"Continue the war against terrorism........

clark_kent · July 2008

_outlaw wrote:

Nope.

All these "peace talks" have been without serious demands of Israel, by the U.S., and have been while the U.S. funds Israel's army. The U.S. has also vetoed every serious resolution in the Security Council.

anyone who has ever been in charge of that little patch of land there has been subject to war, death, and invasion. when you're sitting on top of a worthless hot desert that is only still inhabited becos a bunch of morons still cling to the superstitious belief that there is something special and holy about that particular wasteland, you're going to have hot, hungry, dehydrated, sunburned bastards with a chip on their shoulder ready to kill at the first sign of disrespect of their deity of choice. we ought to just nuke the whole fucking region and tell the christians, jews, and muslims to suck it up and find holy places in their own strongholds and stop fucking up the world becos 900 years ago somebody supposedly took a shit somewhere and marked it as holy.

that and these people do need to exercise their love wands more. if muslim men could see more than the eyes of a woman they'd spend too much time walking into oncoming traffic and tripping over the sidewalk like the rest of the normal world to be so into killing. then israel could stop acting like a little kid with a big gun shooting at everything that moves within 100 miles of them.

decides2dream · July 2008

_outlaw wrote:

I think most people are focusing on the part that says "Continue the war..." rather than "vigor."

you forgot the most important part, imo......'continue the war on terrorism with vigor'......to me does NOT signify actual WAR necessarily. but with most things, taken out of context things can be shaped into whatever we want them to be. not saying you are doing so...just saying that this entire sentence, in whatever context it was used, would be far more 'informative' with what was said around it, and not merely the statement, alone.

fuck · July 2008

decides2dream wrote:

you forgot the most important part, imo......'continue the war on terrorism with vigor'......to me does NOT signify actual WAR necessarily. but with most things, taken out of context things can be shaped into whatever we want them to be. not saying you are doing so...just saying that this entire sentence, in whatever context it was used, would be far more 'informative' with what was said around it, and not merely the statement, alone.

It's pretty obvious what was around it since Barack Obama has been pushing for more military action in Afghanistan. War "on terrorism" is still war.

decides2dream · July 2008

_outlaw wrote:

It's pretty obvious what was around it since Barack Obama has been pushing for more military action in Afghanistan. War "on terrorism" is still war.

i personally would STILL like to see it in the context it was spoken. for me, it makes a difference. for you or others, perhaps not.

fuck · July 2008

decides2dream wrote:

i personally would STILL like to see it in the context it was spoken. for me, it makes a difference. for you or others, perhaps not.

Well, of course I could be wrong. Still, I don't think my assumption that he was talking about Afghanistan - saying the same thing he's been saying the whole time - is far off.

decides2dream · July 2008

_outlaw wrote:

Well, of course I could be wrong. Still, I don't think my assumption that he was talking about Afghanistan - saying the same thing he's been saying the whole time - is far off.

again, i never insinuated that you were...or anyone really. i just like FULL context, to make up my own mind about things, and to better understand the 'bigger picture' of what anyone says and means by their words.

while personally i far prefer no war, i am also not 100% anti-war. in THIS instance, hell yes i wish we never got in this mess, always thought we should not have, etc. however, we are there...we created this disaster and so on. so i don't see a 'clean break'.....and i may agree with further action. however, i have not made up my mind one way or another. all the more reason i like to read for/against such issues statements in their entirety, figure help me better understand it all, and better form an opinion.

however, it is obvious that the OP wasn't looking to 'educate' at least not fully, but to present a slanted, personal view.

clark_kent · July 2008

decides2dream wrote:

you forgot the most important part, imo......'continue the war on terrorism with vigor'......to me does NOT signify actual WAR necessarily. but with most things, taken out of context things can be shaped into whatever we want them to be. not saying you are doing so...just saying that this entire sentence, in whatever context it was used, would be far more 'informative' with what was said around it, and not merely the statement, alone.

let's not pussyfoot around, that's exactly what he is doing.

clark_kent · July 2008

_outlaw wrote:

Well, of course I could be wrong. Still, I don't think my assumption that he was talking about Afghanistan - saying the same thing he's been saying the whole time - is far off.

ah, so it's your assumption? this explains everything.

is it even remotely possible that he was referring to 'war on terror' in general, drug war sense? in the sense that he espouses a comprehensive policy designed to reduce terrorism through prevention, security, eliminating the policies that encourage it, etc? that even if he is in favor of more action in afghanistan (aka cleaning up the mess we left when we left those people hanging and finding the guy we were supposed to be getting 7 years ago), that it does not mean he wants more war, but rather to get out of the ridiculous one we are in in iraq, avoid future unnecessary wars in iran or elsewhere, finish the war we started in afghan, and the nature of the war on terror to something that might actually work?

nah, no way that's possible. i know, becos i assume it isn't.

fuck · July 2008

clark_kent wrote:

let's not pussyfoot around, that's exactly what he is doing.

Of course it's what I'm doing. I'm taking the fact that he said "continue the war on terrorism" and changing it to... what exactly? As far as I know, continuing a war doesn't mean having a barbecue... and I haven't "changed" anything he said or taken anything out of context. He's been talking about Afghanistan for ages.

angelica · July 2008

clark_kent wrote:

let's not pussyfoot around, that's exactly what he is doing.

At the least, this strategic demonizing of some, and the effective manipulation of people, into polarized camps against the "evil" out there, to the benefit of some, and at potential and actual cost to very, very many, is nefarious and will reap consequences for many years to come. It opens the door to the justification of...well, almost anything.

Which brings me back to the psychological principle of the foot in the door. When we get people to agree to small steps in one direction, it opens the door to getting them totally on board with large and ludicrous steps they'd never ever have agreed with upfront. It's a conditioning of sorts. And the people follow along as .. expected. It's human nature. Just as it's human nature for a minority to notice this as it plays out....

fuck · July 2008

clark_kent wrote:

ah, so it's your assumption? this explains everything.

is it even remotely possible that he was referring to 'war on terror' in general, drug war sense? in the sense that he espouses a comprehensive policy designed to reduce terrorism through prevention, security, eliminating the policies that encourage it, etc? that even if he is in favor of more action in afghanistan (aka cleaning up the mess we left when we left those people hanging and finding the guy we were supposed to be getting 7 years ago), that it does not mean he wants more war, but rather to get out of the ridiculous one we are in in iraq, avoid future unnecessary wars in iran or elsewhere, finish the war we started in afghan, and the nature of the war on terror to something that might actually work?

Where did I say he wouldn't avoid future unnecessary wars? You just agreed with me. I said ONE thing, and that was Afghanistan. Whether you want to call it "finish the war" in Afghanistan or "continue it" it's the same fucking thing.

And God forbid we leave those poor defenseless Afghanis alone. It's enough we already killed many of their people, we have to return and finish the job now!

:rolleyes:

clark_kent · July 2008

_outlaw wrote:

Of course it's what I'm doing. I'm taking the fact that he said "continue the war on terrorism" and changing it to... what exactly? As far as I know, continuing a war doesn't mean having a barbecue... and I haven't "changed" anything he said or taken anything out of context. He's been talking about Afghanistan for ages.

by your implication, changing it to mean that obama is looking to invade any country he doesnt like and triple military action around the globe. he's been talking about afghan as a contrast to iraq... a country that truly did harbor and support terrorism that we forgot about becos we were distracted by iraq. continuing the war on terror means we dont start stupid wars that have nothing to do with terror (iraq) becos it means that when we are confronted with terror (afghan) we aren't equipped to do anything about it (what ever happened to bin laden?).

you are casting the fact that obama thinks we dropped the ball on afghan as evidence that he is napoleon. don't be absurd.

clark_kent · July 2008

_outlaw wrote:

Where did I say he wouldn't avoid future unnecessary wars? You just agreed with me. I said ONE thing, and that was Afghanistan. Whether you want to call it "finish the war" in Afghanistan or "continue it" it's the same fucking thing.

And God forbid we leave those poor defenseless Afghanis alone. It's enough we already killed many of their people, we have to return and finish the job now!

:rolleyes:

better us than the warlords that currently run the place by charging money to terrorist training camps. we made their mess in the 1970's, we owe it to them to give them their country back. at least we aren't targeting civilians and will build them a city hall when something goes awry. certainly beats what the warlords we armed and funded are doing to them.

fuck · July 2008

clark_kent wrote:

by your implication, changing it to mean that obama is looking to invade any country he doesnt like and triple military action around the globe. he's been talking about afghan as a contrast to iraq... a country that truly did harbor and support terrorism that we forgot about becos we were distracted by iraq. continuing the war on terror means we dont start stupid wars that have nothing to do with terror (iraq) becos it means that when we are confronted with terror (afghan) we aren't equipped to do anything about it (what ever happened to bin laden?).

Uhh...

what are you talking about? I never said anything about invading any country. I said this:

_outlaw wrote:

It's pretty obvious what was around it since Barack Obama has been pushing for more military action in Afghanistan. War "on terrorism" is still war.

Although.... I don't know why I'm debating with someone who says things like:

clark_kent wrote:

we ought to just nuke the whole [Middle East] and tell the christians, jews, and muslims to suck it up and find holy places in their own strongholds and stop fucking up the world becos 900 years ago somebody supposedly took a shit somewhere and marked it as holy.

:rolleyes:

clark_kent wrote:

don't be absurd.

I can't help it, I was born this way.

fuck · July 2008

clark_kent wrote:

better us than the warlords that currently run the place by charging money to terrorist training camps. we made their mess in the 1970's, we owe it to them to give them their country back. at least we aren't targeting civilians and will build them a city hall when something goes awry. certainly beats what the warlords we armed and funded are doing to them.

We also weren't "targeting civilians" in Iraq. I wonder, what happened to those 1 million Iraqis who were killed? Maybe the world just opened up and swallowed them.

clark_kent · July 2008

_outlaw wrote:

We also weren't "targeting civilians" in Iraq. I wonder, what happened to those 1 million Iraqis who were killed? Maybe the world just opened up and swallowed them.

maybe we shouldn't have been there in the first place. that's the point. iraq and afrghanistan are two totally different situations.

but you prove my point. this is exactly why i didnt believe you were "only talking about afghan." your type always have the second line there... that all wars are the same and eventually it will always come back to iraq.

you claim that obama's quote was obviously about afghanistan, becos he has talked about afghanistan in the past. but you show no proof that is what he was talking about, and then when challenged you start talking about iraq.

let's stop the smokescreens. the reason this comment bothers you is becos you take it as evidence that he's just like dubya and has no problem starting wars when and where he pleases. you've been hooked and sunk like everyone else. iraq was a mistake and anyone who denies it is a moron. but that doesn't mean any exercise of military force is per se wrong, evil, misguided, or hawkishness. we were in afghan long before iraq and rightly so. obama talking about afghan is simply showing that he understands the difference between necessary and unnecessary conflicts and he wants to get our military back to focusing on real terrorism, not settling old scores or making oil-rich land grabs.

RolandTD20Kdrummer · July 2008

clark_kent wrote:

iraq and afrghanistan are two totally different situations.

Question....are they? if so....how so?

fuck · July 2008

clark_kent wrote:

maybe we shouldn't have been there in the first place. that's the point. iraq and afrghanistan are two totally different situations.

but you prove my point. this is exactly why i didnt believe you were "only talking about afghan." your type always have the second line there... that all wars are the same and eventually it will always come back to iraq.

My type? what are you talking about? How is any war different from the other? Just because you think it's a "necessary" war in Afghanistan, thousands and hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians won't die?

you claim that obama's quote was obviously about afghanistan, becos he has talked about afghanistan in the past. but you show no proof that is what he was talking about, and then when challenged you start talking about iraq.

When challenged I talk about Iraq...

have you even read my posts? I didn't claim it was OBVIOUSLY about Afghanistan. I said:

_outlaw wrote:

Well, of course I could be wrong. Still, I don't think my assumption that he was talking about Afghanistan - saying the same thing he's been saying the whole time - is far off.

And I brought up Iraq to mention the innocent civilians that always die in these wars. Obama has repeatedly said the EXACT same statements of "continuing the war on terror" IN AFGHANISTAN. My assumption is probably so close to home, it's not even funny.

let's stop the smokescreens. the reason this comment bothers you is becos you take it as evidence that he's just like dubya and has no problem starting wars when and where he pleases. you've been hooked and sunk like everyone else. iraq was a mistake and anyone who denies it is a moron. but that doesn't mean any exercise of military force is per se wrong, evil, misguided, or hawkishness.

why do people always just come off and tell me what I think? he's not just like Bush, and I never said he has no problem starting wars. He has said he doesn't have a problem keeping military options on the table, and that upsets me. And he said he would continue the war in Afghanistan and that upsets me.

we were in afghan long before iraq and rightly so. obama talking about afghan is simply showing that he understands the difference between necessary and unnecessary conflicts and he wants to get our military back to focusing on real terrorism, not settling old scores or making oil-rich land grabs.

You're always ignoring civilians living in these areas. And what's hypocritical is that 9/11 is a tragedy here, but the war on Afghanistan is "necessary"...

EDIT: oh, also, smart job ignoring my previous post.

RolandTD20Kdrummer · July 2008

Iraq at one point was experiencing a 9/11 *per day* of life lost for months and months.

That was necessary yet inadequate levels of death apparently.

It seems 9/11 will never be vindicated....only further justified.....

What is it 1000 lives for every person who died in the WTC towers?

I dunno....a 1000.... Is that a high enough number to feel better about it? to "win"?

Maybe 10,000 lives per person will compensate?

maybe it's never enough.

angelica · July 2008

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

maybe it's never enough.

Maybe it'll always be about the ugliness and violence that goes denied in the human heart, and that as we deny it, we project it blindly outward onto others....

"Continue the war against terrorism........

Comments

Categories