYBODY...

I'm sorry, but you fool yourself if you think you're socially liberal... but it's perfectly OK to be right of center, so long as you're not too far right... when you started talking about your views on how to combat Islamic terror, you moved a good bit too far to the right... that's pretty draconian stuff...

One more time for the record:

To protect my family, my country, and my way of life from the extremists that would kill us and impose their religious ideology on us, I am willing to do whatever it takes to stop it. If, in this war, that means that we have to kill 95% of the terrorists, so be it. You took one part of my statement, and ran with it. By definition that is “taking it out of context”.

“Total annihilation is not necessary, but 95% annihilation may be.”

That statement by itself with your commentary does sound bad. But, taken in context, it amazingly changes:

Total annihilation is not necessary, but 95% annihilation may be. We have the tools needed to destroy the terrorists and fanatics, but the peaceniks are unwilling to use them. I have to tell you in all honesty that I have no problem whatsoever admitting that I would rather see them dead than see my family killed by a dirty nuclear bomb. Darwin was right in one thing for certain: survival of the fittest.

Please note the underlined sentence. Now, if you want to keep using that same 95% line, at least have the decency to use it in context. Or are you so bereft of honor that you will continue along the same line?


IOW, you clearly consider me one... so it seems you're as guilty of judging as you accuse me of being...

The difference is, I don't care if you call me a "lefty"... truth is, I don't care what names anybody calls me, and I never have... and "lefty" doesn't bother me at all...
If you understood what I meant by redundant, you would probably have left this out of your diatribe. You have already admitted to being firmly on the left. For me to call you a “lefty” would indeed have been redundant.

Hallelujah!!! I can't tell you how happy I am to read those words... I really didn't like thinking so little of you, I was beyond astonished when I read what you wrote...
If you had not taken my statement out of context, more than half of this thread could have been avoided.

To stop arguing for a minute, I think you took my initial response to you as an attack on you, and that factored into your approach... but I wasn't attacking you with that post, I was asking you a serious question, pointing out what I perceived as a flaw in your argument... IOW, I think you got a little bent out of shape by reading something more into my words than was really there... you perceived insults where I was really just stating and defending my argument forcefully... if you reread this thread, I again invite you to point out to me where you thought I was being insulting...
If you wish to have a conversation, then perhaps you should leave the condescending remarks out of your posts. If you don’t know what I am talking about, perhaps you need to re-read the thread.


We can do a lot to sway them in that direction by getting out of their country, IMO... if you stop giving them reasons to hate you, you stop giving them reasons to want to kill you... they hate us because we've been messing in their politics, effecting regime change to suit us, for literally decades... go study up on how the Shah of Iran stayed in power so long, for example, and you might begin to understand why the Iranians hate us... and now, they REALLY hate us, because we're an invading infidel army occupying Islamic lands...
I remember the overthrow of the Shah and the chaos it created along with the hostage crisis which followed. Go study up on how the current regime stays in power in Iran and you may see why so many of them want to leave their country and come to the US.

The problem is, we'll never completely eliminate Arab anger at us so long as we continue to enable Israel to continue to exist (and no, I'm NOT saying we should abandon Israel, I'm just pointing out one big obstacle toward achieving final peace over there)...
It sure sounds like you are advocating we let Israel be wiped off the map and her people pushed into the ocean. Boy, I guess I could pull what you did and take one part of your post and run with it screaming about how bad a person you are. But I won’t.

I ask you, is it really "extremist" of them to hate us, after all the things we've done to them?? I then ask you how civilized it was of us to invade Iraq, and bring about the chaos they have there now??
Yes, it is extreme when they behead innocent people. If you don’t get it, I feel sorry for you.


Perhaps we need to get past the "we're the good guys, they're the bad guys" mindset, and look at what we've done wrong, and figure out how to make some amends... we had built up some credit with the Arab world in Kuwait, but we've long ago pissed away that goodwill...
So the terrorists are not bad guys? That’s a sane philosophy.

To the contrary, I addressed that VERY directly, with my comments about Vietnam, Afghanistan and the Palestinians... you must not be paying attention...

I said that in the 20th Century, time and again smaller, less well-armed guerilla armies defending their homelands have beaten back superior armies... I said that basically, you can't win that kind of war, and you can't-- unless you're ready to go the total annihilation route...
We can only lose if we give up. They cannot beat us. We have the capability to stagnate their supply lines, freeze their assets, and basically starve them out…if we are willing to do so and if we are willing to stay the course until they are choked off (figuratively).

Yes, if they'd stand and fight us in a conventional battle, we'd wipe them out in short order... but that's never gonna happen, is it??
No, which is why we have to adapt our tactics.



No, son, it's a fact... you might be unwilling to admit it to yourself, but you're being dishonest with yourself if you don't...
Listen, Daddio, unless you’re in your late 60’s, you’re not old enough to be my father. Don’t call me son anymore. It’s condescending and unbecoming.

We were told we should invade Iraq because they had these stockpiles of WMDs that they could use against us... "we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud" was the cliche we heard over and over again...

We found no WMDs... there goes that justification for invading...

We were told that we should invade Iraq because Saddam was a coconspirator in the attack on 9/11... I knew when I heard that line of bovine fecal matter that it wasn't true, because I DID know my history, and I knew that Osama bin Laden had financed anti-Saddam Kurds who were rebelling in the north of Iraq... does Saddam strike you as the kind of guy who'd cozy up to another guy who tried to help have him overthrown?? I knew that the TRUTH was that the two basically despised each other...

So I knew the attempts to link Saddam to al-Qaida would not hold up as a justification for invading, and history has judged that to be the case... there goes that justification for invading...

We were told that we needed to invade Iraq to enforce UN sanctions that Hussein had violated... I've already dealt with that one; show me where in the UN charter it gives us the right to act independently of the UN, without their backing, to enforce their resolutions...

There goes that justification for invading, too...

Those are the reasons we were given for invading Iraq... and in the fullness of time, every last one of them has been revealed to be bogus...

So, we invaded Iraq with no LEGITIMATE justification... and if that ain't wrong, what is??
It’s Friday. I may take some time next week, but right now, I really don’t care. I will offer you one rebuttal. If, and that is a major IF we went to war illegitimately as you claim, why hasn't Bush been impeached or at least brought up on charges?


Ahhh, the ol' "America, love it or leave it"... and you say you're not a right winger...

Thanks anyway, but I'm gonna stick around and see if I can help my country get back to doing right again... it appears that the first step is to throw all the neocons out of office...
Aww, come on. It was only presented as an option for you. I think you’d fit in well in France. As for throwing the neo-cons out of office, we’ll see. You may get your wish, but I hope not.

Insults only work if they bear some relation to the truth; absent that, they're just STUPID...
I guess that shoe fits, you keep wearing it.

Show me where I advocated "surrender"... You want to make amends, and sit down with the terrorists. Doesn’t sound much like a strategy for victory.

And you whine about me distorting YOUR arguments... I guess I could re-post your mischaracterization of the 95% again….

I'll ignore the rest of your juvenile insult fest... I just hope the mods let you off with a warning, rather than an infraction...
And I guess I’ll ignore the rest of your condescending insults.

Have a good weekend.

[zrinkill]

Nice try, but text book apples to oranges.

.
.
.
.

Try again?


How is that Apples and Oranges?

Has McCain ever attacked a nation that did not attack us?

Google it and get back to me.

[Ben_n_austin]

How is that Apples and Oranges?

Has McCain ever attacked a nation that did not attack us?

Google it and get back to me.

Different eras, different people, different circumstances = apples to oranges to grapefruits even.

[silverbear]

Come on Bear ...... you know my background. Do you really believe that?

Actually, I don't know your background, but no, I don't really believe you don't know how a guerilla war works...

We just disagree on how the War is now going. In my view General Petraeus has really turned it around .... and the differences in the invaders pulling back to regroup and retreating in disarray is astounding.

My standard for how the war is now going is are we getting any closer to winning?? And my honest answer is no, we're not... the terrorists are still there, still well-funded, and they're going to stay there as long as we're there...

This is not Vietnam ..... not even close to anyone with any Military background.

To the contrary, the parallels are quite striking... and the end result, I think, is almost certain to be the same... we had troops in there for sixteen years, and never "won"... and now, we've been in Iraq for five years plus, and I don't see any victory on the horizon...

[silverbear]

For all intents and purposes, we show Saudi Arabia a decent amount of respect.

Actually, we show Saudi Arabia too much freakin' respect, thanks to the Bush boys...

I agree, we need to work on our Arab-US relations.

That's the only chance we have of accomplishing anything positive in the Middle East...

[silverbear]

I'll get to the rest of your post as soon as I can. But I want to ask you what you think I will get an infraction for from the Mods?





Happy to oblige:

Either you are intentionally obtuse or seriously stupid.

You're not the brightest bulb in the chandelier, are you?

I guess that Richard Simmons is your role model, given what you advocate.

So, that's two different times you've called me stupid, and another time where you insinuate I'm a homosexual... all three posts are direct violations of the rules...

You should adopt burm's tactics, and stick to railing at unnamed "libs"...

Now, I've responded to your request, do you plan on responding to mine, do you plan on pointing out the insults I've inflicted on you??

Understand that I don't mind your insults, insults from people for whom I have little respect just don't sting... indeed, the only thing I'm doing by pointing them out is trying to save you from getting infractions (believe it or not)...

Oh, and of course I'm also mocking your inability to argue with someone with whom you disagree with out the idiotic ad hominem... it's long been said that people only resort to personal insults when they can't prevail on the facts... you don't like my views, but you can't effectively counter them, so instead you spew insults...

But again, I think part of the reason you did that is because you perceived insults in my posts where I was really only forcefully stating my case... you were outraged that I drew a comparison between you and Hitler, but I made it on one level and one level only, the willingness you both expressed to annihilate another segment of society...

I pointed that out in the hope that you'd look at what I said, and at what you said, and realize that you didn't really mean what you said, and correct the record... anyway, I think that's why you got pissed, you figured I was insulting you so you were gonna insult me...

And if you were right about that, then I'd certainly be fair game for insults... the problem is, any insults existed only in your mistaken perceptions... again, I invite you for about the 40th time to show me exactly where I insulted you...

But it's up to you, if you want to keep on with the way you've been acting, my conscience will be clear if you run afoul of the moderators... but I'd invite you to challenge yourself to try to debate me as I've been debating you-- on the facts...

[silverbear]

Don't take it as an insult, but I truly believe you don't want to see the benefits of this war. From your post's, you've made it clear you think it was /is a dirty, partisan contrived construct which you feel is grounded solely in on immoral basis.

That is a very accurate presentation of how I feel... so how can I take it as an insult??

Iraq is forming itself into a very legitimate state, with strong leadership, not at all grounded in the kind of behaviour it's previous regime was founded on.

Strong leadership??!? You're kidding, right??

That regime will survive only as long as we remain there to prop it up with our guns... it is a corrupt and incompetent government...

Having such an ally, on the border of a hostile entity, (Iran) is beneficial.

IF Iraq is peaceful and stable... but if they're ripping themselves apart in bloody fashion, they're not of much value as an ally...

The thing is, you don't seem to realize that one of the reasons this administration wants to remain in Iraq is the Iraqi government has already started cozying up to the Iranians... if we REALLY let them have self-determination, the likelihood is they'll be more of an Iranian ally than an American ally...

You might not feel it was worth it, but our international dealings are a major source of our countries ability to remain powerful and it's people living good.

And this war has done us irreparable harm in the area of our international dealings... we are more distrusted and more despised around the world as a result of it... even our staunchest allies, the British and the Aussies, are keeping us at a little more of arm's range (naturally, when support of the Iraq war cost the PMs of both countries their jobs)...

So I see the war as having a major NEGATIVE affect on our international dealings...

al Qeada has been effectively decimated

Actually, that's not true... recent security analyses have flatly said that al-Qaida has more troops and is better funded than it was before 9/11...

Now, al-Qaida in Iraq has taken some serious hits, but like any terrorist organization, they're just gonna go out and recruit the sons of the terrorists we've already killed... terrorism is like a Hydra, you cut off on head and two more grow back...

But al-Qaida in Iraq is actually just a rather small offshoot of bin Laden's al-Qaida, an offshoot that did not even exist until we invaded Iraq... so our invasion created more terrorists (which was predictable enough, to anybody with a lick of sense)...

There is going to be more violence- a sudden halt in violence cannot be realistically expected, but the 'guerilla war' is nearing it's end.

I don't mean to insult you either (you're being quite civil here, and I want to respond in kind), but that's so naively optimistic as to be Pollyanna-esque... for sure, I don't see any signs that the "guerilla war" is nearing its end...

Peace in that region is beneficial to all of us

Of course it is, but we haven't brought them "peace", we've brought them CHAOS...

and to think simply respecting these people or leaving the region is going bring it about is not at all realistic.

Maybe, maybe not, but for sure what we've been doing isn't working... they say insanity is repeating the same action over and over again, expecting a different result... to me, that's what we're doing...

Listen, it's not that I don't WANT to see positive things coming from out of Iraq, but I look and I look, and I honestly don't see on good thing coming out of this fiasco...

I sure do wish I could be as optimistic as you, I even supported the war at first (back when I believed what I was told about Saddam having WMDs), so it's not like I'm happy to be feeling the way I do... but I've been watching this situation VERY closely these last few years, and I just don't things are going anywhere NEAR as well as you seem to...

But hey, thanks for talking with me... it's nice to be able disagree with civility...

[vta]

That is a very accurate presentation of how I feel... so how can I take it as an insult??

Because it may very well mean that you lack the objectivity to fully recognize what is truly happening.

Strong leadership??!? You're kidding, right??

That regime will survive only as long as we remain there to prop it up with our guns... it is a corrupt and incompetent government...

As based on what? It's been the only one able to assert itself and make decisions based on law, without being infiltrated with sectarian allegiances.
Yes, it does require an American presence at the moment, but it won't forever.


IF Iraq is peaceful and stable... but if they're ripping themselves apart in bloody fashion, they're not of much value as an ally...

They're not. You'll notice the talk of 'civil war' is all but dead, and now get's characterized in the past tense as 'near' civil war. That assertion and tactic, by foriegner's didn't work.

The thing is, you don't seem to realize that one of the reasons this administration wants to remain in Iraq is the Iraqi government has already started cozying up to the Iranians...

This is not the case at all. al Amliki is playing his cards well, and I'm sure it's with silent U.S. blessing and strategic input. He deals diplomatically with Tehran, and militarily with Iran's militant elements within Iraq.

It's not my opinion, it's exactly what is happening now.

if we REALLY let them have self-determination, the likelihood is they'll be more of an Iranian ally than an American ally...

Perhaps, but sphere's of influence are where your policital strangths lie, and asserting your influence in international affairs isn't a 'neo-con' or partisan contrived construct. It's man's history and as a powerful country, the U.S. will assert it's influence to maintain an advantage.

And this war has done us irreparable harm in the area of our international dealings... we are more distrusted and more despised around the world as a result of it... even our staunchest allies, the British and the Aussies, are keeping us at a little more of arm's range (naturally, when support of the Iraq war cost the PMs of both countries their jobs)...

So I see the war as having a major NEGATIVE affect on our international dealings...

No it hasn't. The biggest strain has been with Russia and China- not truly allies. Right now, Afghanistan is called a 'NATO' operation, but we know it's American and a supposed distrust of the U.S. hasn't kept our allies from committing troops to the conflict.

Lines have been hypothetically drawn in the event of a large scale conflict and a number of allies have already indicated just how much they're willing to maintain good relations with the U.S.


Actually, that's not true... recent security analyses have flatly said that al-Qaida has more troops and is better funded than it was before 9/11...
Now, al-Qaida in Iraq has taken some serious hits, but like any terrorist organization, they're just gonna go out and recruit the sons of the terrorists we've already killed... terrorism is like a Hydra, you cut off on head and two more grow back...

But al-Qaida in Iraq is actually just a rather small offshoot of bin Laden's al-Qaida, an offshoot that did not even exist until we invaded Iraq... so our invasion created more terrorists (which was predictable enough, to anybody with a lick of sense)...

What recent analyses...is that? A recent analysis by Hayden was simply questioned by Jay Rockefeller, but not disproven. Hayden's analysis remains as al Qaeda being still a threat, but very much on the defensive.

Most of your views appear to be on par with news from 2005, where dread was the soup du jour. Still citing 'civil war' and the creation of more terrorists. The fact is ther's always a reason for more terrorists and they were quite prolific in filling their ranks long before Bush took office. This is war is about immediacy and taking care of certain root causes of such things. In the meantime, terrorism will continue and conflict will continue.

I don't mean to insult you either (you're being quite civil here, and I want to respond in kind), but that's so naively optimistic as to be Pollyanna-esque... for sure, I don't see any signs that the "guerilla war" is nearing its end...

You don't see signs, because like I mentioned above, I don't think you're willing to be objective, based on what you've confirmed as your reasons for being against the war.

The Iraqi Government is laying out it's laws and carrying out, (Yes, with U.S. help) it's authority, by disarming militia's, backed by Iranian elements. The war is turning political, with al Maliki being the voice of the final word for law in Iraq.


Of course it is, but we haven't brought them "peace", we've brought them CHAOS...

We brought them war. War is reprehensible, but it's also an unavoidable part of life. There was always going to be war there, it's just a matter of the outcome and sphere's of influence.

Maybe, maybe not, but for sure what we've been doing isn't working... they say insanity is repeating the same action over and over again, expecting a different result... to me, that's what we're doing...

I get the feeling you're alluding to Vietnam. Vietnam was never at this level of self sufficiency with U.S. involvement. It's funny how, as perceived by the constant dettractor, America's actions can always have positive effects for it's enemies, but never for the U.S. America has learned from Vietnam and this is nothing, nor willl it end anything like Vietnam.

Listen, it's not that I don't WANT to see positive things coming from out of Iraq, but I look and I look, and I honestly don't see on good thing coming out of this fiasco...

I sure do wish I could be as optimistic as you, I even supported the war at first (back when I believed what I was told about Saddam having WMDs), so it's not like I'm happy to be feeling the way I do... but I've been watching this situation VERY closely these last few years, and I just don't things are going anywhere NEAR as well as you seem to...

But hey, thanks for talking with me... it's nice to be able disagree with civility...

I can see the difference between discussing with some one like you, who doesn't hate the U.S. and someone who does. In reality, and I still don't mean it as an insult, I don't think you'll allow your hatred, -what appears to a partisan hatred - to not inform your judgments.

I'll always be civil in disagreement. ;)

[Rackat]

Now, I've responded to your request, do you plan on responding to mine, do you plan on pointing out the insults I've inflicted on you??

But it's up to you, if you want to keep on with the way you've been acting, my conscience will be clear if you run afoul of the moderators... but I'd invite you to challenge yourself to try to debate me as I've been debating you-- on the facts...
Obviously you have not read my entire rebuttal. But, I expected that. Your modus operandi is to attempt to incite your opposition over the line with condescending isulting posts and see if they take the bait and come straight out and call you a name. Unfortunately for you, bear, I have done nothing more than you have done. If there is to be infractions, then they should be divided betweeen us as I have gone no further over the line than you. At this point you are nothing more than a saddle bur that once removed is no longer an irritant. Because you have no honor and you lack character, I am finished with you on this subject. You obviously have some reading comprehension issues that need to be addressed.

[silverbear]

OK, that one got a chuckle from me. :D

Sometimes political cartoonists can be wicked funny... no matter who they're skewering...

[silverbear]

Obviously you have not read my entire rebuttal.

I asked you very simply to quote any or all of my alleged insults... seems you're incapable of doing so... which is sad, since I did exactly that when YOU asked me to...

But it's not unexpected, because you simply cannot find one word I've written in response to you that even approaches the lines I quoted from you... yes, I said I was less than impressed with your intellect, but that was in the post after you opined that I was either obtuse or stupid (BTW, I'll offer you one compliment, not many grasp the semantic distinction between the two, and use them as synonyms)...

But, I expected that. Your modus operandi is to attempt to incite your opposition over the line with condescending

What you call condescension, I call stating my case forcefully... your thin skin is not my problem, but once again, I'd advise you to choose your insults a bit more carefully, lest you run afoul of the powers that be in here...

Understand that I have in the past gotten a couple of infractions myself for crossing over the line, so this is the voice of experience talking here...

Unfortunately for you, bear, I have done nothing more than you have done.

Then quote me... your ongoing refusal to do such a simple thing demonstrates that you can't offer up anything to support that theory...

Because you have no honor and you lack character,


Oooooooh, I REALLY pissed you off, didn't I?? How completely pathetic, that you can't argue politics without getting all bent out of shape...

I have to ask, what "honor" is there in accusing a man of something, then refusing to document your accusations?? And I'll repeat once again, when YOU asked, I gave you the respect of responding with quotes... I note with interest that you've stayed well away from any response to THAT... again, how honorable is that??

Before you go woofing about honor and character, it would behoove you to first develop some of your own... you know, glass houses and all that...

I am finished with you on this subject.

I understand, if you're gonna kill off 95 per cent of the world's Muslims, you're gonna need to have your guns all cleaned... don't let me keep you from your patriotic jihad, Rambo...