kenhoeve

awww, somebody stole my sign, waaaaaaaaaa. you mean nucular bumper sticker genie, lol.

Critical reading skills are lost on many here. Not saying you Metz, just saying people need to evaluate the core argument. Charles's post, the very first one. What does it say? Not literally, but really say? It says a few things and allow me to break it down. 1. This war isn't bad at all. Why? 2. Lots of people have died in wars. Just as many people die in US cities. 3. Relative to other extraneous subject matter it isn't taking that long. Now, let's evaluate these whys. Are the number of people who died in large conflicts really relevant? If it is, then you are saying that the measuring stick as to whether a conflict is bad is if we've killed X number of people. I find that flawed. My opinion? Yes. Is it an opinion whereby you have subjectively applied a fact of people killed in previous wars to evaluate our current situation? You bet. This applies equally to the second why. So what am I really saying? Stating a few facts and then implicitly tying them as concrete evidence in a separate argument really isn't facts at all. They are a subjective argument. Of course it is muddled with political sleight of hand, but ignore that and still look at the core argument. Ultimately, it is opinion, just as is mine, and is hidden in a veil of facts that purport themselves to be directly applicable. yee-haw.

This logic is positively killing me. No pun intended. Because X number of people die per year in Y city, it justifies Z number of people dying in Iraq? You people have completely lost it. Those soldiers have willingly placed their lives on the line. I would venture a great portion of those homicides involved both unsavory persons and activities. The two situations are not comparable. And as for the history lesson: Interesting that we only entered upon Japan's attack. That is a two-edged sword. We knew what was going on in Germany with the anti-semitism and other fascist activities even before WWII got started. It is well documented. But after we place a few critical embargoes on Japan, iron and oil for example, we get bombed by Japan knowing that we probably would, and then head into WWII with a large emphasis placed on territorial and economic interests in the pacific theater. Yes, many died. Relevant? No. Korea Cold war. Communism. Not much in it for us. Number of people that died relevant? No. Vietnam Cold war. Listen to Robert McNamara's take(the friggin secretary of defense at the time) in "The Fog of War" on DVD. Lives lost relevant? No. Bosnia Ethnic cleansing widely known to be taking place. We went in when we knew it. Pre-emptive? Yes. Economic or political interest? No. Bush's record Put nuclear inspectors in Iran and North Korea? Quois? Think they've already been there and it hasn't done a darn bit of good. Captured a terrorist who slaughtered 300k of his own people; a decade later. Even after we had already invaded the country and then withdrew subsequent to this slaughter; a decade earlier. A good argument? No. Please use some fundamental argument that is not simply argumentative to substantiate a current war. Propaganda? You bet. True? Yes, but subjective. If I were to give my life over there, surely I would want something more to substantiate it than the previous post.

I have many words for that bill. None of them are appropriate. Obtrusive? Do you honestly think something of that nature could remain benign for any period of time? Another 911 type event and guess what the new Patriot Act II bill would tap into? Things like this just can't even be given the slightest breath of life.

Politicians blamed each other and the preacher swelled with pride the wealthy killed each other and the poor gave up a smile cause 750 days without a drop of rain made everyone the same :huh:

OMG, you're so inciteful and glib. First off, you're a loser. Second off, do you honestly believe Dubya would be president if it weren't for his father? Chew on that one. Two presidents and a governor. Just so great they are the right ones for the job? Or perhaps more likely they have MONEY and CONNECTIONS.

Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.

This helps Kerry and his many positions on the war and outright lies in the debate how? ←

There is another side to everything you say. You wanna talk about war and foreign policy? You need to start with a history of our country and its wars to even begin to understand who we are. Answer these questions. Why did we invade Mexico? Why did we invade the Philippines? Why did we go to Cuba during the revolution? What did we force Cuba to sign before we would leave? Why did we enter WWI? What I am trying to suggest is that all you folks stop listening to all the right wing left wing mudslinging for just a while, and think BIG PICTURE. Learn a little about the geo-political history of our country and come back with a frame of reference that might enable you to think a little more objectively on your own.

I agree with your general principle. You really know how to butter up your antagonist. top .001%, smug SOB... :P

If you really want to get a good idea what kind of entity our government is, read "A People's History of the United States"- Zinn. Then you will begin to understand what our gov't is about.

Leave this thread, you have nothing to offer.

Why is it that just because you accept that they are a propaganda machine that it is ok for them to lie to us and then still do the wrong thing. Are you saying you agree with their policies blindly? Scary.

After seeing "The Fog of War", I realized just how clueless our government really is. Charles I recommend you see it. Extremely interesting and historically pertinent.

Oh, this was the perfect response, must not throw gas on fire.... Some people forget the American public was lied to and deceived. The quotes could go on for hours. "Saddam could have nuclear capability within 9 months." - Powell "We know where the WMD's are, they're around Tikrit, here to the north, and south, and east and west." - Rumsfeld "We conservatively estimate their stockpile of biological agents at 400-500 tons."- Powell "Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction." Dick Cheney Speech to VFW National Convention August 26, 2002 "Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons." George W. Bush Speech to UN General Assembly September 12, 2002 "We know for a fact that there are weapons there." Ari Fleischer Press Briefing January 9, 2003 "I'm absolutely sure that there are weapons of mass destruction there and the evidence will be forthcoming. We're just getting it just now." Colin Powell Remarks to Reporters May 4, 2003 "For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction (as justification for invading Iraq) because it was the one reason everyone could agree on." Paul Wolfowitz Vanity Fair interview May 28, 2003 So after we learn that none of this is true, it is still OK to kill 1012 american soldiers and nearly 25,000 Iraqis because Saddam wouldn't allow an inspection?! That is INSANE. And let's get a little more specific here. That was NOT the UN's policy. The UN resolution called for serious consequences. The US read that to mean genocide was OK. The rest of the world and most definitely the UN, did not think that was the policy. So off we go WITHOUT UN approval, let's not forget that. bwahahahahahaha. this entire issue makes me laugh. it is so ridiculous that it is even true.

http://www.truthuncovered.com/film_trailermed.html

International relations, eh? you've got my vote for US diplomat Eric. we could use people with a brain and a good sense of humor. You're right though, the administration will have to play it down. Although the situation could play well with the current politics of fear used in the campaign (he's a war president!, we could be attacked if the dem's get in!), there isn't an answer to give, so they can't say it's a problem. Just have to do what they've done all along, say, "There's a diplomatic answer!" Well, how diplomatic of them all of a sudden. Is there really? How strange that we are historically blackmailed by such a bizarre, rogue country. So how to eradicate the DPRK problem? Jross mentioned some good stuff concerning what really matters, economics(smart guy!). How about isolationism? Everybody just cut them off. It would be a humanitarian disaster, not that the entire country isn't one already. But if they can't feed their military, they can't fight. So let's explore that. What if everyone cut them off? What would they do?

top notch discussion Eric and Jross! next week on crossfire...

perhaps it wasn't atomic http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?t...storyID=6211149 all i know is, we have the technology to detect a nuclear explosion anywhere on earth, any time. why hasn't the DOD said shizz?

DPRK detonates what appears to be an atomic weapon. http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...id=516&ncid=716 we are so f-d. Speculation anyone?

good god no. that requires a lot of electricity. parsing the atoms from natural gas is the primary source. Russia has the world's largest proven natural gas reserves. biodiesel is very nice.

currently the largest source of hydrogen is natural gas, and of course it is energy deficient, meaning lots more natural gas than equivalent hydrogen.

so why didn't we invade them before they became a threat? DPRK- nothing in it for us. poor intelligence allowed them to go nuclear. Iran- well we thought we could just supply Iraq with WMD courtesy of GHWB, and mess em up. that backfired. now their sworn mission is to wipe us from the face of the earth. super. but mostly, we didn't have the 9/11 get out of jail free card to artificially justify a pre-emptive strike. you live in texas, what do you know about the mexican american war? what started it? it has significance as far as this is concerned. ponder this: one comes to a decision based on what one wants, not what one doesn't want.

huh, sounds familiar, kinda like us invading Iraq. if our intentions are so altruistic, tell me, why don't we just go ahead and invade Iran and North Korea? They definitely have WMD and brutal dictators. And they really, really, hate us. So what are we waiting for? Peace ain't pretty! Yeee-hawwww, let's go boys!!!

Keep believing it is ok to blow people up, if that makes you feel better.