Bush's Handling Of The War

[Artknocker]

Can a war in Iraq truly keep us safe from terrorism, or can it, at best, stall the inevitable next terrible world event?
Well, that remains to be seen, but I believe it's just a stepping stone--we still have North Korea to deal with, for one. But the war has made some countries think twice about resisting us or challenging us as in Libya and Iran.

[RocDoc]

Roc Doc, I love you, I really do. Your music taste is really good but your political stances are ones that usually give me a good chuckle and shake my head.

...and gee, you can ditto me that right back at you...

With less 'chuckle' and lots more shaking of the head, when your frustration gets the better of you and you presume to think that you're the one dismantling someone (IMO quite erroneously, though often 90% of what you say can be based on 'points well made', with the final 10% being disastrously conceived)...but they keep coming back.
And your own 'debating style' then devolves to toothless ridicule which is then supposed to be cheerfully further engaged by 'the opposition', who by then can presume that 'WTF, this guy's nuts' while making the concession to the uselessness of further attemts at 'discussion' by stating 'I give...no more' as a rhetorical 'Geez, you've drooled on my shoes enough, haven't you?'

And then you try to diminish this same 'opposition' by claiming their opinions are those equivalent to 'dating a 14 year old girl'?

What's that mean?

Uh, is that notion of dating jailbait supposed to denote an immaturity of some sort?

~

Me as 'the cavalry'? No I've had enough disagreement/miscommunication with CF (some quite recently) to see she's imperfect, yeah. We do share some beliefs however, which I sometimes think she does a near-brilliant job of verbalizing and defending.

It's just that this exercise of attacking someone for what they're now seen to be inextricably entwined as to their 'persona' on the boards while not 'hearing' that there's often NOT an across-the-board 'party-line' that is always applicable...that individual issues are being addressed...

That's fucking happened to me with great regularity. And goddamn, I can be proud to know that I made Skv chuckle...fantastic!
...whatever...

I've more than once tried to get out facts of how I feel that I'm different and apart from this 'Conservative package' which to so many liberals (which you profess and swear to god you're not, but you're far more into that camp on whatever your supposed carte blanche 'I can say anything cos hatin' Bush is a TEXAN-thang which you can't understand! It ain't political and don'tcallmealiberaldammit!') is simply a cookie cutter that many would apply rather than hear out an issue.

There's where the rhetorical, 'You're useless to talk to' suddenly shockingly comes from...and to not make it sound (as much as I'm sure you'll likely instantly assume) as though I'm making the same liberal presumptions about you, but I'm definitely talking about the substance of what you'd said in your last coupla posts there...which first began with having some sense and then went downhill from there.

*cue 'chuckle'*

[skvorisdeadsorta]

Can you even post here without attacking someone and talk about how erroneous they are when they don't fall in line with your own personal feelings? I'm not here to dismantle anyone, only have a good debate with people. I disagree with Art, but I have enjoyed the banter and it's been quite nice.

I have also never said that hating Bush is a Texas thing, in fact if you go back and read a previous post, I said that there are many reasons to cut Bush some slack. So, you know hey, keep living in that dream world you're best at living at. Now, how many more posts am I going to have to sift through of yours with your blathering having no basis whatsoever? Another hunderd? Way off, but hey whatever.........now let the fuck youing begin again. It's what you're good at.

[RocDoc]

See, here's the compact 'personal style' which has been assigned to me here...'attacking' you...

I guess when I'm trying to have you understand that 'the schoolgirl taking her toys suddenly home' in what you've envisioned as a manner completely without provocation, is easily be seen as indeed having been provoked by you.

When something THAT distasteful is being shown to you, why then by god, it must be you being attacked, is it?

And fuck, that's cause doc attacks everyone.
And always.

Not cause you perhaps acted at all improperly...but be that not for me to point out ever...

[skvorisdeadsorta]

Boring.

[kmc]

I thought I made a pretty decent post there, but hey, thinly veiled hatred is ok too.

[chrisfan]

kmc said:

A broader question: as I've been reading certain philosophies of war a certain question comes to mind of whether or not any sort of permanent peace can be won through the subjugation of your enemies, to whit: a strong argument can be made that the wars fought in the 20th century had as their cause the previous war, i.e., without World War I, we might not have had World War II, and maybe no Cold War and its respective incidents, and maybe no post Cold War Arab world empowered by the superpowers to wreak havok on the western world.

Can a war in Iraq truly keep us safe from terrorism, or can it, at best, stall the inevitable next terrible world event?

I think this is one of those questions that has to be answered with a question. When in recent history has peace been achieved through negotiating rather than through war?

[shin]

Does Northern Ireland count?

[chrisfan]

If you count terrorism as a form of war, no.

[shin]

But the peace was derived through negotiating. It wasn't because one side vanquished the other.

[chrisfan]

As many wars are. The negotiation comes after the warfare.

[rockysigman]

How about Libya?

[shin]

Then how does that not apply?

Or are you asking how can there be a negotiation for peace to end a war when there was no war to begin with? You're drowning in semantics. Be clear.

[chrisfan]

Nothing about semantics, perhaps just a misunderstanding. In my original post, I was talking about a conflict between two countries being settled exclusively through negotiation, without there being any warfare. Therefore, negotiation coming at the end of a war would not apply. I'd give an example, but I cannot think of one. Rocky mentioned Libya, which can't be totally written off, but I don't think it would apply completely ... only to a degree. Reason being is that I firmly believe that the war in Iraq led Libya to disarm. So warfare did play role there. But I also recognize that this was not straight warfare, so I'd concede that it's a better example than I could have thought of.

[skvorisdeadsorta]

Jamaica.