o·bliv·i·ous adj. 1. Lacking all memory; forgetful. 2. Lacking conscious awareness 3. Unmindful; unobservant, unthinking.
Yes, i too have resorted to name-calling when i couldn't defeat an argument on its points. But what i truly find fascinating is that when quoting me you deleted the first line that qualifies the rest: "as so often is the case, the true reasons for an action are not obvious" Seems like you went to liberal media school. Obviously, i meant that the reasons for going to war was not what was told to the public in general, cause it might have sounded hard and cruel to you namby-pambies. Or as in the movie "Team America" says, you pu***ies.
It wasn't a name-calling. It was a dictionary definition of a state of mind. And you really haven't presented an argument. Where are the facts to support your contentions. How do you know the real reason we went to war and what is your source? You are saying: 1. We went went to war to demonstrate to the world that we would take take down any country that we even suspect of terrorist affication or even with the capability to do so. (I have read Bushes remarks to the American people and he didn't say anything like this) 2. We did it to control the middle east oil (He never said this either, if fact he stated the contrary) 3. Iraq is in the most need of democracy in the world and we had to go there to spread it. (Bush says that now, but its not what he said to us before going to war--it was the mythical WMD's) So who do I believe, You or George Bush? It was a simple preamble that really didn't state anything controversial. It was the assertations above that I was responding to. And, yes, I did go to school. And now you're saying that the administration has a private agenda kept secret from the American people. You know you could be absolutely right. I actually hope you can make your case on this point! I'm just saying you haven't proved anything by making unsubstantiated statements that contradict all Bush's public policy statements. What gives you this special inside knowledge. Is is because you made it up? I sometimes make a unproven speculation also, but I'm careful to call it a "wildass guess" not "the true reason". What's a namby-pamby? Some kind of fuzzy toy? I'm neither pro-peace nor anti-war. I'm anti-stupid war . . . and anti-stupid president.
okay, it's only my theory. Proof? none. But what do you think of the precedent theory, if it were done to deter other countries? What about Libya? Afgan. flying a bit under the radar now, with the iraq war, seems to be doing good. And Lebanon. And whether you believe in the precedent theory or not, i submit that the Iraq war has caused major alarm in countries that might have harbored terrorist, might have been against the US. They obviously know that they're treading on thin ice. Take Libya again, do you think their throwing up their arms would have happened without the us/iraq war?
Yes. We all know what you are anti-... http://www.tigerforums.com/showthread.php?t=25697&page=5&pp=15&highlight=non-Bush
Well, we were talking about Iraq. I think the way we handled Afghanistan was very well done. I never criticised Bush or Rumsfeld for that. Only the disasterous Iraqi misadventure. It's because you haven't bothered to study it. We had a half-million troops and many more bases in Vietnam than we have in the Persian Gulf. And bigger ones too. In-country in Vietnam itself there were 6,000 fire bases, hundreds of larger US military installations and dozens of very large US air force and army bases. The naval base at DaNang was one of the biggest in the world. Four more huge US airbases were operating in Thailand, some with B-52's (ask SabanFan about them). In addition to the big US air and naval complexes on Guam, Okinawa, and in the Phllipines, there was the 7th fleet, which dwarfed the naval force in the Persian Gulf. We had a 1,000-ship navy during Vietnam versus less than 300 now. The Air force was three time the size of todays. Military support facilities were available in Austrailia, Singapore, Hong Kong, and other southeast Asian countries. The best reference on the subject has over 15,000 entries in Vietnam alone. Where We Were in Vietnam. I repeat--we did not lose Vietnam because of poor military effort or lack of facilities. We quit Vietnam because it was unwinnable and it was in our best national interests to do so. No, it's advocation of getting out sooner rather than later. Getting out instantly is not possible, but staying there indefinitely is not smart. Well, I state clearly what I'm for or against. No need for you to speculate on what "we all" know. Just tell us what you are for or against.
You brought up that "trying to make Iraq into little America" was a mistake. You cannot support those efforts vis-a-vis Afghanistan and then go around and bash the Iraq efforts. It's the same exact goal. Just because the Iraq war cannot be won the same way as the Afghan war was doesn't mean it is a bad war. It's disastrous, btw. I was referring to your "anti-dumb war and anti-stupid president" comments with the thread a few months ago in which you made it blatantly clear that you were voting for the not-Bush candidate in the 2004 presidential election. It's nearly unanimous, especially on this board, that voting "against" someone is stupid and not the way anyone should choose the leader of their country.
a couple things: 1. i vaguely remember me teaching someone that it was very stupid to vote "anyone but candidate x". cant remember who though. 2. 157 loves to put words in peoples mouth and straw man them. many times he has told me what i thought about something in order to show how dumb i was. he could learn to ask peeps what they think instead of telling them. 3. red is really wrong about foreign policy. we must stay in iraq, we have no choice. we must stay until we have conclusively demonstrated that we finish what we start. to do anything else would be a disaster. any time our enemy believes they can weaken our resolve, that will make them attack. even a relatively minor stupid move like giving up in somalia has massive consequences because our enemies think they can manipulate us. when people realize we never quit, that is when we will have no reason to fight, because everyone will realize that pissing us off is suicide. the worst possible thing, that will probably result in the most dead americans (civilians too, and especially where i live) is the policy that shows we can be manipulated because our people cannot stomach anything tough. the person on this board who i know understands this is sourdoughman.
here's an open ended question to everyone: what were the other options for the US? other than attacking when we did? I really want to know. (I can say we, cause I was there ) :thumb:
