Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 23

Thread: In light of the terror attacks recently

  1. #1
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    Honestly - terrorist attacks have bee carried out for decades prior to 9-11 and are still being waged against Westerners and Jews.

    Do people honestly prefer bickering over this and that about Bush to finally taking decisive action against these terrorists groups? Does anyone possibly still think that the "let just try to not piss them off anymore and hope that the attacks stop" is even close to rational? Hey, if the attacks increase it just means we haven't appeased them enough!

    Seriously, we are at war, not with a nebulous idea like "terrorism", but with each and every individual terrorist. So using every life lost in this war for political gain against Bush or second-guessing every single decision made along the way is so stupid as to be self-defeating. The USA did nothing for decades and let the problem fester.

    Spare me the "these terrorists are just poor and they have legitimate gripes with America" angle - a very large percentage of them are not poor and in fact are well educated. Spare me ths isolationist argument, as if that form of appeasement will work.

    I predict 100% that idiots will say, "Well, if Bush and Blair had not attacked Iraq, the Turkish attacks would never have happened, they are making the world more dangerous, blah blah blah." It is so asinine, as if prior to the Iraq War or even the first Gulf War, western interests have not been attacked any Muslim terrorists. As if the problem we face has NOTHING AT ALL do do with Muslims.

    Sorry to rant, but it is so maddening to me that Dems, Libs and anti-war people alike are all CHEERING silently every time AQ pulls an attack or servicemen get shot down, because THEIR enemy is George Bush, and not the people who are actually trying to kill them, and they can use these tragic events for selfish reason, with no concept at all about the big picture.

    Seriously - what is the alternative solution to hunting down these terrorist cells, while also trying to remove oppressive regimes in the ME?? "Nuke it all or pull out completely." Yeah - these same terrorists who are so pissed off at us being in the Holy Land for a few years or for invading Iraw would REALLY stop attacking us if we levelled the ME. Sure, THAT would scare them straight - nuking all of their most holy lands and killing hundreds of millions of them. Get real.

    We should hide in a corner and hope and pray that the terrorists never attck us and if they do, use ALL of our resources and efforts to figure out exactly what it was that we did that pissed them off and apologize profusely and work to ensure that it never happens again!

    People...pfft.

    Has the whole world gone firggin crazy? Seriously. Yeah, Bush is trying to hunt down these MFs, cut off their funding, clamp down on governments that support them, and is risking his political career to do so. Yet people whine about this or that and call HIM a threat to peace. Folly! A lot of people in this country should be ashamed of themselves IMO....

  2. #2
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    Not saying Bush is perfect or hasn't made mistakes or perhaps that there may be better methods of using force. But still, slogans like "Bush is a terrorist" or "Bush likes war" are so stupid to me for so many reasons.

    But Bush is taking the problem seriously and trying to protect his people. If some can't see that or refuse to see that, then so be it. But they are wrong, it's that simple.

    Sorry to rant, again. Usually I can dismiss hysteria, but this current climate is so destrauctive to America that is DOES piss me off. I don't think most people who use these slogans are consciously treasonous or hate America, I just think they are misguided and ignorant. But it gets annoying.

  3. #3
    5ever you need perspective. terrorists get created everyday. Its not like there are X number of terrorists and when Bush finds them all the war will be over. The logistics in fighting a war on terror dictate that the country waging war are going to be overwhelmed by sheer numbers on their way to absolute victory. To use a metaphor its like running around your kitchen taking on vermin with your shoe. Yeah you might get one or two. And you might slip and break your ass trying.

    Rather than DIRECTLY hunting terrorists the nation needs to deal with these people by considering the ROOT of the problem. TO extend the metaphor how do you get rid of vermin in your kitchen? Well first off you figure out how they are getting in, and close that down ([b]BORDERS[/b]) Secondly you figure out what they are living on and clean that mess up ([b]their motivation[/b]).

    This last part bears further explanation. Think about it, what would make a person so Angry at a nation that they would kill themselves to hurt it? that is the highest level of motivation. To forward their agenda they would actually end their life in protest. Here in the US people sniff and cry at the mere mention of a MPG cap, forget about self-sacrifice. Think about that for a second. Why would terrorists hate the US so much that they would kill themselves? and no Its not cause they are brainwashed by the Koran.

    This s**t has been going on alot longer than decades. Try centuries. This is just another chapter in the crusades.

    Bottom line, pull out of the middle east and terrorism would virtually stop. The longer we fight it through the conventional means the more lives, funds will be wasted.

    George Bush is not a hero. He's just another Angry American, bent on revenge who is too stubborn to see the forest for the trees. His grand idea for Iraq democracy has already basically been flushed, now he is just looking for a way to transfer control over to the people before it becomes a political bomb that explodes on election day. What a shame 5ever that an intelligent guy like yourself actually believes the rhetoric behind the conflict. That stuff is like religion, the placebo of the masses. Drink the kool aid at your own risk my man.

    Mark my words, Bush will make this look as rosey as possible for 04. There will be an exit plan and token troop removal, an Iraqi consititution and all of that happy crappy. By the time Rove and co are done with it the whole thing will be like V-day.

    Meanwhile the house built upon the sand will not stand through the storms. Iraq will fall under the control of religious extremists sometime after the US elections. It might be 2 weeks later, 2 years later or 20 years later. the x factor here is control of the vast oil resources. There will probably be troops in Iraq for the next 50 years just for that.

    Any way you slice it the sacrifices made both in American treasure and blood will have gone for naught, or at best, so that the economy can enjoy cheap gasoline.

    Frankly as an opportunist and a realist i have no real problem with that. Everyone needs gas right? I just wish they would treat the vets and troops better then they do now.

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Kingston, NY
    Posts
    3,975
    [quote][i]Originally posted by jets5ever[/i]@Nov 20 2003, 12:17 PM
    [b] Sorry to rant, but it is so maddening to me that Dems, Libs and anti-war people alike are all CHEERING silently every time AQ pulls an attack or servicemen get shot down, because THEIR enemy is George Bush, and not the people who are actually trying to kill them, and they can use these tragic events for selfish reason, with no concept at all about the big picture.

    [/b][/quote]
    Excuse me... but I resent this implication. I lament the injury or death of everyone of our servicemen. For you to say that all Dems, Libs and anti-war people are silently cheering their suffering is a gross misrepresentation.

  5. #5
    Again, you're obfuscating the issue. How about going after real terrorists and not making huge posturings about how Saddam is kinda but not really involved with Al Queda? If I saw Bush making his priority all kinds of Homeland Security projects like guarding resevoirs/power plants with troops, hunting down Bin Laden and securing the Pakistani countryside, and saving the nation angles for iron fist diplomacy, I'd be less cynical.

    It's not that I want NOTHING done about idiotic regimes in the Middle East, but I don't see invading them over stretchy pretenses as the answer. You disagree that the pretense is stretchy, and you have stated your reasons articulately 1000 times. But that's beside the point you are making right now, which is that we should be happier about invading Iraq in light of the Turkish bombing. I'm not.

    It's obvious to me and a lot of other Americans that Bush wanted this war w/ Iraq long before 9/11, so no matter how many appeals you write about the 1991 cease-fire, Saddam giving money to Palestinian suicide bombers, or the violated UN resolutions, it doesn't add up to me vis-a-vis an efficient campaign against International Terrorism.

    Also, I think you're making huge leaps when you accuse ANYONE of "cheering" when troops die over in Iraq. I didn't want those people there, and none of the talking points used to sell them going over there have been proven true beyond our constant semantic bickerings (see above). In fact, it only further cheapens their death to me when people say they are fighting terrorism by taking over Iraq. If they were jumping through Afghanistan, at least I could tell myself they are fighting bravely to bring to justice the people who actually PLANNED 9/11, not a petty dictator who had diddly to do with it.

    There probably is a little Trotsky in everyone from the left to the right who likes it when the sitting President they oppose does something that can come back to bite them in the ass, but other than the fringe 2% anarchists who sit on the left and right, I don't think anyone is HAPPY about ANY Americans dying. Viet Nam taught most of us that it isn't the troops' faults, and they should be honored and cheered to come back safely no matter what happens.

    And yes, some of it comes right back to Bush. If McCain had done the exact same things, I'd be disapopinted and in opposition for sure. But I'd be less cynical about the character behind the man because he's done SOMETHING in his life that gives him perspective on things like war. He fought in one, worked for a living, and can articualte. Bush dresses up as a fighter and tells us God is guiding his decisions in Iraq, while his oil buddies just happen to be the most qualified people to advise him on Earth and help rebuild. Can you even see how this might piss off a lot of people who don't just see things as partisan black and white??

  6. #6
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    [quote][i]Originally posted by bitonti[/i]@Nov 20 2003, 11:38 AM
    [b] 5ever you need perspective. terrorists get created everyday. Its not like there are X number of terrorists and when Bush finds them all the war will be over. The logistics in fighting a war on terror dictate that the country waging war are going to be overwhelmed by sheer numbers on their way to absolute victory. To use a metaphor its like running around your kitchen taking on vermin with your shoe. Yeah you might get one or two. And you might slip and break your ass trying.

    Rather than DIRECTLY hunting terrorists the nation needs to deal with these people by considering the ROOT of the problem. TO extend the metaphor how do you get rid of vermin in your kitchen? Well first off you figure out how they are getting in, and close that down ([b]BORDERS[/b]) Secondly you figure out what they are living on and clean that mess up ([b]their motivation[/b]).

    This last part bears further explanation. Think about it, what would make a person so Angry at a nation that they would kill themselves to hurt it? that is the highest level of motivation. To forward their agenda they would actually end their life in protest. Here in the US people sniff and cry at the mere mention of a MPG cap, forget about self-sacrifice. Think about that for a second. Why would terrorists hate the US so much that they would kill themselves? and no Its not cause they are brainwashed by the Koran.

    This s**t has been going on alot longer than decades. Try centuries. This is just another chapter in the crusades.

    Bottom line, pull out of the middle east and terrorism would virtually stop. The longer we fight it through the conventional means the more lives, funds will be wasted.

    George Bush is not a hero. He's just another Angry American who is too stubborn to see the forest for the trees. [/b][/quote]
    I COMPLETELY and PASSIONATELY disagree.

    The Koran, or, rather, manipulation of the Koran can and does make people that Angry. What was Atta Angry, if not for religion? He was a well-off, highly educated man with no real gripes. OBL was loaded too. This root cause stuff is just academic clap-trap, IMO.


    What would your response be if more 9-11 attacks occurred on our soil? Seriously - if you knew who did it and where they were centralized. What would you do?

    Yes, borders should be tightened at home. Agreed. Illegal immigrants should ALL be deported (I am extrpolating that you'd agree with this).

    Another 'chapter' in the Crusades?? Seriously, you don't think things are this simple or that it all started with the Crusades? Look, Muslims have been butchering Jews, Indians and Christians for a lond time - their entire religion is founded on a military conquest and Mohammed himself slaughtered people. I am not playing the blame game, Christians have their warts too. But your notion that terrorism would virtually stop
    is nothing but naked opinion with no possible support for it besides half-assed analogies, frankly.

    Your dismissal on the influence of radical Islam to terrorism is astounding dude. I guess the term "infidels" meains nothing in this context - it's all a legitimate gripe against the evil USA.

    DO you know why Americans, Angry Americans who hate this or that don't blow themselves up - because they are not radical Muslims!!!! Talk about failing to see the forest for the trees - you cling to this isolationist argument as if it is true by virtue of your belief in it.

    Seriously - what if we pull out and terrorism DOESN'T stop? Your hypothosis is ruined, completely shattered. WHAT DO YOU DO THEN?

  7. #7
    oh yes 5ever the trusted "savage" argument - let me guess its the white man's burden to bring these heathens levis blue jeans and marlboro reds? Save their soul through commericalism!! HALLELUYAH, AMEN!

    [b]5ever[/b] i know you are smart enough to know there are zealots in all religions. Anyone remember the inquisition? witch burning? the trail of tears? abortion doctor murders?

    there have literally been millions of cases of murder, torture and several notable cases of genocide all carried out in the name of Jehovah, Jesus, Yahweh. Our God is just as vengeful, spiteful and violent as theirs. at the end of the day there is no ****ing gold star handed out to those who kill in the name of Christ.

    You are smarter than this cmon. The "muslim is evil" stuff i expect from the majority of bonehead posters on this board, but not from you. Its low-brow propoganda, nothing more.

  8. #8
    Let me try to put it simpler -- despite the broad strokes painted by right wingers that anyone who opposes Bush is a peacenick hippie communist, there are TONS of people who were in favor of the Afghanistan war in late 2001 but OPPOSED to Iraq.

    Just answer me the question: why do you think that is?

    Because I've talked to these people every day, and I consider myself one of them. Yes, there are some people who opposed both wars (bitonti on this message board, for one) and opposed Clinton's wars in Bosnia because they live in a world where war can NEVER be the answer. But that is not the M.O. of the majority of Democratic Party politicians and mainstream liberals.

    So I disagree with your generalizations that people on the left are just afraid to get their hands dirty and would oppose anything Bush did because they think he's a nazi. Gore would have invaded Afghanistan, hell NADER might have done it too. It was a direct response to a pathetic regime that basically thumbed its nose at us and said they would harbor the man responsible for 9/11.

    So why do you think some people who opposed Iraq did not oppose Afghanistan? Could it possibly be, they have legitimate questions about the motivations and character of the people in office and how it relates back to 9/11 and terrorism? Or do you really think it comes down to brainwashing by liberals and their media?

  9. #9
    [b]Junta[/b] just to clarify i am not a communist hippie who believes that war can never be the answer. I have said on several occasions that the last real war this country has been involved in was WWII when we DECLARED war through proper channels as the founding fathers intended it. That was a war that was JUST. It was needed. Not like this s**t.

    there is a time for war, no question. It has to be serious though. Not this piddling around in resource-rich areas of the world bull****. (or even humanitarian reasons like Bosnia or Somalia - once the the US gov't conquers, controls and rebuilds places like North Philly, East St Louis or Washington Heights then we can talk about helping out the rest of the world.)

  10. #10
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    Jet Set -

    I can totally see how it would piss people off. But you are acting like we aren't in Afganistan and aren't presently hunting down OBL or trying to do the things you are mentioning. Just because you don't read about it everyday doesn't mean it's not going on.

    I also just don't belive most people when they say that "if only Bush had done this or that I'd support him" it's the classic game of just establishing unattainable crtieria, and then blaming someone for not living up to it. Translated, it means, "I don't really know what he should do, but I know he should be doing more and I know that what he IS doing is wrong."

    People are honestly whining about the Gitmo prisoners and acting as if the Patriot Act is Big Brother...can't you see how that seems ridiculous to some people as well??

    What does the fact that Bush may have wanted the Iraq War prior to 9-11 have to do with ANYTHING? You do not believe Saddam supported terrorists or terrorism. That is why you dojn't think invading Iraq is a viable or intelligent aspect of a broader war on Terror. I do believe that he did support it and I would contend and have contended that this fact is obvious to anyone willing to consider it and not examine events with this dismissed a priori.

    Additionally, AQ are not the only terrorists around who are a threat. Does it bother you at all that it was an Iraqi who attacked the WTC in 93, and that Saddam helped him get out and let him ove through Iraq? Does the fact that Clinton responded to that attack with lawyers? Do you comprehend that when we pulled out of Somalia after a single bad day, that the terrorsist took from that an indication that America and American political leaders are too soft and too worried about career-risk to see things through? (That area is now an AQ hotbed!) What about those that died in Somalia - are their deaths cheapened?

    It is a complex issue and I was ranting badly initially. mostly because I was pitching my firm's strategy to a woman this morning and she went on a long tirade about Bush being worse than Hitler (in the meeting) and I had to sit there silently, for the sake of my firm's business, because this woman is very important and it's a big deal, potentially.

    I stand by my contention that anti-Bush people are in some way wishing that things go poorly because they know it will hurt Bush politically and they also know it's their only chance. I should have phrased it better. I don't think these people cheer any deaths andd don't think you guys do. But it is undeniable that for the Democrats to win in 2004, things need to go poorly in Iraq since the economy is turning around sharply. If you don't think many people wish things to go badly in an abstract sense because of their hatred of Bush then you don't understand human nature....

    You can talk about "proven true" all you want, but had we invaded Afganistan in early 2001 and lost 600 soldeirs, but killed OBL and prevented 9-11, everyone on "your" side would to thid very day say that those lives were lost in vain, especially if we lacked evidence "proving" OBL was going to successfully carry out 9-11. If Bush had said, "Look, we think they are going to attack the US and could even kill 3000 people in one day, that's why we are going over there" some would have accused him of fear-mongering. T

    Yet - the thresshold of "proven true" for these people lowers substantially when needed to prove that the big, bad GOP stopped 57,000 black people from voting! I laugh at that.

    We have fundamental differences of opinion. I respect your views but just disagree. I guess I was just pissed and needed to vent and couldn't in that meeting. Ugh - she was such a witch with a capital B about it too...maddening.

  11. #11
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    [quote][i]Originally posted by bitonti[/i]@Nov 20 2003, 11:57 AM
    [b] oh yes 5ever the trusted "savage" argument - let me guess its the white man's burden to bring these heathens levis blue jeans and marlboro reds? Save their soul through commericalism!! HALLELUYAH, AMEN!

    [b]5ever[/b] i know you are smart enough to know there are zealots in all religions. Anyone remember the inquisition? witch burning? the trail of tears? abortion doctor murders?

    there have literally been millions of cases of murder, torture and several notable cases of genocide all carried out in the name of Jehovah, Jesus, Yahweh. Our God is just as vengeful, spiteful and violent as theirs. at the end of the day there is no ****ing gold star handed out to those who kill in the name of Christ.

    You are smarter than this cmon. The "muslim is evil" stuff i expect from the majority of bonehead posters on this board, but not from you. Its low-brow propoganda, nothing more. [/b][/quote]
    Bitonti - you arent seriously comparing abortion-doctor murders to the Inquisition or Muslim terrorists, are you?


    Let me nuance my statement about the influence of Islam on terror. I did not say "Muslim is evil" and not even close. You cannot deny, however, that ALL of the terrorists we are currently fighting, and those that have been attacking us and our interests abroad for decades are Muslims.

    Therefore:

    All terrorists we are fighting are Muslims. All Muslims are not terrorists. Therefore, we are not fighting all Muslims.

    You can further extrapolate that Muslim does not = evil (terrorism).

    It is not an either/or situation. It is not "All Muslims are evil" or "Islam has nothing to do with terrorism." You ask how people can get soo pissed as to take their own life? Because they believe they are going to paradise with a dozen virgins and that Allah will smile on them!! No matter how angrey they were, they would not kill themselves if they didn't truly believe that they would be rewarded by God for it!! You KNOW this. I know a ton of pissed off atheists and NONE of them blow themselves up!

    RADICAL Islam, not ALL Islam dude. If you don't see this conenction than I don't know what to say....

  12. #12
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    [quote][i]Originally posted by Jet Set Junta[/i]@Nov 20 2003, 11:58 AM
    [b] Let me try to put it simpler -- despite the broad strokes painted by right wingers that anyone who opposes Bush is a peacenick hippie communist, there are TONS of people who were in favor of the Afghanistan war in late 2001 but OPPOSED to Iraq.

    Just answer me the question: why do you think that is?

    Because I've talked to these people every day, and I consider myself one of them. Yes, there are some people who opposed both wars (bitonti on this message board, for one) and opposed Clinton's wars in Bosnia because they live in a world where war can NEVER be the answer. But that is not the M.O. of the majority of Democratic Party politicians and mainstream liberals.

    So I disagree with your generalizations that people on the left are just afraid to get their hands dirty and would oppose anything Bush did because they think he's a nazi. Gore would have invaded Afghanistan, hell NADER might have done it too. It was a direct response to a pathetic regime that basically thumbed its nose at us and said they would harbor the man responsible for 9/11.

    So why do you think some people who opposed Iraq did not oppose Afghanistan? Could it possibly be, they have legitimate questions about the motivations and character of the people in office and how it relates back to 9/11 and terrorism? Or do you really think it comes down to brainwashing by liberals and their media? [/b][/quote]
    Yes, I think there are principled cases to be made against the Iraq War. However, I don't see what the person in office has to do with them. I think you need to ask yourself how many of these people you described would oppose the Iraq War had someone else besides Bush wanted it. (I am not saying you, I am fully convinced you aren't affected)

    That minor point aside - no, I don't think "brainwashing" has much to do with it, any more than I think brainwashing has to do with people who support Bush. Personally, I would have supported and defending Gpre if he had done what Bush did.

    I also think the talk about Saddam's "ties to 9-11" is a non-issue. 9-11 is relevant to Saddam only in that it taught the USA the dangers of waiting until a threat WAS imminent, because at that point it is too late. We are not seeking to avenge 9-11, we are entering a phase of history on which the fundamental appraoch to terrorism, rogue regimes and weapons proflieration are addressed more proactively. Gone are the days of caontainment and meaningless treaties (see N Korea) and gone are the days of relying on diplomatic niceities. They are all dead-ends, spectacularly so. So people call Bush 'arrogant' for speaking in plain terms: 'Enough of this bullsh*t - put your cards on the f*cking table!" I, for one, admire that and I DON'T CARE IF HE SEVRED OR NOT and never cared about Clinton's record.

    I think a lot of pro-Iraq War people understand this and I can turn around your argument on you: Can't you see that some people who support it are principled and informed and not brainwashed by patriotism, vengence against "them Muslims" or stupid idiots??

    Bush has said all along that it will be a long, tough fight - some of it we will read about, some of it we won't even know about.

    You guys just don't think Iraq was a "threat" - that is the difference and we have beaten that horse to detah. I would have very much liked to see your answer to the quesiton of how much of a threat OBL was in early 2001 and exactly how that answer reflected reality. I admit I underestimated the threat (domestically) from AQ and OBL back then. Oliver North talked about it years and years ago and was laughed at....

  13. #13
    With all due respect, it seems like in both of your replies 5ever, you're only further proving my point: yes fundamentalist Islam is bad and yes it's a trend we've seen evident in several terrorist attacks on and off our soil. But once again, what does that have to do with the 500 lives and billions of dollars we are expending in IRAQ? Saddam was many things, but he was not a fundamentalist Muslim leader and all the mud-digging "ties" via Fox News pinning Al Queda to him pale in comparison to almost every other government in the Middle East, especially Syria, Egypt, and Iran.

    As for your broader point that things "need" to go bad for the Democrats to win, I say "NO s**t!". Things ARE bad, and the fact that some low-wage retail jobs with no health insurance have opened up in the past weeks does not suddenly redeem the 4 year analysis of Bush II's Presidency and the fiscal and foreign policy problems that come directly from his mismanagement of the country, for me or for a good 50% of other Americans out there. You probably disagree that things are bad, which is why you have no problem voting for Bush "warts and all" in 2004.

    There has never been an opposition party in the history of ANY government that didn't gain momentum and somewhat feed off critiques of bad policy by the party in power. If they didn't think they can do better, they shouldn't be running at all! That's human nature, and the argument you're making here comes dangerously close to "You're either with Bush or against America", which IS imo a genuinely fascist piece of rhetoric that I know you to be better than.

    And going back to my main point about where the real sympathies and "misguided" opinions are in this country, I firmly believe that if we gave a ballot to every American right now with the following two true or false questions:

    1. TRUE/FALSE : Bush is worse than Hitler, and the death of American troops are a means to the end of getting Bush out of power ASAP.

    2. TRUE/FALSE : Bush is being guided by God to fight the Islamic axis of Evil by avenging Saddam Hussein, who was involved with 9/11

    More people in this country would mark (2) than (1), though I certainly sympathize with your story from this morning where you clearly met one of the (1) people. Now you know how I feel when every sports forum I visit online has the (2)'s outnumbering their counterparts by a good 5-1 count. :rolleyes:

  14. #14
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    [quote][i]Originally posted by Jet Set Junta[/i]@Nov 20 2003, 12:38 PM
    [b] With all due respect, it seems like in both of your replies 5ever, you're only further proving my point: yes fundamentalist Islam is bad and yes it's a trend we've seen evident in several terrorist attacks on and off our soil. But once again, what does that have to do with the 500 lives and billions of dollars we are expending in IRAQ? Saddam was many things, but he was not a fundamentalist Muslim leader and all the mud-digging "ties" via Fox News pinning Al Queda to him pale in comparison to almost every other government in the Middle East, especially Syria, Egypt, and Iran.

    As for your broader point that things "need" to go bad for the Democrats to win, I say "NO s**t!". Things ARE bad, and the fact that some low-wage retail jobs with no health insurance have opened up in the past weeks does not suddenly redeem the 4 year analysis of Bush II's Presidency and the fiscal and foreign policy problems that come directly from his mismanagement of the country, for me or for a good 50% of other Americans out there. You probably disagree that things are bad, which is why you have no problem voting for Bush "warts and all" in 2004.

    There has never been an opposition party in the history of ANY government that didn't gain momentum and somewhat feed off critiques of bad policy by the party in power. If they didn't think they can do better, they shouldn't be running at all! That's human nature, and the argument you're making here comes dangerously close to "You're either with Bush or against America", which IS imo a genuinely fascist piece of rhetoric that I know you to be better than.

    And going back to my main point about where the real sympathies and "misguided" opinions are in this country, I firmly believe that if we gave a ballot to every American right now with the following two true or false questions:

    1. TRUE/FALSE : Bush is worse than Hitler, and the death of American troops are a means to the end of getting Bush out of power ASAP.

    2. TRUE/FALSE : Bush is being guided by God to fight the Islamic axis of Evil by avenging Saddam Hussein, who was involved with 9/11

    More people in this country would mark (2) than (1), though I certainly sympathize with your story from this morning where you clearly met one of the (1) people. Now you know how I feel when every sports forum I visit online has the (2)'s outnumbering their counterparts by a good 5-1 count. :rolleyes: [/b][/quote]
    Jet Set -

    Again, I respect your opinions, but you are clinging to this belief that though Saddam himself was not a fundamentalist Islamic leader, his support could not be extended do and embolden terrorists, who ARE fundamentalist Muslims. Also - Saddam was a regional threat and 'Blood for oil" nonsense aside, it would be very bad to allow this guys to control the world's oil market AND all of the areas of the ME in which radical Muslims DO exist. You think the economy was bad before??

    I am not saying I don't agree that we need to address other regimes in the ME, we certainly do.

    'Low wage retail jobs with no health insurance' - I mean, c'mon. You know my feelings about the long0term effects on stock prices of short term stimulus like tax cuts, but even the most partisan whining cannot mask what is in fact real growth and a reduction in joblessness. (FYI - I think this is merely a bear-market bounce and that the US equity market has a long way to drop before it reaches fair value. I would be comfortable in the 8000 range, not around 10000 or the ridiculous heights of the TMT bubble.)

    I am not trying to say you are for Bush or you hate America and was probably just too pissed off when I wrote this morning. But yes, I also do not think things are as bad as people say they are. I also don't think Bush has "mismanaged" this country and love it when people say things like that out of the blue and use stats whose context many don't even understand. I am for small government and in that sense, yes I am pissed at Bush. But I certainly don't mind paying lower taxes! I also don't know how much smaller the government would be with someone else in there. You want the gov't out of people's bedrooms and moral lives, certainly you want them out of your paycheck, right? ESPECIALLY if they are mismanaging the country? Glad to see you suport the tax cuts! ;)


    Look - I know there are principled opposers and informed opposers and people who love Amercia who think Bush is an A$$. I may seem like a dittohead today- but I was emotional before and apologize. I separate Bush's conduct in the war on terror with his domestic agenda, some of which I disagree with. (The the promotion of marriage bill recently - big waste of money and big gov't - hate that).

    I also know that there are many, many stupid and ignorant people with loud voices on BOTH sides. I apprecoiate the give and take and I do think about what you guys say. I was just pissed today, and off my game for a bit there. If it weren't for my agreement with his handling of the wars, I would not vote for him and even still, the vote is done with some trepidation. He is a spender spender spender and is not conservative enough for me. Frankly, I 100% admit that there is no one else and sorry, the Dems do nothing for me, Dean inlcuded.

    Anyways, good show.

  15. #15
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    2,393
    [quote][i]Originally posted by bitonti[/i]@Nov 20 2003, 12:38 PM
    [b] Bottom line, pull out of the middle east and terrorism would virtually stop. [/b][/quote]
    Just run away and everything will be just peachy.

    Just one problem with that brilliant strategy. What do you think will happen when the children of the radical Islamists want to wear Levi's and listen to Tu-Pac? When the moderate Islamists see their poverty increase due to a lack of oil revenue?

    Who do you suppose they'll (continue) blame? Who do you suppose will become (again) the target of their anger?

    Why, the good ole' U. S. of A -- the great satan, the troublemaker of the world.

    I know you're young, bit, but are you that naive?

    Why don't we really make them happy -- why don't we just ban all western culture and religion -- and when the world becomes an Islamic theocracy, we can all live in blissful peace.

    This Angry American says, CUMBAYAH!

  16. #16
    [quote][i]Originally posted by jets5ever[/i]@Nov 20 2003, 01:17 PM
    [b] Bitonti - you arent seriously comparing abortion-doctor murders to the Inquisition or Muslim terrorists, are you?
    [/b][/quote]
    they are both cruelty carried out in the name of relgious beliefs. Besides the element of scale, really Whats the difference?

    just cause Americans or Christianity Is involved doesn't mean its automatically correct and justified.

    as far as the rest of the post yeah i realize its radical islam, but im saying what are the conditions that allowed the radical islam to take root? Its like saying we have roaches in the house, we have to kill the roaches, but no ones thinking about sealing up the holes or taking out the trash that they live on. No one wants to consider the root of the problems, just try to erradicate the symtoms.

    Maybe if our nation wasn't propping up brutally unfair dictatorships with oil-cash deals put in place in the days of FDR there would be a better distribution of wealth and less of an attraction to a relgious ethos that basically says, yes you have nothing to live for here on earth, so kill yourself and a couple infidels and reap the eternal rewards. I mean just consider for a second why someone would want to do that? its not because of Allah, ill tell ya that much.

  17. #17
    [quote][i]Originally posted by Spirit of Weeb[/i]@Nov 20 2003, 02:01 PM
    [b] I know you're young, bit, but are you that naive? [/b][/quote]

    Weeb my condecending friend

    the essential difference between the sand jockeys and the rest of the world is that they don't want levis or tupac. They never did. If they did they wouldn't be flying jets into buildings. Theres a thousand backward ass cultures out there who can be bought off with hershey's chocolate and MTV. The middle east has never been one of those places.

    that's what makes the radical islamic sects so difficult, American culture is not the calvalry, as it was in rebuilding Japan, or undermining the USSR.

    The middle eastern region as a whole is too backward to even consider that leap. They haven't even gotten to feudalism. In the minds of a billion muslims, the way of life they have lived for a thousand years is the way of life they enjoy the best. They are fiercely loyal to that worldview, and resent any intrusions. They aren't like the rest of the world, they don't want the American dream. Its so hard for us to consider that there exists someone somewhere who doesn't not want to sell out their culture for ours... but its true Weeb.

    Yeah you might be able to poke holes in the isolationist argument, but they are nothing compared to the gaping holes in the argument that democracy (one of the most delicate and advanced forms of government) can survive in a war-torn s**t hole like Iraq. A place that has known nothing but war and repression since the days of Persia. Its ludicrous.

    There's a certain level of sophistication required for democracy. meanwhile the Shi-ites whip themselves with chains a couple times a year. Its just not gonna happen, there isn't enough mcdonalds in the world to make it happen.

    But yeah i know im just a young confused commie so don&#39;t listen to me. <_<

  18. #18
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    [quote][i]Originally posted by bitonti+Nov 20 2003, 01:08 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>[b]QUOTE[/b] (bitonti @ Nov 20 2003, 01:08 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--jets5ever[/i]@Nov 20 2003, 01:17 PM
    [b] Bitonti - you arent seriously comparing abortion-doctor murders to the Inquisition or Muslim terrorists, are you?
    [/b][/quote]
    they are both cruelty carried out in the name of relgious beliefs. Besides the element of scale, really Whats the difference?

    just cause Americans or Christianity Is involved doesn&#39;t mean its automatically correct and justified.

    as far as the rest of the post yeah i realize its radical islam, but im saying what are the conditions that caused the radical islam? No one wants to consider the root of the problems, just try to erradicate the symtoms.

    Maybe if our nation wasn&#39;t propping up brutally unfair dictatorships with oil-cash deals put in place in the days of FDR there would be a better distribution of wealth and less of an attraction to a relgious ethos that basically says, yes you have nothing to live for here on earth, so kill yourself and a couple infidels and reap the eternal rewards. I mean just consider for a second why someone would want to do that? its not because of Allah, ill tell ya that much. [/b][/quote]
    Bitonti-

    You say that just because it&#39;s American or Christian, doesn&#39;t mean it&#39;s always right. I agree, and just because it&#39;s American or Christian doens&#39;t mean it&#39;s always wrong. There have been and are a TON of brutally oppressive regimes in the ME thatw ere not propped up by the west.

    Why do you refuse to blame the terrorists themselves or some Muslims for the growth of radical Islam? Why is ALL of it OUR fault? Seriously.


    Oh - and your, besides "scale" what&#39;s the difference? This is intellectually lazy and you know. Like I should be equally concerned about a loved one with the flu and a loved one with HIV. "Hey, they&#39;re both viruses, besides scale, what&#39;s the difference?&#33;" C&#39;mon, man...

    Bitonti - YOU are (or seem like) a ditto-head. Instead of agreeing or defending America at every turn, you smiply blame it at every turn. What&#39;s the difference there??

  19. #19
    [quote][i]Originally posted by jets5ever[/i]@Nov 20 2003, 02:23 PM
    [b] Bitonti - YOU are (or seem like) a ditto-head. Instead of agreeing or defending America at every turn, you smiply blame it at every turn. What&#39;s the difference there?? [/b][/quote]
    you want to take the argument away from facts and toward an analysis of the character of the participants (for the thousandth time)- you want to pidgeonhole me?

    fine mark me down as a realist. My god is truth.

    if you dare, honestly answer these question:

    does the US prop up dictatorships as it suits its agenda in terrorist hotbeds like Saudi and Pakistan?

    who trained and armed Bin Ladin?

    what is, who is in The Carlyle Group?

    yeah yeah yeah i know marginalize me as some conspiracy theorist. But there is truth and there is what&#39;s in the news.

    the fact of the matter is i love my country, i would die for this country its the greatest in the world. hey and im down with the old boys club and can even morally agree with war for oil. What i can&#39;t agree with are the lies that frame the conflict.

    this has nothing to do with any hatred or self-loathing. Im just calling it like it is.

  20. #20
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    [quote][i]Originally posted by bitonti+Nov 20 2003, 01:33 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>[b]QUOTE[/b] (bitonti @ Nov 20 2003, 01:33 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--jets5ever[/i]@Nov 20 2003, 02:23 PM
    [b] Bitonti - YOU are (or seem like) a ditto-head. Instead of agreeing or defending America at every turn, you smiply blame it at every turn. What&#39;s the difference there?? [/b][/quote]
    you want to take the argument away from facts and toward an analysis of the character of the participants (for the thousandth time)- you want to pidgeonhole me?

    fine mark me down as a realist. My god is truth.

    if you dare, honestly answer these question:

    does the US prop up dictatorships as it suits its agenda in terrorist hotbeds like Saudi and Pakistan?

    who trained and armed Bin Ladin?

    what is, who is in The Carlyle Group?

    yeah yeah yeah i know marginalize me as some conspiracy theorist. But there is truth and there is what&#39;s in the news.

    the fact of the matter is i love my country, i would die for this country its the greatest in the world. hey and im down with the old boys club and can even morally agree with war for oil. What i can&#39;t agree with are the lies that frame the conflict.

    this has nothing to do with any hatred or self-loathing. Im just calling it like it is. [/b][/quote]
    Take things completely out of context, that what you always do&#33;

    You keep talking about truth yet "truth" to you is whatever flights of fancy your imagination happens to take. You are a conspiracy theorist and don&#39;t even know it.

    Yeah - letting the Soviets get a foothold in the ME would have been a great, awesome thing for the world and America. We did train and arm Afans and OBL was one of them and he helped quash a Soviet invasion. I am sure you would have been the first to enlist had the USA sent over troops enmass to protect Afganistan rather than train locals to fight. Sure you would have. :blink: You wouldn&#39;t have even protested that war, either.

    The Caryle Group is an investment firm. What is your point?

    Yes, the USA props up dictatorships as it suits it agenda, which is most of the time allowing the lesser of two evils take control. As if things were always hunky-dorey for everyone over there until the USA came messing around. Muslims kill each other, often&#33;&#33;&#33; Power vaccuums are worse than propping up a dictator&#33; Not allowing the Soviet Union a foothald in that region was huge. You don&#39;t think THEY had THEIR leaders that they tried to prop up? C&#39;mon man - things are not as simple as you make them out to be.

    We left a power vacuum in Afgnistan and after the USSR fell, we stopped paying as much attention. Thatw as clearly a mistake, but it is one we should have and (IMO) have learned from. We cannot do it again&#33;

    Anyway - good show today. I look forward to hanging at Jets-Pats. I know you aren&#39;t some crazy radical - just a dude with an opinion and a keyboard, like me&#33; Take it easy....I enjoy arguing (obviously)&#33;

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us