OK, wanta debate legalization of pot? Seems like the most
deleterious effect of pot smoking is that the gov't puts way to many
people in jail for it. That's what ruins people's lives - not the
drug itself. Does keep the price nice and high for the gangsters who
sell it, though. It's not as if all the enforcement actually stops
the trade or anything. DEA and cops get lots of federal money - but
the drug cartels get more - like so much they have more money than
many nations (can buy lots of cops - that's really good for our
institutions - not!).
Hell, they can buy whole nations... - Hugh
On 29 Aug 2005, at 20:24, Flying Lobster wrote:
>
> In response to Marco's "what would I do if I were in command"
> question (totally absurd of course) but since I kinda like the idea
> of being king for a day, I'll give you my answer.
>
> Option one: Pull out all American forces immediately. Make sure the
> last aircraft to depart Iraqi airspace can leave a skywriting
> message saying "Have a nice day, love, G.W."
>
> OPtion two: Begin a massive neutron/tactical nuke bombing mission
> around the entire periphery of Iraq's borders, thereby sealing them
> off, say , for the next 50 thousand years or so. This will likely
> finally stop the inflow of insurgents. Declare the entire country
> an internment camp and arrest everyone. Don't forget to throw a
> party on the deck of the good ship lollipop and declare mission
> accomplished. (note: since it was my idea first I FORBID the
> administration to use this idea, since it occurs to me that it
> might in fact appeal to them).
>
> Option three: Legalize pot. Why not? Makes about as much sense as
> anything else about this war!
>
> marcgot art?
> http://www.marcfink.com/
> wanna fly?
> http://www.downeastairsports.com/
>
Enough pessimism -- how about the good news
Moderator: CHGPA BOD
Reply to Hugh #2 --we're making progress here
Hugh,
Thanks for you clear, coherent, and reasoned response to the question.
In your reply you said:
<<B) This is the course of action which the administration has
already determined, but will not admit to. If keeping the troops
there were doing any good, I might be for it, but it's just not.
The mistake to which I refer is the pig-headed refusal to plan
realistically for what would happen after Saddam and his henchmen
were defeated. >>
By your own words, perhaps inadvertently, you admit that Saddam and his henchmen "were defeated". To implement a V+1 day plan, you must first have a "V" day, right? Conversely, if Saddam has NOT been defeated, then there is no need to implement a V+1 strategy or plan.
So I am glad to hear that we can agree that Saddam et al have been defeated.....like I said, we're making progress here LOL.
My concern is how best for America to proceed from here. That's why I posted the earlier question.
IF YOU WERE PRESIDENT, WOULD YOU ORDER:
>
> A) AN IMMEDIATE WITHDRAWAL OF ALL TROOPS
> B) A GRADUAL WITHDRAWAL OF ALL TROOPS STARTING NOW
> C) A GRADUAL WITHDRAWAL OF ALL TROOOPS STARTING IN A FEW MONTHS
> D) AN INCREASE IN TROOPS-- I think Joe mentioned something like this.
> E) Some other option.
If upping the troop numbers to 350K or 500K would insure a quick and decisive victory over these foreign terrorists, I would be ok with that, as I think most people would. But, adding more troops, just to provide "more targets" ,and not accelerating the victory timetable against the terrorists, is counterproductive. This, indeed, is a legitimate point of debate.
The challenge for the liberal "loyal oppposition" is to come up with a "better plan" than the current plan. It is easy to criticize and second guess with 20-20 hind sight .....anybody can do that. The hard part is to develop the "best" plan to move forward. Indeed Joe and Gary, for all of their passion and "enlightenment", did NOT answer this simple question, as have Hugh and Marc. Come on guys, answer the question.....no guts, no glory. Other respondents are welcome as well...I am not picking on Joe and Gary.
The FACT of the matter is that, no matter how the troops got there or what their exact mission is or was, or how you "feel" about the entire situation, we have troops in harm's way, and we should all be focused on how best to proceed so as to MAXIMIZE THE BENEFITS (killing and defeating terrorists, and supporting the Iraqi government and people until they are self sufficient) and MINIMIZE THE COSTS to our soldiers and the Iraqi's.
If you are advocates of immediate withdrawal, please explain how immediate withdrawal would be a benefit to our national security, how this retreat would be perceived by radical Islamists, and how it would benefit the Iraqi's seeking democracy and self determination. Same goes for an immediate "gradual" withdrawal.
Lastly, the Congressional resolution in 2002 that authorized the war listed 22 separate justifications for the war,...not just WMD as many critics haplessly keep repeating. This resolution was supported by many prominent Democrats, including Hillary, John Kerry, John Edwards, and Tom Daschle (what ever happened to him...isn't he an evil lobbyist now?) Look it up (the resolution) .....it's in the congressional record. The Congress controls the pursestrings and can terminate the funding for this war at any time, so, this is an American Bipartisan venture, not just a Republican venture, unless you are suggesting that Hillary, John & John, and Tom are "unAmerican" , or even worse, Republican collaborators. LOL.
gonna get back to work here. Later.
Marco
PS: I started this subject to provide a conservative view of these events, as most, if not all, of the other posts were markedly liberal. I have refrained from calling anyone any names or besmirching their character. I like a good debate, if it can be kept on a respectful and friendly basis. And I try to keep to the "facts" of the debate as much as possible, because if we can agree on certain "facts", then it becomes easier to have an intelligent, reasoned discussion.
Thanks for you clear, coherent, and reasoned response to the question.
In your reply you said:
<<B) This is the course of action which the administration has
already determined, but will not admit to. If keeping the troops
there were doing any good, I might be for it, but it's just not.
The mistake to which I refer is the pig-headed refusal to plan
realistically for what would happen after Saddam and his henchmen
were defeated. >>
By your own words, perhaps inadvertently, you admit that Saddam and his henchmen "were defeated". To implement a V+1 day plan, you must first have a "V" day, right? Conversely, if Saddam has NOT been defeated, then there is no need to implement a V+1 strategy or plan.
So I am glad to hear that we can agree that Saddam et al have been defeated.....like I said, we're making progress here LOL.
My concern is how best for America to proceed from here. That's why I posted the earlier question.
IF YOU WERE PRESIDENT, WOULD YOU ORDER:
>
> A) AN IMMEDIATE WITHDRAWAL OF ALL TROOPS
> B) A GRADUAL WITHDRAWAL OF ALL TROOPS STARTING NOW
> C) A GRADUAL WITHDRAWAL OF ALL TROOOPS STARTING IN A FEW MONTHS
> D) AN INCREASE IN TROOPS-- I think Joe mentioned something like this.
> E) Some other option.
If upping the troop numbers to 350K or 500K would insure a quick and decisive victory over these foreign terrorists, I would be ok with that, as I think most people would. But, adding more troops, just to provide "more targets" ,and not accelerating the victory timetable against the terrorists, is counterproductive. This, indeed, is a legitimate point of debate.
The challenge for the liberal "loyal oppposition" is to come up with a "better plan" than the current plan. It is easy to criticize and second guess with 20-20 hind sight .....anybody can do that. The hard part is to develop the "best" plan to move forward. Indeed Joe and Gary, for all of their passion and "enlightenment", did NOT answer this simple question, as have Hugh and Marc. Come on guys, answer the question.....no guts, no glory. Other respondents are welcome as well...I am not picking on Joe and Gary.
The FACT of the matter is that, no matter how the troops got there or what their exact mission is or was, or how you "feel" about the entire situation, we have troops in harm's way, and we should all be focused on how best to proceed so as to MAXIMIZE THE BENEFITS (killing and defeating terrorists, and supporting the Iraqi government and people until they are self sufficient) and MINIMIZE THE COSTS to our soldiers and the Iraqi's.
If you are advocates of immediate withdrawal, please explain how immediate withdrawal would be a benefit to our national security, how this retreat would be perceived by radical Islamists, and how it would benefit the Iraqi's seeking democracy and self determination. Same goes for an immediate "gradual" withdrawal.
Lastly, the Congressional resolution in 2002 that authorized the war listed 22 separate justifications for the war,...not just WMD as many critics haplessly keep repeating. This resolution was supported by many prominent Democrats, including Hillary, John Kerry, John Edwards, and Tom Daschle (what ever happened to him...isn't he an evil lobbyist now?) Look it up (the resolution) .....it's in the congressional record. The Congress controls the pursestrings and can terminate the funding for this war at any time, so, this is an American Bipartisan venture, not just a Republican venture, unless you are suggesting that Hillary, John & John, and Tom are "unAmerican" , or even worse, Republican collaborators. LOL.
gonna get back to work here. Later.
Marco
PS: I started this subject to provide a conservative view of these events, as most, if not all, of the other posts were markedly liberal. I have refrained from calling anyone any names or besmirching their character. I like a good debate, if it can be kept on a respectful and friendly basis. And I try to keep to the "facts" of the debate as much as possible, because if we can agree on certain "facts", then it becomes easier to have an intelligent, reasoned discussion.
-
Flying Lobster
- Posts: 1042
- Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2005 4:17 pm
Re: Enough pessimism -- how about the good news
Nahhh...the real reason it makes sense is that a) it will help to further stupify the public, and b) all the money saved can be invested in making more and better weapons for silly wars like this one, where the real endgame is simply killing more people!mcelrah wrote:OK, wanta debate legalization of pot? Seems like the most
deleterious effect of pot smoking is that the gov't puts way to many
people in jail for it. That's what ruins people's lives - not the
drug itself. Does keep the price nice and high for the gangsters who
sell it, though. It's not as if all the enforcement actually stops
the trade or anything. DEA and cops get lots of federal money - but
the drug cartels get more - like so much they have more money than
many nations (can buy lots of cops - that's really good for our
institutions - not!).
Hell, they can buy whole nations... - Hugh
On 29 Aug 2005, at 20:24, Flying Lobster wrote:
>
> In response to Marco's "what would I do if I were in command"
> question (totally absurd of course) but since I kinda like the idea
> of being king for a day, I'll give you my answer.
>
> Option one: Pull out all American forces immediately. Make sure the
> last aircraft to depart Iraqi airspace can leave a skywriting
> message saying "Have a nice day, love, G.W."
>
> OPtion two: Begin a massive neutron/tactical nuke bombing mission
> around the entire periphery of Iraq's borders, thereby sealing them
> off, say , for the next 50 thousand years or so. This will likely
> finally stop the inflow of insurgents. Declare the entire country
> an internment camp and arrest everyone. Don't forget to throw a
> party on the deck of the good ship lollipop and declare mission
> accomplished. (note: since it was my idea first I FORBID the
> administration to use this idea, since it occurs to me that it
> might in fact appeal to them).
>
> Option three: Legalize pot. Why not? Makes about as much sense as
> anything else about this war!
>
> marcgot art?
> http://www.marcfink.com/
> wanna fly?
> http://www.downeastairsports.com/
>
Sound good to you, Dr. "Strangelove" Zemora?
Great Googly-moo!
-
Flying Lobster
- Posts: 1042
- Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2005 4:17 pm
Marco--don't try to use typical deception to muddy the issue--we are in Iraq for one reason only--because GW ordered it so! Nobody in Congress ordered it, and saying that "now that we're there, whatever the reason, we have to deal with it" doesn't cut it either.
Even though the evidence was obvious at the outset that this was a huge debacle in the making, there is still time to cut our losses and regroup FOR THE REAL battle against THE REAL threat. The reason the administration continues to fool the public and kill our troops and the economy is that they decieve us into believeing that the BAthist regime--WHICH ARE SWORN ENEMIES OF FUNDAMENTALIST ISLAMIC MOVEMENTS--are the same damn thing as Al Queda terrorists and thus a target for vengence over 911. ALL LIES--ALL DECEPTION! How can anyone be so stupid as to believe this?
The time for BS'ing about pro-military flag waving is over and its time to face reality. While we're entangled in Iraq wasting valuable military and financial assests, what do you think Bin Landin and his associates are doing? They couldn't be happier, I'm sure. If there is any doubt what the fundamentalist Islamic state vision is all about, try looking into what is up in the existing fundamentalist states in the world. Sudan, for example, is openly conducted a campaign of genocide against its indigenous black African population. These types of states are about as far from anything you can call a democracy as can be.
The only outcome of this stupid folly in Iraq will ultimately be some kind of Islamic state aligned with Iran. The only thing that can prevent it is continued US/UN military presence or an all-out civil war which will lead to the establishment of quasi-independent warlord states (like Afganistan, really).
The real battle is coming, and the battlefield of hearts and minds will be more important than just who's got the most hardware.
marc
Even though the evidence was obvious at the outset that this was a huge debacle in the making, there is still time to cut our losses and regroup FOR THE REAL battle against THE REAL threat. The reason the administration continues to fool the public and kill our troops and the economy is that they decieve us into believeing that the BAthist regime--WHICH ARE SWORN ENEMIES OF FUNDAMENTALIST ISLAMIC MOVEMENTS--are the same damn thing as Al Queda terrorists and thus a target for vengence over 911. ALL LIES--ALL DECEPTION! How can anyone be so stupid as to believe this?
The time for BS'ing about pro-military flag waving is over and its time to face reality. While we're entangled in Iraq wasting valuable military and financial assests, what do you think Bin Landin and his associates are doing? They couldn't be happier, I'm sure. If there is any doubt what the fundamentalist Islamic state vision is all about, try looking into what is up in the existing fundamentalist states in the world. Sudan, for example, is openly conducted a campaign of genocide against its indigenous black African population. These types of states are about as far from anything you can call a democracy as can be.
The only outcome of this stupid folly in Iraq will ultimately be some kind of Islamic state aligned with Iran. The only thing that can prevent it is continued US/UN military presence or an all-out civil war which will lead to the establishment of quasi-independent warlord states (like Afganistan, really).
The real battle is coming, and the battlefield of hearts and minds will be more important than just who's got the most hardware.
marc
Great Googly-moo!
Enough pessimism -- how about the good news
I too supported the war. It might have been worth doing had the
administration been willing to do it right. But they cheaped out
and blundered into a - yes! - quagmire. At this stage, not only
would more troops not do any good (as they would have on V+1), the
continued presence of so many U.S. troops is counterproductive. So
we should admit defeat and leave. (On your "victory" sophistry:
ever heard the phrase "win the battle and lose the war"?) This isn't
20-20 hindsight: the Army Chief of Staff argued for more troops (as
I'm sure did Colin Powell) and they were marginalized. In addition
to the civilian leadership, I also blame Tommy Franks and the Joint
Chiefs for not having the integrity to resign rather than sign up to
a plan with an inadequate "morning after victory" annex. Franks was
just being opportunistic, wanted to get to be a theater commander in
a war. Your simplistic formulation of "killing and defeating
terrorists" shows a fundamental misunderstanding: it just doesn't
work, they are the original "whack-a-mole". Two more are recruited
for every one killed. Our conventional troops are the world's best
at defeating an enemy who stands and fights, but they are ill-
equipped, organized or trained to fight a guerrilla war. They are
trying really hard and many officers and NCOs show a lot of insight
and creativity, but they are in a no-win situation. I am old enough
to remember watching the Vietnam war on TV: we always won the body
count by 10 to 1. Political leaders then and now say "stay the
course" - but they haven't answered "what course?" Bush's primary
motivation is to avoid too public a debacle until after 2006 or until
he can slime out of office and hide in Crawford. That's why you hear
so much fury from us: he's willing to let kids get blown up for
another year or two just so he won't have to publicly admit that he
blew it. Lastly, as Kerry pointed out, what the Congressional
resolution authorized is not what the administration did: they were
supposed to let the UN process run, but they cut it off and invaded.
Now, there were important practical considerations for going when
they did (how would YOU like to fight in a rubber suit in the Iraqi
summer), but you can't spread the responsibility to the Congress too
much. My argument is with the administration's bungling failure of
execution, not the principle of taking out Saddam. Fact is, we had
already been at war with Iraq for along time, our pilots exchanging
shots with the Iraqi air defense missiles every day. Economic
sanctions were an immoral half measure which only victimized the
poorest Iraqi people. But contrast our diplomatic situation this
time around with that for Desert Storm, when we had near universal
support. This was a result of Bush's dissing civilized world opinion
on the environment and the ABM treaty (for the sake of what? one
missile site in Alaska that can't pass an operational test? feel
safer?). Felt good to be in-your-face to those limp-wristed
Europeans, didn't it? Wasn't worth the consequences, was it? We may
have seen the high water mark of American power and prestige in the
world - during the Daddy Bush administration. With Shrub in the oval
office, it's been all downhill... - Hugh
On 29 Aug 2005, at 22:55, Marco Zee wrote:
>
> Hugh,
> Thanks for you clear, coherent, and reasoned response to the question.
> In your reply you said:
>
>
>
> By your own words, perhaps inadvertently, you admit that Saddam and
> his henchmen "were defeated". To implement a V+1 day plan, you
> must first have a "V" day, right? Conversely, if Saddam has NOT
> been defeated, then there is no need to implement a V+1 strategy or
> plan.
>
> So I am glad to hear that we can agree that Saddam et al have been
> defeated.....like I said, we're making progress here LOL.
>
> My concern is how best for America to proceed from here. That's
> why I posted the earlier question.
>
> IF YOU WERE PRESIDENT, WOULD YOU ORDER:
>
>>
>> A) AN IMMEDIATE WITHDRAWAL OF ALL TROOPS
>> B) A GRADUAL WITHDRAWAL OF ALL TROOPS STARTING NOW
>> C) A GRADUAL WITHDRAWAL OF ALL TROOOPS STARTING IN A FEW MONTHS
>> D) AN INCREASE IN TROOPS-- I think Joe mentioned something like this.
>> E) Some other option.
>>
>
> If upping the troop numbers to 350K or 500K would insure a quick
> and decisive victory over these foreign terrorists, I would be ok
> with that, as I think most people would. But, adding more troops,
> just to provide "more targets" ,and not accelerating the victory
> timetable against the terrorists, is counterproductive. This,
> indeed, is a legitimate point of debate.
>
> The challenge for the liberal "loyal oppposition" is to come up
> with a "better plan" than the current plan. It is easy to
> criticize and second guess with 20-20 hind sight .....anybody can
> do that. The hard part is to develop the "best" plan to move
> forward. Indeed Joe and Gary, for all of their passion and
> "enlightenment", did NOT answer this simple question, as have Hugh
> and Marc. Come on guys, answer the question.....no guts, no
> glory. Other respondents are welcome as well...I am not picking on
> Joe and Gary.
>
> The FACT of the matter is that, no matter how the troops got there
> or what their exact mission is or was, or how you "feel" about the
> entire situation, we have troops in harm's way, and we should all
> be focused on how best to proceed so as to MAXIMIZE THE BENEFITS
> (killing and defeating terrorists, and supporting the Iraqi
> government and people until they are self sufficient) and MINIMIZE
> THE COSTS to our soldiers and the Iraqi's.
>
> If you are advocates of immediate withdrawal, please explain how
> immediate withdrawal would be a benefit to our national security,
> how this retreat would be perceived by radical Islamists, and how
> it would benefit the Iraqi's seeking democracy and self
> determination. Same goes for an immediate "gradual" withdrawal.
>
> Lastly, the Congressional resolution in 2002 that authorized the
> war listed 22 separate justifications for the war,...not just WMD
> as many critics haplessly keep repeating. This resolution was
> supported by many prominent Democrats, including Hillary, John
> Kerry, John Edwards, and Tom Daschle (what ever happened to
> him...isn't he an evil lobbyist now?) Look it up (the
> resolution) .....it's in the congressional record. The Congress
> controls the pursestrings and can terminate the funding for this
> war at any time, so, this is an American Bipartisan venture, not
> just a Republican venture, unless you are suggesting that Hillary,
> John & John, and Tom are "unAmerican" , or even worse, Republican
> collaborators. LOL.
>
> gonna get back to work here. Later.
>
> Marco
>
> PS: I started this subject to provide a conservative view of these
> events, as most, if not all, of the other posts were markedly
> liberal. I have refrained from calling anyone any names or
> besmirching their character. I like a good debate, if it can be
> kept on a respectful and friendly basis. And I try to keep to the
> "facts" of the debate as much as possible, because if we can agree
> on certain "facts", then it becomes easier to have an intelligent,
> reasoned discussion.
>
administration been willing to do it right. But they cheaped out
and blundered into a - yes! - quagmire. At this stage, not only
would more troops not do any good (as they would have on V+1), the
continued presence of so many U.S. troops is counterproductive. So
we should admit defeat and leave. (On your "victory" sophistry:
ever heard the phrase "win the battle and lose the war"?) This isn't
20-20 hindsight: the Army Chief of Staff argued for more troops (as
I'm sure did Colin Powell) and they were marginalized. In addition
to the civilian leadership, I also blame Tommy Franks and the Joint
Chiefs for not having the integrity to resign rather than sign up to
a plan with an inadequate "morning after victory" annex. Franks was
just being opportunistic, wanted to get to be a theater commander in
a war. Your simplistic formulation of "killing and defeating
terrorists" shows a fundamental misunderstanding: it just doesn't
work, they are the original "whack-a-mole". Two more are recruited
for every one killed. Our conventional troops are the world's best
at defeating an enemy who stands and fights, but they are ill-
equipped, organized or trained to fight a guerrilla war. They are
trying really hard and many officers and NCOs show a lot of insight
and creativity, but they are in a no-win situation. I am old enough
to remember watching the Vietnam war on TV: we always won the body
count by 10 to 1. Political leaders then and now say "stay the
course" - but they haven't answered "what course?" Bush's primary
motivation is to avoid too public a debacle until after 2006 or until
he can slime out of office and hide in Crawford. That's why you hear
so much fury from us: he's willing to let kids get blown up for
another year or two just so he won't have to publicly admit that he
blew it. Lastly, as Kerry pointed out, what the Congressional
resolution authorized is not what the administration did: they were
supposed to let the UN process run, but they cut it off and invaded.
Now, there were important practical considerations for going when
they did (how would YOU like to fight in a rubber suit in the Iraqi
summer), but you can't spread the responsibility to the Congress too
much. My argument is with the administration's bungling failure of
execution, not the principle of taking out Saddam. Fact is, we had
already been at war with Iraq for along time, our pilots exchanging
shots with the Iraqi air defense missiles every day. Economic
sanctions were an immoral half measure which only victimized the
poorest Iraqi people. But contrast our diplomatic situation this
time around with that for Desert Storm, when we had near universal
support. This was a result of Bush's dissing civilized world opinion
on the environment and the ABM treaty (for the sake of what? one
missile site in Alaska that can't pass an operational test? feel
safer?). Felt good to be in-your-face to those limp-wristed
Europeans, didn't it? Wasn't worth the consequences, was it? We may
have seen the high water mark of American power and prestige in the
world - during the Daddy Bush administration. With Shrub in the oval
office, it's been all downhill... - Hugh
On 29 Aug 2005, at 22:55, Marco Zee wrote:
>
> Hugh,
> Thanks for you clear, coherent, and reasoned response to the question.
> In your reply you said:
>
>
>
> By your own words, perhaps inadvertently, you admit that Saddam and
> his henchmen "were defeated". To implement a V+1 day plan, you
> must first have a "V" day, right? Conversely, if Saddam has NOT
> been defeated, then there is no need to implement a V+1 strategy or
> plan.
>
> So I am glad to hear that we can agree that Saddam et al have been
> defeated.....like I said, we're making progress here LOL.
>
> My concern is how best for America to proceed from here. That's
> why I posted the earlier question.
>
> IF YOU WERE PRESIDENT, WOULD YOU ORDER:
>
>>
>> A) AN IMMEDIATE WITHDRAWAL OF ALL TROOPS
>> B) A GRADUAL WITHDRAWAL OF ALL TROOPS STARTING NOW
>> C) A GRADUAL WITHDRAWAL OF ALL TROOOPS STARTING IN A FEW MONTHS
>> D) AN INCREASE IN TROOPS-- I think Joe mentioned something like this.
>> E) Some other option.
>>
>
> If upping the troop numbers to 350K or 500K would insure a quick
> and decisive victory over these foreign terrorists, I would be ok
> with that, as I think most people would. But, adding more troops,
> just to provide "more targets" ,and not accelerating the victory
> timetable against the terrorists, is counterproductive. This,
> indeed, is a legitimate point of debate.
>
> The challenge for the liberal "loyal oppposition" is to come up
> with a "better plan" than the current plan. It is easy to
> criticize and second guess with 20-20 hind sight .....anybody can
> do that. The hard part is to develop the "best" plan to move
> forward. Indeed Joe and Gary, for all of their passion and
> "enlightenment", did NOT answer this simple question, as have Hugh
> and Marc. Come on guys, answer the question.....no guts, no
> glory. Other respondents are welcome as well...I am not picking on
> Joe and Gary.
>
> The FACT of the matter is that, no matter how the troops got there
> or what their exact mission is or was, or how you "feel" about the
> entire situation, we have troops in harm's way, and we should all
> be focused on how best to proceed so as to MAXIMIZE THE BENEFITS
> (killing and defeating terrorists, and supporting the Iraqi
> government and people until they are self sufficient) and MINIMIZE
> THE COSTS to our soldiers and the Iraqi's.
>
> If you are advocates of immediate withdrawal, please explain how
> immediate withdrawal would be a benefit to our national security,
> how this retreat would be perceived by radical Islamists, and how
> it would benefit the Iraqi's seeking democracy and self
> determination. Same goes for an immediate "gradual" withdrawal.
>
> Lastly, the Congressional resolution in 2002 that authorized the
> war listed 22 separate justifications for the war,...not just WMD
> as many critics haplessly keep repeating. This resolution was
> supported by many prominent Democrats, including Hillary, John
> Kerry, John Edwards, and Tom Daschle (what ever happened to
> him...isn't he an evil lobbyist now?) Look it up (the
> resolution) .....it's in the congressional record. The Congress
> controls the pursestrings and can terminate the funding for this
> war at any time, so, this is an American Bipartisan venture, not
> just a Republican venture, unless you are suggesting that Hillary,
> John & John, and Tom are "unAmerican" , or even worse, Republican
> collaborators. LOL.
>
> gonna get back to work here. Later.
>
> Marco
>
> PS: I started this subject to provide a conservative view of these
> events, as most, if not all, of the other posts were markedly
> liberal. I have refrained from calling anyone any names or
> besmirching their character. I like a good debate, if it can be
> kept on a respectful and friendly basis. And I try to keep to the
> "facts" of the debate as much as possible, because if we can agree
> on certain "facts", then it becomes easier to have an intelligent,
> reasoned discussion.
>
"Indeed ... Gary, for all of their passion and "enlightenment", did NOT answer this simple question, as have Hugh and Marc." and "I am not picking on ... Gary."
not to worry, i accomplished what i was after.
btw, the caps thing was ignorance on my part. i was using them to help distinguish my responses from the rest of the text in which they had been embedded. i guess there's a reason why 'fledgling' was placed under my name. won't happen again.
and instead of obtuse i meant obscure.
and instead of WOMD i meant nation building
and instead of...
and i'm not picking on marco, but thank you marco for your reflectionabilityization. gary
[/quote]
not to worry, i accomplished what i was after.
btw, the caps thing was ignorance on my part. i was using them to help distinguish my responses from the rest of the text in which they had been embedded. i guess there's a reason why 'fledgling' was placed under my name. won't happen again.
and instead of obtuse i meant obscure.
and instead of WOMD i meant nation building
and instead of...
and i'm not picking on marco, but thank you marco for your reflectionabilityization. gary
[/quote]
i may be paranoid, but . . .!
i realize this very question is insulting, marco, but comes from an honest curiosity: something about your posts and their syntax has made me wonder? are you cutting and pasting from somewhere? if you're not, then i'll accept any return fire as deserved. (but please not my mom 
)
and...
is marco really marc? 
doing this so as to keep things going? 
has anyone ever met 'marco' ? can this be checked out? really...he probably has the skill set to do it.(compliment). i guess i could take a hit here also!
)and...
is marco really marc? doing this so as to keep things going? has anyone ever met 'marco' ? can this be checked out? really...he probably has the skill set to do it.(compliment). i guess i could take a hit here also!Reply to Marc #3
Marc,
I am trying to speak as plainly as possible and I'm not trying to deceive anyone.
I do have some good news for you though. President Bush is a President, not a King, and therefore does NOT have the power to appropriate money for the war in Iraq. Only Congress can appropriate the funds necessary to pay for the war effort. Remember John Kerry with his infamous quote "I voted for the 87 billion before I voted against it". Of course you do,....who doesn't? Well that 87 billion was a supplementary appropriation to pay for the continuation of the war. Indeed, the Vietnam war was officially terminated by Congress when they stopped further payments on the war effort (in a continuing resolution).
The Viet Cong and the current terrorists know this (this is civics 101 stuff) and are therefore appealing to the liberals, pacifists, and anti-Bush types here to pressure their congressman to halt funding for the war. Like I said before, they (the terrorists) are losing on the battlefield, but they are trying to win the battle of public relations, knowing that a demoralized, war-weary US public has the power to force the Congress to halt funding for the war, thereby giving them (the terrorists) the victory.
I am still not sure what you are suggesting we should do NOW with our troops in Iraq. I am supporting the current plan, because I have yet to hear a "better" plan. But I am open to hear ways to improve upon the current plan if nobody can come up with an original "new & better plan". On an earlier post you mentioned immediate withdrawal and a nuclear attack on the border regions, which, of course was not serious, but an attempt at humor ( I hope). In your most recent post, you said:
<<The only outcome of this stupid folly in Iraq will ultimately be some kind of Islamic state aligned with Iran. The only thing that can prevent it is continued US/UN military presence or an all-out civil war which will lead to the establishment of quasi-independent warlord states (like Afganistan, really). >>
So Marc, are you saying the the US/UN military presence needs to stay in Iraq to avoid the formation of an Islamic state aligned with Iran??? So you are in favor of keeping the troops in Iraq? If not, what are you proposing?
You also said:
<<The real battle is coming, and the battlefield of hearts and minds will be more important than just who's got the most hardware. >>
So, are you saying we should withdraw from Iraq and regroup for some larger, more important battle that is coming? Could you clarify on what battle is coming, exactly, and how best we should prepare for it?
On a positive note, I would agree that the Baathists and the Al-Queda terrorists are distinct groups. No doubt. But they have, and had, a common enemy, the USA. So, it's the old "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" routine. Saddam, as best we know at this point, did not have a direct operational link to the 911 attacks, and President Bush has not claimed this. Like I said in earlier posts, the Baathists and Saddam have been defeated, and we are now fighting the mostly foreign Al-Queda terrorists in Iraq.
Lastly, the economy is growing at 3-4 %....unemployment is at 5%....in Maryland, unemployment is 4.4%......is the economy being "killed"? Didn't Kerry et al say that this was the worst economy since Herbert Hoover? Good grief. If Kerry had won, he would be taking credit for the current rate of growth.
Still waiting to hear the "better plan" for Iraq NOW from anyone. Any takers?
Marco
PS: Hugh, I'll respond to your post tonight.
I am trying to speak as plainly as possible and I'm not trying to deceive anyone.
I do have some good news for you though. President Bush is a President, not a King, and therefore does NOT have the power to appropriate money for the war in Iraq. Only Congress can appropriate the funds necessary to pay for the war effort. Remember John Kerry with his infamous quote "I voted for the 87 billion before I voted against it". Of course you do,....who doesn't? Well that 87 billion was a supplementary appropriation to pay for the continuation of the war. Indeed, the Vietnam war was officially terminated by Congress when they stopped further payments on the war effort (in a continuing resolution).
The Viet Cong and the current terrorists know this (this is civics 101 stuff) and are therefore appealing to the liberals, pacifists, and anti-Bush types here to pressure their congressman to halt funding for the war. Like I said before, they (the terrorists) are losing on the battlefield, but they are trying to win the battle of public relations, knowing that a demoralized, war-weary US public has the power to force the Congress to halt funding for the war, thereby giving them (the terrorists) the victory.
I am still not sure what you are suggesting we should do NOW with our troops in Iraq. I am supporting the current plan, because I have yet to hear a "better" plan. But I am open to hear ways to improve upon the current plan if nobody can come up with an original "new & better plan". On an earlier post you mentioned immediate withdrawal and a nuclear attack on the border regions, which, of course was not serious, but an attempt at humor ( I hope). In your most recent post, you said:
<<The only outcome of this stupid folly in Iraq will ultimately be some kind of Islamic state aligned with Iran. The only thing that can prevent it is continued US/UN military presence or an all-out civil war which will lead to the establishment of quasi-independent warlord states (like Afganistan, really). >>
So Marc, are you saying the the US/UN military presence needs to stay in Iraq to avoid the formation of an Islamic state aligned with Iran??? So you are in favor of keeping the troops in Iraq? If not, what are you proposing?
You also said:
<<The real battle is coming, and the battlefield of hearts and minds will be more important than just who's got the most hardware. >>
So, are you saying we should withdraw from Iraq and regroup for some larger, more important battle that is coming? Could you clarify on what battle is coming, exactly, and how best we should prepare for it?
On a positive note, I would agree that the Baathists and the Al-Queda terrorists are distinct groups. No doubt. But they have, and had, a common enemy, the USA. So, it's the old "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" routine. Saddam, as best we know at this point, did not have a direct operational link to the 911 attacks, and President Bush has not claimed this. Like I said in earlier posts, the Baathists and Saddam have been defeated, and we are now fighting the mostly foreign Al-Queda terrorists in Iraq.
Lastly, the economy is growing at 3-4 %....unemployment is at 5%....in Maryland, unemployment is 4.4%......is the economy being "killed"? Didn't Kerry et al say that this was the worst economy since Herbert Hoover? Good grief. If Kerry had won, he would be taking credit for the current rate of growth.
Still waiting to hear the "better plan" for Iraq NOW from anyone. Any takers?
Marco
PS: Hugh, I'll respond to your post tonight.
Reply to Gary #2
Gary,
Marc and I are definitely different people....just check out our posts!!! LOL. But we do know each other personally. Same goes for Brian V. H.
And all remarks, words, & syntax come from me....no cutting and pasting (except when inserting quotes from earlier posts).....and I don't take that question as insulting, in fact, quite the opposite.
And I have never made any remarks about anyone's mother.....where did this come from???? I think Joe mentioned something about his mother dying....on election night, I think. Thats the only "mother" reference that I have seen or remember.
Gary, you obviously have an interest in this subject, why are you reluctant to answer the question I posed earlier? Hugh has, and Marc kinda tried to. Like I said before, I want to do what"s best for America and the troops, but I have not heard a "better plan" from the opposition.
What do you think we should do NOW, given the current state of affairs?
Marco
Marc and I are definitely different people....just check out our posts!!! LOL. But we do know each other personally. Same goes for Brian V. H.
And all remarks, words, & syntax come from me....no cutting and pasting (except when inserting quotes from earlier posts).....and I don't take that question as insulting, in fact, quite the opposite.
And I have never made any remarks about anyone's mother.....where did this come from???? I think Joe mentioned something about his mother dying....on election night, I think. Thats the only "mother" reference that I have seen or remember.
Gary, you obviously have an interest in this subject, why are you reluctant to answer the question I posed earlier? Hugh has, and Marc kinda tried to. Like I said before, I want to do what"s best for America and the troops, but I have not heard a "better plan" from the opposition.
What do you think we should do NOW, given the current state of affairs?
Marco
marco,
the good humour and graciousness of your reactions and questions is appreciated. the 'insult my mother' thing is a flip allusion to earlier terms and phrases which i previously listed and objected to, nothing literal. if that sounds vague and circumspect it's because i want to maintain the tone of your comments and not readdress or reassert things already dealt with or inappropriately ressurrect (at this time) the tone i previously used. jjyyheeesh! that sounds rather dopey and formal but i guess it's clear enough.
i anticipated this question coming from someone. the simple answer is that, quite often, it takes too much effort for me to bring my strong feelings about these things down to a level that allows for respectful discourse.( noticed that did you?:shock: ) i actually declined to discuss this topic, for these reasons, when i ran into marc a few months back. and i pretty much agree with his view! also, and actually just as importantly, there are others who are already doing a more capable job than i could do.
you noted that i didn't address any issues. it's the 'coded' phrases and statements that are thrown around so often and casually, that i wonder if those who repeat them really realize what they are actually implying and clearly saying?
if one is going to insult someone, they should at least know how it is they are doing it, and know that it is being received as such! i have no doubts about those who originate them! i did try to indicate that i appreciate that you apparently not only listened but heard what i had to say, and appropriately thank you for that consideration. gary
the good humour and graciousness of your reactions and questions is appreciated. the 'insult my mother' thing is a flip allusion to earlier terms and phrases which i previously listed and objected to, nothing literal. if that sounds vague and circumspect it's because i want to maintain the tone of your comments and not readdress or reassert things already dealt with or inappropriately ressurrect (at this time) the tone i previously used. jjyyheeesh! that sounds rather dopey and formal but i guess it's clear enough.
i anticipated this question coming from someone. the simple answer is that, quite often, it takes too much effort for me to bring my strong feelings about these things down to a level that allows for respectful discourse.( noticed that did you?:shock:
) i actually declined to discuss this topic, for these reasons, when i ran into marc a few months back. and i pretty much agree with his view! also, and actually just as importantly, there are others who are already doing a more capable job than i could do. you noted that i didn't address any issues. it's the 'coded' phrases and statements that are thrown around so often and casually, that i wonder if those who repeat them really realize what they are actually implying and clearly saying?
if one is going to insult someone, they should at least know how it is they are doing it, and know that it is being received as such! i have no doubts about those who originate them! i did try to indicate that i appreciate that you apparently not only listened but heard what i had to say, and appropriately thank you for that consideration. gary
Options
Option 1: Primary
Declare victory and move our troops to the border of Syria and Iran for six months the take them all out.
Option 2: Admit it was a mistake in the first place and bring all the troops home now.
I prefer option 2.
A question for you Marco.
Why should we make our children pay for this war as we are doing by not budgeting for the costs and deficit spending?
Do you believe the establishment of an Islamic State alighened with Iran( of the Axis of Evil) is success for the USA? If so Why?
Is a civil war in Iraq really bad for the US?
Joe
I know I said I would drop out of this.
Declare victory and move our troops to the border of Syria and Iran for six months the take them all out.
Option 2: Admit it was a mistake in the first place and bring all the troops home now.
I prefer option 2.
A question for you Marco.
Why should we make our children pay for this war as we are doing by not budgeting for the costs and deficit spending?
Do you believe the establishment of an Islamic State alighened with Iran( of the Axis of Evil) is success for the USA? If so Why?
Is a civil war in Iraq really bad for the US?
Joe
I know I said I would drop out of this.
Welcome Back Guys!!!
Gary and Joe,
I am sincerely pleased that you have rejoined this discussion......there's no reason why we cannot have a friendly and respectful discussion on the most important topic of our era. We may even learn a few things from each other .
And Gary, don't put yourself down....feel free to express what you are thinking......it's important to learn how to channel your deeply held feelings and beliefs into strong, clear, coherent statements in a non-threatening way.....and the only way to do that, is to practice doing that. I might not agree with your points or perceptions, but I will certainly give them the consideration and reflection they deserve, and I will try my best to respectfully explain why I disagree, or agree. It is amazing how much common ground can be found amongst the disagreeing parties when you start fleshing out these complex issues.
Gotta get back to work, but I'll try to post more stuff later tonight.
And welcome back once again,
Marco
I am sincerely pleased that you have rejoined this discussion......there's no reason why we cannot have a friendly and respectful discussion on the most important topic of our era. We may even learn a few things from each other .
And Gary, don't put yourself down....feel free to express what you are thinking......it's important to learn how to channel your deeply held feelings and beliefs into strong, clear, coherent statements in a non-threatening way.....and the only way to do that, is to practice doing that. I might not agree with your points or perceptions, but I will certainly give them the consideration and reflection they deserve, and I will try my best to respectfully explain why I disagree, or agree. It is amazing how much common ground can be found amongst the disagreeing parties when you start fleshing out these complex issues.
Gotta get back to work, but I'll try to post more stuff later tonight.
And welcome back once again,
Marco
Enough pessimism -- how about the good news
Like I said, the administration has also chosen plan B (phased
withdrawal starting soon) but they won't admit it in public. The
"current plan" is no plan at all - it's clearly not working (the
insurgents are not/not being defeated on the battlefield. Even if
they were, although they're not, the true battlefield in all
conflict is hearts, minds and will of the opponent and of the
population - and they're winning there too.); there's no realistic
expectation that "more of the same" will accomplish anything. Far
from having his hand forced by Congress, Bush is having to come to
this conclusion on his own - too bad he's such a slow learner. By
the way, extricating oneself from a no-win war by having your funding
cut off is a terrible way to do business. Even those like Kerry who
opposed the war have shied away from the pursestrings approach
because it is so destructive. That's why Kerry opened himself up to
that cheap shot about the $87 billion - he's a responsible legislator
who observes the Hippocratic oath - "first, do no harm". Wish there
were more like him. He would have been a president we could be proud
of. - Hugh
On 30 Aug 2005, at 13:59, Marco Zee wrote:
>
> Gary,
> Marc and I are definitely different people....just check out our
> posts!!! LOL. But we do know each other personally. Same goes
> for Brian V. H.
> And all remarks, words, & syntax come from me....no cutting and
> pasting (except when inserting quotes from earlier
> posts).....and I don't take that question as insulting, in fact,
> quite the opposite.
> And I have never made any remarks about anyone's mother.....where
> did this come from???? I think Joe mentioned something about his
> mother dying....on election night, I think. Thats the only "mother"
> reference that I have seen or remember.
> Gary, you obviously have an interest in this subject, why are you
> reluctant to answer the question I posed earlier? Hugh has, and
> Marc kinda tried to. Like I said before, I want to do what"s best
> for America and the troops, but I have not heard a "better plan"
> from the opposition.
>
> What do you think we should do NOW, given the current state of
> affairs?
>
> Marco
>
withdrawal starting soon) but they won't admit it in public. The
"current plan" is no plan at all - it's clearly not working (the
insurgents are not/not being defeated on the battlefield. Even if
they were, although they're not, the true battlefield in all
conflict is hearts, minds and will of the opponent and of the
population - and they're winning there too.); there's no realistic
expectation that "more of the same" will accomplish anything. Far
from having his hand forced by Congress, Bush is having to come to
this conclusion on his own - too bad he's such a slow learner. By
the way, extricating oneself from a no-win war by having your funding
cut off is a terrible way to do business. Even those like Kerry who
opposed the war have shied away from the pursestrings approach
because it is so destructive. That's why Kerry opened himself up to
that cheap shot about the $87 billion - he's a responsible legislator
who observes the Hippocratic oath - "first, do no harm". Wish there
were more like him. He would have been a president we could be proud
of. - Hugh
On 30 Aug 2005, at 13:59, Marco Zee wrote:
>
> Gary,
> Marc and I are definitely different people....just check out our
> posts!!! LOL. But we do know each other personally. Same goes
> for Brian V. H.
> And all remarks, words, & syntax come from me....no cutting and
> pasting (except when inserting quotes from earlier
> posts).....and I don't take that question as insulting, in fact,
> quite the opposite.
> And I have never made any remarks about anyone's mother.....where
> did this come from???? I think Joe mentioned something about his
> mother dying....on election night, I think. Thats the only "mother"
> reference that I have seen or remember.
> Gary, you obviously have an interest in this subject, why are you
> reluctant to answer the question I posed earlier? Hugh has, and
> Marc kinda tried to. Like I said before, I want to do what"s best
> for America and the troops, but I have not heard a "better plan"
> from the opposition.
>
> What do you think we should do NOW, given the current state of
> affairs?
>
> Marco
>
Supporting the Troops
So Marco,
As you're in favor of a policy of killing off young Americans with no clear cause, creating more terrorists and making America and Americans hated throughout the world, just exactly what are you doing to the Support the Troops???? Have you sent money to the troops so they can buy armor plating for thier vehicles that the Adminstration forgot to give them??? Have you bought bullet-proof jackets for any of the troops? Have you even sent over a care package? Rumor has it that you are a doctor. If you really believe in this cause and supporting the troops, why aren't you in Iraq right now offering your medical services to the workers over there who support the troops??? If not a doctor and you have some useful skill, again, why aren't you over in Iraq helping out???
And speaking of support, you are on the CHGPA forum yet you aren't a member of the club. Don't recall seeing you on the rolls of CHGPA in about 10 years. In the 10+ years I've been flying, you've never been to any clean-ups or helped out at any events or volunteered as a club officer. How about supporting your local club if you want to keep spouting off your views on the club forum? I've heard that you fly a mosquito near your home in Baltimore. Sure hope you're not flying in restricted airspace.
Matthew
As you're in favor of a policy of killing off young Americans with no clear cause, creating more terrorists and making America and Americans hated throughout the world, just exactly what are you doing to the Support the Troops???? Have you sent money to the troops so they can buy armor plating for thier vehicles that the Adminstration forgot to give them??? Have you bought bullet-proof jackets for any of the troops? Have you even sent over a care package? Rumor has it that you are a doctor. If you really believe in this cause and supporting the troops, why aren't you in Iraq right now offering your medical services to the workers over there who support the troops??? If not a doctor and you have some useful skill, again, why aren't you over in Iraq helping out???
And speaking of support, you are on the CHGPA forum yet you aren't a member of the club. Don't recall seeing you on the rolls of CHGPA in about 10 years. In the 10+ years I've been flying, you've never been to any clean-ups or helped out at any events or volunteered as a club officer. How about supporting your local club if you want to keep spouting off your views on the club forum? I've heard that you fly a mosquito near your home in Baltimore. Sure hope you're not flying in restricted airspace.
Matthew
marco,
'just couldn't resist. when you can understand/explain the insult and/or irony and/or flat-out BS and/or patronizing tone in each of these statements (part of the challenge is to match which or how many apply to each numbered item!)(i left out all the many others because i've already pointed them out)... or how it is that you've just flat out missed what is being directed to you...then perhaps 'We may even learn a few things from each other.'
as an aid, i will indicate that this statement itself is a) insulting (and mean!) b) patronizing, but doesn't contain any a) BS or b) irony.
hopefully, this will be offensive enough that there will be no further desire for my participation! OVER and FLAMING OUTTA HERE! gary
and oh yeah, have a nice day (allusion to false civility and an inability to sense the insulting, patronizing nature of( and irony in) your own postings)(i think? irony is always such a hard thing)
this is real chancey as you may simply be sooo damn sincere, as evidenced by your almost pathological desire to believe in and ability to swallow and regurgitate so much of the pat bs of this administration's henchmen and apologists. (that's a hint for #4 - you know, the cut and paste reference)).
oh i just gotta stop or i'll have everyone feeling sympathetic toward you!
1] The Viet Cong and the current terrorists know this (this is civics 101 stuff) and are therefore appealing to the liberals, pacifists, and anti-Bush types here to pressure their congressman to halt funding for the war. Like I said before, they (the terrorists) are losing on the battlefield, but they are trying to win the battle of public relations, knowing that a demoralized, war-weary US public has the power to force the Congress to halt funding for the war, thereby giving them (the terrorists) the victory.
2] Saddam, as best we know at this point, did not have a direct operational link to the 911 attacks, and President Bush has not claimed this.
3] it's important to learn how to channel your deeply held feelings and beliefs into strong, clear, coherent statements in a non-threatening way.....and the only way to do that, is to practice doing that.
4] and I don't take that question as insulting, in fact, quite the opposite.
5] Lastly, the Congressional resolution in 2002 that authorized the war listed 22 separate justifications for the war,...not just WMD as many critics haplessly keep repeating.
6] I have refrained from calling anyone any names or besmirching their character. I like a good debate, if it can be kept on a respectful and friendly basis.
'just couldn't resist. when you can understand/explain the insult and/or irony and/or flat-out BS and/or patronizing tone in each of these statements (part of the challenge is to match which or how many apply to each numbered item!)(i left out all the many others because i've already pointed them out)... or how it is that you've just flat out missed what is being directed to you...then perhaps 'We may even learn a few things from each other.'
as an aid, i will indicate that this statement itself is a) insulting (and mean!) b) patronizing, but doesn't contain any a) BS or b) irony.
hopefully, this will be offensive enough that there will be no further desire for my participation!
OVER and FLAMING OUTTA HERE! gary and oh yeah, have a nice day (allusion to false civility and an inability to sense the insulting, patronizing nature of( and irony in) your own postings)(i think? irony is always such a hard thing)
this is real chancey as you may simply be sooo damn sincere, as evidenced by your almost pathological desire to believe in and ability to swallow and regurgitate so much of the pat bs of this administration's henchmen and apologists. (that's a hint for #4 - you know, the cut and paste reference)).
oh i just gotta stop or i'll have everyone feeling sympathetic toward you!
1] The Viet Cong and the current terrorists know this (this is civics 101 stuff) and are therefore appealing to the liberals, pacifists, and anti-Bush types here to pressure their congressman to halt funding for the war. Like I said before, they (the terrorists) are losing on the battlefield, but they are trying to win the battle of public relations, knowing that a demoralized, war-weary US public has the power to force the Congress to halt funding for the war, thereby giving them (the terrorists) the victory.
2] Saddam, as best we know at this point, did not have a direct operational link to the 911 attacks, and President Bush has not claimed this.
3] it's important to learn how to channel your deeply held feelings and beliefs into strong, clear, coherent statements in a non-threatening way.....and the only way to do that, is to practice doing that.
4] and I don't take that question as insulting, in fact, quite the opposite.
5] Lastly, the Congressional resolution in 2002 that authorized the war listed 22 separate justifications for the war,...not just WMD as many critics haplessly keep repeating.
6] I have refrained from calling anyone any names or besmirching their character. I like a good debate, if it can be kept on a respectful and friendly basis.
Enough pessimism -- how about the good news
Speaking of using public relations to certain ends:? what about the long public relations scam that was done by the current administration to convince the public that there was a connection between the 9/11 terrorist attack and Saddam and his WMD.?Many many many times, I heard Bush and Company using the term 'terrorists' in the same breath with Saddam's supposed WMD.?
?
While those in power may not have said it directly, if you go back and look at what was said, you can see that they put certain statements together to make it look as those there was connection between 9/11 and Saddam and, therefore, the need to go into Iraq.?
?
There has been an incredible amount of dishonesty in our current government that has put many more Americans (not to mention other innocent people around the world) than in other at risk than I can remember since our days in Vietnam.
?
I found Item 3 below to be pretty patronizing in it's wording. Assuming we all?are able to learn how to write our thoughts coherently (and weren't born with the ability), the following would have offended less:?? "I've found it important to learn how to channel my deeply held feelings and beliefs into strong, clear, coherent statements in a non-threatening way.....and the only way to do that, I've found, is to practice doing that."
?
Christy
1] The Viet Cong and the current terrorists know this (this is civics 101 stuff) and are therefore appealing to the liberals, pacifists, and anti-Bush types here to pressure their congressman to halt funding for the war. Like I said before, they (the terrorists) are losing on the battlefield, but they are trying to win the battle of public relations, knowing that a demoralized, war-weary US public has the power to force the Congress to halt funding for the war, thereby giving them (the terrorists) the victory.
2] Saddam, as best we know at this point, did not have a direct operational link to the 911 attacks, and President Bush has not claimed this.
3] it's important to learn how to channel your deeply held feelings and beliefs into strong, clear, coherent statements in a non-threatening way.....and the only way to do that, is to practice doing that.
4] and I don't take that question as insulting, in fact, quite the opposite.
5] Lastly, the Congressional resolution in 2002 that authorized the war listed 22 separate justifications for the war,...not just WMD as many critics haplessly keep repeating.
6] I have refrained from calling anyone any names or besmirching their character. I like a good debate, if it can be kept on a respectful and friendly basis.
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page
?
While those in power may not have said it directly, if you go back and look at what was said, you can see that they put certain statements together to make it look as those there was connection between 9/11 and Saddam and, therefore, the need to go into Iraq.?
?
There has been an incredible amount of dishonesty in our current government that has put many more Americans (not to mention other innocent people around the world) than in other at risk than I can remember since our days in Vietnam.
?
I found Item 3 below to be pretty patronizing in it's wording. Assuming we all?are able to learn how to write our thoughts coherently (and weren't born with the ability), the following would have offended less:?? "I've found it important to learn how to channel my deeply held feelings and beliefs into strong, clear, coherent statements in a non-threatening way.....and the only way to do that, I've found, is to practice doing that."
?
Christy
1] The Viet Cong and the current terrorists know this (this is civics 101 stuff) and are therefore appealing to the liberals, pacifists, and anti-Bush types here to pressure their congressman to halt funding for the war. Like I said before, they (the terrorists) are losing on the battlefield, but they are trying to win the battle of public relations, knowing that a demoralized, war-weary US public has the power to force the Congress to halt funding for the war, thereby giving them (the terrorists) the victory.
2] Saddam, as best we know at this point, did not have a direct operational link to the 911 attacks, and President Bush has not claimed this.
3] it's important to learn how to channel your deeply held feelings and beliefs into strong, clear, coherent statements in a non-threatening way.....and the only way to do that, is to practice doing that.
4] and I don't take that question as insulting, in fact, quite the opposite.
5] Lastly, the Congressional resolution in 2002 that authorized the war listed 22 separate justifications for the war,...not just WMD as many critics haplessly keep repeating.
6] I have refrained from calling anyone any names or besmirching their character. I like a good debate, if it can be kept on a respectful and friendly basis.
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page
Reply to Matt & Gary
Gary,
I am a very sincere person.
I say what I say because that's exactly what I believe and feel. Otherwise, why waste your time and mine?
You are free to disagree with my opinions and perceptions, but I hope we can at least agree on "the facts" of any discussion we have. I am still waiting for you to present your "better plan" for Iraq, since it is a FACT that we have soldiers in harm's way there. Perhaps you are still formulating it, or prefer others to say it for you, which is fine. If I thought or believed that the Iraq situation was hopeless and unwinable, I would advocate for immediate withdrawal.....obviously I believe that Iraq has great upside potential and is clearly winable, if the Iraqi's and the troops are given enough time and support.
Matt,
President Bush received over 60 million votes in November. This forum has 150 members.....is it any surprise that one of those 150 members is one of those 60 million voters? The DC area was fairly evenly divided during the elections: namely, Virginia, WV, and North Carolina preferred Bush, while DC, Maryland, and Pennsylvania went for Kerry. I would "guess" that about half of the members on this list supported, and support President Bush, but this is not a fact, but an estimate. Perhaps we could do a poll on this?
As far as being a member of this list, I was on the previous list for over 10 years, and simply migrated over here when the club changed its webpage. I still belong to the MHGA, but haven't flown in the mountains for more than 7 years, having barely enough free time to fly with my mosquito.
As far as I can tell, there is no requirement to be a member of this CHGPA to participate in the forum discussions. If it is, then let me know, and I will gladly depart the list, or join the club "officially", so as not to be violating any rules.
I started this discussion to point out the "good" things happening in the country. The discussion has been mainly dominated by the Iraq war however, which is fine. So, as long as you entered the discussion with a comment about Iraq, I will pose to you the same "big question": namely, what do you propose we do with the troops in Iraq NOW, since it is a fact that they are there and taking casualties?
Gary and Joe,
I am only one person arguing against a handful.....I swear I will respond to your earlier posts ASAP....I haven't forgetten about you guys LOL. I have other responsibilities besides spewing "right wing venom" LOL.
Still waiting to hear a "better plan"......
Marco
I am a very sincere person.
I say what I say because that's exactly what I believe and feel. Otherwise, why waste your time and mine?
You are free to disagree with my opinions and perceptions, but I hope we can at least agree on "the facts" of any discussion we have. I am still waiting for you to present your "better plan" for Iraq, since it is a FACT that we have soldiers in harm's way there. Perhaps you are still formulating it, or prefer others to say it for you, which is fine. If I thought or believed that the Iraq situation was hopeless and unwinable, I would advocate for immediate withdrawal.....obviously I believe that Iraq has great upside potential and is clearly winable, if the Iraqi's and the troops are given enough time and support.
Matt,
President Bush received over 60 million votes in November. This forum has 150 members.....is it any surprise that one of those 150 members is one of those 60 million voters? The DC area was fairly evenly divided during the elections: namely, Virginia, WV, and North Carolina preferred Bush, while DC, Maryland, and Pennsylvania went for Kerry. I would "guess" that about half of the members on this list supported, and support President Bush, but this is not a fact, but an estimate. Perhaps we could do a poll on this?
As far as being a member of this list, I was on the previous list for over 10 years, and simply migrated over here when the club changed its webpage. I still belong to the MHGA, but haven't flown in the mountains for more than 7 years, having barely enough free time to fly with my mosquito.
As far as I can tell, there is no requirement to be a member of this CHGPA to participate in the forum discussions. If it is, then let me know, and I will gladly depart the list, or join the club "officially", so as not to be violating any rules.
I started this discussion to point out the "good" things happening in the country. The discussion has been mainly dominated by the Iraq war however, which is fine. So, as long as you entered the discussion with a comment about Iraq, I will pose to you the same "big question": namely, what do you propose we do with the troops in Iraq NOW, since it is a fact that they are there and taking casualties?
Gary and Joe,
I am only one person arguing against a handful.....I swear I will respond to your earlier posts ASAP....I haven't forgetten about you guys LOL. I have other responsibilities besides spewing "right wing venom" LOL.
Still waiting to hear a "better plan"......
Marco
A better plan
A better plan is simple. We move away from an oil based economy. Oil production is at or near peak. It's all down hill from here. The sooner we get away from oil the better we'll be off. We need an Appollo style effort to improve battery technology. We need a nationwide conservation plan. We need to utilize are other natural resources better: coal, solar, wind and nuclear. If oil is irrelevant, then the terrorist won't have money.
As to things under the current admin: relaxed standards on polluters, dirtier air, dirtier waters, raping of the land, giving huge tax breaks to multi-national corps that don't care about the US, letting pension plans be raided, running up the national debt to astronomic numbers, carrying a huge trade deficit, exporting our manufacturing and high tech jobs overseas, not having any plan for global climate changes, etc.
You can drape yourself in the flag all you want. But each and eveyone of these policies, as well as the war in Iraq that is killing off our soldiers, is harmful to America. And anyone that supports policies harmful to America is Anti-American no matter how many Support the Troops stickers they put on their bumpers.
Hope you enjoy that extra mercury in your water.
And everyone has a busy life. It's no excuse for not helping out.
Matthew
As to things under the current admin: relaxed standards on polluters, dirtier air, dirtier waters, raping of the land, giving huge tax breaks to multi-national corps that don't care about the US, letting pension plans be raided, running up the national debt to astronomic numbers, carrying a huge trade deficit, exporting our manufacturing and high tech jobs overseas, not having any plan for global climate changes, etc.
You can drape yourself in the flag all you want. But each and eveyone of these policies, as well as the war in Iraq that is killing off our soldiers, is harmful to America. And anyone that supports policies harmful to America is Anti-American no matter how many Support the Troops stickers they put on their bumpers.
Hope you enjoy that extra mercury in your water.
And everyone has a busy life. It's no excuse for not helping out.
Matthew
Response to Christy
Hey Christy,
As you concede, President Bush NEVER said "directly" that Saddam was responsible for 911. A quote of him saying this does not exist anywhere.
He did, however, repeatedly state that Saddam with his WMD's was in a position to provide WMD's to terrorists, which was true based on the intelligence known at that time, as he was aiding and even paying terrorists, ie Hezbollah, for suicide bombings in Israel. Saddam's links to terrorist organizations have been well documented, even though a direct link to 911 cannot be found conclusively.
Now, I will grant you that a substantial percentage of the American public, when polled, believed that Saddam played a role in 911, and that the Bush Administration did not go "out of their way" to disavow them of that belief. But to say that President Bush blamed Saddam directly for 911 is simply unfounded and cannot be documented anywhere.
As far as using patronizing wording to Gary, I was simply trying to encourage him to continue his posts as he was indicating that he wasn't completely comfortable posting his thoughts and positions. Your wording is certainly "less threatening" than mine, I grant you. My bad.
Do you have an opinion on how best to proceed in Iraq?
Do you have an opinion on my "good news points" in my initial post?
Thanks for the reply,
Marco
As you concede, President Bush NEVER said "directly" that Saddam was responsible for 911. A quote of him saying this does not exist anywhere.
He did, however, repeatedly state that Saddam with his WMD's was in a position to provide WMD's to terrorists, which was true based on the intelligence known at that time, as he was aiding and even paying terrorists, ie Hezbollah, for suicide bombings in Israel. Saddam's links to terrorist organizations have been well documented, even though a direct link to 911 cannot be found conclusively.
Now, I will grant you that a substantial percentage of the American public, when polled, believed that Saddam played a role in 911, and that the Bush Administration did not go "out of their way" to disavow them of that belief. But to say that President Bush blamed Saddam directly for 911 is simply unfounded and cannot be documented anywhere.
As far as using patronizing wording to Gary, I was simply trying to encourage him to continue his posts as he was indicating that he wasn't completely comfortable posting his thoughts and positions. Your wording is certainly "less threatening" than mine, I grant you. My bad.
Do you have an opinion on how best to proceed in Iraq?
Do you have an opinion on my "good news points" in my initial post?
Thanks for the reply,
Marco
THIS BOY GONNA MAKE MY HEAD SPLODE!!!
this is how the bstrds won the elections...they just keep clubbing you til ya.....just.....wanna.....roll..... over..... and .....give .....up.........jjhheeeezzzzzz!!!
i wouldn't surrender to the terrorists, but i surrender here. it will feel so good to stop beating my head against this wall!!!!!!! WHAAAAAHHHHHH!!!!!!!!
this is how the bstrds won the elections...they just keep clubbing you til ya.....just.....wanna.....roll..... over..... and .....give .....up.........jjhheeeezzzzzz!!!
i wouldn't surrender to the terrorists, but i surrender here. it will feel so good to stop beating my head against this wall!!!!!!! WHAAAAAHHHHHH!!!!!!!!
marco, here's an idea.
i hope you will give it serious consideration as this seems to be what you like. instead of jack... off everybody here, why don't you just amuse yourself with porno sites? that's what i'm going back to! i'm just not getting off on this the way you are!:shock: gary (i still think it's marc)
here's an idea.i hope you will give it serious consideration as this seems to be what you like. instead of jack... off everybody here, why don't you just amuse yourself with porno sites? that's what i'm going back to! i'm just not getting off on this the way you are!:shock: gary (i still think it's marc)
-
Flying Lobster
- Posts: 1042
- Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2005 4:17 pm
-
Flying Lobster
- Posts: 1042
- Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2005 4:17 pm
Look guys--discussing this further is pointless. Marco knows this is an isolated forum where he can have fun using silly circuitous arguements and unsubstantiated statements in order to get a rise out of us. I'm sure its like watching a dog go round and round chasing its tail. There is no way we can ever change his mind--so what is the point?
Instead, I think it is best to plan ahead. As bad as things are--try to imagine if yet another idiot conservative neo-con succeeds Bushie in the next election. That will further cement their agenda and help ensure the widening gap between the haves and the have-nots will only grow. The next election will be even more critical than the last in determining the future course of our country.
Get involved with your friends, groups, associations--whatever. Every single vote DOES count!
marc
Anyone see any parrallels in what's going on in the "real" world and the Tolkienesque Lord of the Rings world?
Instead, I think it is best to plan ahead. As bad as things are--try to imagine if yet another idiot conservative neo-con succeeds Bushie in the next election. That will further cement their agenda and help ensure the widening gap between the haves and the have-nots will only grow. The next election will be even more critical than the last in determining the future course of our country.
Get involved with your friends, groups, associations--whatever. Every single vote DOES count!
marc
Anyone see any parrallels in what's going on in the "real" world and the Tolkienesque Lord of the Rings world?
Great Googly-moo!