Page 4 of 9 FirstFirst 123456789 LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 180
  1. #61  
    Quote Originally Posted by Insertion
    Well, we could argue it being pointless or not. But we were at war with the Soviets until the late 80's. It's just we used other countries instead of fighting directly.
    true - though we did support the wrong (unpopular) side in this particular case. And we could have done more to support anti-communist causes in other instances (Afganistan in the early 80's comes to mind - Carter sure scared the Soveits by pulling out of the Olympics, didn't he?)

    The point is we are there now. So, you want to pull up stakes and run, feeding the Jihadist monster even more?
    nope - that was my point - we have no choice but to stay the course. But it is really maddening that we've gotten ourselves into this situation in the first place.
    Palm m505 -> Treo600 (GSM ATT) -> Treo650 (Cingular) -> BB8700g -> BB Pearl
    "The point of living and of being an optimist, is to be foolish enough to believe the best is yet to come."
  2. #62  
    Quote Originally Posted by TheLiveSoundGuy
    A statement is what was made in regard to Clinton.
    A question is what was asked directly of you.

    See the difference? Where is the flaw in that short simple question?
    Assuming this is your question, " What is the miracle cure all answer from the left?". What 'disease' are you referring to and what actions do you feel the left is criticizing?
  3. #63  
    Quote Originally Posted by KRamsauer
    Isn't an editorial an unsigned piece? So anything with an author (and not by the editorial board in total) is not an editorial.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Editorial

    Ok, yes, editorials are by the paper, columns are opinion by repeating authors and letters to the editor are opinions by readers. That's all cleared up now.
  4. #64  
    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    Must side with Insertion "can't win". reference dated 13 Oct 04, gee ya think we should put the facts out before they happen boss huh, do ya, do ya, huh?? I bet you were really happy when Ms. Fonda took brand new laptops to all those big brutes in Vietnam and you really like it when the sky changes from purple to mauve.
    What's a matter? Running out falsehoods so you're turning to personal attackes?

  5. #65  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    Assuming this is your question, " What is the miracle cure all answer from the left?". What 'disease' are you referring to and what actions do you feel the left is criticizing?
    And again another question.

    My fault. I should have been more clear.
    I'll type slower.

    "So what will make all this better for you?"

    Fox doesn't have the answer for you on this one. You'll have to think yourself.

    Thread Crapper
    ~ August 16,2005 Poll-Master ~
    August 17, 2005 Century Club Member ~ August 29, 2005

    I have a fondness for intelligence.
    I often black out when doing something really stupid. I supose that's why I'm such a danger to my self
    .



  6. #66  
    Quote Originally Posted by TheLiveSoundGuy
    And again another question.

    My fault. I should have been more clear.
    I'll type slower.

    "So what will make all this better for you?"
    Did you really type slower??
    MaxiMunK.com The Forum That Asks, "Are You Not Entertained?"

    Remember: "Anyone that thinks the Treo should just work right out of the box, shouldn't own a Treo..."
  7. #67  
    One key at a time. And still waiting.

    Thread Crapper
    ~ August 16,2005 Poll-Master ~
    August 17, 2005 Century Club Member ~ August 29, 2005

    I have a fondness for intelligence.
    I often black out when doing something really stupid. I supose that's why I'm such a danger to my self
    .



  8. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #68  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    What's a matter? Running out falsehoods so you're turning to personal attackes?

    Nope, just thought I had better stop confusing you with the facts.
  9. #69  
    Quote Originally Posted by TheLiveSoundGuy
    And again another question.

    My fault. I should have been more clear.
    I'll type slower.

    "So what will make all this better for you?"

    Fox doesn't have the answer for you on this one. You'll have to think yourself.
    Not that this answers my questions as I think you're trying to tie 9-11 to Iraq BUT
    .
    .
    .
    Please follow along with the rest and read above post for your answer:

    At this point, the way to support the troops is to make damn sure their veterans benifits are not cut and increased to take care of the thousands of permanently injured.

    Get the hell out of Iraq ASAP.

    Hold those responsible for this moronic venture squarely and firmly responsible. I believe you'll find a list of their names on the bottom of this page .
  10. #70  
    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    Nope, just thought I had better stop confusing you with the facts.
    Yea, your chock full of those "facts".
  11. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #71  
    Quote Originally Posted by TheLiveSoundGuy
    And again another question.

    My fault. I should have been more clear.
    I'll type slower.

    "So what will make all this better for you?"

    Fox doesn't have the answer for you on this one. You'll have to think yourself.
    I am going to join in on this. Just my 2cents, I would think going to ask for some help, and trying to rebuild the coalition to help train Iraqi security forces, securing the border of Iraq, etc. would be of great help.
  12. #72  
    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    If you would read the article below (I know, I know, I know your think it will be an editorial) maybe, just maybe you will notice a link to the previous Iraqi regime and terrorist.

    http://www.husseinandterror.com/
    You are confusing things. The examples on your page relate almost exclusively to the fight between Palestinians and Israel. That sort of terror has totally different goals than the Islamistic terror of Al Qaida. The Palestinian terror has been around for decades and is about land in Israel/Palestine. it is not directly targetet against the US. The Al Qaida terror is about fighting Western influence in Islamic countries and ending the "occupation" of Saudi-Arabia by US troops, this is the Islamistic terrorism.

    Saddam Hussein did support the PLO and other Palestinian (terrorist) organisations, but he did not have any meaningful ties to Osama bin Laden and Al Quaida, and he had nothing to do with 9/11.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  13. #73  
    Quote Originally Posted by chillig35
    but this is an interesting dilemma....

    scenario 1: Bush admits that he made a mistake and pulls the troops out of Iraq immediately. result? Iraq mushrooms into a major terrorist center and the destabilizes the middle-east for the rest of the 21st century

    scenario2: Bush admits that he made a mistake - but continues to keep forces deployed in Iraq to prevent middle-east crisis above. result? Our troops are demoralized as they realize they realize that not only have they been paying with their lives for a "mistake" but that they have to continue to do so for a long while.

    scenario3: Bush admits nothing - but continues to stay the course and tries to keep the morale high, as he tries to slowly extricate us from the mess he created in the first place - but costing us more lives, and with no guarantee of mid-east stability or reduced terrorist threats.

    Other scenarios involving help from UN or other nations is wishful thinking - why would anyone else want to help clean up a mess that they were against in the first place? And what clout will Bolton have with an institution that he deemed as "irrelevant"?

    so the question is (for both Dems and Reps) - which of the three scenarios is the least distasteful to you? Unfortunately i have to go with scenario 3 myself.
    Nicely put.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  14. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #74  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    You are confusing things. The examples on your page relate almost exclusively to the fight between Palestinians and Israel. That sort of terror has totally different goals than the Islamistic terror of Al Qaida. The Palestinian terror has been around for decades and is about land in Israel/Palestine. it is not directly targetet against the US. The Al Qaida terror is about fighting Western influence in Islamic countries and ending the "occupation" of Saudi-Arabia by US troops, this is the Islamistic terrorism.

    Saddam Hussein did support the PLO and other Palestinian (terrorist) organisations, but he did not have any meaningful ties to Osama bin Laden and Al Quaida, and he had nothing to do with 9/11.
    The article ended with the courts ruling that Saddam and Al-Queda were linked. This from a Clinton appointed judge by the way. Yes, it states that the link as presented was not strong, but still held in a court of law and the families of 9-11 victims were awarded monies from Saddam and Osama. It is another thing if the families will ever collect, but the fact remains that a court of law in the United States declared the connection was there.
  15. #75  
    Well at least you answered the question.
    I think that might be one, legitimate possible solution to solve some of the problems for our personel.

    That will do nothing to address underlying problem of why individuals hate to begin with.

    While I was hoping you would go to the deeper reasons of why wars are made in the first place, your answer (though I had to press to get it) was staight forward, sound and to the point. Thank you for that.

    MHO: There is no solution.
    As long as there are two people are left on this planet, their will be disagreement.

    All the rants, opinions, or meeting of families, in this world, can't, and won't change that.

    Have a coke, a smile, and chill.

    Do what you can, when you can, if you can.
    All this he said, she said, I saw it here, but I saw it there, stuff is just retoric. The only thing it can acomplish, is raising your BP a few degrees.
    Have a nice day!

    Thread Crapper
    ~ August 16,2005 Poll-Master ~
    August 17, 2005 Century Club Member ~ August 29, 2005

    I have a fondness for intelligence.
    I often black out when doing something really stupid. I supose that's why I'm such a danger to my self
    .



  16. #76  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    You are confusing things. The examples on your page relate almost exclusively to the fight between Palestinians and Israel. That sort of terror has totally different goals than the Islamistic terror of Al Qaida. The Palestinian terror has been around for decades and is about land in Israel/Palestine. it is not directly targetet against the US. The Al Qaida terror is about fighting Western influence in Islamic countries and ending the "occupation" of Saudi-Arabia by US troops, this is the Islamistic terrorism.

    Saddam Hussein did support the PLO and other Palestinian (terrorist) organisations, but he did not have any meaningful ties to Osama bin Laden and Al Quaida, and he had nothing to do with 9/11.
    I'm intrigued by the distinction. Isn't it all really about land? Will the land be influenced by western thought or by islamic thought? Whether the opposition be Israel, "imperialist" US, England, Spain, Egypt.....

    I don't mean to oversimplify, but it all seems to be a matter of world domination, of which the Palestinans/Israel conflict is but one front, one battle.
  17. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #77  
    Quote Originally Posted by TheLiveSoundGuy
    Well at least you answered the question.
    I think that might be one, legitimate possible solution to solve some of the problems for our personel.

    That will do nothing to address underlying problem of why individuals hate to begin with.

    While I was hoping you would go to the deeper reasons of why wars are made in the first place, your answer (though I had to press to get it) was staight forward, sound and to the point. Thank you for that.

    MHO: There is no solution.
    As long as there are two people are left on this planet, their will be disagreement.

    All the rants, opinions, or meeting of families, in this world, can't, and won't change that.

    Have a coke, a smile, and chill.

    Do what you can, when you can, if you can.
    All this he said, she said, I saw it here, but I saw it there, stuff is just retoric. The only thing it can acomplish, is raising your BP a few degrees.
    Have a nice day!
    Were you addressing me? If you were then I think that would go a long way to tone some of the hate down. Remember they hate us, for us being on their land.
  18. #78  
    Quote Originally Posted by Insertion
    What exactly is the mistake? Seems to me people are to used to playing Call Of Duty on their PS2's, and think wars are over in a day or two. I'd like to take everyone here back to 1942 when we were getting our asses kicked by the Japanese at every turn. I'm sure the same crowd would be thinking "quagmire."
    That was a totally different situation. Saddam did not bomb Pearl Harbour or attack the US, did he?
    I guess in your scenario, number 3 is the only option.
    Sad but true.
    You can't run now. Face it, we've been running from these radicals since 1979.
    You are still confusing the war on terror with the war against Saddam/Iraq. Nobody ever ran from Saddam, not the Iranians when he attacked them with the support of the US, France, and others, and not the rest of the world after he occupied Kuwait. He was pushed back right away in an international effort led by the US, an effort supported by just about every nation including Arab and other Muslim countires. Later Saddam got rid of his WMDs due to international pressure and UN inspection, even if he did not admit it freely.

    Also in the case of Afghanistan, after 9/11 there was a clear and successful answer to the support of Al Qaida by the Taliban. But that had NOTHING to do with Iraq either.

    You cannot fight Islamistic terrorism and violence (the one encoutered in the Lebanon, Somalia and other places) by occupying a country that had very few if any ties to Islamistic terrorism... to the contrary, the occupation of Iraq has sponsored Islamistic terrorism in Iraq and the rest of world.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  19. #79  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    That was a totally different situation. Saddam did not bomb Pearl Harbour or attack the US, did he?
    Of course not. You know that's not what I meant, but if you didn't understand it;
    The point I was making was in 1942, the US military was not faring well, especially in the Pacific Theatre. In fact we were in worse shape then, than we are now, considering what Pearl Harbor did to our Navy.

    The point is, losing battles (and I don't think we're losing any battle in Iraq) does not mean you lose the war.
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    You are still confusing the war on terror with the war against Saddam/Iraq. Nobody ever ran from Saddam, not the Iranians when he attacked them with the support of the US, France, and others, and not the rest of the world after he occupied Kuwait. He was pushed back right away in an international effort led by the US, an effort supported by just about every nation including Arab and other Muslim countires. Later Saddam got rid of his WMDs due to international pressure and UN inspection, even if he did not admit it freely.

    Also in the case of Afghanistan, after 9/11 there was a clear and successful answer to the support of Al Qaida by the Taliban. But that had NOTHING to do with Iraq either.

    You cannot fight Islamistic terrorism and violence (the one encoutered in the Lebanon, Somalia and other places) by occupying a country that had very few if any ties to Islamistic terrorism... to the contrary, the occupation of Iraq has sponsored Islamistic terrorism in Iraq and the rest of world.
    Again, you are missing my point. I'm not making links to 9/11, in fact if you read my posts in this thread, I haven't even brought 9/11 up. I am speaking here, now. What do you do? We have ran for the most part since 1979 (The Iranian Revolution.) To leave now, is further empowerment to the Radicals.
    MaxiMunK.com The Forum That Asks, "Are You Not Entertained?"

    Remember: "Anyone that thinks the Treo should just work right out of the box, shouldn't own a Treo..."
  20. #80  
    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    The article ended with the courts ruling that Saddam and Al-Queda were linked. This from a Clinton appointed judge by the way. Yes, it states that the link as presented was not strong, but still held in a court of law and the families of 9-11 victims were awarded monies from Saddam and Osama. It is another thing if the families will ever collect, but the fact remains that a court of law in the United States declared the connection was there.

    Yadda yadda yadda. Why are you so eager to justify an invasion which took resources away from the DIRECT 9-11 connection?

Posting Permissions