Serious question - Why just 1 Iraq?

From politics to poetry, if it isn't covered in one of the other forums and you want to share it with us, put it here.

Re: Serious question - Why just 1 Iraq?

Postby VectorAWX3 » Tue Oct 24, 2006 3:55 am

and I quote...

You started with:
Quote:
You can make snide comments if you want


You just said:
Quote:
you don't liek it .. don't read it.


Leah, is it any coincidence that the people who's "style" you don't like might also have the views you don't like? Or is that a complete coincidence? Perhaps you prefer the condescending tone of Ken and Gene.

I don't distort anything. But others say I do (and now you do as well). Everything I do is apparently a stupid rhetorical trick and every argument I put up is a strawman. Seriously. Really. I must be a natural since I have no idea what those two are referring to. I'm actually stating my honest opinion. I might be misguided. I might be wrong. I might be a fool. But I am stating my opinion and not trying to outwit any of the self-professed masters-of-information who think they own every argument by denigrating anyone who doesn't agree with them.

But again, you don't agree with my opinion, so I must be acting like a bastard for the sake of acting like a bastard. Simple as that. (Still reading? Good. Just checking.)

Yes, I know that your thread was about fragmentation. It won't happen anytime soon. Eventually, after everyone gets along, the whole mideast will fragment much like the Balkans. Give it 50-75 years. Of course, by then, political boundaries will mean next to nothing, as the whole world will be caught up in a giant Euro-style economic concolidation and nobody will give two hoots about political borders.

But that's just me being hopeful.

I don't hold out hope for anyone actually taking my opinions seriously, as I've already been informed I'm a deluded tool of the right wing (in slightly different language... only slightly) several times throughout this thread.

And of course, I couldn't care less. :hat
Jaghatai, on the Pale Rider event: I hop on this board to post a simple NEWCC question, end up looking at some interacial lesbian action and watch a religious meltdown. You guys know how to party!
User avatar
VectorAWX3
 
Posts: 10006
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2008 11:13 am

Re: Serious question - Why just 1 Iraq?

Postby Amazonwarlord » Tue Oct 24, 2006 4:02 am

Thrax didn't agree and Night gobbo made points I'm not sure I understand.

I already appologized for degrading a topic I didn't want degraded and I said
Quote:
This is a serious question: You can make snide comments if you want cause it's a free country but that's not what I'm looking for.


I clearly asked people for opinions not snide comments. You have admitted to me in person you like to get people riled and you often don't really thingk the things you say so again I say you bring it on yourself.

And yes, I said "if you don't like it don't read it" and when I follow my own principal you get upppity because it's your writtings I don't like and feel like ignoring. Too bad
"I have not failed, I've just found ten thousand ways that won't work." – Thomas Edison
User avatar
Amazonwarlord
 
Posts: 2677
Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2008 6:40 pm

Re: Serious question - Why just 1 Iraq?

Postby -NightGoblinHordeLeader » Tue Oct 24, 2006 9:45 am

Point being, there's alot of reasons why.

There are also alot of people who don't like those reasons.

One reason is that it is a humanistically, and humanely, compelling place to send our military as a peacekeeping force. That's an ideal that has been guiding our military decisions for awhile, such as in Africa. We try to keep peace, and we lose some people in the process, and we hope it makes things better.

Another is that it is a potentially economically and politically beneficial place for us to exert our influence. Beneficial for "them", beneficial for "us", beneficial for the world.

And it goes along with all the other whacky reasons Bush gives, like the axis of terror and the weapons of mass destruction and so on.

Also, consider that the United States isn't the only nation in the middle east. There are many different nations doing the same thing as the U.S. military. Obviously some other countries think it's a good idea to be there.
-NightGoblinHordeLeader
 
Posts: 58
Joined: Mon Jul 21, 2008 7:46 pm

Re: Serious question - Why just 1 Iraq?

Postby Amazonwarlord » Tue Oct 24, 2006 8:21 pm

Quote:
One reason is that it is a humanistically, and humanely, compelling place to send our military as a peacekeeping force. That's an ideal that has been guiding our military decisions for awhile, such as in Africa. We try to keep peace, and we lose some people in the process, and we hope it makes things better.


I wish I could believe this bu I can't. If the humane was the thing to be doin our military would be around the world righting injustices that make Guantanomo bay look like a tea party and we just simply are not.

Your next statement about protecting resources we need is true and wars have been started over less.

Bush's reasons 1) were false and just to provoke a country raw with fear of terroism into a war he wanted for resons other than terrorism. 2) no longer (really) relevent as we are there.

Thanks for clarifying.

It's no secret I was against THIS war from the start (Afghan war ok - Iraq seemed stupid as to me and the few things I learned in history is if you devide you fronts one of them will suffer and likely fall to failure. I think we shoulda taken care of Afghanistan first and well if nothing else before Mucking around in Iraq)

It is also no secret I am one of those flaming liberals --- oh wait -- it's ball-less bleeding heart liberals --- and I for one think leaving Iraq right now is a huge mistake and I wish the Dems would get their heads on straight. Leave now, and the vacuum in our wake will be filled with SOMETHING. We'd better stay and control how we leave and have it be as close to on OUR terms as possible. Remember what I said about shortsightedness? It is bipartisan. And the Dems calling for retreat now as as shortsighted as I've ever seen. Another stupididty. IMHO.

Now, Ed, Nidal .. see it's easy to disagree in a non provacative, inflamatory and hyperbolic way. If you want to that is .. I don't think either of you want to so I choose more and more to skip or skim what you say. You bring it on yourselves.
"I have not failed, I've just found ten thousand ways that won't work." – Thomas Edison
User avatar
Amazonwarlord
 
Posts: 2677
Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2008 6:40 pm

Re: Serious question - Why just 1 Iraq?

Postby VectorAWX3 » Tue Oct 24, 2006 8:59 pm

Leah, read what's been directed at me for the past several dozen posts (by other than yourself) and you tell me how long you'd last in a non-provocative, non-inflamitory mood. :

Anyway, I disagree with your point #1. I don't think the reasons were purposely false. Everyone had the same intelligence reports and everyone fucked up. To blame one man doesn't make sense. I don't care if you're the president... the way the gov't works, one man does not decide policy. PLENTY of people could have (and tried) to stop this before it happened. But the majority of the pres's party, intelligence community, congress, etc. OK'ed this. The electorate was for this. Even the French believed Saddam had WMD's. Unless they took Bush's word for it (unlikely) then their intelligence estimates said the same things Bush's intelligence estimated did.

Point #2: You're entirely correct. We are where we are. Let's see if the new tough talk direct at the new Iraqi gov't will wake them up. I've been calling for this for a few months now. I think right now there exists a culture including strong elements of two very negative traits in Iraq: Blame and Opportunism. Until those are reigned in, progress will not be made. And we can't reign them it. It's going to take Iraqis in positions of power to do so.

Well, I guess the French can be happy. They get to say "we told you so." Spineless fuckers. The #1 thing that could have prevented all this madness was a more robust coalition on the ground. US and British supported by fairly token forces just didn't cut it. But that's all well good and gone. Now, it's up to the locals. Sadly, there seems to be such an embedded culture of defeatism (probably owing to the decades of rule under Saddam) that whether or not it will happen is anyone's guess.

(I keenly await Ken's response about my setting up strawmen and the like.)
Jaghatai, on the Pale Rider event: I hop on this board to post a simple NEWCC question, end up looking at some interacial lesbian action and watch a religious meltdown. You guys know how to party!
User avatar
VectorAWX3
 
Posts: 10006
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2008 11:13 am

Re: Serious question - Why just 1 Iraq?

Postby mattbird » Tue Oct 24, 2006 10:10 pm

Quote:
One reason is that it is a humanistically, and humanely, compelling place to send our military as a peacekeeping force. That's an ideal that has been guiding our military decisions for awhile, such as in Africa. We try to keep peace, and we lose some people in the process, and we hope it makes things better.


yes! By all means, let's bring peace and Nikes to the savage heathens! They will welcome us with open arms to better expose thier bomb-vests! The world loves us most when we send our boys with M16s to free them from thier internal conflicts and energy supplies
jer732 wrote:Birdoff makes me want to rage quit life
mattbird
 
Posts: 5595
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2008 3:25 pm

Re: Serious question - Why just 1 Iraq?

Postby -NightGoblinHordeLeader » Tue Oct 24, 2006 10:49 pm

<i>It's no secret I was against THIS war from the start (Afghan war ok - Iraq seemed stupid as to me and the few things I learned in history is if you devide you fronts one of them will suffer and likely fall to failure. I think we shoulda taken care of Afghanistan first and well if nothing else before Mucking around in Iraq)

It is also no secret I am one of those flaming liberals --- oh wait -- it's ball-less bleeding heart liberals --- and I for one think leaving Iraq right now is a huge mistake and I wish the Dems would get their heads on straight. Leave now, and the vacuum in our wake will be filled with SOMETHING. We'd better stay and control how we leave and have it be as close to on OUR terms as possible. Remember what I said about shortsightedness? It is bipartisan. And the Dems calling for retreat now as as shortsighted as I've ever seen. Another stupididty. IMHO.</i>

I completely agree.
-NightGoblinHordeLeader
 
Posts: 58
Joined: Mon Jul 21, 2008 7:46 pm

Re: Serious question - Why just 1 Iraq?

Postby -The Fabulous Orcboy » Tue Oct 24, 2006 10:56 pm

No, Nidal.
Quote:
I don't distort anything. But others say I do (and now you do as well). Everything I do is apparently a stupid rhetorical trick and every argument I put up is a strawman. Seriously. Really. I must be a natural since I have no idea what those two are referring to. I'm actually stating my honest opinion. I might be misguided. I might be wrong. I might be a fool. But I am stating my opinion and not trying to outwit any of the self-professed masters-of-information who think they own every argument by denigrating anyone who doesn't agree with them.

But again, you don't agree with my opinion, so I must be acting like a bastard for the sake of acting like a bastard. Simple as that. (Still reading? Good. Just checking.)

.....

I don't hold out hope for anyone actually taking my opinions seriously, as I've already been informed I'm a deluded tool of the right wing (in slightly different language... only slightly) several times throughout this thread.
Again, for something like the umpteenth time.

Nidal you poor, poor, abused, little man. You have the right to any damn opinion you want.

But there is a quantifiable and measurable and MEANINGFUL difference between an uninformed opinion, and an informed opinion.

You sit there and whimper and mewl pitifully about how bad, bad, bad Ken and Gene are so MEAN to you, that they keep HURTING you with their nasty ejamakation and Big Words and fancy-pants spelling. I mean, they have opinions and you have opinions, everyone has opinions, what's the difference?

Simply put: your opinions are uninformed. They are quantifiably and measurably wrong. They are misinformed and based on bad assumptions. They are filled with bad analysis. AND, just for fun, they're filled with Stupid Rhetorical Tricks (like the "whine, whine, poor me, I should be allowed to fight back too" nonsense you pull whenever you're confronted with facts of record).

For example:

France: No, France did NOT think that Saddam Hussein had nuclear weapons. Nor did Italy, or Germany. Britain rather conclusively decided that Saddam did NOT have nukes. This is a matter of historical fact. Thus, you are WRONG.

WMD: Yes, everyone knew that Saddam had chemical weapons, because he USED THEM AGAINST IRAN. Those were the "WMD" that everyone knew he had. The ONLY ONES who were convinced that Saddam had any Nukes was Bush and Cheney and the neocons in the White House. The ONLY ONES. This is the basis for the whole Libby/Rove/Valerie Plame business. This is the "yellow cake" nonsense. This was Colin Powell destroying his reputation by making shit up in the UN about Nukes and Uranium enrichment. This was every intelligence agency in the world SAVE TWO (Cheney's in-house guys, and Tenet's cronies at the CIA) deciding that Saddam did not in fact have nukes, or even a functioning nuclear program.

When you conflate "WMD" and "Nuke", you're rather consciously overgeneralizing. Yes, everyone knew Saddam had chemical weapons. Everyone also was 99.9999999% sure that he had no nuclear weapons. Hell, they were inspecting everything in Iraq including up Saddam's asshole (almost literally) and not finding any hints of anything.

Aftermath: It turns out, Saddam didn't have any WMDs at all. He didn't even have any substantial remaining supplies of chemical weapons. His "nuclear program" was a couple of plans in zip-lock bags buried in the back yard of some state scientists.

=====

Libya: Yes, it was frikkin' coincidence. Britain had spent about seven years working on Qaddafi to give up his (stalled, bankrupted, and going-nowhere) nuclear program in exchange for removal of sanctions, readmission to the world community, etc. Of COURSE Bush claimed credit for this (and apparently, you don't bother to learn enough about the background of the deals, or the British work on the project, or the EU or UN or South African envoys, or how the Libyan program had stalled anyway and Qaddafi was getting something-for-nothing) -- and you believe him. But he had about as much effect on this as he had on the Tsunami in Indonesia -- which also happened while Bush was in office, you know. BTW, that was coincidence, too.

North Korea: As North Korea has so clearly proven, Bush has no leverage on countries that actually HAS a nuke. Bush rejected every existing plan that cut back nuclear funding and research, and basically made it EASIER for NK to develop their bomb. No restrictions, no inspections, nothing. Just empty threats. Now they're fully nuclear.

=====

I can't speak for Gene, but I'm scathing because:

(a) You're so frequently so clearly, factually, measurably WRONG on the factual details.

(b) You constantly whine about how I'm not respecting your opinions. Give me some informed opinions, not stuff you pull out of your ass, and I'll treat it with more respect.

(c) You do the Stupid Rhetorical Tricks of creating strawmen (extreme, fake arguments that I didn't make) and/or attacking me instead of my critiques (ad hominem), and/or reducing everything to a false binary opposition (either X or Y!!! No other options!!!). Stupid, simple arguments deserve nothing but scorn for how stupid and simple they are. Come up with intelligent responses and I'll respond to them respectfully.

In short: you whine like a little kid who stamps his heels and throws a temper tantrum. Then you demand respect.

Yeah, right
-The Fabulous Orcboy
 
Posts: 395
Joined: Mon Jul 21, 2008 11:18 am

Re: Serious question - Why just 1 Iraq?

Postby VectorAWX3 » Tue Oct 24, 2006 11:05 pm

Oh geez. Ken, I read your first sentence then skipped the entire rest. Didn't even skim it.

And that would be where I would insert my:

FUCK YOU, KEN. :D (with a smilie, so it's all nice and OK)

Forget all this Iraq war nonsense. Can you tell me why you hate me so much? Seriously. What the F did I ever do to you, you lousy excuse for a prick?
Jaghatai, on the Pale Rider event: I hop on this board to post a simple NEWCC question, end up looking at some interacial lesbian action and watch a religious meltdown. You guys know how to party!
User avatar
VectorAWX3
 
Posts: 10006
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2008 11:13 am

Re: Serious question - Why just 1 Iraq?

Postby The Gunslinger » Tue Oct 24, 2006 11:36 pm

To put my finger on the problem, if I may, so we can analyze this, say we're sorry, and get along with the rest of the day & play wargames once a week...

The problem seems to stem from 2 people (Leah & Ken) that simply categorize another 2 people (Nidal & to a certain point, Ed) based on their style of debate. Snide comments were welcomed, but oddly enough, apparently irrating comments would be ignored. Not simply ignored, but ignored with a mean attitude & it was made known.

Nidal was being who he was, without any tricks up his sleeve, but Leah & Ken slam him for these imagined tricks. Really guys. Calm down. We all hang out with each other and have fun. This sort of attitude fosters bad mojo. Without getting into details & who said what, just knock it off.

After my comment about Ed being a troll, Leah was already upset, by not only thanking the people who contributed to the discussion, which automatically excluded me, but further excluded me (and Ed) by name. I already knew it wouldn't be long until the thread degenerated. Recognize the problem early, and be cordial. :)
:2guns:
User avatar
The Gunslinger
 
Posts: 3505
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 12:48 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Off Topic

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron