Rumsfeld

[oddjob]

Re: Rumsfeld

I have alot of work today. So I'll keep this short...<br /><br />To the insurgents bashing bush and the admin on this thread....<br /><br />Praise be to Allah! and "may (our)god have mercy on your souls".....because I wont! Gen. PaTTon

 

[QC]

Re: Rumsfeld

Skinnywater,<br /><br />It is not where you got the gas, or who you are mad at, or how oppressed you are, or what your religious leaders tell you. It is whether or not the act is evil. This is why I harp on that word so much. When you purposely kill innocents, you are evil, you are wrong, you must be stopped.<br /><br />Look at it this way. If I hand you a loaded weapon and say use this to defend your home and then you turn around and shoot your kids, I am not the problem in that scenario! The twisted individual that shoots his own children is the problem.<br /><br />We should NEVER rationalize, explain, understand, defend or minimalize evil. Anytime we do anything to dillute the meaning of evil we are blurring the most important line in civilized society. Next issue . . .<br /><br />Please don't be predictably simple and respond that we kill innocents everyday. We do NOT kill innocents on purpose. If we do, we try those responsible in a court of law and they are punished. Are there exceptions? Of course. Are those exceptions right? No.

 

[tuahcodem]

Re: Rumsfeld

 

[RubberFrog]

Re: Rumsfeld

Allah.... you retard

 

[Skinnywater]

Re: Rumsfeld

You cut and paste pieces of righteousness to fit the justification to invade Iraq ultimately on moral grounds, yet never quite acknowledge facts that are relevant to our basic responsibility in all this.<br />We not only gave "somebody" a gun. WE GAVE SADDAM, A KNOWN OPPRESSIVE DICTATOR WMD's. <br />For shame your implication that it wasn't on purpose, or an accident, or was justified. <br />It's suspicious you failed to recognize that evil, when it's profoundly at odds with your moral argument.<br /><br />My argument, which ultimately led to exposing that hypocrisy, came from a wise founder of conservative government and was met with more denial of the "benefit of hindsight". <br /><br />"People and nations are forged in the fires of adversity." <br />"Wherever the standard of freedom and independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will be America's heart, her benedictions and prayers, but she goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator of her own." John Adams<br /><br />You QC speak of an America that seems to never had an Indian war or a slave economy. And are seemingly willing to close your eyes to the moral implications of our involvement in oppressive governments in Africa today. For we dabble like we did in the Middle East and supply them with arms to protect their oil for US. While the oppressive regimes get paid millions that never trickle down to the pathetically poor. <br />We sir, couldn't possibly cultivate another future war to fight on high and mighty grounds than this. The perpetual war against terrorism cultivates more terrorists for tomorrow than you can kill today.<br />So what does the stinking "benefit of 20/20 hindsight" matter when you deny the benefit?<br /><br />I'm not sure why you 30%'ers discount and deny our involvement with oppressive regimes, like the Shah and Saddam. As an American I feel sick about the hypocrisy and even am willing to make some excuses for it. But I'm not willing to be so blatantly hypocritical and exibit denial with a shrinking minority that seems blind to facts and folly. <br />Especially if you're not even capable of being sincerely honest and willing to explore changes in policy that may improve where we have failed to be true to our founders and this nations credibility. <br />As an American I have the right to suspect that inability as a threat to our national security.<br /><br />But hey, that's just the "insurgent" in me talking QC. And I fully expect all the 30%'ers to minimize at best and discount generally all the points I've made.

 

[ob]

Re: Rumsfeld

And I suppose every other country in the world is on the "up and up" and the US with all of its hipocracy is the summit of all wrong doing.I view many of the worlds countries as looking out for their own special intetsts ,with little or no regard for anyone else.America somehow is held to a higher standard by onlookers both abroad and domestic.

 

[QC]

Re: Rumsfeld

Skinny,<br /><br />Well first, for the record, I don't cut and paste anything in DC unless it is an answer to a specific question or something like that. And in those cases I almost always acknowledge the source. I made up that drivel my ownself thank you.<br /><br />Let's try something here. Mainly in the interest of playing by the rules and not provoking any anger. Where is it that we actually differ, Skinny? How should we behave regarding our national interests? Sometimes I think we should simply be isolationists (I think that's the summary of Adam's position in your quotes), but I can't support that because I do honestly believe we have a moral responsibility to this world. I don't feel that we have lost that moral obligation or the ability to proclaim that some things and systems are morally and logically superior to others, simply because we have made mistakes in the past. It seems to me that you feel we should be in some sort of self enforced timeout because we have been bad. Do you believe that we should ever act militarily outside of defending our own borders?<br /><br />BTW, I don't even know what a 30%'er is. But I assume it is someone who is outside the mainstream on either side? Does that make you a 40%'er? Centrist? How would you define me politically?

 

[Skinnywater]

Re: Rumsfeld

And I suppose every other country in the world is on the "up and up" and the US with all of its hipocracy is the summit of all wrong doing.

I don't think so OB. I just think it's dangerous to turn a blind eye to those times when our government isn't on the "up and up" or worse yet deny the possibility that it's even possible.<br />We are far from the summit of wrong doing and yet we have demonstrated the capacity to do wrong.<br /><br />While I might sound harsh to those in-denial, it closely matches the harshness that they display in rebuttal. PW, rolmops, rodbolt all catch a lot worse from the 30%'ers.<br /><br />I'm very proud of the people of the US because it does seem we are responsive enough when things are truely headed in the wrong direction we respond decisively. <br />I'm sure the President is well aware the growing discontent in his performance. <br />The scariest scenario of all is if this particular Presidents policies and performance were not getting the grade it's receiving.

 

[Skinnywater]

Re: Rumsfeld

"Cut and paste" was my play on words for what you were doing. Selecting parts of morality to fit your argument while ignoring relevant moral counter-points.<br />For instance; nowhere in your last post did you even acknowledge " WE GAVE SADDAM, A KNOWN OPPRESSIVE DICTATOR WMD's." You skip past that relevantcy that answers a good deal of the questions you continue to ask.<br /><br />I'm surprised you have to ask my opinion on war. I've been consistant throughout. War is to crush the enemy and nation build later. War should be debated and declared as explained in the Constitution. No exceptions, no excuses or cop-outs. That includes if you go to war for X,Y and Z then so be it. I don't want to learn later it was really for A, B and C.<br /><br />Should we go to war for moral reasons? You betcha.<br />But just what part of playing best buddys with oppressive regimes don't you understand? And where does doing business with them worth it in the long run to our "national interests".<br />And my previous points about our meddleing into African affairs. It is about oil, and it is a template of mistakes from the past.<br /><br />For 75 years out of the last 110 we've been at war or preparing for war. No doubt WW2 and 9-11 were rightious and neccesary. But most could be reasonably debated on whether they were truely vital to national interests out side of greed or arrogance. At some point when you can't rebuild American citys after natural disasters because of world commitments, that is a viable "national security" concern.<br /><br />A 30%'er is what I call those who believe President Bush is doing a good job. <br /><br />QC we probably do agree on more than not. But I do draw from what people say on other political threads to understand their points. <br />Many points seem to entirely to much blind faith in what is obviously just an ordinary man. No better or worse, smarter or foolish than you or I, our President.<br /><br />Forgive me if it got to personal, it really wasn't intended to be that way. <br />The debate is sport to me, not hurting feelings.<br /><br />BTW, after we turn Osama Bin Laudin into worm-dirt a "self enforced time-out" wouldn't be a bad idea. Could you imagine how our standard of living would improve without playing police to the world for 20-30 years or so. We have borders to seal and infrastucture to build...still have to get independence from a ever limiting supply of fossil fuels....baby boomers retiring...deficiet..China on the horizon...hurricanes...earthquakes..

 

[txswinner]

Re: Rumsfeld

Skinny, I believe that we can safely say the 30% of the people in this country are stupid, blind, evil or just not willing to accept that the W administration has wrecked this country in 6 years.

 

[ob]

Re: Rumsfeld

I can safely say with 100% certainty that txwinner and fellow administration skeptics seem to constantly repeat the same disdain over and over and over,like the energizer bunny.Has there been a syndrome named for this yet.Will the batteries ever run out,or will the US elect yet another Rep. Tune in for the next episisode of One Hundred Yards to the Outhouse by Willy Makeit and Betty Dont.

 

[--GQ--]

Re: Rumsfeld

Originally posted by Allah:<br />

What the smuck ????

 

[treedancer]

Re: Rumsfeld

OB said<br />

I can safely say with 100% certainty that txwinner and fellow administration skeptics seem to constantly repeat the same disdain over and over and over

Your right they are saying that over and over, but what you did not say was they are saying that to counter the propaganda the water carriers for the lying corrupt regime of George the second.

 

[ob]

Re: Rumsfeld

Originally posted by treedancer:<br />Your right they are saying that over and over, but what you did not say was they are saying that to counter the propaganda the water carriers for the lying corrupt regime of George the second.

You're correct.I'm not saying that.You just did.

 

[QC]

Re: Rumsfeld

Originally posted by treedancer:<br /><br />Edit: I did it again. I confused treedancer for Skinnywater. Man, I am sorry to both of you. I did this once about two months ago. Weird. I swear it is more the screennames than antyhing else. Wow

 

[oddjob]

Re: Rumsfeld

Originally posted by txswinner:<br /> Skinny, I believe that we can safely say the 30% of the people in this country are stupid, blind, evil or just not willing to accept that the W administration has wrecked this country in 6 years.

You can safely say that here on this forum. But I doubt that would be the case anywhere you please. So type on keyboard terrorists everyone needs a good laugh..

 

[treedancer]

Re: Rumsfeld

Edit: I did it again. I confused treedancer for Skinnywater. Man, I am sorry to both of you. I did this once about two months ago. Weird. I swear it is more the screennames than antyhing else. Wow [Confused]

Man glad you cleared that up had me looking cross-eyed at this monitor(after all us native Americans all look the same).

 

[tuahcodem]

Re: Rumsfeld

Not a true believer, Latex Amphibian?<br />You will be, in due time

 

[QC]

Re: Rumsfeld

Originally posted by treedancer:<br /> (after all us native Americans all look the same).

LOL

 

[rodbolt]

Re: Rumsfeld

and whats funny is after 98 posts no one steps up and says he is competent cause all his plans worked, even in the face of those who warned they would not.<br /> or say he is incompetent cause not a single plan he had worked.<br /> like the speech in 03, the WMD's are in bagdad and tikrit, and points north, south, east and west.<br /> his zact werds.<br />however they did leave a lot of latitude. just not enough for anyone to actually find one.<br /> so far I see him as a well paid nincompoop that has cost many dearly.