Stonehead Posted March 21, 2007 Share Posted March 21, 2007 (edited) I don't look at this manufactured dicthotomy of Republican-Democrat. There's good and bad in both. One of the questions I ask is "is it sensible?" that is assuming the stance that the proposer is acting out of good intentions. The problem is that the practice of politics renders everything Byzantine. It was six men of Indostan, To learning much inclined, Who went to see the Elephant (Though all of them were blind), That each by observation Might satisfy his mind. The First approach'd the Elephant, And happening to fall Against his broad and sturdy side, At once began to bawl: "God bless me! but the Elephant Is very like a wall!" The Second, feeling of the tusk, Cried, -"Ho! what have we here So very round and smooth and sharp? To me 'tis mighty clear, This wonder of an Elephant Is very like a spear!" The Third approach'd the animal, And happening to take The squirming trunk within his hands, Thus boldly up and spake: "I see," -quoth he- "the Elephant Is very like a snake!" The Fourth reached out an eager hand, And felt about the knee: "What most this wondrous beast is like Is mighty plain," -quoth he,- "'Tis clear enough the Elephant Is very like a tree!" The Fifth, who chanced to touch the ear, Said- "E'en the blindest man Can tell what this resembles most; Deny the fact who can, This marvel of an Elephant Is very like a fan!" The Sixth no sooner had begun About the beast to grope, Then, seizing on the swinging tail That fell within his scope, "I see," -quoth he,- "the Elephant Is very like a rope!" And so these men of Indostan Disputed loud and long, Each in his own opinion Exceeding stiff and strong, Though each was partly in the right, And all were in the wrong! MORAL, So, oft in theologic wars The disputants, I ween, Rail on in utter ignorance Of what each other mean; And prate about an Elephant Not one of them has seen! http://www.noogenesis.com/pineapple/blind_men_elephant.html Edited March 21, 2007 by Stonehead Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seahawks Posted March 21, 2007 Share Posted March 21, 2007 (edited) Seahawks I have come to a realization about you. You are a republican aren’t you? If you are, how can you sleep at night with the deaths of over 3500 US (INNOCENT) military personnel on your conscience? Over 75,000 Iraq and other pedestrian deaths. How can you? Kevboner, if your a democrat how can you sleep at night when Clinton let 20 million africans die in ethinic cleansing and did nothing??? Come on your argument has no merit. personally I like things about both sides but the dems need to come up with solutions instead of nothing. Edited March 21, 2007 by Seahawks Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StevenSeagal Posted March 21, 2007 Author Share Posted March 21, 2007 I don't buy it was all about oil bizz. 80 to 90% oil from that area goes to Europe. To me that more of the shreik cries of the Democrats. Going to go ahead and disagree with you here. Do you think if the US (or any country) told its people "we need to invade this country to secure control of its resources to help keep our economy strong and ensure profits for specialized industries!" that the populace would support that? Telling the people "that country is full of barbarians who want to kill you and your family and they pose an imminent threat to our way of life!" is a much easier way to channel uninformed support. Iranians have national pride and identity. They want their piece of the pie and with Iraq gone, here's their chance. But the US stands in their way. So they posture, and we posture back. Do we forge cooperation, or have a war? There are options here, contrary to what the posturing of each would suggest. The people we, and everyone, should be concerned about are the religious zealots who have no country- al Qaida. These people have nothing to lose by destroying shit. It's what they live for. In return, no country- including Iran- wants them. Except maybe Afghanistan. Where we should have been focusing our efforts all this time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stonehead Posted March 21, 2007 Share Posted March 21, 2007 It's like some weird two-headed creature with each head struggling for dominance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stonehead Posted March 21, 2007 Share Posted March 21, 2007 (edited) The people we, and everyone, should be concerned about are the religious zealots who have no country- al Qaida. These people have nothing to lose by destroying shit. It's what they live for. In return, no country- including Iran- wants them. Except maybe Afghanistan. Where we should have been focusing our efforts all this time. How do you know that the majority of what we consider a threat from groups such as Al Qaida and ELF is not something manufactured? Also, here's a different take on our perception of violence in today's world. Steven Pinker on the Decline of Violence--http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/006259.html Edited March 21, 2007 by Stonehead Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StevenSeagal Posted March 21, 2007 Author Share Posted March 21, 2007 We don't, in fact. Dessimination of information passes through a lot of biased channels by the time it reaches us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seahawks Posted March 21, 2007 Share Posted March 21, 2007 (edited) I don't buy it was all about oil bizz. 80 to 90% oil from that area goes to Europe. To me that more of the shreik cries of the Democrats. Going to go ahead and disagree with you here. Do you think if the US (or any country) told its people "we need to invade this country to secure control of its resources to help keep our economy strong and ensure profits for specialized industries!" that the populace would support that? Telling the people "that country is full of barbarians who want to kill you and your family and they pose an imminent threat to our way of life!" is a much easier way to channel uninformed support. Iranians have national pride and identity. They want their piece of the pie and with Iraq gone, here's their chance. But the US stands in their way. So they posture, and we posture back. Do we forge cooperation, or have a war? There are options here, contrary to what the posturing of each would suggest. The people we, and everyone, should be concerned about are the religious zealots who have no country- al Qaida. These people have nothing to lose by destroying shit. It's what they live for. In return, no country- including Iran- wants them. Except maybe Afghanistan. Where we should have been focusing our efforts all this time. Thats cool, I disagree with part but at least you can back it up with a thought. I personally think we got a little over abitious in trying to stablize a part of the world that has never been stable in trying to stop the spread of this kind of fanatical Muslim crap. I think the Oil thing works in favor of the democrats to get the white house in '08 so they use it. But regardless of reasons, we are there. Dems want to cut and run. I personally think this is not smart. I want them to come up with some better answers than cut and run. They need to stop thinking about political gain and thinking about all of us that could pay the extreme price for all this some day by a real nuke in one of our own cities. My thoughts. Edited March 21, 2007 by Seahawks Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chucK Posted March 21, 2007 Share Posted March 21, 2007 Taking our troops out of Iraq is a solution, though it is a solution to a problem different than the one you want to solve. Leaving Iraq will solve the problem of the US costs of the war, which includes tons of money, as well as thousands of deaths or disabilities to our military and guardsmen. Some even think that forcing the Iraqis to actually do their own dirtywork would slow the carnage in their current civil war. The problem you and GWB are hoping will be solved by leaving our people in the meatgrinder is the creation of a happy, secular and prosperous Iraq, free of Iranian influence. Sorry to break it to you buddy, but I think that train left the station a while ago. Time to start solving the tractable problems instead of wasting resources on insolvable ones. Bush is just running this thing out. He's hoping the Democrats force a troop withdrawal, then at least the GOP may be saved as zealots like you will say we only lost because we left (30% of the country still thinks going into Iraq was a good idea). Bush is keeping our people in the meatgrinder solely to salvage the Republican Party. It's shameless. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StevenSeagal Posted March 21, 2007 Author Share Posted March 21, 2007 Yeah you know, after 4 years of torture and interrogation, KSM admitted to "planning 9-11". I bet if George Bush was cattle prodded and water boarded for 4 years, he's also confess to planning 9-11. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joblo7 Posted March 21, 2007 Share Posted March 21, 2007 every time you see al quaida in the news, just substitute for pentagon and you will be halfway to the truth. then when you see islamists and terrorists just sub for oil control, foreign debt and world domination and you're there........ animal kingdom rules apply here. dont be distracted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joblo7 Posted March 21, 2007 Share Posted March 21, 2007 or tell the truth Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seahawks Posted March 21, 2007 Share Posted March 21, 2007 Yeah you know, after 4 years of torture and interrogation, KSM admitted to "planning 9-11". I bet if George Bush was cattle prodded and water boarded for 4 years, he's also confess to planning 9-11. Shit another Rosie O'donald. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joblo7 Posted March 21, 2007 Share Posted March 21, 2007 the day the last moronic american who believes in this pentagon-led type of governing passes, we humans will have a chance at harmony. reps or dems wont make much diff. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seahawks Posted March 21, 2007 Share Posted March 21, 2007 the day the last moronic american who believes in this pentagon-led type of governing passes, we humans will have a chance at harmony. reps or dems wont make much diff. Sound like the words of a true communist. Hell they proved it worked. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weekend_Climberz Posted March 21, 2007 Share Posted March 21, 2007 Why don't we all just shut up and go climbing?!? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seahawks Posted March 21, 2007 Share Posted March 21, 2007 Why don't we all just shut up and go climbing?!? amen. Real peace. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joblo7 Posted March 21, 2007 Share Posted March 21, 2007 seecocks hasn't grown an inch. learned a thing.yet he can still take ,even spray, to its lowest . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joblo7 Posted March 21, 2007 Share Posted March 21, 2007 Why don't we all just shut up and go climbing?!? got to get to a 1000.cant do that there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stonehead Posted March 21, 2007 Share Posted March 21, 2007 Ok, tinfoil hat time. Politics has some strange bedfellows.* Maybe (and this is way long maybe) the goal was actually to destablize the region and to keep it in flux. Isn't this part of the strategy used for years in Lebanon? * October Surprise Conspiracy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seahawks Posted March 21, 2007 Share Posted March 21, 2007 seecocks hasn't grown an inch. learned a thing.yet he can still take ,even spray, to its lowest . Cause I don' think like you. Thank goodness. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joblo7 Posted March 21, 2007 Share Posted March 21, 2007 old thruths Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StevenSeagal Posted March 21, 2007 Author Share Posted March 21, 2007 Yeah you know, after 4 years of torture and interrogation, KSM admitted to "planning 9-11". I bet if George Bush was cattle prodded and water boarded for 4 years, he's also confess to planning 9-11. Shit another Rosie O'donald. I wasn't trying to suggest GWB planned 9-11, just saying confessions of tortured people don't mean shit, especially when they're trying to shift attention away from failure to catch bin Laden and make it look like "mission accomplished" all over again. I bet if you were water boarded for 4 years you'd admit to being madly in love with kevbone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joblo7 Posted March 21, 2007 Share Posted March 21, 2007 seecocks hasn't grown an inch. learned a thing.yet he can still take ,even spray, to its lowest . Cause I don' think like you. Thank goodness. someday you will. thank god. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joblo7 Posted March 21, 2007 Share Posted March 21, 2007 dealing with seecocks is like talking to an ass. or an abused child.disturbing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted March 21, 2007 Share Posted March 21, 2007 (edited) You don't think the Nazi's who were making the same bomb would not used it?? Uh, not that I need to point out Seahawk's ignorance to anyone here, but Nazi Germany did not have a viable nuclear weapons development program. Which we only determined after they had been defeated. When the survival of the free world was literally at stake, it would have made much more sense to cross our fingers and trust Hitler, who surely would have disclosed both the specific location of their research facilities and the progress that they'd made along these lines to his enemies in the middle of a war to destroy them. Is there a single sane historian who contends that anything other than fear of Germany acquiring the weapons first that impelled the Allies to undertake the Manhattan project? Nothing stated so far successfully refutes my original statement. Neener. Edited March 21, 2007 by tvashtarkatena Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.