Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 41 to 56 of 56
  1. Talldog's Avatar
    Posts
    157 Posts
    Global Posts
    291 Global Posts
    #41  
    Quote Originally Posted by metsfan
    As others have said, they present the liberal side of the argument very badly, in order to try to show the conservative side is correct. I think Fox would be much more useful as a news channel if it only showed the conservative side, and you went elsewhere for the liberal side.
    I see the liberal side on FNC presented by the likes of Susan Estrich, Geraldine Ferraro, Bob Beckel, Alan Colmes, Juan Williams, and Mara Liasson (among others). All of these people are educated, intelligent, and professionally accomplished. Are you saying otherwise?
    Talldog
  2. #42  
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix
    I guess Fox news forgot to cover this one very well.
    Sure beats the Hell out of the Saddam "polled" the Iraqis! The guy killed HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF HUMAN BEINGS. You ever talked to a holocaust survivor and thought "How could the world have let this happen?" I have! Maybe there were lies distortion or whatever you want to call it. SO WHAT. At least they don't have to watch their wives get raped or have their genitals hooked up to car batteries anymore. How being hung up on hooks through your back while you watch your daughter raped. What kind of animal would sit by and let that go on?
  3. #43  
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix
    I am just quoting the results of a scientific poll that was reported by USA today hardly a tool of the left.

    http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/i...ll-cover_x.htm

    Did you bother to read the aricle or just the highlights?

    "Only 7% in the poll say they based their opinions on personal experience."

    There'sa good solid opinion base

    "it's widely believed "that when soldiers search houses, they steal gold and money. And in our houses, people are taking special (precautions) to hide their money and gold for fear of them being stolen by U.S. soldiers.""

    Of course they think this because our troops are trained to do this...Bah! One guy makes this up and everyone believes it...why?

    "More news is spread through that oldest delivery system: marketplace chatter. In the rumor mill, interviews indicate, every confrontation between Americans and Iraqis is portrayed as an assault on the Iraqi people, not on just a few lawless insurgents"

    Gee I wonder. Beacause they sit around making stuff up.

    Cell if you think your country (assuming youre American) is so awful and doing such a horrible job in Iraq, why dont you go represent us like you think it should be done. What are you doing to help? How are you supporting the troops?
  4. #44  
    Quote Originally Posted by dutchtrumpet
    Sure beats the Hell out of the Saddam "polled" the Iraqis! The guy killed HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF HUMAN BEINGS. You ever talked to a holocaust survivor and thought "How could the world have let this happen?" I have! Maybe there were lies distortion or whatever you want to call it. SO WHAT. At least they don't have to watch their wives get raped or have their genitals hooked up to car batteries anymore. How being hung up on hooks through your back while you watch your daughter raped. What kind of animal would sit by and let that go on?
    Sure, the guy was pure evil, its GREAT!!! to get rid of him. But he's been taken out, and the iraqs are wanting us to leave too. If over 70% of iraqi's now consider us an occupying force, this should raise some eyebrows.

    I think we should give the iraqis some credit for having a better understanding of their people, their country, their terrorist problem, than we do.

    That is the point I am making, it has nothing to do with Sadaam, OK?
  5.    #45  
    Why Iraq though? There were other countries more deserving of an attack than Iraq?
    Like Pakistan or North Korea or Saudi Arabia.

    WMD - Pakistan sold nuke secrets by printing a govt. brochure and was looking for buyer. Tried selling it to even Libya. North Korea swapped their missile technology for Pakistans nuclear technology

    Pakistan and Saudi Arabia were the only countries that supported the Taliban (The reason 911 happened in case people have forgotton)

    Bin Laden was a Saudi.

    Just curious why Iraq
  6. #46  
    Quote Originally Posted by Woof
    Cell if you think your country (assuming youre American) is so awful and doing such a horrible job in Iraq, why dont you go represent us like you think it should be done. What are you doing to help? How are you supporting the troops?
    Woof, you are questioning my service to our country? OK, since you mentioned it, here goes: I served my country for three years in the US Army active duty, in an Infantry division as a medic. I was honorably discharged and was ready for war, even though it did not happen.

    Now I work as a physician at a Veteran's Administration Med Center, making far less money that I would in private practice, but I am doing it out of my pure enjoyment of working and helping those people who served our country so bravely. The vets are a particularly fun group to work with, they are grateful for what you give them, they do not have a feelling of entitlement. And helping them, I figure it is the least that we can to for them, because many of them risked their lives for our country.

    I think our country is the best country in the whole world, bar none, so when you tell me I don't love my country, I find that particularly offensive. But, I think we still have lots of room for improvement, and there is nothing wrong with trying to improve, OK?

    OK, here is what makes me angry, when kids grow up with a sense of entitlement, and think they don't need to enlist in the military themselves, but they can just sit back and watch other people go to war and die, so that they can have cheap gas to put in their BMWs. That pisses me off.

    OK, now you understand where I am coming from.
  7. #47  
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix
    Woof, you are questioning my service to our country? OK, since you mentioned it, here goes: I served my country for three years in the US Army active duty, in an Infantry division as a medic. I was honorably discharged and was ready for war, even though it did not happen.

    Now I work as a physician at a Veteran's Administration Med Center, making far less money that I would in private practice, but I am doing it out of my pure enjoyment of working and helping those people who served our country so bravely. The vets are a particularly fun group to work with, they are grateful for what you give them, they do not have a feelling of entitlement. And helping them, I figure it is the least that we can to for them, because many of them risked their lives for our country.

    I think our country is the best country in the whole world, bar none, so when you tell me I don't love my country, I find that particularly offensive. But, I think we still have lots of room for improvement, and there is nothing wrong with trying to improve, OK?

    OK, here is what makes me angry, when kids grow up with a sense of entitlement, and think they don't need to enlist in the military themselves, but they can just sit back and watch other people go to war and die, so that they can have cheap gas to put in their BMWs. That pisses me off.

    OK, now you understand where I am coming from.
    What a fascinating forum. I too am a veteran. I don't agree with all of you thoughts, but so what. Thanks for your past and current service. I have done volunteer work in VA hospitals and now how grateful vets are. Most would never ask, but would only like a simple "thank you".
  8. #48  
    Cell if you think your country (assuming youre American) is so awful and doing such a horrible job in Iraq, why dont you go represent us like you think it should be done. What are you doing to help? How are you supporting the troops?
    Woof, calm down buuuddd. I don't think anyone on this list believes the Iraqi coments this article chose to include truly reflect what our troops are doing over there.

    I do think, however, that the poll is probably pretty accurate. Look at the breakdown. It is very interestingly broken down by sects. Actually I am surprised that there is as much support as the poll shows for our tropps still being there. The negative view of our presence will naturally increase the longer we stay. This is only natural and should be expected. The Poll was taken in April, if it were taken today it would be even further skewed against the continued US presence.

    That does not mean that we should shirk our responsiblity to make sure the country can stand on it's own after we leave. Unfortuanately, I don't think you, I, or the participants of this or any other poll are suited to decide the date of our departure. It would be nice if these kinds of decisions could be made by consensu, but they cannot and if you think they can you are only kidding yourself.
  9. #49  
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix
    Woof, you are questioning my service to our country? ....
    Not at all. I was questioning your opinion of what we're doing over there. I was also wondering why you would take the side of the iraqis. I say that because thats the way it seems. If thats not it, my apologies.

    Regarding your service. THANK YOU!!!
    From the bottom of my heart, you have my sincerest gratitude for your service past and present. I for one am humbly grateful for the sacrifices you have made so that I can have the freedoms that I have. And please if you would be so kind, pass that thank you on to the vets you deal with at work. I'm serious. Tell them there is this jerk that you debate with online that wanted to thank them. Say whatever you want about me but if you do tell them, let them know there is a guy that admires and respects them and is grateful for what they have done even though it may not have worked out best for them.

    OK, here is what makes me angry, when kids grow up with a sense of entitlement, and think they don't need to enlist in the military themselves, but they can just sit back and watch other people go to war and die, so that they can have cheap gas to put in their BMWs. That pisses me off.
    I didnt say you didnt love your country, ok. I agree with you about the entitlement stuff. It pisses me off too.

    I think that poll is a lot of hooey. All one has to do is ask certain people to get the response you want. They didnt say how it was conducted.
  10. #50  
    Quote Originally Posted by dutchtrumpet
    ...I too am a veteran. ....
    My thanks to you sir for your service. I truly appreciate your sacrifice for my freedom.
  11. #51  
    Just curious why Iraq
    Having observed crisis decision making first hand, I believe that Iraq became the prime target in the war on terror precisely because we did not know the extent of their WMD and where it was.

    Hear me out.

    Immediately after a crisis like 9/11 a crises management team comes together (civilian heads and military commanders) chaired by the head of the top level organization charged with handling the crisis. That entity is determined by the severity and scope of the crisis. In the case of 9/11 I am sure that that person was probably the Vice President himself. Remember he was spirted away to a command bunker someplace. The first question always, and I mean always, asked is "What is the threat?". This is initially answered by intelligence briefers who come prepared with the current intelligence as of the time of the event. Without knowledge of the threat it is almost impossible to formulate a response. If an immediate threat exists then immediate action is taken based on whatever you have at the time. In the case of 9/11 their response to the immediate threat of more hijackings was to ground commercial and civilian aviation.

    After that initial response I am sure that the players were given marching orders to refine the intelligence and come back with a threat analysis in terms of Terrorism. I think what was reported back was that the greatest terrorist threat to the US homeland was WMD in the form of a chemical, biological, or nuclear dirty bomb which could easily be detonated in any one of our large cities.

    Given the threat, the briefers would then report on where the terrorist could get the ingredients necessary to make a dirty bomb. The nations named probably included...

    US
    England
    France
    Russia
    China
    N. Korea
    Pakistan
    India
    Iraq

    If you know a country has, how much, where it is, and there political attitude toward the west, you can formulate a plan to monitor and have a chance to counter most threats. The dangerous countries are those on whom we do not have sufficient intelligence. We knew Saddam at one time had all the chemical and biological elements of concern. He used them. We did NOT, however, know if Saddam still had them and if he did where they were. All the other countries on the list were known quantites that could be monitored.

    So Iraq became the single greatest threat as a source of WMD for the terrorist. Saddam himself was no threat, but what we thought he had in his possession was and he certainly had more than enough motive to supply the terorists with whatever they wanted to use against the US. That was the whole reason for the UN Weapons inspections. Now, all Saddam had to do was show what he had done with the WMD we knew he once had. Instead he he chose to thumb his nose at the World community for 9 years and 12+ UN resolutions.

    Now given the lesson of 9/11, we simply could not afford to take the chance that Saddam's WMD if they existed would fall in the hands of a terrorist group. It was time for the US to either **** or get off the pot. The President I think was more than patient. In fact the time we wasted dealing with the UN and the likes of France and Russia, probably gave Saddam the time he needed to get rid of whatever WMD he may have had before our invasion.

    So why Iraq and not those other countries??? Because we did NOT know if he had WMD and if he did where it was. The very reason so many with clear 20-20 hindsight use as the reason we should not have gone to war.

    Sorry for the long post. I have wanted to get that theory off my chest for a long time...
  12.    #52  
    Quote Originally Posted by johnbdh

    Sorry for the long post. I have wanted to get that theory off my chest for a long time...
    No problem! When you post something without getting emotional and attacking other readers, your voice is likely to be heard no matter how long the post is!
  13. #53  
    Quote Originally Posted by Woof
    I was also wondering why you would take the side of the iraqis. .
    Woof and DT, thanks, I realize you guys have good hearts and we just have different views of the world that is all.

    But about the comment on whose side I am on. I thought that now the iraqis and the US are on the same side working together?

    Why should take these polls seriously? Because we want Iraq to stay our allies. Whatever is getting their people angry with us, we should do what we can to fix it, not just dismiss it and hope things will turn out good in the end. Because they will be a democracy and there is the danger that they will elect a government that will be hostile to the US.

    I think we need to find ways to improve what we are doing in Iraq to portray a better image, both to the arab world, and to Iraq in particular. We need to admit we have made serious mistakes in our recent management of Iraq. And we need to do things to show we are sorry about what we did, Abu-G etc. Not just clips on the news of us giving blankets to iraqi kids, something that is more long term and meaningful. We absolutely cannot compromise Israel's security, but besides that, there are a lot of things we can do to improve our image in the arab world.

    I think that if we do it in a smart and methodical way, develop a new doctrine to abide by, like other US administrations have done in the aftermath of other wars, we may be able to win back some of the respect that I believe our great country has lost recently around the world.
    Last edited by cellmatrix; 07/14/2004 at 10:23 PM.
  14. #54  
    Zackz,

    Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are cooperating with us in the war on terror but I like your mindset. If we are fully committed to do this then we must seriously considered Iran,Syria and North Korea next. I believe we are still holding out hope that Iran will collapse internally and North Korea will blink under multinational pressure but what if they don't?
  15. #55  
    This an Iraqi blog. Gives some good insight into feelings of Iraqis and daily news there. The entry from the grateful Iraqi blogger on July 12, 2004 is very encouraging, yet shows how some Iraqis fail to see the contrast of Iraq then and now.

    http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/
  16.    #56  
    Quote Originally Posted by carter437
    Zackz,

    Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are cooperating with us in the war on terror but I like your mindset. If we are fully committed to do this then we must seriously considered Iran,Syria and North Korea next. I believe we are still holding out hope that Iran will collapse internally and North Korea will blink under multinational pressure but what if they don't?
    "Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are cooperating with us in the war on terror "

    Are they?

    http://www.washtimes.com/upi-breakin...1231-9906r.htm
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Posting Permissions