Sports Central Message Boards

Sports Central Message Boards (https://www.sports-central.org/community/boards/index.php)
-   Politics & Religion (https://www.sports-central.org/community/boards/forumdisplay.php?f=31)
-   -   A Few Thoughts On... (https://www.sports-central.org/community/boards/showthread.php?t=16096)

CKFresh 01-08-2007 06:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IntheNet (Post 232240)
How about a school specific to underpriviledged white males in Memphis?



Yes I do, and it does, and I have said so often.

If you think that the fact that we haven't been attack by the terrorists is a sign of us winning the war, you are sadly mistaken. When was the last terrorist attack on the US before 9/11? YEARS earlier. The terrorists operate on a different time table. If they have one big attack every generation, they are satified. Why can't you see that? Are you really that blind.

As far as the war in Iraq being a success, I'd say "uhhhhh.... are you kidding?"

We don't control most of the major cities, more and more Americans are dying each day, our military leaders are beginning to jump ship, even most republicans think the war was a bad idea, and Iraqi public opinion of the US has deteriorated.

So explain, what has been "successful" about Iraq? And don't site the fact that we haven't been attack since 9/11, because I have debunked that theory by PROVING that they don't attack us that often.

Sure we took out Saddam, but at what cost? Americans are dying by the thousands, Iraqis by the hundreds of thousands, and the region is becoming more and more hostile. Iraq is now the NUMBER ONE terrorist haven when it used to be much lower.

What would it take for you to admit failure?

BigBuddhaPup 01-08-2007 07:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ricky the Kid (Post 232225)
You could fund a school in Germany, and certainly get my kudos. As far as I know, Oprah did not fund a "black only" school. It was just a school. If it happens that only black kids attend the school, that is because of obvious circumstances outside of any mandate she made. If you funded a school in Germany that only white kids happened to attend, I certainly wouldn't have a problem with it--as long as you didn't request that it be white only. I think that would be morally repugnant. When I said it's silly to criticize a donation, I obviously meant a donation that was aimed at bettering humanity--which a mandated white only school will obviously not do. That's why I wouldn't support a donation to Hezbollah or ESPN :D .

And anyway, BBP, you and I can disagree on the subject of terrorists in Iraq. I'm not going into this debate again as I've always said, but I think its pretty obvious al Qaeda and others saw an opportunity in the fall of Saddam--like we did--and moved in pretty presently. If we win in Iraq, that is a defeat for international terrorism, IMO, and of course the opposite is true as well. Of course I also agree with you, we need to win the fight in Afghanistan as well. But that's all I'm gonna say on this subject.


It was the Shia and Sunni that went for the power grab... not Al Queda...

Richard the Lionheart 01-08-2007 07:18 PM

Of course...generally. But others moved in as well. Why wouldn't they? Terrorists have a lot to gain by the United States failing in Iraq. It will drastically reduce our presense and influence in the region. Everyone knows this.

BigBuddhaPup 01-08-2007 07:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CKFresh (Post 232288)
If you think that the fact that we haven't been attack by the terrorists is a sign of us winning the war, you are sadly mistaken. When was the last terrorist attack on the US before 9/11? YEARS earlier. The terrorists operate on a different time table. If they have one big attack every generation, they are satified. Why can't you see that? Are you really that blind.

As far as the war in Iraq being a success, I'd say "uhhhhh.... are you kidding?"

We don't control most of the major cities, more and more Americans are dying each day, our military leaders are beginning to jump ship, even most republicans think the war was a bad idea, and Iraqi public opinion of the US has deteriorated.

So explain, what has been "successful" about Iraq? And don't site the fact that we haven't been attack since 9/11, because I have debunked that theory by PROVING that they don't attack us that often.

Sure we took out Saddam, but at what cost? Americans are dying by the thousands, Iraqis by the hundreds of thousands, and the region is becoming more and more hostile. Iraq is now the NUMBER ONE terrorist haven when it used to be much lower.

What would it take for you to admit failure?


When will some admit failure? When they can blame it on the democrats...:D

BigBuddhaPup 01-08-2007 07:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ricky the Kid (Post 232293)
Of course...generally. But others moved in as well. Why wouldn't they? Terrorists have a lot to gain by the United States failing in Iraq. It will drastically reduce our presense and influence in the region. Everyone knows this.

Face it, we don't have any presence in Iraq, and Iran... this idiotic war has made things much worse... I would like to think 'everyone know this', unfortunately they don't...:thumbdown: Terrorist have nothing to gain from us leaving Iraq... the Shia have plenty to gain, the Sunni will be hopelessly outnumbered... which side do you want to take (Sunni/Shia)?... It isn't a war against terrorism, it is war to gain control over a vital resource... land

IntheNet 01-08-2007 08:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CKFresh (Post 232288)
If you think that the fact that we haven't been attack by the terrorists is a sign of us winning the war, you are sadly mistaken. When was the last terrorist attack on the US before 9/11? YEARS earlier.

First World Trade Center Attack: February 26, 1983
U.S. African Embassy Bombing Attack: August 8, 1998
U.S.S. Cole Attack: October 12, 2000

A clear series of Al Qaeda attacks on United States property and possessions through Clinton's Administration THAT HE DID NOTHING ABOUT....

Quote:

Originally Posted by CKFresh (Post 232288)
As far as the war in Iraq being a success, I'd say "uhhhhh.... are you kidding?"

I am pleased with how the current administration is fighting this war; low casualties in comparison to other similar regional wars and a 100% success rate against further attacks of domestic terrorism. Bravo!

Quote:

Originally Posted by CKFresh (Post 232288)
So explain, what has been "successful" about Iraq? And don't site the fact that we haven't been attack since 9/11, because I have debunked that theory by PROVING that they don't attack us that often.

You involved in Al Qaeda? You familiar with their terror plans? Since 09/11/01 they have hit England, Spain, Malaysia, France, and a number of other nations, with the exception of the United States

Quote:

Originally Posted by CKFresh (Post 232288)
Sure we took out Saddam, but at what cost? Americans are dying by the thousands, Iraqis by the hundreds of thousands, and the region is becoming more and more hostile. Iraq is now the NUMBER ONE terrorist haven when it used to be much lower.

650,000 fatalties during Civil War and Lincoln got a Monument on Mall; so far we have prosecuted this war very judiciously and with 100% success on the home front in deterrence of terrorism... I'm impressed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CKFresh (Post 232288)
What would it take for you to admit failure?

More than you've posted to be sure...

Richard the Lionheart 01-08-2007 08:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigBuddhaPup (Post 232296)
Face it, we don't have any presence in Iraq, and Iran... this idiotic war has made things much worse... I would like to think 'everyone know this', unfortunately they don't...:thumbdown: Terrorist have nothing to gain from us leaving Iraq... the Shia have plenty to gain, the Sunni will be hopelessly outnumbered... which side do you want to take (Sunni/Shia)?... It isn't a war against terrorism, it is war to gain control over a vital resource... land

If moderately free governments can be established in Iraq and Afghanistan, this will put immense pressure on the Iranian regime, and over time will probably lead to a positive transformation of the broader region as a whole. Failure in Iraq will show that our country is soft, and our military incapable of supporting free elements in these countries, and their ruthless, despotic leaders who support terrorist groups and are for the most part terrorists themselves against their own people, will stay comfortably in power with little to no chance of being overthrown.

It isn't easy, it isn't pretty, and it's definitly not fun. But there is no alternative to what is going on now. You can't leave an entire region well enough alone when its people are brutalized by poverty, oppression, crime, and religious fanaticism...especially in the nuclear age. It is a deadly combination, and if we fail, one day we will pay the greatest possible price for it.

BigBuddhaPup 01-08-2007 08:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IntheNet (Post 232312)
First World Trade Center Attack: February 26, 1983
U.S. African Embassy Bombing Attack: August 8, 1998
U.S.S. Cole Attack: October 12, 2000

A clear series of Al Qaeda attacks on United States property and possessions through Clinton's Administration THAT HE DID NOTHING ABOUT....



I am pleased with how the current administration is fighting this war; low casualties in comparison to other similar regional wars and a 100% success rate against further attacks of domestic terrorism. Bravo!



You involved in Al Qaeda? You familiar with their terror plans? Since 09/11/01 they have hit England, Spain, Malaysia, France, and a number of other nations, with the exception of the United States



650,000 fatalties during Civil War and Lincoln got a Monument on Mall; so far we have prosecuted this war very judiciously and with 100% success on the home front in deterrence of terrorism... I'm impressed.

More than you've posted to be sure...

Clinton launched missile at Al Queda camp in Afghanistan, missed Bin Laden by a few hours... at the time Clinton was criticized for supposedly diverting from Monica Lewinsky affair...

BigBuddhaPup 01-08-2007 09:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ricky the Kid (Post 232320)
If moderately free governments can be established in Iraq and Afghanistan, this will put immense pressure on the Iranian regime, and over time will probably lead to a positive transformation of the broader region as a whole. Failure in Iraq will show that our country is soft, and our military incapable of supporting free elements in these countries, and their ruthless, despotic leaders who support terrorist groups and are for the most part terrorists themselves against their own people, will stay comfortably in power with little to no chance of being overthrown.

It isn't easy, it isn't pretty, and it's definitly not fun. But there is no alternative to what is going on now. You can't leave an entire region well enough alone when its people are brutalized by poverty, oppression, crime, and religious fanaticism...especially in the nuclear age. It is a deadly combination, and if we fail, one day we will pay the greatest possible price for it.

It isn't going to put any added pressure on Iran... if anything our presence there is making Iran more powerful in the region... Shia are getting more a foothold....

It isn't smart, it isn't intelligent, it isn't fun, it is idiotic...:redhot:

Richard the Lionheart 01-08-2007 09:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigBuddhaPup (Post 232331)
It isn't smart, it isn't intelligent, it isn't fun, it is idiotic...:redhot:

Ooookay. :lol:

CKFresh 01-08-2007 09:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IntheNet (Post 232312)
First World Trade Center Attack: February 26, 1983
U.S. African Embassy Bombing Attack: August 8, 1998
U.S.S. Cole Attack: October 12, 2000

A clear series of Al Qaeda attacks on United States property and possessions through Clinton's Administration THAT HE DID NOTHING ABOUT....



I am pleased with how the current administration is fighting this war; low casualties in comparison to other similar regional wars and a 100% success rate against further attacks of domestic terrorism. Bravo!



You involved in Al Qaeda? You familiar with their terror plans? Since 09/11/01 they have hit England, Spain, Malaysia, France, and a number of other nations, with the exception of the United States



650,000 fatalties during Civil War and Lincoln got a Monument on Mall; so far we have prosecuted this war very judiciously and with 100% success on the home front in deterrence of terrorism... I'm impressed.

More than you've posted to be sure...

...ON US SOIL. There have been attacks by terrorists on US INTERESTS nearly every year, in both administrations. I am talking about ATTACKS ON US SOIL! So, like I said, they take MANY YEARS inbetween attacks ON US SOIL. Apparantly, the fact that terrorist attacks on US interests over-seas don't count for you. When Spain gets hit, we get hit. I guess you don't see this as a global war. I don't see your point. Has the Iraq war made terrorists unable to attack, because they are still doing it all over the world? Perhaps the terrorists are happy we are in Iraq. It saves them time and energy. Now they can kill Americans in their own back yard. They no longer have to come to the US. They can kill all the Americans we can supply in their own countries. Answer me this: Have more Americans died as a result of terrorism under Bush or Clinton? Even if you erase 9/11, how many Americans are killed in Iraq every month by terrorists? Compare that with TOTAL during CLinton's administration. So who protected US citizens better against terrorists?

The Civil War analogy is very weak. I thought you were a little smarter than that. You are trying to compare something that occured over a century ago, when people still stood in front of eachother and fired their weapons. Not to mention it was a war that Lincoln didn't chose to fight, he had to. Very weak, vey typical, and the type of argument that causes conservatives to lose supporters everyday. Your argument lacks any substance and only relies on blind faith of an administration and policy that has failed at every turn.

In your view it's ok if Americans and American allies get killed in the thousands by terrorist, as long as it is overseas. Do you not see how silly that makes you look?

Will you admit a few things to save your credibility:
A) Iraq has more terrorist now than it did 4 years ago.
B) More American's (soldiers or citizens) have died as a result of terrorism under Bush than Clinton.
C) The US has alienated even more Muslims and Arabs by invading Iraq.
D) The Civil War was a completely different war, in a different time, versus a different enemy and is NOT comparable to this current war.

If you can't admit to these things than you have no credibility and aren't worth wasting my time on. Seriously, what would have to happen in Iraq for you to say it was a mistake? 10,000 US Soldiers killed? A Muslim extremist government to take power? What?

chiefsfan27 01-08-2007 11:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CKFresh (Post 232346)
...Will you admit a few things to save your credibility:
A) Iraq has more terrorist now than it did 4 years ago.
B) More American's (soldiers or citizens) have died as a result of terrorism under Bush than Clinton.
C) The US has alienated even more Muslims and Arabs by invading Iraq.
D) The Civil War was a completely different war, in a different time, versus a different enemy and is NOT comparable to this current war.

If you can't admit to these things than you have no credibility and aren't worth wasting my time on. Seriously, what would have to happen in Iraq for you to say it was a mistake? 10,000 US Soldiers killed? A Muslim extremist government to take power? What?

CK, since I know how much you respect my opinion on political matters,:lol: I decided to join this discussion.

A) Please define terrorist. If you mean a person of foreign belief who is taught and believes from childhood that Christians should be killed, there probably more than you realize. Their "Holy Book" requiresany devout member of the Muslim faith to do so.

B) Soldier and civilian deaths are entirely different. Soldiers sign up to a job that they know may require the sacrafice of their life in order to make sure that no civilians die among other things.

C) Alienated from who/where?

D) Please explain InTheNet's comments on the connection between the two wars, because I have not read them yet, but would love to answer your question.

BigBuddhaPup 01-09-2007 08:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ricky the Kid (Post 232332)
Ooookay. :lol:

I am glad we agree...:thumbup:

IntheNet 01-09-2007 08:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CKFresh (Post 232346)
...ON US SOIL...

U.S. embassies, U.S. ships, and, of course, the world trade center, are all on U.S. soil (go check legal definition)... Clinton did nothing against terrorism, and his negligence caused the death of all those on 09.11.01... he will go to grave with all these deaths on his shoulders.

BigBuddhaPup 01-09-2007 09:09 AM

You can't have it both ways... you say the US hasn't been attacked domestically, then you say it is a global war... then there is less terrorism, but there are more terrorists in Iraq... then Iraq wasn't connected to 9/11... then terrorists, 9/11 and Iraq are all connected in "The War against Terrorism"...

Now, Clinton is to blame for 9/11? Here is where the current Al Queda group started, Afghanistan/Soviet War, we funded the Taliban to quell the Soviets... then we put bases in Saudi Arabia in the first Gulf War(a heresy to Al Queda)...that is where the current Al Queda terrorist group started...

The logic is null and void in your arguements...


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:15 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions Inc.