rowooo Posted February 26, 2003 Share Posted February 26, 2003 Mdeneen is simply stirring the SH!T, which, with the help of his last couple posts, is getting really deep. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NOSValves Posted February 26, 2003 Share Posted February 26, 2003 Mark, Your over simplifying the issues here ! There is way more to it then that. Just because he can't launch a missile that will reach are sole means nothing. It doesn't take missile to kill 3000 innocent Americans didn't 9/11 show you this ?? What about anthrax ? They couldn't prove where the Anthrax came from after 9/11 but they did say there were only a few source that the grade that was used could of came from and yup Iraq was right up there at the top of the list !! Tom, That was the most ridicules thing I have ever heard !! Saddam if he could would drop a 100 nukes on are soil in a heart beat !! He is are enemy and has been for many years. Heck a large portion of the Middle east hates are existence and old Saddam is tops on list right up there with Asama !! Craig How the heck did I ever let you guys draw me into this ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TBrennan Posted February 26, 2003 Share Posted February 26, 2003 Craig----You argue by assertion. You assert that Saddam would attack us IF HE COULD. But no proof. Do you think that if you repeat an unfounded assertion enough it will become truth? "Triumph of The Will" anyone? Saddam has never attacked The United States has he? Interesting that even you must put in the disclaimer "if he could". Because even if he wanted too (which is not a given) he can't. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TBrennan Posted February 26, 2003 Share Posted February 26, 2003 In the interest of civility I'm gonna let this thing go now, reckon I've made my points. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edster00 Posted February 26, 2003 Share Posted February 26, 2003 I said I was done with this thread but I keep getting drawn back like a moth to a flame! I know my views are not going to sway anyone from the "other side" but a situation that occured with me a few years ago seems to be (kind of) analogous. While I was having a routine physical done a few years ago the doctors found a spot on one of my lungs via x-ray. We decided to do a CAT scan to get a better look at the spot, it turned out to be a relatively small ~1 cm in diameter "growth" (benign) or "tumor"(Danger! Danger! Will Robinson). We decided to wait for 3 months and do another CAT scan to see if the object was growing or not. The next CAT scan revealed that the "object" had doubled in size so the doctors scheduled me for an immediate laproscopic needle biopsy (requiring 3 or 4 small holes in my chest) to see if it was malignant or not. Unfortunately for me the surgeon was unable to get a biopsy with a needle so he opened me up with a ~12" incision to get the required tissue sample for analysis. Fortunately for me the growth was benign. Was my health in imminent danger? If it was a malignancy it depends on your definition of imminent. It certainly would have taken awhile to spread, but if it was cancer it would have spread sooner or later. I am glad to know for sure that it was benign and have it out of my body...it certainly wasn't beneficial to me. Is Saddam a cancer on the world? Are we in imminent danger of being attacked by Saddam, or are the people of his neighboring countries in imminent danger of attack? It depends on your definition of imminent. I do think Saddam intends to use (or give to other terrorists) his weapons of mass destruction against his neighbors and/or the US. Saddam certainly has no intention of disarming as he agreed to 12 years ago. I think that the people of Iraq and the world will be better off without Saddam and his regime. The people of Iraq certainly aren't benefiting from the riches that the Iraqi natural resources produce. I want to end this post by saying I am not a war monger. I don't align myself with the Republicans or the Democrats. I wholeheartedly support our men and women in the military wherever they are stationed throughout the world, and I pray for each and every soldier's safe return. I hope one of Saddam's republican guard will take him out or that he will choose exile (as many of his neighboring countries are suggesting) to prevent imminent war (in a month or two months or six months). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rowooo Posted February 26, 2003 Share Posted February 26, 2003 Mdeneen....I'll be the first to admit that Bush isn't the most fluent speaker. However, I guess I failed to realize that this was somehow a prerequisite to being "uncurious, anti-intellectual, grossly uninformed, and incapable of public speech." Bush prays for the families and crew of the shuttle disaster, cast a few God Bless America's out there and now he's "Divining the direction of our nation through the word of God" What?????????? "He doesn't want to for some complicated psychology that nobody else is privy to. It could be so simple as preserving his Daddys legacy by removing the big stain dripping all over it. It could be that simple." That is absolutely ludicrous! Do you honestly believe that? Is it also safe to assume that YOU would not support war under any circumstance other than the U.S. being under an imminent threat? When have we ever been under an imminent threat? Japan in 41 maybe, other than that I can't recall any other time where the U.S. itself has been under this imminent threat you generalize. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NOSValves Posted February 26, 2003 Share Posted February 26, 2003 I'm back to writing three paragraphs and then saying why bother. Mark, I am going to say one thing. Where did I say that Saddam was responsible for 9/11 ?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NOSValves Posted February 26, 2003 Share Posted February 26, 2003 forget it ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rowooo Posted February 26, 2003 Share Posted February 26, 2003 Do I have to narrow it down to three year plan? Can I toss a six year financial number at ya? A seven? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fish Posted February 26, 2003 Share Posted February 26, 2003 I really would not care even if Bush was a bleedin' hearted liberal idiot,long as he gets Saddam out.The risk to us all, even the(anti whatever you got)surrender monkies is tooo great.It's true this will not stop terrorism,but will be the 2nd huge blow.I have a responsibility to my family,fellow Americans,freedom loving friends around the world to try to be a part of STOPPING terrorism.ANYONE that thinks Saddam won't keep making WMD and pass em' around to his murderous pals is ......mistaken. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
feido35 Posted February 27, 2003 Share Posted February 27, 2003 You're lost mdeneen...and I'll pray a Christian prayer for you tonight. I truly wonder if you have a life outside of posting war-monger, the Bush administration has hi-jacked our country and is sending 200,000 of our trained killers to assassinate innocent Arabs, messages...on Klipsch.com no less. Are we (sorry for the generalization) saying the Saddam regime is just like Hitler...no. However, in many ways, he reflects the exact same pure lack of respect to human life that Hitler did. Airpower in Iraq you ask? No, I'll give you that. There is no threat from Saddam's air force. Huge army of people that could wage serious havoc on America? No, again I'll give you that. HOWEVER , he has a complete disregard for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I know...now you'll take that comment and drill it into the ground as you did the "rosiness" comment made by paulparrot. Saddam has the 'weapons of mass destruction' and has used them on his own INNOCENT people. As we saw on 9/11, and post for that matter, there are many ways to deliver havoc...Saddam has the weapons and the regime to deliver them. Please, by all means, continue to live your life in the sheltered walls of your ill-advised home and shout out anti-war cries from your keyboard...while the rest of us support out Nation while attempting to oust a very sick, powerful, Hitler-like personality. You say "I don't want any of your sons and daughters to get hurt or damaged. And the best way I know how to prevent that is to NOT PUT THEM IN THAT CIRCUMSTANCE."... Okay, let's sit on our duffs...on the 76th floor...and let a plane crash into the building and f'ing take our lives away. That's much less painful than taking a bullet for freedom. At least our troops on the front line are aware and prepared for the danger they face while attempting to liberate a 10,000+ human murderer. You got it mdeneen, we should only pay attention to the 50 states and let everyone else worry about themselves. I guess we would save a lot of money that way. But wait...then what would you do? Work for a living? What ever would you do with your precious time? Speaking of that, I've wasted enough of mine on a very weak American. God bless to all who have served and those who support the future and our (worldwide) well being. And, may God find the rest, and bless them too. Even you mdeneen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RangerSix Posted February 27, 2003 Share Posted February 27, 2003 When you peel back the layers, it seems that the real reason behind all this anti-war rhetoric is folks simply dislike the President. When the previous Commander-n-Heat was slinging cruise missiles at obscure countries, only a few on the left questioned his motives. When he leveled Serbia, in the name of human rights, again - only a few said anything. Now George Bush is at the helm, and the left has done everything they can to discredit him - from hanging chaffs to ENRON to terrorism. While I encourage healthy critism of our government and its leaders, I also feel it's time we as Americans come together and show unity and strength against those who would do us harm. The "No blood for oil" and "restoring daddy's honor" accusations that are labeled against this President are unfair and unfounded. Until he proves otherwise, he deserves our support and not our condemnation. To me, in a time of war with soldiers abroad, that behavior is nothing short of treasonous. It's time to stand up and be counted! God Bless America United States Army Major, Infantry 1989 - Present Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mobile homeless Posted February 27, 2003 Share Posted February 27, 2003 This last post by Fish, an almost perfectly cast encapsulation of all that was wrong in this thread, and all in just a few remarkable sentences, each laden with some form of stereotype and shortsightedness, should be the send off for a string of comments that has done more to show the futilitity of considered thought, laid out in an organized way, than anything I have read in some time (not including the General Forum, of course). I have not seen more points ignored, logic passed over, or reason be damned, since a Parade Letters to the Editor Section. I have tried my best to not enter into this exchange, although I was weak at times. For every careful, well-placed step forward, there follows two steps back by a host of participants, some almost surprising in their ham fisted text. To the observer, most of Mdeneen's better points were never addressed. Even ole Tom became disheartened. But these last few gems....Man...this was particularly painful. And I thought the Fish post was potent. Mdeneen, you do realize that every day, another poster like this springs forth with these type sentiments, evidently completely unfettered with the notion of existance outside of central Oklahoma. Mencken was right... "The most common of all follies is to believe passionately in the palpably not true. It is the chief occupation of mankind" kh ps- "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." - Theodore Roosevelt God Bless Buddha! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyKubicki Posted February 27, 2003 Share Posted February 27, 2003 Are we (sorry for the generalization) saying the Saddam regime is just like Hitler...no. However, in many ways, he reflects the exact same pure lack of respect to human life that Hitler did. Airpower in Iraq you ask? No, I'll give you that. There is no threat from Saddam's air force. Huge army of people that could wage serious havoc on America? No, again I'll give you that. HOWEVER , he has a complete disregard for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Good, Feido35. Let's not forget his active support of our enemies and hatred of America. He may not need planes or missiles to deliver WOMD if he finds (in)human couriers. You don't believe that's likely, eh Mark? You have too soon forgotten the images from 9/11. Perhaps rather than discussing how Hitler and Saddam are alike (in many ways), we should discuss how Nevil Chaiberlain and his followers in the 30s are alike to the anti-war/anti-Bush people. And we can say anti-Bush and in many cases, anti-American. It's one thing to have an open, healthy debate on a forum such as this one. It's another to make assenine statements, like the ones that the Holliwood left has been making publicly, and even worse if one makes those statements on foreign soils. Then it truely becomes an anti-American act and it empowers our enemies. Thank God (oh, sorry) not many people across the country are buying into this. You know, it's funny you brought up the cost aspect. That was original...suppose before we put a cost on this war, we determine the value (cost) of a human life. Without that, of what relevance would cost be? Why are we thinking about cost at this time, this war? Did you bring up cost when Clintoon was bombing the Asprin factory...he used the most expensive missiles we had...did you say anything back then? Mark, it also seems you have a fear of religious people in government. Yet you do not fear the religion of the left? Certainly in these times when school prayer has been removed, abortion is available and so on, life has been cheapened to the point that kids are killing kids. Sure, we made things easier for the few kids who are uncomfortable when the class is praying...but , to use your phrase, what about the unintended consequences? There were many things better in the 50s and 60s, there were some things worse. But in general, wasn't it a better life then? We have certainly turned some things upside down! We have a tendency to act like a pendulum in this country. Police used to be respected and feared by some. Some cops abused their position, so the reaction to that has now produced a stuation where the cops cannot do their jobs reasonable well. (Yes, there were drugs in the trunk, but you had no reasonable cause to search, so we disregard the drugs in the trunk.) I'm starting to ramble now...I better go to sleep. Who knows what kind of world I'll wake up in...if I wake up! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RangerSix Posted February 27, 2003 Share Posted February 27, 2003 ---------------- On 2/27/2003 2:02:48 AM mobile homeless wrote: Mencken was right... "The most common of all follies is to believe passionately in the palpably not true. It is the chief occupation of mankind" kh ps- "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." - Theodore Roosevelt God Bless Buddha! ---------------- I never thought I'd see the day when showing loyalty and respect to ones country became a dirty word. Shame on you. If you don't like this country and what it respresents then leave. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heresy2guy Posted February 27, 2003 Share Posted February 27, 2003 ---"Mr. Bush is unique in this regard of divining the direction of our nation through the Word of God, and he is wrong to do this. He also happens to be un-curious, anti-intellectual, grossly uninformed about subjects most students would understand, and incapable of public speech, ad hoc discussion or understanding that he is our CIVIL not religious Chief. This now makes him by world polls, "The scariest Threat on Earth." He needs to be called on this." ************************************************************ Hmmm....well, I'm sorry to say this, but what's wrong with being "anti-intellectual?" In my experience, such a term is often used by pseudo (although self-professed) "intellectuals" (who claim to be democrats but secretly hide their socialistic yearnings -lol) to describe people they see as a threat. Furthermore, a "world poll" that concludes that President Bush is the "scariest threat on earth" perfectly illustrates just how myopic and ungrateful (yes, UNGRATEFUL!) the rest of "the world" is. Too bad that the collapse of the Soviet Union eventually led to the WOMD proliferation we have today. The old Soviet Bear might have huffed and puffed and showed it's teeth every so often, but in reality, with all the checks and balances, there was little threat of a major American city suffering a 9/11 attack. Today, unfortunately, it's just a matter of time until some anti-american terrorist organization manages to get it's hands on a nuclear or biological weapon and then uses it on American soil. Should truth be told, there's a greater threat to Americans today then there ever was during the Cold War. In my opinion, sitting around and taking a reactive posture is bad news - all we're doing is waiting for someone hurt us. We need to be PROACTIVE in order to ensure another 9/11 doesn't happen. Furthermore, the only reason they used jets on 9/11 is because they couldn't get their hands on biological or nuclear weapons. Do you think they would have "refrained" from using them if they had managed to get them?! Had New York and/or Washington been nuked NOBODY in this country would be "protesting" anything right now. They'd all be screaming for blood! And those same liberal, closet-socialists (and I've met more then my fair share in undergraduate school--where they seem to be thrive, safely hidden from the "real world"--thank you) who are "protesting" now would be "intellectualising" on how the powers-that-be could have let that happen. In other words, with those people, you're damned if you do and you're damned if you don't. In my experience, contrary to what they might think, those people are never part of the solution but are always part of the problem. I haven't even read this thread until today, but since I do believe everyone has a right to be heard, I thought I'd give my own two cents. With that said, I refuse to be further sucked into a conversation that really has little place on an Klipsch website so don't expect another post from me on this topic. One thing I will mention before I close, however, is an article that caught my eye the other day that deserves mentioning: 3 or 4 school teachers were stoned to death in the Congo when "word" spread that they "cast an Ebola spell" thus causing the recent Ebola outbreak that's claimed the lives of many people in that region. If that doesn't illustrate how some parts of the world still are, I don't know what does. I'm sure as hell glad that I'm living here in America and I take immense pride in being a Veteran. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Audible Nectar Posted February 27, 2003 Share Posted February 27, 2003 OK, I've been avoiding the political threads here, but a particular comment sucked me in. First of all, regarding mdeneen's comments: You are scoring - heavily. If I were the host of the Jim Rome radio show, I would give you post of the day status (or for the month, for that matter), and say "Rack him" (the highest form of praise). It's nice to see that someone can think beyond what is spewed forth daily on the boob tube, and apply some critical thinking. "I never thought I'd see the day when showing loyalty and respect to ones country became a dirty word. Shame on you. If you don't like this country and what it respresents then leave." This attitude absolutely pisses me off. I am fed up with the idea/attitude that dissenting opinions are "unamerican" or "treason". It's not that showing loyalty and respect to one's country is a dirty word, but the acceptance of what BushCo says at face value, without questioning it, IS. NOT questioning our leaders is unamerican. Remember, absolute power corrupts - absolutely. Questioning the leadership is not only our right as citizens, it is our responsibility. The minute that right is lost, I AM outta here. Beleive it or not, my wife and I have actually discussed the idea of moving out of the US - something we would not have considered two short years ago. In my eyes, the minute the planes hit the towers and the nation began the "lockdown", the terrorists were in "the end zone". They are winning because we are reacting out of pure fear. Losing civil liberties in the name of security plays right into the hands of the terrorists. Fear sells - if you don't beleive this, wait until election '04. This citizen isn't buying. It's very comforting to know that BushCo has our best interests at heart. For example, did you see Mr. A$$croft patting himself on the back this week over the bust of Tommy Chong (selling pipes on the internet)? Gotta get those pipes out of the hands of the terrorists - using those finances terrorism, ya know. Makes me feel REAL secure. I suppose that OBL blew those pipes, too. Bull$hit. PS: Greg, I do sincerely hope that your daughter comes home safely. With any luck, her services won't be necessary. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TBrennan Posted February 27, 2003 Share Posted February 27, 2003 Ranger----I thought officers in The Regular Army were supposed to keep their politics to themselves. This ain't Mexico. As a soldier you're an instrument of policy but you should have no voice in what that policy is. Not that I blame you for favoring war, it's your trade afterall, but the tradition we have of soldiers steering publicly clear of politics (at least until AFTER they've whipped the British, Indians, Mexicans, Confederates or Germans and retired from the Army) has served us well. Our distrust of standing armies is one of the finest things we inherited from the English. Remember what an *** MacArthur made of himself, his glory permanently besmirched by his attempts to butt-in on policy. Of course he also let his air-force get destroyed on the ground several hours AFTER the attack on Pearl and he dreadfully mismanged his defense of Luzon. And he stole the glory of Krueger and Echelberger and others by taking ALL the credit for himself. Doug got his Medal of Honor for losing the Phillipines, his father got his for leading the 24th Wisconsin up Missionary Ridge, screaming "On Wisconsin" as he carried the colors into the teeth of Confederate fire. I think Douglas spent his whole life trying to live up to his father (and break away from his mother). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fish Posted February 27, 2003 Share Posted February 27, 2003 Thanks mobile,I take comments as a compliment.As far as MD points,he's typed a whole book,the few good points he did make were by burried by the radical ranting.Never been to OK, can't comment. DND,I am not following Bush,I'm leeding,if he don't get Saddam he will NOT get my vote.What's with the threats to leave the US,I have heard this before(hollywood crackpots),do what ya gotta do.As far as Ashcroft is concerned,I too think he's a little hard core,I really don't care about bongs,unless its Saddams.He still is superior to Reno in almost every way,but is a little far right. TB all free people can say what they believe,even the people that would lay their life on the line for our protection.The statement war is a trade is absurd,these brave men and women would much rather be with their family's.We have "raced" to war for 12 years,the time has come,BYE Saddam. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mobile homeless Posted February 27, 2003 Share Posted February 27, 2003 "I never thought I'd see the day when showing loyalty and respect to ones country became a dirty word. Shame on you. If you don't like this country and what it respresents then leave." The basic ignorance and amazing lack of understanding of what America stands for is SO strong in this statement, it is absolutely bordering on tragic. The hypocrisy and contradiction here is absolutely staggering. How can one be any more in the dark? Ranger, do you know much about how America started or the foundation of its existence including the very tenets and documents which describe this foundation? Did you perhaps spy the author of that quote? I thought this notion of "Love it or Leave it" was only suitable for parody on Saturday Night Live and late night talk shows (not to mention the wonderful job done by Carroll O'Conner in the early 70s). Does the heavy irony of your comments register? I never thought I would see this type of gibberish uttered with a straight face, especially in this day. Have we not progressed? The fact that this person and aforementioned mindset is possibly representing this country overseas in times of diplomacy makes one understand why other countries hold Americans with such disdain. Ranger, why don't you analyze what "Love it or Leave it" means ultimately, especially in reference to America. Let it twirl within your skull - what is it actually saying? This forum never ceases to amaze me. Of course, the HL Mencken quote rings true, but passed over heads like a Dennis Miller reference in Yiddish. kh 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.