spidey

could you show me where i said it did plz

There you go again, Sidey, putting words in people's mouths. Please show proof that I said The Holocaust never happened. just like a Faux News wannabe to change things around in a moronic, paper-thin effort to hide the fact he's lost. 100% factual? Look, pal, granted, some things you say are true, but in most cases, you show absolutly no proof to back yourself up. when asked for proof, you go on the warpath, questioning everyone else's patriotism. You're not hated because you're right(news flash-you usually aren't). If you're hated(I don't hate you-I think you're a good, if sometimes misguided,person), it's because you let YOUR hatred override the times you make good points-and you DO make good points sometimes. Hell, even though you didn't ask me to, I defended you in another thread when you were attacked after making a good point-in which, by the way, you did NOT insult anyone.

Simple advice. Lighten up, have a beer(or soda is you don't drink). Cut the rest of us a little slack. We'll all agree to disagree. If we all thought exactly the same, wouldn't it be a boring place?

Enjoy the weekend. Some of us have to work it. Tough luck for me.

knoxman,

"There you go again, Sidey, putting words in people's mouths. Please show proof that I said The Holocaust never happened. just like a Faux News wannabe to change things around in a moronic, paper-thin effort to hide the fact he's lost."

I asked you a question, I didn't put words in your mouth. But you denied that my facts were accurate, so what was I supposed to believe? Denying my post is denying reality. You haven't offered anything other than your opinion that I'm a jerk to back up your arguments. Do I really have to post facts about the Holocaust? Does anyone question that Hitler wouldn't have stopped until they controled the whole world, if we hadn't gone to war with them? What do you mean "He's lost"? You haven't made a single point, you have just insulted me. WAR IS NECESSARY TO MAINTAIN THE PEACE. That was the point I set out to make and it was made. There is no question that war is necessary to maintain peace. It's an unattractive reality, but reality is often unattractive. Contrary to what you and Gypsy41 believe, insulting me and insisting that I'm just defending Bush isn't a good arguement. I was undefeated in my debate class, you guys would have failed. An argument has to be based on facts and be logical, you can't just say "You support Bush LOL!" and consider yourself the winner.

"you go on the warpath, questioning everyone else's patriotism"

Never happened. I have never questioned anyones patriotism and I try to make an effort to supply facts. Please point out a thread where someone asked for facts and I refused to supply them. Now sometimes I will leave a discussion when it's going in circles, but by that time I have already supplied facts to back up my position. I can think of one time that I didn't, that was with Jerry Falwell. I read his response to the Tele-Tubby contraversy on his website some time ago, but it wasn't available after his death, the whole website was redirected to a memorial for him. I know that many people sent him the "gay" tele-tubby and that he gave them to his grandchildren, but I wanted to quote him exactly.

The only thing I'm hung up about here, Spidecmb, is insults go both ways. Yes, others and myself have insulted you, but you've done the same. Both sides are equally guilty here. Getting to your main point here, war IS sometimes necessary to maintain the peace-not always. Sometimes there are other solutions. War should be a last resort. A lot of people have serious misgivings about this current war. I don't lump other wars in with this one. Yes, WW2 was necessary. Hitler was a genuine threat that had to be dealt with. In justifying the Iraq war, politicians on both sides of the fence fell all over themselves comparing Saddam Hussein to Hitler. Hitler was a real threat. Hussein was a two-bit thug. In my opinion, we went into Iraq making two mistakes. 1-We had no real plan for rebuilding the country, and 2-We underestimated the enemy.

Actually, I posted this a while ago, I don't know if you read it then, but here's the basic gist of it now. The reason I was against this war from the start was because I knew what would happen-Iraq is now a welfare state, and America is signing the welfare checks. The Middle East is no more stable now than it was before we went there. A recent article in USA Today had Iraqi leaders saying that they are nowhere near ready to take control of their country. No wonder, with our soldiers doing all the work for them. Like welfare recipients here, they don't want the "checks" to end. That's why people want to see a deadline on troop levels there. Maybe if the Iraqis realize we aren't going to be protecting them forever, they'll rise to the occasion, and take responsibility for their own country.

They say freedom isn't free. We gave the Iraqis their freedom. From all accounts, they, as a whole, haven't proven themselves worthy of it-yet. Our armed forces fighting the good fight, and their govt. wanting to take a two month vacation? I want to see the Iraqis step up, embrace the freedom we've given them, and fend for themselves-Like we did against the British, and later against the Axis powers in WW2.

There you go, sir. My thoughts and feelings without any insults directed at anyone. If you or anyone else would like to comment on my missive, in a civil manner, feel free to do so. Let's have a good discussion here.

Good night to all. 2:30 AM comes awfully early.

well that is why i said in the other thread

we should pull back to the embassy area

remove troops from there to germany

a load at a time

begin giving back their country to them

continue pulling out

keep enough troops to protect the embassy

and

a good sized rapid response team in case of an invasion

and keep two carrier groups in international waters

to back them up

but hey what do i know

What do you know? Apparantly a lot. I think that's a good idea, adj4u. I'm just not sure they want to take their country back- that would mean they'd have to fend for themselves. I think they'd much rather have someone do it for them. I'd like to see yor plan implemented.

Too many insurgents are in Iraq right now to just pull out. The Iraqui people can't fend for themselves at this point and they will be massacred as soon as we leave there. Allowing the bunch that is in there now trying to take over power will be a grave mistake for the future. That place will become an Alqaida country with all that oil to buy weapons with. Guess who will be target number 1. Then we will have to fight a much stronger organized country. There won't be an embassy there once we pull out. They will attempt to get the heads of those guys also.
What good is a rapid response team when there are so many there right now that we can't control them. Can you say suicide response team? Carriers can do nothing in urban warfare. Who are you going to bomb? They are all woven together in the general population.

They didn't have the sheer number before we went in as they do now. Recruitment has skyrocketed. There's an old saying, "Where there's chaos, there's opportunity. After our misguided(and illegal) invasion of a sovergign nation, Al-Qaida saw their opportunity amisdt the chaos, and happily jumped in. Membership has grown at an astounding amount. They're almost like the Hydra of legend, "Cut off a limb, and two shall take it's place".Kill 'em all? We're trying that-but it doesn't help when they're replinishing themselves at a rapid rate.We will lose this war for the same reason we lost the drug war-refusal to attack the source. You don't win the drug war by arresting some idiot selling dime bags on the street corner. You don't win this war by waiting on more Al-Qadia fighters to come to Iraq. You win both wars by going after the point(s) of origin. Al-Qadia is coming into Iraq from where? Find out, get them there. You eliminate a hornet's nest by destroying them all in the nest-not after they all escape.

it all goes back to what washinton said back during
the revolt

we don't have to win, all we have to do is draw it out

why do we blame bush?? he didn't start anything he's just doing what we pay him to do.
hillary and a lot of others voted to go. now we can argue the facts but they had access to all the classified info before they voted and damn the luck they said its a go.
since the beginning of time people have had to die based on decisions made by other people. sometimes REALITY SUCKS but thats the way it is.
oh yea, i'm retired air force and have done iraq in 91 and somolia. I asked to be in the military knowing what the chances were and did it. its a VOLUNTEER military and everyone going in knows theres a chance a war may come about.
its like driving your car, theres a chance you might get in a wreck and die.

more die in auto collisions

than in any and all wars

The holocaust did happen, however it was not the reason for WWII. As a matter of fact, although there were rumors, no one knew or believed the extent of it until GI's discovered the concentration camps. Thats all I'll say about that. The history, I'll leave up to the individual to discover for them self.

Bush lied to congress and us about WMD. He took the country's outrage over 9-11 and manipulated it to his own desires. He ignored and went against all military expert's advice in going to war in Iraq. The military experts told him that Saddam was contained, he posed no threat to his neighbors, and it was better to wait until he either died, or was removed from power by the Iraqis.

The Iraq PM just released a report condradicting the Bush Administration's report just hours after Bush's radio address.
What did he say you ask? OK, I'll show you:

BAGHDAD (AP) - Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki shrugged off U.S. doubts of his government's military and political progress on Saturday, saying Iraqi forces are capable and American troops can leave "any time they want."

Then his cabinet blamed the US military for the problems his Goverment and the country was facing. He said this as he announced the Iraq Goverment were taking a vacation for the whole month of August, while American Troops die.

"We say in full confidence that we are able, God willing, to take the responsibility completely in running the security file if the international forces withdraw at any time they want," he said.

One of al-Maliki's close advisers, Shiite lawmaker Hassan al-Suneid, bristled over the American pressure, telling The Associated Press that "the situation looks as if it is an experiment in an American laboratory (judging) whether we succeed or fail."

He sharply criticized the U.S. military, saying it was committing human rights violations and embarrassing the Iraqi government through such tactics as building a wall around Baghdad's Sunni neighborhood of Azamiyah and launching repeated raids on suspected Shiite militiamen in the capital's slum of Sadr City.

He also criticized U.S. overtures to Sunni groups in Anbar and Diyala provinces, encouraging former insurgents to join the fight against al-Qaida in Iraq. "These are gangs of killers," he said.

In addition, he said that al-Maliki has problems with the top U.S. commander, Gen. David Petraeus, who he said works along a "purely American vision."

"There are disagreements that the strategy that Petraeus is following might succeed in confronting al-Qaida in the early period but it will leave Iraq an armed nation, an armed society and militias," al-Suneid said.

good post Fanta...

the President is too valuable to put on the front lines.

NOT THIS PRESIDENT!!! Unless you are his family. With an approval rating of around 24 or 26 percent, ahemmm.

knoxman,

"The only thing I'm hung up about here, Spidecmb, is insults go both ways"

You missed the point of my post completely. You claim to have won, but you have offered no (zero, zilch, nada) arguments and / or facts. All you offered were insults. I wasn't complaining that you have insulted me and made juvenile remarks, I was pointing out that doing so doesn't mean you have won an argument.

Fanta46,

"The holocaust did happen, however it was not the reason for WWII. As a matter of fact, although there were rumors, no one knew or believed the extent of it until GI's discovered the concentration camps. Thats all I'll say about that. The history, I'll leave up to the individual to discover for them self. "

And that has nothing to do with my point. My point was never "The US went to war to stop the Holocaust", my point is that without the war, the holocaust wouldn't have ended until all of the worlds Jews were dead. WWII started because of the Nazi's land grabs against their neighbors. Their goal of world conquest wouldn't have ended without war.

*************************************************************
The point I started out to prove and did so easily (although many specious arguments were offered to the contrary), was that War isn't always "started by a president" and that war is sometimes necessary to ensure the peace.
*************************************************************

"Bush lied to congress and us about WMD. He took the country's outrage over 9-11 and manipulated it to his own desires. He ignored and went against all military expert's advice in going to war in Iraq. The military experts told him that Saddam was contained, he posed no threat to his neighbors, and it was better to wait until he either died, or was removed from power by the Iraqis. "

No...he didn't. Bill Clinton said the same things three years earlier. The world believed that Saddam had WMDs. We know that they had WMDs and used them to kill innocent civilians in the past. You say "ignored and went against all military expert's advice ", but I don't believe that to be true. Even if it is true, it's still "advice", not directives. The President has the final decision to take and he took the right decision as history will show. The President made some terrible errors in judgement once we were IN Iraq, but going there was without a doubt the right move.

scttrbrain,

Congress is controlled by Democrats and has an approval rating of 14%, shouldn't they be on the front lines? I mean since it was CONGRESS that gave Bush the authority to invade Iraq, he's just doing what they told him to do.

Putting that aside, I don't get your point...it seems like you are saying that if someone is unpopular, it's okay to force them to join the army against their free-will? So all of the loners in the country should be rounded up and sent to the front lines? That annoying guy at work should be given a rifle and a pair of boots and airdropped behind enemy lines? I guess you were making a very unfunny joke and I just don't get it, because your post is, in my opinion, completely asinine.

Hey spider have u ever seen combat? Cause i have and its not pretty, the last war that was worth dying for was WWII. the Bushies and all their cronies are getting rich off of young peoples lives!!!!!!!!!!!

Mikey117,

No, I haven't seen war. What does that have to do with anything?

When we pulled out of Vietnam, over three million people were slaughtered. I'm pretty sure they considered their lives worth fighting for, but without our support, they couldn't even do that.

Since we didn't defeat the North Koreans, their people still suffer daily torment. In North Korea there is a SINGLE prison camp that is larger than Washington DC.

Ignoring that, our Army has the highest reenlistment rates of any in the world, so somebody considers this war one worth dying for.