The W
Views: 95551129
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Color chart | Log in for more!
16.4.07 1424
The 7 - Current Events & Politics - 20 Things We've Learned Since 9/11
This thread has 2 referrals leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next(2012 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (119 total)
Jakegnosis
Morcilla
Level: 52

Posts: 88/645
EXP: 1071875
For next: 11973

Since: 26.7.02
From: Maine

Since last post: 2671 days
Last activity: 2655 days
#61 Posted on 2.8.02 1432.06
Reposted on: 2.8.09 1433.59

    Originally posted by DMC
    Yeah, but a LOT more were freed than were bombed, right? I mean, it's not like we went through Afghanistan like the *Einsastzgruppen* and shot thousands of innocent people and kicked their lifeless bodies into mass graves, right? Sheesh. In war, innocent people sometimes have to die in order to get the bad guy, especially when the bad guy tries to hide himself within groups of innocent people! That's just the best you can do sometimes when trying to minimize your own casualities first. Sure, I guess it would be *nice* of an army to worry about the opposing side's non-military casualities before their own, but I don't see why it *has* to be that way.

    DMC



In my opinion, bombing population centers is hardly the way to get the bad guy. We unloaded so much ordinance that even if we blew Osama to hell we'd never know. Bombing Taliban hideouts full of soldiers is one thing, and that's fine. When it comes to urban areas, that's a job for the infantry. Bombing everyone is the easy way out. American soldiers enlisted knowing they might see combat and be killed or crippled, in order to defend their home. That's a soldier's duty. The first part of the Ranger creed is "Acknowledging that I volunteered as a Ranger, fully knowing the hazards of my chosen profession." This can go for any man in the infantry. I had the same argument with some of my Ranger brothers. Just because these people are Afghani doesn't mean their lives are worth less than anyone else. They weren't soldiers, and many of them hated the Taliban as much as we did. Many Rangers felt that the war in Afghanistan would be better served by specops forces in covert operations- basically, where MI finds a Taliban hideout, Rangers or special forces come out of the night, fuck the place up, and check the bodies for Osama and friends. With the Navy and Air Force just cluster bombing shit, we don't even know if Osama's still alive or just a smear on the wall somewhere. A lot of us just wanted to do something more useful, but IMHO that would be the way to go to reduce civ casualties. It's very easy to say "innocent people sometimes have to die in order to get the bad guy." try saying that after you've seen a dead six-year-old kid, or what's left of him after a fucking AC-130 run. Rangers are ready to die for our country. These civs didn't even know what was going on.

Yes, some civilian casualties are inevitable. That is war. But the casualties in Afghanistan were huge, and avoidable with the right strategy. I'm sure they looked good for all of y'all watching the fucking war on TV, though.
TheBucsFan
TheChiefsFan
Level: 108

Posts: 1304/3386
EXP: 13198345
For next: 322198

Since: 2.1.02

Since last post: 20 days
Last activity: 7 days
#62 Posted on 2.8.02 1522.14
Reposted on: 2.8.09 1529.04

    Originally posted by CRZ

      Originally posted by TheBucsFan
      I find it amazing how many people, rather than counter the examples in the original post or tell us why they're wrong, simply respnd by saying "Gasp! That's..."LIBERAL"!"
    That's funny, 'cause *I* find it amazing that you expect serious response to such ludicrous left-wing propaganda which appeared to have been posted for the mere purpose of trolling (and thanks to OFB for at least being man enough to admit it - but still, hopefully next time it won't "work so well" on some of you)


You realize that you just responded in exactly the way I said people do? Even if this was presented just for the sake of causing an argument (which I'd guess you mean by "trolling"), you still haven't told me why it's wrong.
CRZ
Big Brother
Administrator
Level: 210

Posts: 1038/15932
EXP: 135062182
For next: 1392774

Since: 9.12.01
From: ミネアポリス

Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 4 min.
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#63 Posted on 2.8.02 1759.33
Reposted on: 2.8.09 1815.29
At the risk of repeating myself, I would hope you could have figured by now that I don't consider it worthy of response.

There's a big difference between fostering a debate of ideas and attempting to advance an agenda.

Don't even look at the list. Look at this paragraph following it.

Even after all the above shorthand summaries, no doubt I'm leaving out lots of Bush&Co. dirt, but this list can provide a starting point, and a handy compilation of enough low and high crimes and misdemeanors to warrant their removal from power, either through the ballot box or by resignation or impeachment.

Wow, yeah, this sure looks like they haven't already made their mind up! I sure wouldn't be wasting my time with rational, thoughtful debate! And I'm sure they wrote similar screed about Cliton, about Bush, about Reagan....actually, I'm sure they probably closed one eye and looked the other way when Clinton was in office. I dunno - call it a hunch.

Do you see my side yet? There can be no purpose to engage in discussion when you're presented with material like this, because it can only provoke two responses - either it gets swallowed, or it triggers the gag reflex. I feel that I've somehow failed by the fact that this thread is now in the sixties despite my best efforts to cut it off from the beginning in response number two (heh heh I said "number two").
vsp
Andouille
Level: 87

Posts: 419/2042
EXP: 6180404
For next: 212395

Since: 3.1.02
From: Philly

Since last post: 2844 days
Last activity: 57 days
#64 Posted on 2.8.02 1808.00
Reposted on: 2.8.09 1816.58
If it'll make you feel better, not all liberals (myself included) think that the Clinton years were all fine-and-dandy, either.

(And it's not because of what Clinton did with his prick; as far as I'm concerned, that was none of anyone's business except for his own, Hillary's and Monica's. Gee, a Deep South politician was a pussyhound; THERE'S a shocker! There were a hell of a lot of other things in those years to worry about. It's not as if corporate criminals prospered under Reagan and Bush and then took an eight-year siesta, for instance.)
OlFuzzyBastard
Knackwurst




Since: 28.4.02
From: Pittsburgh, PA

Since last post: 10 days
Last activity: 8 days
AIM:  
#65 Posted on 2.8.09 2145.12
Is there any way for me to retroactively delete this thread? Easily my least favorite thing I've ever posted.
CRZ
Big Brother
Administrator




Since: 9.12.01
From: ミネアポリス

Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 4 min.
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#66 Posted on 3.8.09 1201.37
    Originally posted by OlFuzzyBastard
    Is there any way for me to retroactively delete this thread? Easily my least favorite thing I've ever posted.
LIVE WITH YOUR SHAME
eviljonhunt81
Pepperoni
Level: 66

Posts: 392/1084
EXP: 2389552
For next: 72312

Since: 6.1.02
From: not Japan

Since last post: 2798 days
Last activity: 2794 days
#67 Posted on 3.8.02 1343.38
Reposted on: 3.8.09 1345.31
that's probably because Clinton was not a liberal.
Eddie Famous
Andouille
Level: 89

Posts: 299/2182
EXP: 6843926
For next: 72002

Since: 11.12.01
From: Catlin IL

Since last post: 144 days
Last activity: 138 days
#68 Posted on 4.8.02 0008.11
Reposted on: 4.8.09 0013.16

    Originally posted by CRZ
    At the risk of repeating myself, I would hope you could have figured by now that I don't consider it worthy of response.


    Oops.


    There's a big difference between fostering a debate of ideas and attempting to advance an agenda.

    Don't even look at the list. Look at this paragraph following it.

    Even after all the above shorthand summaries, no doubt I'm leaving out lots of Bush&Co. dirt, but this list can provide a starting point, and a handy compilation of enough low and high crimes and misdemeanors to warrant their removal from power, either through the ballot box or by resignation or impeachment.

    Wow, yeah, this sure looks like they haven't already made their mind up! I sure wouldn't be wasting my time with rational, thoughtful debate! And I'm sure they wrote similar screed about Cliton, about Bush, about Reagan....actually, I'm sure they probably closed one eye and looked the other way when Clinton was in office. I dunno - call it a hunch.




If they did write the same about Clinton, it was probably one of Noam Chomsky's zombies, if they didn't it was probably from the same scriptwriters who brought you "Murphy Brown."
Stefonics
Bockwurst
Level: 50

Posts: 70/566
EXP: 894562
For next: 52762

Since: 17.3.02
From: Queidersbach

Since last post: 2 days
Last activity: 6 hours
#69 Posted on 4.8.02 0454.14
Reposted on: 4.8.09 0454.36

    ICEMAN said:
    I thought they did it because we didn't believe in their religion.

Wow. Seriously. That might have been the dumbest thing that I have ever read. I hope to God that you were joking. Really? Is that all they're upset about? Because we don't kneel five times per day toward Mecca? Well if that's ALL their problem is, then we should just nuke them off the map, right?

    BigWhalebony decided to grace us with this brilliant insight:
    If Pat Buchanan didn't get bushwhacked years ago by the LIBERAL media, he may have become President, and we would have killed off all threats to our country years ago. We also probably would have slowed immigration to our country and been more careful in accepting other people to live in our country and be allowed to enjoy life,liberty,and the pursuit of happiness.

And there certainly wouldn't have been any of them "niggers", "spics", or "slants" around to poison your Aryan blood, right? Jesus Christ, if you think that the "LIBERAL" media "bushwhacked" good 'ol Pat YEARS AGO, you have MUCH bigger problems than picking a president to vote for.

    Then he ended with this wisdom:
    Nader and Buchanan had an equal chance of attaining the Presidency...No Chance In Hell(which is too bad......in Buchanan's case).

Sure. Nothing like a minority hating leader. But maybe you're right. If he were to have been elected president all those years ago, we wouldn't have had a terrorist problem because there is a pretty damn good possibility that the only people left on the planet would have been good, pure white folk. Yeah, there's a dream come true. Do you go in public with your hood?





Jubuki
Kolbasz
Level: 46

Posts: 78/482
EXP: 693273
For next: 18506

Since: 16.7.02

Since last post: 4202 days
Last activity: 4186 days
#70 Posted on 4.8.02 0956.16
Reposted on: 4.8.09 0959.01
Wow. This has taken on the shape of a Salvador Dali clock. There's got to be a few college-goers here -- dig out some of the Congressional Quarterlys from your library and take a closer look at what's really going on. The bills and items that make their way through Congress, successful or not, get published in magazines such as this and are accessible to a large number of people, if anyone really had the desire to go out there and look for it. It's easy to stay current and be educated on these matters, and it's easy to be a watchdog over one's own elected officials, if that's what one wants to do. But motivation is one thing I'd question after perusing this thread.
Gavintzu
Summer sausage
Level: 45

Posts: 149/443
EXP: 624579
For next: 35590

Since: 2.1.02
From: Calgary ... Alberta Canada

Since last post: 2676 days
Last activity: 2676 days
#71 Posted on 4.8.02 1154.24
Reposted on: 4.8.09 1159.04
CRZ sez:

    Wow, yeah, this sure looks like they haven't already made their mind up! I sure wouldn't be wasting my time with rational, thoughtful debate!

I'm sorry, but that response is bullshit. Why should the author not have their minds made up before they write the article? Why should they present a balanced account in what is obviously an opinion piece? What is irrational and unthoughtful about this list? Well, okay half of it is a little conspiracy theory heavy, but on the whole it's presented in a thoughtful, rational manner.

Your old recaps of Nitro were BIASED ... but that didn't make your criticisms of WCW unthoughtful or irrational.

What I find amazing is that there is NO thoughtful or rational responses being offered to the specific claims of the article. It's all mudslinging. Come on ... let's look at some specific claims:

The oil pipeline? Click Here to read the BBC news report on it. It's an established fact that the pipeline was in planning for years, and now with a pro-US government in power it's full steam ahead.

The Homeland Security Act? Click Here to read about how the government is now getting information on YOU right now. I'm pretty libertarian in bent ... I can't believe there isn't more of a outcry about this.

Due process being shredded? We've already seen one American citizen being denied the right to an attorney, because he is obviously guilty and may pass sinister messages through his lawyer to his compatriots.

Bush and Cheney up to their ears in corporate misconduct? $7 trillion dollars has been erased from the stock market in the last year, in large part because of the actions of CEOs and managers at firms. If Bush and Cheney were part of the problem in the late '90s, why should Americans trust them to be part of the solution in the '00s?

No peace in Israel? The US supports Sharon, who just approved a bombing that killed a Hamas leader, along with 8 children in their beds, as well as wounding hundreds of others. That just strengthens Palestinian extremism, and the cycle of violence continues. Sharon knows this. Hamas knows this. But because they are extremists they don't want peace, they want victory and glory and bloodshed.

Please everyone ... read Kafka. Read Orwell.. Read Chomsky. Read Hitchens. Don't focus on BIAS. Focus on facts.

Unless the Thoughtpolice have already taken over, and it's now a thoughtcrime to criticize those in power or doubt their integrity.


eviljonhunt81
Pepperoni
Level: 66

Posts: 393/1084
EXP: 2389552
For next: 72312

Since: 6.1.02
From: not Japan

Since last post: 2798 days
Last activity: 2794 days
#72 Posted on 4.8.02 1552.28
Reposted on: 4.8.09 1557.21

    Originally posted by Gavintzu
    Unless the Thoughtpolice have already taken over, and it's now a thoughtcrime to criticize those in power or doubt their integrity.quoteend]


    no, but it apparently means you hate America.
OlFuzzyBastard
Knackwurst
Level: 102

Posts: 233/3018
EXP: 10961705
For next: 128300

Since: 28.4.02
From: Pittsburgh, PA

Since last post: 10 days
Last activity: 8 days
AIM:  
#73 Posted on 4.8.02 1728.46
Reposted on: 4.8.09 1729.03
It would seem that George W. Bush changed his name to "America" some time in the last few months, wouldn't it?
PalpatineW
Lap cheong
Level: 76

Posts: 280/1528
EXP: 4000880
For next: 5199

Since: 2.1.02
From: Getting Rowdy

Since last post: 2640 days
Last activity: 2483 days
AIM:  
#74 Posted on 4.8.02 1945.21
Reposted on: 4.8.09 1959.01
Said Gavintzu: "Please, everyone. Don't focus on BIAS. Focus on facts. Read all these unbiased columns from raging lefitsts!"

Christopher Hitchens is on record in Martin Amis's novel on V.I. Lenin as saying Lenin was a great man.

Notice how you didn't offer anything rational yourself, but instead referred us to the men who do your thinking for you, i.e. Chomsky and Hitchens?

And here's some Chomsky: "The U.S. and Britain have simply announced, very clearly and loudly, that they are violent criminal states that are intent on destroying totally the fabric of international law, a fabric that has been built up laboriously over many years. They have announced that they will do as they please and will use violence as they please, independently of what anyone else thinks. In my view, that is the sole significance of the bombing and is probably the reason for it. "

I gather from this that Chomsky doesn't believe that the US should make its own decisions. Oh, no, that's only for those poor, oppressed dictators. What makes this even better is this comment:

This action is in fact a call for a lawless world in which the powerful will rule. The powerful happen to be the United States and Britain, which is by now a pathetic puppy dog that has abandoned any pretence of being an independent state.

So... He faults the US for not letting the international community dictate its policy, and then faults Britain for listening to the US? So, Noam, it's OK to let the UN tell you what to do, but it's not OK to ally yourself with the US? God knows we're just so damned evil. We ought to listen to the UN, because they have such wise countries involved like France, and Saudi Arabia. And Lord knows that the French know how to run a successful country without the US bailing them out.

On to your rational, well-thought out article.

1. We've learned that Bush&Co.'s "war on terrorism" has morphed from finding and destroying those responsible for the 9/11 mass-murders to a worldwide campaign to install a Pax Americana, by force if necessary. In other words, neo-imperialism, reminiscent in many ways of the old Roman Empire or, closer to our own time, the British Empire.

You have a problem with peace, or the eradication of terror? What was WWII, other than those nasty Imperialist Americans evilly stealing the German people's sovereignty? You have an awful lot of sympathy for these Arab regimes, but something tells me you'd never like to live in one. Quick: Name me an Arab democracy.

2. We've learned that Bush&Co. has no desire to rethink any of its policies abroad, the same policies that isolate it and that generate hatred, suspicion and terrorism in so many regions of the globe. Rather than reconsider its policies, or try to accomplish its ends through diplomacy and alliances and cultural/economic initiatives, in its arrogance it continues to bully and threaten others, insult its European and other allies, disregard international treaties and courts, engage in unilateral actions without regard to the national interests of others, and, in general, simply throw its massive weight around. The prevailing attitude seems to be: we are the one Superpower, get used to bending to our will.

Where are the supporting facts here? There are none, of course. Only more unfounded opinion. THIS is why Zed finds this article unworthy of response, (I think). Stop and think about how much foreign aid money the US hands out, and doesn't have to. Is it our responsibility to bail out the IMF? No, but we do. It's a sure fact that the rest of the world needs us more than we need them. Why not check it out?

8. We've learned that Ashcroft/Bush are shredding Constitutional due-process guarantees in their move toward total control:

I'm sure phase two will involve a giant mind-control ray, and maybe an army of the undead. Note that I am NOT suggesting no one should criticize Bush. But this is, quite simply, ridiculous. As much as Sharon's bombing of the Hamas leader was excessive, where is your righteous outrage when Israeli schoolchildren die? Because there are a hell of a lot of them dying every day. More, I dare say, than Palestinians.

(edited by PalpatineW on 4.8.02 2106)
TheBucsFan
TheChiefsFan
Level: 108

Posts: 1311/3386
EXP: 13198345
For next: 322198

Since: 2.1.02

Since last post: 20 days
Last activity: 7 days
#75 Posted on 4.8.02 2036.09
Reposted on: 4.8.09 2039.22
Actually, Gavintzu was linking not "to people who do his thinking for him," but to news stories which present facts that he uses to reach his own judgment.

Your example of WW2 Germany is completely different. Germany was trying to take over Europe. The people who attacked us last september were trying to avenge what they see as a violation of their rights.
PalpatineW
Lap cheong
Level: 76

Posts: 281/1528
EXP: 4000880
For next: 5199

Since: 2.1.02
From: Getting Rowdy

Since last post: 2640 days
Last activity: 2483 days
AIM:  
#76 Posted on 4.8.02 2119.47
Reposted on: 4.8.09 2129.01

    Originally posted by TheBucsFan
    The people who attacked us last september were trying to avenge what they see as a violation of their rights.


How'd you know that? You read it in the Nation?
TheBucsFan
TheChiefsFan
Level: 108

Posts: 1312/3386
EXP: 13198345
For next: 322198

Since: 2.1.02

Since last post: 20 days
Last activity: 7 days
#77 Posted on 4.8.02 2157.29
Reposted on: 4.8.09 2159.03
The people our government claims we are fighting chose to attack this country because they see America as the big dog in a yard full of puppies. The see America as a big evil body looking to hold down the rest of the world. You may think these are stupid claims, but they don't care what you think any more than you care what they think.

Regardless of whether they have been violated or not, my point still stands. Your Germany comparison doesn't fit because these people are not trying to take over our land.
Gavintzu
Summer sausage
Level: 45

Posts: 150/443
EXP: 624579
For next: 35590

Since: 2.1.02
From: Calgary ... Alberta Canada

Since last post: 2676 days
Last activity: 2676 days
#78 Posted on 4.8.02 2338.59
Reposted on: 4.8.09 2359.02
Palpatine sez:

    Notice how you didn't offer anything rational yourself, but instead referred us to the men who do your thinking for you, i.e. Chomsky and Hitchens?

Beep ... Unit 4582 processing thought of Noam Chomsky ... beep ... accepting all that is read as truth ... beep. The bit at the end was intended as an educational supplement to widen some horizens. The body of my post (which you seemed to have missed) was full of facts and tidbits.

Hitchens thought Lenin was a great man? Depends on the context I guess. Was Churchill a great man? He had a lot of blood on his hands, he was on record as a racist, and was probably the best democratic leader the West has seen in 300 years. Churchill wasn't a saint, but he was a great man. An argument along the same lines could be made for Lenin, I guess. Are you sure you aren't confusing the crimes of Lenin with the crimes of Stalin? Or do you feel sainthood is a prerequisite for greatness?


    here's some Chomsky: "The U.S. and Britain have simply announced, very clearly and loudly, that they are violent criminal states that are intent on destroying totally the fabric of international law, a fabric that has been built up laboriously over many years.


Most Americans read that and shake their heads. Many Europeans read that and maybe rub their chins. Many Third World inhabitants read that and nod enthusiastically. To what degree that statement is correct seems to be the crux of our little disagreement.


    This action is in fact a call for a lawless world in which the powerful will rule.

If you look at the US behaviour in the Third World for the past 50 years, and its inconsistent application of international law, this statement is not on the face of it wrong. It was criminal for the Soviet Union to invade Afghanistan (to protect its border against Muslem extremists) but it's okay for the US to attack Iraq (to protect its interests against Saddam and his evilness). Sounds pretty Wild West to me.


    You have an awful lot of sympathy for these Arab regimes, but something tells me you'd never like to live in one. Quick: Name me an Arab democracy.

I have no sympathy for those Arab dictatorships. The problem is that most of them (Iran 1950-1979, Iraq 1950-1990, Saudi Arabia 1945-present, Pakistan 2001-) are supported militarily and economically by the US. By supporting US foreign policy you are the one defending most Arab dictatorships.

Oh, Pakistan was a democracy for about a decade. But then there was a US-supported military coup. Its security services armed and supported Al Qaeda up until September 11, for the purposes of terrorizing Indians in their border dispute with Pakistan. That is what is called "blowback" in policy terms. Here's some Hitchens talking about that:

"... while the cruise missiles fired at Afghanistan (in 1998) managed to kill some Pakistani intelligence officers who were training Al Qaeda forces to infiltrate Kashmir. In that moment, a whole nexus between Islamabad, the Taliban and bin Laden was accidentally exposed. And the political establishment in this country decided to look away." The US directly supported Islamabad (Pakistan), and knowingly indirectly supported the Taleban and al Qaeda, up until the blowback of September 11.

The US is generous in foreign aid. But I'm sure the people directly involved would much prefer the US stop arming and supporting dictatorships rather than getting a small handout. As well as stop carpet bombing civilian areas when they do go to war. That would be a good start. The Iraqi people thank you in advance.


    where is your righteous outrage when Israeli schoolchildren die? Because there are a hell of a lot of them dying every day. More, I dare say, than Palestinians.

Click on the link I had under "cycle of violence". Imagine me shaking my fist at the bastards who commit outrages against civilians. Hamas are lunatics. Arafat is a criminal and a thug. Why do you imagine that when I attack Israeli actions that I must support Palestinian terrorism? Why do you imagine that when I attack US foreign policy that I must support Saddam?

The world is not black and white ... it is complex. Just getting your information about the world from CNN, the nightly news, and the Associated Press is not enough.
DMC
Liverwurst
Level: 68

Posts: 497/1180
EXP: 2713262
For next: 15552

Since: 8.1.02
From: Modesto, CA

Since last post: 3285 days
Last activity: 3279 days
#79 Posted on 5.8.02 1503.37
Reposted on: 5.8.09 1505.25
Chomsky...if there are any academics that are more arrogant than linguists, I would like to know. Talk about people who think they know everything about everything because they have a college degree in something.

DMC
Eddie Famous
Andouille
Level: 89

Posts: 304/2182
EXP: 6843926
For next: 72002

Since: 11.12.01
From: Catlin IL

Since last post: 144 days
Last activity: 138 days
#80 Posted on 5.8.02 2251.19
Reposted on: 5.8.09 2259.16
Speaking as part of the "liberal" (as per the far right) and/or "conservative political pawn" (as per the far left) media, I think I can safely say that Noam Chomsky is an assmunch.

Thank you.
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 NextThread ahead: Caveat Emptor
Next thread: Georgie's vacation
Previous thread: New mutual fund
(2012 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
The 7 - Current Events & Politics - 20 Things We've Learned Since 9/11Register and log in to post!

The W™ message board - 7 year recycle

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim
This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.297 seconds.