1
   

CNN is so lame!

 
 
tumbleweed cv
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Jan, 2007 02:31 pm
@Drnaline,
Now the Kurds in the North, and Turkey, are in a dispute.

Turkey Connection

This war could turn into a real mess if Turkey gets involved.IMO.
Drnaline
 
  1  
Reply Sun 14 Jan, 2007 01:00 pm
@tumbleweed cv,
tumbleweed;9210 wrote:
Sounds like flawed logic to me. A majority of voters are not in favor of the war, and even less support Bush.:cool:
Show me your proof of majority of voters, this past election is not proof. There was no button in the booth that said press here if you are not in favor of the war. There's 300 millions people in this country, should the ones opinions that didn't vote be counted too or just the voters? What's there percentage for favor of the war?
Drnaline
 
  1  
Reply Sun 14 Jan, 2007 01:25 pm
@oleo,
oleo;9211 wrote:
I very much support the troops not being I.E.D. fodder.

This war is insanity. It will never end the way it is going.

Either it deteriorates further, and a lot of American G.I.'s get killed, or it
deteriorates further and we pull the troops out so that they don't get killed.

Those are the options.
Quote:
I very much support the troops not being I.E.D. fodder.

Is that the only way you support them? Many entity's have used our military as targets through numerious administrations. Were they cannon fodder then, or just now? Do we decide what enemy considers our troops connon fodder?
Quote:
This war is insanity. It will never end the way it is going.

It will not end as long as they try to keep killing us. If we were to leave Iraq and let them have there way. Where do you think the front line would move too? In other words, where do you think they would attack us next?
Quote:
Either it deteriorates further, and a lot of American G.I.'s get killed, or it
deteriorates further and we pull the troops out so that they don't get killed.
Like i said earlyer, our soldiers will be targets no matter where there "redeployed." So if they don't kill them in iraq they will try and kill them elsewhere. What now, retreat a little further? Where too now? When we retreat all the way into our own borders. Where you gonna hide then?

Quote:
Those are the options.

No, there are quite a few more, you probably just don't like thinking about it.
0 Replies
 
tumbleweed cv
 
  1  
Reply Sun 14 Jan, 2007 02:36 pm
@Drnaline,
Drnaline;9248 wrote:
Show me your proof of majority of voters, this past election is not proof. There was no button in the booth that said press here if you are not in favor of the war. There's 300 millions people in this country, should the ones opinions that didn't vote be counted too or just the voters? What's there percentage for favor of the war?


You do realize that a majority only has to be 51%? It's closer to 70% by most polls.

I didn't say anything in reference to the elections.
z0z0
 
  1  
Reply Sun 14 Jan, 2007 03:22 pm
@tumbleweed cv,
Someone that does not vote either does not care or does not want to change the status quo.
Therefore it is assumed that those that did not vote did not care about the war as an issue and did not want to change policy.
Bush won his last election because the majority of people that care voted for the war and kept Bush in office.

The opinions of those that do not vote do not matter.
Drnaline
 
  1  
Reply Sun 14 Jan, 2007 06:02 pm
@tumbleweed cv,
tumbleweed;9253 wrote:
You do realize that a majority only has to be 51%? It's closer to 70% by most polls.

I didn't say anything in reference to the elections.
Yes i understand how a majority works. Show me a link as to where 51 percent of America is against the war?
Not a poll, actual people. You can't do it.
0 Replies
 
Drnaline
 
  1  
Reply Sun 14 Jan, 2007 06:05 pm
@z0z0,
z0z0;9256 wrote:
Someone that does not vote either does not care or does not want to change the status quo.
Therefore it is assumed that those that did not vote did not care about the war as an issue and did not want to change policy.
Bush won his last election because the majority of people that care voted for the war and kept Bush in office.

The opinions of those that do not vote do not matter.
Quote:
The opinions of those that do not vote do not matter.


The opinions of those not of this country do not matter.
z0z0
 
  1  
Reply Sun 14 Jan, 2007 07:12 pm
@Drnaline,
Drnaline;9266 wrote:
The opinions of those not of this country do not matter.


Yup - well said.
You prove it all.
Brent cv
 
  1  
Reply Sun 14 Jan, 2007 07:39 pm
@z0z0,
z0z0;9285 wrote:
Yup - well said.
You prove it all.

and he is right. We don't care about the world. We just try to fix all the problems since you guys won't Wink
0 Replies
 
z0z0
 
  1  
Reply Sun 14 Jan, 2007 07:54 pm
@tumbleweed cv,
Who caused the problems?

In how many places has the UK and USA meddled?

Have you ever heard of the term "Blowback"?

Blowback (intelligence)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Blowback is a term now broadly used in espionage to describe the unintended consequences of covert operations. Because the public generally is unaware of secret operations, the consequences transpire as a surprise, apparently random and without cause, and blowback results.

In its strictest terms, blowback was originally informational only and referred to consequences that resulted when an intelligence agency participated in foreign media manipulation, which was then reported by domestic news sources in other countries as accepted facts. In looser terms, it can encompass all operational aspects. In this context, it can thus mean retaliation as the result of actions undertaken by nations. The phrase is believed to have been coined by the CIA, in reference to the shrapnel that often flies back when shooting an automatic firearm.

In the 1980s, blowback became a central focus of the debate over the Reagan Doctrine, which advocated militarily supporting resistance movements opposing Soviet-supported, communist governments. In one case, covert funding of the Contras in Nicaragua would lead to the Iran-Contra Affair, while overt support led to a World Court ruling against the United States in Nicaragua v. United States.

Critics of the Reagan Doctrine argued that blowback was unavoidable, and that, through the doctrine, the United States was inflaming wars in the Third World. Doctrine advocates, principally at the conservative Heritage Foundation, responded that support for anti-communist resistance movements would lead to a "correlation of forces," which would topple communist regimes without significant retaliatory consequence to the United States, while simultaneously altering the global balance of power in the Cold War.
0 Replies
 
Drnaline
 
  1  
Reply Sun 14 Jan, 2007 08:01 pm
@z0z0,
Quote:
In how many places has the UK and USA meddled?

A canadian in an american forum, does that constitute you as meddling? If you do can we consider other canadians do the same? Possibly maybe even your government as intellectual as it is?
0 Replies
 
z0z0
 
  1  
Reply Sun 14 Jan, 2007 08:18 pm
@tumbleweed cv,
Drnaline - please reference - http://www.conflictingviews.com/t853
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » CNN is so lame!
  3. » Page 5
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.09 seconds on 05/08/2024 at 07:51:01