NationStates Jolt Archive

I kind of like the whiney know it all, holier than thou, do as I say not as I do sugar coated kind imported from Europe. ;)


While we are probably diametricly opposite Dobbs I kinda like you.

I choose 'tight-fisted mean-spirited always-wanting-something-for-nothing and too-much-is-never-enough spoiled-rotten American flavour, please. With extra sour topping.

Domici,

Apparently your not going to accept the words of people that were there so I'm not going to argue it any longer. Your just as closed minded as CH and dobbsworld and that is sad.

Come back to the real world and you might actually learn a few things.

I've already told you. I HAVE listened to the words of the people who were there. Some of them agree with me, some of them agree with you. An open mind is not defined as one that will give all arguments equal weight. Some arguments are more deserving of attention than others and part of keeping an open mind is being willing to accept the possibility that all new information might be right, and might be wrong. It also means that you develop means for telling which is which.

Let's take a look at this logically.
You say you go looking for "good news."
Everyone in the military that you talk to tells you the same thing.
I'm getting differing accounts from military personel.

You may be subconciously pre-screening your sources to find the information you want. This casts doubt on the reliability of information that you're presenting here.

Your a native speaker ...really so what is up with the misuse of poignant and wtf dis-benefit, did you just make that up? Good for you.
Fact check and try again. Medical lates skyrocketed when attornies started advertising in the '80's, the influx of lawsuits drove up costs and it spiraled.


Okay...I made some spelling errors. English a second language. Not so much, but it is one of 4 that I am fluent in. Bush himself is not in bed with the insurance industry, however his policies (as well as his father's) have allowed the insurance industry (especially Health Insurance) to gain at the dis-benefit of others. Mostly because he is in bed with the Pharmaceutical industry.

America was uninvolved in European policies and wars because of their Monroe Doctrine. America's resources are not so abundant if they rely on the Middle East for oil. It won its territorial wars, such as the Mexican-American and Spanish-American wars by a huge margin. France helped the US because they were at war with Britain and allies obviously are a help, and this only occured after the US forces defeated the British in Saratoga. It was skill, because if militia flee from a battle they cannot possibly win head-on but inflict severe casualties on the redcoats through frontiersmen tactics, then it was as good as a win.

There were a few instances of skill on the US side, but they came to very little. They still lost almost every major battle in the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812. Yes France and England were at war. Lucky for us.

The natural resources in the continental US allowed them to build up a huge amount of power very quickly. Japan lacked any such luck and came much farther with far fewer resources in a much shorter time than the US did. It was their misfortune that they weren't blessed with the abundant natural resources that the US was.

I would hope this is not your idea of charity to the poor. Note: I said meal.
And you're presenting it as though it's analagous to our intervention in Iraq. It isn't.


Since when do you need to do heart surgery to help at a hospital? Do you even know what you're talking about?

Again, a more appropriate analogy to our intervention in Iraq.

I don't think getting their platform out was the biggest concern for those running for office, and currently, it is based more off sects than individuals as the times are obviously in turmoil. This will change.

The what sort of democracy is it?


You apparently think that the entire country is without electricity or water, and those places that are do not receive any supplies. Well, once again, in that you are wrong.

Enough that it's provoking anti American sentiment in the region. Enough of it to recruit insurgents.


Keeping order? Is that the standard for a ruler to you? Hitler and Stalin kept order quite well; are you their advocate, too?

I'm not Saddam's advocate. I think that's a guy named Estephan. Hitler didn't keep order, he waged war. And Kristal Nacht? That wasn't very orderly.

Whenever you have new nations they start out with strongman leaders. When things get stable then the leaders start to cede power, not because they're nice, but because it's cheaper. Funding a military to keep an already content people in line is not a maintainable policy.

And what you fail to realize is that people that appear in every way as a normal citizen are what make up insurgents. They do not wear uniforms or announce their presence. Things are not so easily as you so readily believe.

I realize it fine. I'm saying that's part of the problem. The insurgents look like everyday people because they are everyday people.

I am not against immigration in the least to the US. I simply believe it needs to be structured, but that many many more should be allowed in with far less delay. You assuming what my possitions are isn't exactly a good way to hold a debate.

I'm pretty sure I phrased it in the impersonal. It was a corallary observation.
Either way, my question still stands: If you dislike your country so much, why not get out? Seems like common sense to me.

I don't know where you're getting that I dislike my country. I love this country. I love it like parent loves a child, which is how everyone in a democracy should feel. If your child misbehaves you're supposed to correct him. Love doesn't mean blind admiration.

My general impression is that nationalist Republicans love their country like a small child loves a parent. If the country does bad things then they excuse it, rationalize it, and if it's intolerable they blame themselves or their syblings.

downing street memo

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1593607,00.html

this, assuming you read it, will help enlighten you.

Because Bush is a moron and his presidency has served to humiliate the US on an international scale.

I agree that Bush is a moron, but why should one man's actions doom the whole country to being "morons"?

I agree that Bush is a moron, but why should one man's actions doom the whole country to being "morons"?

"Who's the bigger fool? The fool, or the fool who follows him?" - Obi-Wan Kenobi ;)

"Who's the bigger fool? The fool, or the fool who follows him?" - Obi-Wan Kenobi ;)

im not a fool, i just follow him cause i have to to live in one of the best countries in the world. And, because of Democracy, im not following just him; if i was following him directly, it would be an anarchy. But i also believe this: Democracy is a terrible form of government. Unless you consider the alternatives. Im nnot saying that this is the best possible country, but even with Bush, it's still the best so far. ;) Btw, what country you live in?

im not a fool, i just follow him cause i have to to live in one of the best countries in the world. And, because of Democracy, im not following just him; if i was following him directly, it would be an anarchy. But i also believe this: Democracy is a terrible form of government. Unless you consider the alternatives. Im nnot saying that this is the best possible country, but even with Bush, it's still the best so far. ;) Btw, what country you live in?

Ireland. I went there from Germany. I considered moving to Canada at around that same time, but even though I did spend some time in the US, I never really wanted to go back there. It had this horribly tight feeling. Didn't like it.
But that's just my impression. As far as that goes, I currently live in the best country conceivable

Everybody has there own opinion about the best place :)

Everybody has there own opinion about the best place :)


That's why I tend to make it absolutely clear that I'm talking about my own opinion when calling anything "the best" ;)

But who wants to live in Massachusets?! (tehe....masachuttess...).

PHEW, thought you wanted them to come to Massachusetts!! ;)

The bulk of the people in Iraq HATE these insurgents you defend here.
Support your rebuttal with some facts then we can debate the issue from there. Until then, it is just your opinion.

BTW, I am not defending the insurgents per se, just their right to defend their country. If someone wanted to invade the US, you would want me to defend your right to defend your country?

You make it sound like the people of Iraq didn't want us to free them.
Firstly you didn't ask them?
Secondly, you thought that they would welcome you with open arms, and while there was some of that, the majority saw you as being in their country illegally, and they want you gone ASAP.

A small minority of radicals don't want us there and you assume that they are the majority voice because they have the same point of view that you do.
Excuse me? They have the same point of view as me? You haven't got a clue do you?

You don't care what the majority of Iraqis think because it conflicts with your opinion.
Again you make assumptions based on what? The majority of Iraqis want the US gone ASAP, and so do I, so I don't see that as conflicting at all. There I've said it twice. Prove otherwise.

No actually, I'm not looney though i bet most of the liberals on this board will disagree with that assessment.
No comment. :D

I can't help it if I have people in the region that actually tell me what is really going on an not what is in the press!
If it is not in the press, then it is not news and is not worth regurgitating here.

Hint: quit making stuff up.

Funny thing is, I know who causes most of those deaths.
Funny thing is that I noticed that you use the word "funny" a lot and I don't really find any humour in subjects, such as death.

That being the thugs and murderers who go about killing civilians to intimidate them. Guess what? Most of them aren't intimidated. They want the attacks to stop and they are flocking to recruiting stations to sign up to defend their land.
It took an invasion by US forces for the conflict to get to where it is today. I am going to blame ALL of the deaths resulting from this conflict on the US administration that sanctioned the illegal invasion of Iraq.

I may not have served in uniform, I can't unfortunately, but I know what are mission is over there. Unlike you, I actually pay attention to the troops that are there. I know more good stuff than you'll ever here. You won't believe me because your so dense and blinded that you can't. I'm done with you CH! Get out of Canada and see the real world for once in your life.
Ahhh so I am "dense and blinded" huh? Well at least I am not a bullshit con artist who makes stuff up to support mythical fairy tales. And you may be "done" with me, but I will still be here to try and keep you honest and I am finding it a difficult task.

I know people who have lost loved ones over there CH. They don't have any regrets. In the overall scheme of things, our casualties are actually low compared to other occupations.
There you go again, downplaying the number of casualties, and if your father was to go down, heck, that would only be 1801, which really is "actually low compared to other occupations"?

No, it "hasn't been that bad", because it is not your ass on the line. A little while back when the US count was up to 1400, I remember you talking about Iraq being a "bloodless" war. Go figure.

No just my father's, cousin, and most of the parents in an organization that I belong too do have their asses on the line.
But still not yours.

Funny, it still technically is a bloodless war.
There is that word "funny" again. Is this a fun war for you?

Shall we see what a real bloody war is like? Go back to Vietnam, Korea, World War II, World War I. Those are bloody wars.
What is to say that the current conflict in the Middle East doesn't lead to an even larger war?

The deaths of those that have died here mean something to the Iraqi people. They are glad that we are there. They know we are there to help them.'
The majority of Iraqis want the US troops to leave ASAP, despite your rhetoric.

A relative of mine received a HUG, A HUG for a kid who was able to go to a school that wasn't being used by the previous government as an ammo dump.
Meanwhile, 100,000 of his compatriots are dead and much of the country is in turmoil.

I don't downplay any casualties. Most of the civilian casualties have been done by guess what? T-E-R-R-O-R-I-S-M! Go figure.
When you provide your supporting "facts" then you will have made your point, but the fact remains that the majority of deaths have been the result of US troops and air force.

The more these thugs and murders kill, the more they drive people to defend their country from these same people.
You mean, somewhat like a civil war?

They are only hurting their own cause by doing it. Funny thing is, attacks are starting to go down and not up.
Funny, but I read differently:

U.S. military faces most complex insurgency in its history (http://www.notinourname.net/war/complex-insurgency-4oct04.htm)

Experts: Iraq verges on civil war (http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/world/ny-woiraq0512,0,4630319.story?coll=ny-top-headlines)

Needed: Less Spin, More Support (http://www.americanprogressaction.org/site/pp.asp?c=klLWJcP7H&b=710865)

Iraq Verges on Civil War (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0513-08.htm)

And you would have us believe that the Mission was Accomplished in May 2003. Go figure.

That's ridiculous, and quickly followed up by an equally incorrect statement:


Off the top of my head, I can tell you that both Truman and FDR raised taxes much more than Clinton ever imagined. Read this (http://www.factcheck.org/article173.html) to see your myth rebutted more fully.

Bush's tax cuts, like tax cuts throughout all of American and World history, have done nothing to spur the economy. Trickle-down economics simply does not work. Add on to the fact that all of the fastest-developing nations around the world have higher tax rates than the United States, and it quickly becomes apparent that the tax-cut logic (and the history of it in practice) does not agree with what you're saying.

I suggest you go back and re-read the employment numbers. Tax cuts HAVE spurred this economy and this so called trickle down thing liberals have been spouting DOES WORK! Clinton tax hikes did far more damage to this country than Bush's Tax Cuts. What do you think of the Kennedy Tax Cuts? They spurred this economy just as Reagan's Tax Cuts and Bush Jr. Tax cuts have done as well. Sorry b ut that is a cold hard fact.

downing street memo

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1593607,00.html

this, assuming you read it, will help enlighten you.

Even though its one man's opinion?

No comment. :D

Told ya :D

If it is not in the press, then it is not news and is not worth regurgitating here.

Just because its not in the press doesn't mean its important CH. The press only prints the bad news. I'm sure you know that?

Hint: quit making stuff up.

I haven't though you have on many occassions.

CH!

I'll believe the Generals and the Troops that are over there over you and the media (That includes fox news :eek: )

It's not his policies, man. It's how absolutely moronic he is when he *attempts* to deliver a speech, among other things.

Yes, because as well all know the capacity for public speaking is a dead-sure indicator of one's intelligence.

Stage-fright = moron.
Standing ovation = can parse 10 page long equations without aid of paper, computer or abacus.

Yes, because as well all know the capacity for public speaking is a dead-sure indicator of one's intelligence.

Stage-fright = moron.
Standing ovation = can parse 10 page long equations without aid of paper, computer or abacus.

Churchill had stage fright was he a moron ? hitler was one of the greatest public speakers in history, was he a moron?

I suggest you go back and re-read the employment numbers. Tax cuts HAVE spurred this economy and this so called trickle down thing liberals have been spouting DOES WORK! Clinton tax hikes did far more damage to this country than Bush's Tax Cuts. What do you think of the Kennedy Tax Cuts? They spurred this economy just as Reagan's Tax Cuts and Bush Jr. Tax cuts have done as well. Sorry b ut that is a cold hard fact.

“Employment and wage and salary growth are especially slow in the current period, underperforming not only the historical average but, in the case of employment growth, every comparable period since the end of World War II.” (http://www.cbpp.org/8-9-05bud.pdf) - Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, August 9th, 2005 (And I've linked you to the report)

So no, the economy and employment are not good at ALL. Yes, they're going up. That's the way unemployment and the economy works -- it goes up and it goes down. The good policies shift the sway towards "up." This administration, on the other hand, has the slowest historical average since the end of World War II.

And just for comparison... Bush? 393,000 average jobs created per year. Clinton? 2.9 Million. (http://www.bopnews.com/archives/004480.html#004480)

Why do people hate america? Sometimes its the cool thing to say. Others think America hates everyone them ( a European watching the O'reilly factor could easely come to this conclusion. ) Others like america, its people and what it stands for, but dislike the bush admin.

Why do people hate america? Sometimes its the cool thing to say. Others think America hates everyone them ( a European watching the O'reilly factor could easely come to this conclusion. ) Others like america, its people and what it stands for, but dislike the bush admin.
A concept many people can't understand.

Being "against" Bush and his policies would qualify, what, 49% of Americans as anti-Americans?

New York and California are indeed nice, but...

...They're so fucking expensive.

lets not forget that new york and california are as american as you can get.

Being "against" Bush and his policies would qualify, what, 49% of Americans as anti-Americans?

Nope not all! Does the 51% of those that vote bush morons? Nope not at all.

As for things be slower and the economy being bad, get new material. We are experiencing growth not seen since the REAGAN ADMINISTRATION!

Our economy is running on all cylinders. Jobs are on the rise and they aren't minimum wage jobs either.

GDP is GROWING at a good clip!

So how is our economy not doing well? Oh wait, its happing under a republican president. My bad! LOL

So no, the economy and employment are not good at ALL. Yes, they're going up. That's the way unemployment and the economy works -- it goes up and it goes down. The good policies shift the sway towards "up." This administration, on the other hand, has the slowest historical average since the end of World War II.

And just for comparison... Bush? 393,000 average jobs created per year. Clinton? 2.9 Million. (http://www.bopnews.com/archives/004480.html#004480)

You can't equivocate this recession with those since WWII, because it is considerably different than them.

No other recession after World War Two has happened because of the collapse of a massive speculative bubble. A stock market decline of this magnitude hasn't happened since 1929; the sheer amount of wealth lost has scared companies in to saving their money and increasing productivity rather than hiring new workers. Combined with the collapses of MCIWorldcom and Enron, and September 11th (these events cost us some 1.2 million jobs in addition to the recession losses), this recovery is stronger than it should have been in employment and growth. Tax cuts averted a double-dip recession in 2002, and helped revive the economy in 2004. The strength of this expansion even in the face of high oil prices and a flat stock market is impressive, and should these factors improve it wil get stronger.


Yes, and how many of those Clinton-era gains were fueled by the NASDAQ bubble? The strongest years for Clinton's job growth, wage growth, and lowest unemployment were in 1997-1999, which coincided with the tech bubble:

http://www.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/2/2c/NASDAQ_IXIC_-_dot-com_bubble_small.png

Those jobs were built on a house of cards, and many disappeared with the recession (which Bush did not inherit).

Nope not all! Does the 51% of those that vote bush morons? Nope not at all.

As for things be slower and the economy being bad, get new material. We are experiencing growth not seen since the REAGAN ADMINISTRATION!
Defense spending, that is.

Defense spending, that is.

not the entire budget Achtung 45! :rolleyes:

Because everyone is pissy that were stronger than them so they try and make fun of us but when we say we are stronger, they try to act like that there tougher.

Don't bother to respond to me, I felt like dropping a few cents in.

Defense spending, that is.

Solid growth in defense spending translates in to employment gains in sectors related to it, many of whose jobs are quite high-paying. It then translates in to a stronger military; it's a win-win as long as the money is made in to action.

not the entire budget Achtung 45! :rolleyes:
How much of it, then?

How much of it, then?

19%.

It then translates in to a stronger military; it's a win-win as long as the money is made in to action.
Could you elucidate? This is unclear, especially the very last bit.

How much of it, then?

I don't know, I'm not an economist but I do know it doesn't take up over half the budget.

Just because you hate someone in government doesn't mean you are anti-(that country). In my beliefs and opinions which I am entitled to and my ability to speak them which come from the freedom of free speech I can hopefully say without too much trouble that: I am not against any country I am merely anti-government because as soon as they get into power 99.96% of the time bad decisions follow.

Could you elucidate? This is unclear, especially the very last bit.

I made a mistake; I mean to say "translates in to action", in the sense that the money is actually spent on procurement of equipment/supplies/training and not wasted on bureaucrats' salaries.

Support your rebuttal with some facts then we can debate the issue from there. Until then, it is just your opinion.

BTW, I am not defending the insurgents per se, just their right to defend their country. If someone wanted to invade the US, you would want me to defend your right to defend your country?


Firstly you didn't ask them?
Secondly, you thought that they would welcome you with open arms, and while there was some of that, the majority saw you as being in their country illegally, and they want you gone ASAP.


Excuse me? They have the same point of view as me? You haven't got a clue do you?


Again you make assumptions based on what? The majority of Iraqis want the US gone ASAP, and so do I, so I don't see that as conflicting at all. There I've said it twice. Prove otherwise.

i never really though of war as a leagal issue, and even if the majority of iraqis want us out, i dont care, whether they know it or not we are doing them a great service, sacrificing out troops, our money, to give them freedom. lets not forget in the american revoulution that only 20% wanted to be free, and frace still helped us, now if your suggesting france shouldve stayed out of it because the majority didnt want to be free then america wouldnt exist right now. france helped us because we were against britain, and fance was against britain too. now iraq was allied with our enemie, terrorists, and if by helping the iraqis who want freedom get it, we can hurt the enemies who want to take ours away then i say lets go for it. also frances economy went down after helping us, so we shouldve seen this coming.

And yet Venderbaar, our economy is going up and not down.

Venderbarr, it's pretty bad when the enemy you speak of is usually people within your own country corrupting it from the inside out.

not the entire budget Achtung 45! :rolleyes:
A substantial portion--I was defining what you were referring to by "growth since reagan" :p

Here's the breakdown:
http://www.federalbudget.com/

Solid growth in defense spending translates in to employment gains in sectors related to it, many of whose jobs are quite high-paying. It then translates in to a stronger military; it's a win-win as long as the money is made in to action.
oh yes, war is definately win-win!

oh yes, war is definately win-win!

Not war, but militray preparedness. A responsible leader can increase defense spending without having to go to war. Reagan increased defense spending but didn't use it.

I've asked this question before, but your ethnocentric post leaves me no choice.

Where does the word "America" come from?

America comes from an Italian Catographer, Who named the new world after himself, but was flamed by everyone becsause it was swlfish. He tried to recall the maps titled "America" but they were already sold and gone.

Not war, but militray preparedness. A responsible leader can increase defense spending without having to go to war. Reagan increased defense spending but didn't use it.
He used it in order to win the Cold War (even though it ended under Bush I), in much the same way TR paraded around with his Great White Fleet

Venderbaar, if by terrorists you mean Alqaeda, you are wrong. Irak wasnt their allies. They did give some money to the families of the palestinian kamikaze but that's pretty much all.
Saddam's ideal was some kind of secular pan-arabism and not pan-islamism.
the majority os the Iraki population is shi'ite (or whatever you spell it in english) while Alqaeda is Sunni and want to get rid of all the non-sunni.
Therefore he did the war on Iran and bombed the Kurds.
if they really wanted to fight the terrorists they would have rather finished to secure Afghanistan than lying about some evidences to attack a country that have been under 10 years of embargo. Or they could have also attack one of those coutries who spread the islamism propaganda.
Maybe that is what they wanted to do but their knowledge of geography is just not good enough... :D

He used it in order to win the Cold War (even though it ended under Bush I), in much the same way TR paraded around with his Great White Fleet

It worked; nuclear and conventional war were averted, an oppressive regime was dismantled, and millions of people had new hope of freedom and economic opportunity.

It worked; nuclear and conventional war were averted, an oppressive regime was dismantled, and millions of people had new hope of freedom and economic opportunity.
Well, that's a bit like saying me buying a $100,000 car suddenly saved the auto industry. You have to consider the fact that the type of Communism they were trying to create wasn't working out too well, and there are many other factors that contributed to the fall of the USSR, that I don't feel like getting into right now.

Well, that's a bit like saying me buying a $100,000 car suddenly saved the auto industry. You have to consider the fact that the type of Communism they were trying to create wasn't working out too well, and there are many other factors that contributed to the fall of the USSR, that I don't feel like getting into right now.

There were many other factors that go way beyond the arms race, but my original point was that defense spending helps the economy and a responsible leader can increase it without having to use it.

There were many other factors that go way beyond the arms race, but my original point was that defense spending helps the economy and a responsible leader can increase it without having to use it.
And that's what we need, a responsible leader.

And that's what we need, a responsible leader.

And that is what you have right now! A leader that tries to get things done and a leader that takes things to the enemy.

And that is what you have right now! A leader that tries to get things done and a leader that takes things to the enemy.


seems more like he's a leader who creates enemy ;)

seems more like he's a leader who creates enemy ;)
lol

doesn't he though?

thanks for the chuckle.

Just because its not in the press doesn't mean its important CH.
FINALLY, something I can agree with you 100% on. :D

The press only prints the bad news. I'm sure you know that?
There you go, making up stuff again.

You and Nerion BOTH claim that you're privy to the truth because you're "close to the military,"

Neither you nor Nerion seems capable of much logic. You use talking points as fact, regardless of the authenticity of those points. And you argue tenuously derived conjectures from those facts as though they're facts in their own right.

*CanuckHeaven* hums a few bars of I'm Your Puppet (http://www.45-rpm.com/features3/30%20JamesBobbyPurify%20Puppet.mp3)

yes I've polled. I've polled soldiers who've come back here and they've polled the people that live there. I've yet to have one tell me they hear a lot of resentment for our freeing those people.
And what scientific polling method did they use and where can one find the polling results, or are they keeping the data a secret only to be shared with special people such as yourself?

It's OK for Saddam to torture people in horrifying ways, but it's not ok for the US to do it.
The answer to your question would be NO and DOUBLE NO.

Funny. I've talked to guys that were there. IN IRAQ! They are saying the samething that Nerion is hearing from other soldiers. Sorry to burst your bubble but I find them more credible than the crap your spewing.

"But the Iraqis polled also indicated they don't want to be occupied."

"But the Iraqis polled also indicated they don't want to be occupied."

He is such a waste of time, why do you continue? He's lost.
Remember:
"At Blackadder Hall you will find some real gems of useless information all relating to the Blackadder family. I do apologise for the smell in the kitchen, Baldrick's been cooking dung again."

I suggest you go back and re-read the employment numbers. Tax cuts HAVE spurred this economy and this so called trickle down thing liberals have been spouting DOES WORK! Clinton tax hikes did far more damage to this country than Bush's Tax Cuts. What do you think of the Kennedy Tax Cuts? They spurred this economy just as Reagan's Tax Cuts and Bush Jr. Tax cuts have done as well. Sorry b ut that is a cold hard fact.

What a stupid load of crap.

"Under Clinton the economy did great, but it would have been spectacular if Clinton hadn't held it back. Under Bush the economy is crap, but it would have been worse if he hadn't cut taxes."

Open your friggin' eyes! Clinton inherited an economy in the crapper from Bush Sr. and turned it around by placing a very slightly larger tax burden on the highest wage earners. Bush and Reagan had run up huge deficits by taking the smallest amount of taxes from the people with the most money fit to be taxed.

If a bad economy got good under Clinton and a good economy got bad under Bush Jr. (which is exactly what happened) the facts lead to a pretty damn obvious conclusion. The presidents Bush don't know how to handle a national economy.

I'm so sick of this republican refrain. I've already explained the economics of Arthur Laffer to you, from which Bush derives his "tax cuts to spur the economy" line, but you don't really seem to understand it. You certainly haven't been able to shed any light on it that I might have missed. You just blindly accept the republican line because it beats thinking for yourself.

He is such a waste of time, why do you continue? He's lost.
You know, I was debating that very thought earlier tonight. There was an earlier time that I was ignoring everything that he posted but when you see pages and pages of factless drivel, it is difficult not to respond?

And that is what you have right now! A leader that tries to get things done and a leader that takes things to the enemy.

Yup. He takes our economy, our international credibility, our foreign alliances, and gives them all to the enemy. OTH, he did take away the Iraqis' civil rights and even gave some of them to us. :)

You know, I was debating that very thought earlier tonight. There was an earlier time that I was ignoring everything that he posted but when you see pages and pages of factless drivel, it is difficult not to respond?

He is just like the Red Arrow.Only diffrence is that they banned TRA for the same and that extremists from the right have a lot of credit here. I gave up (like most on NS), it is useless debating with one that doesn't know that word and goes in circles.

You know, I was debating that very thought earlier tonight. There was an earlier time that I was ignoring everything that he posted but when you see pages and pages of factless drivel, it is difficult not to respond?

Refuting the bullshit of people like Corneiliu (and Nerion a few hours ago) isn't so much for the sake of them, but for people who may be reading who are being told things like "Bush is creating a stronger military," and "Bush ended the Clinton Recession" but don't exactly know how to respond.

I know before I learned to go and do my own research I could tell intuitivly that Bush Sr. was lying to my face because what he was saying didn't make any sense.

It's like trying to refute the argument "God must exist because he's perfect. And if he didn't exist he wouldn't be perfect." You can tell that the argument is bullshit, but it's hard put our finger on exactly why. Then you see someone else explain the phrase "Circular Logic" and you go "ok, the world makes sense again."

And perhaps some of those people will realize that when a Republican tells them that the Clinton years were only good because of Republicans in Congress they can tell answer, "well Republicans have held the White house and Congress for 5 years now. Why isn't the economy doing even better than it did under Clinton? Instead, it's only just recovered from the damage it suffered when Clinton left."

Those are the people for whom we refute the Cornholios of the world.

If a bad economy got good under Clinton and a good economy got bad under Bush Jr. (which is exactly what happened) the facts lead to a pretty damn obvious conclusion. The presidents Bush don't know how to handle a national economy.
It's completely wrong to blame Bush for the economic slump. The stock market started tanking in October of 2000; 3 months before George W. took office. That's more than a year before Bush's tax cuts went into effect.
The facts do lead to an obvious conclusion. At the end of the Clinton administration the American economy began heading towards a recession. That recession was reversed under Bush's administration.

It's completely wrong to blame Bush for the economic slump. The stock market started tanking in October of 2000; 3 months before George W. took office. That's more than a year before Bush's tax cuts went into effect.
The facts do lead to an obvious conclusion. At the end of the Clinton administration the American economy began heading towards a recession. That recession was reversed under Bush's administration.

I see a Corny pattern here.

It's completely wrong to blame Bush for the economic slump. The stock market started tanking in October of 2000; 3 months before George W. took office. That's more than a year before Bush's tax cuts went into effect.
The facts do lead to an obvious conclusion. At the end of the Clinton administration the American economy began heading towards a recession. That recession was reversed under Bush's administration.

I've already explained this.

The stock market downturn was right after the election. The stock market is anticipatory. When there's bad news, or even big ambivalant news (like a presidential election that must end with a new president) then the stock market takes a hit before the effects of the bad news really kick in. If there's advance warning of a civil war in Africa where there's a gold mine then the company stock will suffer as people start selling their interests in that gold mine. The gold commodities market will jump as people start to figure "gold's going to be hard to come by soon." Then if the civil war doesn't happen the stock prices will shoot back up as people start trying to buy in because there'll be a lot of gold coming out soon. The price of gold will then sink back to it's regular level.

The anxiety over the 2000 race was especially tense because of the prolonged uncertainty of it. But whoever took office would have had a slightly diminished economy, no matter how good it had been.

The telling of a president is what happens after the inauguration shake up. Under Clinton it turned around despite an antagonistic Congress. Under Bush it stayed in the crapper untill well into his second term despite a rubber-stamp Congress. THAT's the mark of his failure.

I've already explained this.

The stock market downturn was right after the election. The stock market is anticipatory.
This is where you're wrong. The stock market took a downturn before the election. I remember seeing reports about it at least in October.

Second, yes the market didn't pull back once Bush was inaugurated. What did Bush do to cause that? None of his economic plans went into effect until the next year.

This is where you're wrong. The stock market took a downturn before the election. I remember seeing reports about it at least in October.
I don't know how accurate this is but it seems to refute what you are saying (http://www.davidstuff.com/financial/djia.htm):

Sep 07, 2001 Falls 234.99 to close at 9,605.85 falling 1,767.07 (15.5%) since May 21, 2001.

Second, yes the market didn't pull back once Bush was inaugurated. What did Bush do to cause that? None of his economic plans went into effect until the next year.
Once again this refutes what you stated:

2001 May 21 Rises 36.18 to close at 11,372.92 recovering 1,983.44 (85%) of the 2,333.50 decline since Jan 14, 2000.

This is where you're wrong. The stock market took a downturn before the election. I remember seeing reports about it at least in October.

Second, yes the market didn't pull back once Bush was inaugurated. What did Bush do to cause that? None of his economic plans went into effect until the next year.

But that doesn't negate my point even if your facts are accurate. Since it doesn't matter, I won't bother to check. The slump was in anticipation of the changing of the guard. I'm not saying that Bush caused the initial slump. I said that the initial slump would have happened regardless of who came into office. But Bush failed to do anything about it. It still took 5 years to get back to where we were.

You point out a difference that makes no difference.

Your an american so your vote counts. Their's don't! I'm not going to tell you how to vote because I don't care how you vote. However, no foreigner is going to tell us who to vote for.
Can the Americans tell the citizens of a foreign country whom to vote for?

Can the Americans tell the citizens of a foreign country how to manage its internal affairs in general?

Can the Americans tell the citizens of a foreign country whom to vote for?

Can the Americans tell the citizens of a foreign country how to manage its internal affairs in general?
Apparently so.

The flaw with your arguement is that fewer and fewer on the insurgents ARE IRAQ'S ! Every man has the right to defend his home, but the insurgency is no longer that.




Support your rebuttal with some facts then we can debate the issue from there. Until then, it is just your opinion.

BTW, I am not defending the insurgents per se, just their right to defend their country. If someone wanted to invade the US, you would want me to defend your right to defend your country?


Firstly you didn't ask them?
Secondly, you thought that they would welcome you with open arms, and while there was some of that, the majority saw you as being in their country illegally, and they want you gone ASAP.


Excuse me? They have the same point of view as me? You haven't got a clue do you?


Again you make assumptions based on what? The majority of Iraqis want the US gone ASAP, and so do I, so I don't see that as conflicting at all. There I've said it twice. Prove otherwise.

There you go, making up stuff again.

I am? I'm not. I'm seeing nothing but bad news in the press so how am I making things up?

"But the Iraqis polled also indicated they don't want to be occupied."

I know that CH and WE ARE NOT OCCUPING THEM! THEY ARE A SOVEREIGN NATION! Yes they don't want us there but they also know that we are there to get their army going so that their Army can replace ours. In some areas, they are already doing that. They are starting to conduct operations on their own WITHOUT Coalition back up.

Can the Americans tell the citizens of a foreign country whom to vote for?

Nope!

Can the Americans tell the citizens of a foreign country how to manage its internal affairs in general?

provided that its done by the Declaration of Human Rights, no. If not then we have full right to condemn them and to tell them to straightn up.

Please Soviet mililitary spending was a MAJOR factor in its collapse as was aid to Cuba.
You should read about the XB-70 and the Mig-25 increadble story.


Well, that's a bit like saying me buying a $100,000 car suddenly saved the auto industry. You have to consider the fact that the type of Communism they were trying to create wasn't working out too well, and there are many other factors that contributed to the fall of the USSR, that I don't feel like getting into right now.

Is this your mantra ? Ever been taxed to wealth?



What a stupid load of crap.

"Under Clinton the economy did great, but it would have been spectacular if Clinton hadn't held it back. Under Bush the economy is crap, but it would have been worse if he hadn't cut taxes."

Open your friggin' eyes! Clinton inherited an economy in the crapper from Bush Sr. and turned it around by placing a very slightly larger tax burden on the highest wage earners. Bush and Reagan had run up huge deficits by taking the smallest amount of taxes from the people with the most money fit to be taxed.

If a bad economy got good under Clinton and a good economy got bad under Bush Jr. (which is exactly what happened) the facts lead to a pretty damn obvious conclusion. The presidents Bush don't know how to handle a national economy.

I'm so sick of this republican refrain. I've already explained the economics of Arthur Laffer to you, from which Bush derives his "tax cuts to spur the economy" line, but you don't really seem to understand it. You certainly haven't been able to shed any light on it that I might have missed. You just blindly accept the republican line because it beats thinking for yourself.

The flaw with your arguement is that fewer and fewer on the insurgents ARE IRAQ'S ! Every man has the right to defend his home, but the insurgency is no longer that.
Maybe fewer and fewer but the majority are still Iraqis.

Also consider this interesting aspect:

Study cites seeds of terror in Iraq
War radicalized most, probes find (http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/2005/07/17/study_cites_seeds_of_terror_in_iraq/)

American intelligence officials, speaking on the condition of anonymity, and terrorism specialists paint a similar portrait of the suicide bombers wreaking havoc in Iraq: Prior to the Iraq war, they were not Islamic extremists seeking to attack the United States, as Al Qaeda did four years ago, but are part of a new generation of terrorists responding to calls to defend their fellow Muslims from ''crusaders" and ''infidels."

''The president is right that Iraq is a main front in the war on terrorism, but this is a front we created," said Peter Bergen, a terrorism specialist at the nonpartisan New America Foundation, a Washington think tank.

Few Foreigners Among Insurgents (http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/111704C.shtml)

Judging from fighters captured in Fallouja, all but about 5% are Iraqi, U.S. officials say. (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1116-23.htm)

And to further support that the Iraqis want the US troops gone ASAP:

U.S. Poll Shows Iraqis Oppose Presence of Coalition Troops (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000087&sid=a8bOqxuFldV0&refer=top_world_news)

The stock marketed started to tank with the Clinton tax hikes. It was no in anticpation of an election.



I've already explained this.

The stock market downturn was right after the election. The stock market is anticipatory. When there's bad news, or even big ambivalant news (like a presidential election that must end with a new president) then the stock market takes a hit before the effects of the bad news really kick in. If there's advance warning of a civil war in Africa where there's a gold mine then the company stock will suffer as people start selling their interests in that gold mine. The gold commodities market will jump as people start to figure "gold's going to be hard to come by soon." Then if the civil war doesn't happen the stock prices will shoot back up as people start trying to buy in because there'll be a lot of gold coming out soon. The price of gold will then sink back to it's regular level.

The anxiety over the 2000 race was especially tense because of the prolonged uncertainty of it. But whoever took office would have had a slightly diminished economy, no matter how good it had been.

The telling of a president is what happens after the inauguration shake up. Under Clinton it turned around despite an antagonistic Congress. Under Bush it stayed in the crapper untill well into his second term despite a rubber-stamp Congress. THAT's the mark of his failure.

Nope!
Does that mean that the US government cannot, for example, provide assistance to certain political parties of some foreign country?



provided that its done by the Declaration of Human Rights, no. If not then we have full right to condemn them and to tell them to straightn up.
I don't think that there's a country in the world that is recognized by everyone as conforming to each and every article of the UDHR.

Is this your mantra ? Ever been taxed to wealth?

Unspeakable,

He's spouting whatever it is that he's being fed. The economy is doing just fine. If it wasn't, the interest rates wouldn't be going up. Jobs are being created and we're not talking minimum wage jobs either.

Also, I have found that no matter the facts, people like dobbsworld and CanuckHeaven won't listen to it. They have themselves convinced that they are right. They don't care to listen to the actual people that are there and they don't care that the majority of the people are glad that we came and freed them.

Ch, Dobbs, Domici and most liberals don't like to be told the truth because they know they can't handle it.

Bush started an unjustifed war which hasn't been justed to date!!!!!

I know that CH and WE ARE NOT OCCUPING THEM! THEY ARE A SOVEREIGN NATION! Yes they don't want us there but they also know that we are there to get their army going so that their Army can replace ours. In some areas, they are already doing that. They are starting to conduct operations on their own WITHOUT Coalition back up.
Iraq is NOT a sovereign nation as long as the US occupies that country. For you to suggest that the US is not occupying Iraq flies in the face reality, and is a totally illogical statement.

Get more current info that is 9 months old. Weapons arms and MEN are coming in from Syria and Iran. Why do you think combat ops have move to near the Syrian border?


Maybe fewer and fewer but the majority are still Iraqis.

Also consider this interesting aspect:

Study cites seeds of terror in Iraq
War radicalized most, probes find (http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/2005/07/17/study_cites_seeds_of_terror_in_iraq/)

American intelligence officials, speaking on the condition of anonymity, and terrorism specialists paint a similar portrait of the suicide bombers wreaking havoc in Iraq: Prior to the Iraq war, they were not Islamic extremists seeking to attack the United States, as Al Qaeda did four years ago, but are part of a new generation of terrorists responding to calls to defend their fellow Muslims from ''crusaders" and ''infidels."

''The president is right that Iraq is a main front in the war on terrorism, but this is a front we created," said Peter Bergen, a terrorism specialist at the nonpartisan New America Foundation, a Washington think tank.

Few Foreigners Among Insurgents (http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/111704C.shtml)

Judging from fighters captured in Fallouja, all but about 5% are Iraqi, U.S. officials say. (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1116-23.htm)

And to further support that the Iraqis want the US troops gone ASAP:

U.S. Poll Shows Iraqis Oppose Presence of Coalition Troops (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000087&sid=a8bOqxuFldV0&refer=top_world_news)

Iraq is NOT a sovereign nation as long as the US occupies that country. For you to suggest that the US is not occupying Iraq flies in the face reality, and is a totally illogical statement.

CH, they handed SOVERIEGNTY OVER TO IRAQ already. It made BIG Television news since it occured 2 days early. The Iraqis considers themselves a sovereign state. Once a state becomes sovereign it is no longer under an occupation government.

Get off of it CH. I'm not buying you crap today.

Get more current info that is 9 months old. Weapons arms and MEN are coming in from Syria and Iran. Why do you think combat ops have move to near the Syrian border?

Something they don't understand. They have to use old news as arguements because the new news isn't conforming to their way of thinking.

Unspeakable,

He's spouting whatever it is that he's being fed. The economy is doing just fine. If it wasn't, the interest rates wouldn't be going up. Jobs are being created and we're not talking minimum wage jobs either.

Also, I have found that no matter the facts, people like dobbsworld and CanuckHeaven won't listen to it. They have themselves convinced that they are right. They don't care to listen to the actual people that are there and they don't care that the majority of the people are glad that we came and freed them.

Ch, Dobbs, Domici and most liberals don't like to be told the truth because they know they can't handle it.
What "facts"? You don't present "facts". You only offer up your "opinion", which is invariably wrong, and is to be expected of someone who appears to be a Bush apologist.

Sorry, but opinion and hearsay do not equal "facts".

What "facts"? You don't present "facts". You only offer up your "opinion", which is invariably wrong, and is to be expected of someone who appears to be a Bush apologist.

Sorry, but opinion and hearsay do not equal "facts".

And yet more proof that liberals don't listen to troops that are there. That is where my facts come from. They come from the front lines. Alwell. At least I listen to them.

Is it occupied yes but with the intent on stabiling and leaving. Compare France in 1941, Japan 1945 and Iraq 2005. All are occupations but not all are equal.


Iraq is NOT a sovereign nation as long as the US occupies that country. For you to suggest that the US is not occupying Iraq flies in the face reality, and is a totally illogical statement.

Get more current info that is 9 months old. Weapons arms and MEN are coming in from Syria and Iran. Why do you think combat ops have move to near the Syrian border?
Just try reading the links and you will have a better understanding that the majority of insurgents are indeed Iraqis.

BTW, where are your "facts" regarding this matter?

BTW, the latest link was July 25, 2005, or 19 days ago.

And yet more proof that liberals don't listen to troops that are there. That is where my facts come from. They come from the front lines. Alwell. At least I listen to them.
IF what you have whispered in your ear was newsworthy, it would be reported. And since It is not, therefore you have no "facts" and have nothing worthwhile to add to this debate.

But at least Dobbs has that dry wit I find so amuseing.


Unspeakable,

He's spouting whatever it is that he's being fed. The economy is doing just fine. If it wasn't, the interest rates wouldn't be going up. Jobs are being created and we're not talking minimum wage jobs either.

Also, I have found that no matter the facts, people like dobbsworld and CanuckHeaven won't listen to it. They have themselves convinced that they are right. They don't care to listen to the actual people that are there and they don't care that the majority of the people are glad that we came and freed them.

Ch, Dobbs, Domici and most liberals don't like to be told the truth because they know they can't handle it.

I guess you missed the news about the 19 Marines killed in combat ops against forgien fighters near the Syrian border. I'm sure the CBC carried the story.

Just try reading the links and you will have a better understanding that the majority of insurgents are indeed Iraqis.

BTW, where are your "facts" regarding this matter?

BTW, the latest link was July 25, 2005, or 19 days ago.

Is this your mantra ? Ever been taxed to wealth?

Have you ever been rich and become middle class after having been taxed out of your tax bracket?

When people earn money by owning things that make money taxes aren't going to break them. They just raise the price on the stuff that they're selling. The US has known this at least since the time of Ben Franklin (because he said exactly this to Parliament). And it was only the richest people in the country who Clinton raised taxes on, and very slightly at that.

The stock marketed started to tank with the Clinton tax hikes. It was no in anticpation of an election.

So I guess your name is actually a description of the crap you spout.

You clearly know nothing about the stock market. It's essentially a giant auction. It does indeed fluctuate with anticipation. Don't you ever listen to the economists talking about it? "The Dow rose today with speculation that..." "Another drop today amid concerns that..."

The economy did just fine with years of the Clinton tax hike. Why is the tax hike the determining factor a month before he's set to get his replacement voted on. Economists won't say it for fear of being too partisan but "...amid fears that the new president will follow fiscal policies that bring unforseen changes to business practices."

I'm not sure why I'm bothering to argue the point though. I presented an explanation of stock market economics and you essentially plug your ears and yell "na-uhh!" with no actual points to back it up.

THE AMERICAN GOV IS BEING DESTABILIZE WITH PRESIDENT BUSH THE AMERICAN GOV IS VERY WELL STABLISH BUT IT JUST HAVE A BAD LEADER AT THIS TIME :sniper: :mp5:

Unspeakable,

He's spouting whatever it is that he's being fed. The economy is doing just fine. If it wasn't, the interest rates wouldn't be going up. Jobs are being created and we're not talking minimum wage jobs either.

Also, I have found that no matter the facts, people like dobbsworld and CanuckHeaven won't listen to it. They have themselves convinced that they are right. They don't care to listen to the actual people that are there and they don't care that the majority of the people are glad that we came and freed them.

Ch, Dobbs, Domici and most liberals don't like to be told the truth because they know they can't handle it.

We can handle truth just fine. You have yet to present any. Nor have you been able to present any evidence that you even have any. Since you have a lot of trouble understanding what words like "source," "fact," and "truth," are I'll have to point out that evidence means that it's something that you can show us. Look it up, it comes from the word meaning "thing that is seen." Just saying "I know a guy who says" isn't evidence, and rejecting it is a testament to our capacity for critical thinking, something you sorely lack.

Present some truth before you accuse us of an incapacity for "handling" it. BTW Jack Nichalson characters invariably make poor role models.

The flaw with your arguement is that fewer and fewer on the insurgents ARE IRAQ'S ! Every man has the right to defend his home, but the insurgency is no longer that.

So then we shouldn't have let France help us in our efforts to kick out the British because they weren't defending their own homes, but helping defend ours?

The insurgents want allies, they have to come from somewhere. The more Iraqi's we blow up, the greater the percentage of foreigners that will comprise it.

BTW, we followed the same strategy in overthrowing the Sandanistas in Nicaragua. Bring people in from across the border to blow shit up.

CH, they handed SOVERIEGNTY OVER TO IRAQ already. It made BIG Television news since it occured 2 days early. The Iraqis considers themselves a sovereign state. Once a state becomes sovereign it is no longer under an occupation government.

Get off of it CH. I'm not buying you crap today.

You may not by buying him crap, but you're giving away plenty for free.

I can right up a piece of paper that says that my house is a sovereign nation, it won't mean a damn thing.

That's what the Iraqi's have. Their ministries have no control over what goes on in their borders.

Whatever the government of a country says, as long as it is under occupation by the forces of a foreign government it is under occupation.

Yes, the Iraqi's consider themselves a sovereign nation, that's why they're attacking the US troops there.

But at least Dobbs has that dry wit I find so amuseing.

Ok, I'll grant you that.

Something they don't understand. They have to use old news as arguements because the new news isn't conforming to their way of thinking.

Funny how the absolute proof of the position of any republican is always just beyond the horizon. It's like how all the mythical sea beasts were written on the portion of maps that hadn't been explored yet. Thar Be Dragons.

Dem: I have a study that was conducted all over Iraq, it took months to complete and contains exhaustive information that proves that the Iraq war has made it a hotbed of terror.

Rep: Ya, but there's information in there that's months old. Go and find some information about what happened yesterday. Thar be dragons.

Rep: Saddam has weapons of mass destruction.
Dem: Where?
Rep: Well, they're in the basement of that building.
Dem: We've checked, it's a brewery.
Rep: It was a brewery yesterday, but it's a WMD factory now.
2 Days later
Dem: We've checked, it's still a brewery.
Rep: it was a brewery 2 days ago, no they're making WMD's there.
2 days later
Rep: Sorry, we couldn't wait around forever, we had to blow it up. Thar be dragons there.

Ch, Dobbs, Domici and most liberals don't like to be told the truth because they know they can't handle it.

Ya know, I hear this a lot... but then when I provide you with a third-party governmental study that SHOWS you the truth, you backpeddle and do your best to spin it.

Some of us actually develop our opinion based on verifiable facts -- I know that's surprising to you. You seemingly base your opinion on how you can weasel your way around the facts that are given to you.

Did you actualy read what you wrote?



Have you ever been rich and become middle class after having been taxed out of your tax bracket?

When people earn money by owning things that make money taxes aren't going to break them. no but they spend less look at the small boat industry They just raise the price on the stuff that they're selling. WTF? Was that meant to be a nonsequiter or what?The US has known this at least since the time of Ben Franklin (because he said exactly this to Parliament). And it was only the richest people in the country who Clinton raised taxes on, and very slightly at that.LARGEST TAX INCREASE IN HISTORY

Rsponce is red

So I guess your name is actually a description of the crap you spout.

You clearly know nothing about the stock market. It's essentially a giant auction. It does indeed fluctuate with anticipation.Ok real simple in small words, the market is indeed an auction , and yes it does react to news, however it more like Vegas in that you are betting (investing) money on companies that you think will make money down the road. Companies are supossed to reinvest the CAPITAL (hench capitalism) in their companies hench more profit, more investment big happy daisy chain of money and love. (You never saw that cartoon where the mice teach Sylvester about money did you?) Well when you raise taxes GUESS WHAT! Less money to be invested and the whole damn thing breaks down. You should read the Cato Insititutes analysis of the Reagan years. Don't you ever listen to the economists talking about it? "The Dow rose today with speculation that..." "Another drop today amid concerns that..."

The economy did just fine with years of the Clinton tax hike. Why is the tax hike the determining factor a month before he's set to get his replacement voted on. Economists won't say it for fear of being too partisanEcocomists are as partisan as the next guy but they all know than lower taxes fuel the economy look how much more revinue was collected when the Capital Gains tax was REDUCED. What! You lowered a tax and collected more money how can this be? Look at what JFK, the darling martyr of the Liberals did with taxes to promote economic growth HE LOWERED TAXES! but "...amid fears that the new president will follow fiscal policies that bring unforseen changes to business practices."

I'm not sure why I'm bothering to argue the point though. I presented an explanation of stock market economics and you essentially plug your ears and yell "na-uhh!" with no actual points to back it up.

Well if they really wanted the US out they would go quite for a year and we'd leave.

We didn't over throw the Sandanistas they elected a different government no junta. WHAT ballots! elections! oh the shame.



So then we shouldn't have let France help us in our efforts to kick out the British because they weren't defending their own homes, but helping defend ours?

The insurgents want allies, they have to come from somewhere. The more Iraqi's we blow up, the greater the percentage of foreigners that will comprise it.

BTW, we followed the same strategy in overthrowing the Sandanistas in Nicaragua. Bring people in from across the border to blow shit up.

So then we shouldn't have let France help us in our efforts to kick out the British because they weren't defending their own homes, but helping defend ours?

The insurgents want allies, they have to come from somewhere. The more Iraqi's we blow up, the greater the percentage of foreigners that will comprise it.

BTW, we followed the same strategy in overthrowing the Sandanistas in Nicaragua. Bring people in from across the border to blow shit up.


France helped a country where the majority wanted to be free. The French forces which helped us over here did not outnumber the US troops they were aiding.

There are only a handful of truly Iraqi insurgents left and that's mostly the leadership. The ones doing the fighting aren't from Iraq. And Iraq wants the insurgents OUT even if YOU want them IN.

I know that CH and WE ARE NOT OCCUPING THEM! THEY ARE A SOVEREIGN NATION! Yes they don't want us there but they also know that we are there to get their army going so that their Army can replace ours. In some areas, they are already doing that. They are starting to conduct operations on their own WITHOUT Coalition back up.

Also, while they would like us to leave, they'd rather we didn't do it tonight.

And what scientific polling method did they use and where can one find the polling results, or are they keeping the data a secret only to be shared with special people such as yourself?


The answer to your question would be NO and DOUBLE NO.


Scientific? You have got to be joking. I asked people. Period. You ever asked someone for their thoughts? Nope. You only know how to give them. Mouth open, ears shut - that's CanuckHeaven.

I asked soldiers that came back. Lots of them. I'm still trying to find one that agrees with you. So far, I can't. There's a handful of ultraconservative freaks over there on your side killing kids. The bulk of Iraq does NOT want the killers and wife beaters to win, even if CanuckHeaven is praying that they do. They are a minority. Iraq does not agree with you.

It's time for you to get over it.

"But the Iraqis polled also indicated they don't want to be occupied."


No one is disputing that. What we're disputing is whether or not the insurgents represent the voice of Iraq. You say they do, I say they don't. They don't want our forces occupying them, but most of them don't want us to pull out immediately. They'd like us out sooner than later, but they'd like it done carefully. They'd rather we didn't sneak out in the middle of the night.

Yup. He takes our economy, our international credibility, our foreign alliances, and gives them all to the enemy. OTH, he did take away the Iraqis' civil rights and even gave some of them to us. :)


Whereas you blame America for everything.

Support your rebuttal with some facts then we can debate the issue from there. Until then, it is just your opinion.

BTW, I am not defending the insurgents per se, just their right to defend their country. If someone wanted to invade the US, you would want me to defend your right to defend your country?


Firstly you didn't ask them?
Secondly, you thought that they would welcome you with open arms, and while there was some of that, the majority saw you as being in their country illegally, and they want you gone ASAP.


Excuse me? They have the same point of view as me? You haven't got a clue do you?


Again you make assumptions based on what? The majority of Iraqis want the US gone ASAP, and so do I, so I don't see that as conflicting at all. There I've said it twice. Prove otherwise.


The majority of Iraqis want us out as soon as it's feasible and many of them would like to see a hard deadline for us to leave. The reason we won't give them one is because if there was a deadline, the insurgents would just wait it out.

The insurgents are a minority. They are having a really hard time recruiting people to help them fight - that's why they're having to go outside the country to get recruits.

I asked soldiers who talked with Iraqis - I'll repeat what I said for closed ears open mouth - just because the information is second hand, doesn't make it invalid.

And I do know what you think. You're defending the insurgents like you've got friends and family over there fighting their cause. You DO favor them - deny it all you want, but your arguments tell all.

The way you present your arguments is an entierly valid part of any discussion. If the way you present your points undermines them then your points are... well, pointless.

I've already argued that having friends who were in the military is not a qualification or a source on which to base your arguments. If it was then I'd be doing it.

But you haven't disputed any of my arguments yet. You just whine a lot and complain about what I say without offering any points for debate. You say you'd be doing the same if you thought it was ok. You going to tell me that you have friends that are soldiers who have told you that everyone they talked to supports the insurgents? (Don't say they want us out - we've already established that they do - the argument here is whether or not the majoity of Iraqis support the insurgents).

If the insurgents are the majority, I ask all of you liberals this:

The current government in Iraq was voted in by a majority of the voters (having the massive voter turnout that we here in the west can only dream about). And the insurgents are trying to kill members of that government. Doesn't that tell you something??? The insurgents are at odds with the majority of Iraqis!

You couldn't figure that one out on your own?

The reason people constantly flame America, and have so much Anti-American sentiment on forums...
Well, as one of the offenders of this "America Slamfest" I'll tell you why I vehemently speak out against America: Lawbreakers.
They don't give a shit about international law. Other countries? Who needs 'em. That's the stand Bush and his admin have taken.
Bush: "We know they have WMD's!"
UN: "Okay. We'll go take a look."
.....
UN: "We're not finding anything."
Bush: "Screw y'all! We're goin' in with bombs droppin', and guns blazin'! SHOCK 'N AWE, BABY!"
UN: "But... they don't have anything our inspectors can find... your reason for going to war doesn't make any sen..."
Bush: "YEEEEE HAAAWWWWW!!!"

Or hows about this one:
America: "Canadian softwood lumber is a threat to our businesses!"
Canada: "What'd you say?"
America: "In a language our people can understand... here's some lovely tarriffs you guys can pay if you want the priviledge of bringing lumber into our country."
Canada: "You can't do that."
America: "Watch us."
North American Free Trade Agreement panel: "Actually... Canada's right on this one. That sort of dealing with NAFTA in place is illegal."
America: "No it isn't."
NAFTA: "Just because you say it isn't doesn't make it so. We're the experts on this. Now pay back Canada $5 billion in lost revenue for this blatantly illegal procedure."
America: "Screw you. We won't do it. Gotta be a legal loophole somewhere!"

The reason people constantly flame America, and have so much Anti-American sentiment on forums...
Well, as one of the offenders of this "America Slamfest" I'll tell you why I vehemently speak out against America: Lawbreakers.
They don't give a shit about international law. Other countries? Who needs 'em. That's the stand Bush and his admin have taken.
Bush: "We know they have WMD's!"
UN: "Okay. We'll go take a look."

Funny thing is, we didn't violate international law, we ENFORCED it! How you might ask? By following up on UN resolutions that the UN didn't have the balls to follow up. How about going to war when Saddam Violated that cease-fire that the UN approved? Oh wait, that is legal to do. ONce a cease-fire is violated, it is legal to go back to war with said nation.

What I don't like about this country is that nothing is sacred, absolutely everything is a matter of convenience or inconvenience. A lot of places that really do not need to be open on major holidays are anyway because and people actually go to them O_O Since when did going to Home Depot become part of the Easter tradition?
It's also very hard to actually enjoy a place's natural beauty anymore. Going to places like Colorado or Hawaii and taking in the beautiful scenery is generally interrupted by someone driving by with his music blaring at an ungodly volume and chucking a cigarette out the window.
Even the body and health are nothing more than inconviniences.
I mean, people even kill others who aren't born that they purposely gave life to because giving that person a chance at life is too inconvinient.

Another thing I don't like about this country is it's so concerned about making sure that criminals aren't abused that it gives them more rights than the victims. Rape a girl and you just get a few years in prison and then you have your whole life to enjoy again. Never mind of course the girl who's life has been ruined especially if you get her pregnant...
Not like our justice system is competent enough to enforce harsher punishments though... they couldn't even figure out how to file charges against Saddam Hussein until around a year after they caught him o_O How in the hell do you go to war against someone if you don't even know what you're charging him with?

What I don't like about this country is that nothing is sacred, absolutely everything is a matter of convenience or inconvenience. A lot of places that really do not need to be open on major holidays are anyway because and people actually go to them O_O Since when did going to Home Depot become part of the Easter tradition?
It's also very hard to actually enjoy a place's natural beauty anymore. Going to places like Colorado or Hawaii and taking in the beautiful scenery is generally interrupted by someone driving by with his music blaring at an ungodly volume and chucking a cigarette out the window.
Even the body and health are nothing more than inconviniences.
I mean, people even kill others who aren't born that they purposely gave life to because giving that person a chance at life is too inconvinient.

Another thing I don't like about this country is it's so concerned about making sure that criminals aren't abused that it gives them more rights than the victims. Rape a girl and you just get a few years in prison and then you have your whole life to enjoy again. Never mind of course the girl who's life has been ruined especially if you get her pregnant...
Not like our justice system is competent enough to enforce harsher punishments though... they couldn't even figure out how to file charges against Saddam Hussein until around a year after they caught him o_O How in the hell do you go to war against someone if you don't even know what you're charging him with?


Well said, even if I don't agree with all of it. I do agree with a LOT of it though. But with al its faults, I still love this country.

France helped a country where the majority wanted to be free. The French forces which helped us over here did not outnumber the US troops they were aiding.
Majority wanted to be free?

One thing is certain, however; the American Revolution (http://www.crusader.net/texts/bt/bt05.html) was anything but a broad-based popular uprising of a disaffected people. Rather, it was a very unpopular rebellion of a politically radical minority who, because they possessed a clear understanding of the rights of man coupled with a deep concern for the state of relative personal freedom, were able to perceive the shackles of tyranny prior to their being presented for fastening. This discernment of tyranny at a distance not only set them apart from their fellow man but constrained them to rebel.

There are only a handful of truly Iraqi insurgents left and that's mostly the leadership. The ones doing the fighting aren't from Iraq. And Iraq wants the insurgents OUT even if YOU want them IN.
WRONG! :)

WRONG! :)

That the best you can do?

Majority wanted to be free?

One thing is certain, however; the American Revolution (http://www.crusader.net/texts/bt/bt05.html) was anything but a broad-based popular uprising of a disaffected people. Rather, it was a very unpopular rebellion of a politically radical minority who, because they possessed a clear understanding of the rights of man coupled with a deep concern for the state of relative personal freedom, were able to perceive the shackles of tyranny prior to their being presented for fastening. This discernment of tyranny at a distance not only set them apart from their fellow man but constrained them to rebel.


WRONG! :)


The Iraqis do not support the insurgents friend.
As I said in another post (which you obviously skipped over) The current government in Iraq was voted in by a majority of the voters (having the massive voter turnout that we here in the west can only dream about). And the insurgents are trying to kill members of that government.

Therefore the insurgents are trying to overthrow the government that the majority of the people over there endorse.

There - you see how to dispute a point? You said wrong and I countered it with a fact (the insurgents are against the government of the majority - that is a fact).

I didn't whine about your post. You see how that's done now?

CanuckHeaven, there is a TG for you.

The reason people constantly flame America, and have so much Anti-American sentiment on forums...
Well, as one of the offenders of this "America Slamfest" I'll tell you why I vehemently speak out against America: Lawbreakers.
They don't give a shit about international law. Other countries? Who needs 'em. That's the stand Bush and his admin have taken.
Bush: "We know they have WMD's!"
UN: "Okay. We'll go take a look."
.....
UN: "We're not finding anything."
Bush: "Screw y'all! We're goin' in with bombs droppin', and guns blazin'! SHOCK 'N AWE, BABY!"
UN: "But... they don't have anything our inspectors can find... your reason for going to war doesn't make any sen..."
Bush: "YEEEEE HAAAWWWWW!!!"

Or hows about this one:
America: "Canadian softwood lumber is a threat to our businesses!"
Canada: "What'd you say?"
America: "In a language our people can understand... here's some lovely tarriffs you guys can pay if you want the priviledge of bringing lumber into our country."
Canada: "You can't do that."
America: "Watch us."
North American Free Trade Agreement panel: "Actually... Canada's right on this one. That sort of dealing with NAFTA in place is illegal."
America: "No it isn't."
NAFTA: "Just because you say it isn't doesn't make it so. We're the experts on this. Now pay back Canada $5 billion in lost revenue for this blatantly illegal procedure."
America: "Screw you. We won't do it. Gotta be a legal loophole somewhere!"


I´ll admit that is hilarous but its not all true. even do the idiot Bush knew there ways nothing there the rest of the govt´ didn´t. they both with the u.n. were trying to find stuff, and there so freken scared of another sept 11, as is most of america they didn,t know what to do it seemas like a good idea to protect paranoid america. Its not that were law breakers, were just scared, all of us in america, anti or not willllllllllllllllll lovvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvve to punch a terorst right in the nose, and in March 2003 the war was the closest thing to it. But i think we americans are healed now, we realy aren´t intersted in the war and want out, Of course the europeans saw this as a complete threat to there lives a Sept. 11 over and over again. America is sorry europe we didnt me to this but were not used to thise stuff and accedentl we may have helped a couple normal iraq joes over have a normal life, who knew?

The Iraqis do not support the insurgents friend.
Then can you explain this?

Iraqi Insurgency Growing Larger, More Effective (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0122-08.htm)

The unfavorable trends of the war are clear:

U.S. military fatalities from hostile acts have risen from an average of about 17 per month just after President Bush declared an end to major combat operations on May 1, 2003, to an average of 82 per month.

The average number of U.S. soldiers wounded by hostile acts per month has spiraled from 142 to 808 during the same period. Iraqi civilians have suffered even more deaths and injuries, although reliable statistics aren't available.

Attacks on the U.S.-led coalition since November 2003, when statistics were first available, have risen from 735 a month to 2,400 in October. Air Force Brig. Gen. Erv Lessel, the multinational forces' deputy operations director, told Knight Ridder on Friday that attacks were currently running at 75 a day, about 2,300 a month, well below a spike in November during the assault on Fallujah, but nearly as high as October's total.

The average number of mass-casualty bombings has grown from zero in the first four months of the American occupation to an average of 13 per month.

Electricity production has been below pre-war levels since October, largely because of sabotage by insurgents, with just 6.7 hours of power daily in Baghdad in early January, according to the State Department.

Iraq is pumping about 500,000 barrels a day fewer than its pre-war peak of 2.5 million barrels per day as a result of attacks, according to the State Department.


As I said in another post (which you obviously skipped over) The current government in Iraq was voted in by a majority of the voters (having the massive voter turnout that we here in the west can only dream about). And the insurgents are trying to kill members of that government.
The US Presidential election recorded a 60% of eligible voter turnout, which is about the same as the Iraqi vote.

Therefore the insurgents are trying to overthrow the government that the majority of the people over there endorse.
Actually, I believe the number one goal of the insurgents is to get the US troops to leave.

There - you see how to dispute a point? You said wrong and I countered it with a fact (the insurgents are against the government of the majority - that is a fact).
You are twisting the conversation. I said WRONG to this statement of yours:

There are only a handful of truly Iraqi insurgents left and that's mostly the leadership. The ones doing the fighting aren't from Iraq. And Iraq wants the insurgents OUT even if YOU want them IN.

And no, you didn't show me "how to dispute a point" because you have proven nothing and have offered zero facts. And once again, you presume to "know" what I want, and I will say again, that you do not have a clue.

I didn't whine about your post. You see how that's done now?
Actually it is a high pitched whine laced with condescension. How thoughtful of you to give humble ol me the secret to posting etiquette. Give me a break.

Next time you want to give me a lesson, just bring some facts, and then we won't need to dance around your unsubstantiated opinions.

The majority of Iraqis want us out as soon as it's feasible and many of them would like to see a hard deadline for us to leave. The reason we won't give them one is because if there was a deadline, the insurgents would just wait it out.
This affirms what I stated earlier that the Iraqis want the US to leave ASAP.

The insurgents are a minority. They are having a really hard time recruiting people to help them fight - that's why they're having to go outside the country to get recruits.
Once again, this article below states otherwise:

Iraqi Insurgency Growing Larger, More Effective (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0122-08.htm)

I asked soldiers who talked with Iraqis - I'll repeat what I said for closed ears open mouth - just because the information is second hand, doesn't make it invalid.
I guess Rumsfeld is out of the loop?

Rumsfeld: Insurgency could last 5 to 12 years (http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0627/dailyUpdate.html)

Rumsfeld braces for more violence in Iraq (http://msnbc.msn.com/id/8366705/)

Maybe those "soldiers who talked with Iraqis" should let the boss in on their little secret?

I guess Rumsfeld is out of the loop?Yes most definitely. He has no clue what he's talking about, but he'll say what people want to hear from him.

And I do know what you think.
I know that you somewhat apologized (in another thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9449341&postcount=224)) for making this illogical comment, so I will somewhat accept your apology. If you have read any of my posts over the past year and a half, then you would know that the following statements are simply not true:

You're defending the insurgents like you've got friends and family over there fighting their cause. You DO favor them - deny it all you want, but your arguments tell all.
Now I invite you to prove your remarks.

My sister in law called last night (she called to speak with my wife actually), she just having returned from Iraq I decided to ask her about her experiences there. This is by no means scientific only one woman's experiences.
My Questions Q: Her answers A:
Q: How did you feel about your time in Iraq?
A: Not too bad but I'm glad its over. what did piss me off was getting deployment orders so soon after getting married. (fyi she received her orders the day she got back from her honeymoon)
Q: What do the Iraqi people think of the US ?
A: They are disappointed they expected more and that things would have been fixed faster, they are impatient. They also want us to fix everything and GO, the main reason they want to go ASAP is that they think the violence will stop when we leave. They believe rightly or wrongly the bulk of the violence is caused by foreigners (the Shiites believe it is caused by Sunnis and vice versa) and when we leave they will leave they think.
Q: Do they think of the US as "crusaders" ?
A: Some do and they deeply resent us,while other are ecstatic.
Q: If the US pulled out tomorrow what would happen?
A: Civil War
Q: Civil War?
A: The insurgents seem to trying to cause even more friction between the Shiite and the Sunni.
Q: Who do you think the bulk of the insurangy is?
A: Ex-Baathists and some Shiites with old grudges with a good mix of outsiders.

This was her $.02

I'd thought I pass it along.

That the best you can do?
The reason that I did that was a bit of a payback for Nerion doing the same thing to me earlier in the thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9428317&postcount=907).

BTW, he/she eventually agreed with me on the point (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9447423&postcount=1108), so I feel vindicated. :)

Scientific? You have got to be joking. I asked people. Period. You ever asked someone for their thoughts? Nope. You only know how to give them. Mouth open, ears shut - that's CanuckHeaven.
Most of my replies can be backed up with facts, which is something that you and Corny are unable to do. If you go back through this thread and check your posts, it is damn near impossible to find anything remotely resembling any kind of proof. You and Corny stick to the reasoning that you have "sources" on the front line, yet it appears that none of what those "sources" have to say appear to be newsworthy.

I asked soldiers that came back. Lots of them. I'm still trying to find one that agrees with you. So far, I can't.
And yet, none of the news they bring back is newsworthy enough to make it to the media, yet is good enough to be your basis for "fact"? Sounds pretty hollow to me.

There's a handful of ultraconservative freaks over there on your side killing kids.
I take great exception to this post and I find that your "opinion" on this has ZERO basis in fact. I am on the side of humanity. I abhor violence and killing.

How many innocent men, women, and children have been killed by US bombs, and bullets? "Shock and Awe", Operation this, Operation that, it all amounts to death and destruction in a war that didn't need to be fought.

Some photographs may be distressing to view (http://www.krysstal.com/democracy_photos.html)

The bulk of Iraq does NOT want the killers and wife beaters to win, even if CanuckHeaven is praying that they do.
Here you go again, assuming that I support such atrocities. You are a sick person for making such a disgusting suggestion. You are the one that supports this illegal invasion and not I. I will pray for you.

I will let you in on a secret too. Every morning when I get up and say my prayers, I pray for the impossible, that being world peace. What do you pray for?

Most of my replies can be backed up with facts, which is something that you and Corny are unable to do. If you go back through this thread and check your posts, it is damn near impossible to find anything remotely resembling any kind of proof. You and Corny stick to the reasoning that you have "sources" on the front line, yet it appears that none of what those "sources" have to say appear to be newsworthy.


And yet, none of the news they bring back is newsworthy enough to make it to the media, yet is good enough to be your basis for "fact"? Sounds pretty hollow to me.


I take great exception to this post and I find that your "opinion" on this has ZERO basis in fact. I am on the side of humanity. I abhor violence and killing.

How many innocent men, women, and children have been killed by US bombs, and bullets? "Shock and Awe", Operation this, Operation that, it all amounts to death and destruction in a war that didn't need to be fought.

Some photographs may be distressing to view (http://www.krysstal.com/democracy_photos.html)


Here you go again, assuming that I support such atrocities. You are a sick person for making such a disgusting suggestion. You are the one that supports this illegal invasion and not I. I will pray for you.

I will let you in on a secret too. Every morning when I get up and say my prayers, I pray for the impossible, that being world peace. What do you pray for?


If your replies can be backed up with facts, why have you never provided any?

I gave you a simple piece of logic and you've yet to provide anything to counter it.

The majority of people in Iraq elected the current government. The voter turnout was like nothing we've ever seen in the western world. The insurgents are trying to kill off the majority elected government. If the insurgents are a majority that wouldn't be possible.

I challenge you to provide a fact that refutes what I just said. I'm betting you won't and I'll see more tap dancing on your part.

My sister in law called last night (she called to speak with my wife actually), she just having returned from Iraq I decided to ask her about her experiences there. This is by no means scientific only one woman's experiences.
My Questions Q: Her answers A:
Q: How did you feel about your time in Iraq?
A: Not too bad but I'm glad its over. what did piss me off was getting deployment orders so soon after getting married. (fyi she received her orders the day she got back from her honeymoon)
Q: What do the Iraqi people think of the US ?
A: They are disappointed they expected more and that things would have been fixed faster, they are impatient. They also want us to fix everything and GO, the main reason they want to go ASAP is that they think the violence will stop when we leave. They believe rightly or wrongly the bulk of the violence is caused by foreigners (the Shiites believe it is caused by Sunnis and vice versa) and when we leave they will leave they think.
Q: Do they think of the US as "crusaders" ?
A: Some do and they deeply resent us,while other are ecstatic.
Q: If the US pulled out tomorrow what would happen?
A: Civil War
Q: Civil War?
A: The insurgents seem to trying to cause even more friction between the Shiite and the Sunni.
Q: Who do you think the bulk of the insurangy is?
A: Ex-Baathists and some Shiites with old grudges with a good mix of outsiders.

This was her $.02

I'd thought I pass it along.


Thank you very much for providing her thoughts.

I'm glad your sister in law is safe.

Thank you very much for providing her thoughts.

I'm glad your sister in law is safe.

I'm glad she's safe too.

Also, my father returned home last night and apparently, there's only trouble in FOUR out EIGHTEEN provences. That's something you don't here on the news.

Most of my replies can be backed up with facts, which is something that you and Corny are unable to do. If you go back through this thread and check your posts, it is damn near impossible to find anything remotely resembling any kind of proof. You and Corny stick to the reasoning that you have "sources" on the front line, yet it appears that none of what those "sources" have to say appear to be newsworthy.


And yet, none of the news they bring back is newsworthy enough to make it to the media, yet is good enough to be your basis for "fact"? Sounds pretty hollow to me.


I take great exception to this post and I find that your "opinion" on this has ZERO basis in fact. I am on the side of humanity. I abhor violence and killing.

How many innocent men, women, and children have been killed by US bombs, and bullets? "Shock and Awe", Operation this, Operation that, it all amounts to death and destruction in a war that didn't need to be fought.

Some photographs may be distressing to view (http://www.krysstal.com/democracy_photos.html)


Here you go again, assuming that I support such atrocities. You are a sick person for making such a disgusting suggestion. You are the one that supports this illegal invasion and not I. I will pray for you.

I will let you in on a secret too. Every morning when I get up and say my prayers, I pray for the impossible, that being world peace. What do you pray for?


We're both bantering back and forth here, accusing one another of being heartless for our beliefs. Ok, your point is taken. I agree with you that Iraq wants us out - perhaps not immediately but there is no denying that they'd like us to pick up the pace. I've explained why we can't give them a deadline.

My arguments in THIS thread were that most Iraqis were happy that we deposed Saddam Hussein (they can be glad we freed them and still want us out) and that the insurgents represent a minority for reasons posted in my other response to you above.

I call a truce with you on the name calling - I admitted I screwed up before - I'll forgive you for the same because I figure you were only doing it in response to mine.

Thanks I'll pass it along.
Thank you very much for providing her thoughts.

I'm glad your sister in law is safe.

Thanks what branch is your Dad in?


I'm glad she's safe too.

Also, my father returned home last night and apparently, there's only trouble in FOUR out EIGHTEEN provences. That's something you don't here on the news.

Thanks what branch is your Dad in?

My father is in the air force reserves.

What kind of squadron is he attached to?


My father is in the air force reserves.

What kind of squadron is he attached to?

C-130 Transports as a Nav.

been catching up on the last 20 pages or so.

Based on the arguments and the direction the thread has taken, I'm siding with Domici, CanuckHeaven & Co. for the moment

The reason being they have generally supported their arguments with information that I or another reader can verify or at least criticise.

To Nerion & Co.
Back up your arguments with links. If you do, your arguments will hold alot more weight. Remember the whole point of debating is convince the audience and other debater of the validity of your arguments.

been catching up on the last 20 pages or so.

Based on the arguments and the direction the thread has taken, I'm siding with Domici, CanuckHeaven & Co. for the moment

The reason being they have generally supported their arguments with information that I or another reader can verify or at least criticise.

To Nerion & Co.
Back up your arguments with links. If you do, your arguments will hold alot more weight. Remember the whole point of debating is convince the audience and other debater of the validity of your arguments.


I backed up my arguments with links when I started on this thread which was well before 20 pages ago and was criticized for posting links instead of speaking my mind. I haven't seen any links supporting their argument that the insurgents are not a minority in Iraq.

No one disputes that the current government over there was elected by the majority based on the voter turnout (at least no one has yet). That the insurgents are at odds with the government elected by the majority ought to be mathematically telling. I've yet to see any links posted that refute my claim that their government anjoys the support of the majority and if you need me to post links showing that it had such support I will, but it's been in the news so much lately that there shouldn't be anyone here at odds with that particular claim.

Why the USA?
Because of the hypocrisy.

America is a land that encourages free speech (so long as it's confined to the properly designated "Free-Speech Zone" where nobody can hear you.)

America is a land that encourages the sanctity of life (which is why it is the only democracy that retains the death penalty)

America is a land that encourages the principals of democracy. (Which is why it has the electoral college, that makes the vote of a man in georgia worth more than the vote of a man in New York)

America is a land that encourages free trade (Which is why after four rulings from the WTO pronouncing their duties on softwood lumber to be illegal and the redistribution of those funds through the Byrd amendment to the competing companies to be illegal, they are still collecting and redistributing those duties)

America is a land that encourages freedom of choice (So long as that choice does not involve marriage with someone of the same sex)

America is a land that discourages weapons of mass destruction (Which is why it not only possesses the largest stockpiles, but invaded Iraq despite evidence from its own intelligence agency, and has not invaded North Korea)

America is a land that encourages fair and equitable justice systems (Which is why it has passed bills allowing people to be jailed without revealing why, and with it being illegal to tell anybody why, or even that they have been arrested)

America is a land that encourages the world to work together (Which is why they moved against, if not the letter of UN rulings, then against the intent of them as explained by the rest of the members)

America is a land that encourages peace (which is why they have a military budget over 15 times larger than the next highest country, and a policy that dictates the military be able to fight on two entirely separate fronts at once)

America is a land that encourages the freedom to succeed and fail on your own merits. (Which is why civil offenses against the RIAA are now criminal offenses, to be enforced by the public coffers and not the industry involved)

Ah, America.. land of the beautiful (people), with liberty and justice for all (who can afford it).

So why does the anti-American rhetoric get constantly repeated? Because for all these things, those of the US are still the ones who loudly proclaim "Our country is the best in the world and you all just wish you could be us." Newsflash from the rest of the world; we all have our problems, but the rest of us generally aren't so arrogant to simply ignore them and declare ourselves the Shining Example. The rhetoric is us just trying to get at least that message into you.. because as long as you believe you're the best in the world, you won't be working on the necessary changes to *become* the best in the world.

This sums up everything I think beautifully. Thank you. :)

why is there so much anti-americanism? because bush and his mates think they own the world and can do what they like....invade countries , kill civilians, kill their own, ignore the green house effect and screw all the other countries - for some strange reason bush seems to think that he has the god given right to fuck up our beautiful world.

why are americans surprised that the rest of earth is starting to feel really PISSED OFF!!!???????? :gundge:

We're both bantering back and forth here, accusing one another of being heartless for our beliefs. Ok, your point is taken. I agree with you that Iraq wants us out - perhaps not immediately but there is no denying that they'd like us to pick up the pace. I've explained why we can't give them a deadline.
Ahhhh some resolve. That is good. :)

My arguments in THIS thread were that most Iraqis were happy that we deposed Saddam Hussein (they can be glad we freed them and still want us out) and that the insurgents represent a minority for reasons posted in my other response to you above.
Firstly, I have never stated that the "insurgents" represented the majority of Iraqis. However, I have stated that the "majority" of the insurgents were Iraqis, which you apparently disagreed with. I posted links to back my statements and you did not.

I call a truce with you on the name calling - I admitted I screwed up before - I'll forgive you for the same because I figure you were only doing it in response to mine.
It is interesting to note that only 28 minutes prior to the above call for a truce you posted the following:

If your replies can be backed up with facts, why have you never provided any?
You can't be serious? I have posted lots of facts, and it is you that has failed to provide any facts.

I gave you a simple piece of logic and you've yet to provide anything to counter it.
Some more of the condescension that appears to be your modus operandi, which has no justification. Logic is totally subjective? If you have provided a "logical" argument, and supported it with credible facts, then it would be illogical to try and refute that argument? You however, have argued most of your points based strictly on your opinion and when challenged to provide the requiste facts, you are unable to produce anything tangible. I, on the other hand, do back up my points when required to do so.

The majority of people in Iraq elected the current government.
The majority (58%) of eligible voters did elect the current government yes. However, the majority of people in Iraq did not vote or could not vote, especially considering that 42% of the residents of Iraq are children under 15 years of age.

The voter turnout was like nothing we've ever seen in the western world.
This is simply not true. More people turned out for the US Presidential election than the election in Iraq.

The insurgents are trying to kill off the majority elected government.
I will agree with you there. The insurgents want the Government to fail, as they see it as an extension to US policy?

The Sunni insurgents (http://www.consortiumnews.com/2005/081605.html) see the U.S. army as the enemy because it invaded Iraq and is now protecting a government dominated by Iraq’s Shiite majority.

If the insurgents are a majority that wouldn't be possible.
I have never once intimated that the "insurgents" represented the majority of Iraqis. If you think I did, then that is where your logic has failed you.

To conclude, I will echo the point raised by Jjimjja:

Back up your arguments with links. If you do, your arguments will hold alot more weight. Remember the whole point of debating is convince the audience and other debater of the validity of your arguments.

Ahhhh some resolve. That is good. :)

Some more of the condescension that appears to be your modus operandi, which has no justification. Logic is totally subjective? If you have provided a "logical" argument, and supported it with credible facts, then it would be illogical to try and refute that argument? You however, have argued most of your points based strictly on your opinion and when challenged to provide the requiste facts, you are unable to produce anything tangible. I, on the other hand, do back up my points when required to do so.


I agree that logic is not subjective. It is deductive and sometimes inductive (though that is more often applied to reason instead of logic), and there is often a frequently crossed fine line between inductive logic and inductive (subjective) reasoning. However my logic here is not subject to interpretation, but rather is deductive which uses one fact to prove another.

I told you that the majority of Iraqis elected the current government - you agreed with me. The isurgents are against the elected government. Therefore they are a minority. That is a deduction and uses logic. That's all I said. You didn't disprove it but now you say you do not dispute that point.

Firstly, I have never stated that the "insurgents" represented the majority of Iraqis. However, I have stated that the "majority" of the insurgents were Iraqis, which you apparently disagreed with. I posted links to back my statements and you did not.


Your links were either old or were admitted opinions by the people that wrote the articles. No one can prove the distribution in the ranks of the insurgents until we get better intelligence on them. You say that most insurgents are Iraqis. It certainly started out that way. But neither of us will be proven right here because most experts have to admit that taking a census of insurgents is next to impossible. If we could do that, beating them would be a LOT easier. Most of the data collected comes from estimates given by people that live there. But US intelligence says that most insurgents being killed or captured today are foreign fighters. They aren't seeing as many Iraqi born fighters (maybe most of the Iraqi ones left are hiding).

This link talks about the distribution of the beliefs of the insurgents. They are no longer a strictly Baathist movement but now have elements of an Egyptian Brotherhood and Al Qaida - http://www.usip.org/pubs/specialreports/sr134.html

With the base cause of the insurgency no longer being the restoration of Saddam Hussein or a Baathist rule, it stands to reason that most of the insurgents would no longer be strictly Baathist Sunni Iraqis (The leader of the insurgency is Al Zarqawi, who is not even an Iraqi himself, even if he IS Sunni), but have some other demographic origin.


This is simply not true. More people turned out for the US Presidential election than the election in Iraq.


Sorry, but that's incorrect, expressed as a percentage. We had just below 60% eligible voter turnout in the US - http://ap.grolier.com/cgi-bin-unauth/dated_article_news?templatename=/news/news.html&assetid=apn20050223.01&seq=3&assettype=0tdnp

And in Iraq, they had just above 60% (sorry to be a stickler, but the facts are what they are and you said US eligible voter turnout was greater) - http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,147461,00.html

That's a small margin but it is significant because we broke a record achieving those numbers over here, hence my statement that we don't see numbers like that over here. And expressed in sheer numbers the US had greater turnout but that would be an unfair comparison since our population is far greater than theirs.


It is interesting to note that only 28 minutes prior to the above call for a truce you posted the following:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nerion
If your replies can be backed up with facts, why have you never provided any?


That has nothing to do with a name calling truce. I neither called you a name nor insulted you with that remark. I simply stated that you hadn't refuted my argument that the insurgents did not speak for Iraq and were a minority. You didn't counter that. You never said that you agreed with me - only that you never said they WEREN'T a minority. But when I stated that they were, you argued with me. You say my logic is flawed here - if you agree that the insurgents are a minority and do not speak for Iraq, then maybe there was a miscommunication.

Your defense of their cause (saying "what would you do if your country was invaded", etc) led me to believe that you assumed they spoke for the majority of the people there.

I will agree with you there. The insurgents want the Government to fail, as they see it as an extension to US policy?


But the insurgents are a minority, as I said. They may be angry because THEY see the new government (and the freedom that comes with it) as an extension of US policy, but the majority of Iraqis do NOT see things that way, even if they are anxious for us to leave. They are happy to be free and do NOT want the world to view the insurgents or the actions of the insurgents as the voice of Iraq. Because when it comes right down to it - those people do NOT speak for the population because they are a minority and do not enjoy the support that the elected government does.


The majority (58%) of eligible voters did elect the current government yes. However, the majority of people in Iraq did not vote or could not vote, especially considering that 42% of the residents of Iraq are children under 15 years of age.


Again, the number is over 60%, not 58%. And most countries do not let minors vote so using the argument that the children didn't get a vote doesn't nullify the statement that the government enjoys majority popular support. Most children echo the sentiments of their parents until they start attending institutions of higher learning anyway and even that isn't a gaurantee that they will part philosophies with their guardians so easily. So if you are implying that there is room for doubt in the stipulation that the government has the will of the majority behind it, I disagree for the aforementioned reason.

IMO The best evidence that the insurgency is becoming less Iraqi and more foreign is look at who the casualties are. When the insurgancy 1st started the casualties were almost exclusivly US military then they shifted to Iraqi officails in the new government and now more and more civilians. It would seem that there are different insurgent groups with different motives and M.O.'s. I would think that the foriegn groups probably care less about civilian casualties and as the insurgency continues to become less Iraqi you can expect more civilian deaths.
While the US definatly started the fire Islamists keep pouring gas on it.

IMO The best evidence that the insurgency is becoming less Iraqi and more foreign is look at who the casualties are. When the insurgancy 1st started the casualties were almost exclusivly US military then they shifted to Iraqi officails in the new government and now more and more civilians. It would seem that there are different insurgent groups with different motives and M.O.'s. I would think that the foriegn groups probably care less about civilian casualties and as the insurgency continues to become less Iraqi you can expect more civilian deaths.
While the US definatly started the fire Islamists keep pouring gas on it.


I agree with you here. Iraqi insurgents are far less inclined to kill off their own people indiscriminately. There is far less concern for civilians by the current rank and file of the insurgency and they are starting to see a backlash as a result. Al Zarqawi is conscious of this backlash and it was thought that he would make an effort to stop killing civilians, but that latest attack has all his markings on it and 43 civilians were killed and 88 more were wounded.

Any thoughts as to why it is deemed so important to share Anti-American rhetoric over and over again?

Simple, because that's an easy way to have fun.

anti-americanism it the most hipocritical thing and if you dont agree (somewhat) so are you

dont belive me?

go to any country and look where american hatred is highest, then look at its history, i bet you cant find one where the US hasnt helped in that nations time of need more than 3 times

and yet when the US is in peril do you see them running to aid? no no you dont you see the US going along on its own

there you go

america of course makes mistakes but soooo dose everyone else, and generously when ever a county is in need the US steps in but the are they ever thanked? are they ever suported in there time of need? and if the USA ever ceases to exist some of the countrys most spitful of the us may also fall

america of course makes mistakes but soooo dose everyone else, and generously when ever a county is in need the US steps in but the are they ever thanked? are they ever suported in there time of need? and if the USA ever ceases to exist some of the countrys most spitful of the us may also fall

I think this is why so many people hate America. They are made out to be working in the interest of the World, when everything they do is for their own benifit. Less than 0.2% of GDP goes to humanitarian causes, much less than a lot of other Countries. They don't go out of there way to help everyone, they invade countries in the name of freedom, killing innocent people in order to further their regime, and then claim the moral high-ground. That and other pieces of hypocracy posted by Waterkeep.

i would say neo nazi's.. even the terrorists are better than them


:mad: :mp5:

I think this is why so many people hate America. They are made out to be working in the interest of the World, when everything they do is for their own benifit. Less than 0.2% of GDP goes to humanitarian causes, much less than a lot of other Countries. They don't go out of there way to help everyone, they invade countries in the name of freedom, killing innocent people in order to further their regime, and then claim the moral high-ground. That and other pieces of hypocracy posted by Waterkeep.

Even that 0.2% of humanitarian aid is misleading.

A lot of our "aid" is in the form of loans which are given with the stipulation that the money can only be spent on American goods, which are sold at exorbitant prices, because being "the only game in town" (there are other vendors, but the "aided" countries aren't allowed to buy from them) means they're free from regular market forces.

e.g. When we give a country Africa a loan to buy those mineral sachets to cure diptheria there are plenty of people willing to sell them for very cheap. They guy who invented them deliberatly avoided getting a patent to make it affordable for poor countries. But US companies sell them for about 5x the market price. So 80% of the money that the country spends on these sachets comes right back the the US in the form of graft. Most of the rest comes back in the form of legitimate profit. And the country still has to pay back the entire loan.

Most US "foreing aid" is actually just money laundering and corporate socialism. I'm not saying that foreign aid is bad, just that it's a good thing that's being perverted to extremely twisted purposes.

However my logic here is not subject to interpretation, but rather is deductive which uses one fact to prove another.
The problem here is that you haven't been using facts, only opinions.

I told you that the majority of Iraqis elected the current government - you agreed with me.
Firstly this was never really a contenscious issue in our debate, and while I did agree that the majority of voters elected the current government of Iraq, I added a qualifier that "the majority of people in Iraq did not vote or could not vote, especially considering that 42% of the residents of Iraq are children under 15 years of age." Considering the number of ballots cast (7,419,789)and the total population of Iraq (26,074,906), it is easy to figure that only 28% of the entire Iraqi population cast a ballot.

The isurgents are against the elected government.
Well of course they are.

Therefore they are a minority. That is a deduction and uses logic. That's all I said. You didn't disprove it but now you say you do not dispute that point.
While the actual insurgents represent a minority of the population, I do not think that it would be logical to assume that the majority of Iraqis are against the insurgency. That may very well be the case but it is not a logical result, considering that 62% of Iraqis did not vote in the election? At any rate, I think you are getting confused as to where our disagreement arose, so I will repost what I have stated throughout:

Firstly, I have never stated that the "insurgents" represented the majority of Iraqis. However, I have stated that the "majority" of the insurgents were Iraqis, which you apparently disagreed with. I posted links to back my statements and you did not. Shall I help you get back in track by reminding you what it is that you stated that I disageed with?

There are only a handful of truly Iraqi insurgents left and that's mostly the leadership. The ones doing the fighting aren't from Iraq. And Iraq wants the insurgents OUT even if YOU want them IN.
To which I simply replied.....WRONG! :)

You still haven't made your case. And it would be difficult to do so, since I did post links that the insurgency is not getting weaker and that the majority of insurgents are indeed Iraqis. I even posted links wherein even Rumsfeld has admitted that it could take 12 more years to defeat the insurgents.

Your links were either old or were admitted opinions by the people that wrote the articles. No one can prove the distribution in the ranks of the insurgents until we get better intelligence on them.
Actually most of the links that I provided were current and even quoted US Generals on the strength of the insurgency.

You say that most insurgents are Iraqis.
Yes they are.

It certainly started out that way.
It still is that way.

But neither of us will be proven right here because most experts have to admit that taking a census of insurgents is next to impossible.
Actually, one of the links I posted actually went into detail about the size of the insurgency.

But US intelligence says that most insurgents being killed or captured today are foreign fighters. They aren't seeing as many Iraqi born fighters (maybe most of the Iraqi ones left are hiding).
Do you have a source for this information?

This link talks about the distribution of the beliefs of the insurgents. They are no longer a strictly Baathist movement but now have elements of an Egyptian Brotherhood and Al Qaida - http://www.usip.org/pubs/specialreports/sr134.html

With the base cause of the insurgency no longer being the restoration of Saddam Hussein or a Baathist rule, it stands to reason that most of the insurgents would no longer be strictly Baathist Sunni Iraqis (The leader of the insurgency is Al Zarqawi, who is not even an Iraqi himself, even if he IS Sunni), but have some other demographic origin.
First, you may or may not recall but Bremer's Orders outlawed the Baathist Party.

Secondly, I disagree that Al Zarqawi is the leader of the "insurgency". He is the leader of the Al Qaida forces, or "terrorist" forces.

I believe that although the two groups want the expulsion of US troops, I believe that for the most part, they work independently of each other with different modus operandi.

This post is too long already, so I will address the other points later.

Whereas you blame America for everything.

I don't know how old you are, but stop being so childish.

"With power comes responsibility" is more than just a Spiderman slogan.

I can't blame countries that have no power to do anything.

Also, I blame Bush, I blame his cohorts, and I blame those who support them. I don't blame "America" in the abstract. Bush claimed he was bringing in an "era of accountability" and yet all he does is point to others and say "it's all his fault."

Blaming Bush is not the same as blaming America, however much you ego-nationalists like to think that Republicanism and Americanism are one and the same. It is not unpatriotic to think that when our national policy makes bad things happen we ought to change it.

Funny thing is, we didn't violate international law, we ENFORCED it! How you might ask? By following up on UN resolutions that the UN didn't have the balls to follow up. How about going to war when Saddam Violated that cease-fire that the UN approved? Oh wait, that is legal to do. ONce a cease-fire is violated, it is legal to go back to war with said nation.

That's like saying you broke into the house of and beat up the guy that you're sure made crank phone calls to your house because the police didn't have "the balls" to go and give him a ticket just because they had no evidence. And it turns out that he has a private number which blocks caller ID. Why would he block caller ID if he wasn't going to go making prank phone calls and didn't want to get caught.

And then it turns out you also stole his Plasma TV because he was going to sell it for a good price to a neighboor that you don't really get along with and really doesn't deserve a plasma TV for such a good price. And then you argue that you were right to do it because he had hedges around his lawn that are taller than permited by the neighborhood zoning ordinances. And you "liberated" his dog, to which he only served the cheap dogfood instead of Science Diet kibble. So do you favor pet abuse? huh? Don't you think that dog is better off now that it's being taken care of by professionals at the pound? Sure some of the dogs at the pound get killed in gas chambers, but that's just because of some bad apples who are going to get punished for their misdeeds.

I don't know how old you are, but stop being so childish.

"With power comes responsibility" is more than just a Spiderman slogan.

I can't blame countries that have no power to do anything.

Also, I blame Bush, I blame his cohorts, and I blame those who support them. I don't blame "America" in the abstract. Bush claimed he was bringing in an "era of accountability" and yet all he does is point to others and say "it's all his fault."

Blaming Bush is not the same as blaming America, however much you ego-nationalists like to think that Republicanism and Americanism are one and the same. It is not unpatriotic to think that when our national policy makes bad things happen we ought to change it.

I've read your posts in other threads. You only attack America/Bush. I never see you attack the despots and dictators who kill their own people. It's ALL Bush's fault to you - no other group/person is to blame for any of the strife going on. That's illogical.

So you have a double standard.

Now I wouldn't go as far as to call that childish. But such a standard is immature.

And as to my age, I'm 41.

The problem here is that you haven't been using facts, only opinions.

To YOU, the statement that the majority of Iraqis voted in their government is an opinion. To YOU the statement that the insurgents are a minority is an opinion.


They are facts - your skepticism can't ever change that.

Firstly this was never really a contenscious issue in our debate, and while I did agree that the majority of voters elected the current government of Iraq, I added a qualifier that "the majority of people in Iraq did not vote or could not vote, especially considering that 42% of the residents of Iraq are children under 15 years of age." Considering the number of ballots cast (7,419,789)and the total population of Iraq (26,074,906), it is easy to figure that only 28% of the entire Iraqi population cast a ballot.


I answered this at the end of my last post. Just because not everyone voted doesn't invalidate my statement. Children almost ALWAYS vote like their parents if they're given the opportunity to, so your supposition that there is room for doubt because the children didn't get to vote lacks supporting logic.


Secondly, I disagree that Al Zarqawi is the leader of the "insurgency". He is the leader of the Al Qaida forces, or "terrorist" forces.


The insurgents are made up by different groups, but Zarqawi is the recognized leader. He's the only source of money for it. The other groups were forced to throw in with him because he's the only game in town. There is no other source of funding for the opposition, and without zarqawi, they'd have run out of weapons and ammunition by now. The Insurgents are far too well equipped not to be getting help from al Qaida.


First, you may or may not recall but Bremer's Orders outlawed the Baathist Party.

The Baathist party is outlawed. But blowing up women and children is outlawed too, yet it continues to happen. There are Baathists in the insurgency even if they go by another name in public.



While the actual insurgents represent a minority of the population, I do not think that it would be logical to assume that the majority of Iraqis are against the insurgency. That may very well be the case but it is not a logical result, considering that 62% of Iraqis did not vote in the election?

Most of that 62% are minors. Again, I state categorically that their vote would not have changed the outcome of the election. That the insurgents are at odds with the government puts them at odds with the interests of the majority. When children are being killed by members of that opposition, any supposition that the insurgents would have the support of the children who didn't vote would be extremely difficult for you to support, even using your "room for doubt" tap dancing strategy here.
You state that some of these issues were contentious for you, yet you continue to argue them in a vague, half hearted sort of way. You're vacillating. The children don't support the insurgents if their parents don't, so my argument stands - the majority of the people are against the insurgents.


Originally Posted by Nerion
You say that most insurgents are Iraqis.

Yes they are.
Well, they WERE. As I said, the links you used to support your arguments aren't current.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/14/AR2005051401270_pf.html

If most of the insurgents are Iraqis, then most of them have stopped participating in the attacks. The estimate of the total number if insurgents in Iraq (again, this is an ESTIMATE - no one really knows how many there are, even if thay claim to) is about 16,000. But straight fighting has really died down and most attacks are suicide attacks which hardly ever see indigenous participation.

Children almost ALWAYS vote like their parents if they're given the opportunity to, so your supposition that there is room for doubt because the children didn't get to vote lacks supporting logic.
I can give you a couple good examples where that isn't the case...

I can give you a couple good examples where that isn't the case...

He did say ALMOST ALWAYS! Meaning, that it doesn't always happen.

That's like saying you broke into the house of and beat up the guy that you're sure made crank phone calls to your house because the police didn't have "the balls" to go and give him a ticket just because they had no evidence. And it turns out that he has a private number which blocks caller ID. Why would he block caller ID if he wasn't going to go making prank phone calls and didn't want to get caught.

Nice little analogy. I give you credit for it. Here's a good one for you. Someone threatens you and your family. You kill the guy with your own gun and come to find out, he had no weapons. However on the flip side of that, he threatens you and you do nothing, he breaks into your house and kills you all. Now which one of these would be acceptable? Option 1 and be wrong? or option 2 and get killed?

It is the same with Intelligence. The intel community (that is most of the world too) had intel that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. That among other reasons, we went into Iraq. Now the intelligence was proven faulty. That also happens with intelligence. However, if we didn't do nothing and he really did have weapons of mass destruction and used them....we'd have a bigger mess then we do now.

He did say ALMOST ALWAYS! Meaning, that it doesn't always happen.Almost always implies usually, which I would disagree with.

I've read your posts in other threads. You only attack America/Bush. I never see you attack the despots and dictators who kill their own people. It's ALL Bush's fault to you - no other group/person is to blame for any of the strife going on. That's illogical.

So you have a double standard.

Now I wouldn't go as far as to call that childish. But such a standard is immature.

And as to my age, I'm 41.

Tiresome, isnt it?

Nice little analogy. I give you credit for it. Here's a good one for you. Someone threatens you and your family. You kill the guy with your own gun and come to find out, he had no weapons. However on the flip side of that, he threatens you and you do nothing, he breaks into your house and kills you all. Now which one of these would be acceptable? Option 1 and be wrong? or option 2 and get killed?Which would be correct, cept that said person lives on the other side of town, is disabled and can't walk, and has no friends that would drive him. Chances are, he wouldn't have made it to your house. ;)

It is the same with Intelligence. The intel community (that is most of the world too) had intel that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. That among other reasons, we went into Iraq. Now the intelligence was proven faulty. That also happens with intelligence. However, if we didn't do nothing and he really did have weapons of mass destruction and used them....we'd have a bigger mess then we do now.Curr! I doubt that. Nothing changed in the danger of getting hit by Iraqi weapons, and that's quoting British intelligence...

maybe not stupid but shortsighted

"Scientists for Global Responsibility (SGR) [1] condemns the Bush Administration for producing a plan which will do very little to help tackle one of the most important environmental problems facing the world." Bush is the only leader in the developed world who has not agreed to attempt to cut greenhouse emissions. something clinton signed up for and then backed out of. so he is in effect leaving the rest of the world to try and save this planet while allowing the us to continue to pollute it. bit bloody selfish i think...

http://www.sgr.org.uk/press/Bush_emissions_17feb02.html

in case your interested

'Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot'

'Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot'

This post shows immaturity and does nothing to further debate.

Yes, it doesn't further debate, yes, it's immature, and yes, it's true.

Without doubt the single worst analogy ever, the Titanic and the Hindenburg were both glorious successes compared to this analogy.


That's like saying you broke into the house of and beat up the guy that you're sure made crank phone calls to your house because the police didn't have "the balls" to go and give him a ticket just because they had no evidence. And it turns out that he has a private number which blocks caller ID. Why would he block caller ID if he wasn't going to go making prank phone calls and didn't want to get caught.

And then it turns out you also stole his Plasma TV because he was going to sell it for a good price to a neighboor that you don't really get along with and really doesn't deserve a plasma TV for such a good price. And then you argue that you were right to do it because he had hedges around his lawn that are taller than permited by the neighborhood zoning ordinances. And you "liberated" his dog, to which he only served the cheap dogfood instead of Science Diet kibble. So do you favor pet abuse? huh? Don't you think that dog is better off now that it's being taken care of by professionals at the pound? Sure some of the dogs at the pound get killed in gas chambers, but that's just because of some bad apples who are going to get punished for their misdeeds.

Ladies and gentleman we've found Al Franken. :rolleyes:

'Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot'

Could you gice me a couple of examples were children are allowed to vote? :rolleyes:


I can give you a couple good examples where that isn't the case...

I can give you a couple good examples where that isn't the case...


A couple of examples represent an exception, not a rule. Before they go to institutions of higher learning, children almost always share their parents' political viewpoints, and colleges will only change a trite number. You can find rare exceptions here and there, but to state that I'm wrong would indicate that the person saying so believes that the majority of children disagree with their parents' political view which is a ridiculous assumption.

Almost always implies usually, which I would disagree with.


Usually means more often than not. So you're saying that most children disagree with their parents' political point of view.

I challenge you to prove that because I don't believe that at all. There is no way that MOST parents raise kids that disagree with them politically.

Could you gice me a couple of examples were children are allowed to vote? :rolleyes:
In Vietnam they voted with their rifles and in Israel they have voted with their lives (suicide bombers).

Just an unofficial election but they do vote?

To YOU, the statement that the majority of Iraqis voted in their government is an opinion. To YOU the statement that the insurgents are a minority is an opinion.
Only 28% of ALL Iraqis voted in the election compared to 41% of ALL Americans in the 2004 Presidential election.

The "visible" insurgents very well could be the minority, but there is also soft support from Iraqis that don't mind Americans being killed. However, the argument that I made that you disagreed with and may be causing you some confusion is that the majority of "insurgents" are Iraqis. You disagreed with that, even though I posted links earlier on that refute your point.

They are facts - your skepticism can't ever change that.
Call it whatever you wish, I am just stating that the insurgency appears to be much stronger that you think, hence Rumsfeld's statement about 12 more years.

I answered this at the end of my last post. Just because not everyone voted doesn't invalidate my statement. Children almost ALWAYS vote like their parents if they're given the opportunity to, so your supposition that there is room for doubt because the children didn't get to vote lacks supporting logic.
You are suggesting that the American model holds true for every society on this planet?

The insurgents are made up by different groups, but Zarqawi is the recognized leader. He's the only source of money for it. The other groups were forced to throw in with him because he's the only game in town.
Your source for this info?

There is no other source of funding for the opposition, and without zarqawi, they'd have run out of weapons and ammunition by now. The Insurgents are far too well equipped not to be getting help from al Qaida.
Strictly a supposition on your part?

The Baathist party is outlawed. But blowing up women and children is outlawed too, yet it continues to happen. There are Baathists in the insurgency even if they go by another name in public.
One of Bush's Iraqi mistakes was taking to hard a line on Sunni Arabs, which resulted in a ready made insurgency which continues to haunt US troops on a daily basis.

Most of that 62% are minors.
Actually, I made a mathematical error. 72% of Iraqis did NOT vote in the election.

Again, I state categorically that their vote would not have changed the outcome of the election.
You can state categorically whatever you wish, but the fact is that neither you or I know what the outcome would have been, because the other 72% did not vote.

That the insurgents are at odds with the government puts them at odds with the interests of the majority.
The chances are that they are at odds with the government and the interests of the majority, but neither you or I know that to be an irrefutable fact.

When children are being killed by members of that opposition, any supposition that the insurgents would have the support of the children who didn't vote would be extremely difficult for you to support, even using your "room for doubt" tap dancing strategy here.
Not necessarily, and this goes back to the argument that there are at least 3 elements to the revolt. The insurgent segment don't generally target the children, whereas the terrorist segment has less qualms in who gets blown up if they are near US troops.

You state that some of these issues were contentious for you, yet you continue to argue them in a vague, half hearted sort of way. You're vacillating.
I am not "vacillating" in the least. I am bringing forward other points for discussion.

One of the contentious issues was this one. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9428317&postcount=907)

That has been cleared up because you now are in agreement with me.

The other contentious issue was that the majority of the insurgency was comprised of Iraqis.

The children don't support the insurgents if their parents don't,
You don't know this for a fact?

so my argument stands - the majority of the people are against the insurgents.
Perhaps this may be true but no one knows for sure?

Well, they WERE. As I said, the links you used to support your arguments aren't current.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/14/AR2005051401270_pf.html
I will once again say that you are wrong, and this link outdates yours by 2 months:

Study cites seeds of terror in Iraq (http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/2005/07/17/study_cites_seeds_of_terror_in_iraq/?page=2)

July 17, 2005

Foreign militants make up only a small percentage of the insurgents fighting in Iraq, as little as 10 percent, according to US military and intelligence officials. The top general in Iraq said late last month that about 600 foreign fighters have been captured or killed by coalition forces since the Jan. 30 Iraqi elections. The wider insurgency, numbering in the tens of thousands, is believed to consist of former Iraqi soldiers, Saddam Hussein loyalists, and members of Iraq's Sunni Muslim minority.


If most of the insurgents are Iraqis, then most of them have stopped participating in the attacks. The estimate of the total number if insurgents in Iraq (again, this is an ESTIMATE - no one really knows how many there are, even if thay claim to) is about 16,000. But straight fighting has really died down and most attacks are suicide attacks which hardly ever see indigenous participation.
This estimate obviously conflicts with the above link that I posted.

BTW, speaking of elections, apparently the constitutional process is at an impasse and it was extended one week. The possibility exists that the government could be dissolved if this process is not resolved.

Officials are trying to put a positive spin on the delay. But Iraq’s constitution writers face problems that can’t easily be solved in seven days. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8964313/site/newsweek/)

Another Bush faux pas by putting unreasonable demands on the length of the constitutional process.

Why is it each time one takes a look at the General Forum is there at least one, sometimes several items of hatespeech against the United States? For example, today there is currently one on the first page about Why Americans dont have all the answers. Why are these so rampant? Coming into this with the goal of being objective, I notice there are very few if any anti-European sentiments started, but each day someone takes every chance they get to rip on the US. Any thoughts as to why it is deemed so important to share Anti-American rhetoric over and over again?

Everyone hates America. We stumble, we dont always get it right. But when it matters we pull together and get the job done for the rest of the world. And even when we save their asses they hate us for it.

Thats life. Thats why the EU was formed after all. To defeat America.

But i understand it. It is human nature. Hate gives you something to focus on, we humans have a way to go in evolution yet. I just pray we evolve beyond that crap before we nuke ourselves out of the equation

Your a real piece of work you are, terrorism equates to elections in your mind?
What planet are you from?
In Vietnam they voted with their rifles and in Israel they have voted with their lives (suicide bombers).

Just an unofficial election but they do vote?

Everyone hates America. We stumble, we dont always get it right. But when it matters we pull together and get the job done for the rest of the world. And even when we save their asses they hate us for it.

Thats life. Thats why the EU was formed after all. To defeat America.

But i understand it. It is human nature. Hate gives you something to focus on, we humans have a way to go in evolution yet. I just pray we evolve beyond that crap before we nuke ourselves out of the equation

Where do you get that idea from?

@ Canuck Heaven
So let me get this straight since children which don't vote in any election in any country in the world, did'nt vote in Iraq, the elction results aren't valid? That makes no sense, its the friggin "chewbacca defense".

Thats life. Thats why the EU was formed after all. To defeat America.

You really balive that!!!

Your a real piece of work you are, terrorism equates to elections in your mind?
What planet are you from?
So I gather that you were unable to decipher what I meant by "unofficial election"?

@ Canuck Heaven
So let me get this straight since children which don't vote in any election in any country in the world, did'nt vote in Iraq, the elction results aren't valid? That makes no sense, its the friggin "chewbacca defense".
I did not say that at all. Try reading all the words, and your comrehension level will improve.

Although it's probably been stated before:

US citizens tend to take very little interest in the rest of the world. For the most part, they think the world revolves around them and no one else matters. Of course it doesn't apply to everyone and the stereotype applies less and less, but the point is, there would be a lot more anti-european sentiments if someone actually took interest in having them. US citizens generally don't care for europe at all. At least that's how I perceive the entire situation. But everyone knows America's international blunders and their internal "problems" (gun control, controversial ideas on homosexuality, etc), because it's incredibly hard to avoid news about America in Europe. Hence these anti-american emotions have a breeding ground.

Your a real piece of work you are, terrorism equates to elections in your mind?
What planet are you from?

A liberal Utopia that isn't anywhere on earth. :D

So if the Quebecquios (sp) started to bomb Toronto because their children wern't allowed to vote in the refendum it's all good ?


So I gather that you were unable to decipher what I meant by "unofficial election"?

Why is it each time one takes a look at the General Forum is there at least one, sometimes several items of hatespeech against the United States? For example, today there is currently one on the first page about Why Americans dont have all the answers. Why are these so rampant? Coming into this with the goal of being objective, I notice there are very few if any anti-European sentiments started, but each day someone takes every chance they get to rip on the US. Any thoughts as to why it is deemed so important to share Anti-American rhetoric over and over again?

The big reasons?

1. America is perceived as a cultural parasite, almost everything it lays claim to culturally has its origins in another country. Europe is still the heart of world culture, this leads to a tendency to look down noses I suppose.

2. America is far, far more Christianised than the rest of the western world. Europe has become secular, in the opinion of many for the better, and this leads to a perception that some Americans are still stuck in the past with 'medieval views'.

3. Conservatism, also juxtaposed against European liberalism. Europe is socially more progressive and far more liberal than America. To be right wing in Europe would make you centre-left in the spectrum of American politics.

4. Many Americans are patriotic and arrogant, proclaiming their country to be land of the free etc. Europeans, French and British especially, do not agree with this perception as it is well documented that the constitution et al were heavily based on the Magna Carta and the ideas of French and English philosophers. Basically, a lot of Europeans go "What the hell is so fantastic about their democracy?" because in many respects your Republic is less democratic and less free than European countries.

5. Militarism- Although Britain and Germany have fine traditions and are often dubbed 'warrior races', they don't share the same 'Cowboy Style Militarism' which is often perceived to be the American way. This also leads Europeans to believe Americans are violent.

6. Low Levels of Education/Isolationism- If anyone's been reading the Economist lately, they'll be aware of how standards in American schools have fallen. Sadly, many Americans are not nearly as well educated in an academic or worldly sense as their European counter-parts, again this can sow the seeds of arrogance and dislike outside America.

I am not disclosing as to whether I share these opinions, just providing food for thought wot?

The big reasons?

1. America is perceived as a cultural parasite, almost everything it lays claim to culturally has its origins in another country. Europe is still the heart of world culture, this leads to a tendency to look down noses I suppose.

2. America is far, far more Christianised than the rest of the western world. Europe has become secular, in the opinion of many for the better, and this leads to a perception that some Americans are still stuck in the past with 'medieval views'.

3. Conservatism, also juxtaposed against European liberalism. Europe is socially more progressive and far more liberal than America. To be right wing in Europe would make you centre-left in the spectrum of American politics.

4. Many Americans are patriotic and arrogant, proclaiming their country to be land of the free etc. Europeans, French and British especially, do not agree with this perception as it is well documented that the constitution et al were heavily based on the Magna Carta and the ideas of French and English philosophers. Basically, a lot of Europeans go "What the hell is so fantastic about their democracy?" because in many respects your Republic is less democratic and less free than European countries.

5. Militarism- Although Britain and Germany have fine traditions and are often dubbed 'warrior races', they don't share the same 'Cowboy Style Militarism' which is often perceived to be the American way. This also leads Europeans to believe Americans are violent.

6. Low Levels of Education/Isolationism- If anyone's been reading the Economist lately, they'll be aware of how standards in American schools have fallen. Sadly, many Americans are not nearly as well educated in an academic or worldly sense as their European counter-parts, again this can sow the seeds of arrogance and dislike outside America.

I am not disclosing as to whether I share these opinions, just providing food for thought wot?

Excellent points, but I think they will be rejected wholseale by all the rampant USA=tehgreatest diehards around here, probably with the usual dismissal that you are not American and therefore are biased (probably jealous, and hateful). Just watch!

Bring back birching, and I will birch any such accusers.

In response to the original post, it's a fun thing to do.

So if the Quebecquios (sp) started to bomb Toronto because their children wern't allowed to vote in the refendum it's all good ?
It appears that you are having great difficulty understanding my replies? Your analogy is completely off base, and no, I wouldn't condone such an action.

Perhaps when you figure it out, then you can make a reasoned response.

Why is it each time one takes a look at the General Forum is there at least one, sometimes several items of hatespeech against the United States? For example, today there is currently one on the first page about Why Americans dont have all the answers. Why are these so rampant? Coming into this with the goal of being objective, I notice there are very few if any anti-European sentiments started, but each day someone takes every chance they get to rip on the US. Any thoughts as to why it is deemed so important to share Anti-American rhetoric over and over again?

It boils down to penis envy syndrome I think.

Compared to European nation America is a baby, yet we surpassed them all in power.

Course now we are fading in that strength due to caving in to Athiests and such and losing "In God we Trust" or "one nation under God".

It boils down to penis envy syndrome I think.

Compared to European nation America is a baby, yet we surpassed them all in power.

Course now we are fading in that strength due to caving in to Athiests and such and losing "In God we Trust" or "one nation under God".

This proves the point of most Europeans entirely. Military strength isn't particularly important to most Europeans, many feel that (like religion) it is a symbol of antiquation and barbarism. Caving into atheists would be a good thing for America, there is already far too much of a theocratic grip. It is not 'envy syndrome'. America does not surpass Europe in Economic (the EU has a greater GDP etc.), diplomatic (European representatives still punch well over their weight and can influence ex-colonies etc.) and certainly not cultural arenae. It doesn't really matter, but the assumption on the part of many Americans that they are the best when they're not is what annoys people most.

Because Bush is a moron and his presidency has served to humiliate the US on an international scale.

Rush Linbaugh doen't help much either. :rolleyes:

Only 28% of ALL Iraqis voted in the election compared to 41% of ALL Americans in the 2004 Presidential election.

Of the total population. Most Iraqis are minors.

The "visible" insurgents very well could be the minority, but there is also soft support from Iraqis that don't mind Americans being killed. However, the argument that I made that you disagreed with and may be causing you some confusion is that the majority of "insurgents" are Iraqis. You disagreed with that, even though I posted links earlier on that refute your point.

Ok, here we have room for discussion. The insurgency gets its support inside Iraq mostly from the Sunni minority. You could call the bulk of those people insurgents just for disagreeing with the election of the current government body. I won't argue that point with you. If you count the number of dissenters, then the home grown count of insurgents would be higher than the number of foreigners coming in to fight. But the number of insurgents being captured and killed today includes a higher number of foreigners than Iraqis. The Iraqis might be in the planning camp, but most of the action seems to be taken by foreigners (most suicide bombers are from Saudi Arabia).

Call it whatever you wish, I am just stating that the insurgency appears to be much stronger that you think, hence Rumsfeld's statement about 12 more years.

They are still a minority. Timetables don't change that. I wasn't talking about how strong they were - I said they are a minority.

You are suggesting that the American model holds true for every society on this planet?

Where did you dream that up? That's the world model. Most kids agree with their parents politically. If you disagree with that, it tells me you're making things up as you go along here. American model - LOL!!! Priceless.

Do you REALLY believe that MOST children in the world disagree with their parents' political viewpoint as a rule? Because I don't and I doubt many other people do. Such a notion is ridiculous.

Do you have any children? (Serious question - I am VERY curious).

You can state categorically whatever you wish, but the fact is that neither you or I know what the outcome would have been, because the other 72% did not vote.

The bulk of people that did not vote were minors. The my argument that children would vote the way their parents did may not be totally irrefutable, but I'll take 95+ percent odds over nay saying conjecture every time.

Not necessarily, and this goes back to the argument that there are at least 3 elements to the revolt. The insurgent segment don't generally target the children, whereas the terrorist segment has less qualms in who gets blown up if they are near US troops.

But the terrorists are blowing up more Iraqis that Americans recently and that makes for some very bad press. I won't dispute that a lot of Iraqis don't mind American casualties, but the Insurgency wants to usurp power from the government which puts them at odds with the people no matter who gets killed. That so many Iraqis are getting killed bodes worse for the cause of the insurgency.

Originally Posted by Nerion The children don't support the insurgents if their parents don't,

You don't know this for a fact?

Not for a fact - but as I said - I'll take 95+ percent accuracy over uninformed, unsupported (provide examples of entire generations disagreeing with their parents politically) second guessing every time without fail. I'd be wrong less than 1 time in 20 and you'd be wrong 95% of the time. I'll put my money down on this one, bro.

Originally Posted by Nerion so my argument stands - the majority of the people are against the insurgents.

Perhaps this may be true but no one knows for sure?

I'll still say it's true. I'll certainly bet real money that I'm right here even if you take the < 5% stance on the odds.

And as for the number of foreign fighters in the insurgent camp - you only hear about what the foreigners are doing. The Iraqi fighters (if you can still call most of them 'fighters') aren't really doing anything these days, other than perhaps helping to process all the foreign volunteers. But I'll give room for doubt on my original position depending on your definition of "insurgent" so there's not much point in arguing that one any further.

But I won't back down from my position that the insurgents do not have support from the majority and are themselves a minority in that country.

Why is it each time one takes a look at the General Forum is there at least one, sometimes several items of hatespeech against the United States? For example, today there is currently one on the first page about Why Americans dont have all the answers. Why are these so rampant? Coming into this with the goal of being objective, I notice there are very few if any anti-European sentiments started, but each day someone takes every chance they get to rip on the US. Any thoughts as to why it is deemed so important to share Anti-American rhetoric over and over again?

the problem is USA double standards of morality.

The say the fight for freedom and democracy.

But idont now want the media in USA report but for us in Europe we see how USA help and suport dictatorship dis are the breeding ground Anti-American rhetoric.

No I'm basing my replies on your logic, since the children of the Fracophones in Quebec didn't vote they were disinfrancised so the the should rise up against their Anglophone oppressors Vive' Le Quebecois!
and if and when the Quebecois ever do rise again I will throw all the support I can to them as Canada has opperessed my French speeking brothers long enough (not that I speek French but I feel their pain)
As a Anglophone you should be ashamed of yourself language fascist.

It appears that you are having great difficulty understanding my replies? Your analogy is completely off base, and no, I wouldn't condone such an action.

Perhaps when you figure it out, then you can make a reasoned response.

Rush Limbaugh is for entertainment not politics, and should be talked with toungue firmly in cheek.

Rush Linbaugh doen't help much either. :rolleyes:

Nerion:

Where did you dream that up? That's the world model. Most kids agree with their parents politically. If you disagree with that, it tells me you're making things up as you go along here. American model

Do you REALLY believe that MOST children in the world disagree with their parents' political viewpoint as a rule? Because I don't and I doubt many other people do. Such a notion is ridiculous.

Not for a fact - but as I said - I'll take 95+ percent accuracy over uninformed, unsupported (provide examples of entire generations disagreeing with their parents politically) second guessing every time without fail. I'd be wrong less than 1 time in 20 and you'd be wrong 95% of the time. I'll put my money down on this one, bro.

Have you ever heard of the 1960's? The vast majority of American youth vehemently dissagreed with their parents political views.

From what I have read, the vast majority of suicide bombers, and Islamic radicals in general, are young. (read: under 30)

Nerion:

Where did you dream that up? That's the world model. Most kids agree with their parents politically. If you disagree with that, it tells me you're making things up as you go along here. American model

Do you REALLY believe that MOST children in the world disagree with their parents' political viewpoint as a rule? Because I don't and I doubt many other people do. Such a notion is ridiculous.

Not for a fact - but as I said - I'll take 95+ percent accuracy over uninformed, unsupported (provide examples of entire generations disagreeing with their parents politically) second guessing every time without fail. I'd be wrong less than 1 time in 20 and you'd be wrong 95% of the time. I'll put my money down on this one, bro.

Have you ever heard of the 1960's? The vast majority of American youth vehemently dissagreed with their parents political views.

From what I have read, the vast majority of suicide bombers, and Islamic radicals in general, are young. (read: under 30)


No, most of them had parents that shared the same political views. The 60's had a lot of outspoken young people demonstrating everywhere against the war. The parents of those young people didn't support the war either. Just because the parents didn't come out and demostrate doesn't mean they disagreed with their kids.

You need to come up with a better example than that. Most of those kids voted for the same people their parents did in the elections. Those kids disagreed with administration POLICIES. But they did not disagree with their PARENTS. That is the key point in my argument.

No, most of them had parents that shared the same political views. The 60's had a lot of outspoken young people demonstrating everywhere against the war. The parents of those young people didn't support the war either. Just because the parents didn't come out and demostrate doesn't meant they disagreed with their kids.

You need to come up with a better example than that. Most of those kids voted for the same people their parents did in the elections.

Well maybe it's just me and all friends of mine, but we vote VERY different to our parents, but meh, that could just be us ;)

Well maybe it's just me and all friends of mine, but we vote VERY different to our parents, but meh, that could just be us ;)


As I said - there are always exceptions. But that is not the rule worldwide. Where children part ways with their parents, some mentor or other figure usually plays a part in changing the way they think. This is almost always a college, and those don't result in high numbers of converts either.

Without doubt the single worst analogy ever, the Titanic and the Hindenburg were both glorious successes compared to this analogy.


Compared to the occupation of Iraq, the 'war' on terror and
the cause of democracy
the titanic and the hindenburg also look rather successful.

Nerion:

No, most of them had parents that shared the same political views. The 60's had a lot of outspoken young people demonstrating everywhere against the war. The parents of those young people didn't support the war either. Just because the parents didn't come out and demonstrate doesn't mean they disagreed with their kids.

That was simply not the case. Although the debate about the Vietnam war was a central point of political discourse, it was not the only, or pivotal issue. So much change was advocated, and achieved, by the younger generation at the time. It was about bucking the establishment, going against the flow, and above all, against the established beliefs of their parents.

The progressive changes of the 60's were more dramatic, and occurred faster, than at any other time in the history of this country. Such changes are historically met with resistance by the established, ruling generations.

Based off of a previous post of yours, I am guessing that you are indeed a parent. However, were you a parent during the period in question (the 60's)?

Nerion:

No, most of them had parents that shared the same political views. The 60's had a lot of outspoken young people demonstrating everywhere against the war. The parents of those young people didn't support the war either. Just because the parents didn't come out and demonstrate doesn't mean they disagreed with their kids.

That was simply not the case. Although the debate about the Vietnam war was a central point of political discourse, it was not the only, or pivotal issue. So much change was advocated, and achieved, by the younger generation at the time. It was about bucking the establishment, going against the flow, and above all, against the established beliefs of their parents.

The progressive changes of the 60's were more dramatic, and occurred faster, than at any other time in the history of this country. Such changes are historically met with resistance by the established, ruling generations.

Based off of a previous post of yours, I am guessing that you are indeed a parent. However, were you a parent during the period in question (the 60's)?


The majority of young folks who protested voted the same way as their parents. A lot of the disputes young people had with the establishment were not disagreements they had with their PARENTS. There are always some people who part ways with their parents on political issues due to the influence of a mentor, persuasive college professor or someone charismatic enough to change their way of thinking from the ideals their parents taught them, but that isn't the rule.

The 60's saw a great number of changes as you said. I grew up in that generation (My father fought in WW II and I was born near the end of the baby boom). There were a lot of new issues the previous generation hadn't had to face - things that this new generation took a stand on.

But these baby boomers did not take a 180 degree political stance from their parents' views. They took a stand on new issues and felt very strongly about some of them, but that didn't necessarily put them at odds with their parents.

I was too young to vote during the 60's, but my 3 older siblings weren't. We all argued certain issues with our parents but the foundational ideals they imparted to us remained congruent with theirs for the most part and my 2 older brothers and sister voted for the same presidential candidate our parents did.

So I grew up in the 60's, and no I was not a parent. BTW - Just curious, we're you a parent during the 60's?

Most of the kids my siblings and I grew up with voted for the same presidential candidates that their parents did.

I'd say give it 5 years if the situation is the same then yes.

Compared to the occupation of Iraq, the 'war' on terror and
the cause of democracy
the titanic and the hindenburg also look rather successful.

No, I was not a parent then. I did get to witness how my older siblings views were a literal 180 of my parents views. I guess our backgrounds and upbringing were very different.

No I'm basing my replies on your logic, since the children of the Fracophones in Quebec didn't vote they were disinfrancised so the the should rise up against their Anglophone oppressors Vive' Le Quebecois!
Excusez moi monsieur? Quebecers are oppressed by Anglophones? Currently in the Province of Quebec, it is English that is suppressed through Bill 101 (http://www.law.ualberta.ca/ccskeywords/bill_101.html).


and if and when the Quebecois ever do rise again I will throw all the support I can to them as Canada has opperessed my French speeking brothers long enough (not that I speek French but I feel their pain)
You have the freedom to do whatever you please within reason, unless of course you take part in an armed insurrection, in which case we just might have to shoot you? :D

As a Anglophone you should be ashamed of yourself language fascist.
Je suis un fascist du langue? Vous etes tres folle monsieur. Notre pays ont deux langues officielle, qui sont Anglais et Francais. Combien de langue officielle dans les Etats Unis? Qu'est-ce que vous direz....seulement un langue officielle? Vive le Canada!!

In my life, I have been called many things, but never a fascist. :eek:

My father and his three brothers all fought against fascism in WW 2, so you are a tad off the mark. Perhaps you don't know the meaning of the word since you certainly have used it here with reckless abandon, and I do find the slur a bit offensive. I will forgive you this time.

You mean to tell me there are posts here that do not like the idea
of the United States? That want to dismantle the institutions of
the US?


Or conversely,
Are you anti-Soviet?
If so, you had better get your anti-totalitarian arse out of here.
"anti-american"?
I don't get it.

Criticising a US policy is NOT anti-american.
That's just gobbildy gook thinking.

So if you disagree with Bill Clinton's policy,
you are anti-american?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Unspeakable
As a Anglophone you should be ashamed of yourself language fascist.

In my life, I have been called many things, but never a fascist. :eek:




Yeah, what does that mean?
Fascism is actually a very specific form of gov't of Mussolini's Italy, Nazi
Germany, and Franco's Spain. Maybe Pinochet's Chile and Suharto's Indonesia as well.

Anyway, Mussolini and his friend actually literally wrote the definition
for fascism and a quote often attributed to him but also to 'the philosopher of Fascism' Giovanni Gentile:

"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism, since it is the merger of state and corporate power."

Yeah, what does that mean?
Fascism is actually a very specific form of gov't of Mussolini's Italy, Nazi
Germany, and Franco's Spain. Maybe Pinochet's Chile and Suharto's Indonesia as well.

Anyway, Mussolini and his friend actually literally wrote the definition
for fascism and a quote often attributed to him but also to 'the philosopher of Fascism' Giovanni Gentile:

"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism, since it is the merger of state and corporate power."

Mussolini could have done without his hired philosophers. The primary justifications for Fascism where and have allways been primarly technocratic.

Was not the saying in Italy "At least he makes the trains run on time"!

A more accurate description of Fascism would be Government by Ideologies, as that what it amounted to in the end (every Fascist State has failed for a reason).

bump

Ouch!
I hope you don't expect me to read the 80 pages!