|
|
|
|
|
| SFReader Forums > The Real World > World Events > Victory in Iraq | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
Jeff Stehman
Sage
      
Date Joined Mar 2005
Total Posts : 1224
| Posted 1/13/2006 5:33 AM (GMT -5) |   | quote:
Originally posted by Scott M. Sandridge
Please tell me the rest of the Media hasn't been sweeping it under the rug. Please.
Of everything said in this thread, I find this request the most disturbing.
quote:
Ingenious strategy, even if unintentional.
In 2004, the last year we know the State Department kept score, there were 655 recorded terrorist attacks around the world. That was up from 175 in 2003. Only 198 of those were in Iraq. Attacks on US troops were not counted.
Iraq is a live-fire training camp, with terrorists learning their trade amidst the chaos of insurgency warfare. They will eventually disperse around the world, the way they did from Afghanistan after the Soviets left, taking their training with them. Indeed, this is already happening; terrorists who are veterans of Iraq have been captured in Europe.
I fail to see how this could be seen as an ingenuous strategy by anyone but the terrorists.
--Jeff Stehman | | Back to Top | | |
 |
MichaelEhart
Sage
Date Joined Jul 2005
Total Posts : 2352
| Posted 1/13/2006 6:59 AM (GMT -5) | | quote:
The same is true for information obtained from mainstream (and generally Liberal/Democrat) media. EVERYONE has an agenda, so it's almost impossible to learn the truth about anything
Used to be true, but not anymore. 90% of the MSM is now owned by a half-dozen big business companies--- a recent study showed that evn NPR had self-identified conservative guests as commentators 68% of the time.
Do this--- next time you watch one of the gab shows, count the cons and libs--- you will find that usually the libs are solo, with 2-3 cons.
Everyone has an agenda, yes, but the media has swung very far to the right in recent years.
"Dancing with the Elder Gods"-- Thirteen Magazine, October
"It's a Living" Byzarium---November
"Voice of the Spoiler" and "An Exorcism Straight, Hold the Elvis" The Sword Review, October
"Oathbreaker" Mythica Vault
Host, 2005 Nebula Awards Live Chat, sff.net
http://mehart.blogspot.com/ | | Back to Top | | |
|
BethS
Adept
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 751
| Posted 1/13/2006 7:38 AM (GMT -5) | | quote:
Originally posted by MichaelEhart
the media has swung very far to the right in recent years.
That's the funniest thing I've read all day. Thanks for the laugh. [:D]
Seriously though, all the major media except FoxNews leans left--The New York Times, The Washington Post, the LA Times, The Boston Globe, CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC, NPR...the list goes on and on. It's evident in every story they write or broadcast, and by what they choose to underplay or ignore as well. Talk about an echo chamber...
(I have no interest in getting involved in this debate, but I thought I'd offer some support to Barb. [;)])
Beth
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Daniel
Carl Jung's Waterboy
Date Joined Aug 2003
Total Posts : 4515
| Posted 1/13/2006 8:02 AM (GMT -5) | | I find it very amusing that an administration that came on like the biggest power mongers since Nixon: all about increase of Presidential authority and lots of hot rhetoric about "no negotiations" and "accountablity" now specializes in passing the buck!!
It's interesting to see the neo-cons try to make this pivot since the greater part of their fascade rests on the illusion that they a) have power and b) know how to use it.
Instead, the are imploding, losing control of foreign policy and national security (witness Iran forex) and all they can do is say "It's not our fault; it's the media, the liberals, the biased tv coverage that's losing the war in Iraq!"
Please, the drubbing that was dealt out to the liberal factions of the gov't during the Bush admin's "high water" mark was so thorough and targeted -- they held all three branches of gov't, they had war-powers, they obviously had enough political capital, finances, and savvy to rig two Presidential elections and publically ruin dozens of their enemies. In fact,they took shots at the NY Times and the "liberal" media right along with getting rid of Daschile, Gore, and Kerry (to name just three). That was good fun for them, so why complain when the fanny-kicker gets going in the other direction? Better get used to it, I'd say -- the Republicans are soon to experience a much deserved turn at crying "Foul!" Did they ever listen to anyone else? Nope. Secrecy and an imperialist attitude and "Like it or lump it." "You're with us or against us."
Apparently not enough people were with them, so why are they crying about it?
Maybe if they had been running the country instead acting like a bunch of frat boys and wanna be generals, or letting someone capable try, we wouldn't be in the mess we're in.
You certainly can't blame *liberals* for what's happening on Capitol Hill or in the White House -- they're lucky to even be allowed entrance to these public places under the Bush regime.
Daniel
www.pitchblackbooks.com | | Back to Top | | |
|
Scott M. Sandridge
Former King of Shameless Plugs
Date Joined Dec 2005
Total Posts : 714
| Posted 1/13/2006 8:36 AM (GMT -5) | | quote:
Originally posted by Jeff Stehman
Iraq is a live-fire training camp, with terrorists learning their trade amidst the chaos of insurgency warfare. They will eventually disperse around the world, the way they did from Afghanistan after the Soviets left, taking their training with them. Indeed, this is already happening; terrorists who are veterans of Iraq have been captured in Europe.
The key words in your statement, of course, being afterthe Soviets left. The part omitted: in defeat.
Y'know, at first people kept pointing at the lack of Al-Qaeda presence in Iraq as the reason we shouldn't go in. Which, of course, was fallacious (Al-Anwar camps, and Al-Zarqawhi, anyone?). Now people want to point to the evidence of Al-Qaeda in Iraq as the reason we should leave before the job is done?
And terrorrists from Iraq already found and captured in Europe is all the more reason to get the job done in Iraq so they don't get a complete foothold in there.
http://www.geocities.com/sandridge75 | | Back to Top | | |
|
Scott M. Sandridge
Former King of Shameless Plugs
Date Joined Dec 2005
Total Posts : 714
| Posted 1/13/2006 9:13 AM (GMT -5) | | quote:
Originally posted by Raph
And Scott, as one who served 8 years active military (during the first Gulf War; you know, the one where Iraq actually did something to warrent an attack), I can tell you this--there is NO POSSIBLE WAY for an armed force to win a guerilla war. The lessons of Vietnam were apparently lost on this administration. If you are fighting guerillas/terrorists (same thing, different targets), you not only have no idea which ones are really friendly and which ones are hiding the enemy, but the more force you use, the more people you end up recruiting for the other side. It is truly a no-win situation.
First off, I salute you for your service.
But the lesson in Vietnam wasn't that guerilla wars can't be won, but that conventional machine-warfare tactics don't work in guerilla terrain. (Another lesson was never leave your enemy with an intact power base). A guerilla war can be won, by matching guerilla tactics with guerilla tactics. The standard military, unfortunately, isn't trained to handle that type of warfare...at least not yet. What's needed is a heavy hand of special forces and covert ops, the lack of which is my beef against the Bush administration. Then again, if I knew for a fact covert ops were going on--as in media leak--then it would mean the brass weren't doing their job very well, wouldn't it? [;)]
My cousin was in the first Iraq War, too. He didn't agree with this second war either...until he came back from there all ticked off at the Media to the point where he can't watch a news program without throwing several curse-words at them.
Same for my friend who's over there right now.
And if people don't think the Media can't influence the outcome of a war: well, take a look around. If bad news is all you ever hear, then you're going to think it's all bad...especially if you don't bother to analyze the info you're recieving. Less than a %1 yearly attrition rate, under %5 if you add the wounded to the count. General Patton would've given his left testicle to have an attrition rate that low!
Heck, you run a greater risk at getting shot and killed while attending a gas station or quicki-mart in the U.S. than you would as a soldier in Iraq.
http://www.geocities.com/sandridge75 | | Back to Top | | |
|
darkbow
Rabbit lord
Date Joined Oct 2005
Total Posts : 1760
| Posted 1/13/2006 9:51 AM (GMT -5) | | As a member of the media in the U.S. (I've been a newspaper editor for 15 years), I'll give some of my POV about what's been said concerning the media. I'll stick mainly to newspapers because that's my field.
Yes, some of the larger newspapers in the country (NY, D.C., LA) have a leftist slant. On the other hand, for about the last 15 years there has been a gowing conservative crowd within the media, Fox News being the most noticeable.
However, that's just the big wigs. The majority of smaller newspapers in this country, which is most of the newspapers, tend to be conservative. Why? Because they're small-town papers. They can't afford to tick off anyone because of their small advertising base, and because of their readership.
It's a joke, and narrow-minded, to place all the problems on the media. Does the media screw up? Yes. Do they intentionally go out of their way to push one agenda or another? Sometimes. But I have NEVER sat in a planning meeting and discussed with any editor or anyone else about how to slant a story. Meetings about what goes on an Opinion page is a different story, but that's just it: It's an OPINION page, and readers don't seem to know the difference between an editorial page and a news page. I'm not saying that's the readers' fault; newspapers need to differentiate better or stop running Opinion pieces altogether.
Do stories get slanted anyway? Yeah, it happens. Reporters and editors are human. Only a robot would be completely unbiased.
And the argument about what newspapers decide to cover, or decide NOT to cover, doesn't wash with me. Having been in charge of a newsroom, I've fielded thousands of calls (more than a few threatening my life) that have accused me of taking a side on an issue because of something that appeared in the paper. Not true. Just because I run a story on gay rights or gun control laws(for examples) doesn't mean I'm giving my opinion one way or the other on the issue. If a reader is ticked off because the story is in the paper, that's absurd. Being angry about an issue I can understand, but you wouldn't even KNOW to be angry about it if I hadn't ran the story in the first place.
As for what newspapers decide NOT to cover ... I've offered this to many a reader: Come down to my office, you can decide what goes in the newspaper the next day, but you have to field ALL the phone calls that come in the following day. No one has ever taken me up on that offer. Why? Because they know they'll get those phone calls.
If you're a member of the media in the U.S., it's gotten to the point that no matter what you do, it's the wrong thing. If you run a story, you get complaints about it. If you don't run a story, you get complaints about it, usually saying you're covering something up.
The truth of the matter is the U.S. has become socially split between leftists and rightists who want to do nothing but gripe about anything and anyone that doesn't 100 percent believe in their every little brain fart, and the media is an easy target.
Again, I'm not saying the media is perfect, not at all. And yes, most of the media in the U.S. is owned by one big corporation of another. But most members of the media are just trying to do their job, to keep their viewers and readers informed and yes, to make money (it's a business after all, not the government). So, you're damned if you do and you're damned if you don't. One of the reasons I have congestive heart failure at age 36.
Sorry for my rant. This wasn't aimed at anyone particular on these boards.
"Peter Piker the Pankin Man" -- upcoming in "Liquid Ohio" in 2006 | | Back to Top | | |
|
MichaelEhart
Sage
Date Joined Jul 2005
Total Posts : 2352
| Posted 1/13/2006 1:15 PM (GMT -5) | | quote:
Seriously though, all the major media except FoxNews leans left
Left of you, perhaps, but not left of center.
Some of the biggies are very right---- read the opinion section of the Wall Street Journal, or Barron's, or the Washington Times.
Due to consolidation, more and more of the biggies are trending right.
And lets look at just one example of a "lefty" cable news network--- MSNBC,
5 & 7 Chris Matthews-- Actually fairly centrist, but not objective--- he speaks at some of Tom Delays fundraisers
6 Abrams-- no handle on this guy, I'll put him down as a no call
8 Olbermann-- liberal, but a humorous show
9 Rita Cosby-- all missing white women, all the time. I am hoping that sexploytation jounalism is not a partisan issue :)
10 Scarborough-- former GOP congressman from Florida
11 Tucker Carlson-- conservative libertarian
So we have 2 avowed conservatives, 1 comedic liberal, one compromised centrist, a cipher and a panderer.
What liberal bias?
It used to be that the biggies tended liberal, but really, take an honest look at the number of guests from each side who are represented.
And NPR? Replaced Bill Moyers with Tucker Carleson.
"Dancing with the Elder Gods"-- Thirteen Magazine, October
"It's a Living" Byzarium---November
"Voice of the Spoiler" and "An Exorcism Straight, Hold the Elvis" The Sword Review, October
"Oathbreaker" Mythica Vault
Host, 2005 Nebula Awards Live Chat, sff.net
http://mehart.blogspot.com/ | | Back to Top | | |
|
BarbT
Acolyte
Date Joined Feb 2005
Total Posts : 394
| Posted 1/13/2006 2:49 PM (GMT -5) | | quote:
Originally posted by BethS
(I have no interest in getting involved in this debate, but I thought I'd offer some support to Barb. [;)])
Thanks. Beth! I'm not "in" on this general debate either; I just find the topic of how people form their opinions interesting.
Listen to "right" or "left" media exclusively, and you're going to get a very biased view of the world.
If you cover one of your eyes, it doesn't matter if it's the right or the left, you're still half blind.
Barb | | Back to Top | | |
|
Jeff Stehman
Sage
Date Joined Mar 2005
Total Posts : 1224
| Posted 1/14/2006 12:23 PM (GMT -5) | | quote:
Originally posted by Scott M. Sandridge
The key words in your statement, of course, being afterthe Soviets left. The part omitted: in defeat.
Defeating them doesn't effect to the training of future terrorists. As Rumsfeld has said, if we're not killing them faster than they're being recruited, we're failing. And it is clear that some of those bloodied in Iraq are not waiting around for the final score before taking their show on the road.
The rest of your reply changes the subject. I would rather see you defend the idea that getting terrorists to engage us in Iraq is a brilliant strategy. Because as I see it, if that were a reason for us to be there (and it isn't), it would be really bad one--one with a long-term negative impact on both us and the rest of the world.
--Jeff Stehman | | Back to Top | | |
|
Scott M. Sandridge
Former King of Shameless Plugs
Date Joined Dec 2005
Total Posts : 714
| Posted 1/14/2006 2:52 PM (GMT -5) | | quote:
Originally posted by Jeff Stehman
Defeating them doesn't effect to the training of future terrorists. As Rumsfeld has said, if we're not killing them faster than they're being recruited, we're failing. And it is clear that some of those bloodied in Iraq are not waiting around for the final score before taking their show on the road.
The rest of your reply changes the subject. I would rather see you defend the idea that getting terrorists to engage us in Iraq is a brilliant strategy. Because as I see it, if that were a reason for us to be there (and it isn't), it would be really bad one--one with a long-term negative impact on both us and the rest of the world.
For one, I don't agree with Rumsfeld on that. Because winning any war has nothing to to with body count and everything to do with accomplishing the goal. The goal in this case being: (1) to prove America's not the "paper tiger" UBL claims it to be, (2) to disrupt their ability to fund their operations, (3) to disrupt their lines of communications, (4) to disrupt their ability to spread propaganda (or, failing that, counter it with our own), and (5) make their cause appear to be so lost that only the most gullible, most stupid, and most incompetent fanatics are willing to sign up.
As for Iraq:
1) It caused the rest of the Middle-East to take us more seriously. Look at how fast Libya gave up their WMDs.
2) Establishing the first Democracies in the Middle-East (Afghanistan and Iraq) fans the flames to spread Democracy to other Middle-East countries without us having to invade and rebuild each and every one.
3) Iraq borders Syria and Iran, giving us close proximity if we have to use force on them. After all, what rebuilt country doesn't have a U.S.-owned military base or two? [;)]
4) We'll no longer have any need of our bases near Mecca, which btw was a key point of contention that was being used to recruit terrorrists.
5) The Butcher of Bagdad is no longer in power. Which is something that should've gotten done the first time around. 'nuff said.
6) We prove to the Shiites and Kurds that yes, sometimes the U.S. does keeps its promises. And keeping one's word, btw, goes a loooong way in winning the heart of the Middle East.
7) Accomplishing all of the above insures that only the most gullible, most dumb, and most incompetent gets recruited by the terrorrists. Well, so long as we don't leave before the Iraq job gets done, that is.
http://www.geocities.com/sandridge75 | | Back to Top | | |
|
Jeff Stehman
Sage
Date Joined Mar 2005
Total Posts : 1224
| Posted 1/14/2006 7:37 PM (GMT -5) | | First, Rumsfeld was not referring to body count. Second, you still haven't addressed my challenge to your original statement: "Ingenious strategy, even if unintentional."
--Jeff Stehman | | Back to Top | | |
|
MichaelEhart
Sage
Date Joined Jul 2005
Total Posts : 2352
| Posted 1/15/2006 9:36 AM (GMT -5) | | quote:
For one, I don't agree with Rumsfeld on that. Because winning any war has nothing to to with body count and everything to do with accomplishing the goal. The goal in this case being: (1) to prove America's not the "paper tiger" UBL claims it to be
,
Done with the perfectly justifiable invasion of Afganistan.
quote:
(2) to disrupt their ability to fund their operations,
Just as Hillary Clinton, used as a threat, raises more money for the republicans than anyone on their side can, so does the spectre of the US make it easy to raise any amount of money. For most people in the Arab world, there is a weird feeling of inferiority, when it comes to how they are regarded on the world stage.
BTW, google Al Quiada fund raising. They are stinking rich, and raising more money all the time--- mostly channelled through our "friends" the Saudis.
quote:
(3) to disrupt their lines of communications,
Scott, rethink this one. This one makes no sense! Maybe in 1945, when everything was routed through simple exchanges, but all you need now is the worst laptop in the world and a sat phone. Or a 20 dollar calling card. Our backlog on intelligence translation is years, not weeks, because of a lack of arabic speakers and the sheer volume of communication.
quote:
(4) to disrupt their ability to spread propaganda (or, failing that, counter it with our own),
See above, and sheesh, our propaganda sucks. Remember the condom drop in WW2?
quote:
and (5) make their cause appear to be so lost that only the most gullible, most stupid, and most incompetent fanatics are willing to sign up.
Check out the profile of a "typical" suicider. Lately they have been educated, intelligent, and fairly competant individuls.
Sadly, fanatiscism has nothing to do with intelligence--- the average IQ of the comet suiciders was off the map.
Shoot, no time for the second half of your post, but I agree, Scott, this is fun. Glad we can do it here, where it doesn't seem to offend anyone.
"Dancing with the Elder Gods"-- Thirteen Magazine, October
"It's a Living" Byzarium---November
"Voice of the Spoiler" and "An Exorcism Straight, Hold the Elvis" The Sword Review, October
"Oathbreaker" Mythica Vault
Host, 2005 Nebula Awards Live Chat, sff.net
http://mehart.blogspot.com/ | | Back to Top | | |
|
Scott M. Sandridge
Former King of Shameless Plugs
Date Joined Dec 2005
Total Posts : 714
| Posted 1/15/2006 12:48 PM (GMT -5) | | quote:
Originally posted by MichaelEhart
quote:
For one, I don't agree with Rumsfeld on that. Because winning any war has nothing to to with body count and everything to do with accomplishing the goal. The goal in this case being: (1) to prove America's not the "paper tiger" UBL claims it to be
,
quote:
Done with the perfectly justifiable invasion of Afganistan.
Yeah. We proved it once. Unfortunately, proving it once isn't enough for fanatics to get the hint. They a little slow on the learning curve.
quote:
(2) to disrupt their ability to fund their operations,
quote:
Just as Hillary Clinton, used as a threat, raises more money for the republicans than anyone on their side can, so does the spectre of the US make it easy to raise any amount of money. For most people in the Arab world, there is a weird feeling of inferiority, when it comes to how they are regarded on the world stage.
BTW, google Al Quiada fund raising. They are stinking rich, and raising more money all the time--- mostly channelled through our "friends" the Saudis.
Hillary doesn't need to be "used" as a threat, she is a threat. I'd rather see Condoleeza Rice in power, myself. At least Condi has a brain and morals. But if the Dems had the brains to to nominate Lieberman, maybe I'd start voting Dems again. But considering who they placed as the head of their party, I doubt they have such brains these days. They'll be Dean-screamin' all the way to oblivion at the rate they're going.
Geez, you'd think the Saudis would've learned their lesson after getting wacked by their own Frankenstein Monster (a.k.a. Al-Quaeda). Of course, Al-Jazeera still on the air cow-towing to every anti-jewish terrorist propagandist they can throw on likely brings at least as much dollars to Al-Quaeda.
quote:
(3) to disrupt their lines of communications,
quote:
Scott, rethink this one. This one makes no sense! Maybe in 1945, when everything was routed through simple exchanges, but all you need now is the worst laptop in the world and a sat phone. Or a 20 dollar calling card. Our backlog on intelligence translation is years, not weeks, because of a lack of arabic speakers and the sheer volume of communication.
That doesn't make it no longer vital to success in a war. Communication has always been the prime key and always will be.
quote:
(4) to disrupt their ability to spread propaganda (or, failing that, counter it with our own),
quote:
See above, and sheesh, our propaganda sucks. Remember the condom drop in WW2?
And we fubar'd 'em good, too! Huzzah! [8D]
quote:
and (5) make their cause appear to be so lost that only the most gullible, most stupid, and most incompetent fanatics are willing to sign up.
quote:
Check out the profile of a "typical" suicider. Lately they have been educated, intelligent, and fairly competant individuls.
Sadly, fanatiscism has nothing to do with intelligence--- the average IQ of the comet suiciders was off the map.
Well, duh! The dumb ones are often the first to get their asses blown off. And high IQ doesn't always equal good common sense. For the record, the typical suicide terrorist always had high IQs, and yet they still don't show much in the way of common sense. Of course, if they had common sense, they wouldn't be terrorists, now would they?
[quote]Shoot, no time for the second half of your post, but I agree, Scott, this is fun. Glad we can do it here, where it doesn't seem to offend anyone.
Same here.
Sure beats the forums where everything devolves into:
"You suck!"
"No! You suck!"
"Oh yeah? @#%* you!"
"No! @#&* you!"
"WAAAAHHHH!!!"
http://www.geocities.com/sandridge75 | | Back to Top | | |
|
Scott M. Sandridge
Former King of Shameless Plugs
Date Joined Dec 2005
Total Posts : 714
| Posted 1/15/2006 12:57 PM (GMT -5) | | quote:
Originally posted by Jeff Stehman
First, Rumsfeld was not referring to body count. Second, you still haven't addressed my challenge to your original statement: "Ingenious strategy, even if unintentional."
--Jeff Stehman
Um, ok, here it is again:
As for Iraq:
1) It caused the rest of the Middle-East to take us more seriously. Look at how fast Libya gave up their WMDs.
2) Establishing the first Democracies in the Middle-East (Afghanistan and Iraq) fans the flames to spread Democracy to other Middle-East countries without us having to invade and rebuild each and every one.
3) Iraq borders Syria and Iran, giving us close proximity if we have to use force on them. After all, what rebuilt country doesn't have a U.S.-owned military base or two?
4) We'll no longer have any need of our bases near Mecca, which btw was a key point of contention that was being used to recruit terrorrists.
5) The Butcher of Bagdad is no longer in power. Which is something that should've gotten done the first time around. 'nuff said.
6) We prove to the Shiites and Kurds that yes, sometimes the U.S. does keeps its promises. And keeping one's word, btw, goes a loooong way in winning the heart of the Middle East.
7) Accomplishing all of the above insures that only the most gullible, most dumb, and most incompetent gets recruited by the terrorrists. Well, so long as we don't leave before the Iraq job gets done, that is.
The "unintentional" part was we wanted to remove WMDs from Iraq (which I still think is now in Syria) and instead we managed to remove Libya's without having to bomb them a second time.
Hmm, interesting how countries we've bombed in the past don't ever want to mess with us again.
http://www.geocities.com/sandridge75 | | Back to Top | | |
|
Jeff Stehman
Sage
Date Joined Mar 2005
Total Posts : 1224
| Posted 1/15/2006 3:57 PM (GMT -5) | | We're obviously talking past each other, so let me take it from the top. You said:
quote:
Which so far has forced UBL to engage us there instead of wherever he chooses. Ingenious strategy, even if unintentional.
I take that to mean support for the so-called flypaper strategy: get terrorists to fight us Iraq so they're not fighting us anywhere else. Have I misunderstood what you said?
My stance is that that is a very bad justification for being in Iraq, as what it really does is train terrorists so they can fight more effectively in another place at another time.
In reply, it looks like you keep giving me other justifications for being in Iraq, but so far I've only asked you about this one.
quote:
Look at how fast Libya gave up their WMDs.
Libya has been working toward rejoining the world since before Bush got into office. Qadhafi played the Bush administration nicely, timing the song and dance for when we needed it most.
quote:
Hmm, interesting how countries we've bombed in the past don't ever want to mess with us again.
Afghanistan? Iraq under Saddam?
quote:
Al-Jazeera still on the air cow-towing to every anti-jewish terrorist propagandist they can throw on likely brings at least as much dollars to Al-Quaeda
Ironically, Aljazeera takes a lot of flak from conservative Arabs for kowtowing to Israel and the Great Satan. If both sides in a conflict hate them, I figure they gotta be doing something right.
--Jeff Stehman | | Back to Top | | |
|
Scott M. Sandridge
Former King of Shameless Plugs
Date Joined Dec 2005
Total Posts : 714
| Posted 1/15/2006 11:03 PM (GMT -5) | | quote:
Originally posted by Jeff Stehman
We're obviously talking past each other, so let me take it from the top. You said:
quote:
Which so far has forced UBL to engage us there instead of wherever he chooses. Ingenious strategy, even if unintentional.
I take that to mean support for the so-called flypaper strategy: get terrorists to fight us Iraq so they're not fighting us anywhere else. Have I misunderstood what you said?
Oh yeah, that too, add it to my list above.
quote:
My stance is that that is a very bad justification for being in Iraq, as what it really does is train terrorists so they can fight more effectively in another place at another time.
Not if they get killed during their "training." [;)] Besides, they've been disbursed worldwide from the start (Hence why some, including myself, refer to this as WWIII). The ones flooding into Iraq already have been trained. Well, most of them at any rate.
quote:
Look at how fast Libya gave up their WMDs.
quote:
Libya has been working toward rejoining the world since before Bush got into office. Qadhafi played the Bush administration nicely, timing the song and dance for when we needed it most.
Right. Daffy Quadhafi decided to do something out of the kindness of his own sweet heart but wanted to wait for the opportunity to make the US look good while doing so, the same US who's bombing raid killed his daughter back in the '80s. [?]
quote:
Hmm, interesting how countries we've bombed in the past don't ever want to mess with us again.
quote:
Afghanistan? Iraq under Saddam?
Noooo....Libya!
quote:
Al-Jazeera still on the air cow-towing to every anti-jewish terrorist propagandist they can throw on likely brings at least as much dollars to Al-Quaeda
quote:
Ironically, Aljazeera takes a lot of flak from conservative Arabs for kowtowing to Israel and the Great Satan.
First off, the "conservative" Arabs you're referring to aren't conservative, they're Fascist. And they'd blame pretzels for kowtowing to the Great Satan if they thought it would advance their agenda. Heck, I'm surprised they haven't yet.
quote:
If both sides in a conflict hate them, I figure they gotta be doing something right.
You might be right on that. But by the same logic, if both the Far Left and the Far Right are pissed off at Bush so much, he must be doing something right, too. [;)]
Hope you don't get upset with my crankiness. I actually think you're an ok fella'.
http://www.geocities.com/sandridge75 | | Back to Top | | |
|
BethS
Adept
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 751
| Posted 1/16/2006 4:24 AM (GMT -5) | | quote:
Originally posted by Jeff Stehman
If both sides in a conflict hate them, I figure they gotta be doing something right.
That doesn't necessarily follow, you know. Al-J desperately wants to be seen by the rest of the world as a serious, responsible news organization, yet at the same time they want to be beloved by their Arab base. The end result is that in a war between hot and cold, they are sometimes lukewarm, and therefore unpalatable to both sides. That's not the same thing as being right. [:)]
Beth
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Jeff Stehman
Sage
Date Joined Mar 2005
Total Posts : 1224
| Posted 1/16/2006 5:49 AM (GMT -5) | | quote:
Originally posted by Scott M. Sandridge
Not if they get killed during their "training." [;)] Besides, they've been disbursed worldwide from the start (Hence why some, including myself, refer to this as WWIII). The ones flooding into Iraq already have been trained. Well, most of them at any rate.
(1) Only if we kill them all, which we can't. Think of them as bacteria. You can use all the antibacterial soap you want, but inevitably you have a stronger strain of bacteria. (2) If you're looking at this as a world war, it would be IV. Personally, I don't think a gathering of individuals from around the world makes much of a world war. (3) Most of the foreign fighters in Iraq are new recruits, and some Iraqi recruits will go on to fight in other parts of the world.
quote:
Right. Daffy Quadhafi decided to do something out of the kindness of his own sweet heart but wanted to wait for the opportunity to make the US look good while doing so
No, Qadhafi wanted to advance his own agenda and made use of the US to take a major step in that agenda, saving himself years. He didn't do it to make us look good, but to ensure our eagerness to accept his move at face value. No waiting; he's been working on it for a while.
quote:
Noooo....Libya!
You said countries, so I provided counterexamples. If you were just talking about Libya, say Libya.
quote:
First off, the "conservative" Arabs you're referring to aren't conservative, they're Fascist.
No, the criticism definitely included conservatives.
quote:
But by the same logic, if both the Far Left and the Far Right are pissed off at Bush so much, he must be doing something right, too. [;)]
Good point.
quote:
Hope you don't get upset with my crankiness. I actually think you're an ok fella'.
I hadn't noticed, and I apologize if I've caused it. However, I am frustrated that you still haven't seriously addressed my point. If killing them all is the substance of this brilliant plan, it is clearly impossible to execute.
--Jeff Stehman | | Back to Top | | |
|
MichaelEhart
Sage
Date Joined Jul 2005
Total Posts : 2352
| Posted 1/16/2006 6:30 AM (GMT -5) | | I work professionally in politics---- what I was refering to was that nearly every fund raising letter the R's sent out in 2004 mentioned Hillary, even though she wasn't running, and in fact 2 weeks before the convention, the RNC sent out a letter claiming that kerry was going to step down to defer to Hillary. My friends on the professional political GOP side (we all talk to each other, it is a lonely profession) tell me that by including Hillary's name on a mailer they can raise 10-15% more money. BTW the demon Hillary is an invention of the right, check out her voting record as a senator, not very liberal at all. With the lefties I know, she is pretty darn unpopular.
And the GOP will not nominate a black woman for president in my lifetime.
Leiberman has been offered a position in the Bush administration, and has seriously considered it. I am not surprised you would vote for him, most R's would, except that there is a problem with his heritage that would stop a lot of voters in the south.
I love the "Dems are big losers" meme, btw--- 51% of the vote for an incumbent is lousy, and that is all Bush got against a weak candidate in the middle of a war. In Washington state, where I live the dems picked up 6 seats in the state house, and retained | |
| | |