IRAQ THREAD originaly "Seems at least one Brit agrees with me....er us."

[shartley]

Re: My Turn!

Originally posted by 1stdeadeye
Okay, when Colin Powell shared his overwhelming evidence last December, that still wasn't enough for France. What more could they want to see? If that did not convince them, what would? A terrorist strike on Paris?

You can't convince someone who is determined to disagree!

Who, France or CollegeBoy?

[1stdeadeye]

Re: Re: My Turn!

Originally posted by shartley

Who, France or CollegeBoy?

Ha ha!

Never thought of the post that way! Well as CollegeBoy is part French I could say that they are one and the same!

[Jack_Dubious]

Originally posted by aaron_mag

On the gulf war syndrome thing note that this is not an attack against Bush Sr. or Bush Jr. Clinton was in office in the intervening years and did not suddenly reverse the official stance on Gulf War Syndrome. We tend to get into accusing each other of being conservative/liberal. However, I really don't fully trust either side. I certainly did not trust Clinton! His caring and concerned manner always seemed false to me and I voted for him! I suppose I find myself in agreement with Jack Dubious so much is because like him I'm very dubious!

When I was younger I liked to use labels such as liberal/conservative, but then like most young people, I saw the world in black and white. As I got older I realized that the world was just a big ball of hypocrisy and it was naive to think that we can define such complex concepts with such simple labels.
But if i had to label myself it would be a Liberal Republican. Pretty dubious, eh?

I guess I am a big supporter of balance and trying to address all sides of an issue. If this was some big left-wing, liberal, democratic, etc forum....perhaps my arguments would be different.

JDub

[1stdeadeye]

Originally posted by Jack_Dubious


When I was younger I liked to use labels such as liberal/conservative, but then like most young people, I saw the world in black and white. As I got older I realized that the world was just a big ball of hypocrisy and it was naive to think that we can define such complex concepts with such simple labels.

Collegeboy read this! This is what experience brings! That is why SHartley's years of experience count for something!

Well said J Dub!

[Collegeboy]

[aaron_mag]

Re: Re: My Turn!

Originally posted by shartley

Who, France or CollegeBoy?

I predicted this post even before I scrolled down the page

First of all I can honestly say I have learned something debating this heavily with you guys. I haven't had a radical change of heart but it really made me think about the issues. I am more open to the other side than I was at the beginning of this thread. It never fully descended into a flame fest for me. The only argument that still pisses me off is the die is cast so get in line or get out arguement.

When I was younger I liked to use labels such as liberal/conservative, but then like most young people, I saw the world in black and white. As I got older I realized that the world was just a big ball of hypocrisy and it was naive to think that we can define such complex concepts with such simple labels.
But if i had to label myself it would be a Liberal Republican. Pretty dubious, eh?

I guess I am a big supporter of balance and trying to address all sides of an issue. If this was some big left-wing, liberal, democratic, etc forum....perhaps my arguments would be different.

My wife consciously votes with the plan of balance of power. If a democrat is president she votes the opposite party for congress. She figures the best of all possible worlds is that they are so dead locked that they only pass the laws that make sense to everybody. I used to think she was crazy but now I am starting to follow her lead!

The one thing I think we ought to avoid is lack of respect for each other opinions. It is strange to me that some claim that one side shows lack of commitment/love of country. I think the following article shows the division between the norm of the American people

http://mccain.senate.gov/index.cfm?fuseaction=Newscenter.ViewArticle&Content_id=703

My belief is close to Hagel while others on this board are right in step with McCain. Both obviously want what is best for this country.

[Collegeboy]

I was wondering how many other people vote that way. I will vote for key people who I figure have done a good job and will continue to do a good job. Like for the local house seat I voted for the democratic candidate for I didn't like how Everett treated my father, and other veterans like him. But I did vote for the two republican candidates for senate (Shelby and Sessions) for I thought they were better then the dem candidate. But I normally vote for the party that isn't represented by the president in elections where both candidates are equal or along the same.

[Jack_Dubious]

Re: My Turn!

Originally posted by 1stdeadeye

You can't convince someone who is determined to disagree!

I think everyone here is determined to disagree. If they werent then this thread would be shorter.


JDub

[1stdeadeye]

next!

Originally posted by Collegeboy
As to what we can do to try and make the people turn on the terrorist. First all areas are different, so each area has differing reasons to make them into what they are. I will deal with the more obvious area of Palestine. First of IMO I would let the UN put a official reprimand on Israel for being in occupied land that they are not suppose to be. To do this the US needs to stop using its veto to stop this. This will force Israel out of the area. A period of 2 years needs to happen. We say in two years if there are no terrorist attacks then at the end of those two years you can officially become a nation. In that two years the UN will need to go in and help the Palestinians transfer from the life in camps to a new life. All the while they are being brought out of grief, fear, hatred, etc... They will have no reason to attack Israel. If in that two years they do so you extend the process by a year and bring sanctions against the group that did it. This will force the PLO to be held responsible for what happens. The people will get tired of the terrorist and turn them over.

In a perfect world, this plan may work. We do not live in a perfect world. Sharon already offered something along this lines. He stated that if all terror attacks cease for a set period of time, he would have serious peace negotiations with the Palestinian Authority. The PA was unable to stop these attacks. Second, Israel can not negotiate under the duress of terror attacks. That will only embolden the terrorist leaders and make them bigger heros to the masses. If a terroist can state, "Look, our bombs forced Israel to the bargining table", do you think bombings might then increase in an attempt to gain more leverage?

Even if Israel pulled out of the West Bank and Gaza, they will never give up Jerusalem. You will still have fighting over this point. Also remember, Hamas, Al-Asqua, and Islamic Jihad are all dedicated to destroying Israel, not regaining the occupied territories. If Israel were to give them a legitimate state of their own, their goals would not have changed. These groups would now have the safe haven of a recognized state from which to wage their continued efforts to destroy Israel.

You can not reward terrorism and violence with talks or peace. If all attacks were to stop for a period of time and then negotiations were started fine. The UN can't put Israel in front of a gun! That would be the first step in the destruction of Israel.

*Note, I am not some Pro-Israel fanatic. I think that we give them entirely too much aid. I do feel that right now, they have no choice but to continue to retaliate in order to ensure the long term survival of Israel!

1st Deadeye

I never said we shouldn't go after them. Like I have said before and you all said, go after their leadership. The grunts are not good without a leadership. Do you think if Clinton could have gone and got rid of Al Queda he would have? Come on this is the guy who shot missiles to try and get public minds off of his pleasures. Clinton would have been the first guy to step in and start a war against them. And I am not French. I don't see the world as black and white, like I think some of you do. I look at the world and see difference in people, see how people actions are more then likely caused by their situations. Unlike many of you all who say these people hate the US from the beginning and somehow use that as a justification to pursue your ideas etc... Experience is great, but not if it hampers your thoughts.

You're not French? You sure talk like a Frenchman!

With the African Embassy bombings, had Clinton actually gone after Al Qaida then, we wouldn't be in the mess we are now is all I will say on that.

The world is not black and white, it is shades of grey. Also, I never stated that they were born hating the US. It is a case of Nurture vs. nature. Terrorist are taught, not born.

Finally, What I am saying is that experience gives you a real world perspective with which to view something, books can't do that.

[shartley]

Originally posted by Collegeboy

Originally posted by Collegeboy
I never said we shouldn't go after them. Like I have said before and you all said, go after their leadership. The grunts are not good without a leadership. Do you think if Clinton could have gone and got rid of Al Queda he would have? Come on this is the guy who shot missiles to try and get public minds off of his pleasures. Clinton would have been the first guy to step in and start a war against them.

Originally posted by Collegeboy
I don't see the world as black and white, like I think some of you do. I look at the world and see difference in people, see how people actions are more then likely caused by their situations. Unlike many of you all who say these people hate the US from the beginning and somehow use that as a justification to pursue your ideas etc... Experience is great, but not if it hampers your thoughts.

[Collegeboy]

I do not know where you all got that my information comes from books. I have only read one on this area of the world, and it was primarily a history of the attacks. I have said before, my understanding of the situation in Palestine, and the understanding of the situation in Israel comes not from books but from talking with the actual people who live there. With people who have first hand knowledge and experience in the subject.

I never said all experience clouds your judgment. I said experience can cloud your judgment. Would I listen to a wood craftsman on how to build a chest, yes. Would I listen to a woodcraftsman on the best way to fix a car engine, no. That is what I was trying to show you Shartley. I would listen to you any day on the mind set of a terrorist. But you would not be a good source on what makes a terrorist, on what draws them to these people that brainwashes them. I would turn to the girls above, who knows what it is like to live in this area. Who have seen fellow members of their community join these groups. I would turn to you and listen about hatred directed to military personal in a foreign country. But you would not be a good source on hatred directed to non military members. For that I would turn to my parents, but they were there a long time ago, so more recently to my community to talk to the wives and children of military men who lived in foreign countries. Even then that can be tricky in some cases. When you use a source in a paper, or in what ever you do, the most important thing to find out, even more then the information, is who is the author, where did he get this information, what was his purpose in writing this, and finally can he be conceived as having any bias or anything that might cloud his thoughts.

1de

That will work in the real world. By proposing a peace settlement, by backing out of controlled land, by putting the ball in the play of the PLO. You are taking any blame away from the Israel that the Palestinians have. I agree some groups will only be happy with Israel out. But that is the beauty behind this plan. You can now weed out those groups and deal with them individually. How do you deal with them individually you make the PLO responsible for their actions. Sooner or later they will wear out their welcome and the people will turn on them. Right now both sides are together because they have a common cause, get Israel out of the occupied land. Once you take away that commonality you will quickly see a difference being made.

Shartley

I understand you are for assassination. But like you said I will rule out the use of bombing to get it done. When you bring murder and destruction (this is through the eyes of the civilians) to them and something as noticeable as bombs, you will only grow more hatred. Again look to Bosnia for proof. Does it matter that that person might have been responsible for attacks on the US? No, the people in the area will only see it as another reason to confirm thoughts they have had installed in them by these terrorist. By an assassination it isn't as public as a bomb.

I am guessing you blame Clinton for not getting Bin Laden too. It is so easy to sit back and say it is Clinton's fault. But you have to realize that maybe he didn't have all the information. Maybe he couldn't do anything about it.

[aaron_mag]

Re: next!

Originally posted by 1stdeadeye
*Note, I am not some Pro-Israel fanatic. I think that we give them entirely too much aid. I do feel that right now, they have no choice but to continue to retaliate in order to ensure the long term survival of Israel!

I was starting to wonder! There have been some pro war rallying marches in the United States with people waving the US Flag with the Israeli flag (heard about it on the news). People can rally in any way they want as far as I am concerned but I think it is in the best interest of the pro war movement in the U.S. to limit foriegn flags being carried. This allows the other side to point and say that our military is being used to carry out the agenda of other countries. It is just as damaging as when peace rallys burn the American flag.

The attack on the U.S.S. Cole and September 11th put us firmly in Israels corner. After all we could not demand Israel limit their military efforts and let us start brokering the peace process when our own military was seeking revenge against attacks on us. This was the result of the terrorist attacks against the U.S. We have always Israel a massive amount of aid but I think that slowly the American public was starting to question WHY we were giving so much aid and if we were why we were not putting more pressure on Israel come to the table and start making some real concessions.

[FactsOfLife]

Originally posted by Collegeboy
I am guessing you blame Clinton for not getting Bin Laden too. It is so easy to sit back and say it is Clinton's fault. But you have to realize that maybe he didn't have all the information. Maybe he couldn't do anything about it.

Ehhhhh WRONG.

Both Clinton and his flunky Madelein not-too-Albright had bin laden handed to them on a platter not once but twice and they didn't take it.

They knew EXACTLY when and where he and his cabal were going to be, including the flight number and they chose to NOT go after him.

Maddy not-too-albright even admitted this a few weeks ago on Meet The Depressed or Deface the Nation can't remember which show.

So yeah, I do blame Slick for not gettin UBL when he had the chance. Guess he was too busy gettin jobbed instead of doin his damned job.

[Collegeboy]

Do you think that is Clinton, especially, could have gotten Bin Laden and successfully locked him away he would have. I do.

Now why didn't Clinton. I have no idea. But knowing the above I have to come to the realization that maybe the US couldn't convict Bin Laden personally of all these or any of these issues. And even he they could, could you imagine what kind of martyr he would become if he was arrested or killed. Can you imagine what could have happened if he was arrested. Now knowing that we can make the next assumption. Maybe Clinton thought that it was best to let the man roam while keeping an eye on him. I mean he is dying. That way you can keep the level of resent down and keep control of him down. If you think that by arresting Bin Laden back then, 911 would have not happened, you are mistaking yourself. It would have still happened, if not much worse.

[FactsOfLife]

Originally posted by Collegeboy
Do you think that is Clinton, especially, could have gotten Bin Laden and successfully locked him away he would have. I do.

Now why didn't Clinton. I have no idea. But knowing the above I have to come to the realization that maybe the US couldn't convict Bin Laden personally of all these or any of these issues. And even he they could, could you imagine what kind of martyr he would become if he was arrested or killed. Can you imagine what could have happened if he was arrested. Now knowing that we can make the next assumption. Maybe Clinton thought that it was best to let the man roam while keeping an eye on him. I mean he is dying. That way you can keep the level of resent down and keep control of him down. If you think that by arresting Bin Laden back then, 911 would have not happened, you are mistaking yourself. It would have still happened, if not much worse.

you're unbelievable.

by the logic of your post we should never arrest criminals of ANY kind because that'll only make them mad and make them commit more crimes.

unreal, WTF color is the sky in your world kid?

you're not only a Useful Idiot, you're dangerous as well.

thank God we don't have people like you prosecuting this war. we'd cease to exist as a nation in about a week.