Facts and imagination

Search
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
1,026
Tokens
1)Fact- Contintental US was attacked twice by terrorist organizations in the last 10 yrs.

1)Imagination-that somehow we had this coming and further that somehow taking action will increase terrorism.

2)Fact-Inaction has associated costs, probably further attacks.

2)Imagination-if we ignore them they will go away.

3)Fact-Suicide is the easy way out, always has been and always will be, living life and making change is tough.

3)Imagination-suicide bombers are courageous.
 

New member
Joined
Sep 20, 2000
Messages
15,635
Tokens
Fact- success breeds success...when the terroist can change the politcal landscape for their agenda that is success.
Imagination- That the terroist will go away if you blow em on a regular basis.

[This message was edited by Patriot on March 17, 2004 at 11:08 AM.]
 

hangin' about
Joined
Aug 21, 2003
Messages
13,875
Tokens
Patriot: let me ask you this ... given your opinions of both Bush and Kerry and their respective stances on National Security, can it be safe to assume that the presence of terrorists make you more likely to elect Bush? Technically, then, you are also letting the terrorists dictate your political decisions, as are many Americans, I am sure.

Conversely, I am proud that my gov't didn't follow the US into Iraq, and will likely vote for that same gov't. The day that gov't actions and their respective fallouts/successes or whatever don't impact voters is the day that democracy is officially dead.
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
1,245
Tokens
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by xpanda:
Patriot: let me ask you this ... given your opinions of both Bush and Kerry and their respective stances on National Security, can it be safe to assume that the presence of terrorists make you more likely to elect Bush? Technically, then, you are also letting the terrorists dictate your political decisions, as are many Americans, I am sure.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's a very nice little play on words, but we both know that's not what's happening. Those who vote for Bush will do so because they think he's doing a good job leading our great nation and want to see him continue.
 

hangin' about
Joined
Aug 21, 2003
Messages
13,875
Tokens
I'm not suggesting that terrorist threats may be the only reason a person may vote in Bush. However, it may be at or near the top of the list. Further, there could be other reasons why Spaniards voted in the socialists. It is my understanding that the unemployment rate is quite high.

The assumptions certain Americans make about other countries are so self-serving that it's nauseating. Pick up a mirror sometime.
 

New member
Joined
Sep 20, 2004
Messages
735
Tokens
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> The assumptions certain Americans make about other countries are so self-serving that it's nauseating. Pick up a mirror sometime. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I seem to disagree on just about everything you post, xpanda. Who are these certain Americans? Am I one of them?

Personally, I would rather watch some of this tripe that passes as a sitcom on ABC than vote for Kerry. The guy reminds me of the kid in school that didn't have friends and always exaggerated his worth and accomplishments until someone called his a$$ on it and embarrassed him.

We don't really have a hell of a lot of choices for leader. Politics being what it is, they're going to let Bush run again unopposed. I don't necessarily like Bush but if it's him or Kerry it ain't even close.
 

New member
Joined
Sep 20, 2004
Messages
735
Tokens
Just to add more fuel to the fire, why are you disgusted by Americans serving their own interests? Am I to believe that we are here to serve the almighty and all-knowing xpanda? If we would only serve xpanda all the terrorists would repent of their transgressions. Is that correct?
 

hangin' about
Joined
Aug 21, 2003
Messages
13,875
Tokens
You're taking my statements way too far. I am saying that the standards by which certain Americans, and sometimes you may be one of them, although certainly this site is full of much bigger extremists than yourself, are held only to other nations and not themselves.

We hear about how Saddam was a complete brute, and this is, of course, true. However when we hear the condemnation of this man we also don't hear about how sorry the US is for supporting him all those years and ultimately making him stronger. There are tons of other examples.

I am not disgusted by Americans serving their own interests. I am disgusted by Americans serving their interests regardless of who those interests hurt. And when they do a complete 180 later on down the road, with no admission of past errors, and then also turn around and accuse the rest of the world of being ****ed up, then I am disgusted. And that seems to be the bulk of what American foreign policy has looked like for the past couple of decades, and is especially true under Bush.
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
3,530
Tokens
Here's a couple of things I'm sure we all agree on.

1.)Terrorists are going to continue to strike any/all countries who don't agree with them.

2.) We have a choice to punish them, or try to negotiate with them.

3.) President Bush will try to dispose any and all of these terrorists groups.

4.) Kerry will try to negotiate.
 
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
1,026
Tokens
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>And when they do a complete 180 later on down the road, with no admission of past errors, and then also turn around and accuse the rest of the world of being ****ed up, then I am disgusted<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

He is disgusted at things that have yet to take place, enough holes
shot in his s h i t about the present, so let's get disgusted with some elemental almost primate like prediction of future events.

Face it we do not nor ever will live in a static world.

Hussein exhibited psychotic behavior recently, think he was teh same 30 yrs ago?

Think you could've had the foresight to predict that he would turn out to be a socio path?

Of course you do, it is why you continue harping on useless drivel.

Admit wrongdoing? On acid? How about admitting that the world and it's inhabitants change and not changing with them is the ultimate in ignorance.
 

hangin' about
Joined
Aug 21, 2003
Messages
13,875
Tokens
So let me see if I undertand you, Sodium. You're suggesting, I think, that Reagan and VP Bush didn't know that Saddam was a cocksucker? You're suggesting that with all the intelligence the US can get their hands on that they thought he was out playing cricket with the neighbourhood kids? You don't believe that your gov't has made it routine to ignore atrocities by foreign leaders as long as the leader was cooperative? You don't believe that your gov't paints pictures of these people as PTA members one day, and Hitlerites the next? (for the record, I realise that the Canadian gov't does this shit, too. I'm not picking on the US in this one.)
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
1,245
Tokens
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by xpanda:
I'm not suggesting that terrorist threats may be the only reason a person may vote in Bush. However, it may be at or near the top of the list. Further, there could be other reasons why Spaniards voted in the socialists. It is my understanding that the unemployment rate is quite high.

The assumptions certain Americans make about other countries are so self-serving that it's nauseating. Pick up a mirror sometime.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If the socialist party wasn't WAY behind the day before the attack of 3/11, I wouldn't be bringing it up. The fact is that Spain's people got played like a piano by Al Qaeda. Unemployment wasn't the issue here, nor was anything other than the 3/11 attack and you know it.
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
94
Tokens
The Spanish government mishandled the situation badly, trying to pin it on the Basques originally. This more than anything else probably proved to be fatal for them. Had they pegged it on the right people and made the right patriotic calls, they likely would still be in power.
 

New member
Joined
Sep 20, 2000
Messages
15,635
Tokens
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> posted March 17, 2004 12:15 PM
Patriot: let me ask you this ... given your opinions of both Bush and Kerry and their respective stances on National Security, can it be safe to assume that the presence of terrorists make you more likely to elect Bush?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Hiya X....first off I wouldn't vote for Kerry at gunpoint under any circumstances.
If I was alive during WW2 and you ask me if I voted for FDR because of Pearl Harbor and said yes...Does that mean my vote was influnced by Japan or Hirito.Yes.
In the super Bowl who do I want as QB Tom Brady or Kordell Stewart?
I want the guy in there that will terrorise the terroist....best defense is a good offense.
I know what your saying ,but what it is,IS.
 

hangin' about
Joined
Aug 21, 2003
Messages
13,875
Tokens
I agree with Bad Beat on this one.

American, I ask you ... had it not been for 9/11 would so many Americans have stood behind Bush's invasion plans? Did terrorism not pave the way for a political decision that we now know to be wrong?

Look, I'm as worried as anyone that Spain's decision to vote out the PP (I see it as a protest vote, not an endorsement of the socialists) sends a message to terrorist organisations that they can impact elections. I wonder how many Americans are more worried about an AQ attack now than they were early last week?

The 3/11 attack simply opened up a wound that hadn't quite healed yet ... many of Spain's citizens were appalled by Aznar last year and their concerns proved to be founded. You can't really blame a citizenry for wanting to take the target of their back.
 

hangin' about
Joined
Aug 21, 2003
Messages
13,875
Tokens
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Patriot:
Hiya X....first off I wouldn't vote for Kerry at gunpoint under any circumstances.
If I was alive during WW2 and you ask me if I voted for FDR because of Pearl Harbor and said yes...Does that mean my vote was influnced by Japan or Hirito.Yes.
In the super Bowl who do I want as QB Tom Brady or Kordell Stewart?
I want the guy in there that will terrorise the terroist....best defense is a good offense.
I know what your saying ,but what it is,IS.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What I'm objecting to is not the opinion held by some that Spain has appeased the terrorists, but the judgement by some that Spain is weak and useless and irrelevant again because they've been influenced by fear. It's not uncommon, and Americans certainly aren't immune to it.

I also fail to understand why you wouldn't want Kordell as your QB? After all, he's cute, not afraid to show emotion, has a subtle yet 'come hither' strut in his gait, and, gosh darnit, Cowher said he was 'special.' I'm beginning to think you're just a big fat namecaller.
 

hangin' about
Joined
Aug 21, 2003
Messages
13,875
Tokens
Just in case two posts in a row wasn't enough to make you sick of me:

"Independent polls carried out on Wednesday, the day before the bombings, showed the Socialists ahead with a slight majority.

A poll carried out by Noxa Consulting on Wednesday gave the Socialists less than a 2 percent margin, putting them, nevertheless, in the lead. A similar poll conducted Friday -- a day after the attacks, gave the Socialists an even greater lead. The big difference -- and the clear reason of the Socialist victory -- was the nearly 3 million votes the Socialists added while Aznar's now not so Popular Party lost about 690,000 votes."

http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20040316-014634-4441r

I'm not a big fan of polls, but maybe it wasn't such a stretch after all.
 

New member
Joined
Sep 20, 2000
Messages
15,635
Tokens
X.. I will submit that Spain was not keen to the idea of about Iraq.And also the PP might not been forthcoming about who did the bombing or even misleading and may have had as much to do with losing as anything.
But its always about perception...and the perception is that the terroist won one, and that certainley how that faction will sell it.

I'll never admit Kordell is cute...lol....namecaller with Two Ring Tom?? YES!
 
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
1,026
Tokens
Why do you continue posting? Your idiocy has been well documented and you contribute almost nothing.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I agree with Bad Beat on this one.

American, I ask you ... had it not been for 9/11 would so many Americans have stood behind Bush's invasion plans? Did terrorism not pave the way for a political decision that we now know to be wrong?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Who knows what? Name calling will not be tolerated. wil.

[This message was edited by wilheim on March 17, 2004 at 11:59 PM.]
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
303
Tokens
im kinda tired right now but i noticed above that someone believes we didnt know what a bastard saddam was over 20 years ago: this is a partial article from the national archive:


By the summer of 1983 Iran had been reporting Iraqi use of using chemical weapons for some time. The Geneva protocol requires that the international community respond to chemical warfare, but a diplomatically isolated Iran received only a muted response to its complaints [Note 1]. It intensified its accusations in October 1983, however, and in November asked for a United Nations Security Council investigation.

The U.S., which followed developments in the Iran-Iraq war with extraordinary intensity, had intelligence confirming Iran's accusations, and describing Iraq's "almost daily" use of chemical weapons, concurrent with its policy review and decision to support Iraq in the war [Document 24]. The intelligence indicated that Iraq used chemical weapons against Iranian forces, and, according to a November 1983 memo, against "Kurdish insurgents" as well [Document 25].

What was the Reagan administration's response? A State Department account indicates that the administration had decided to limit its "efforts against the Iraqi CW program to close monitoring because of our strict neutrality in the Gulf war, the sensitivity of sources, and the low probability of achieving desired results." But the department noted in late November 1983 that "with the essential assistance of foreign firms, Iraq ha[d] become able to deploy and use CW and probably has built up large reserves of CW for further use. Given its desperation to end the war, Iraq may again use lethal or incapacitating CW, particularly if Iran threatens to break through Iraqi lines in a large-scale attack" [Document 25]. The State Department argued that the U.S. needed to respond in some way to maintain the credibility of its official opposition to chemical warfare, and recommended that the National Security Council discuss the issue.

Following further high-level policy review, Ronald Reagan issued National Security Decision Directive (NSDD) 114, dated November 26, 1983, concerned specifically with U.S. policy toward the Iran-Iraq war. The directive reflects the administration's priorities: it calls for heightened regional military cooperation to defend oil facilities, and measures to improve U.S. military capabilities in the Persian Gulf, and directs the secretaries of state and defense and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to take appropriate measures to respond to tensions in the area. It states, "Because of the real and psychological impact of a curtailment in the flow of oil from the Persian Gulf on the international economic system, we must assure our readiness to deal promptly with actions aimed at disrupting that traffic." It does not mention chemical weapons [Document 26].


also the true cowards in the "suicide bombings" are the people pulling the strings and ordering them. it takes about 3 months to fully indoctrinate a person to do this from what ive read. the thing that makes me realize how powerful they are at transforming the young person is when they show the bomber's parents beaming with pride after the incident. true islam doesnt allow suicide or the harming of women and children even in time of war. (if thats what you want to call it)

in terms of the presidency, no matter who wins there will be no negotiation. even if kerry believed that would work, he couldnt risk the political damage he would surely take.

like i said before, i want to see how george does the next four years and give him the chance to finish what he started.

good nite
 

Forum statistics

Threads
1,119,810
Messages
13,573,513
Members
100,874
Latest member
enviroclass9
The RX is the sports betting industry's leading information portal for bonuses, picks, and sportsbook reviews. Find the best deals offered by a sportsbook in your state and browse our free picks section.FacebookTwitterInstagramContact Usforum@therx.com