quote:

Originally posted by WhoaNellie1487 ... Yep,That's because people need to read about the Spanish-American war. It's JUST like this war we're in now.All you have to do is read up on it. ...

You keep saying that, but you cannot name any even *basic* similarities to back up your claims?

All I see is that there are parallels between media conglomerates controlling what we see and hear in the US - influencing opinion, and deluding facts for the average, uninformed American.

___________________
'That's like telling a Kodiak bear to stop fcking older men.'

quote:

Originally posted by WhoaNellie1487 That's not what I meant. This war is nothing like vietnam.

Okay, explain what you mean. How is it different?

And I retracted what I said about using casualties:

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle....storyID=3818786

This is a descent means of comparison to Vietnam after all.

quote:

erm, Well. I'm not sir.If this helps,my names Vanessa. We didn't enter the war illegally. But show me your source.

Apologies Vanessa. Somewhat judgemental of me to think you're a man (I guess it's because the majority of folks here are guys - and guys seemingly tend to like to argue politics more, so it seems).

Anyways, I did show you my source, but just for the sake of argument, here it is again:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Stor...1089158,00.html

quote:

Yep,That's because people need to read about the Spanish-American war. It's JUST like this war we're in now.All you have to do is read up on it.

Again you referenced this war without detailing specifics. I reiterate - the burden of proof is upon you to show me that we didn't enter this war illegally. Therefore it is up to YOU to show me what specifics from the Sp-Am war are similar to our justifications for going into this war.

quote:

Hmm,Alright. 1) We're there to help the Iraqi people,and neighboring countries from a ruthless terrorist. 2) We're there to help irricate one of the many threats 3) We're there to help save many other countries from attacks... etc I'm positive the WMD's are out there.Just give us time.We'll find them.

quote:

We'll find them.

Vanessa, we looked there. Quite extensively, in fact. We looked all throughout that region was Rummy claimed that's where they were, and nothing was found. In fact, we've given up and moved on from that area.

*sigh*

You're positive we'll find them? Despite all the evidence that points to the contrary? Did you not read the reports I gave you about not finding any so far, and that it's likely we won't find any in the future (including Bush himself admitting as much)?

Besides, you still dodged the primary reason why we entered the war - it was NOT, repeat, NOT because we needed to free the Iraqi people. Congress gave approval (yes, even the Democrats, those suckers!) because Bush and his Admin. showed what later proved to be faulty evidence of WMD. This was what Bush primarily addressed in his SOTU speech, as is the same reason why Powell tried to convince the UN why we should attack. Again, this was the primary reason. When it was seen that WMD likely couldn't be found, the focus shifted to "Operation Freedom". Get it?

quote:

He's not caught up in a lie,or even two for that fact.

Did you read the article? It shows he said one thing, then it shows he said something completely contradictory 2x. That's called lying, for a fact.

Please explain how this could not be interpreted as a lie.

quote:

Oh,now I TOTALLY do not read the Washington Post.Never have,never will. I may deliver the rag,but that doesn't mean I read it.

Do you know what an ad hominem attack is? You just made one.

It's entirely your perogative as to which paper you decide to read. The facts in the article, however, are indisputed. Please comment on the material and facts given, not on the source (which is a highly regarded world newspaper, despite your opinions).

quote:

Man,you aren't having fun with this word! Fox** Heavens,you like liberal news sources. Such a pity.

Hand waving and ad hominem. Do try to address the facts which have been presented in the articles, instead of merely waving them off as heresy.

quote:

Hmm? Oh no.I'm perfectly fine.Thanks.^-^

We'll be waiting a long, long time for those darn WMD to show up. Meanwhile, shouldn't we focus a little more on our own countries' problems?

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Hand waving and ad hominem. Do try to address the facts which have been presented in the articles, instead of merely waving them off as heresy.

Liberal news sources ...

It's true!!! I've seen you post sources from commondreams!!! Let's examine that title ... commondreams ... as if a disention in ranks are uncommondreams???? Hahahahaha I'm warming up my sacrifical liberal gutting knife! I don't understand how the chiefs can be so good considering what hippies they are ... what drugs are they on??? Ah well, I am infallible so long as I post news sources from newsmax ... news that is to the MAX!

___________________
Retro ...

i'm so gawdamn tired of hearing people doing "liberal" and "conservative" name calling and claiming.

it always seems like this team rivalry

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Liberal news sources ... It's true!!! I've seen you post sources from commondreams!!! Let's examine that title ... commondreams ... as if a disention in ranks are uncommondreams???? Hahahahaha I'm warming up my sacrifical liberal gutting knife! I don't understand how the chiefs can be so good considering what hippies they are ... what drugs are they on??? Ah well, I am infallible so long as I post news sources from newsmax ... news that is to the MAX!

Hey Dick, where ya been, man?

You happened to see my stash anywhere, man? I think I left it over in the Oval Office somewhere, man. Give me a buzz on my beeper if ya find somethin'.

What's with that gutting knife thing, man? I thought all you carried around was a butterknife? How ya gonna gut me with that, man?

Commondreams is a liberal site, to be sure, but much of the news they post come from other non-liberal sources (ex: Reuters). Then again, everything outside of Faux news is liberal . To be honest, I came upon commondreams through a google search for older news articles. Unfortunately, most of the news websites charge for older archives, or don't have them altogether. So when google searching for those specific pieces, lo and behold there are Progressive sites that keep ahold of them.

Ain't that nice?

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

I have many loved ones that signed up to be in the military. I just recently spoke to one in fact. He is being sent to Iraq. He told me he has no clue why, and he lost all track of why specifically we are fighting this war.

He told me the military is changing their stories everyday, and he no longer knows which way is right, and which is wrong.

So far, we've been sending our troops endlessly over to Iraq. I can't help but wonder, if we are even really wanted there by the Iraqi people themselves?

Saddam is a major threat, agreed. But he has gone into hiding. Perhaps not all of his followers have as well, but what kind of a man goes into hiding after attacking the US? He knew we were going to go there. He is too much of a coward to face up to what he has done. He can't even come out of hiding. It surprises me that all of his followers still worship him.

As for Bush, I don't like the man. So nothing I will say will really be in too much of support of him. All I know is what I've heard from hearsay of the troops, and they don't like him too much either. They think it's a joke that Bush went over there to eat Thanksgiving dinner.

Some words of my friend being shipped off:

"He went there to eat Thanksgiving dinner with us. What are we supposed to be thanking exactly? That we are all in Iraq? I don't think so. It was a joke. Simply a joke."

___________________
aka Tits McGee
aka Chesty LaRue
aka Busty St. Claire

quote:

Originally posted by Vesa I personally strongly endorse even illegal pre-emptive military action when absolutely necessary, but there is a second aspect about Globocops which I can't accept. The main problem I have with the US actions in the Middle-East is that the threshold for using force is much lower. A military tends to only respond to a military threat, but a cop tends to respond to anyone who looks suspicious and illegal. For example, Saddam was toppled because he was suspected to act in an illegal and hostile manner. I don't think a cop is a successful model for a modern soldier. Military force should still be used only when facing a definite military threat. I believe that bad guys will almost always prevail, and countries develop only in a chaotic fashion at their own pace, so that's why I believe that democracy projects like in Iraq are doomed to fail. On the other hand, Neoconservatives are optimists enough to believe that good guys will win, and they believe that democracy is a deterministic force, so that's why they believe in the possibility of democratic transformation in Iraq. Many American Conservative politicians and military officers opposed the Iraq War. Their criticism was not only about the chaos resulting from toppling Saddam, but they were also terrified about Neoconservatives' very low threshold of unleashing Globocops.

I think this was very well-written. It describes exactly how I see the situation.

Well said.

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...