Look to the Past or Future (election, terrorism etc)

[THE ENFORCER]

This is a new thread created for the responses to post 51,48, 47 in the Howard Stern thread about elections, terrorism, bush, mid-east (all themes mentioned in the above posts).

Sorry for the inconvience but i dont like to mix and match themes in the same thread, its unfair to others who want to voice their opinon on these matters but wouldnt think to look for them on this forum under "Howard Stern".

Previous post:

Our President isn't fighting terrorism, From 9/12 on Iraq has been the target. Justification came second.


http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/22/po...ND-CLARKE.html


This is the second administration official to come forward and say this.

I forgot you have to register to read it, just type in Indianz as username and password.

We all know about Clarke and his book. But becareful with your wording, the 9/11 commission, this book etc... is arguing that why couldnt we have prevented this attack not have we done an attack on terrorism. The Bush administration has done alot after 9/11 in afghansitan granted alot has (probably more) has been done to Iraq as well. Also Clarke it has been argued that Clarke isnt objective in his book and is completely one sided against the Bush adminstration so his credibility is in question!

However i think that instead of paying so much attention to the past how about we pay more attention to the future! It comes down to relevance, relevant infomation is what can we do to stop terrorism in the future, what are we going to do in the middle east and for you Americans what type of spending is needed jump start the economy!
Any discussion of the past takes precious time away for making better informed decisions for the future!

[Mr. Peanuts]

Terrorism only starts when minorities are ignored and ignored and it is seriously gonna escalate rapidly over the next 20 years or so.

[THE ENFORCER]

Have you read the book? I haven't, so I'm not gonna tell you that you're wrong, but my understanding was that the book is largely about how we knew things that could've stopped 9/11 from happening.

Of course it's one-sided, this guy was in the white house for 30 years, he served under bush's father, and under clinton... he quit now because of what was going on in the white house and wrote a book to tell the country about it.

Voting for bush because you think he's the only guy that can deal with terrorism is stupid. He's just a dumb hillbilly. Any president would've gone to afghanistan after 9/11, it's not something special that bush did, and it's the ONLY thing he did right his whole time in office, and it's damn lucky for him that 9/11 happened, because it was his moment in the sun. He got to fly from his vacation home (he's taken far more vacation time than any president ever) to new york and stand with the real heroes, the firemen and the police force and talk about how we were gonna get those bad guys.

the whole focus of his campaign is on that one thing. "look at me, I'm the only one that can stop terrorism", and you buy it.

If you agree its one-sided then you cant believe the book is credible. Voting for Kerry because you think that Bush is a "Dumb Hellbily" is stupid! Bush has taken a hard hand towards terrorism! You can not say Bush is going to deal lightly with Terrorism in the future and in the middle east! Kerry on the other hand is open to discussion. But Bush is not!

[THE ENFORCER]

And also...

Don't you think that maybe pissing off a whole lot of iraqis might make terrorism worse? Every reason that he had for going into there was a lie. there were no weapons of mass destruction, there was no link between sadaam and al qaeda. He said that the iraqis would welcome us as their liberators, but it turns out we're not all that popular over there. Even with the lies, if the iraqi people welcomed us with open arms, I'd feel good about what we did over there, but they don't. it's not our business to be there. All we did was stir shit up and make a bunch more future terrorists.

Where was he when it was his turn to go to war? fucking awol. He's got a lot of balls now that he hides in camp david sending our guys into war, and then dressing up like a fighter pilot. what a fucking clown.

I think having a democratic country allied to America amongst other dictatored and terrorist countries will help stop terrorism and thats why i justfy the Iraq war i really didnt care about the weapons! Just having a saferer democratic country is good to know. No-one mention the argument about "well why dont we invade all countries" because i am aware of that, because Iraq is a threat to the world Saadam is evil and any excuse would do for me to invade the country, however i dont feel that way too many other dictatored countries.

Warning:Anyone that mentions that argument about "why dont we invade all countries" will get hammered by me (cause im sick of repeating myself) so dont say it! Unless you have read and showed me you read this post at least twice and still dont get it!

[THE ENFORCER]

Terrorism only starts when minorities are ignored and ignored and it is seriously gonna escalate rapidly over the next 20 years or so.

Terrorism doesnt start with minorities! Blacks aren't Terrorist, its all about money! Terrorism agianst America are from Arab countries where muslim religon is the majority! Maybe terrorism in England and Ireland but thats not on a global scale! And terrorism will decline rapidly in the next 20 years or so because the world's attention is on it now! Jesus Terrorism is so frickin high if you think it'll increase rapidly over 20 years then in 20 years spells the end of humanity! You dont think that do you?

[Cylor]

Down with Republicans.

[Force of Nature]

I think having a democratic country allied to America amongst other dictatored and terrorist countries will help stop terrorism and thats why i justfy the Iraq war i really didnt care about the weapons! Just having a saferer democratic country is good to know. No-one mention the argument about "well why dont we invade all countries" because i am aware of that, because Iraq is a threat to the world Saadam is evil and any excuse would do for me to invade the country, however i dont feel that way too many other dictatored countries.

Warning:Anyone that mentions that argument about "why dont we invade all countries" will get hammered by me (cause im sick of repeating myself) so dont say it! Unless you have read and showed me you read this post at least twice and still dont get it!

Whether or not you cared about the weapons might not be an issue for you but it was a issue for many. Just because you didn't care about the weapons and therefore it is a non-issue for you doesn't justify it being a non-issue for everyone else. What I'm saying is that you can't claim that since one issue isn't high on your agenda doesn't mean it isn't high on someone else. Obviously you would think weapons were a non issue for yourself because all your are looking for is an excuse to label the bush admistration as being right. Well, if I was to apply the same logic why cannot I take something that you don't deem important and claim that, it is the most important factor for me, hence your opinion isn't as worthy as mine. Therefore, obvously, bush was wrong.

Now, after explaining that you cannot just dismiss other people opinions without legitimate answer or rebuttals. Firstly, you claim that having a democratic country as an ally justifies the war. How is this so? There are many other democratic countries who opposed the war so just because ther e is a democratic ally makes it ok? Secondly you are claiming that Iraq is now safer. Again how do you claim this? For anything I can claim it is more dangerous. Why would you be right over me? -- And no your above post is not a legidimate rebuttal as to why you think weapons don't matter and why you think we aren't targetting other dictorial regimes -- Thirdly you justify why we aren't invading other countries by saying "Iraq is a threat to the world Saadam is evil and any excuse would do for me to invade the country, however i dont feel that way too many other dictatored countries." Ok, so Saddam is evil - for that I claim Bush is evil -- I mean why not? Secondly if that isn't convincing enough. What makes Saddam more evil than millions of other people who are just as bad in other people's opinion. Just because any excuse would do for you, doesn't mean that any excuse would do for anyone else. Your opinion doesn't tower over everyone elsé's. This applies to your later comment. Just because you don't feel the same way to other dictorial regimes might just mean you aren't educated enough evil than Saddam. So, to blindly claim that its ok for you doesn't justify that line of reasoning. Just because you are sick of hearing the same argument doesn't make the argument any less valid therefore, I will and along with other people will continue to ask "Why aren't we invading other dictorial regimes" untill you actually give a decent answer.

[THE ENFORCER]

warning i have to go now so you have 4 hours to edit out anything of your post which you think i can tear apart cause at the moment i know a few points you might want to change

[Force of Nature]

warning i have to go now so you have 4 hours to edit out anything of your post which you think i can tear apart cause at the moment i know a few points you might want to change

oh go for it I think I can rip about anything what you've got to say. Just don't say its my opinion so therefore its better than yours.

Also, if you are going to argue legitimately make sure you don't contradict yourself. Secondly try to stick to the points you've raised. Thirdly don't bring analogies unless you have a clear understanding about what you are trying to use.

[THE PUSHER]

warning i have to go now so you have 4 hours to edit out anything of your post which you think i can tear apart cause at the moment i know a few points you might want to change

DONALD THE MERCILESS SAYS, "AHAHAHAHAHA!"

[THE ENFORCER]

Whether or not you cared about the weapons might not be an issue for you but it was a issue for many. Just because you didn't care about the weapons and therefore it is a non-issue for you doesn't justify it being a non-issue for everyone else. What I'm saying is that you can't claim that since one issue isn't high on your agenda doesn't mean it isn't high on someone else.

I was just stating my opinon and im the only one it seems on this forum that values and states repsect for other people's opinon so its absurd to say that just cause i think this isnt highly important doesnt mean i dont think others would think this is highly important. This is a forum not a newspaper article what people do is state opinons come on!

Obviously you would think weapons were a non issue for yourself because all your are looking for is an excuse to label the bush admistration as being right. Well, if I was to apply the same logic why cannot I take something that you don't deem important and claim that, it is the most important factor for me, hence your opinion isn't as worthy as mine. Therefore, obvously, bush was wrong.

Did i say anything that conclusively states that i think Bush is 100% correct in anything he does??? All i stated is that i think Bush is right for invading Iraq BECAUSE- (notice how i state my reasoning) getting rid of Sadaam makes the world a safer place! Many people think Bush is right on many issues but that doesnt mean that they think Bush is 100% correct on everything he does that was really a stupid comment you stated!

Now, after explaining that you cannot just dismiss other people opinions without legitimate answer or rebuttals.
Where did you pull that from all ive been doing on this forum is state arguments backed up with reasonings show me one comment i made that hasnt got any reasoning with it on a thread, come on man you really dont know what you are talking about!
Firstly, you claim that having a democratic country as an ally justifies the war. How is this so? There are many other democratic countries who opposed the war so just because ther e is a democratic ally makes it ok?

That is sooo not what i said!, i said making Iraq a democratic country that will be allied (sined USA liberated Iraq) to USA amongst dictatored terrorist countries will help fight agianst the war on terror!If Iraq happened to be in Africa then itll be a different story but since they are near the middle east and terrorist countries this will definetly be beneficial to USA in the fight agiasnt terror!

Secondly you are claiming that Iraq is now safer. Again how do you claim this?

Because Iraq will be a democratic state! where people get to choose the politics so no-one man has all the power! It'll be safer for Iraqi citizens and the world knowing that the people get to decide on important issues.

For anything I can claim it is more dangerous. Why would you be right over me? -- And no your above post is not a legidimate rebuttal as to why you think weapons don't matter and why you think we aren't targetting other dictorial regimes --

Now look who "dismiss other people opinions without legitimate answer or rebuttals" Is just stating "no your above post is not a legidimate rebuttal" without providing an argument why legitmate no ofcourse not thats pretty hypocrytical of you!


Thirdly you justify why we aren't invading other countries by saying "Iraq is a threat to the world Saadam is evil and any excuse would do for me to invade the country, however i dont feel that way too many other dictatored countries." Ok, so Saddam is evil - for that I claim Bush is evil -- I mean why not?

Why is Saddam evil but not Bush omg that is so ignorant of you. Did Bush personally order atrocities that killed many Iraqis, without any justifiable reasoning come on no way could you compare Bush to Saddam!

Secondly if that isn't convincing enough. What makes Saddam more evil than millions of other people who are just as bad in other people's opinion.

You have to do some serious research on Saddam he is like Stalin! If you think Saddam isnt evil then theres something wrong with you! You either have no compassion for human life or your just ignorant and needs to do research!

Just because any excuse would do for you, doesn't mean that any excuse would do for anyone else. Your opinion doesn't tower over everyone elsé's.

Like i said i encourage other people to state thier opinons on such matters as long as they provide an argument (seems to me im the only one with this belief!) im just stating my opinon others are welcome to share thier view!

This applies to your later comment. Just because you don't feel the same way to other dictorial regimes might just mean you aren't educated enough evil than Saddam

I arent educated enough evil than saddam?????????????????

.So, to blindly claim that its ok for you doesn't justify that line of reasoning. Just because you are sick of hearing the same argument doesn't make the argument any less valid therefore, I will and along with other people will continue to ask "Why aren't we invading other dictorial regimes" untill you actually give a decent answer.

No im not sick of hearing the same argument im sick of hearing the same argument when i already have stated the same response but people are just too lazy to read them thats why i get pissed off. So "Why aren't we invading other dictorial regimes" because Iraq posed the biggest threat to world peace so far no other country has posed such a big threat yet, but i wouldnt have any complaints in dismantling the Hamas organisation and i hope USA does get involved but once agian thats my opinon and others can state thiers with an argument!

Well you can not say that i gave you a warning! You should just be happy i had a good day today or i would of been alot more harsh!
I just realized how long this post is Dam!
I hope Labor doesnt get voted in over here or they will take out all our troops out of Iraq by Christmas and that wont send a good image to USA or terrorists!

[THE ENFORCER]

DONALD THE MERCILESS SAYS, "AHAHAHAHAHA!"

I would so vote for that, Danzig writing the anthem!, heavy metal rulez!

[ZeUs!!]

Terrorism only starts when minorities are ignored and ignored and it is seriously gonna escalate rapidly over the next 20 years or so.

I think you're getting confused between extremism (far left and right) and terrorism; terrorism breeds when a) people are being oppressed or b) people want to impose their views on other people, such as the Israeli suicide bombings (their view being that the palestinians don't deserve to be in their country and they want their views heard). Extremism breeds when people are looking for a way out of a hole in the ground, much like the spread of facism in post-WWI Germany and communism in post-WWII eastern Europe, not when they are being forced to do something they don't want.

However it is totally plausible to argue that extremism is a form of terrorism, extremism is usually associated with political ideals whereas terrorism are physical acts

[THE ENFORCER]

I think you're getting confused between extremism (far left and right) and terrorism; terrorism breeds when a) people are being oppressed or b) people want to impose their views on other people, such as the Israeli suicide bombings (their view being that the palestinians don't deserve to be in their country and they want their views heard). Extremism breeds when people are looking for a way out of a hole in the ground, much like the spread of facism in post-WWI Germany and communism in post-WWII eastern Europe, not when they are being forced to do something they don't want.

However it is totally plausible to argue that extremism is a form of terrorism, extremism is usually associated with political ideals whereas terrorism are physical acts

Israeli suicide bombings????? Israel has never sent a suicide bomber! They have sent missiles to strategic buildings and now stragetically assisnated terrorist org's Hamas's leader Yassin. Do you mean palastien suicide bombings?- that would make more sense

Just to clear up a fact Israel doesnt mind palastiens living in parts Israel but palastiens such as Hamas dont recognise the whole state of Israel. So i think you might of got mixed up with Israel and Palastien.

What do you mean by a hole in the ground? You mean economically? Because the main reason for the rise of Hitler was due to the economy and one of the main reason for Lenin was the economy, even post ww11 USSR's worries were of living standards.

The Bolshevik revolution came about because they wanted to impose thier views, even though you stated post wwII this still have relevance. I still think its about money possibly religon.

[Mantra-Slider]

I hope you realise that iraq will not become a democratic state anytime soon rofl enforcer.