Re: Bill O'Reilly...Flaming Scumbag...

Quiet, "Jason Bowen" <jasonmbowen@xxxxxxxxx> -- I'm transmitting rage.


James Schrumpf wrote:
Quiet, "Jason Bowen" <jasonmbowen@xxxxxxxxx> -- I'm transmitting
rage.


James Schrumpf wrote:
Quiet, "Jason Bowen" <jasonmbowen@xxxxxxxxx> -- I'm transmitting
rage.


...was the administration playing politics???? Oh you just
think it was over-optimism! What a rosy view! How about saying
we are fighting a guerilla force that we didn't plan on
fighting.

Obviously we are fighting an insurgency we didn't expect. Did you
have a point to make about that?


Sounds like poor planning or no planning. The constant next
forecast that says that things will get better isn't correct and
given the situation, appears to be based on nothing but good
intentions and hopeful thoughts. This is politics.

Or just normal wartime reportage to the homefront. Or do you imagine
that during WWII the papers reported exactly how bad things were at
Guadalcanal, Tarawa or Iwo Jima?


Are you asking me if the government is less than forthcoming with real
conditions?

I'm asking you if you thought the government was "less than forthcoming"
with conditions during WWII, and if you think it helped or hurt the war
effort.




We thought we were vigilent and that we had a strong defense --
and then 911 happened. The lesson from that day should be
"what we were doing before is not enough", and be trying to do
security better.


The 9/11 hijackers lived in America. Hell the administration
was notified about intent a month before 9/11 and yet the
hijackers got on board with box cutters and mace. So tell me
again about our vigilence.

That's exactly my point: what we did before was not good enough.


And invading Iraq didn't make things better. In fact I think
deaths from terrorism have gone up every year since the invasion.

You know, "deaths from Nazi soldiers" went up every year too, until
we finally won WWII. How many Russians died in WWII? Does that mean
it wasn't worth it?


Do you deny that deaths from terrorism have climbed? That you equate
this with World War II is assinine. Did Iraq stop Bali and London?
Terrorism is up because of Iraq.

Did the invasion of Africa or Italy stop the V-1 and V-2 bombing of
London? Terrorism of England was up because of the invasion at Normandy!






Regardless of what one thinks of Iran today -- with their
support of international terrorism -- they at least don't
invade their neighbors with regularity, or slaughter their
miniorities with impudence.

In that, at least, Iraq is vastly differant from Vietnam.


They are locations in the world that we need to do our best
to assist our allies but not fight their wars for them. I'm
sorry, but if the Iraqis aren't willing to rise up against
there power, they don't deserver there liberty. Benjamin
Franklin was right when he said that, "those the give up
their liberty for security deserve neither.".
If you aren't willing to fight for your freedom, you don't
want it
too bad do ya?


The Kurds and Shiites did rise up to fight for their liberty
(at our urging), and Saddam murdered them indiscriminently.

And we didn't support them.

But they did rise up.


At our urging and they were slaughtered.

You're making my point for me. We should have been in there back in
'92 instead of 11 years later.


What point am I making for you? Bush Sr urged something he couldn't
back up?



The Kurds are
_still_ fighting hard for their independence (read Michael
Trotten's blogs about Iraqi Kurdistan) and the Shiite south is
the quietest part of Iraq.


And we should aid people in their quest for freedom and
independence, not invade and occupy countries.

Funny, that's how we did it in Europe and Japan, and it seemed to
work then.


Don't compare WWII to this, it is apples to oranges. We invaded
Iraq, a sovereign nation that didn't attack us. Japan and Germany
surrendered after both were allies in a world war that Japan
dragged us in to. It was a different place, different time, and
different circumstances. Hell Newtons laws of physics are found to
break down at different levels, hence that is why quantumn
mechanics and relativisim arose to explain what Newton's laws could
not. You really believe everything is just all the same or do you
think that Newton's laws explain everything. One thing works in
one circumstance so it will work in all others? You have a very
narrow mind that doesn't appear open to analytical thinking.


We "invaded" Germany, who didn't attack us either.


Hmmm, seems to me they were attacking our allies, they were in
alliance with Japan, and also did attack our ships prior to our
involvement in WWII.

We were "officially neutral", though we were arming the Brits through the
Lend-Lease program. That the Germans were firing on us was hardly
unexpected.


These tinpot dictators today aren't stupid enough to declare war on
the US to make it easy to get people behind the effort. They _count_
on international opinion to make it difficult to fight wars against
dictators and terrorists.

Ahhh so if they don't declare war on us, they can do as they want... I
get it now. So you really believe that?

It's worked so far, to an extent. If Saddam had launched attacks on
American interests in the Middle East, and anywhere else he could have
reached, do you think American interest in the war would be waning to the
extent it is now?

Of course, his restraint didn't help him (he thought the French and
Germans would keep American off his back), but he's kept his skin so far,
so it might all work out for him in the end.



You also ignore the fact that Newton's laws are still accurate enough
for NASA to use them to hit a dinner plate out at the orbit of Pluto;
the Lorenz transformations aren't necessary at normal speeds -- and
neither are quantum mechanics necessary for me to balance the pH
levels in my swimming pool. Just because increased precision is
available doesn't mean we have to use it in everyday practice.

It also shows that one solution doesn't work in all possible sets.


One solution, no -- but the same tools can be used in all scenarios.


--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
James Schrumpf http://www.hilltopper.net

Play like your couch is on fire!
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Meet the Domestic Enemy
    ... cripple America's war effort in Iraq than has the homegrown political ... American oppression. ... announced that they had established the Out of Iraq Congressional ... terrorism is not just an American problem, ...
    (alt.politics.bush)
  • Meet the Domestic Enemy
    ... cripple America's war effort in Iraq than has the homegrown political ... American oppression. ... announced that they had established the Out of Iraq Congressional ... terrorism is not just an American problem, ...
    (alt.politics.bush)
  • Re: An Inconvenient Truth
    ... IRAQ AND THE WAR ON TERRORISM ... Thanks for your kind words on my service as vice president. ...
    (rec.music.gdead)
  • Re: An Inconvenient Truth
    ... IRAQ AND THE WAR ON TERRORISM ... Thanks for your kind words on my service as vice president. ...
    (rec.music.gdead)
  • Re: An Inconvenient Truth
    ... IRAQ AND THE WAR ON TERRORISM ... Thanks for your kind words on my service as vice president. ...
    (rec.music.gdead)
Loading