kevbone Posted August 21, 2008 Author Share Posted August 21, 2008 That is the dumbest thing you've posted for quite a while. I agree. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted August 21, 2008 Share Posted August 21, 2008 That's complete and total bullshit. We have not emboldened any of our enemies - we've scared the shit out of them. Did you get that from our intelligence community that Scott seems to worship? That is the dumbest thing you've posted for quite a while. KMA, libtard. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blurpy Posted August 21, 2008 Share Posted August 21, 2008 "strapping on a bomb in najaf or baghdad and successfully killing a bunch of people (including American soldiers) is frankly easier than trying to do so in, say, DC or New York. " Apparently not. hmmmm, not sure i follow. the big, glitzy attack on US soil has happened once, but the smaller 'strap on a bomb and walk to the market' variety have been a nearly daily occurrence. Granted, fewer people die per incident, and there have been fewer of them lately than, say, a year ago. But I think it is reasonable to conclude that those are easier to pull off than the US attack. The main point, though, is that because of our war of choice in Iraq, Al Qaida (and others) don't need to go to the bother of trying to hit the US proper (which is hard), yet they still get to make progaganda points and kill Americans. That is the gift we gave them. fifth, to continue the lecture, cherry-picking and intentionally ignoring the point are stock-in-trade here, I get that, but you've got to be more clever about it.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheJiggler Posted August 21, 2008 Share Posted August 21, 2008 That's complete and total bullshit. We have not emboldened any of our enemies - we've scared the shit out of them. Hey KrispyKream, I'm curious. What has made you come to this conclusion. From my perspective AlQaeda is more active than ever, witness Pakistan, Algeria and Afganistan, all seeing thier largest attacks in the last 5 years or so, just in the last weeks? From where I sit, it really seems to be that these guys are emboldend? I understand that you really believe we have them on the run, but. . . .why? Where is your evidence? I'd love to see it? I know if I thought that I'd be much more optimisitc about our future? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted August 21, 2008 Share Posted August 21, 2008 That's complete and total bullshit. We have not emboldened any of our enemies - we've scared the shit out of them. Hey KrispyKream, I'm curious. What has made you come to this conclusion. From my perspective AlQaeda is more active than ever, witness Pakistan, Algeria, Afganistan (all seeing the largest attacks is the last 5 years or so) just in the last weeks? From where I sit, it really seems to be that these guys are emboldend? I understand that you really believe we have them on the run, but. . . .why? Where is your evidence? I'd love to see it? I know if I thought that I'd be much more optimisitc about our future? I believe it's a mixed bag - rather than the one-sided doom and gloom that all you Bush-hating liberal extremists spew. The funny thing is you take all challenges to your extremist world-view as the opposite polarity. To say that we've "emboldened" our enemies is ridiculous and simplistic. We've had some successes, but we've also antagonized them, as well as stirred up Iran and Russia among others. The latter is not because they think we are weak and unwilling to act, but the exact opposite. I'm not saying that is good or bad, but offering that observation, which you will of course reject as you muddle along in your myopic, addled world-view. So continue your MoveOn.org and DNC platitudes. I've got better things to do than argue with "jigglers" and "blurpies". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billcoe Posted August 21, 2008 Share Posted August 21, 2008 "strapping on a bomb in najaf or baghdad and successfully killing a bunch of people (including American soldiers) is frankly easier than trying to do so in, say, DC or New York. " Apparently not. hmmmm, not sure i follow. the big, glitzy attack on US soil has happened once, but the smaller 'strap on a bomb and walk to the market' variety have been a nearly daily occurrence. Granted, fewer people die per incident, and there have been fewer of them lately than, say, a year ago. But I think it is reasonable to conclude that those are easier to pull off than the US attack. The main point, though, is that because of our war of choice in Iraq, Al Qaida (and others) don't need to go to the bother of trying to hit the US proper (which is hard), yet they still get to make progaganda points and kill Americans. That is the gift we gave them. fifth, to continue the lecture, cherry-picking and intentionally ignoring the point are stock-in-trade here, I get that, but you've got to be more clever about it.... Ha Ha...Ouch! Well spoken! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheJiggler Posted August 21, 2008 Share Posted August 21, 2008 (edited) I believe it's a mixed bag - rather than the one-sided doom and gloom that all you Bush-hating liberal extremists spew. The funny thing is you take all challenges to your extremist world-view as the opposite polarity. To say that we've "emboldened" our enemies is ridiculous and simplistic. We've had some successes, but we've also antagonized them, as well as stirred up Iran and Russia among others. The latter is not because they think we are weak and unwilling to act, but the exact opposite. I'm not saying that is good or bad, but offering that observation, which you will of course reject as you muddle along in your myopic, addled world-view. So continue your MoveOn.org and DNC platitudes. I've got better things to do than argue with "jigglers" and "blurpies". Sure using term like "emboldened" is simplistic. But I think saying "we've scared the ship out of them" is too. As for Iran and Russia. These are two different cases. WRT Russia, yes, I think moving NATO into their backyard and signaling Georgia that it can do what it wants, that is kinda backing the bear into a corner, so its not surprising its lashing out. Maybe we did scare them a little. Iran is a different story. They know we can't really go in and do much. The political situation in Iran is not at all clear for Amadinejad. If we go in, you can be assured that his domestic support will firm up. The international community is not really behind us, and our millitary is streched very thin. Hell we can't even keep a lid on Afganistan. So yes, Iran is emboldened! That said, you still havn't given us one sherd of evidence that we've scared the shit out of our enemies. Edited August 21, 2008 by TheJiggler Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevbone Posted August 21, 2008 Author Share Posted August 21, 2008 To say that we've "emboldened" our enemies is ridiculous and simplistic. We've had some successes, but we've also antagonized them, as well as stirred up Iran and Russia among others. The latter is not because they think we are weak and unwilling to act, but the exact opposite. I'm not saying that is good or bad, but offering that observation, which you will of course reject as you muddle along in your myopic, addled world-view. So continue your MoveOn.org and DNC platitudes. I've got better things to do than argue with "jigglers" and "blurpies". This is another way of saying "I have just been bitch slapped. Most people cop out with this statment because they have lost the argument. And.....you side stepped Jigglers question.....where is your evidence they are running scared? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattp Posted August 21, 2008 Share Posted August 21, 2008 That said, you still havn't given us one sherd of evidence that we've scared the shit out of our enemies. With our bungling of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and declaring ourselves unaccountable under International law, I think it is fair to say we've scared the crap out of our allies, too. Like KK says, it may be a mixed bag - but there have been attacks in Europe and the Middle East is not looking all rosy or anything so on the whole our exercise of foreign policy cannot have been reassuring. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billcoe Posted August 21, 2008 Share Posted August 21, 2008 That said, you still havn't given us one sherd of evidence that we've scared the shit out of our enemies. With our bungling of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and declaring ourselves unaccountable under International law, I think it is fair to say we've scared the crap out of our allies, too. I don't think I'd call the wars "bungled". However, complaince with International law was one of the things which really pissed me off early on. Very poorly done, marginally legal if that. Poor communications with our friends, many of whom were shocked near speechless at our brash near unilateral go it alone actions which no doubt has led to the Russians beginning to start hardening up again. That we later got a few allies to climb on board very slightly doesn't change the early prosecution errors and crazyness. However, to those who are saying that we cannot win a guerrilla war, I ask you to look no further than the US slam dunk on El Salvador. It can be done and was done not too far back. Winning or losing that one meant little to us, but winning this one or losing this one has HUGE implications on many levels worldwide. Wishing you all well bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted August 21, 2008 Share Posted August 21, 2008 That said, you still havn't given us one sherd of evidence that we've scared the shit out of our enemies. With our bungling of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and declaring ourselves unaccountable under International law, I think it is fair to say we've scared the crap out of our allies, too. I don't think I'd call the wars "bungled". However, complaince with International law was one of the things which really pissed me off early on. Very poorly done, marginally legal if that. Poor communications with our friends, many of whom were shocked near speechless at our brash near unilateral go it alone actions which no doubt has led to the Russians beginning to start hardening up again. That we later got a few allies to climb on board very slightly doesn't change the early prosecution errors and crazyness. However, to those who are saying that we cannot win a guerrilla war, I ask you to look no further than the US slam dunk on El Salvador. It can be done and was done not too far back. Winning or losing that one meant little to us, but winning this one or losing this one has HUGE implications on many levels worldwide. Wishing you all well bill cueing talk of death squads in 3..2..1... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bug Posted August 22, 2008 Share Posted August 22, 2008 Anybody remember that story about dead nuns? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StevenSeagal Posted August 22, 2008 Share Posted August 22, 2008 To say that we've "emboldened" our enemies is ridiculous and simplistic. We've had some successes, but we've also antagonized them, as well as stirred up Iran and Russia among others. The latter is not because they think we are weak and unwilling to act, but the exact opposite. I'm not saying that is good or bad, but offering that observation, which you will of course reject as you muddle along in your myopic, addled world-view. So continue your MoveOn.org and DNC platitudes. I've got better things to do than argue with "jigglers" and "blurpies". This is another way of saying "I have just been bitch slapped. Most people cop out with this statment because they have lost the argument. Score one for the 'bone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevbone Posted August 22, 2008 Author Share Posted August 22, 2008 To say that we've "emboldened" our enemies is ridiculous and simplistic. We've had some successes, but we've also antagonized them, as well as stirred up Iran and Russia among others. The latter is not because they think we are weak and unwilling to act, but the exact opposite. I'm not saying that is good or bad, but offering that observation, which you will of course reject as you muddle along in your myopic, addled world-view. So continue your MoveOn.org and DNC platitudes. I've got better things to do than argue with "jigglers" and "blurpies". This is another way of saying "I have just been bitch slapped. Most people cop out with this statment because they have lost the argument. Score one for the 'bone. 1 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.