1
   

"Q...U...A...G..."

 
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Jun, 2003 07:31 am
Setanta, In other words, you don't know the context I take it?
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Jun, 2003 07:42 am
Actually, i do . . . those are former Iraqi soldiers who want to know when they will be paid, as they were promised by the American "Office of Recontruction," which, so far, hasn't constructed anything requiring building materials larger than a paper clip . . .
0 Replies
 
Tartarin
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Jun, 2003 07:47 am
PDiddie -- That's a wonderful photo! Makes my morning -- that and imagining McG running to Fox news trying to find a face-saving caption! Ah, context. Reframing, I believe it's called...
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Jun, 2003 07:48 am
Ok, so imagine you are a US soldier guarding the current HQ for civilian affairs and 6 feet away from you are a couple hundred angry ex-soldiers. They keep yelling and yelling and building themselves up into a frenzy. What are you gonna do? Chew some gum?

No, you will prepare for the worse while hoping for the best.

(as a side note, I don't blame the Iraqi soldiers for being upset. They were promised a payment of $50 by the US military. notices were in the newspaper, and other places. The civilian authority said that they never approved it and therefore didn't pay. That would piss me off too.)
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Jun, 2003 07:49 am
Tartarin, I didn't need to do any such thing. I just happened to keep informed on those things. Oh, and I belive that it is called the TRUTH, not reframing.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Jun, 2003 07:53 am
All of which, of course, begs the question of what the hell we're doing there in the first place, and why, as long as we do find ourselves in the **** in Iraq, the idiot in charge made no plans for administering the country once we'd gone in. Which is, of course, very germaine to the topic of this thread, that we are sinking into a quagmire. PDiddie has provided some visual comment very much to the point.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Jun, 2003 07:55 am
Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
williamhenry3
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Jun, 2003 11:34 pm
McGentrix wrote:
I just happened to keep informed on those things. Oh, and I belive that it is called the TRUTH, not reframing.


McGentrix<

If you keep informed on those things, then you realize that the U.S. government has not told the TRUTH yet about many aspects of Operation Iraqi Freedom. The most startling example, of course, is "where are those weapons of mass destruction? Are there really any over there or did the U.S. government conspire to incite the masses by telling this tall tale?"

These questions overshadow other government TRUTHs, such as the made-up story of the capture of Pvt. Lynch.

And, McGentrix, how many liberals have you actually saved? I would guess the answer is ZERO[/i].
0 Replies
 
Crunch
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Jun, 2003 01:29 am
Didn't the Pentagon say that they needed no more people to enlist. I'd think they'd know a lot more about their numbers than you or me. There is one problem with the Liberals of today, and it was summed up by George0B1. If I shouldnt quote this for some reason, then I'll be happy to delete it.

He said
Quote:
My objection to *****s views is that he assumes the necessities that; the intent of the U.S. government is objectively wrong; the motives of its leaders are equally wrong on a human level; the public utterances of its spokesmen are uniformly deceitful; its execution of the recent war was carelessly wasteful of Iraqi lives; its motives in allowing reporters unprecedented continuous access to combat units were to hide and deceive; etc.

On the other hand he also assumes the necessities that; his views are objectively correct; his subjective motives and those of the leaders of other governments which opposed the war are free of human foibles and frailties; newsmen freed from the shackles of the U.S. government would deliver complete, accurate, and objective reports of the conflict; other available means of carrying out the war could predictably lower the cost in human lives; and so on.

The profound bias here should be self-evident. It goes beyond the facts and beyond reason. Of course there are elements of truth in nearly all of his accusations. However the critical reader should recognize that his conclusions flow directly from his basic beliefs, and not from either the facts or a balanced view of history.


When I know people who were instrumental in her saving, and when I've read the articles about how it was fake (all speculation), and when I see quotes like this: "These questions overshadow other government TRUTHs, such as the made-up story of the capture of Pvt. Lynch. " it makes me glad that there is some place on this forum where we're free from such rhetoric. Its called The Roundtable. I always know I shouldn't venture out into the uitlandes! =p Seriously though, it would be one thing if, on a continuum, you'd get the middle 50 or 75%, but sometimes on these boards you get outer 25%.
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Jun, 2003 04:21 am
Crunch said:

"it makes me glad that there is some place on this forum where we're free from such rhetoric. Its called The Roundtable. I always know I shouldn't venture out into the uitlandes!"


And you define "always" as the 11 days you've been a member of this board, I take it?
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Jun, 2003 07:22 am
To take a single post and assert it characterizes all liberals and leftists is to be extremely short-sighted.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Jun, 2003 07:26 am
williamhenry3 wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
I just happened to keep informed on those things. Oh, and I belive that it is called the TRUTH, not reframing.


McGentrix<

If you keep informed on those things, then you realize that the U.S. government has not told the TRUTH yet about many aspects of Operation Iraqi Freedom. The most startling example, of course, is "where are those weapons of mass destruction? Are there really any over there or did the U.S. government conspire to incite the masses by telling this tall tale?"

These questions overshadow other government TRUTHs, such as the made-up story of the capture of Pvt. Lynch.

And, McGentrix, how many liberals have you actually saved? I would guess the answer is ZERO[/i].


Do you have some proof that the administration lied about the WMD's? I am sure that there are many people in Congress that would love to see that proof. Your implications in your post are about the same as saying the pyramids were made by aliens and that the world is flat.

Do you also have proof about Pvt. Lynch? You seem to imply that Steven Spielberg went to Iraq, created a sound stage, hired some actors, write a script, and made this great fabrication of Pvt. Lynch. Why is it so difficult for some people to accept the fact that we saved one of our own?

I have saved more liberals than you can shake a stick at.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Jun, 2003 07:41 am
How can someone at a computer have more evidence than the links that are available to all? There have been many cited in this thread and others that conclusively pinpoint the Bush administration's lies about WMDs and also Lynch. The fact that conservatives dismiss them with the haughtiness of a true believer does not diminish the truth.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Jun, 2003 07:57 am
no, there have been ACCUSATIONS of lies. until there is ABSOLUTELY no proof that the WMD's did not exist, that is anyone can do. Make accusations.
0 Replies
 
Tartarin
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Jun, 2003 08:39 am
McG -- How about we turn the argument around? How 'bout we demand that you prove that there are WMD's? Not "were," but "are". Bush didn't base a war on "were" but "are."

HE was the one who asserted something he can't prove.

HE is the one who is responsible to the American people and their allies. It's not up to the American people to prove anything.

We can say, with complete truth, that he has not proven that there are WMD's and there is increasing evidence that the specifics he gave were false.

So okay -- it's up to you to prove the president was right, not up to us to prove that he was wrong.
0 Replies
 
maxsdadeo
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Jun, 2003 08:55 am
Quote:
How about we turn the argument around?


ha ha ha ha!

How about we not?

That is, without a doubt, the most pathetic attempt at reasoned discourse that I have ever seen.

It puts me in mind of pee wee hermans, "I know you are but what am I?"


Of course, I realize that it is in your best interest to attempt to put the burden on the administration and absolve your side from actually proving the wild conjecture of what "really" happened and what the "real" motives of the war are.

Apparently many on this thread have succumbed to the old abuzz canard of "If it's blue it must be true"
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Jun, 2003 09:02 am
He is working on it. When I hear the statement "There are no weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq" come as an official release from the White House, then I will listen to the accusations. Until that time I will continue to wait and ignore them.
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Jun, 2003 09:09 am
Generally speaking, the burden of proof is with those attempting to make a claim of one type or another. In this case, President Bush claimed that there were WMD's in Iraq. The burden of proof is indeed with him and his government.

Right now, he doesn't have anything that would hold up in any kind of court. Most judges would send him home, and tell him he has to pay the costs of attempting to bring the case.
0 Replies
 
Tartarin
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Jun, 2003 09:13 am
Not the judges his father appointed, EhBeth!!
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Jun, 2003 09:18 am
That does make things simpler for the lad.

I do know that if I look at the evidence presented so far, and assess it as a file I would consider taking to court, I know it would be a loser. I'd never dare ask my v.p. for legal costs on something based on "I know it's there."
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » "Q...U...A...G..."
  3. » Page 2
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/23/2024 at 02:42:23