THE US, THE UN AND THE IRAQIS THEMSELVES, V. 7.0

Pointing out our support of tyrants isn't about providing insight into Bush's motivation today, it's about providing insight into the US's motivation today, therefor it is relevant.

0 Replies

InfraBlue wrote:

Joe, the only reasoning you need to know for us waging freedom in Iraq is 9/11!

9/11, man!!!

REMEMBER 9/11!!!

Long live the State.

Did somebody forget to change hats?
MUWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

0 Replies

Gelisgesti wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:
That would be called Argumentum ad hominem... but that's not what I'm doing. Your posts do not make sense. No amount of concentration will deliver any coherent message in these disconnected words:

Quote:
Murders, one murder .... and how many people think keeping score makes a point. Please try to concentrate.
That's gibberish... as if you'd forgotten to include some of the key words to your thought, whatever it may be.
Taken out of context, or as you have done, applied without context, it is gibberish ..... the same could be done with your statements. I may have overlooked the problem, retention deficit disorder ..... yes, that would fit the scenario quite nicely .... as you were.

I didn't take anything out of context. There was no context. That is your post in it's entirety. And that, after I had to guess at what you were saying in you post before that. I still have no idea what you are talking about. Do you?

Atta boy IB. Don't be ashamed to admit you blame America first without rhyme, reason or any hint of justification. Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Gelisgesti wrote:
OCCOM BILL wrote:
That would be called Argumentum ad hominem... but that's not what I'm doing. Your posts do not make sense. No amount of concentration will deliver any coherent message in these disconnected words:

Quote:
Murders, one murder .... and how many people think keeping score makes a point. Please try to concentrate.
That's gibberish... as if you'd forgotten to include some of the key words to your thought, whatever it may be.
Taken out of context, or as you have done, applied without context, it is gibberish ..... the same could be done with your statements. I may have overlooked the problem, retention deficit disorder ..... yes, that would fit the scenario quite nicely .... as you were.

I didn't take anything out of context. There was no context. That is your post in it's entirety. And that, after I had to guess at what you were saying in you post before that. I still have no idea what you are talking about. Do you?

Atta boy IB. Don't be ashamed to admit you blame America first without rhyme, reason or any hint of justification.

What are you talking about?

0 Replies

c.i. - which of Cheney's remarks to you take exception to?

I think what he's saying is that this whole process is just part of the Iraqis exploring their new freedoms and its limits.

Sistani himself has said that only a small percentage (3% or so, I think) wants a religious government and it may have been that remark that led Cheney to have more confidence in the outcome than what the MSM is currently reporting.

To be honest, I find it quite inspiring and endearing that the Iraqis are showing so much enthusiasm. It's going to take time before they settle down, but I think what we're seeing is quite normal for young democracies.

Let's give them the benefit of the doubt (I know that will be hard for some here) and wait to see before saying "I toldya so".

0 Replies

My first objective:
I want all the middle eastern countries to be perpetually able to defend themselves against those who intentionally murder innocent civilians in their own countries.

My second objective:
I want the middle eastern countries to be perpetually able to remove from their countries those who intentionally murder innocent civilians in other countries.

I support whatever form of government individual middle eastern countries evolve for themselves to accomplish these two objectives.

I support use of pre-emptive force by the US whenever we perceive it necessary to help accomplish these two objectives.

I accept zero responsibility for any of the wrong and/or evil actions committed by US governments prior to 1931 + 21 = 1952.

I accept responsibility for any of the wrong and/or evil actions committed by US governments after 1952 under Presidents Eisenhower, Nixon, Reagan, Bush-41, and Bush-43.

I accept minimum responsibility for any of the wrong and/or evil actions committed by US governments after 1952 under Presidents other than Eisenhower, Nixon, Reagan, Bush-41, and Bush-43.

In this forum I'm primarily interested in discussing only what actions the US government did or did not, or should or should not, take to achieve my two objectives.

0 Replies

/Did I say anything about any exception to Cheney's remarks? That's news to me!

0 Replies

c.i. - no, no. Was when you typed "I guess "democracy" is in th eye of the beholder" - I thought you were referring to the eye being Cheney's eye LOL.

You weren't?

0 Replies

Make that appointment, Gel.

0 Replies

JW, Whether the Iraqi government ends up as influenced by Islam or not is their choice, and how outsiders interpret their "democracy" will henge largely on personal and subjective opinion. Most people will equate women equality with "democracy," but those are western values.

0 Replies

Word

0 Replies

Blame America first for what exactly, Bill Occom?

0 Replies

InfraBlue wrote:

Blame America first for what exactly, Bill Occom?

You'll have to elucidate that for me if you wish to discuss it. It was you who suggested you a 30 year old sin provided some insight into the US's motivation today. Do tell.

0 Replies

Bill Occam, you're the one who said, "Atta boy IB. Don't be ashamed to admit you blame America first without rhyme, reason or any hint of justification," and now you want me to elucidate you as to what I asked you about your comment?

Tell me, Billy, what exactly do I "blame America first without rhyme, reason or any hint of justification?" You said it, now you elucidate it.

0 Replies

InfraBlue wrote:

Bill Occam, you're the one who said, "Atta boy IB. Don't be ashamed to admit you blame America first without rhyme, reason or any hint of justification," and now you want me to elucidate you as to what I asked you about your comment?

Tell me, Billy, what exactly do I "blame America first without rhyme, reason or any hint of justification?" You said it, now you elucidate it.

Don't play your moronic burden shifting game with me.

I suggested McTag was blaming America first for reaching into 3 decade old history to find blame. He responded:

OCCOM BILL wrote:

McTag wrote:
Bill, I'm not seeking to blame the US for everything, don't say that. I'm only seeking to open up your mind a crack.
That would be easier to believe if you weren't trying to saddle Bush with sins that took place before he entered politics, in a place he probably couldn't point out on a globe. It is partisan foolishness to suggest a conflict in South America 3 decades ago can provide any insight into Bush's motivation today. Check your premise, or get checked. :wink:

Out of the blue, you volunteered for the very thing McTag was seeking to distance himself from when you suggested:

InfraBlue wrote:

Pointing out our support of tyrants isn't about providing insight into Bush's motivation today, it's about providing insight into the US's motivation today, therefor it is relevant.

Since you offered no clue as to what insight that may be, I wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Atta boy IB. Don't be ashamed to admit you blame America first without rhyme, reason or any hint of justification.

US's (America right?) current motivation' about a wrong from 3 decades ago Rolling Eyes

How could I possibly know what the hell that might be since you haven't yet said? Save your moronic burden shifting game for someone who might let you get away with it. I won't. You took the baton now you can elucidate or don't. I don't much care.

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

McTag wrote:
Pinochet was a bad and murderous dictator, but he was supported by the US.
This remains completely irrelevant.

McTag wrote:
I do not agree with Bill that the Cold War applied to South America, and I am wondering perhaps maybe the aim in Iraq is not as stated, or maybe it will change fast if the "wrong kind" of democracy develops.
Where is there room for disagreement? Allende was a Socialist. I'll not defend our interference there but lets not start pretending the Cold War between us and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics isn't the reason we had a problem with the Chileans electing a Socialist to power.

McTag wrote:
Bill, I'm not seeking to blame the US for everything, don't say that. I'm only seeking to open up your mind a crack.
That would be easier to believe if you weren't trying to saddle Bush with sins that took place before he entered politics, in a place he probably couldn't point out on a globe. It is partisan foolishness to suggest a conflict in South America 3 decades ago can provide any insight into Bush's motivation today. Check your premise, or get checked. :wink:

Hey Bill, even the CIA can tell the difference between Soviet communism and Chilean socialism, I think.
Hell, Tony Blair is the leader of a socialist party. It's not necessary to subvert and kill all of them.

0 Replies

I beg to differ, McTag. The CIA successfully blocked the Socialist Party in 58 and 64. It wasn't until 70 when their efforts failed and Allende was elected. It was then that Nixon told Helms to "Make the economy Scream". While funding and training crazies like the Patria y Libertad or PyL, they also used their influence with the newspapers to bash Marxism and to suggest the Soviets would soon take over the country.

You're not the first person to bring this ancient history up recently, so I brushed up. What made you think the CIA didn't consider Doctor Allende's Socialist Party the problem? What did/do you think was the reason for the interference?

0 Replies

How could you possibly make your idiotic statement, "Atta boy IB. Don't be ashamed to admit you blame America first without rhyme, reason or any hint of justification," if you couldn't possibly know what the hell that justification might be since I haven't yet said anything, Bill Occom?

If you don't know what justification I have, then stop making assumptive asinine comments like the one you've made, Billy boy.

0 Replies

And there's still a big difference between Soviet communism and British/German/Chilean etc socialism :wink:

0 Replies

Yeah, but if those socialists get too comfy with the communists, then it would best if those socialists were dead.

Right, Billy boy?

0 Replies

THE US, THE UN AND THE IRAQIS THEMSELVES, V. 7.0

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know