NationStates Jolt Archive

Observing the chaos and unremitting bloodshed which consume Iraq, I concluded that Bush's myopic policies had steered us astray. Revolted by the abhorrent violence devastating the country, I figured that nothing positive could be salvaged from the situation. Upon more assiduous contemplation, however, I realized that this was not so.

In fact, the Iraq War was possibly one of the greatest geo-political stratagems of the modern era. Bush's masterstroke of genius transcends simply militarily defeating the vile terrorists on the ground; instead, it focuses on much more critical aspects of our current circumstances. Bush is stoically persevering in his quest to protect the US from the despicable terrorists. He is blessed with a grander vision of the world which is not confined to the crisis in Iraq, but rather encompasses the entire globe.

To explain Bush's visionary design, one must consider the statement that "we are fighting the terrorists in Iraq so that we need not fight them at home." This statement belies a noble intent, yet it comes at great cost to us, paid for with the lives of our most courageous citizens. To Bush, such a sacrifice was unacceptable. Thus, he intelligently played his cards in such a way that we would not have to fight Al-Qaeda in the Middle East, but nonetheless reap the rewards that come with purging such an organization from that area.

The instability in Iraq was intentionally manufactured by Bush in order to promote the welfare of the US. Many considerations went into formulating this brilliant device, and it is the most logical route to take when combating terrorism. Bush was cognizant of the fact that the Iraqis would resist a US occupation, regardless of how pure our motivation was; thus, he sought to enlist the help of an unwitting ally in our struggle: common Iraqis.

Some people have claimed that Iraq is another Vietnam. To them, I respond: "To whom?" That's because Iraq is like Vietnam; not to the US, but to Al-Qaeda. The evil group is hemorrhaging forces in Iraq as suicide bombers take their own lives and Iraqi forces apprehend its members. The Iraqi public, repulsed by the carnage and atrocities committed by Al-Qaeda against their own people, is slowly but inexorably being turned against it. Al-Qaeda's base of support is rapidly dwindling in Iraq itself; thus, it seeks to recruit troops from other regions in order to perpetuate its jihad in Iraq. Iraq may very well be the downfall of Al-Qaeda, as Shia militias and the Iraqi government is currently prevailing over the forces of mayhem and brutality. Fewer and fewer people wish to associate themselves with such a disgusting organization as Al-Qaeda.

To succinctly sum up Bush's magnificent plan:


Al-Qaeda is pumping troops into Iraq.
Al-Qaeda's gruesome acts are poisoning a once-supportive public against it.
On a military front, it is being defeated by a joint Iraqi-American effort.


Because of its dire plight in Iraq, Al-Qaeda cannot afford to conduct a terrorist attack against the US; its priorities lie in Iraq. However, as it seems poised to lose that fight, its power has been greatly diminished. As long as the war in Iraq continues raging, whether American forces are there or not, America will be safe from terrorism; however, if the crisis is over soon, Al-Qaeda will have the opportunity to regroup and the US will be in danger again.

With this in mind, I support the immediate withdrawal of American forces from Iraq to increase the havoc being wrought in the country. A failure to pacify Iraq is equivalent to a larger success for the US, and we should not give up this fleeting chance to lose miserably in Iraq in order to achieve a bigger victory at home.

Ummm...ok

I have two questions.

1. You say Al Qaeda cannot afford to attack the US. How about the Ft. Dix event?

2. You do realize that without the US, they (Al Qaeda) does not have an enemy in Iraq.

Hysterical - laughter - killing - me - I

*collapses in a jiggling heap of hooting*

I'm just outlining my view on the hackneyed subject of the Iraq War. It's nothing special; virtually every user has posted an Iraq-related thread, and now it's my turn.

Please forgive his useless spam, which, surprisingly this time, was not a simple "Lolz"

Ummm...ok

I'm just outlining my view on the hackneyed subject of the Iraq War. It's nothing special; virtually every user has posted an Iraq-related thread, and now it's my turn.

1. You say Al Qaeda cannot afford to attack the US. How about the Ft. Dix event?

I believe that the consensus view is that Al-Qaeda was not behind that particular scheme. It was apparently concocted by home-grown American terrorists, not extremists who came from abroad. I am not saying that we can eliminate such people whose views are nurtured in the US by employing my strategy in Iraq, but we can prevent the trickle of terrorists into the country from elsewhere.

2. You do realize that without the US, they (Al Qaeda) does not have an enemy in Iraq.

Actually, Al-Qaeda and similar groups are primarily responsible for the atrocities you hear about on the news (where dozens of people die in a suicide bombing, for example). The insurgency is distinct from Al-Qaeda in that the former seeks to drive the US from Iraq while the latter seeks to impose a Sunni-led, Sharia-oriented theocracy on the country.

You don't need to use big words to be cogent.

http://img116.exs.cx/img116/1231/z7shysterical.gif

George Bush, military strategist extrordinaire!

http://www.cheesebuerger.de/images/midi/frech/a068.gif

2. You do realize that without the US, they (Al Qaeda) does not have an enemy in Iraq.

Shias? Kurds? Moderates?

I believe that the consensus view is that Al-Qaeda was not behind that particular scheme. It was apparently concocted by home-grown American terrorists, not extremists who came from abroad. I am not saying that we can eliminate such people whose views are nurtured in the US by employing my strategy in Iraq, but we can prevent the trickle of terrorists into the country from elsewhere.

Alleged group members

* Dritan Duka (age 28), Shain Duka (26) and Eljvir Duka (23), brothers from the town of Debar, Republic of Macedonia of Albanian nationality.[3] As children, the Duka brothers illegally crossed the U.S.-Mexico border in 1984. They were arrested numerous times, but because of police policy their immigration status was not checked. [1]
* Mohamad Ibrahim Shnewer (22), Dritan Duka's brother-in-law, a Palestinian cab driver from Jordan, who became a naturalized citizen.
* Serdar Tartar, born in Turkey, worked at his father's pizzeria.[4]
* Agron Abdullahu, said to have provided weaponry instruction to the group; and worked at a ShopRite supermarket in Buena Vista Township, New Jersey.[5][6][7]


Not exactly homegrown.

On the hard drive of a retrieved laptop, the downloaded last will and testament of two September 11 hijackers[13] and militant Islamist recruiting speeches given by Osama bin Laden and others were allegedly recovered.[8]

Or non-Al Qaeda.

Actually, Al-Qaeda and similar groups are primarily responsible for the atrocities you hear about on the news (where dozens of people die in a suicide bombing, for example). The insurgency is distinct from Al-Qaeda in that the former seeks to drive the US from Iraq while the latter seeks to impose a Sunni-led, Sharia-oriented theocracy on the country.

If this were so, why didn't they attack Saddam?

And, would we be helping the terrorists by causing this confusion by allowing the goals of Al Qaeda?

You don't need to use big words to be cogent.

Sez you.

I'm just outlining my view on the hackneyed subject of the Iraq War. It's nothing special; virtually every user has posted an Iraq-related thread, and now it's my turn.

It seems a little strange.

Please forgive his useless spam, which, surprisingly this time, was not a simple "Lolz"

Every NSer has posted completely useless spam at one point, including your criticism of me for posting spam.

Joint Iraqi-American effort? Fuck that. Considering that a number of Iraqi security officials have been caught committing terror attacks and orchestrating kidnappings, there's hardly a joint effort.

Also, you assume that al-Qaeda has a finite amount of suicide bombers. As long as there is a "decadent West" full of "infidels" and "heathens", then al-Qaeda is going to have recruits. You're just giving them another excuse to blow up Americans.

Not exactly homegrown.

You're right; my mistake. I read that in an article which claimed they were both foreign and home-grown at the same time. :confused:

Or non-Al Qaeda.

They may have read several documents penned by Osama, but that does not necessarily prove that they were members of Al-Qaeda. I may listen to Clinton's speeches, but that does not make me a Democrat. To quote from the article below:

FBI Special Agent in Charge J.P. Weis said that the men were not directly linked to al-Qaida, or any other international group. They are thought to have created the jihad mission themselves, without outside support. "These homegrown terrorists can prove to be as dangerous as any known group, if not more so," Weis said after court Tuesday."

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=10089947

If this were so, why didn't they attack Saddam?

Well, I assume that they would prefer to attack Western infidels with whom they have more grievances, such as the US, than Iraq. Saddam was further down their hit-list. I mean, they could have attacked virtually any nation according to their ideology, but they opted for tackling the "biggest dog" first.

And, would we be helping the terrorists by causing this confusion by allowing the goals of Al Qaeda?

No. As I stated, Al-Qaeda is being defeated both psychologically and militarily in Iraq and its strength is steadily being sapped. Allowing this process to continue would greatly hinder Al-Qaeda, not allow it to consummate its malicious goals.

*looks @ F&G's OP and wonders when I fell into an alternate universe*

I just realized something.

F.A.G. is a joke account.

Also, you assume that al-Qaeda has a finite amount of suicide bombers.

There are a finite amount of atoms in the universe; there are certainly a finite amount of suicide bombers which Al-Qaeda can recruit.

It seems a little strange.

Perhaps, but over two-thirds of people seem to agree with me thus far.

You may very well be right. Besides, the terrorists can't win in the sense that they can have control. They are too weak, too hated, and too fanatical to ever properly control and manage a country, much less become an organized threat. Then again, there is the danger that a powerful and organized Sunni group could condone al-Qaeda, but there will be ways to weaken it.
My biggest fear, at this point, is what happens to Baghdad should US troops leave. There's large Sunni and Shi'a populations, and just enough Kurds, Turkomens and Christians to keep it interesting. If this civil war goes full scale, there's the possibility of a new Sarejevo, only much larger in scale.

Perhaps, but over two-thirds of people seem to agree with me thus far.

Sure but I think it's for very different reasons then we are stopping Al-Qaeda.

I don't want to interfere in a bloody civil war that we created, the US will gain nothing out of this and whoever wins the war will hate Israel so neither country gains. (Oh for the love of god don't turn this into an Israel thread I'm going through my thought process)

At that point there is no reason to continue to lose men so get out USA. Although I do admit that your reasoning is pretty cool.

To succinctly sum up Bush's magnificent plan:


Al-Qaeda is pumping troops into Iraq.
Al-Qaeda's gruesome acts are poisoning a once-supportive public against it.
On a military front, it is being defeated by a joint Iraqi-American effort.


Or....

To succinctly sum up Bush's idiotic plan:


Invade Afghanistan
Invade Iraq, putting our forces on both sides of Iran
Invade Iran

The problem is, we put too little into Afghanistan and Iraq because they were never the primary goal. The primary goal, in my opinion, was always Iran. We were hoping that Iraq and Afghanistan would somehow stabilize quickly, since we didn't have the ability to simply invade Iran directly. Of course, this was stupidity of a high order, and with Iraq and Afghanistan unstable, the military is now spread too thin to carry the plan foward to it's final step.

We've also, coincidentally, managed to put Iran in a stronger position than ever before due to our actions. Sometimes I think Cheney is an Iranian mole.

Is this the new troll strategy, to precede the idiocy-filled post with a coherent title and first paragraph?

2. You do realize that without the US, they (Al Qaeda) does not have an enemy in Iraq.

Wasn't the US going to provide weapons to some Sunni insurgents to attack AQ? source (http://www.oregonlive.com/editorials/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/editorial/1181692558185600.xml&coll=7)

Observing the chaos and unremitting bloodshed which consume Iraq, I concluded that Bush's myopic policies had steered us astray. Revolted by the abhorrent violence devastating the country, I figured that nothing positive could be salvaged from the situation. Upon more assiduous contemplation, however, I realized that this was not so.

In fact, the Iraq War was possibly one of the greatest geo-political stratagems of the modern era. Bush's masterstroke of genius transcends simply militarily defeating the vile terrorists on the ground; instead, it focuses on much more critical aspects of our current circumstances. Bush is stoically persevering in his quest to protect the US from the despicable terrorists. He is blessed with a grander vision of the world which is not confined to the crisis in Iraq, but rather encompasses the entire globe.

To explain Bush's visionary design, one must consider the statement that "we are fighting the terrorists in Iraq so that we need not fight them at home." This statement belies a noble intent, yet it comes at great cost to us, paid for with the lives of our most courageous citizens. To Bush, such a sacrifice was unacceptable. Thus, he intelligently played his cards in such a way that we would not have to fight Al-Qaeda in the Middle East, but nonetheless reap the rewards that come with purging such an organization from that area.

The instability in Iraq was intentionally manufactured by Bush in order to promote the welfare of the US. Many considerations went into formulating this brilliant device, and it is the most logical route to take when combating terrorism. Bush was cognizant of the fact that the Iraqis would resist a US occupation, regardless of how pure our motivation was; thus, he sought to enlist the help of an unwitting ally in our struggle: common Iraqis.

Some people have claimed that Iraq is another Vietnam. To them, I respond: "To whom?" That's because Iraq is like Vietnam; not to the US, but to Al-Qaeda. The evil group is hemorrhaging forces in Iraq as suicide bombers take their own lives and Iraqi forces apprehend its members. The Iraqi public, repulsed by the carnage and atrocities committed by Al-Qaeda against their own people, is slowly but inexorably being turned against it. Al-Qaeda's base of support is rapidly dwindling in Iraq itself; thus, it seeks to recruit troops from other regions in order to perpetuate its jihad in Iraq. Iraq may very well be the downfall of Al-Qaeda, as Shia militias and the Iraqi government is currently prevailing over the forces of mayhem and brutality. Fewer and fewer people wish to associate themselves with such a disgusting organization as Al-Qaeda.

To succinctly sum up Bush's magnificent plan:


Al-Qaeda is pumping troops into Iraq.
Al-Qaeda's gruesome acts are poisoning a once-supportive public against it.
On a military front, it is being defeated by a joint Iraqi-American effort.


Because of its dire plight in Iraq, Al-Qaeda cannot afford to conduct a terrorist attack against the US; its priorities lie in Iraq. However, as it seems poised to lose that fight, its power has been greatly diminished. As long as the war in Iraq continues raging, whether American forces are there or not, America will be safe from terrorism; however, if the crisis is over soon, Al-Qaeda will have the opportunity to regroup and the US will be in danger again.

With this in mind, I support the immediate withdrawal of American forces from Iraq to increase the havoc being wrought in the country. A failure to pacify Iraq is equivalent to a larger success for the US, and we should not give up this fleeting chance to lose miserably in Iraq in order to achieve a bigger victory at home.

You obviously have no clue about the real world, Bush just created thousands of Bin Ladens that might be sympathetic to Bin Laden but have no physical ties (financially, etc) whatsoever to Al Qaeda. America has destroyed the only Arab nation that could withstand a Persian incursion into the Gulf States. As much as Iraqis despise Al Qaeda, Iraqis blame America and its so called “War against terrorism” which has attracted Muslim extremist into their country. Although Sunni and Shia tension existed in history but the war in Iraq led by America has further exacerbated the situation. Bombings across Europe have proven that a war waging in one part of the world really has no boundaries. To Iraqis, the illegal & horrific war in Iraq is now compared with the pillaging of Baghdad by Mongolians hordes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Baghdad_%281258%29).

You may very well be right. Besides, the terrorists can't win in the sense that they can have control. They are too weak, too hated, and too fanatical to ever properly control and manage a country, much less become an organized threat. Then again, there is the danger that a powerful and organized Sunni group could condone al-Qaeda, but there will be ways to weaken it.
My biggest fear, at this point, is what happens to Baghdad should US troops leave. There's large Sunni and Shi'a populations, and just enough Kurds, Turkomens and Christians to keep it interesting. If this civil war goes full scale, there's the possibility of a new Sarejevo, only much larger in scale.

Oh, but that's only if you want to look at the population in Iraq. More than half of the Iraqi population (55%) is composed of Shi'a Arabs; another 18.5% is Sunni Arab; yet another 22% Sunni Kurd; and bringing up the caboose is the rest of the mixture, a whole 6% of the population.

What scares me are the nations around Iraq. First of all, of course, is big brother to the north: Iran. It's a Shi'a Arab-majority nation (90%), and it has pledged (it is, after, The Republic of Islam) to fully support all Muslims that are in need. Considering its Shi'a-majority populus and politics, it's easy to see which they'd side with in a civil war.

On the other hand, we have the Sunni Arabs (not Kurds). Nations with a Sunni majority constitute Saudi Arabia (90%), Jordan (98% of all Muslims), and Syria (85% of all Muslims).

Though I'm only speaking on a theory and not what is clear as day, an argument must be made about whether or not the countries surrounding Iraq would participate in a Shi'a-Sunni Arab civil war. It is for this reason why I believe that leaving Iraq may be a bigger mistake than engaging them in the first place.

what iraq, or any place else (remember afghanistan? it's still a place that's there too) needs, is not generally what a military force is best at, or even any good at at all.

the difference between civilized life and a bullying free for all, is infrastructure.
civil self restraint is of course neccessary too. examples set by military ways of doing things isn't very likely to inspire nor facilitate the latter.

i think we really need, if we want to actually bennifit anyone by imposing regeme chainge, is to learn how to do so without so thoroughly and gratuitiously destroying infrastructure.

and yes, we DO need to start remembering how to build and create, and not just destroy.

and social organization; is the best way of reestablishing that to let first one then another faction get away with murder in the somewhat fanciful hope that by doing so, one or another will somehow establish a peacful, even functional, 'social order'?

a military organization is NOT a scalple. and bringing anything positive to a nation by invading it militarily is a bit like trying to perform brain surgery with a cold chissle and a spike maul.

=^^=
.../\...

Observing the chaos and unremitting bloodshed which consume Iraq, I concluded that Bush's myopic policies had steered us astray. Revolted by the abhorrent violence devastating the country, I figured that nothing positive could be salvaged from the situation. Upon more assiduous contemplation, however, I realized that this was not so.

In fact, the Iraq War was possibly one of the greatest geo-political stratagems of the modern era. Bush's masterstroke of genius transcends simply militarily defeating the vile terrorists on the ground; instead, it focuses on much more critical aspects of our current circumstances. Bush is stoically persevering in his quest to protect the US from the despicable terrorists. He is blessed with a grander vision of the world which is not confined to the crisis in Iraq, but rather encompasses the entire globe.

To explain Bush's visionary design, one must consider the statement that "we are fighting the terrorists in Iraq so that we need not fight them at home." This statement belies a noble intent, yet it comes at great cost to us, paid for with the lives of our most courageous citizens. To Bush, such a sacrifice was unacceptable. Thus, he intelligently played his cards in such a way that we would not have to fight Al-Qaeda in the Middle East, but nonetheless reap the rewards that come with purging such an organization from that area.

The instability in Iraq was intentionally manufactured by Bush in order to promote the welfare of the US. Many considerations went into formulating this brilliant device, and it is the most logical route to take when combating terrorism. Bush was cognizant of the fact that the Iraqis would resist a US occupation, regardless of how pure our motivation was; thus, he sought to enlist the help of an unwitting ally in our struggle: common Iraqis.

Some people have claimed that Iraq is another Vietnam. To them, I respond: "To whom?" That's because Iraq is like Vietnam; not to the US, but to Al-Qaeda. The evil group is hemorrhaging forces in Iraq as suicide bombers take their own lives and Iraqi forces apprehend its members. The Iraqi public, repulsed by the carnage and atrocities committed by Al-Qaeda against their own people, is slowly but inexorably being turned against it. Al-Qaeda's base of support is rapidly dwindling in Iraq itself; thus, it seeks to recruit troops from other regions in order to perpetuate its jihad in Iraq. Iraq may very well be the downfall of Al-Qaeda, as Shia militias and the Iraqi government is currently prevailing over the forces of mayhem and brutality. Fewer and fewer people wish to associate themselves with such a disgusting organization as Al-Qaeda.

To succinctly sum up Bush's magnificent plan:


Al-Qaeda is pumping troops into Iraq.
Al-Qaeda's gruesome acts are poisoning a once-supportive public against it.
On a military front, it is being defeated by a joint Iraqi-American effort.


Because of its dire plight in Iraq, Al-Qaeda cannot afford to conduct a terrorist attack against the US; its priorities lie in Iraq. However, as it seems poised to lose that fight, its power has been greatly diminished. As long as the war in Iraq continues raging, whether American forces are there or not, America will be safe from terrorism; however, if the crisis is over soon, Al-Qaeda will have the opportunity to regroup and the US will be in danger again.

With this in mind, I support the immediate withdrawal of American forces from Iraq to increase the havoc being wrought in the country. A failure to pacify Iraq is equivalent to a larger success for the US, and we should not give up this fleeting chance to lose miserably in Iraq in order to achieve a bigger victory at home.

Sore losers often say stuff like "Losing hard was actually just a cunning strategy"

Yes.

There is no clearer statement of "I was wrong" than ... stopping doing what you did.

You get your hands off it, you cry and look around for friends. You try to explain what you thought you were doing. You shut up when a good friend gives you that look. You wait to be judged.

What could be simpler in personal terms? I did something I thought was right at the time. Even my best friends are looking at me with trepidation, lack of faith ... dubiousness. I either have some huge moral good here in my pocket, and I'll stake my reputation on it, or ... I've got nothing. I shut up and smile at my friends.

Is this the time for leadership? For chivalry, for righteousness? Shit no, it's time for sit the fuck down and shut the fuck up.

Perhaps, but over two-thirds of people seem to agree with me thus far.

I guess I'd better reread the OP. (Does so)

It could work, but the way this whole plan's turned out, the Americans are (mostly) against Bush as well. And I definitely believe in withdrawal.

1. You say Al Qaeda cannot afford to attack the US. How about the Ft. Dix event?



It failed.

I just realized something.

F.A.G. is a joke account.

You just realized? You're new ain't ya? MTAE has been around for a while, under various incarnations. Last time he claimed to be 17, married, with a kid on the way.

Not again...

You just realized? You're new ain't ya? MTAE has been around for a while, under various incarnations. Last time he claimed to be 17, married, with a kid on the way.

Didn't know that. I've technically been a member of the forums for a while but I've only recently become seriously active here.

snip


Somehow, I doubt that a centuries-old war is heavily weighing on their minds currently.

Yet millennium old books seem to be enough to weigh on plenty of peoples minds

You obviously have no clue about the real world, Bush just created thousands of Bin Ladens that might be sympathetic to Bin Laden but have no physical ties (financially, etc) whatsoever to Al Qaeda.

That is a patently false statement. Common Iraqis have witnessed firsthand the ruthless destruction perpetrated by Al-Qaeda; they know who is behind the heinous bloodshed at markets and mosques. Iraqis now despise the terrorist organization, and their hatred is solidifying with every passing second. Do you honestly believe that the Iraqi people are sympathetic to a group that slaughters innocent men, women, and children by the dozens, especially when those victims are Iraqis such as themselves? No, the have the utmost contempt for it.

http://worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/brmiddleeastnafricara/248.php?nid=&id=&pnt=248&lb=brme

America has destroyed the only Arab nation that could withstand a Persian incursion into the Gulf States.

Have you forgotten the morals of the first war in Iraq? When Saddam attempted to invade Kuwait, he was quickly repulsed by a coalition of Western forces. The same thing will occur if Ahmadinejad tries the same thing.

To Iraqis, the illegal & horrific war in Iraq is now compared with the pillaging of Baghdad by Mongolians hordes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Baghdad_%281258%29).

Somehow, I doubt that a centuries-old war is heavily weighing on their minds currently.

Didn't know that. I've technically been a member of the forums for a while but I've only recently become seriously active here.

Don't worry; it's not true. Many people who disagree with my viewpoints tend to slander me, call me a "troll," egregiously accuse me of transgressions I did not commit, etc.

Didn't know that. I've technically been a member of the forums for a while but I've only recently become seriously active here.

He used to be really fun, he'd pick an indefensible position and go at it with gusto to incite flames. Usually treading the line between hard core right winger and outright troll very well. Mods got tired of his crap on MTAE (his first account we know of) and banned him. Probably a month later he came back under a different nation name with the same tone of posts and style. After he got backed into a corner with some of his more outrageous statements about himself he vanished. Now he's back again with a new name claiming not to be the other people.

Tone is a very obvious signature, everyone has a certain voice they post in, and it's very distinct. There's no way he's not MTAE, even if it cannot be proven.

Tone is a very obvious signature, everyone has a certain voice they post in, and it's very distinct. There's no way he's not MTAE, even if it cannot be proven.

Unfortunately, you seem to believe that all coherent right-wingers who employ proper grammar and don't have a minuscule vocabulary have the same "tone."

Yet millennium old books seem to be enough to weigh on plenty of peoples minds

God was not a combatant in that particular war (not even according to Islamic beliefs), so your point is moot.

God was not a combatant in that particular war (not even according to Islamic beliefs), so your point is moot.

Not really my point was that history can influence the current world and an event no matter how old can have an impact

Unfortunately, you seem to believe that all coherent right-wingers who employ proper grammar and don't have a minuscule vocabulary have the same "tone."

You my dear lad are nothing close to coherent. You just pick the issues you think will make for the biggest pyre. How is the wife doing anyway? First kid can be a bitch, especially at that age.

If I didn't think you were an idiot before, you've convinced me by now. Given that so many people told me I was MTaE when I first started posting on this board, I checked out who the guy was in order to see if there was some truth to their claims. I read some of his posts and found that we were not extremely dissimilar from one another (except in terms of religion). You're right; if people like you hadn't constantly referred to me as "MTaE," I probably wouldn't have known about him. Unfortunately, people like you seemed bent on using fallacious ad hominem attacks against me. In case you're wondering, there is, in fact, a search function. Oopsie.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/search.php?searchid=782183


Oops no results found. And I and everyone else have been very careful not to type out his full name. Gotcha.

You my dear lad are nothing close to coherent. You just pick the issues you think will make for the biggest pyre. How is the wife doing anyway? First kid can be a bitch, especially at that age.

I won't indulge you in your anti-conservative bigotry, but I will state that since 52% of people agree with me, this issue obviously wasn't intended to make a large "pyre," but rather to open an intelligent debate on the issue. Unfortunately, your posts seem to be stifling any such debate; therefore, I shall entertain you no longer in this topic unless you have something positive to contribute.

I won't indulge you in your anti-conservative bigotry, but I will state that since 52% of people agree with me, this issue obviously wasn't intended to make a large "pyre," but rather to open an intelligent debate on the issue. Unfortunately, your posts seem to be stifling any such debate; therefore, I shall entertain you no longer in this topic unless you have something positive to contribute.

Whoa. 52% said they agreed with your position that we should pull out of Iraq. That doesn't mean they supported the position you elaborated in the OP. I voted that we should pull out of Iraq, but the idea that this is somehow "Al Qaeda's Vietnam" is silly, they're only there because after we invaded, they realized that they could raise armies there.

I won't indulge you in your anti-conservative bigotry, but I will state that since 52% of people agree with me, this issue obviously wasn't intended to make a large "pyre," but rather to open an intelligent debate on the issue. Unfortunately, your posts seem to be stifling any such debate; therefore, I shall entertain you no longer in this topic unless you have something positive to contribute.

1. You're MTAE
2. Your poll sucks as it is an either or. Most things in life are not either or. For instance, I chose no but not because I agree with you. I think it would be a horrible idea to remove troops immediately. I do favor a gradual reduction and eventual pullout at the point Iraqis have the political power and infrastructure
3. Let's review your post history and then you can claim that you're not in it for the reaction. Say that again with a straight face.
4. History and the past play a large role in the present and the formation of beliefs. This is especially true when it comes to religous groups battling against one another. Not that this is what's happening in Iraq or anything.
5. One day soon you'll troll too long and the Mods will ban you again
6. Tone is not simply being grammatically correct. Your style, grammar, word choice, and posting style are all MTAE
7. No one is making statements about conservatives in general, they are making comments about you. Most of us try not to rely on broad generalizations and sweeiping statement such as you do.
8. I will now use my troll shield to ignore you. I'm still waiting for you to prove how the USSC is irrelevant on your American flag thread. Clearly that threas was not meant to create the biggest stink was it?
9. As stated above, your problem is that you just ingore arguments which nail you to the wall. In your mind the USSC is irrelevant, but in the real world this is not so. Instead of honestly debating the thread you say that the USSC has perverted the Consitution. When provided with cases that track from the 1930's until today under different courts, different CJ's, you choose to declare all of this irrevevant because in your opinion the USSC is wrong and you are right. The only problem is that their opinion is the one that counts and yours means jack shit. You want to talk about openly and honestly debating topics, try starting with yourself and then we'll follow suit.

I will now...ignore you. I'm still waiting for you to prove how the USSC is irrelevant

Ah, so we now arrive at your real "beef" with me: a perceived reluctance to respond to your challenges. If you so desire, I will do so now.

The Supreme Court does not have the power to pervert or otherwise alter the meaning of the Constitution; that right is reserved for the states or the people. The use of the word "speech" in the Constitution is clear and undeniable; the Supreme Court, consequently, does not have the right to change that particular word in order to conform to their activist ideas. However, they have twisted the definition of "speech" to include non-verbal actions. This is an egregious abuse of power as no respected English dictionary acknowledges such a meaning of speech. If you want me to put this in a form that is easier for you to understand, I shall do so.


The Supreme Court may not alter the meaning of the Constitution.
The Supreme Court has done this.
Therefore, the Supreme Court has abused its power.

There are a finite amount of atoms in the universe; there are certainly a finite amount of suicide bombers which Al-Qaeda can recruit.

Yes, but there is also a finite amount of soldier we can send over there. The point of a suicide bomber is not to kill him/her self but to take as many people with them. If every suicide bomber killed 2 soldiers (and many kill more then that) then it becomes a war of attrition where the winner is the one who has the most combatants left.

Al-Qaeda is constantly gaining new members from dissatisfied youths, while the US military has to up the enlistment age so that they could get more recruits.

Ah, so we now arrive at your real "beef" with me: a perceived reluctance to respond to your challenges. If you so desire, I will do so now.

The Supreme Court does not have the power to pervert or otherwise alter the meaning of the Constitution; that right is reserved for the states or the people. The use of the word "speech" in the Constitution is clear and undeniable; the Supreme Court, consequently, does not have the right to change that particular word in order to conform to their activist ideas. However, they have twisted the definition of "speech" to include non-verbal actions. This is an egregious abuse of power as no respected English dictionary acknowledges such a meaning of speech. If you want me to put this in a form that is easier for you to understand, I shall do so.


The Supreme Court may not alter the meaning of the Constitution.
The Supreme Court has done this.
Therefore, the Supreme Court has abused its power.


What is the supreme court supposed to do? The answer: interpret the consitution. They have interpreted in opposition to what you want so you are wrong. Have they changed the Consitution? Do you know Adams? Do you know Jefferson? Do you know exactly what they meant by the Consitution? Don't try to minimize the issue as I have a damn long list of things I find your morally repugnant for. Then again I should take you as the joke you appear to be and just laugh it off.

Edit: What the Supreme Court has done is eactly what the Consitution gave it the authority to do. There power resides from interpreting the document. Just because they did it in opposition to your grand viewpoint doe not make them wrong. It actually makes you wrong. Try again my trolling little muse.

Ah, so we now arrive at your real "beef" with me: a perceived reluctance to respond to your challenges. If you so desire, I will do so now.

The Supreme Court does not have the power to pervert or otherwise alter the meaning of the Constitution; that right is reserved for the states or the people. The use of the word "speech" in the Constitution is clear and undeniable; the Supreme Court, consequently, does not have the right to change that particular word in order to conform to their activist ideas. However, they have twisted the definition of "speech" to include non-verbal actions. This is an egregious abuse of power as no respected English dictionary acknowledges such a meaning of speech. If you want me to put this in a form that is easier for you to understand, I shall do so.


The Supreme Court may not alter the meaning of the Constitution.
The Supreme Court has done this.
Therefore, the Supreme Court has abused its power.


One more thing, I made 9 statments and/or points. Good job picking one MTAE. You suck just as much in this incarnation.

One more thing, I made 9 statments and/or points. Good job picking one MTAE. You suck just as much in this incarnation.

Alright, I'll pick another of your intelligent points. Let's see...OK, I'll start with the first one.

1. You're MTAE

Am not! Now, let me guess: you'll respond with a puerile "are too," rant about me being a stupid troll, and then proceed to go off and sulk somewhere. Am I right?

Alright, I'll pick another of your intelligent points. Let's see...OK, I'll start with the first one.



Am not! Now, let me guess: you'll respond with a puerile "are too," rant about me being a stupid troll, and then proceed to go off an sulk somewhere. Am I right?

Either you're very very much like MTAE, or you are him. I'm convinced of both.

Either you're very very much like MTAE, or you are him. I'm convinced of both.

You can't really be convinced of the latter without being sure of the former unless you think that MTaE has multiple personality disorder. Nonetheless, I am not he, although some of our political stances align quite closely.

You can't really be convinced of the latter without being sure of the former unless you think that MTaE has multiple personality disorder. Nonetheless, I am not he, although some of our political stances align quite closely.

Interesting, I thought MTAE had already been deleted by the time you showed up so it amazes me that you know so much about his "political stances." Ooopsie

Interesting, I thought MTAE had already been deleted by the time you showed up so it amazes me that you know so much about his "political stances." Ooopsie

If I didn't think you were an idiot before, you've convinced me by now. Given that so many people told me I was MTaE when I first started posting on this board, I checked out who the guy was in order to see if there was some truth to their claims. I read some of his posts and found that we were not extremely dissimilar from one another (except in terms of religion). You're right; if people like you hadn't constantly referred to me as "MTaE," I probably wouldn't have known about him. Unfortunately, people like you seemed bent on using fallacious ad hominem attacks against me. In case you're wondering, there is, in fact, a search function. Oopsie.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/search.php?searchid=782183