Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 2 of 2 1 2
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 78,468
P
PitDAWG Offline OP
Legend
OP Offline
Legend
P
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 78,468
Quote:

Quote:

Well,let's see.

In this thread alone,we have quotes from a gov. from an Afghan province telling us this.




I can provide a bunch of quotes from non-Bush administration people that Iraq had WMD.




And I can provide plenty that said they didn't. Do you have credible sources denying these things that have been asserted?

Quote:

Quote:

We have a basic truce agreement from the government of Pakistan with militant Taliban leaders in the area of Pakistan that borders with Afghanastan AND we have the intel reports added with those factors.




So we have Pakistan making a shady deal with our enemy. That says nothing about their current strength.




Well,here we get into using sound logic IMO.
If people were at war in your own country "seeking you out" and you needed a base of operations? And if a neighboring country permited you to have a "safe zone" in which to do this. A country that was an allie with the people "warring agaist you" in your own country. A place where your enemy wouldn't attack you because they're "allies" with the country offering you a "safe zone to operate in". How logical would it be for you not to use it as a base of operations and training?

Sometimes things have sound logic and reasoning. It doesn't take a huge spy network,or millions upon millions of dollars to logicly deduce a common sense answer. When you look at it from a practical standpoint,this makes perfect sense without intel at all.


Quote:

Quote:

I really didn't need the intel report to add up 2+2=4. But some did. And then no matter how overwhelming the evidence is from no matter how many credible sources,they won't admit the truth anyway.




you're the one always saying we should not believe everything we read. I guess you blindly believe it when it fits your agenda.




No,I don't "blindly believe anything". I'm not a rocket scientist and never claimed to be. It was my assertion that the intel on WMD was sketchy at best. Yes,a LOT of people "said" he had WMD. A lot of people SAID he didn't.

But using the very type of same logic that I've used here,I used to come to my conclusion about WMD in Iraq.

The U.N. inspectors made it plain that Saddam had been cooperating. That he openned every site they had requested. That they had found NO evidence of WMD. Then,while Saddam WAS cooperating,the inspectors WERE doing there job,we make them leave to attack Iraq?

I don't know if you actually "watched" the case that Powell presented to the U.N.,but I did. The claim was that he would bring "concrete evidence" before the U.N. What he brought was a picture of an army convoy truck with a tarp over it,claiming it "could be" a "mobile WMD lab. And a picture of a tent trying to "predict" what it was being used for.

So using the process of deductive reasoning,their case for WMD looked very weak and why was Saddam "openning up" all of these sites if he had all of these weapons and a nuclear program? Plus,one must remember that the claims weren't just that he "had WMD,but that he was still "asctively producing them AND building a nuclear weapons program". So the evidence and logic just didn't add up to what was being asserted by our government. And no matter how you slice it,the U.N. wasn't convinced either.

Quote:

Quote:

These posts are actually intended for people with open minds that are willing to look at the evidence and weigh it out. For those who look at things from several sources and be realistic and logical in their deductions.

Not for most of those who actually respond.





So you result to personal attacks...




When threads here get ten times as many "looks" as they do "responses" I don't see how you percieve that as a "personal attack". Most people that respond to these threads have their minds made up. Nothing short of a log hitting them in the head will change their minds. And they attack and accuse anyone who disagrees with them. I'm not going to sit here and say you're an acception to that,but most who do reply to these type of threads fit that mold. So no,it wasn't directed at "you per say"

But yes,these posts are far more intended for the 90% basicly who read them,not the 10% that respond who already have their minds made up. If you feel you're included in that bunch,you are entitled to your opinion.

But let's look at it in real time.........................

I'm labeled as a liberal. Which I really don't care what I'm "labeled as". But why? Simply because "I don't like THIS president. Because I think is strategy is bassackwards." Not "Reblicans" do I feel this way about,but the Bush administration. I've promoted,stood behind and voted FOR Republican presidents on more than one occasion,just not "this one". And I'm very proud of that.

Well the list keeps growing longer every day of GOP senators and congressmen who disagree with his strategy and failed administration too. So now are they suddenly "liberals too"? So they're now on the list to be attacked too,right? Or do these similarities make me a liberal and them "deserters to their own party"? I'm sure they're in line to be attacked next and already have been by some. It the same old M.O. Nothing new here.Look at how people turned on Powell? They've turned on former generals who RAN the Iraq war? They've attacked the character and labeled person after person after person. Wheather they were a GOP OR Democrat who disagrees with this president and or this war.

You see,I don't want to "withdraw from war". I simply want to be at war with the people we were SUPPOSED to be after in the first place. And you have to concentrate your efforts WHERE THEY ARE in order to do that. But still I'm attacked by those who no matter what he does,will support him. I really don't care.

But it won't change reality. Time will prove what has been said and the reality of who understood what reality was. The fact is,Al Qaeda is growing. It's growing in Pakistan. It's growing while we're bogged down somewhere else. It growing while we're in the middle of a sectarian civil war that has very little impact accept as a recruiting tool for even more terrorists.

The commitment to "get Al Qaeda" was broken when we sent the bulk of our military to Iraq instead of Afghanastan. No matter the ramblings,cheap talk,attacks and belittling of those who barely have a straw left to cling to,you can't change that.

You can ignore the obvious untill it's so overwhelming that it ingulfs us if you wish to. And at the current rate,that's exactly what this administration and its supporters are doing. So enjoy every minute of it untill thousands more Americans die at the hands of terrorists coming out of PAKISTAN this time!

Who will you blame then? Me?


Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.

#gmstrong
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 78,468
P
PitDAWG Offline OP
Legend
OP Offline
Legend
P
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 78,468
Quote:

.........but, carry on, oh mighty message board master...........




I will Arch. I most certainly will. That much you can bank on.

Message board master? I didn't know you regarded me so highly Arch. Thanks.


You see Arch,I'm not out to impress anyone. I'm not out worrying about what "people think". That's not my cup of tea. I could actually care less.


Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.

#gmstrong
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
P
PDR Offline
Legend
Offline
Legend
P
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Thought this was funny...

OPERATION
IRAQI FREE GUN.
BY JASON ROEDER
- - - -

Dear President Bush:

I don't know if you'll ever read this letter. I've written to you on two prior occasions, but I think the Massachusetts return address had something to do with both letters being sent back to me unopened and stamped with "Return to Evolution-Mongering Abortion-Peddling Detester of America, Liberty, and God." But if you're reading this third letter, it's because you've managed to look past my treasonous postmark or because you believed me when I wrote "Free Al Qaeda Lieutenant Inside!" on the face of the envelope. I'm sorry for misleading you, but now that you're reading, I have an urgent matter to discuss.

It hurts to suggest this, but I think your legacy is in jeopardy. You're not to blame, of course. Almost every day, the liberal media rush to broadcast blood-soaked images from the latest car bombing while devoting none of their coverage to the many unexploded vehicles parked curbside. It's not fair, but these are the people writing—and editing—history. I know you promised our military an indefinite commitment to a mission that gets papered over with a brand-new mission every few months like a highway billboard, but I don't think our men and women in uniform would begrudge you a quick yet honorable solution. And I have one.

First, let me give you a little background.

It has been a couple of months since the tragic events at Virginia Tech, and though we were moved by the heroism of Liviu Librescu, a professor who blocked the door to his classroom with his own body, and by the hypothetical heroism of radio commentator Neal Boortz, who totally would've rushed the deranged gunman, we know that revulsion and grief will rule that day forever. So, we once again look to bigger issues and preventive measures. Alarmist liberals are, predictably, braying for more gun control, but I urge you to stick to your strict constructionist interpretation of the Second Amendment (except for the militia part). If the victims of Virginia Tech had been armed, maybe there would have been no need for Librescu's sacrifice or Boortz's valiant speculation. And I got to thinking: Why stop with one American college campus?

Here's what I propose for Iraq: Distribute assault weapons to every Iraqi man, woman, and adolescent with the aptitude to crook a trigger finger. After all, the insurgents are a proportionately minuscule part of the overall population, and since the bad guys get hold of weapons anyway, why not put equalizers in the hands of law-abiding citizens? That'll make any mass murderer with a death wish think twice—unless he's got a death wish or something. And just think of the relief our soldiers will feel every time their patrol encounters a dozen Iraqis stroking AK-47s at a traffic light. They'll say, "Man, maybe Al Qaeda should fight us at home, because they sure don't stand a chance here."

I suppose some of the weapons we provide could be used against us. But we all know that guns don't kill people, people kill people. All a semiautomatic does is discharge 75 poor choices per minute. Remember that so-called assault-weapons ban we had? What happened there? Thugs merely adapted and replaced drive-by shootings with drive-by pillow smotherings, and no one was any safer.

But here's the best part. The unrestricted flow of weapons will help expose the subversive element that poses the greatest threat to our soldiers and to civilized Iraqis alike: the unarmed. Think about it: Only someone who had a reason to feel protected from insurgents would feel secure not hoarding weapons. We will know our enemies by the food stashed in their pantries, the clothes cached in their drawers, and the wall tapestries concealing large areas of their walls.

I don't care if you give me credit for this idea, Mr. President, just as long as you implement it. Most Americans can't identify the people behind strategic breakthroughs like Shock and Awe or Sending Troops Into Battle With the Protective Equivalent of a Fishing Vest, but the people responsible know who they are. The quiet satisfaction will suffice for me.

Let the bullets fly. And let freedom reign.

http://www.mcsweeneys.net/2007/7/11roeder.html

Page 2 of 2 1 2
DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Tailgate Forum The Return of Al Qaeda? But.........

Link Copied to Clipboard
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5