Vote on Palestinian Statehood Looms

[Coito ergo sum]

I'm not really sure what you are talking about here. I was backing up my statement that 9-11 was a "mosquito bite" by showing that the rest of the world deals (dealt) with terrorism on a far grander scale. Hence the bluster from you to smash the shit out of someone even harder than the trillions you've spent smashing the shit out of people since 9-11, is quite frankly frightening given the mess your country is in right now.

None of the examples you listed were, in fact, on a grander scale. They weren't even close.

However, given your argument that terrorism is commonplace around the world (and I agree with that), then on what basis do you claim that it is hatred of America that is causing the terrorism? Apparently, the US has many bedfellows in this regard, and I guess everyone the Muslims are attacking need to change their policies, stop meddling in the affairs of others, etc. Yes? Or, is it American meddling that causes attacks against America, and also American meddling that causes attacks against Russia and India?

"Frightening" - it's been my belief that folks like you, who love to claim that so and so "lives in fear" are really the ones shaking in their knickers. Apparently, I'm not far off the mark.

Sure. How many more trillions have you got to waste on chasing dudes around in the desert or in caves?

As much as it takes. World War 2 cost too much money, also. But, these are necessities. When attacked, one must defend oneself.

When you say you want to respond "more strongly", does that mean invading 3 countries vs the 2 now?

Not necessarily.

What do you mean "2 now?" You forget Libya again, and of course, Pakistan and Yemen. Naturally, of course, your main concern is political, not whether anyone attacked anyone else - it's who is making the decision, right? We just gloss over military action in Pakistan, right?

Or still 2, but fucking them up more than the 2 you've fucked up now?

Ignorant, again. Fucked up? Iraq is far better off now than it was in the 1990s, and Afghanistan was fucked up in 2001 when we got there.

And logistically, how many more trillions do you guys have to waste on poorly thought out military campaigns?

Poorly thought out? Why don't you give me some examples of better thought out military campaigns? In real life, military commanders and strategists marvel at the American military capability. No other country in the world could possibly have done what the US did in either Afghanistan or Iraq - that's a fact. To call these wars "poorly thought out" or "failures" is to basically label every war ever fought a "poorly thought out" failure.

Seriously, I can't actually imagine how you guys could do more or do it more strongly than you've done it now.

How about thinking it out better? So that it's not so "poorly thought out" as you seem to think it was.

You've invaded 2 countries, killed thousands of citizens, lost thousands of troops, arguably created more terrorists, spent what, 2(?) trillion dollars so far?

Not that much money. Casualties over 10 years in Afghanistan have been remarkably light, and there isn't a country in the world who could have taken Iraq down with lighter casualties. Your part of the moronic group of children that think wars with 5000 casualties over 10 years and 7 years respectively is somehow unexpected - well, yeah - it is unexpected - unexpected in HOW FEW casualties there were. It's an amazing feat. In Vietnam, the US lost 55,000 men in the same period of time. More than 10 times the casualties. In world war 2, losing thousands of men in one battle wasn't uncommon, and in WW1 losing 10s of thousands in one battler was not uncommon. In WW1, the British lost more men on the morning of 11/11/1918, after the Armistice was signed, than the US has lost in the last 10 years.

Fuck off with the talk of "failure" and "poorly thought out." It's just idiotic bleating and wish-thinking.

Huh?? Iraq was invaded as a result of 9-11. Of course it has something to do with it.

"It" being what I fucking said? No it doesn't. I said that if I had my 'druthers, we'd have responded stronger.

I really don't know what you are on about. This happens time and time again with you. I reckon you must have some wonderful internal dialogue going on in your head, but it isn't being translated into the text you write.

You're just too dopey to understand English. You make every discussion about something other than what people actually say. One need not invade extra countries in order to "respond more strongly." Got it yet? Is it sinking in to that jello between your ears?

Get with the program man. The reason WHY you are attacked is because you have beaten proud people down the world over for the last 60 odd years. Comprende?

And, if I had my druthers, I would have responded more strongly to the 9/11 attacks, and if something like that happens again, I think we will.

I'm not really sure what you are talking about here. I was backing up my statement that 9-11 was a "mosquito bite" by showing that the rest of the world deals (dealt) with terrorism on a far grander scale. Hence the bluster from you to smash the shit out of someone even harder than the trillions you've spent smashing the shit out of people since 9-11, is quite frankly frightening given the mess your country is in right now.

None of the examples you listed were, in fact, on a grander scale. They weren't even close.

However, given your argument that terrorism is commonplace around the world (and I agree with that), then on what basis do you claim that it is hatred of America that is causing the terrorism? Apparently, the US has many bedfellows in this regard, and I guess everyone the Muslims are attacking need to change their policies, stop meddling in the affairs of others, etc. Yes? Or, is it American meddling that causes attacks against America, and also American meddling that causes attacks against Russia and India?

"Frightening" - it's been my belief that folks like you, who love to claim that so and so "lives in fear" are really the ones shaking in their knickers. Apparently, I'm not far off the mark.

Sure. How many more trillions have you got to waste on chasing dudes around in the desert or in caves?

As much as it takes. World War 2 cost too much money, also. But, these are necessities. When attacked, one must defend oneself.

When you say you want to respond "more strongly", does that mean invading 3 countries vs the 2 now?

Not necessarily.

What do you mean "2 now?" You forget Libya again, and of course, Pakistan and Yemen. Naturally, of course, your main concern is political, not whether anyone attacked anyone else - it's who is making the decision, right? We just gloss over military action in Pakistan, right?

Or still 2, but fucking them up more than the 2 you've fucked up now?

Ignorant, again. Fucked up? Iraq is far better off now than it was in the 1990s, and Afghanistan was fucked up in 2001 when we got there.

And logistically, how many more trillions do you guys have to waste on poorly thought out military campaigns?

Poorly thought out? Why don't you give me some examples of better thought out military campaigns? In real life, military commanders and strategists marvel at the American military capability. No other country in the world could possibly have done what the US did in either Afghanistan or Iraq - that's a fact. To call these wars "poorly thought out" or "failures" is to basically label every war ever fought a "poorly thought out" failure.

Seriously, I can't actually imagine how you guys could do more or do it more strongly than you've done it now.

How about thinking it out better? So that it's not so "poorly thought out" as you seem to think it was.

You've invaded 2 countries, killed thousands of citizens, lost thousands of troops, arguably created more terrorists, spent what, 2(?) trillion dollars so far?

Not that much money. Casualties over 10 years in Afghanistan have been remarkably light, and there isn't a country in the world who could have taken Iraq down with lighter casualties. Your part of the moronic group of children that think wars with 5000 casualties over 10 years and 7 years respectively is somehow unexpected - well, yeah - it is unexpected - unexpected in HOW FEW casualties there were. It's an amazing feat. In Vietnam, the US lost 55,000 men in the same period of time. More than 10 times the casualties. In world war 2, losing thousands of men in one battle wasn't uncommon, and in WW1 losing 10s of thousands in one battler was not uncommon. In WW1, the British lost more men on the morning of 11/11/1918, after the Armistice was signed, than the US has lost in the last 10 years.

Fuck off with the talk of "failure" and "poorly thought out." It's just idiotic bleating and wish-thinking.

Huh?? Iraq was invaded as a result of 9-11. Of course it has something to do with it.

"It" being what I fucking said? No it doesn't. I said that if I had my 'druthers, we'd have responded stronger.

I really don't know what you are on about. This happens time and time again with you. I reckon you must have some wonderful internal dialogue going on in your head, but it isn't being translated into the text you write.

You're just too dopey to understand English. You make every discussion about something other than what people actually say. One need not invade extra countries in order to "respond more strongly." Got it yet? Is it sinking in to that jello between your ears?

And when you do, you will breed more hatred and terrorists around the world. Like I said, I'm focused on 'outcomes' and not revenge. Making the problem worse is not a good outcome.

Ah, the foolish notion that the root cause of terrorism is fighting against it. Typical of your ilk.

People are lining up attack a lot of countries - you said i yourself - The UK - Spain, Russia, India - you name it - Islamic radicals are bombing the fuck out of half the world. You, however, think it's just because the US is so evil.

Huh?

Are you too stupid to recognize that terrorists have attacked, and have threatened more attacks on the UK? That they have also attacked Spain? That they've also attacked Russia? That they've also attacked India? Indonesia? Hundreds of terrorist attacks around the world. Apparently, you think all of them are because the US is meddling in the affairs of the middle east...

Your thesis, rEvolutionist, is that the US is being attacked because the US is doing the wrong thing in international affairs. If that is true, then to what do you ascribe the attacks on India? Russia? UK? Spain? Phillipines? Angola? Uganda? All of them were because of US foreign policy? All of them were because the west is fighting back against terrorist attacks?

It is about the most retarded and demented argument, the one you make - the argument that fighting back is what causes the terrorism, and that if only we would just be non-violent and ourselves behave better, then there would be no more terrorism. That's a slavish, servile mentality - it is "battered wife syndrome," convincing oneself that the beatings come as a result of something the wife has done....

[Clinton Huxley]

Most importantly, what the deuce is a "druther"? And why has CES not got one?

[Coito ergo sum]

My druthers:

I wish I had them...

[Gawdzilla Sama]

coito gets backed up by the other two neo-con musketeers, now just to wait for seth to jump in...predictable...yet hilarious.

Ian and Gawdzilla are "neo-cons" too?

You have to be the only one that read his posts.

[Coito ergo sum]

coito gets backed up by the other two neo-con musketeers, now just to wait for seth to jump in...predictable...yet hilarious.

Ian and Gawdzilla are "neo-cons" too?

You have to be the only one that read his posts.

Stop, you neo-con.

[pErvinalia]

Ok, i'm going to attempt to answer this mess, even though it goes back towards the start somewhere and then repeats (wtf happened?).

I'm not really sure what you are talking about here. I was backing up my statement that 9-11 was a "mosquito bite" by showing that the rest of the world deals (dealt) with terrorism on a far grander scale. Hence the bluster from you to smash the shit out of someone even harder than the trillions you've spent smashing the shit out of people since 9-11, is quite frankly frightening given the mess your country is in right now.

None of the examples you listed were, in fact, on a grander scale. They weren't even close.

How many foreign terrorist attacks has the US suffered? How many do you think places like the UK, Spain, India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka et al have suffered? I accept that the numbers killed on 9-11 was large, but as I mentioned it wasn't due to any planning by the terrorists. It was pot-luck (for them) that it turned out the way it did. The US is simply not under the constant realistic threat that your government (and ours and the UK) want you to think.

However, given your argument that terrorism is commonplace around the world (and I agree with that), then on what basis do you claim that it is hatred of America that is causing the terrorism?

WTF?!? I'm not claiming that it's causing Spanish or Indian or Indonesian terrorism. Once again I ask you: What do YOU think is the cause of terrorism directed at the US?

Apparently, the US has many bedfellows in this regard, and I guess everyone the Muslims are attacking need to change their policies, stop meddling in the affairs of others, etc. Yes? Or, is it American meddling that causes attacks against America, and also American meddling that causes attacks against Russia and India?

Yes, genius, that's what I am claiming.

A further point you need to grasp is that the people terrorising Russia and India and Pakistan et al are either home-grown or direct neighbours. Now, do I have to point out to you the difference with the US? Here's a hint: It's not Canada or Mexico who want to fuck you up.

"Frightening" - it's been my belief that folks like you, who love to claim that so and so "lives in fear" are really the ones shaking in their knickers. Apparently, I'm not far off the mark.

Fuck off. Your country, from the media I see, is paranoid about being attacked by teh evil bearded mooslim. Your politicians are more than happy to promote this fear. FFS, what's your terror level set at now? What's it's lowest setting been since 9-11?

Sure. How many more trillions have you got to waste on chasing dudes around in the desert or in caves?

As much as it takes.

Do you not understand basic economics?

When you say you want to respond "more strongly", does that mean invading 3 countries vs the 2 now?

Not necessarily.

What do you mean "2 now?" You forget Libya again, and of course, Pakistan and Yemen.

What the fuck are you talking about? You haven't "invaded" Libya, Pakistan or Yemen.

Or still 2, but fucking them up more than the 2 you've fucked up now?

Ignorant, again. Fucked up? Iraq is far better off now than it was in the 1990s,

You're shitting us, right?

and Afghanistan was fucked up in 2001 when we got there.

And it's still fucked up outside Kabul. You've achieved pretty much fuck all in 10 years and a trillion odd dollars.

And logistically, how many more trillions do you guys have to waste on poorly thought out military campaigns?

Poorly thought out? Why don't you give me some examples of better thought out military campaigns? In real life, military commanders and strategists marvel at the American military capability.

"America, FUCK YEAH!"

No other country in the world could possibly have done what the US did in either Afghanistan or Iraq - that's a fact.

You're not wrong there chief.

To call these wars "poorly thought out" or "failures" is to basically label every war ever fought a "poorly thought out" failure.

Umm, no, other wars had valid reasons for their action and achieved valid outcomes. For the 2 countries, Iraq and Afghanistan, I think your score is 1 out of 4, and many argue that it really is 0 from 4.

Seriously, I can't actually imagine how you guys could do more or do it more strongly than you've done it now.

How about thinking it out better? So that it's not so "poorly thought out" as you seem to think it was.

That's a valid point. But given you think it was the greatest goddamn piece of military action in the history of the universe, it's kind of bizarre you bringing it up.

You've invaded 2 countries, killed thousands of citizens, lost thousands of troops, arguably created more terrorists, spent what, 2(?) trillion dollars so far?

Not that much money. Casualties over 10 years in Afghanistan have been remarkably light, and there isn't a country in the world who could have taken Iraq down with lighter casualties. Your part of the moronic group of children that think wars with 5000 casualties over 10 years and 7 years respectively is somehow unexpected - well, yeah - it is unexpected - unexpected in HOW FEW casualties there were. It's an amazing feat. In Vietnam, the US lost 55,000 men in the same period of time. More than 10 times the casualties. In world war 2, losing thousands of men in one battle wasn't uncommon, and in WW1 losing 10s of thousands in one battler was not uncommon. In WW1, the British lost more men on the morning of 11/11/1918, after the Armistice was signed, than the US has lost in the last 10 years.

Interesting how you focused on your own casualties and not the hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians who are dead because of your military actions. Or even your own corrupt former politicians who flat out lied about the reasons for invading Iraq.

Fuck off with the talk of "failure" and "poorly thought out." It's just idiotic bleating and wish-thinking.

If you think these two wars have been a success for American security, for the locals, for your economy; then you're totally off with the fairies. As others have said, you're totally blinkered.

Huh?? Iraq was invaded as a result of 9-11. Of course it has something to do with it.

"It" being what I fucking said? No it doesn't.

This sentence doesn't make sense. I assume in your head it was great, but alas, it didn't translate.

I really don't know what you are on about. This happens time and time again with you. I reckon you must have some wonderful internal dialogue going on in your head, but it isn't being translated into the text you write.

You're just too dopey to understand English.

I understand it fine. What the problem is here is that you seem to think that invading Iraq as a result of 9-11 was a good thing. :insane:

Got it yet? Is it sinking in to that jello between your ears?

Your posts are thick with ad-homs. You know what that says about the quality of your argument, right?

{snipped repeated stuff}

And when you do, you will breed more hatred and terrorists around the world. Like I said, I'm focused on 'outcomes' and not revenge. Making the problem worse is not a good outcome.

Ah, the foolish notion that the root cause of terrorism is fighting against it.

No, the (apparently, in your eyes) foolish notion of understanding what causes people to hate, and realising that ones action are self-defeating. And by the way, there's a difference between fighting terrorism (which, of course, no one would argue against), and terrorising innocent people back. This is what the US and Israel just don't get. Their actions are ultimately self-defeating. But, hey, you guys aren't interested in outcomes, you're more interested in good ol' revenge, right?

People are lining up attack a lot of countries - you said i yourself - The UK - Spain, Russia, India - you name it - Islamic radicals are bombing the fuck out of half the world. You, however, think it's just because the US is so evil.

Huh?

Are you too stupid to recognize that terrorists have attacked, and have threatened more attacks on the UK? That they have also attacked Spain? That they've also attacked Russia? That they've also attacked India? Indonesia? Hundreds of terrorist attacks around the world. Apparently, you think all of them are because the US is meddling in the affairs of the middle east...

No, I'm afraid genius that it is you who is a bit stupid on this one. I've already explained the difference above between US directed terrorism and the majority of terrorism around the world. Only an idiot would think someone would blame the US for other terrorist attacks. Are you an idiot?

It is about the most retarded and demented argument, the one you make - the argument that fighting back is what causes the terrorism, and that if only we would just be non-violent and ourselves behave better, then there would be no more terrorism. That's a slavish, servile mentality - it is "battered wife syndrome," convincing oneself that the beatings come as a result of something the wife has done....

How bout you actually read what I write instead of erecting strawmen?

[Coito ergo sum]

Ok, i'm going to attempt to answer this mess, even though it goes back towards the start somewhere and then repeats (wtf happened?).

I'm not really sure what you are talking about here. I was backing up my statement that 9-11 was a "mosquito bite" by showing that the rest of the world deals (dealt) with terrorism on a far grander scale. Hence the bluster from you to smash the shit out of someone even harder than the trillions you've spent smashing the shit out of people since 9-11, is quite frankly frightening given the mess your country is in right now.

None of the examples you listed were, in fact, on a grander scale. They weren't even close.

How many foreign terrorist attacks has the US suffered? How many do you think places like the UK, Spain, India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka et al have suffered? I accept that the numbers killed on 9-11 was large, but as I mentioned it wasn't due to any planning by the terrorists. It was pot-luck (for them) that it turned out the way it did. The US is simply not under the constant realistic threat that your government (and ours and the UK) want you to think.

The US has suffered a bunch of different attacks. However, you're missing the main point. If countries like UK, Spain, India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, etc are suffering worse attacks, then on what basis do you blame terrorism on meddling foreign policy of the US?

The 9/11/01 attacks were the largest and most dramatic terrorist attacks in modern history, if not world history.

However, given your argument that terrorism is commonplace around the world (and I agree with that), then on what basis do you claim that it is hatred of America that is causing the terrorism?

WTF?!? I'm not claiming that it's causing Spanish or Indian or Indonesian terrorism. Once again I ask you: What do YOU think is the cause of terrorism directed at the US?

What causes terrorism against Mumbai India, etc.?

One major factor is racism/antisemitism, and another is Islamic radicalism - the ideology of Islamism.

Apparently, the US has many bedfellows in this regard, and I guess everyone the Muslims are attacking need to change their policies, stop meddling in the affairs of others, etc. Yes? Or, is it American meddling that causes attacks against America, and also American meddling that causes attacks against Russia and India?

Yes, genius, that's what I am claiming.

What the fuck ARE you claiming? You say the US gets attacked because of US meddling. So, why did India get attacked? US meddling? Indian meddling? All these countries getting attacked need to stop "meddling?"

A further point you need to grasp is that the people terrorising Russia and India and Pakistan et al are either home-grown or direct neighbours. Now, do I have to point out to you the difference with the US? Here's a hint: It's not Canada or Mexico who want to fuck you up.

Of course they don't. And, that should tell you a lot.

"Frightening" - it's been my belief that folks like you, who love to claim that so and so "lives in fear" are really the ones shaking in their knickers. Apparently, I'm not far off the mark.

Fuck off. Your country, from the media I see, is paranoid about being attacked by teh evil bearded mooslim.

I live here. Nobody appears paranoid in the least.

Your politicians are more than happy to promote this fear. FFS, what's your terror level set at now? What's it's lowest setting been since 9-11?

You're in no position to comment on what our politicians promote. The information you get is apparently limited to superficial reporting and muddled commentary.

Threat level? I think it's called "heightened level of vigilance." Above that would be "elevated" and above that would be "imminent." The alerts/advisory system is hardly ever talked about over here. There are no "current alerts." Ooooooo!!!! Scaaaaarrryyyyy!!!

Sure. How many more trillions have you got to waste on chasing dudes around in the desert or in caves?

As much as it takes.

Do you not understand basic economics?

Better than you, I'm sure about that.

When you say you want to respond "more strongly", does that mean invading 3 countries vs the 2 now?

Not necessarily.

What do you mean "2 now?" You forget Libya again, and of course, Pakistan and Yemen.

What the fuck are you talking about? You haven't "invaded" Libya, Pakistan or Yemen.

Gotcha - o.k. to bomb and kill people - just don't use a ground troop.

Or still 2, but fucking them up more than the 2 you've fucked up now?

Ignorant, again. Fucked up? Iraq is far better off now than it was in the 1990s,

You're shitting us, right?

Of course not. It's a fact. You can have your own dopey opinions, but you can't have your own facts. Nobody would opt to go back to 2002.

and Afghanistan was fucked up in 2001 when we got there.

And it's still fucked up outside Kabul. You've achieved pretty much fuck all in 10 years and a trillion odd dollars.

You don't know what you're talking about.

And logistically, how many more trillions do you guys have to waste on poorly thought out military campaigns?

Poorly thought out? Why don't you give me some examples of better thought out military campaigns? In real life, military commanders and strategists marvel at the American military capability.

"America, FUCK YEAH!"

That's not what I said.

No other country in the world could possibly have done what the US did in either Afghanistan or Iraq - that's a fact.

You're not wrong there chief.

Absolutely, I'm not wrong. The US successes are monumental.

To call these wars "poorly thought out" or "failures" is to basically label every war ever fought a "poorly thought out" failure.

Umm, no, other wars had valid reasons for their action and achieved valid outcomes. For the 2 countries, Iraq and Afghanistan, I think your score is 1 out of 4, and many argue that it really is 0 from 4.

LOL - whose doing the scoring? Moveon.org? Code Pink? Cindy Sheehan? The DailyKos? AlterNet?

Seriously, I can't actually imagine how you guys could do more or do it more strongly than you've done it now.

How about thinking it out better? So that it's not so "poorly thought out" as you seem to think it was.

That's a valid point. But given you think it was the greatest goddamn piece of military action in the history of the universe, it's kind of bizarre you bringing it up.

I said it was better than any of you folks could do. Ever. And, taking Iraq down was phenomenal. Remember the predictions from guys like you - "10,000 bodybags needed for Iraq" -- it's the same douchebags that complain now that were warning that Hussein would use chemical and biological weapons on American troops and kill thousands upon thousands (at least folks like you were saying that in early 2003. And, of course, Afghanistan was the "graveyard of empires" and we would be run out of there like the Russians were....

8 years later, and 5,000 casualties, we're leaving Iraq gradually, and they have a Republic with a budding Parliamentary system, and the Kurds and the Marsh Arabs are out from under the threat of massacre that they perennially lived under when subjected to the Hussein regime (that you love so much, because things were just so wonderful under his regime...).

You've invaded 2 countries, killed thousands of citizens, lost thousands of troops, arguably created more terrorists, spent what, 2(?) trillion dollars so far?

Not that much money. Casualties over 10 years in Afghanistan have been remarkably light, and there isn't a country in the world who could have taken Iraq down with lighter casualties. Your part of the moronic group of children that think wars with 5000 casualties over 10 years and 7 years respectively is somehow unexpected - well, yeah - it is unexpected - unexpected in HOW FEW casualties there were. It's an amazing feat. In Vietnam, the US lost 55,000 men in the same period of time. More than 10 times the casualties. In world war 2, losing thousands of men in one battle wasn't uncommon, and in WW1 losing 10s of thousands in one battler was not uncommon. In WW1, the British lost more men on the morning of 11/11/1918, after the Armistice was signed, than the US has lost in the last 10 years.

Interesting how you focused on your own casualties and not the hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians who are dead because of your military actions. Or even your own corrupt former politicians who flat out lied about the reasons for invading Iraq.

Because you rely on the over-inflated "estimates" of "hundreds of thousands" of innocent civilians killed. That's a ridiculous number, and basically is a result of counting any death from whatever cause as being "caused" by the US military action. It's idiocy in the extreme.

Nobody lied about the reasons for invading Iraq -they were all laid out clearly. Everyone thought there were weapons present - that's why those on the left- the anti-war folks - were clamoring before the war started that it would be a massacre of epic proportions when Hussein used chem and bio weapons against US troops.

Fuck off with the talk of "failure" and "poorly thought out." It's just idiotic bleating and wish-thinking.

If you think these two wars have been a success for American security, for the locals, for your economy; then you're totally off with the fairies. As others have said, you're totally blinkered.

As you and sandinista have said, yes.

Me? I never was stupid enough to expect that the overall struggle against Islamic terrorism and extremism would be over in a few years, let alone weeks or months. I understood this to be a generational struggle, and we have decades to go, my friend.

Huh?? Iraq was invaded as a result of 9-11. Of course it has something to do with it.

"It" being what I fucking said? No it doesn't.

This sentence doesn't make sense. I assume in your head it was great, but alas, it didn't translate.

Iraq being invaded as a result of 9/11 has nothing whatever to do with my statement that if I had my druthers we would have responded more strongly to the 9/11 attacks, and if another attack occurs, I think we will. Get it? Christ you are dim.

I really don't know what you are on about. This happens time and time again with you. I reckon you must have some wonderful internal dialogue going on in your head, but it isn't being translated into the text you write.

You're just too dopey to understand English.

I understand it fine. What the problem is here is that you seem to think that invading Iraq as a result of 9-11 was a good thing. :insane:

I wasn't all fired in favor of it in 2003. Wouldn't have been my first choice, nor have I said it would have been.

Got it yet? Is it sinking in to that jello between your ears?

Your posts are thick with ad-homs. You know what that says about the quality of your argument, right?

Just responding in kind. You'll find you were the first to sling an arrow. If you don't like it, then don't start it.

{snipped repeated stuff}

And when you do, you will breed more hatred and terrorists around the world. Like I said, I'm focused on 'outcomes' and not revenge. Making the problem worse is not a good outcome.

Ah, the foolish notion that the root cause of terrorism is fighting against it.

No, the (apparently, in your eyes) foolish notion of understanding what causes people to hate, and realising that ones action are self-defeating. And by the way, there's a difference between fighting terrorism (which, of course, no one would argue against), and terrorising innocent people back. This is what the US and Israel just don't get. Their actions are ultimately self-defeating. But, hey, you guys aren't interested in outcomes, you're more interested in good ol' revenge, right?

No.

People are lining up attack a lot of countries - you said i yourself - The UK - Spain, Russia, India - you name it - Islamic radicals are bombing the fuck out of half the world. You, however, think it's just because the US is so evil.

Huh?

Are you too stupid to recognize that terrorists have attacked, and have threatened more attacks on the UK? That they have also attacked Spain? That they've also attacked Russia? That they've also attacked India? Indonesia? Hundreds of terrorist attacks around the world. Apparently, you think all of them are because the US is meddling in the affairs of the middle east...

No, I'm afraid genius that it is you who is a bit stupid on this one. I've already explained the difference above between US directed terrorism and the majority of terrorism around the world.

At no point did you explain that difference. You claimed a difference existed, but you never said why terrorism occurred in Mumbai, etc.

Only an idiot would think someone would blame the US for other terrorist attacks. Are you an idiot?

Only an idiot would claim that terrorism is caused by meddling, except when it is terrorism against countries other than the US. That's what you're apparently claiming. You think that terrorism against the US is caused by US meddling, but you don't accuse other victims of terrorism of meddling.

It is about the most retarded and demented argument, the one you make - the argument that fighting back is what causes the terrorism, and that if only we would just be non-violent and ourselves behave better, then there would be no more terrorism. That's a slavish, servile mentality - it is "battered wife syndrome," convincing oneself that the beatings come as a result of something the wife has done....

How bout you actually read what I write instead of erecting strawmen?

It's hard to stop laughing.

[pErvinalia]

Christ! So much fail in one post. You must be MASSIVELY blinkered to write some of that shite. I'm not going to touch most of it, but just address a few particularly stupid remarks.

Ok, i'm going to attempt to answer this mess, even though it goes back towards the start somewhere and then repeats (wtf happened?).

I'm not really sure what you are talking about here. I was backing up my statement that 9-11 was a "mosquito bite" by showing that the rest of the world deals (dealt) with terrorism on a far grander scale. Hence the bluster from you to smash the shit out of someone even harder than the trillions you've spent smashing the shit out of people since 9-11, is quite frankly frightening given the mess your country is in right now.

None of the examples you listed were, in fact, on a grander scale. They weren't even close.

How many foreign terrorist attacks has the US suffered? How many do you think places like the UK, Spain, India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka et al have suffered? I accept that the numbers killed on 9-11 was large, but as I mentioned it wasn't due to any planning by the terrorists. It was pot-luck (for them) that it turned out the way it did. The US is simply not under the constant realistic threat that your government (and ours and the UK) want you to think.

The US has suffered a bunch of different attacks. However, you're missing the main point.

No, YOU're missing the point (which was started by me). The US has NOT suffered anywhere near the number of terrorist attacks that other countries have. You're country's obsession with terror is politically driven.

The 9/11/01 attacks were the largest and most dramatic terrorist attacks in modern history, if not world history.

Only because of 'pot-luck'. If things went to plan, it would have been probably the most spectacular attack, but nowhere near the largest.

And regardless of how many did die, it's nothing compared to the civilian deaths that Israel and the US dish out around the world.

However, given your argument that terrorism is commonplace around the world (and I agree with that), then on what basis do you claim that it is hatred of America that is causing the terrorism?

WTF?!? I'm not claiming that it's causing Spanish or Indian or Indonesian terrorism. Once again I ask you: What do YOU think is the cause of terrorism directed at the US?

What causes terrorism against Mumbai India, etc.?

Oh fuck me sideways with a cactus! Can you not understand simple ENGLISH? I said "directed at the US".

A further point you need to grasp is that the people terrorising Russia and India and Pakistan et al are either home-grown or direct neighbours. Now, do I have to point out to you the difference with the US? Here's a hint: It's not Canada or Mexico who want to fuck you up.

Of course they don't. And, that should tell you a lot.

You ---->






The Point ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------> .

Sure. How many more trillions have you got to waste on chasing dudes around in the desert or in caves?

As much as it takes.

Do you not understand basic economics?

Better than you, I'm sure about that.

WTF?!? Apparently you think money grows on trees.

When you say you want to respond "more strongly", does that mean invading 3 countries vs the 2 now?

Not necessarily.

What do you mean "2 now?" You forget Libya again, and of course, Pakistan and Yemen.

What the fuck are you talking about? You haven't "invaded" Libya, Pakistan or Yemen.

Gotcha - o.k. to bomb and kill people - just don't use a ground troop.

Pretty much yes. You can't invade if you don't step foot in there. And besides, Libya is sanctioned by the UN, unlike Iraq. The supposed purpose (although we all know the real purpose) is to protect citizens, not take over the whole fucking country. Pakistan - a minor military incursion to shoot up some Saudi's and Afghani's is hardly an invasion of Pakistan. Yemen - don't know what you're talking about.

And besides, Libya and Yemen (as far as I know) have stuff all to do with 9-11, which is what you and your absent-druthers have been banging on about, apparently...

Or still 2, but fucking them up more than the 2 you've fucked up now?

Ignorant, again. Fucked up? Iraq is far better off now than it was in the 1990s,

You're shitting us, right?

Of course not. It's a fact. You can have your own dopey opinions, but you can't have your own facts. Nobody would opt to go back to 2002.

Too stupid a comment to even bother responding.

and Afghanistan was fucked up in 2001 when we got there.

And it's still fucked up outside Kabul. You've achieved pretty much fuck all in 10 years and a trillion odd dollars.

You don't know what you're talking about.

Wow, great comeback.

And logistically, how many more trillions do you guys have to waste on poorly thought out military campaigns?

Poorly thought out? Why don't you give me some examples of better thought out military campaigns? In real life, military commanders and strategists marvel at the American military capability.

"America, FUCK YEAH!"

That's not what I said.

Yeah it was. That's pretty much all you say.

No other country in the world could possibly have done what the US did in either Afghanistan or Iraq - that's a fact.

You're not wrong there chief.

Absolutely, I'm not wrong. The US successes are monumental.

To call these wars "poorly thought out" or "failures" is to basically label every war ever fought a "poorly thought out" failure.

Umm, no, other wars had valid reasons for their action and achieved valid outcomes. For the 2 countries, Iraq and Afghanistan, I think your score is 1 out of 4, and many argue that it really is 0 from 4.

LOL - whose doing the scoring? Moveon.org? Code Pink? Cindy Sheehan? The DailyKos? AlterNet?

I'm doing the scoring. The reason given for going into Iraq was a lie - 0 points. Iraq is a fucking mess and you've lost thousands of your own troops for nothing - 0 points. Afghanistan could be argued to have a valid reason for going in there - 1 point. Afghanistan outside of Kabul is ruled by the Taliban/Warlords - 0 points. Total, 1 out of 4. And your economy is going down the shitter because of it. Subtract 1000 points for utter stupidity. You fail.

Seriously, I can't actually imagine how you guys could do more or do it more strongly than you've done it now.

How about thinking it out better? So that it's not so "poorly thought out" as you seem to think it was.

That's a valid point. But given you think it was the greatest goddamn piece of military action in the history of the universe, it's kind of bizarre you bringing it up.

I said it was better than any of you folks could do. Ever. And, taking Iraq down was phenomenal. Remember the predictions from guys like you - "10,000 bodybags needed for Iraq"

Wow, i didn't realise we knew each other back in 2003.

-- it's the same douchebags that complain now that were warning that Hussein would use chemical and biological weapons on American troops and kill thousands upon thousands (at least folks like you were saying that in early 2003.

There you go again. We must have known each other for you to have such an intimate knowledge of what I said. Forget the fact that virtually all left wingers believed Hans Blix and Scott Ritter in their assessments that Iraq had fuck all wmd's. But I've got to say, i'm loving watching you make all this shit up. It's priceless.

And, of course, Afghanistan was the "graveyard of empires" and we would be run out of there like the Russians were....

A lot of left wingers (myself included) supported the invasion of Afghanistan. More fail, genius.

8 years later, and 5,000 casualties, we're leaving Iraq gradually, and they have a Republic with a budding Parliamentary system, and the Kurds and the Marsh Arabs are out from under the threat of massacre that they perennially lived under when subjected to the Hussein regime (that you love so much, because things were just so wonderful under his regime...).

I hear there's also pink unicorns for everyone too! :crazy:

You've invaded 2 countries, killed thousands of citizens, lost thousands of troops, arguably created more terrorists, spent what, 2(?) trillion dollars so far?

Not that much money. Casualties over 10 years in Afghanistan have been remarkably light, and there isn't a country in the world who could have taken Iraq down with lighter casualties. Your part of the moronic group of children that think wars with 5000 casualties over 10 years and 7 years respectively is somehow unexpected - well, yeah - it is unexpected - unexpected in HOW FEW casualties there were. It's an amazing feat. In Vietnam, the US lost 55,000 men in the same period of time. More than 10 times the casualties. In world war 2, losing thousands of men in one battle wasn't uncommon, and in WW1 losing 10s of thousands in one battler was not uncommon. In WW1, the British lost more men on the morning of 11/11/1918, after the Armistice was signed, than the US has lost in the last 10 years.

Interesting how you focused on your own casualties and not the hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians who are dead because of your military actions. Or even your own corrupt former politicians who flat out lied about the reasons for invading Iraq.

Because you rely on the over-inflated "estimates" of "hundreds of thousands" of innocent civilians killed.

Actually, the over-inflated figures put the total at over a MILLION. I was being kind by saying a couple hundred thousand.

That's a ridiculous number, and basically is a result of counting any death from whatever cause as being "caused" by the US military action. It's idiocy in the extreme.

What's idiocy is thinking invading countries with fuck all plans to win hearts and minds is ever going to do you any good.

Nobody lied about the reasons for invading Iraq -they were all laid out clearly. Everyone thought there were weapons present - that's why those on the left- the anti-war folks - were clamoring before the war started that it would be a massacre of epic proportions when Hussein used chem and bio weapons against US troops.

I don't know what rock you were living under back then, but i heard no such thing from the left. Iraq was sold on a lie. If you don't accept that, then you are a revisionist and may as well believe that the holocaust was a myth. There's no helping people like you.

Me? I never was stupid enough to expect that the overall struggle against Islamic terrorism and extremism would be over in a few years, let alone weeks or months. I understood this to be a generational struggle, and we have decades to go, my friend.

In decades, the US will be well and truly down the toilet if they continue on the current path. The terrorists already won when they forced you to give up some civil liberties and start espousing torture and kidnap and barbaric imprisonment.

{snipped repeated stuff}

And when you do, you will breed more hatred and terrorists around the world. Like I said, I'm focused on 'outcomes' and not revenge. Making the problem worse is not a good outcome.

Ah, the foolish notion that the root cause of terrorism is fighting against it.

No, the (apparently, in your eyes) foolish notion of understanding what causes people to hate, and realising that ones action are self-defeating. And by the way, there's a difference between fighting terrorism (which, of course, no one would argue against), and terrorising innocent people back. This is what the US and Israel just don't get. Their actions are ultimately self-defeating. But, hey, you guys aren't interested in outcomes, you're more interested in good ol' revenge, right?

No.

Wow, what a convincing answer.

People are lining up attack a lot of countries - you said i yourself - The UK - Spain, Russia, India - you name it - Islamic radicals are bombing the fuck out of half the world. You, however, think it's just because the US is so evil.

Huh?

Are you too stupid to recognize that terrorists have attacked, and have threatened more attacks on the UK? That they have also attacked Spain? That they've also attacked Russia? That they've also attacked India? Indonesia? Hundreds of terrorist attacks around the world. Apparently, you think all of them are because the US is meddling in the affairs of the middle east...

No, I'm afraid genius that it is you who is a bit stupid on this one. I've already explained the difference above between US directed terrorism and the majority of terrorism around the world.

At no point did you explain that difference. You claimed a difference existed, but you never said why terrorism occurred in Mumbai, etc.

Jesus Christ! THe stupid! It burns! We're talking about terrorism against the US. Your druthers, remember? If you had them blah blah 9/11 blah blah?

Only an idiot would think someone would blame the US for other terrorist attacks. Are you an idiot?

Only an idiot would claim that terrorism is caused by meddling, except when it is terrorism against countries other than the US.

Why do you keep avoiding the question that I've asked repeatedly now? Here, i'll ask again: What do YOU think is the reason that so many people hate the US and rejoice when it is attacked? You claim it's not because the US sticks it's nose in other peoples affairs fucking up their lives. Ok, then let's here your reason. Please don't make me ask again. I don't think I can take it anymore.

That's what you're apparently claiming.

I haven't claimed anything of the sort, you twat. Get a fucking clue, ffs.

It is about the most retarded and demented argument, the one you make - the argument that fighting back is what causes the terrorism, and that if only we would just be non-violent and ourselves behave better, then there would be no more terrorism. That's a slavish, servile mentality - it is "battered wife syndrome," convincing oneself that the beatings come as a result of something the wife has done....

How bout you actually read what I write instead of erecting strawmen?

It's hard to stop laughing.

I put it to you you haven't laughed since 2001. I bet, though, that you've raged in bed all alone and imagined yourself blowing the heads off some rag-heads, right?

[Rob]

Rev, the last sentence is stupid since I doubt you actually believe that.

Additionally, your replies are striking me as childish and not very nuaced, which generally makes me think one is an idiot or an extremist.

Your response:

rEvolutionist wrote: And logistically, how many more trillions do you guys have to waste on poorly thought out military campaigns?



Poorly thought out? Why don't you give me some examples of better thought out military campaigns? In real life, military commanders and strategists marvel at the American military capability.



"America, FUCK YEAH!"

The above is not a counter argument. It is a misrepresentation of Coito's views(as I find it hard to imagine Coito representing a Team America mentality[Which by the way is a horrible movie]).

I am curious though. What do you think America should have done as a response to 9/11?

[sandinista]

coito gets backed up by the other two neo-con musketeers, now just to wait for seth to jump in...predictable...yet hilarious.

Ian and Gawdzilla are "neo-cons" too?

You have to be the only one that read his posts.

Besides you you mean? GET OFF THE GOD DAMNED LAWN!!!

Good posts rEvolutionist, very few people have the patience to deal with coito's, and others nonsense.

I am curious though. What do you think America should have done as a response to 9/11?

"America, FUCK YEAH!"
The above is not a counter argument. It is a misrepresentation of Coito's views(as I find it hard to imagine Coito representing a Team America mentality

Got the fuck out of the middle east. In the meantime arrest and put on trial the group involved. Defiantly NOT invade two countries and occupy them for over a decade and start a "war on terror ".

How does the above misrepresent coitos views? seems spot on.

[Rob]

Let's go back to 9/11, I know Coito can defend himself and respond to that if he chooses.

How can we put anyone on trial for 9/11 if we don't invade another country to apprehend them to stand trial?

[sandinista]

your replies are striking me as childish and not very nuaced, which generally makes me think one is an idiot or an extremist.

I assume you're talking about coito's responses. If that's the case, I feel the same way. rEvolutionist, I'm sure you've figured it out already. Coito is so ideologically committed it doesn't matter how many times you prove him wrong or make him sound foolish, he'll never change his opinion or ever agree with any good point. If he gets really riled up he'll start raving on about Cuba for some reason...it's coming wait for it!

Let's go back to 9/11, I know Coito can defend himself and respond to that if he chooses.

How can we put anyone on trial for 9/11 if we don't invade another country to apprehend them to stand trial?

Well...coito can dig himself a bigger hole. Anyway, I never knew you had to invade a country and occupy it for over a decade to arrest a criminal. A good first step would be for the US to take part in the world criminal court and stop running from it. A strong international law that includes all countries and treats them all equally(yes even the US) would go a long way. You also didn't respond to the concept of actually leaving the middle east. Pack up the military bases and get the fuck out.

[Tigger]

your replies are striking me as childish and not very nuaced, which generally makes me think one is an idiot or an extremist.

I assume you're talking about coito's responses. <snip>

Why would you assume that? When Rob said:

Rev, the last sentence is stupid since I doubt you actually believe that.

Additionally, your replies are striking me as childish and not very nuaced, which generally makes me think one is an idiot or an extremist.

[sandinista]

your replies are striking me as childish and not very nuaced, which generally makes me think one is an idiot or an extremist.

I assume you're talking about coito's responses. <snip>

Why would you assume that? When Rob said:

Rev, the last sentence is stupid since I doubt you actually believe that.

Additionally, your replies are striking me as childish and not very nuaced, which generally makes me think one is an idiot or an extremist.

Thought he mixed up the names. From reading the above posts it sure seems that way.

[pErvinalia]

Yeah, i'm pretty much over arguing with Coito. It's totally pointless as you point out. As I said, if he thinks Iraq was a success, and that Iraq wasn't sold to us on a lie, then he's an ideological revisionist. I'm not interested in wasting my time with the likes of that.