- Joined
- Jul 6, 2005
- Messages
- 18,930
- Reaction score
- 1,040
- Location
- HBCA
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Liberal
And then he says:Originally posted by cnredd:
You will only believe what you want to believe.
Then, showing me what gross generalization and made up words I never said, he retorts:Originally posted by cnredd:
You are not interested in debate;
And finally, like most far-right cons, he goes back to the old standard of character assasination and name-calling.Originally posted by cnredd:
you are interested in divisiveness...You never say "Are conservatives corrupt?"[I recall the name of my thread was ARE CONSERVATIVES UNFIT...that's what I said; unfortunately, he calls that never], which would be a fair question...[well I thought it was] you say "Prove to me conservatives aren't corrupt!"[I didn't say that, I don't think I even said the word 'corrupt' in any post], automatically putting all [ALL!] conservatives in a defensive mode...
see what I mean?Originally posted by cnredd:
Your ideology is warped, your debating skills are worthless,
He just says this because I won't condone torture of children and genocide of the Iraqi people.Originally posted by cnredd:
and lack of objectivity is downright childish for a debate site...
Was that another name he called me? And to show his objectivity, he ends with this comment:Originally posted by cnredd:
Howard Dean could use some stooges for next year's election...
There you have folks. Conservative logic.Originally posted by cnredd:
Oh yeah...you're not a liberal.
I'll grant you they have a problem with insurgents to a point. Did you ever consider they might be fighting Iraqi's that are resisting the occupation of the country by an aggressor nation. That is possible!Originally posted by Messerschmitt:
There is still a lot of insurgence in Iraq, which are posing a great threat to Iraqi's security and freedom; Also to the rest of the world.
Here's a comment from someone who actually lives in Iraq...Originally posted by Messerschmitt:
If you talk to people from the middle east or Iraq (the people that I have talked to) think that its really good that Saddam is not in control of Iraq anymore. Statistics show that the people that attack collation soldiers are insurgence from other countries (mostly Jordanians and Arabs). The Iraqis that the soldiers confront are Ba'athists who were armed supporters and protectors of Saddam. Most Iraqis are voting to get the changes they want.
Billo_Really said:Here's a comment from someone who actually lives in Iraq...
There should be a limit to what U.S. troops are allowed to do
Bby Hamza Mustafa Azzaman, April 29, 2005
It is two years since U.S. troops occupied Baghdad and put an end to the rule of one of the worst dictators in our history. But this does not give them carte blanche to kill, humiliate and imprison at whim. The troops are said to be here in order to preserve security. And in gratitude to their efforts our government and official organs call them ‘multi-national forces’ instead of occupation forces. But maintaining security does not mean killing innocent Iraqis, humiliating ordinary citizens and beating up senior officials. Many citizens are killed because they fail to read what is in the mind of the U.S. G.I. guarding a post in the country. There is a gulf between the occupation troops and ordinary Iraqis. One of them is the language barrier.
Do our occupiers realize that there is a great difference in body language between English and Arabic? Do they know – or perhaps do not want to know or pretend not to – that more up to 70% of the population is illiterate, with no ability to ready their signs written in Arabic.
We are supposed to be a country with sovereignty – evidence, our parliament and newly elected government. But a member of our parliament was insulted, humiliated and beaten by U.S. troops. And maximum our sovereign government and parliament could do was to ask for an apology. In our own country, we could be beaten and killed by foreign troops on our own soil. The compensation we get is an ‘apology’ from the U.S. embassy which still occupying the palace where our president should be sitting. I believe the embassy’s main task is now the issuing of these apologies. The number of Iraqis killed by erroneous U.S. fire, humiliated at checkpoints, beaten during U.S. sweeps and imprisoned by mistake is too many to count.
Not sure what you mean. But then again, I'm just a lonely idiot.Originally posted by cnredd:
Congrats...you found someone that agrees with you...
I thought you were just an idiot by yourself...now I see it's international....
Billo_Really said:Not sure what you mean. But then again, I'm just a lonely idiot.
I'll provide my thoughts when you stop demanding sources!Originally posted by cnredd:
I notice you now have a propensity to use pictures and other people's articles and quotes to define your positions...
Are you lacking the ability to do it yourself, or is it just so much easier than to have a thought on your own?
Billo_Really said:I'll provide my thoughts when you stop demanding sources!
Yes there was. To draw attention to the fact that Bush is not stopping terrorism, but proliferating it. Many people in Iraq that had no intention of participating in terror changed their minds after the US illegally invaded that country. And the longer US troops are on ME soil, the more people are joining organizations like Al qaida. They've never had higher recruitment than they do now. Terrorist groups want to keep Bush in office so that their ranks will swell.Originally posted by Tetracide:
Was there a logical purpose for this thread? You know... something worth a serious conversation, or is this just a venting topic for you and your contempt Billy?
You all have the same lame rap. This source game you play gets old. You give me a list of what you consider a credible source and I will find the numbers you want from that.Originally posted by Tetracide:
Am I suppose to take your word for it? Are you registered at the Al Qaeda news wire? Do you get monthly recruitment goals and numbers? I'd like to know how you came to this argument. I don’t want more commentary from you, I want a credible and reliable link from you detailing how Al Qaeda has gained recruits.
Good luck. You’ll need it.
I don't have a problem providing sources. And I will agree that attacking ones opinion is childish if that is what they believe. I have never attempted to oppose someone's belief system. What we believe, is our own business. But I disagree when you infer that attacking the source of that opinion proves what was stated is false. I'm speaking in terms of Catagorical Propositions if you are trying to prove or dis-prove what someone is stating. Unfortunately, most of the time we use common logical fallacies we all are guilty of. But if you want a source for al quaida recruitment, here's one.Originally posted by Tetracide:
Well, the reason we keep prying for sources, is because we would like to know and attempt to discredit how you came by your opinion. Attacking your opinion itself is childish, but attacking the source of your opinion is real debate.
You should not be ashamed to share your facts with us, if indeed they are facts. Your reluctance to do so foreshadows the end of this argument.
CplCrusherUSMC said:Your links are interesting btw. Especially the one talking about violations of the UN's rules. SADDAM HOUSEIN violated the UN's rules. That's just another example of how the UN attempts to make rules but lacks the gumption to back it up. It's painfully obvious that everyone has lost faith in the UN, because everyone is cutting their UN donations. If you're going to walk softly, as the UN does, you DAMN sure need to carry a BIG STICK. Some human beings only respond to force; you can talk to your ears turn blue and your tongue falls out. Go ahead, hold us back. Just like we aren't allowed to beat prisoners (even though the enemy is cutting off the heads of their prisoners) or put them in prisons that are "substandard" (Gitmo, anyone?). It shows weakness. No, America is not steel; we have our problems, and they need to be dealt with too, no? Yes, perhaps more concentration on matters at home is warranted. But let's face it.... we're the top dogs. Running home with your tail between your legs is not a good way to show any sort of dominance.
At this time, I'd like to clear up any ideas that I am an anarchist, or anything extreme like that. But as a parent, "if you spare the rod, you spoil the child." The next time you talk to Saddam, you should ask him, "How's you @$$ feeling today?"
My respect goes out to anyone who served his country. But the only thing I could agree with is that we do need to pick better Presidents. That's our fault. You will never hear any party man say, "There guy is not that good, but neither is ours!" I would like to comment on some points you raised.Originally posted by CplCrusherUSMC:
Can someone please find a good news site for me that is fairly un-biased? I'm doupting it's possible, because I can tell you from being in the USMC that every BAD thing we do is scrutinized. No one likes to talk about how Marines are passing out school supplies to Iraqi children, or providing security for Iraqi government buildings. You are entitled to your personal feelings about my Commander-in-Chief, but it's easy to redicule when
a) you forget that the President of the United States is THE most stressful job in America (yes, this comes from a Marine who gets up at 4 in the morning, runs 6 or 7 miles, then works until 5PM, or until when the mission is accomplished, if that means a 12 or 13 hour day). The man is constantly in the public view, and is viewed in the same way as the military. All his faults and failures are broadcast by the media, and his better ideas and policies and decisions are forgotten or seemingly overshadowed.
b)you forget what the alternative would have been for President
c) you forget what Iraq would be without our presence there. Please, if you think that a large group of insurgents couldn't topple the country's government right now, than keep on living a fantasy.
or d) you forget that to be quite honest, doing the right thing frequently pisses a lot of people off; and not just relating to war, but in everyday life. No matter what you suspect his reasons are for starting the war on terror, or what his reasons actually were (you can call it the classic "good initiative, bad judgement" scenario if you wish), the war will NOT stop if we back down. Like I said in another thread, we've taken the insurgents' focus from our soil and civilians who will only panic and lash out in fear, to foreign soil with personnel that are trained to deal with such combat and volunteered to do so (sorry, can't speak for the Army; not when an Army female could say to the media that they did NOT sign up to go to war, and blamed Bush because she was in Iraq!). While I can't share some of my personal feelings about our President, I can say that overall I admire his resolve and I (as well as the 8 MILLION Iraqis who voted for a President) believe his has done what he could with what was already a "dog's dinner" from the START. Housein was captured and everyone rejoiced. But now that there's no central pillar to the war, save to make the country stable, everyone wants to abandon Iraq to a doomed fate. Hmmmm.... Thanks. Oh, and next time, all you Democrats and Republicans, perhaps you should PICK BETTER PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES!!!!!!
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?