The Buck Stops ... There.
POSTED BY: NewOldBrownCoat
UPDATED: Monday, November 6, 2006 05:06
VIEWED: 4508
PAGE 4 of 5
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
CARTOON: OF course Maliki is going to say everything is going great. So did Hitler, Stalin, Roosevelt, and Curchill. So does Bush. Do ya think a leader is going to say "We're doomed"? You show a fearsome lack of imagination.
Hello.
I initially stated that (without exception) every U.S. soldier with whom I'd spoken (and/or heard speaking publically), entirely contradicts the majority of the news which the media is reporting on Iraq.
That was found to be unacceptable by the overall wisdom of the persons in this thread -- even though those people about whom I'd been refering, were actually there -- unlike any of us. But, of course, they're "idiots" (thanks, Sen. Kerry), so we cannot consider their views on the subject.
I then produced a statement by the President of Iraq, likewise contradicting the major media.
That also was deemed unacceptable -- even though the President of Iraq is actually there -- again, unlike any of us -- and has been there, both before and after the U.S. involvement. But, of course, he's "biased", so we cannot consider his view on the subject, either.
In other threads, I've produced lists of scientists which refute evolution. One of them a current noble prize winner. Others, former evolutionists (indluding one who wrote the highly acclaimed defense of evolution of life from non-life for his generation). However, they, too, are dismissed as "idiots" or "biased" -- even though their credentials far outweigh the credentials of anyone in this forum.
Okay. I'm not too bright, but I seem to understand the rules a bit better now, so please indulge my foolishness.
If I understand this correctly, I should only produce opinions from experts with whom you agree?
Okay.
I see. That makes perfect sense.
If you might indulge me a bit further (I did say I wasn't too bright)...
So, as not to ruffle any more feathers in this forum, I would appreciate it if those possessors of great wisdom and knowledge would kindly provide me with a list of sources which they would find acceptible, from which I may quote.
As obviously, nothing I produce from the depths of my ineptitude is going to be found acceptible by anyone in here -- this would be providing a great service to myself (and other idiots who think as I do).
Thank you for your indulgence. I await your wisdom.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by TPage:
My only question about this comparison is: wasn't the American CIVIL war a "house divided." Namely, one nation at war with itself (though granted half of the nation was attempting to become its own). Whereas the war in Iraq is, whether you like it or not, a war of invasion. Direct US interests (such as citizens) were involved in Iraq before the military went in. Even now, how many American citizens are inside of Iraq and not there as part of the military, the press, or other such organisation due to the war.
Hi, TPage.
Yes, there are great differences between the U.S. Civil War and what's going on now in Iraq. My analogy wasn't about the type of war, or the conduct of the war, but specifically about how (in both cases) the President did what they felt to be right, in spite of the unpopularity of their decision, and the bitter opposition they faced as a result of it. The analogy was not intended to be taken beyond that.
BTW, I do not (nor had I ever) believed it was necessary to go into Iraq when we did in 2003. (So, I do disagree with the timing of the President's initial decision, contrary to what many in here may think.)
Of course, as Sadam was in violation of a multitude of U.N. sanctions, it should've been the U.N. going in -- not the U.S. However, the U.N. has never had the temerity to actually enforce anything it espouses -- and they (along with the French) did a very nice job of running cover for Sadam -- actually delaying us four months, while Sadam could've easily (and probably did) ship his WMD's into Syria.
That being said, however, once the job is started, it must be properly concluded, or everything done thus far would have been for nothing. If we pull out too quickly, and Iraq isn't stable, it could easily become a haven for terrorists, and wind up being worse than it was under Sadam. The terrorists (and other enemies of the U.S.) know that -- which is why they are throwing themselves into Iraq, in a fierce attempt to undermine a free and democratic Iraq.
The terrorists mustn't be too bright, though. Otherwise, they wouldn't be wasting their time, when the job is being done for them -- right over here (in the U.S. congress and major media outlets) -- where they (the terrorists) have several allies who are willing to secure the U.S.'s failure in Iraq -- and without bloodshed and violence.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Oh dear, you just can't stop lying can you, I said that everyone I work with, because I work in the military, which makes me infinatly more qualified to speak on the situation than you, which is by the by, who has been to Iraq says different to you. And where as I know they're not lying I have seen enough of your posts to know that you rarely if ever tell the truth.
Originally posted by cartoon:
That was found to be unacceptable by the overall wisdom of the persons in this thread -- even though those people about whom I'd been refering, were actually there -- unlike any of us. But, of course, they're "idiots" (thanks, Sen. Kerry), so we cannot consider their views on the subject.
Evidently the testamony of my collegues who have been to Iraq, myself who works in the military and may go to Iraq at some point, is not good enough for Cartoon, since we aren't saying what Cartoon wants to hear. We are saying the wrong things (thanks to Cartoon) so we can discount our testamony.
Cartoon accuses people of not listening to source 'more qualified than themselves' yet he doesn't listen to the vast majority of Scientists that do support evolution or those that have been to Iraq unless they say what he wants to hear. Essentially Cartoon is most guilty of what he accuses others.
Quote:Anyone who disagrees with Cartoon is a terrorist. You heard it here first folks.
The terrorists mustn't be too bright, though. Otherwise, they wouldn't be wasting their time, when the job is being done for them -- right over here (in the U.S. congress and major media outlets) -- where they (the terrorists) have several allies who are willing to secure the U.S.'s failure in Iraq -- and without bloodshed and violence.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Marina- Could you provide more info on your study?
Sure - I mean, I didn't conduct the research study, I'm just studying the study for my own research. I see my professor this afternoon though, I'll get the info on the authors for you.
Don't make faces.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Yes, there are great differences between the U.S. Civil War and what's going on now in Iraq. My analogy wasn't about the type of war, or the conduct of the war, but specifically about how (in both cases) the President did what they felt to be right, in spite of the unpopularity of their decision, and the bitter opposition they faced as a result of it. The analogy was not intended to be taken beyond that.
(snip)
That being said, however, once the job is started, it must be properly concluded, or everything done thus far would have been for nothing.
( snip more)
The terrorists mustn't be too bright, though. Otherwise, they wouldn't be wasting their time, when the job is being done for them -- right over here (in the U.S. congress and major media outlets) -- where they (the terrorists) have several allies who are willing to secure the U.S.'s failure in Iraq -- and without bloodshed and violence.
YA don't haveta go back to the Civil War to find good parallels. Seems like Presidents Kennedy, JOHNSON and NIXON did their best about a place called VietNam. and folks supporting that war made the same arguments.
and as John Kerry ( the phoney war hero who self-inflicted his wounds according to the Swift Boaters; and then committed treason; and was an ally of the North Viets; and also accused our troops of being stupid) said then:
"Who wants to be the last man to die for a MISTAKE?"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Hey thanks. Much appreciated.
Sure - I mean, I didn't conduct the research study, I'm just studying the study for my own research. I see my professor this afternoon though, I'll get the info on the authors for you.
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Cartoon
Where I know very little I defer to others. You'll not find me making lengthy arguments about music, automobiles, missiles or any number of topics.
But there are topics I know a lot about. Biology and medicine, chemistry, the atmosphere, instrumentation, CBW, and a few others.
For example, in the heliox discussion I drew on my personal knowledge of the groundbreaking and definitive navy hyperbaric physiology research. When I discuss stem cells it's based on my personal experience with the techniques, benefits and pitfalls of embryonic tissue culture. (I had a misspent youth.) When I talk about the symptoms of Parkinson's, its treatment (or lack thereof) and prognosis, it's based on years of medical background and my father's own Parkinson's and related death.
When I discuss evolution I'm not deferring to anyone.
I did what I usually do when looking at a scientific paper - I looked at the qualifications and backgrounds of the 'authors'. From your cite, few were bona fide research scientists in the field. The few that were had obvious biases. So I pointed that out.
I then sketched one brief scientific objection to the issues. There are many others I could have written about, but life is short.
But what most struck me about the script was the same basic refrain: I couldn't and since I'm smart and right, it must be wrong. I couldn't make my protein theory work, so chemical evolution must be wrong. I couldn't imagine how anything like that could have evolved, so it must be designed. I couldn't propose intermediates so they must not have existed.
I was serious when I said they went from "I couldn't ..." to "the butler did it". They assume that b/c they're smart and they can't figure it out, it must not be true.
Anyway, I'm gonna go. You may not believe this, but there are people here you could learn from b/c they really do know a lot. Not everyone is full of bluster and bs.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Rue, Thanks again for your response. I appreciate it, but as I'm no expert on science (unlike yourself), I must defer to those who are. And while I'm not doubting your expertise, I find too many contradictory arguments from those with outstanding credentials in their fields.
Also, regarding the parts of the show regarding infered intelligence, I can determine that much for myself -- the heiroglyphics on stone weren't created apart from intelligence, and I will never believe that the far more intricately complex DNA molecule was.
We're going to have to agree that we will likely never agree on this.
Thanks anyhow.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:
YA don't haveta go back to the Civil War to find good parallels. Seems like Presidents Kennedy, JOHNSON and NIXON did their best about a place called VietNam. and folks supporting that war made the same arguments.
As much as I can blame JFK for a whole mess of bad decisions, I can't blame him for the war in Viet Nam. Yeah, he upped Ike's involvement, but it was really LBJ who turned it into a full-fledged fighting match (maybe he was expecting another Korea, or something; who knows).
Neither can I blame Nixon, who inherited LBJ's mess, and did his best to get us out of it (which he and Kissinger eventually did).
I (like many others who've studied history in some detail) (and who actually lived through the whole Viet Nam debacle) honestly believe that Nixon could've secured a withdrawal from Viet Nam much earlier, if not for the aid and comfort to the enemy which was being daily provided here at home by the protestors and their media cronies.
It's hard to get your enemy to take your nation's resolve very seriously, when your own people are rioting in the streets, and the media is painting the whole effort as a disaster.
In hindsight, we probably should've stayed out of that one, too. Good intentions, improperly executed. Some of our interventions have been successful (WWI & WWII), others not so (Korea & Viet Nam).
However, I mentioned Lincoln instead of LBJ, as LBJ's handling by the media (as well as his political opposition) was nowhere near as severe as what Lincoln endured. Actually, the media and particularly, the protestors, were far more unforgiving with Nixon than with LBJ (who actually started the whole thing), which in my opinion, was never justified. Even the current President hasn't endured the degree of insults which Lincoln faced.
Ironically, Lincoln would never know that the opinion of history would be much kinder to him than that of his contempories. And while history has only shown LBJ's administration to be worse than imagined by his contempories, I have a feeling that, like Lincoln, history will treat our current Chief Executive much better in the decades to come than his contemporary critics.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:What I've heard (and read) is about 50/50.
I initially stated that (without exception) every U.S. soldier with whom I'd spoken (and/or heard speaking publically), entirely contradicts the majority of the news which the media is reporting on Iraq.
Quote:Again, I gave you a perfectly credible source from someone who WAS in Iraq, but YOU found it "unacceptable".
That was found to be unacceptable by the overall wisdom of the persons in this thread -- even though those people about whom I'd been refering, were actually there -- unlike any of us.
Quote:OF course he's biased. It would be completely impossible for him to say anything other than what he said. But let me also paraphrase Maliki: I'm not your man in Iraq Why would he say that?? It's because he CAN'T be seen by his people as being tied to the USA. And why would THAT be? Because MOST of his supporters are... er... anti-American.
I then produced a statement by the President of Iraq, likewise contradicting the major media. That also was deemed unacceptable -- even though the President of Iraq is actually there -- again, unlike any of us -- and has been there, both before and after the U.S. involvement. But, of course, he's "biased", so we cannot consider his view on the subject, either.
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME