Cried about the carpet bombing of civilians

[FZ+]

And I did say it was a bad choice of words on my side:

(By threaten I mean here simply saying that they would. Yes, I know, semantics)

Can we let this one go now?

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by FZ+
And I did say it was a bad choice of words on my side:

Can we let this one go now?

Sure - except that the bad choice of words was the words "carpet bombing"...

 

[FZ+]

Then why did you capitalise the THREATENED in each of your posts? Misdirection again?

 

[hybrid]

Originally posted by Alias

Look into my eyes... you are becoming conservative... you hate big government...

LOL yeah, "I hate big government but I just created a brand new entirely useless branch which will invade your privacy because you are a threat to national security! I AM HOMELAND SECURITY!"

I suppose all anybody ever 'needed' was the illusion of security. Thats all this post 9-11 drama has done. You think this new airport security will keep the sky's safe? What will stop a terrorist -short of his/her own free will- from bombing a school. Homeland security is the biggest joke I've heard in my life. what's sad is I am not laughing. Once we are targeted again by terrorists I wonder if anybody will actually question homeland security. and when they do and homeland security says "its not my fault" i hope they demolish it. Its a waste of money that should be used for education. or maybe a tax cut

 

[Zero]

Nice one, Hybrid. The fact is, terrorism cannot be stopped by security or military action. To believe that you can fight it directly is like thinking you can fight a hurricane. Homeland Security is a joke, but it makes people feel good to see people with guns.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by FZ+
Then why did you capitalise the THREATENED in each of your posts? Misdirection again?

Check again. I capitalized "threatened" once and "carpet bombing" once. YOU are the one who tried to shift the focus of the arguement.

Why will you not admit we did not threaten to carpet bomb them? What is so important about that to you?

Just say it: No we did not threaten to carpet bomb them.

 

[FZ+]

I also retracted that... shame you didn't notice.

Once again, we did not ThReAtEn to CaRpEt BoMb them.

We misdirected the public by suggesting that we would pursue a policy of bombing in Iraq that would generate horrendous civilian casualties.

Happy now?

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by FZ+
I also retracted that... shame you didn't notice.

Once again, we did not ThReAtEn to CaRpEt BoMb them.

We misdirected the public by suggesting that we would pursue a policy of bombing in Iraq that would generate horrendous civilian casualties.

Happy now?

Well, reading through I don't see a retraction on "carpet bombing." But yeah, that'll do. Why did it take 4 days? Is it really that painful?

Its like I said in my thread on admitting mistakes. You get far more respect if you admit them upfront. But hey- at least you finally admitted it. That puts you way ahead of the pack in honor.

 

[heumpje]

Is this what they call gloating??

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by heumpje
Is this what they call gloating??

Could very well be. But if he had been more upfront, there would be nothing to gloat about

 

[Phobos]

Originally posted by hybrid
...if we had maybe they would have found out -as it would seem obvious now- that Iraq HAS NO weapons of mass destruction.

That has yet to be demonstrated. The military has been busy fighting the war until now. Now with the fighting coming to a close, they can get underway looking for WMDs. Don't forget that MWDs, if present, are likely very well hidden (and maybe even exported out of the country). We haven't even found most of the former Iraqi leadership yet, never mind WMDs that they have had a chance to hide away for the past decade.

 

[FZ+]

Hmm... the re: the whole WMD problem, aren't we back were we started? Now we can still not show whether Iraq has WMDs, and can probably never disprove that Iraq has such weapons. And in this case, there isn't any authority with information to possibly cooperate with us, and much of the paperwork would probably have been destroyed. So, war or not, we are back to the solution of giving the inspections "more time".
In a perverse way, France's choice won out after all.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by FZ+
Hmm... the re: the whole WMD problem, aren't we back were we started? Now we can still not show whether Iraq has WMDs, and can probably never disprove that Iraq has such weapons. And in this case, there isn't any authority with information to possibly cooperate with us, and much of the paperwork would probably have been destroyed. So, war or not, we are back to the solution of giving the inspections "more time".
In a perverse way, France's choice won out after all.

Except that now we are free to ACTUALLY LOOK for the wmd. We don't need their cooperation when we control the country - we can go wherever we want. I read they are currently examining 2,000+ possible wmd sites. We'll learn quick, but quick is still a couple of months.

 

[GlamGein]

Anybody with a heart and a conscience mind began crying 12 years ago when the U.S. started bombing Iraq daily. For twelve years, we have been bombing that country, and imposing starvation on an already impoverished people through sanctions. I still detest GWB, but now maybe these people can start to put their lives back together, no thanks to his ignorant and selfish father, GB Sr., who put Saddam into power in the first place. For all of you who don't know, Saddam was put into power by the CIA (GW was director at the time) in order to appropriate oil for U.S. interest. Being the rogue type of guy he is, he betrayed us, and tried to keep that oil money for himself. Thats the reason we went to war with Iraq. Not for freedom, not for ideals, not even for ourselves. The Bush family, as we all know, is made of oil money, and have now appropriated even more of it for themselves. If you think the U.S. people aside from oil moguls will benefit from GWB's actions, you are mistaken.

 

[Entropia]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=540&e=12&u=/ap/20030417/ap_on_re_mi_ea/war_anti_americanism_6

 

[Alias]

Originally posted by Entropia
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=540&e=12&u=/ap/20030417/ap_on_re_mi_ea/war_anti_americanism_6

From that article...

"America comes to destroy Iraq and its people," said Fouad Abdullah Ahmed, 49, part of a rally setting a Saddam statue on fire. "We are Muslim. We don't like the Americans and the British."

Well screw you buddy. I say we leave your burned out country with you in charge. I'm sure you could get a new government up and running in just a few minutes.

Also from that article...

"This is what the Americans wanted," he said. "They wanted Iraq to lose its history."

That was not true. However, with an attitude like that, I'm beginning to care less and less about Iraqis or their history.

In fact (now Alias is pissed off) if all this war did was scare the crap out of "Muslim(s)...(that) don't like the Americans and the British," (Fouad Abdullah Ahmed's words, not mine) then so be it. Keep your suicide bombers out of the US or we'll burn your countries to the ground. GOT IT?

Jeez, try to help a guy out!

And PLEASE, no comments about how there aren't any terrorists in Iraq. Saddam himself is(was) the mother of all terrorists, and if that's not good enough for you, invite Abu Abbas over for dinner some night.

 

[GENIERE]

GlamGein:

Just the facts!

Let's see, Saddam came to power in 1979 while (wadda you know) Democrat Jimmy Carter was president and Admiral Turner was the CIA director. Did the CIA have dealings with Saddam at that time? Yep, there was a big effort to funnel arms into Afghanistan in any way possible to involve the USSR in a protracted war.

Did the CIA help the Baath party asume power in Iraq? Yep, in 1963 while (wadda you know) another Democratic, JF Kennedy was president. Why? To create a regime that would be anti USSR. Didn't work.

Many countries were in the line of fire of the two superpowers from 1945 until about 1990. Every US president's goal, Rep or Dem was to destroy the USSR. Lots of nasty stuff happened. Iraq and other countries were pawns in a much bigger game. Oil never was and is not now an issue. President Reagan eventually won the cold war by making it economically impossible for the USSR to compete.

Regards

 

[Zero]

Between the Democrat bashing and the Republican bashing, we've made a VERY strong case that the situation in Iraq is America's fault, haven't we?

 

[Alias]

If the US is responsible for all of the problems Iraq has had in the last half of the 20th century, then every one of our allies is complicit. Including you, UK.

As for the new situation in Iraq, you bet it is our fault, and you can bet that the quality of life of the average Iraqi will meet and exceed that of pre-war life in a few short years. And it is also our fault that they are no longer under the brutal dictatorial rule of a murderer.

And your right we let some looting get out of control, and a bunch of replica artifacts got smashed or stolen (Saddam took most of the real stuff). Small price to pay I'd say.

Also, did you ever think that maybe there are some problems with Arab culture that contribute to the messes that Arab countries seem to get themselves in?

Just because you are guilty of a crime against a person, does not mean that that person was without blame or fault, or that that person wasn't a criminal himself.

Yeah, we murdered a bunch of Indians. But they were just as murderous to each other.

Yeah, we enslaved a bunch of Africans, but we purchased many Africans from Africans and Africans, to this day, still enslave one another.

Obviously, two wrongs don't make a right, but let's keep things in perspective.

All hail George Bush!

 

[Zero]

Alias, you forgot teh part where teh US is responsible for teh chaos and anarchy in Iraq, because they went in with no solid plan for anything but securing the oil fields.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Zero
Alias, you forgot teh part where teh US is responsible for teh chaos and anarchy in Iraq, because they went in with no solid plan for anything but securing the oil fields.

Alias, you also forget that everything bad that has happened in the world since 1776 is the US's fault

I need a new pet word... How about PREPOSTEROUS!

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by russ_watters
Alias, you also forget that everything bad that has happened in the world since 1776 is the US's fault

I need a new pet word... How about PREPOSTEROUS!

How about accepting teh WHOLE truth, and not just the parts that make you feel good?

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Zero
How about accepting teh WHOLE truth, and not just the parts that make you feel good?

Yeah. Should I follow your lead?

I believe I DID state in another thread that it was a mistake to not send a better occupation force in sooner. Its a catch-22 though - clamp down too tight and the anti-US crowd (you) will claim we are there to occupy them. I believe it was a calculated political move when it shouldn't have been.

So, whole truth, eh: is there anything good that you see coming out of this war? Anything at all? Only ONE of us has been acknowledging that there are two sides to every story.

 

[FZ+]

Hmm... Don't make me use my powers of citizen's locking...

This topic was pretty much a tasteless gloat to start off with. Let's keep the gloating clean, people...

 

[GlamGein]

Alias:
No, the fact remains that GB is the person responsible for Saddam, and why is a little conspiracy so hard for you to believe?
GWB admits he is a member of the society of the skull and bones, which some say controls the entire world...
some say GB forced Regan to accept him as running mate, and OTHERS say the assassination attempt of president regan was NO coincidence...
A little conspiracy here and there never hurt anyone.

 

[damgo]

Glamgein, Geniere, I think you guys are both oversimplifying the picture with Hussein coming to power, and the CIA's role. The major period of direct American involvement with Saddam was during the Iran-Iraq war, when the USSR was also supporting Iraq, though to a lesser extent. See
THE EMERGENCE OF SADDAM HUSAYN, 1968-79 from the Library of Congress
http://www.countryreports.org/history/iraqhist.htm
UPI article on CIA-Saddam involvement
http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20030410-070214-6557r

Alias, have you tried turning those arguments around and looking at them from the other side? Like, let's say I'm 'Alias Abbas' from Iraq:

I'm beginning to care less and less about Iraqis or their history... Keep your suicide bombers out of the US or we'll burn your countries to the ground. GOT IT?

That is not true, we never sent suicide bombers to the USA. Keep your invading armies out of our countries, or we will blow up your buildings and planes. With an attitude like that, I don't care if it just makes you Americans scared and angry and thinking we just want to destroy what your country stands for.

Did you ever think that there are some problems with American culture that explains why so many people hate them? Yes, the terrorists murdered a bunch of Americans. But the Americans murdered each other, and the Indians, and the Vietnamese, and the Afghanis, just as much. Just because they 9/11 attackers committed a crime, does not mean that that those Americans in the WTC were without blame or fault themselves.

---

See what I mean?

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by russ_watters
Yeah. Should I follow your lead?

I believe I DID state in another thread that it was a mistake to not send a better occupation force in sooner. Its a catch-22 though - clamp down too tight and the anti-US crowd (you) will claim we are there to occupy them. I believe it was a calculated political move when it shouldn't have been.

So, whole truth, eh: is there anything good that you see coming out of this war? Anything at all? Only ONE of us has been acknowledging that there are two sides to every story.

Go ahead Russ, turn off your brain by calling me 'anti-US' again, because i don't look at the world through rose-colored glasses. You only see the 'good', what little there is of it. There are so many negative aspects to American foreign policy in general, that you simply ignore in your fervor to 'support' America no matter what.

You are like a mother of a death row inmate, screaming about how wonderful her murdering son is.

 

[Alias]

Originally posted by GlamGein
Alias:
No, the fact remains that GB is the person responsible for Saddam, and why is a little conspiracy so hard for you to believe?

No what? It's you that is hard to believe.

GWB admits he is a member of the society of the skull and bones, which some say controls the entire world...

If he "controls the entire world", why does he need the US Military to get his way? What, are you four??

some say GB forced Regan to accept him as running mate, and OTHERS say the assassination attempt of president regan was NO coincidence...

Some say not tossing salad is hazardous to your health.

A little conspiracy here and there never hurt anyone.

All hail the Evil One, George Bush! Hail George Bush!

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Zero
Go ahead Russ, turn off your brain by calling me 'anti-US' again, because i don't look at the world through rose-colored glasses.

I think it is self evident - if you are against the policies and/or actions of the US, you are anti-us. Thats kinda the definition.

You can differentiate that from "anti-american."

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by russ_watters
I think it is self evident - if you are against the policies and/or actions of the US, you are anti-us. Thats kinda the definition.

You can differentiate that from "anti-american."

The current administration is not the country, boss...elsewise, all those who attacked Clinton based on lies(Rush Limbaugh, for instance), should be considered traitors.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Zero
The current administration is not the country, boss...elsewise, all those who attacked Clinton based on lies(Rush Limbaugh, for instance), should be considered traitors.

Quite wrong. The current administration sets most of the official policies of the USA. virtually all of the foreign policy for example comes directly from the president or from people he personally appointed to represent him. When an ambassador goes to another country, he's a representative of the President himself. The war we just fought was Bush's policy.

Now if you oppose Bush's tax plan for example, then you do not oppose the official policy of the USA since Bush doesn't have the authority to set that policy. See the difference?

And there isn't anything impeachable about what Bush has done - otherwise the democrats would be pushing to impeach him. Also, there is nothing traitorous about opposing a policy.

 

[Zero]

Russ, Ihave no idea what you are talking about...how is opposing Bush and his anti-American cabal the same as opposing the country?

 

[kyleb]

well i know how everyone hates it when someone starts making nazi comparisons, but it is basically the same as how it was considered an outright crime against the homeland if you opposed Hitler. i mean at other points in history it has been perfectly fine to disagree with the administration, but when the country is worked up into a heathenist frenzy it is a whole different story; anything even boarding on dissent becomes essentially the antitheses of apple pie and baseball.

 

[Zero]

That's like people saying that calling Bush a slacker gives aid to terrorists...no, in real life, aid would be money or food. Only in some sort of Orwellian nightmare word does criticism of one person equal support of another.

 

[damgo]

well i know how everyone hates it when someone starts making nazi comparisons, but it is basically the same as how it was considered an outright crime against the homeland if you opposed Hitler.

Yeah, basically. In Nazi Germany if you openly opposed Hitler, the SS came to your door at 5am to drag you away to a death camp. Now, if you openly oppose Bush, some conservatives call you a dirty hippie and say you're unpatriotic.

Exactly the same thing. <rolls eyes>