attn: I apologize for this (politics inside)

[guitar shmoe]

Originally posted by Craggin Revisionist my ass...my viewpoint towards "solutions" goes back many decades before 9/11. As for context towards a solution on terrorism...please...do you mean when we "declared war" on it? It was at that moment George W. lost me...I knew right then and there we were headed for a {censored} storm. I do believe for the most part our society is "benevolent", but unfortunately it is lost the second we offer it with a price tag attached. Don't worry about me paying attention...it is one of the few things I don't mind paying a premium for. Still got the purple people eater???

 

 

c'mon Crag....would you want us to cower at the feet of terrorism? we HAD to declare war on the terrorists, we could not stand by and allow them to put together any kind of unified force and amass weapons...they PROVED that they are capable and WILLING to sacrifice their lives to kill as many Americans as possible...we had/have to stop it....(this is what I mean by 'context') trying to 'negotiate' or 'slap their little wrists' was no longer an option...I saw an interview the other day where a terror loyalist was LAUGHING at how WEAK we are as a nation...he was basically calling America a bunch of PUSSIES!...and, your 'resolve' (or, lack there-of) is making his (and most Middle Easterners) assessment accurate! The biggest thing they are counting on is that we would PUSS OUT and lose our will to fight them...this is how they defeat us (the only way really) is by WEARING US DOWN over time (our military leaders and G Bush understand this...but, sadly, liberals DON'T!)....so, DON"T BE A PUSS!

 

nope, sold the Splawn P-Eater to someone on HCAF and am currently playing a Diezel Einstein (which I LOVE!)

[Urban Ghandi]

Draelyc:

You are the political thread zamboni!

[Craggin]

Originally posted by guitar shmoe c'mon Crag....would you want us to cower at the feet of terrorism? we HAD to declare war on the terrorists, we could not stand by and allow them to put together any kind of unified force and amass weapons...they PROVED that they are capable and WILLING to sacrifice their lives to kill as many Americans as possible...we had/have to stop it....(this is what I mean by 'context') trying to 'negotiate' or 'slap their little wrists' was no longer an option...I saw an interview the other day where a terror loyalist was LAUGHING at how WEAK we are as a nation...he was basically calling America a bunch of PUSSIES!...and, your 'resolve' (or, lack there-of) is making his (and most Middle Easterners) assessment accurate! The biggest thing they are counting on is that we would PUSS OUT and lose our will to fight them...this is how they defeat us (the only way really) is by WEARING US DOWN over time (our military leaders and G Bush understand this...but, sadly, liberals DON'T!)....so, DON"T BE A PUSS!...

 

 

 

Cower???? Let's get something straight...terrorism isn't an enemy, it is a method. (And the word terrorist is completely based on perspective.) So based on your argument, your justification for declaring "war on terror" (don't mind me while I giggle), is because you don't want to be perceived as a puss? I also LOVE your reductionist viewpoints based on "an interview". Wow. Here's one for you (using your logic), I've heard George W give lots of interviews...guess what, you're wrong...he DOESN'T get it. (For the record, I actually voted for him in one of his bids for president.)

 

You have a gross underestimate of my "resolve". You assume (by your post) that I would rather watch us sit back and do nothing. (You couldn't be more mistaken.) I've simply argued that CONSERVATIVES (that is me being sarcastic, I don't consider myself either conservative or liberal...) are all too willing to rush in beating their proverbial dick on a table, utilizing the wrong tools for the task at hand. I NEVER suggested we sit back and do nothing...those are your words. One point I've made in numerous threads is that had we exercised a bit more long-term strategy towards the Middle-East several decades ago, we wouldn't have this mess on our hands right now. Just out of curiousity, have you ever retraced historical events in order to find out why this {censored} is happening? IMO, the historical events leading up to this, albeit fairly convoluted, may help you may gain more perspective...from everything you've posted so far, you've merely demonstrated that you don't think for yourself...you make a really good spokesperson for the regurgitated BS being spoon fed to middle America.

 

Oh, and as for me being a puss...I served my country both as a soldier and as a civilian, have you?

[draelyc]

Originally posted by Urban Ghandi Draelyc: You are the political thread zamboni!

*rushes to Google.com* ...

[draelyc]

Originally posted by draelyc *rushes to Google.com* ...

You sayin' I'm cool & slick?

Or big, square, and belching Diesel?

[guitar shmoe]

Originally posted by Craggin Cower???? Let's get something straight...terrorism isn't an enemy, it is a method. (And the word terrorist is completely based on perspective.) So based on your argument, your justification for declaring "war on terror" (don't mind me while I giggle), is because you don't want to be perceived as a puss? I also LOVE your reductionist viewpoints based on "an interview". Wow. Here's one for you (using your logic), I've heard George W give lots of interviews...guess what, you're wrong...he DOESN'T get it. (For the record, I actually voted for him in one of his bids for president.) You have a gross underestimate of my "resolve". You assume (by your post) that I would rather watch us sit back and do nothing. (You couldn't be more mistaken.) I've simply argued that CONSERVATIVES (that is me being sarcastic, I don't consider myself either conservative or liberal...) are all too willing to rush in beating their proverbial dick on a table, utilizing the wrong tools for the task at hand. I NEVER suggested we sit back and do nothing...those are your words. One point I've made in numerous threads is that had we exercised a bit more long-term strategy towards the Middle-East several decades ago, we wouldn't have this mess on our hands right now. Just out of curiousity, have you ever retraced historical events in order to find out why this {censored} is happening? IMO, the historical events leading up to this, albeit fairly convoluted, may help you may gain more perspective...from everything you've posted so far, you've merely demonstrated that you don't think for yourself...you make a really good spokesperson for the regurgitated BS being spoon fed to middle America. Oh, and as for me being a puss...I served my country both as a soldier and as a civilian, have you?

 

 

I wasn't aiming the 'puss' comment at you personally....my 'interview example' was simply to demonstrate the perception of 'weak/no resolve/coward' that MOST people from that region view Americans as (and, again, their MAIN strategy...). They need to fight the 'war on terror' in the arena of 'public opinion' (using the American sympathetic/liberal press as a 'tool') because they are well aware that if you remove your enemie's resolve to fight (ie: Viet Nam) and get the American political and social factions divided (divide and conquer), they can then stand a chance at surviving to fight (ie: more terrorist attacks) another day. Do you know that most of their leaders were/are educated in American Ivy League Schools? As well as higher education in England and Germany..They know (first hand) how 'fickle' liberals get when having to deal with the concept of war, they are COUNTING ON IT! Congratulations! you have fallen into their lame trap...

 

The past 'historical' events are....in the past! we cannot go back and fix the 'woulda-coulda's' too late for that...hindsight is ALWAYS 20/20... your point here is most LAME!

 

Here's our long term strategy to the Middle East: Eradicate terrorism! and deal with countries (either sanctions or war) that harbor/support them....simple really!

 

I respect and honor your service in our military! but, it doesn't qualify you or give you the right to be the spokesperson for our nation.

[Craggin]

Originally posted by guitar shmoe I wasn't aiming the 'puss' comment at you personally....my 'interview example' was simply to demonstrate the perception of 'weak/no resolve/coward' that MOST people from that region view Americans as (and, again, their MAIN strategy...). They need to fight the 'war on terror' in the arena of 'public opinion' (using the American sympathetic/liberal press as a 'tool') because they are well aware that if you remove your enemie's resolve to fight (ie: Viet Nam) and get the American political and social factions divided (divide and conquer), they can then stand a chance at surviving to fight (ie: more terrorist attacks) another day. Do you know that most of their leaders were/are educated in American Ivy League Schools? As well as higher education in England and Germany..They know (first hand) how 'fickle' liberals get when having to deal with the concept of war, they are COUNTING ON IT! Congratulations! you have fallen into their lame trap... The past 'historical' events are....in the past! we cannot go back and fix the 'woulda-coulda's' too late for that...hindsight is ALWAYS 20/20... your point here is most LAME! Here's our long term strategy to the Middle East: Eradicate terrorism! and deal with countries (either sanctions or war) that harbor/support them....simple really! I respect and honor your service in our military! but, it doesn't qualify you or give you the right to be the spokesperson for our nation.

 

 

+1 for most of your post...my service was aimed at the puss comment. And yes, I know where a lot of our enemies were/are educated.

 

Okay, now for my point....the historical relevence of past foreign policy is more for perspective...so we don't repeat the same mistakes. (How lame is that?) Long term strategy in the Middle East...how do you propose we eradicate terror? We're in a real crappy phase...we shouldn't be in Iraq right now, but we can't pull out...that would be a complete disaster. However, regarding dealing with "terrorists", fighting ideologies with weapons is just plain stupid. IMO, we need to squash the money supply (which is probably so deep, even that wouldn't be effective for a looooooooong time). Again...just my opinion, but we should take a long hard look at our previous stance towards the Middle East and recognize that current policy isn't working, nor has it worked in the past.

[guitar shmoe]

Originally posted by Craggin +1 for most of your post...my service was aimed at the puss comment. And yes, I know where a lot of our enemies were/are educated. Okay, now for my point....the historical relevence of past foreign policy is more for perspective...so we don't repeat the same mistakes. (How lame is that?) Long term strategy in the Middle East...how do you propose we eradicate terror? We're in a real crappy phase...we shouldn't be in Iraq right now, but we can't pull out...that would be a complete disaster. However, regarding dealing with "terrorists", fighting ideologies with weapons is just plain stupid. IMO, we need to squash the money supply (which is probably so deep, even that wouldn't be effective for a looooooooong time). Again...just my opinion, but we should take a long hard look at our previous stance towards the Middle East and recognize that current policy isn't working, nor has it worked in the past.

 

 

Sure, I agree, the present administration IS trying to locate the money trail and confiscate it! These people are very adept at maneuvering their resources....they gots some edu-ma-kay-shun skills...I am a history buff so I am aware of the historical significance and the obvious need to avoid past mistakes. Finding where they train and 'removing' them is not stupid, it isn't an 'end all' approach but definitely not stupid (it would be stupid/irresponsible NOT to attack and remove these fortifications). Defeating their 'ideology' is being addressed too, however, realize that it is impossible to negotiate or rationalize with a psycho/irrational terrorist....just doesn't work. Once Iraq's new govt. is up and running simi-effectively we will begin to pull troops out and allow them to continue to kill themselves...BUT, at least we will be able to monitor/control the possible potential for Iraq to try and be a world threat again.

[Urban Ghandi]

Originally posted by draelyc You sayin' I'm cool & slick? Or big, square, and belching Diesel?

Hahaha...no, I'm saying you stand idle on the sidelines and let the political lanscape get chewed up and then you come in and attempt to clean it up and smooth it out with your knowledge and beliefs.

[guitar shmoe]

Originally posted by draelyc Just because you claim it is benevolent does not make it so. The facts support my claim -- I want to hear what "facts" you've got to support yours. So, AGAIN, when have we tried "benevolence" over there? (Btw, the press is not liberal -- that myth's been debunked plenty, so let it go. Or, are all your "facts" like that?)

 

 

let's see:

 

Totalitarian murderous government toppled (check)

Totalitarian Dictator toppled (check)

Totalitarian leaders killed or jailed (check)

Subjugated citizens liberated from murderous dictator (check)

BENEVOLENT style of democratic govt. established (check)

People having FREEDOM to decide and vote for govt. (check)

Food, medicine, doctors, shelter, jobs and countless other humanitarian aid (check)

 

on and on and on I can go...I can go into MUCH MORE detail cause it's there IF you want to 'SEE' it....

 

you blind donkey! You choose to focus and expand/exploit the VERY SMALL PERCENTAGE of negative that is happening due to corrupt American soldiers (a few) and the unfortunate collateral damages of war (always a reality)...and ignore the very real and positive things that are liberating people over there...what a 'strange' fool you are.

[kush06]

Originally posted by guitar shmoe Do you know that most of their leaders were/are educated in American Ivy League Schools? As well as higher education in England and Germany..They know (first hand) how 'fickle' liberals get when having to deal with the concept of war, they are COUNTING ON IT! Congratulations! you have fallen into their lame trap...

That is an interesting statement. Clearly, there must be some connection between terrorism and education in the best schools in the world.

You do realize how many of our own presidents, senators and representatives have attended Ivy League schools? Both liberals and covervatives alike? I seem to recall the current president went to ivy league schools. I suppose you'd rather them all have degrees in churchology from christian tech instead of ones from the most prestigious academic institutions in the world.

For the record, could you provide a reference to the data that supports your allegation? You know, where you claimed "most of their leaders were/are educated in Ivy League schools". data, please.

Or was just more of your ultra right wing hyperbole and bull{censored}?

[guitar shmoe]

Originally posted by kush06 That is an interesting statement. Clearly, there must be some connection between terrorism and education in the best schools in the world. You do realize how many of our own presidents, senators and representatives have attended Ivy League schools? Both liberals and covervatives alike? I seem to recall the current president went to ivy league schools. I suppose you'd rather them all have degrees in churchology from christian tech instead of ones from the most prestigious academic institutions in the world. For the record, could you provide a reference to the data that supports your allegation? You know, where you claimed "most of their leaders were/are educated in Ivy League schools". data, please. Or was just more of your ultra right wing hyperbole and bull{censored}?

My point is that they are very well educated and familiar with American politics/society...

I saw a number of documentaries on TLC where they gave a picture of the psycho terrorist leader and then commented: 'he went to Harvard...another, 'he went to Princeton' another, he went to Oxford...again, he went to Yale and holds a law degree etc...some of them were even trained by our military and police forces...
I guess: 'defeat terrorism and protect America' is "ultra right-wing" anymore....

[Craggin]

Originally posted by guitar shmoe My point is that they are very well educated and familiar with American politics/society...

 

 

Their leaders are...not the footsoldiers.

 

 

 

Originally posted by guitar shmoe I guess: 'defeat terrorism and protect America' is "ultra right-wing" anymore....

 

 

And thinking for oneself rather than questioning mistakes made over and over and over and over again is "Liberal".

[Urban Ghandi]

Let me sum up:

You have people on one side (let's call them conservative) agreeing with actions by the US administration - meaning the use of force and, to a degree, state building (see Iraq and Afghanistan). They are clear that this is the proper course of action.

Then, on the other side, you have a group of people (let's call them liberals) who disagree with the US administration and are pointing out all the flaws in "the plan."

My observation:
At least the "conservatives" have a plan. The liberals just seem to be floundering and attacking the plan and not the problem.

Liberals: It's clear you don't agree with the plan, what is YOUR plan then?

[guitar shmoe]

Originally posted by Urban Ghandi Let me sum up: Liberals: It's clear you don't agree with the plan, what is YOUR plan then?

 

 

LIBERAL PLAN 'A'...

 

Give up the war and grovel at the feet of the terrorists begging for mercy and that they don't cut off my head with a dull machete on the internet!

[guitar shmoe]

Originally posted by Urban Ghandi Let me sum up: Liberals: It's clear you don't agree with the plan, what is YOUR plan then?

 

 

LIBERAL PLAN 'B'....

 

Give the terrorists a bunch of coupons to McDonalds and Burger King...then hope they get heart disease!

[Craggin]

Originally posted by Urban Ghandi Let me sum up: You have people on one side (let's call them conservative) agreeing with actions by the US administration - meaning the use of force and, to a degree, state building (see Iraq and Afghanistan). They are clear that this is the proper course of action. Then, on the other side, you have a group of people (let's call them liberals) who disagree with the US administration and are pointing out all the flaws in "the plan." My observation: At least the "conservatives" have a plan. The liberals just seem to be floundering and attacking the plan and not the problem. Liberals: It's clear you don't agree with the plan, what is YOUR plan then?

 

 

That observation is reductionism at best, don't you think? I would argue (based on your definitions) that the "conservatives" never understood the problem...hence the {censored}storm we're in now.

 

I've outlined my thoughts on what should be done in many posts...so which am I...liberal or conservative?

 

As for a plan going forward...mine wouldn't work now anyway because I wouldn't have attacked Iraq in the first place. I was and always have been against it for the reasons that W justified and approved the use of force. (And please, don't cite UN resolution violations or the hoarding of WMD's...mainly because that would mean we'd have to declare war on many of our allies.)

 

Look, my basic premise is that most humans want the same thing...good food, decent shelter, a job, etc. Of all the radical groups in the world creating havoc and chaos, how many of the willing participants have that? Granted, we can't deliver that to everyone...but to a degree, we're reaping what we've sown. (Unfortunately.) I'm not so naive as to think that we can be truly benevolent in our foreign policy...we want $$$ and rightfully so, the world is what it is. Our enemy (the Taliban, Al Qaeda, etc.) is motivated and has a tremendous PR team. It is going to take years of rhetoric and PR on our behalf to win over the will of the masses. Dropping bombs and extolling collateral damage sets that back...it is unfortunate, but true. Iraq is inching closer and closer to civil war, that could be disastrous for our troops and everything this administration had hoped to accomplish. This is exactly the scenario Colin Powell first expressed before it was suggested that he toe the line. Is he a liberal because he opposed the war. (IMO, no...just unemployed.)

[Urban Ghandi]

Originally posted by Craggin That observation is reductionism at best, don't you think? I would argue (based on your definitions) that the "conservatives" never understood the problem...hence the {censored}storm we're in now. I've outlined my thoughts on what should be done in many posts...so which am I...liberal or conservative? As for a plan going forward...mine wouldn't work now anyway because I wouldn't have attacked Iraq in the first place. I was and always have been against it for the reasons that W justified and approved the use of force. (And please, don't cite UN resolution violations or the hoarding of WMD's...mainly because that would mean we'd have to declare war on many of our allies.) Look, my basic premise is that most humans want the same thing...good food, decent shelter, a job, etc. Of all the radical groups in the world creating havoc and chaos, how many of the willing participants have that? Granted, we can't deliver that to everyone...but to a degree, we're reaping what we've sown. (Unfortunately.) I'm not so naive as to think that we can be truly benevolent in our foreign policy...we want $$$ and rightfully so, the world is what it is. Our enemy (the Taliban, Al Qaeda, etc.) is motivated and has a tremendous PR team. It is going to take years of rhetoric and PR on our behalf to win over the will of the masses. Dropping bombs and extolling collateral damage sets that back...it is unfortunate, but true. Iraq is inching closer and closer to civil war, that could be disastrous for our troops and everything this administration had hoped to accomplish. This is exactly the scenario Colin Powell first expressed before it was suggested that he toe the line. Is he a liberal because he opposed the war. (IMO, no...just unemployed.)

 

 

 

I am a man a few words...

 

So, your plan is to give them food, a job and shelter and start a PR campaign.

 

OK...next.

[guitar shmoe]

Originally posted by Urban Ghandi I am a man a few words... So, your plan is to give them food, a job and shelter and start a PR campaign. OK...next.

 

 

Welcome to Jack-in the-Box...my name is Omar Okbar would you like some Jack-fries with your meal today?......

 

you Imperialistic great satanic pig!

[Urban Ghandi]

Originally posted by guitar shmoe Welcome to Jack-in the-Box...my name is Omar Okbar would you like some Jack-fries with your meal today?...... you Imperialistic great satanic pig!

 

 

 

I'd like the Infidel Burger with a side Mohammed's Curly Fries.

[17 Tubes]

Originally posted by draelyc Does or does not that have anything to do with the ridiculous, ludicrous suggestion that Kerry in any way *supports* bin Laden? In case *you're* confused, the answer is "no, it does not," though that was the implication of the post to which I responded.

 

 

 

See...right here is just a sliver of the problem.

 

When in any way shape or form did I say "John Kerry "*supports*" bin Laden?"

 

I never even hinted.

 

Yet there you are arguing against it.

 

I never said aything like that and you'll have to show me a quote where you think I did.

 

 

This happens quite frequently, but in your blind quest for mental supremecy, you don't seem to be able to see it.

 

 

So yeah....whatever professor.

[17 Tubes]

Originally posted by Urban Ghandi Draelyc: You are the political thread zamboni!

Yeah...the zamboni that is a little too quick on the trigger. So hard up to shoot other people down, can't even read and comrehend what people say.

And he's teaching our kids? Especially with the hideous attitude?

The great Zaomboni that will ice you over, because dammitt, he's right and any disagreement, no matter how accurate or from whatpoint of view, is pathetically uniformed and horiffcily illogical.


One of the things a professor should teach is an open mind.

Here are a few quotes form wise men ...and women!...that seem to be unfathomably lost upon our esteemed Professor:


"To know is to know that you know nothing. Thats is the true meaning of knowledge."

"Wisdom ceases to be wisdom when it becomes too proud to weep, too grave to laugh, and too self-full to seek other than itself"


"Be humble, if thou would'st attain to Wisdom. Be humbler still, when Wisdom
thou hath mastered"

"To know when to be generous and when firm

[17 Tubes]

Sorry guys really. I'm looking for a particular quote and I don't seem tohave the wisdom to findit. However, I keep stumbling upon other, wise words. I can't help myself!:

"Even a fool, when he holdeth his peace, is counted wise: and he that shutteth his lips is esteemed a man of understanding."

"There is a difference between happiness and wisdom: he that thinks himself the happiest man is really so; but he that thinks himself the wisest is generally the greatest fool. "


"Wisdom is learning what to overlook."



"Even wisdom has to yield to self-interest."

How about this one?:

"Lord, give us the wisdom to utter words that are gentle and tender, for tomorrow we may have to eat them."

Well {censored}, I can't finthe quote. SOmething about knoweldge is knowinghstuff, wisdom is knowing when to use it?....dammitt!


Here's the closest I could find:



J.D. Anderson

"Knowledge is not wisdom, unless used wisely."

[Craggin]

Originally posted by Urban Ghandi I am a man a few words... So, your plan is to give them food, a job and shelter and start a PR campaign. OK...next.

Sure...and if that doesn't work we can bomb them into submission.

[17 Tubes]

Originally posted by draelyc When did we actually try benevolence over there? When?

 

 

 

 

How about when we liberated Kuwait.

 

 

You can say it was for whatever reason...but why in the hell didn't we bulldoze Iraq THEN?

 

 

 

Then we let the UN and Saddam stroke each others balls for 12 years.

 

 

We also pushed for Palestinian and Israeli peace, several times.

 

 

If the Middle East extremists were truely interested in peace and benevelonce...it would have happened by now.