[Kevin]

I never went on usenet in the old days Tito. You are a joke.

Go away.

[Tito Puente]

Are you Zimphire? Tell me, because it makes all the difference if you are.

I'm a joke now. Tut tut, now who's using personal attacks.

[SimpleLife]

IIRC, wearing red under Mussolini meant you were a communist.

Not too long a go, there was a "Red Army".

The devil is always painted in red.

Also, I seem to remember the "red coats" from U.S. history...

And there is the "Red Planet" called "Mars" for the Roman God of War...

In Canada, "Red" is the color of the "liberals"...

Times change...

What kind of support is looked for again? More death? More blood?

Whose blood again?

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by SimpleLife

IIRC, wearing red under Mussolini meant you were a communist.

Times change...

Indeed.

I probably wont be wearing any red however.

I fail to see how this will do anything.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by SimpleLife

IIRC, wearing red under Mussolini meant you were a communist.

Times change...

The "Lady in Red" was a communist? Well, what would you expect from a woman who went to see movies with John Dillinger. Hmph! It wouldn't surprise me to find out she was a 'hooore.'

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by SimpleLife

IIRC, wearing red under Mussolini meant you were a communist.

Not too long a go, there was a "Red Army".

The devil is always painted in red.

Also, I seem to remember the "red coats" from U.S. history...

And there is the "Red Planet" called "Mars" for the Roman God of War...

In Canada, "Red" is the color of the "liberals"...

Times change...

What kind of support is looked for again? More death? More blood?

Whose blood again?

At this point you have to agree that the fastest and best way to achieve peace is for the insurgents to give up or be quelled by the Iraqi govt. & coalition forces. Right?

[CreepingDeth]

Hmmm…where did this thread go downhill?

Originally Posted by mojo2

…IF…

There.

[SimpleLife]

Originally Posted by mojo2

At this point you have to agree that the fastest and best way to achieve peace is for the insurgents to give up or be quelled by the Iraqi govt. & coalition forces. Right?

ROFL!

Nice spin.

No. The best way to stop the whole thing is for both the insurgents and the Coalition leaders to attempt a conversation about the future.

All you are proposing is more fighting in a country that is not yours, where the fighters, or "insurgents" as you call them (what are they insurging about exactly? do you know?) are mostly locals.

So your red color symbolizes more blood for Iraqis, and I cannot see how it could be seen as a symbol for victory.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by SimpleLife

No. The best way to stop the whole thing is for both the insurgents and the Coalition leaders to attempt a conversation about the future.

I agree. But the insurgents don't want to converse.

[SimpleLife]

Originally Posted by KevinK

I agree. But the insurgents don't want to converse.

How do you know?

[Kevin]

Simple, they don't want any talks that deal with Americans. They don't believe America should be there, or been there in the first place.

They aren't trying to negotiate.

They are trying to terrorist the US out of Iraq and take over.

What makes you think they will compromise?

[PacHead]

Originally Posted by SimpleLife

ROFL!
No. The best way to stop the whole thing is for both the insurgents and the Coalition leaders to attempt a conversation about the future.

One kills terrorists. One does not negotiate with terrorists.

Originally Posted by SimpleLife

All you are proposing is more fighting in a country that is not yours

The USA brings the war to the enemy. It is desirable to fight on foreign soil. We do not wait for the enemy to come here. We fight them at the source. This is all common sense really.

[AKcrab]

Originally Posted by ghporter

Instead of a casualty count, why don't the news agencies show how many Iraqis have power today and compare that to a year ago. And how many have safe water to drink. And how many actually have jobs, too. If all we see is people getting killed (which is pretty much all focused on the actions of suicide bombers lately), then we are never going to know what's really happening there.

Could it be that it's not safe enough for journalists to go out and get the average Iraqis story? When there is an attack, the place gets pounced on by a bunch of troops, making it relatively secure, I'm not sure going out and about the neighborhoods is possible for the average western journalist.

I would expect that if there was a major gains in power, jobs, etc. that the our government would be feeding us those numbers over and over again. Since they aren't ever mentioned, my assumption would be that the numbers aren't "good", or we don't care enough to even have the numbers.

I dunno? Why *don't* we see more positive news?

[PacHead]

Originally Posted by AKcrab

I dunno? Why *don't* we see more positive news?

There is plenty of positive news. You are obviously watching the wrong channels and seeking your information from outlets that do not report "positive news".

[SimpleLife]

Originally Posted by KevinK

Simple, they don't want any talks that deal with Americans.

How do you know that?

They don't believe America should be there, or been there in the first place.

What makes you believe this?

They aren't trying to negotiate.

What did they say about that and how should this lead anyone to conclude with 100% certainty there will never be any compromise?

They are trying to terrorist the US out of Iraq and take over.

Out of respect to you and myself, I will not try to interpret this assertion. Please explain. Thank you for your understanding.

What makes you think they will compromise?

I never said they want to compromise; I truly do not know. Do you?

[SimpleLife]

Originally Posted by PacHead

One kills terrorists. One does not negotiate with terrorists.

The USA brings the war to the enemy. It is desirable to fight on foreign soil. We do not wait for the enemy to come here. We fight them at the source. This is all common sense really.

Isn't that amazing that with ghost WMDs Saddam Hussein was able to make the U.S. pay over 100 billion dollars to conquer their own fear?

In the end, I wonder if Saddam Hussein has not won.

Of his 10 Billion dollars worth, he had the U.S. and other countries spend more than 10 times as much, and while he could have been killed on the spot, he probably won a couple more years of comfort living at the expense of the U.S. tax payers.

Ironic is that not?

[Kevin]

I don't think a spin can be ironic.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by KevinK

Indeed.

I probably wont be wearing any red however.

I fail to see how this will do anything.

If you've ever been in a compeitive situation you know that "WILL" is an important thing that can decide the issue in question.

Viet Nam is an example of the US finally realizing the North Vietnamese had the will to win and we did not.

The Iraqi insurgents are fighting us on the streets of Baghdad (and elsewhere) AND fighting us in the media.

A battlefield exists in each of our minds.

By the way, Coke & Pepsi, McD's and Jack in the Box compete on the same battlefield. They want to convince you to think THEIR way.

Back to the Iraqi war...

When we remain steadfast and resolved to defeat the movement and ideology responsible for 9/11 the enemy loses their will to fight.

When we begin to lose our determination to see this thing through the enemy gains in motivation, he is heartened and he feels that even though he is tired and discouraged he will just dig a little deeper in his weary soul and fight on and even fight HARDER!

All because the news reports that the Americans are losing the WILL to continue supporting the war.

By wearing red on Fridays the enemy will see that millions of Americans are NOT losing the will to back this fight to the very end. The enemy must see this and become very weary. Very discouraged. His will to win, persevere, fight on will flag.

If we wear it he will see us and even though we can't actually fight over there, we can help bring home some poor young man or woman who might otherwise have died, by demoralizing the enemy instead of having him fight on.

Wear red on Fridays, the life on even ONE servicemember is worth the POSSIBILITY that it might help. Don't you think?

[Kevin]

mojo you do realize you could have posted all that you said in a small paragraph and still got the point across right?

[Tenacious Dyl]

Why don't you raise money and buy them armor, or good food.

Wearing t-shirts saying "yay for troops" does them about as much good as say... wearing t-shirts that say "stop hunger" without doing anything about it. Yay...

Do fund-raisers, car washing, picnics, parties, where some or all money goes to helping troops in many ways... or maybe even aid to the iraqis. Thats a good idea too.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Tenacious Dyl

Why don't you raise money and buy them armor, or good food.

Wearing t-shirts saying "yay for troops" does them about as much good as say... wearing t-shirts that say "stop hunger" without doing anything about it. Yay...

Do fund-raisers, car washing, picnics, parties, where some or all money goes to helping troops in many ways... or maybe even aid to the iraqis. Thats a good idea too.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by CreepingDeth

Hmmm…where did this thread go downhill?


There.

With that comment are you cursing the darkness, lighting a candle or just ribbing ol mojo2?

[CreepingDeth]

Originally Posted by mojo2

With that comment are you cursing the darkness, lighting a candle or just ribbing ol mojo2?

I tell you everyting.
Which one was CD doing to yous? Yes. Because he lookalikeaman.

[AKcrab]

Originally Posted by PacHead

There is plenty of positive news. You are obviously watching the wrong channels and seeking your information from outlets that do not report "positive news".

That may be true. I hardly ever watch news on television, I get most of my news from google news, reuters, yahoo news, and believe it or not.. The pol/war lounge.

So are you telling me you have a link to some of the figures ghporter talked about? Jobs, homelessness, schools, households with running water, etc?

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by Tenacious Dyl

Wearing t-shirts saying "yay for troops" does them about as much good as say... wearing t-shirts that say "stop hunger" without doing anything about it. Yay...

I have two cousins who have served in Iraq. One is currently in country and another has completed his service time. One of the things they have mentioned to me is seeing and knowing people are supporting them. Packages from home were the best, but hearing stories of people hold prayer vigils and confronting protesters against the war was another.

Symbolic gestures can build up moral and give a nice little boost to a person in a time of personal peril.

RE: t-shirts that say "stop hunger. They create dialogs. They remind people that tere actually are people starving.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by KevinK

mojo you do realize you could have posted all that you said in a small paragraph and still got the point across right?

I try not to leave any poster behind. If you are looking to economize on my long winded-ness I understand. I get tired of hearing myself sometimes. But at a ceratin point you may (I certainly do) ask, "if I try to be most succinct I wouldn't have to point this out AT ALL because everyone would already know what I'm saying. (you know what I'm sayin?) If they DON'T get it, then at what point do they not get it? What part am I not explaining well enough? I always feel that if someone fails to grasp the idea then it's MY fault.

Seeing as how only one of us can talk or hear at a time, I can't just stop talking when I see the lightbulb turn on over your head so I keep looking for a way to better say what I want to share so that I'm giving EVERYTHING I've got in each post. Then, if that doesn't do the trick I can try a different tack.

I've been accused of being a dunce, a shixx stirrer, and other things as well. But being long winded for the sake of helping another being to better grasp an important concept is nothing about which I'll feel badly.

I believe man's most noble endeavor is to create accord. Although creating civics is very important as well and the NSX...whatever happened to the NSX? That is an Acura.

But on the other hand she wore a glove.

More to the point is that there are many kinds of people on Earth. One kind are those who would try to tell you how to better express yourself. The other kind are those who respect your right and ability to say whatever it is you want to say in the way you want to say it as a representation of your individuality. A symbol of your humanness.

The people who try to alter or control your expression are, in effect, negating you.

"You are not acceptable the way you are. The words you choose and the way you sling those words together and the number of words you've chosen to express yourself are not adequate to MY way of thinking. I have the need to change them and thus, YOU. What's more, I shall feel no guilt or embarassment at my controlling, obsessive, unacceptably co-dependent behavior."

I don't know, did I get my points across KevinK, or shall I try again??

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by KevinK

Originally Posted by Tenacious Dyl

Why don't you raise money and buy them armor, or good food.

Wearing t-shirts saying "yay for troops" does them about as much good as say... wearing t-shirts that say "stop hunger" without doing anything about it. Yay...

Do fund-raisers, car washing, picnics, parties, where some or all money goes to helping troops in many ways... or maybe even aid to the iraqis. Thats a good idea too.

See, KevinK? The message didn't reach Tenacious Dyl. Well, maybe he will read my post you said coulda (shoulda) been shorter.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by KevinK

mojo you do realize you could have posted all that you said in a small paragraph and still got the point across right?

Hmmm, mebbe you are right. How would you have said it?

[turtle777]

This thread was much gooder when it was still in the Lounge...

-t

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by AKcrab

Could it be that it's not safe enough for journalists to go out and get the average Iraqis story? When there is an attack, the place gets pounced on by a bunch of troops, making it relatively secure, I'm not sure going out and about the neighborhoods is possible for the average western journalist.

I would expect that if there was a major gains in power, jobs, etc. that the our government would be feeding us those numbers over and over again. Since they aren't ever mentioned, my assumption would be that the numbers aren't "good", or we don't care enough to even have the numbers.

I dunno? Why *don't* we see more positive news?

I'd say the greater fear is felt by the average Iraqi who doesn't want to be targeted for saying something on TV the insurgents would consider anti-terrorist.

Fox News' "War Stories" with Col. Oliver North puts out an optimistically realistic and in-depth view of things, IMHO.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by SimpleLife

ROFL!

Nice spin.

No. The best way to stop the whole thing is for both the insurgents and the Coalition leaders to attempt a conversation about the future.

All you are proposing is more fighting in a country that is not yours, where the fighters, or "insurgents" as you call them (what are they insurging about exactly? do you know?) are mostly locals.

So your red color symbolizes more blood for Iraqis, and I cannot see how it could be seen as a symbol for victory.

A 'contract' exists between the coalition forces and the IT's. We kill them and they try to kill us. Neither side has much reason to want a change in the agreement.

Ooops, nix that last statement and read this...

http://www.informationclearinghouse....rticle9283.htm

US 'in talks with Iraq with Iraq rebels'

Insurgents reveal secret face-to-face meetings

By Hala Jaber

06/26/05 "The Times" - - AT a summer villa near Balad in the hills 40 miles north of Baghdad, a group of Iraqis and their American visitors recently sat down to tea. It looked like a pleasant social encounter far removed from the stresses of war, but the heavy US military presence around the isolated property signalled that an unusual meeting was taking place.

After weeks of delicate negotiation involving a former Iraqi minister and senior tribal leaders, a small group of insurgent commanders apparently came face to face with four American officials seeking to establish a dialogue with the men they regard as their enemies.

The talks on June 3 were followed by a second encounter 10 days later, according to an Iraqi who said that he had attended both meetings. Details provided to The Sunday Times by two Iraqi sources whose groups were involved indicate that further talks are planned in the hope of negotiating an eventual breakthrough that might reduce the violence in Iraq.

Despite months of American military assaults on supposed insurgent bases, General John Abizaid, the regional US commander, admitted to Congress last week that opposition strength was “about the same” as six months ago and that “there’s a lot of work to be done against the insurgency”.

That work now includes secret negotiations with rebel leaders, according to the Iraqi
sources...

[Louis_SX]

You know, it's conflicting when a person says they support the troops but don't support what they're doing. War's terrible and people die...that's a fact. Take this sentence:

I support the troops but not the war because in war, people get killed.

But let's substitute "troops" with "football team", "war" with "game" and "killed" with "permanently injured or paralyzed"

I support the football team but not the game because in [the] game, people get permanently injured or paralyzed.

The war is what the troops do. That's what they signed up for. Especially those that signed up post 9/11 in the hopes they could go kick some Afghani ass. The problem (for them), I suppose, is that now the war has been expanded and they still have to do it. In theory, at least, they signed up freely and offered to give their lives for the country.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by Louis_SX

You know, it's conflicting when a person says they support the troops but don't support what they're doing. War's terrible and people die...that's a fact. Take this sentence:

I support the troops but not the war because in war, people get killed.

But let's substitute "troops" with "football team", "war" with "game" and "killed" with "permanently injured or paralyzed"

I support the football team but not the game because in [the] game, people get permanently injured or paralyzed.

The war is what the troops do. That's what they signed up for. Especially those that signed up post 9/11 in the hopes they could go kick some Afghani ass. The problem (for them), I suppose, is that now the war has been expanded and they still have to do it. In theory, at least, they signed up freely and offered to give their lives for the country.

Welcome Louis_SX, I don't recall seeing you here before.

I can understand your abhorrence with killing. Under what circumstances IS killing justified, in your view?

[Louis_SX]

Thanks, mojo2. I am a lurker, mostly, asking and helping with questions now and then.

I'm not saying anywhere in my post, nor am I trying to make in my post, any inference to whether I support the war or not...I was just saying that it's talking out both sides of one's mouth to support the troops but not what they do. I should have put my sample sentences in quotation marks, because they in no way represent my view. My view is that war IS horrible, but war is inevitable as well, and I'd rather it be fought over "there" than over "here". To that degree, I do support this war.

[SimpleLife]

Originally Posted by Louis_SX

but war is inevitable

You're right. Thats why there is diplomacy, treaties, agreements, etc. to facilitate battles.

as well, and I'd rather it be fought over "there" than over "here". To that degree, I do support this war.

"Yeah. Let us make sure that sinece war is inevitable, it happens elsewhere."


So you war is inevitable, but because it happens elsewhere, but not inyour country...

Wait.. is that not a contradiction here? How can war be inevitable and you are spared?

[Louis_SX]

That's no contradiction; I'm saying if there has to be war (and it does have to be), then I would prefer it not be in my back yard. There was one day in recent memory when it was, and the American government said "no more" and took the fight to the people who started it.

[SimpleLife]

Originally Posted by Louis_SX

That's no contradiction; I'm saying if there has to be war (and it does have to be), then I would prefer it not be in my back yard. There was one day in recent memory when it was, and the American government said "no more" and took the fight to the people who started it.

Please show me the declaration of War of Saddam Hussein to the U.S.

[sanity assassin]

I'll be doing my bit to honour all the forgotten dead Iraqis who died at the hands of the coalition. All the dead Afghanis. All the dead (everyone) caused by the aftermath of the invasion. All the dead in a country that has been pummeled into a cesspit of violence.

Long live the Mujahideen in Afghanistan and the freedom fighters in Iraq.

Fight the scum. Don't give in to the hypocritical rhetoric of the US.

[SimpleLife]

Originally Posted by sanity assassin

I'll be doing my bit to honour all the forgotten dead Iraqis who died at the hands of the coalition. All the dead Afghanis. All the dead (everyone) caused by the aftermath of the invasion. All the dead in a country that has been pummeled into a cesspit of violence.

Long live the Mujahideen in Afghanistan and the freedom fighters in Iraq.

Fight the scum. Don't give in to the hypocritical rhetoric of the US.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by mojo2

If you've ever been in a compeitive situation you know that "WILL" is an important thing that can decide the issue in question.

Back to the Iraqi war...

When we remain steadfast and resolved to defeat the movement and ideology responsible for 9/11 the enemy loses their will to fight.

When we begin to lose our determination to see this thing through the enemy gains in motivation, he is heartened and he feels that even though he is tired and discouraged he will just dig a little deeper in his weary soul and fight on and even fight HARDER!

All because the news reports that the Americans are losing the WILL to continue supporting the war.

By wearing red on Fridays the enemy will see that millions of Americans are NOT losing the will to back this fight to the very end. The enemy must see this and become very weary. Very discouraged. His will to win, persevere, fight on will flag.

If we wear it he will see us and even though we can't actually fight over there, we can help bring home some poor young man or woman who might otherwise have died, by demoralizing the enemy instead of having him fight on.

Wear red on Fridays, the life on even ONE servicemember is worth the POSSIBILITY that it might help. Don't you think?

I didn't support this "War on Terror" in the first place and I don't support it now, particularly as how it has been made manifest in Iraq. So, there is no need to question MY motives now in not supporting the "War on Terror". You want support for the troops, great. But, you are using this argument that support for the troops equates to support for the policies that put them in harms way and I refuse to accept that equation. I can certainly be concerned about our troops overseas, ALL of our troops, while simultaneously being opposed to the military policies that put them in harm's way, especially in Iraq, in the first place.

If you want to inflict great psychological damage on the terrorists, we shold have kept all our troops in Afghanistan until Osama bin Laden--you know, the guy behind the 9/11 attacks--was captured and could be shown on TV being off-loaded at Gitmo. And you do realize many of the "terrorists" in Iraq are insurgents fighting against the US invasion, many of those "terrorists" are not, or were not, part of an organized anti-US campagin until we invaded. We could have nipped this thing in the bud right quick if we focused on Afghanistan (AND Pkaistan) instead of pulling out to invade Iraq.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by Louis_SX

Thanks, mojo2. I am a lurker, mostly, asking and helping with questions now and then.

I'm not saying anywhere in my post, nor am I trying to make in my post, any inference to whether I support the war or not...I was just saying that it's talking out both sides of one's mouth to support the troops but not what they do. I should have put my sample sentences in quotation marks, because they in no way represent my view. My view is that war IS horrible, but war is inevitable as well, and I'd rather it be fought over "there" than over "here". To that degree, I do support this war.

Oh. Well, then I have nothing more to say on the matter, for we are of the same view.

[Randman]

I didn't see anyone wearing red on Friday.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

I didn't support this "War on Terror" in the first place and I don't support it now, particularly as how it has been made manifest in Iraq. So, there is no need to question MY motives now in not supporting the "War on Terror". You want support for the troops, great. But, you are using this argument that support for the troops equates to support for the policies that put them in harms way and I refuse to accept that equation. I can certainly be concerned about our troops overseas, ALL of our troops, while simultaneously being opposed to the military policies that put them in harm's way, especially in Iraq, in the first place.

If you want to inflict great psychological damage on the terrorists, we shold have kept all our troops in Afghanistan until Osama bin Laden--you know, the guy behind the 9/11 attacks--was captured and could be shown on TV being off-loaded at Gitmo. And you do realize many of the "terrorists" in Iraq are insurgents fighting against the US invasion, many of those "terrorists" are not, or were not, part of an organized anti-US campagin until we invaded. We could have nipped this thing in the bud right quick if we focused on Afghanistan (AND Pkaistan) instead of pulling out to invade Iraq.

dcmacdaddy, what would be happening in Iraq now if we had followed your scenario?

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by Randman

I didn't see anyone wearing red on Friday.

All I see are red necks, black socks and...

But then again it's early on the Left Coast.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by mojo2

dcmacdaddy, what would be happening in Iraq now if we had followed your scenario?

Saddam would still be in power abusing his own people (definitely), Osama bin Laden would be captured or killed (highly likely), Afghanistan would be in much better shape socially and politically had we stayed there (definitely), and America's reputation with the rest of the world would be more sound (likely).

Would there still be terrorists out there rallied against the US? Absolutely!
Has our invastion of Iraq created more terrorists than if we hadn't invaded? Absolutely!
Will we completely eliminate those who hate the West in general and the United States in particular? Not likely.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

Saddam would still be in power abusing his own people (definitely), Osama bin Laden would be captured or killed (highly likely), Afghanistan would be in much better shape socially and politically had we stayed there (definitely), and America's reputation with the rest of the world would be more sound (likely).

Would there still be terrorists out there rallied against the US? Absolutely!
Has our invastion of Iraq created more terrorists than if we hadn't invaded? Absolutely!
Will we completely eliminate those who hate the West in general and the United States in particular? Not likely.

That's the problem I have with most science fiction, I just can't buy most sci-fi writer's visions of the future. But, in this case there's more fiction and less reason to your view of things than simply a difference of opinion with mine.

When did Saddam ever remain content, self constrained and/or contained within Iraq's geographical borders?

Consider just a FEW of Saddam's mischievous antics and you will have to admit your dogged contention just won't 'hunt:'

A years long war with neighbor Iran.

An invasion of Kuwait.

Attempts to attack Israel into a coalition-busting war.

An attempt on the Bush family.

An attempt to build a nuclear, biological and chemical weapons capability.

Success at same (proven when he wiped out a Kurdish village...in Iraq).

An attempt to build a Super Gun to attack Israel.

Efforts to reward and encourage homicide bombings in Palestine/Israel.
(This so he could get the Muslim Arabs to do his bidding or come to his aid when he made his BIG move to take down the US while they are conVEEEEENiently nearby in Afghanistan.)

His diplomats, spies and 'friends' were all over the globe looking into this and getting 'involved' in that. (Who's to say Saddam's men DIDN'T meet with the 9/11 creeps??? If we still can't say for sure about the JFK killing then...)

'Participation' in the Oil for Food scandal (that's like saying Hitler was 'involved' in the Holocaust).

Continued radar targeting and shooting at coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zone (a condition of the 1991 Gulf War treaty).

Many of these offenses took place while he was supposedly being closely monitored by those in the UN who were supposedly interested in his being a good little dictator.

No. A more plausible supposed activity for Saddam if the US had failed to take action against him would be something like, he would have continued his past activities and increased those efforts that proved successful or promising.

And a never ending search for ways to achieve dominion over the whole Middle East and cause MAJOR problems for the U.S.

Like the problem I have with bad sci-fi, I just can't buy your vision.

Sorry, but I can't believe ANYONE would buy what you've cooked up here, dcmacdaddy.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by mojo2

That's the problem I have with most science fiction, I just can't buy most sci-fi writer's visions of the future. But, in this case there's more fiction and less reason to your view of things than simply a difference of opinion with mine.

SNIP

Like the problem I have with bad sci-fi, I just can't buy your vision.

Sorry, but I can't believe ANYONE would buy what you've cooked up here, dcmacdaddy.

Umm, you do realize my comments were reflective in nature, looking backward and speculating on how things would have been different if the US had done certain things differently in regards to Afghanistan and Iraq. So, talking about sci-fi and the future as if I was predicting what would be happening in the future is irrelevant and completely illogical. If you wish to disagree with the speculation within my logical arguments, why don't you specify what your complaints are with my arguments.

I said "Saddam would still be in power abusing his own people (definitely)"
What is your argument with this point?

I said "Osama bin Laden would be captured or killed (highly likely)"
What is your argument with this point?

I said "Afghanistan would be in much better shape socially and politically had we stayed there (definitely)"
What is your argument with this point?

I said "America's reputation with the rest of the world would be more sound (likely)"
What is your argument with this point?

I said "Would there still be terrorists out there rallied against the US? Absolutely!"
What is your argument with this point?

I said "Has our invastion of Iraq created more terrorists than if we hadn't invaded? Absolutely!"
What is your argument with this point?

I said "Will we completely eliminate those who hate the West in general and the United States in particular? Not likely."
What is your argument with this point?

[SimpleLife]

Originally Posted by mojo2

I just can't buy most sci-fi writer's visions of the future.

So how does it feel to be confronted to this war as a "Mission Accomplished", today?

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by SimpleLife

So how does it feel to be confronted to this war as a "Mission Accomplished", today?

Excuse me for answering a loaded question with another loaded question.

How does it feel to continue to misinterpret the reality of the situation at the time "Mission Accomplished" was proclaimed?

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

Umm, you do realize my comments were reflective in nature, looking backward and speculating on how things would have been different if the US had done certain things differently in regards to Afghanistan and Iraq. So, talking about sci-fi and the future as if I was predicting what would be happening in the future is irrelevant and completely illogical. If you wish to disagree with the speculation within my logical arguments, why don't you specify what your complaints are with my arguments.

I said "Saddam would still be in power abusing his own people (definitely)"
What is your argument with this point?

I said "Osama bin Laden would be captured or killed (highly likely)"
What is your argument with this point?

I said "Afghanistan would be in much better shape socially and politically had we stayed there (definitely)"
What is your argument with this point?

I said "America's reputation with the rest of the world would be more sound (likely)"
What is your argument with this point?

I said "Would there still be terrorists out there rallied against the US? Absolutely!"
What is your argument with this point?

I said "Has our invastion of Iraq created more terrorists than if we hadn't invaded? Absolutely!"
What is your argument with this point?

I said "Will we completely eliminate those who hate the West in general and the United States in particular? Not likely."
What is your argument with this point?

Please excuse me for not holding your feet to the fire with your previous post. You strayed off the subject of my question. For your convenience here's a copy of that originating post and your response which strayed off track:

dcmacdaddy
Addicted to MacNN


Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Washington, DC, USA
Posts: 1,369
Status: Offline
report abuse
Today, 09:33 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by mojo2
dcmacdaddy, what would be happening in Iraq now if we had followed your scenario?


Saddam would still be in power abusing his own people (definitely), Osama bin Laden would be captured or killed (highly likely), Afghanistan would be in much better shape socially and politically had we stayed there (definitely), and America's reputation with the rest of the world would be more sound (likely).

Would there still be terrorists out there rallied against the US? Absolutely!
Has our invastion of Iraq created more terrorists than if we hadn't invaded? Absolutely!
Will we completely eliminate those who hate the West in general and the United States in particular? Not likely.
__________________
Choose death.

You glanced over the question of "what would be happening in Iraq now if we had followed your scenario?"

So, if you'll pardon my previous laxity I will attempt to make up for it here.

Please answer THIS question before we try 'predicting the weather' in those other areas. "dcmacdaddy, what would be happening in Iraq now if we had followed your scenario?"

Then, once you've answered the original question we might address the subject of the logic of your arguments.