Just one more. [Archive] - Two Plus Two Older Archives

10-25-2005, 08:29 AM

While making my morning coffee fix I heard part of a news cast about "2,000" dead in Iraq. I was thinking how it seems a particular number is the reference point to make something important to the media. During the Iran hostage problem the "big deal" for networks was to open with, "Day xxx of the hostage crisis," or something to that effect. But, gratefully, they've not given a daily body count.

/images/graemlins/frown.gif

Beer and Pizza

10-26-2005, 12:29 PM

So it starts, Iplayboard has already started a celebration of 2000 deaths thread. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

theweatherman

10-26-2005, 02:18 PM

[ QUOTE ]
But, gratefully, they've not given a daily body count.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why are you happy about this?? The public needs to see the consequences of war EVERY DAY a daily death toll would be a great way to do this. Only after the public sees the horrors of war will they stop voting for them!

10-26-2005, 02:28 PM

[ QUOTE ]

The public needs to see the consequences of war EVERY DAY a daily death toll would be a great way to do this. Only after the public sees the horrors of war will they stop voting for them!

[/ QUOTE ]

Yet another example of youthful naivete.

/images/graemlins/frown.gif

theweatherman

10-26-2005, 02:32 PM

How's that? I'd say your an example of blindly following your government into killing 2000 soldiers and over 25K Iraqis. I mean 27,000 dead people isnt THAT bad. After all there have been unlimited gains from our latest imperial conquest, oh wait that never happened

10-26-2005, 02:46 PM

First, in my youth I blindly followed a few, yeah. But I got over it thru diligent pursuit of maturity and knowledge. I don't blindly follow anyone.

Second, I didn't like the idea of invading Iraq. (read any of my posts?) I hate the fact we've lost 2,000. But, I understand why we went in and got over my objections. I probably know just a tad more than you about how war "works."

Third (you still with me here?), our military (with only the rarest of exceptions) doesn't go around killing anyone not engaged in killing our folks. That, my young friend, is one of the ways a war "works." Your "25K Iraqis" number includes one helluva lot of innocents killed by the enemy. They don't seem to give a rat's ass who dies. I mean, they got all those virgins to go take care of, right?

Lastly, every time some whiney weenie tosses out that "Imperialist" crap I get an enormous urge to kick the SOB right in the nuts!

/images/graemlins/mad.gif

Arnfinn Madsen

10-26-2005, 02:51 PM

Ok, I will put on my susp:

Trying to gain control of larger share of world's energy sources=imperalism.

10-26-2005, 02:54 PM

[ QUOTE ]

Trying to gain control of larger share of world's energy sources=imperalism.

[/ QUOTE ]

Another "cute" thought, but it doesn't fly. The Iraqis control their oil. Our policy regarding that has been clearly stated. All of Iraq's oil is presently being used for their benefit. Not ours. We'll never control Iraq's oil.

Next?

/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

theweatherman

10-26-2005, 02:58 PM

What have we acomplished in Iraq? The only thing I can see is making a ton of money for American companies. Our soldiers have died for nothing beyond the rich getting richer.

Our lower class military is merely a tool of the rich and powerful to acomplish their goals. Imperialism is the one and only goal of this war from the get go. We are amoung a bunch of powerful nations that need oil.

Iraq has oil.

We go to Iraq and secure oil for our country. Imperialism 101.

Its easy to blame the insurgents for killing civilians, and yes acts of violence against civilians is deplorable, but the west must take responsiblity for creating these insurgents. Everyday we mess with the middle east is another insurgent made (off topic why are washington and Jefferson called revolutionaries, but the iraqi freedom fighters are called insurgents?)

You must be too old to use all your brain cells, even a child could piece together this picture.

Arnfinn Madsen

10-26-2005, 03:01 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Trying to gain control of larger share of world's energy sources=imperalism.

[/ QUOTE ]

Another "cute" thought, but it doesn't fly. The Iraqis control their oil. Our policy regarding that has been clearly stated. All of Iraq's oil is presently being used for their benefit. Not ours. We'll never control Iraq's oil.

Next?

/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Still feel completely capable of breeding (susp was unnecessary for such a weak kick) /images/graemlins/smirk.gif.

One can discuss the reasons for invading, there is 98954737348 threads about it already, but thinking that energy control (more specifically: making sure oil is controlled by a friendly as opposed to a hostile government) isn't a factor in US' priority of foreign policy is naive. You think the Saudi government would have gotten US support if it was a ordinary African dictatorship with no oil?

MMMMMM

10-26-2005, 03:03 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Trying to gain control of larger share of world's energy sources=imperalism.

[/ QUOTE ]

Another "cute" thought, but it doesn't fly. The Iraqis control their oil. Our policy regarding that has been clearly stated. All of Iraq's oil is presently being used for their benefit. Not ours. We'll never control Iraq's oil.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah plus we are paying through the nose for it (and for oil in general).

However, if the Arab/Islamic would continues to attack the West, and if Saudi Arabia continues to spread virulent anti-Western hate ideology around the world via its Wahhabi-funded mosques, then maybe the USA, U.K. and Europe should band together and just TAKE the damn stuff.

10-26-2005, 03:18 PM

[ QUOTE ]

One can discuss the reasons for invading, there is 98954737348 threads about it already, but thinking that energy control (more specifically: making sure oil is controlled by a friendly as opposed to a hostile government) isn't a factor in US' priority of foreign policy is naive. You think the Saudi government would have gotten US support if it was a ordinary African dictatorship with no oil?

[/ QUOTE ]

You have a strange, IMO, definition of Imperialism.

Hell yes, we want "friendly" nations. The more there are, the merrier we get. (wasn't that one of the noble, original thoughts behind the UN?)

Hell yes, we've put up with crap and done stupid things toward/with/for the Saudi "government."

Hell no, we don't do a lot of things for poor nations. And a lot of that thinking is changing.

AngryCola

10-26-2005, 03:41 PM

bobman0330

10-26-2005, 03:49 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Iraq has oil.

We go to Iraq and secure oil for our country. Imperialism 101.

Its easy to blame the insurgents for killing civilians, and yes acts of violence against civilians is deplorable, but the west must take responsiblity for creating these insurgents. Everyday we mess with the middle east is another insurgent made....

You must be too old to use all your brain cells, even a child could piece together this picture.

[/ QUOTE ]

A child certainly could, as you've amply demonstrated. Grownups usually need facts to back up their assertions and innuendoes.

[ QUOTE ]
(off topic why are washington and Jefferson called revolutionaries, but the iraqi freedom fighters are called insurgents?)

[/ QUOTE ]

Washington and Jefferson didn't bomb hospitals or murder people looking for jobs with car bombs.

jaxmike

10-26-2005, 05:00 PM

[ QUOTE ]
What have we acomplished in Iraq? The only thing I can see is making a ton of money for American companies.

[/ QUOTE ]

And that is precisely the problem.

[ QUOTE ]
Our soldiers have died for nothing beyond the rich getting richer.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree.

[ QUOTE ]
Our lower class military is merely a tool of the rich and powerful to acomplish their goals.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not really. But you are really not all that far off.

[ QUOTE ]
Imperialism is the one and only goal of this war from the get go.

[/ QUOTE ]

Explain.

[ QUOTE ]
We are amoung a bunch of powerful nations that need oil.

Iraq has oil.

[/ QUOTE ]

Compared to the United States I do not believe any other nation can truly be considered powerful.

[ QUOTE ]
We go to Iraq and secure oil for our country. Imperialism 101.

[/ QUOTE ]

Apparently you need to go to a new school.

[ QUOTE ]
Its easy to blame the insurgents for killing civilians,

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps because they are to blame? At least MOSTLY to blame.

[ QUOTE ]
...and yes acts of violence against civilians is deplorable, but the west must take responsiblity for creating these insurgents.

[/ QUOTE ]

I just don't see the logic here. Why should "the west" take ANY responsibility for "creating" these insurgents? It's not like "we" MADE them blow themselves and 10 children up.

[ QUOTE ]
Everyday we mess with the middle east is another insurgent made (off topic why are washington and Jefferson called revolutionaries, but the iraqi freedom fighters are called insurgents?)

[/ QUOTE ]

Because they didn't go around murdering children. Simple and accurate.

[ QUOTE ]
You must be too old to use all your brain cells, even a child could piece together this picture.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, the problem with you and liberals is that you cannot understand reality at the level needed to truly understand it. You simply make ignorant and incorrect assumptions. Only people working on a VERY low intellectual level believe the nonsense you are spewing to be truly reflective of reality. However, reality really depends on your point of view, so to you, it's as real as Santa. Who, by the way, is not real. Sorry to spoil Christmas little boy.

10-26-2005, 05:00 PM

And in one fell swoop, he renders all his other posts unreadable and ignorable by comparing american heroes (no im not naive, I know exactly who they were and exactly what they did... this isnt about patriotism) to insurgents who use children as bait (one of my best friends was killed offering candy to a kid who was strapped with explosives) and kill their own people.

such a shame, I was actually enjoying your posts.

MMMMMM

10-26-2005, 05:05 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Everyday we mess with the middle east is another insurgent made (off topic why are washington and Jefferson called revolutionaries, but the iraqi freedom fighters are called insurgents?)

[/ QUOTE ]

You should try to get your terms straight.

The Iraqi insurgents are NOT "freedom" fighters. Rather, they are fighting for a return to tyranny--not freedom.

The Saddamites are fighting for a return to Baathist tyranny.

The foreign Jihadists, such as Zarqawi's "Al-Qaeda In Iraq", are fighting for the imposition of Islamo-fascist tyranny, that is, for pure religious rule.

Neither of the above are fighting for "freedom."

AngryCola

10-26-2005, 05:08 PM

[ QUOTE ]

Compared to the United States I do not believe any other nation can truly be considered powerful.

[/ QUOTE ]

This entirely depends on your view of what makes a country powerful. In my view, there are a few other 'powerful' countries besides the U.S.

[ QUOTE ]

No, the problem with you and liberals is that you cannot understand reality at the level needed to truly understand it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah. Well, nevermind then. I thought you were interested in having a discussion, but now see that you are still stuck on looking foolish. If virtually every post you make didn't include such outlandish and counterproductive claims about liberals, I might be inclined to actually listen to what you have to say.

We get it already...
Liberals = Stupid, delusional, and wrong about everything.

Seriously, you don't need to keep telling us.

jaxmike

10-26-2005, 05:13 PM

[ QUOTE ]
This entirely depends on your view of what makes a country powerful. In my view, there are a few other 'powerful' countries besides the U.S.

[/ QUOTE ]

In what aspect that really dictates power (military/economy) can any nation be considered powerful when compared to the United States?

[ QUOTE ]

Ah. Well, nevermind then. I thought you were interested in having a discussion, but now see that you are still stuck on looking foolish. If virtually every post you make didn't include such outlandish and counterproductive claims about liberals, I might be inclied to actually listen to what you have to say.

[/ QUOTE ]

A completely accurate response from you (with the exception of the assertion that I am attempting to look foolish). I am not inserting any negative claims in this post. But I WILL point out that I do not believe (and this is my personal belief) that what I wrote can be considered "outlandish". Counterproductive, yes, but I don't believe it was outlandish.

cardcounter0

10-26-2005, 05:54 PM

0 = number of funerals for fallen American Solders Bush has attended.

10-26-2005, 06:25 PM

[ QUOTE ]

We get it already...
Liberals = Stupid, delusional, and wrong about everything.

[/ QUOTE ]

AC,

At the risk of appearing to be a suck up to a Mod (yeah, like I suck up to anyone I'm not married to /images/graemlins/smile.gif ) not everyone who disagrees with Liberals believe Liberals are the Devil Incarnate. OK, maybe a few of you are. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

According to the Libertarian Party's "test," I am a Centrist. (and damned proud I am about that, too) To me, that means I can listen to both sides of the issue and make up my own damned mind. I get a tad biased on occasion, but I really do try and listen to my Liberal friends.

And I do have friends who consider themselves to be very Liberal. Occasionally they sway me. (Momma, please forgive me!) On rare occasions I sway them.

This is getting close to highjacking. Bye.

AngryCola

10-26-2005, 06:55 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Not everyone who disagrees with Liberals believe Liberals are the Devil Incarnate.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know that. It just gets very old hearing the same old song from certain posters.

-AC
(Still not a Liberal)

phage

10-26-2005, 07:00 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Everyday we mess with the middle east is another insurgent made (off topic why are washington and Jefferson called revolutionaries, but the iraqi freedom fighters are called insurgents?)

[/ QUOTE ]

You should try to get your terms straight.

The Iraqi insurgents are NOT "freedom" fighters. Rather, they are fighting for a return to tyranny--not freedom.

The Saddamites are fighting for a return to Baathist tyranny.

The foreign Jihadists, such as Zarqawi's "Al-Qaeda In Iraq", are fighting for the imposition of Islamo-fascist tyranny, that is, for pure religious rule.

Neither of the above are fighting for "freedom."

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't agree with the weatherman...(One mans freedom fighter etc.) however you cannot say that the insurgents are fighting for tyranny. They have an objective that is counter to what most people would feel is an open democratic society but you are defining their motives according to your own personal view of the situation. I suppose this is just a semantic arguement but I can't imagine that they would describe their actions as backing tyranny.

10-26-2005, 08:31 PM

[ QUOTE ]

I don't agree with the weatherman...(One mans freedom fighter etc.) however you cannot say that the insurgents are fighting for tyranny. They have an objective that is counter to what most people would feel is an open democratic society but you are defining their motives according to your own personal view of the situation. I suppose this is just a semantic arguement but I can't imagine that they would describe their actions as backing tyranny.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see your argument that this is about semantics.

Tyranny is a government with one ruler. It can be named Theocracy (as many seem to), Islamic Nation, whatever, but to me it's a clear case of tyranny when you've got a country run by one Imam, or, for that matter, one general or one mafia boss.

To say their (insurgents) "objective is counter to what most people would feel is an open democratic society" just put you at the top of my WTF List. I'm seriously considering naming that statement as Understatement of the Century.

Lord love a duck!

/images/graemlins/mad.gif

Roybert

10-26-2005, 09:02 PM

[ QUOTE ]
0 = number of funerals for fallen American Solders Bush has attended.

[/ QUOTE ]

G-Dub attending a military funeral would only serve to embolden the terriss'; not unlike an exit strategy or war protest would.

Duh.

cardcounter0

10-26-2005, 09:10 PM

Maybe he could go to the funeral and tell the widow, "Mission Accomplished". Then he could smirk at the rest of the family and say, "Bring 'Em On!" That should teach those evil doers.

Roybert

10-26-2005, 11:04 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe he could go to the funeral and tell the widow, "Mission Accomplished". Then he could smirk at the rest of the family and say, "Bring 'Em On!" That should teach those evil doers.

[/ QUOTE ]

"Ma'am, your husband died for a just cause ... just 'cause I wanted him to."

twowords

10-27-2005, 12:01 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Maybe he could go to the funeral and tell the widow, "Mission Accomplished". Then he could smirk at the rest of the family and say, "Bring 'Em On!" That should teach those evil doers.

[/ QUOTE ]

"Ma'am, your husband died for a just cause ... just 'cause I wanted him to."

[/ QUOTE ]

Wohoo yea Bush sucks, great thread. So glad we got to 2k because I hate Bush.

phage

10-27-2005, 07:26 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I don't agree with the weatherman...(One mans freedom fighter etc.) however you cannot say that the insurgents are fighting for tyranny. They have an objective that is counter to what most people would feel is an open democratic society but you are defining their motives according to your own personal view of the situation. I suppose this is just a semantic arguement but I can't imagine that they would describe their actions as backing tyranny.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see your argument that this is about semantics.

Tyranny is a government with one ruler. It can be named Theocracy (as many seem to), Islamic Nation, whatever, but to me it's a clear case of tyranny when you've got a country run by one Imam, or, for that matter, one general or one mafia boss.

To say their (insurgents) "objective is counter to what most people would feel is an open democratic society" just put you at the top of my WTF List. I'm seriously considering naming that statement as Understatement of the Century.

Lord love a duck!

/images/graemlins/mad.gif

[/ QUOTE ]
Indeed it was an understatement. However my point was this: Rarely does a group form with the express interest of promoting tyranny. I used tyranny in this sense-
"1 : oppressive power <every form of tyranny over the mind of man -- Thomas Jefferson>; especially : oppressive power exerted by government <the tyranny of a police state>"
and as such I was trying to express that no group thinks of itself as an oppressor and as a consequence does not see itself as acting contrary to the best interests of its perceived constituency.

Is there some sort of plaque that goes along with the Award for understatement of the century?? /images/graemlins/grin.gif

BCPVP

10-27-2005, 07:46 PM

[ QUOTE ]
(off topic why are washington and Jefferson called revolutionaries, but the iraqi freedom fighters are called insurgents?)

[/ QUOTE ]
The more you post, the more you convince me that you aren't very smart...

Nepa

10-27-2005, 07:48 PM

[ QUOTE ]
0 = number of funerals for fallen American Solders Bush has attended.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are they still putting a slogan on their graves?

anatta

10-27-2005, 08:22 PM

To the OP: Didn't Grey already kick your pansy ass with that liberals are happy with dead soliders crap? Somebody get a link.

I heard that 60 Iraqis are dying each day. Perhaps if they stopped welcoming us with flowers and candy and stuff and took cover they'd be okay. The insurgency is in its last throes, right? (Cheney 8 months or so ago) Anyways, at least "we know where the weapons are" Like north of Badgad, turn right or left on Saddam Street? (Rummy) No need, Bush said "we found them...the WMD's" No sir, that was a trailer. Don't guard the explosives and stuff. Body armor optional. What about the press conference when Bush pronouced "Abu Gaboo daboo doo doo" that was funny. Osama Bin Laden is free, that ain't funny. (1/3 trillion and counting and all we got is Saddam, but at least we are "talking about a country that can fund its own reconstruction")

Bush said (twice) Saddam "wouldn't let them in" re: inspectors. Hans Blix anyone. This was after he said there would be a final vote in the UN. Before he called it off. How about..."There is no doubt that Saddam has reconstitued his nuclear weapons program." Dick Cheney.

"It is clear that Senators would not be satisfied..." until they got executive privilege documents. "Whoops. I am lying my ass off again. I will stop. Miers nomination was retarded. My fault. I mean what I say and say what I mean after all."

Record deficits, Corruption about what really matters (read: I lie about sex too), corporations writing legislation that hurts the little guy (Bk, energy bill) Record profits for oil companies? One would think there would be a link between OPEC high oil prices and oil industry profits...one would think that is. THESE GUYS CAN'T GOVERN. FEMA. Cronies. Religious freaks in charge of Science. International reputation.

Frankly, every democrat I see looks like a total pussy, but my God Bush supporters, your guy IS an abortion.