Page 5 of 9 FirstFirst 123456789 LastLast
Results 81 to 100 of 180
  1. #81  
    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!
    That's quite the simplification you have there. The next guy I see missing a limb or two from Iraq, I'll pass that onto them.
  2. #82  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    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.

    The Israeli/Palestinian conflict is hardly for world domination. It's for a very small piece of land which certain superstitions apply a lot of meaning to.

    Are you saying you feel a religious global struggle is responsible for the invasion of Iraq to topple a secular gov't?
  3. #83  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    That's quite the simplification you have there. The next guy I see missing a limb or two from Iraq, I'll pass that onto them.
    EDIT: Message removed by the original poster for inapropriate content.

    Apologies to the forum, users, and board. I probably shouldn't have typed that but I did. Sorry.
    Last edited by TheLiveSoundGuy; 08/16/2005 at 07:07 PM. Reason: inapropriate

    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
    .



  4. #84  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    Yadda yadda yadda. Why are you so eager to justify an invasion which took resources away from the DIRECT 9-11 connection?
    wtf, wtf, yadda, yadda, yadda, have kool-aid lately?
  5. #85  
    Quote Originally Posted by Advance The Man
    wtf, wtf, yadda, yadda, yadda, have kool-aid lately?
    Cite!


    I really do like you, daCLU, honest I do!
    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..."
  6. #86  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    Originally Posted by daThomas
    That's quite the simplification you have there. The next guy I see missing a limb or two from Iraq, I'll pass that onto them.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheLiveSoundGuy
    EDIT: Message removed by the original poster for inapropriate content.

    Apologies to the forum, users, and board. I probably shouldn't have typed that but I did. Sorry.
    Again I apologize to the board and it's readers who saw the message before I removed it. I was wrong to make the comments I did, and I have privately apologized to DA. He has my permission to make said apology public if he so choses.

    This is a good thread. I did not mean to poo poo on it. We need this type of dialog, (maybe with a little less hate and a little more compassion in our voices) in this type of open forum. A number of really good and constructive points have been made by both sides, and I for one would like to see that continue.

    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
    .



  7. #87  
    Quote Originally Posted by Insertion
    Cite!


    I really do like you, daCLU, honest I do!
    Agreed he amuses me like a jester did his King! Anyway, here is your 'cite'.
  8. #88  
    Quote Originally Posted by Insertion
    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.
    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.
    Mr. Insertion, Sir -- I beg to differ on Pearl Harbor, but I am pleased that you brought it up.

    In many many ways it was like iraq.

    For the Japanese (like the beginning was for us in Iraq) it was both an incredibly easy and appallingly perfect Pyrrhic victory.

    It began with an apparent tactical success -- sinking, as you said, almost all our battleships.

    In truth though, it was a gigantic failure tactically in its execution -- and a catastrophic strategic blunder in its effects.

    (Lets not discuss the obvious stuff -- the surprise attack that awakened and enraged the sleeping lion, the declaration of war by hitler (who had expected that the Japanese would correspondingly declare war on Russia)

    Tactically the Pearl Harbor attack left untouched the ONLY warships that mattered -- the carriers. By sinking those obsolete useless battleships, the Japanese in effect liberated our navy from the rusted barnacled anchor of that old royalty who had historically lead that service.

    They also left largely intact the vulnerable petroleum tanks on Hawaii.

    The Japanese naval leaders knew all this -- and that the carriers were not sunk – but they did not mount additional strikes while they had the initiative.

    (If they had launched an additional attack just for the fuel tanks, we would have had a very hard time responding as effectively as we did at the Coral Sea and Midway.)

    The Japanese won a deceptively easy Pyrrhic victory –- one that ensnared them into a tar pit from which they could not extricate themselves -- and which culminated in their destruction.

    Iraq has many of the same scary echos.

    Our great generalissimo who did not understand or know history, arrogantly fired or silenced professionals at the State Dept and the CIA.

    He won a deceptively easy Pyrrhic victory in the sands of iraq against a hollow broken under equipped disarmed army. Repeatedly he was warned by his daddy’s friends, the professional military and others that this was not the hard part.

    While he pranced across the decks of that carrier, posing in that faux flyer’s uniform under that bullst “MISSION ACCOMPLISHED” banner, the tar was just congealing around his feet.

    His solution: “BRING IT ON !!”
    Last edited by BARYE; 08/17/2005 at 01:46 AM. Reason: improving clarity
    755P Sprint SERO (upgraded from unlocked GSM 650 on T-Mobile)
  9. #89  
    Quote Originally Posted by Insertion
    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.
    Ok, I did get you wrong. I agree that leaving Iraq before the insurgents and terrorists are defeated and before the Iraqi government can control the country would be a tremendous boost for Islamistic terror. Unfortunately, this will be extremly difficult or even impossible given the number of troops available. During the past 2 plus years, little or no progress has been made, to the contrary, the killing of Iraqis has never been more frequent, and the number of US casualties also did not go down.
    Quote Originally Posted by Insertion
    Face it, we've been running from these radicals since 1979. Why do you (not you specifically) people think these thugs are so bold? They see us leave Lebanon, they see us leave Somalia after having a Soldier dragged through the streets. They see us do nothing after a US Warship is BOMBED while in port. They see us do nothing while the Khobar Towers go down.
    I wrongly thought you meant this to be arguments for invading Iraq. Indeed, the examples above are not... Syria was behind Lebanaon, Somalis were behind Somalia, and Al Qaida was behind the bombing of the warship and the Khobar Towers. No link to Saddam in any of those, so it is not surprising that the invasion of Iraq did not have a negative effect on that sort of terrorism.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  10. #90  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    The Israeli/Palestinian conflict is hardly for world domination. It's for a very small piece of land which certain superstitions apply a lot of meaning to.

    Are you saying you feel a religious global struggle is responsible for the invasion of Iraq to topple a secular gov't?
    Wow! Your deductive/inductive reasoning is remarkable.

    I am saying, the same "superstitions" that fuel the Palestinians in their pursuit of control of the "small piece of land" fuels the jihadists.

    Further, don't think that once the land matter is settled there will be peace between the two peoples. The land is the current squirmish. But again, the same "superstitions" related to the small piece of land, are at heart in the larger islamic terror network.

    Now, for the record, I accept cautiously the position of some muslim people that the behavior of the "radicals" is not mainstream Islam. However, what they do not realize is that the terror tactics are as much a war for the soul of Islam as for the defeat of the imperialists, zionists and infidels. Further, what the "moderate" muslims need to understand is that if the imperialists, zionists and infidels are defeated, the "moderates" will be next. Can you say "Taliban?"

    So, yes, the immediate Palestinian/Israeli struggle is about the parcel of ground with "superstitious" value, but that is not the end of the matter. Accordingly, only the fool believes that agreeing upon geographic boundaries will calm the storm. If for no other reason than that the "superstitions" will continue to exist.
  11. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #91  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    Yadda yadda yadda. Why are you so eager to justify an invasion which took resources away from the DIRECT 9-11 connection?
    I am simply pointing out that there is a connection. It has been upheld in court, well after the fact yet you keep saying there is NO connection. You are wrong on that point and everytime someone presents evidence you either ignore it, change the subject in your reply or try to downgrade the evidence. I think enough people have provided credible reports showing a link between the two can you now prove that there was no link?
  12. #92  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    Wow! Your deductive/inductive reasoning is remarkable.

    I am saying, the same "superstitions" that fuel the Palestinians in their pursuit of control of the "small piece of land" fuels the jihadists.

    Further, don't think that once the land matter is settled there will be peace between the two peoples. The land is the current squirmish. But again, the same "superstitions" related to the small piece of land, are at heart in the larger islamic terror network.

    Now, for the record, I accept cautiously the position of some muslim people that the behavior of the "radicals" is not mainstream Islam. However, what they do not realize is that the terror tactics are as much a war for the soul of Islam as for the defeat of the imperialists, zionists and infidels. Further, what the "moderate" muslims need to understand is that if the imperialists, zionists and infidels are defeated, the "moderates" will be next. Can you say "Taliban?"

    So, yes, the immediate Palestinian/Israeli struggle is about the parcel of ground with "superstitious" value, but that is not the end of the matter. Accordingly, only the fool believes that agreeing upon geographic boundaries will calm the storm. If for no other reason than that the "superstitions" will continue to exist.

    Now I am confused. What do the jihadists have to do with invading Iraq?
  13. #93  
    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    I am simply pointing out that there is a connection. It has been upheld in court, well after the fact yet you keep saying there is NO connection. You are wrong on that point and everytime someone presents evidence you either ignore it, change the subject in your reply or try to downgrade the evidence. I think enough people have provided credible reports showing a link between the two can you now prove that there was no link?

    No, there is no connection. That case you cite is flimsy and has likely been overturned. However, assuming you're correct, you the result of invading Iraq appears to be replacing a secular gov't with at least one islamic gov't which is quite oil rich. Hmmmm, not bright eh?
  14. #94  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    Now I am confused. What do the jihadists have to do with invading Iraq?
    Let's look at this together:

    Clulup wrote:
    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, then wrote:
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    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.
    Your response was:
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    The Israeli/Palestinian conflict is hardly for world domination. It's for a very small piece of land which certain superstitions apply a lot of meaning to.

    Are you saying you feel a religious global struggle is responsible for the invasion of Iraq to topple a secular gov't?
    To which I responded:
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    Wow! Your deductive/inductive reasoning is remarkable.

    I am saying, the same "superstitions" that fuel the Palestinians in their pursuit of control of the "small piece of land" fuels the jihadists.

    Further, don't think that once the land matter is settled there will be peace between the two peoples. The land is the current squirmish. But again, the same "superstitions" related to the small piece of land, are at heart in the larger islamic terror network.

    Now, for the record, I accept cautiously the position of some muslim people that the behavior of the "radicals" is not mainstream Islam. However, what they do not realize is that the terror tactics are as much a war for the soul of Islam as for the defeat of the imperialists, zionists and infidels. Further, what the "moderate" muslims need to understand is that if the imperialists, zionists and infidels are defeated, the "moderates" will be next. Can you say "Taliban?"

    So, yes, the immediate Palestinian/Israeli struggle is about the parcel of ground with "superstitious" value, but that is not the end of the matter. Accordingly, only the fool believes that agreeing upon geographic boundaries will calm the storm. If for no other reason than that the "superstitions" will continue to exist.
    The only mention of Iraq was by you. I am content to remove it from this facet of the thread. I was relating the Palestinian /Israeli conflict to the much broader islamic/jihadist terrorism.

    So, let me first answer your specific question: No, I do not feel that a religious global struggle is responsible for the invasion of Iraq to topple a secular gov't.

    Second, I do not know what the jihadists has to do with the attack on Iraq, accept that there seem to be "court-approved" links between Iraq and Al-Qaeda.

    Having resolved that. Were you interested in addressing my supposition about the relationship between Palestinian efforts and the global islamic terror network? Or, were you just insuring that I was not making improper links?

    If the former, I would be interested in your assessment.
    If the latter, thanks for indulging me the opportunity to clear up the confusion.
  15. #95  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    Let's look at this together:

    Clulup wrote:


    I, then wrote:


    Your response was:


    To which I responded:


    The only mention of Iraq was by you. I am content to remove it from this facet of the thread. I was relating the Palestinian /Israeli conflict to the much broader islamic/jihadist terrorism.

    So, let me first answer your specific question: No, I do not feel that a religious global struggle is responsible for the invasion of Iraq to topple a secular gov't.

    Second, I do not know what the jihadists has to do with the attack on Iraq, accept that there seem to be "court-approved" links between Iraq and Al-Qaeda.

    Having resolved that. Were you interested in addressing my supposition about the relationship between Palestinian efforts and the global islamic terror network? Or, were you just insuring that I was not making improper links?

    If the former, I would be interested in your assessment.
    If the latter, thanks for indulging me the opportunity to clear up the confusion.
    Pardon, I was in thread topic mode and not reading your posts in detail. my bad.
  16. #96  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    Pardon, I was in thread topic mode and not reading your posts in detail. my bad.
    What was the topic of this thread again???
    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..."
  17. #97  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    Pardon, I was in thread topic mode and not reading your posts in detail. my bad.
    It's all good
  18. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #98  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    No, there is no connection. That case you cite is flimsy and has likely been overturned. However, assuming you're correct, you the result of invading Iraq appears to be replacing a secular gov't with at least one islamic gov't which is quite oil rich. Hmmmm, not bright eh?
    Again, instead of simply accepting that the case was presented in front of a federal judge who decided that enough evidence was presented to find a link between Saddam, Osama and 9-11 you simply state "there is no connection". Again, you change the subject to what you think appears to be happening today in Iraq instead of staying on the subject of the material presented. Again, you attempt to downgrade the evidence "the case you cite is flimsy", no support just your statements.
  19. #99  
    Quote Originally Posted by Insertion
    What was the topic of this thread again???
    no comment or retort ??

    Pearl Harbor
    755P Sprint SERO (upgraded from unlocked GSM 650 on T-Mobile)
  20. #100  
    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    Again, instead of simply accepting that the case was presented in front of a federal judge who decided that enough evidence was presented to find a link between Saddam, Osama and 9-11 you simply state "there is no connection". Again, you change the subject to what you think appears to be happening today in Iraq instead of staying on the subject of the material presented. Again, you attempt to downgrade the evidence "the case you cite is flimsy", no support just your statements.
    Yea, I poo-poo'd your example but then said 'even if'.

    And that's not an interpretation of what's happening, it's what's happening. "We're not saying we want a seperate nation. We just want the constitution to say it's ok if we do."

Posting Permissions