Has WWIII Started and if so when?

[Braincase]

Was it 9/11? Was it before or after? Was it yesterday, or when the US invaded Iraq and Afghanistan? Was it when Osama orgainzed Al Qaeda?

[Mr. Kotter]

No.

Just some cowards who need their ass whipped.

[Logical]

IMO there has really only been one World War, to me WWI was a very large regional conflict. We won't know when WWII begins but will realize it when at least 2/3 of the worlds nations are impacted.

[oldandslow]

From www.cnn.com

"Israel’s foreign ministry says it has information that Lebanese guerrillas are trying to transfer the captured Israeli soldiers to Iran, The Associated Press reports. CNN is working to confirm."

If this is true...well...

Damn -

[banyon]

IMO there has really only been one World War, to me WWI was a very large regional conflict. We won't know when WWII begins but will realize it when at least 2/3 of the worlds nations are impacted.

Logical,

this isn't enough for you?

In August 1914, French and British Empire forces invaded the German protectorate of Togoland in West Africa. Shortly thereafter, on August 10, German forces based in South-West Africa attacked South Africa. An Anglo-Indian army was raised, which landed in Basra in November 1914. New Zealand occupied German Samoa (later Western Samoa) on August 30. On September 11, the Australian Naval and Military Expeditionary Force landed on the island of Neu Pommern (later New Britain), which formed part of German New Guinea. Japan seized Germany’s Micronesian colonies and the German coaling port of Qingdao, in the Chinese Shandong peninsula. Within a few months, the Allied forces had seized all the German territories in the Pacific. However, sporadic and fierce fighting continued in East Africa for the remainder of the war, as German forces recruited native soldiers and evaded capture

Also a map of the participants in green.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/4/4f/WWI-re.png/300px-WWI-re.png

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Participants_in_World_War_I

[patteeu]

My opinion is YES. Some say that the Cold War was WW III and that this is WW IV, but who's counting. I'm not sure exactly what should count as the beginning, but when all is said and done, if the history books start referring to this as WW III (or WW IV), I think they will say it was ignited by 9/11 because even though islamists like al Qaeda were trying to get it started earlier, 9/11 is when our side decided to fight back in a significant way.

[htismaqe]

Logical,

this isn't enough for you?

In August 1914, French and British Empire forces invaded the German protectorate of Togoland in West Africa. Shortly thereafter, on August 10, German forces based in South-West Africa attacked South Africa. An Anglo-Indian army was raised, which landed in Basra in November 1914. New Zealand occupied German Samoa (later Western Samoa) on August 30. On September 11, the Australian Naval and Military Expeditionary Force landed on the island of Neu Pommern (later New Britain), which formed part of German New Guinea. Japan seized Germany’s Micronesian colonies and the German coaling port of Qingdao, in the Chinese Shandong peninsula. Within a few months, the Allied forces had seized all the German territories in the Pacific. However, sporadic and fierce fighting continued in East Africa for the remainder of the war, as German forces recruited native soldiers and evaded capture

Also a map of the participants in green.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/4/4f/WWI-re.png/300px-WWI-re.png

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Participants_in_World_War_I

Yep. WWI was far more than a regional conflict.

[ct]

I wouldn't say it just yet. But if it leads to a full scale conflict b/n Israel and Syria/Iran, then the US/EU will quickly jump in as well. Once that occurs, Russia will decide whose side they are on, best case they pull the isolationist card and stay out.

Worst case Russia supports Iran, then N.Korea decides to truly flake out, dragging S.Korea and Japan into things, forcing China to decide as well. That would be very bad news...

And don't forget Kashmir...might as well settle that one too.

[BIG_DADDY]

I'm tired of ****ing around let's do this thing.

[Rausch]

I'm tired of ****ing around let's do this thing.

Slow down there trigger I'm in no hurry to glow in the dark...

[sedated]

if France hasn't surrendered, it isn't a World War

[memyselfI]

Was it 9/11? Was it before or after? Was it yesterday, or when the US invaded Iraq and Afghanistan? Was it when Osama orgainzed Al Qaeda?

It sure feels like a major unsettled period going on here and there is really no one on an international stage with the integrity and respect to put a stop to it. Looks like Cowboy diplomacy might be the last word afterall. :rolleyes: :shake: :banghead:

[BIG_DADDY]

Slow down there trigger I'm in no hurry to glow in the dark...

Yea well it almost seems inevitable and on a military basis we are not going to be in a much better position than we are over the next 10 years.

[Radar Chief]

if France hasn't surrendered, it isn't a World War

:LOL: End of discussion. ROFL

[Lzen]

if France hasn't surrendered, it isn't a World War

[ct]

if France hasn't surrendered, it isn't a World War

Damn that's good stuff

[Nightwish]

Was it 9/11? Was it before or after? Was it yesterday, or when the US invaded Iraq and Afghanistan? Was it when Osama orgainzed Al Qaeda?
It started when Sue Ellen shot JR.

[Logical]

Logical,

this isn't enough for you?

In August 1914, French and British Empire forces invaded the German protectorate of Togoland in West Africa. Shortly thereafter, on August 10, German forces based in South-West Africa attacked South Africa. An Anglo-Indian army was raised, which landed in Basra in November 1914. New Zealand occupied German Samoa (later Western Samoa) on August 30. On September 11, the Australian Naval and Military Expeditionary Force landed on the island of Neu Pommern (later New Britain), which formed part of German New Guinea. Japan seized Germany’s Micronesian colonies and the German coaling port of Qingdao, in the Chinese Shandong peninsula. Within a few months, the Allied forces had seized all the German territories in the Pacific. However, sporadic and fierce fighting continued in East Africa for the remainder of the war, as German forces recruited native soldiers and evaded capture

Also a map of the participants in green.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/4/4f/WWI-re.png/300px-WWI-re.png

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Participants_in_World_War_I

Because so many fewer died approx 12 mil vs the 63 mil of WW II my guess is I was deceived into thinking far fewer countries participated. From what I can tell though most of the actual fighting was confined to the European and Middle Eastern theatres with only minor skirmishs on fronts such as Eastern China, some Pacific Islands and parts of Africa. Clearly I was wrong though.

[Logical]

Yea well it almost seems inevitable and on a military basis we are not going to be in a much better position than we are over the next 10 years.

The facts are we are in horrible shape to fight a World War, we are barely able to sustain a single country war/occupation.

[Adept Havelock]

I'm not sure it has, yet. I'm still fairly certain that the "World War" ended around 1991 with the collapse of the Soviet Union. I tend to take the view of the "General War" of the 20th century in a manner similar to how we now view the 100 years war. I think of it as one conflict, i.e. totalitarian vs. democratic states (with a couple of notable exceptions). Some of the players switched sides, depending on which round it was, but the fundamental conflict of the war (hot or cold) never changed all that much. :shrug:

[memyselfI]

The facts are we are in horrible shape to fight a World War, we are barely able to sustain a single country war/occupation.

And that country had many of their resources depleted with the Iran/Iraq war and the previous Gulf War...

[FringeNC]

It might be a world war in the sense that Islamic fascists are committing atrocities all over the world, but the military aspect of the war will be confined for the forseeable future to Syria and Iran.

[WoodDraw]

No, not in the context of the entire world being involved in a single conflict. That's not to say that things don't suck right now. I doubt it will escalate beyond the individual conflicts going on right now though.

[Laz]

Has WWIII Started and if so when?
the day Bush was elected?!? :shrug:

[stevieray]

The facts are we are in horrible shape to fight a World War, we are barely able to sustain a single country war/occupation.

Barely able to sustain what? Between you and Denise, sounds like our military is incapable of fighting..

IMO, 9/11 is the catalyst, if one exists.

[Bowser]

It's been argued that WWIII has already come and gone with the cold war, and we are looking at World War IV.

[listopencil]

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/attachment.php?attachmentid=59538&stc=1




Oh ****. That was some funny shit right there.

[Rausch]

It's been argued that WWIII has already come and gone with the cold war, and we are looking at World War IV.

Yes it has.

In this thread even...

[patteeu]

It sure feels like a major unsettled period going on here and there is really no one on an international stage with the integrity and respect to put a stop to it. Looks like Cowboy diplomacy might be the last word afterall. :rolleyes: :shake: :banghead:

What's "Cowboy diplomacy?"

[Radar Chief]

What's "Cowboy diplomacy?"

Anything that doesn’t mesh with’er Ian Fleming induced fantasies. ;)

[Radar Chief]

the day Bush was elected?!? :shrug:

Exactly, and anything that’s happened regardless of the circumstances is vicariously teh Debils fault, ‘cause he got elected. :rolleyes:

[StcChief]

This really all began in 1948 when Isreal was declared a state by UN

That has completely inflamed the Muslims there calling for Jihad and removal of Isreal.

Different wars, attacks just keep fueling it.

Trying to clean up the area with democratic govt in
Afganistan, Iraq... just causes it to escalate faster.

[oldandslow]

On the one side we have Moslems who feel like they are the chosen people and all others are infidels.

On the other side we have Jews who feel like they are the chosen people and all others are infidels.

On the third side we have Christians who feel like they are the chosen people and all others are infidels.

And then, in India, we have Hindus who none of the above three like.

Add a little poverty, much demagoguery, some tyrants, colonialism and wah - lah....instant recipe for disaster.

[Cochise]

Exactly, and anything that’s happened regardless of the circumstances is vicariously teh Debils fault, ‘cause he got elected. :rolleyes:

Can't you see how he started this Israel / Hezbollah thing? :)

[Laz]

Exactly, and anything that’s happened regardless of the circumstances is vicariously teh Debils fault, ‘cause he got elected. :rolleyes:
he's teh debbil, he's teh debbil i tell ya!!


The power of Christ compels you
The power of Christ compels you


out debbil, out.












:p

[Nightwish]

What's "Cowboy diplomacy?"
Conducting oneself without close regard for the law of the land, flexing one's muscles by attacking an enemy that is far too weak to present much of a fight in return (like we did to the Indians, like we did with Iraq), arguing that an opponent is much more of a threat than they really are (like we did to the Indians, like we did with Iraq).

[Lurch]

Conducting oneself without close regard for the law of the land, flexing one's muscles by attacking an enemy that is far too weak to present much of a fight in return (like we did to the Indians, like we did with Iraq), arguing that an opponent is much more of a threat than they really are (like we did to the Indians, like we did with Iraq).
For the love of God...:rolleyes:

Somebody sure brainwashed you good.

[Nightwish]

For the love of God...:rolleyes:

Somebody sure brainwashed you good.Which part of my comment were you previously unaware of? Seems all three points are pretty common knowledge.

[BIG_DADDY]

The facts are we are in horrible shape to fight a World War, we are barely able to sustain a single country war/occupation.


Not from a nuclear standpoint were not.

[BIG_DADDY]

And that country had many of their resources depleted with the Iran/Iraq war and the previous Gulf War...

STFU you stupid Islamic gunt. If we would do what is necessary there wouldn't be anymore Islamic POS like you or your freedom fighters. We are the baddest MOFO's in the world bar none.

[patteeu]

Conducting oneself without close regard for the law of the land

I don't know what that means.

[F]lexing one's muscles by attacking an enemy that is far too weak to present much of a fight in return (like we did to the Indians, like we did with Iraq)

And like we did in Afghanistan, the Balkans, Iraq circa 1990, Panama, Somolia, Grenada, Haiti, etc. etc. etc.?

[A]rguing that an opponent is much more of a threat than they really are (like we did to the Indians, like we did with Iraq).

I wouldn't include Iraq or the Indians on that list.

[Nightwish]

I don't know what that means.
Yes, you do. We've discussed his disregard and creative interpretation of the law ad nauseum, and you've been right in the thick of those discussions, so you know full well what it means. Don't play ignorant now.

And like we did in Afghanistan, the Balkans, Iraq circa 1990, Panama, Somolia, Grenada, Haiti, etc. etc. etc.?
And?

I wouldn't include Iraq or the Indians on that list.
For the most part, the Indians were peaceful and willing to coexist with the white man. They weren't a threat to our existence or our settlement of this country. We started that conflict, not them. As for Iraq, I understand that you're still waiting and hoping that some significant evidence of the threat that you imagined Iraq to be will still come to the surface someday. So far it hasn't. So far everything that has come to the surface has shown Iraq to be belligerent, boastful, and even willing to collaborate with terrorist against Israel and Iran, but not a particular threat to the United States.

[ct]

And that country had many of their resources depleted with the Iran/Iraq war and the previous Gulf War...

Don't be stupid mememe, we're no longer fighting a national army. Your point is round.

[Hog Farmer]

If I may make a prediction. I forsee in the very near future that a nuclear weapon will be smuggled in to Israel, probably from Iran, and there will be no doubt that WWIII has in fact began.

[Always a Chief fan]

Hey Hogfarmer, you should see if you could get a government contract providing porkburgers to those poor, mistreated, freedom fighting cousins of Islamabitch.

[go bowe]

Exactly, and anything that’s happened regardless of the circumstances is vicariously teh Debils fault, ‘cause he got elected. :rolleyes:what do you mean, vicariuosly?

da debil is directly responsible for everything from global warming to marital infidelity...

[Mr. Kotter]

what do you mean, vicariuosly?

da debil is directly responsible for everything from global warming to marital infidelity...

No, no....infidelity was Clinton.

[go bowe]

there you go again, blaming clinton for everything... :p :p :p

[Braincase]

After carefully considering all possible answers, the best I can come up with is "I sure as hell hope not".

[oldandslow]

Since I have been labeled a pessimist by so many on this board, here is my "pessimistic" of what could happen...

I think that Isreal may be looking for an excuse...*any* excuse to move against Iran, even if they have to invent one (Which, btw, is justifiable in many ways). They are sick and tired of America's song-and-dance and want to act. The kidnapped soldiers are obviously a perfect excuse.

Israel has gotten tired of waiting for America and the UN to solve their Iran problem, so they are going to act unilaterally. In order to do this, Israeli aircraft will have to violate Iraqi airspace to reach Iranian targets. However, imo, Isreal will not use nukes. We will, of course, do nothing to prevent it, which will be seen in Iran as America's tacit approval. Iran will respond by firing cruise missles at anything passing through the Strait of Hormuz, contacting their agents in Saudi Arabia and activating their suicide squads all over the region.

Syria, because of its pact with Iran, attacks Isreal. Putin, having vested interests in Iran, demands that the US stay out of the conflict.

The entire middle east oil field winds up in flames.

[Brock]

The entire middle east oil field winds up in flames.

Could be the best thing that ever happened.

[oldandslow]

Could be the best thing that ever happened.

It would "wean" us, wouldn't it.

[ct]

Could be the best thing that ever happened.

So long as the US and Russia stay out of direct involvement, it very well could be.

[Adept Havelock]

Yeah, the collapse of the Japanese and European economic systems (the primary recipients of ME oil) couldn't possibly hurt this country, could it.

[stevieray]

Yeah, the collapse of the Japanese and European economic systems (the primary recipients of ME oil) couldn't possibly hurt this country, could it.

yup, we'd all be forced to drive crappy american cars...;)

[Adept Havelock]

yup, we'd all be forced to drive crappy american cars...;)
:LOL:

Don't let wreckedjake hear ya.....

[jettio]

if France hasn't surrendered, it isn't a World War

France has nuclear weapons, missle technology, nuclear submarines, and advanced fighter aircraft.

Nobody is about to f*ck with them.

Just because they were smart enough not to trust B*sh and go along with his folly in Iraq, does not mean that they can't whup most every other military in the world. They can.

I bet most Americans that fell for that Freedom Fries bullsh*t do not even realize the weapons and capability that France has.

[Adept Havelock]

France has nuclear weapons, missle technology, nuclear submarines, and advanced fighter aircraft.

Nobody is about to f*ck with them.

Just because they were smart enough not to trust B*sh and go along with his folly in Iraq, does not mean that they can't whup most every other military in the world. They can.

I bet most Americans that fell for that Freedom Fries bullsh*t do not even realize the weapons and capability that France has.

They are also the only nation other than the US with a CVN.

That said, the average soldat has usually fought with Elan. The failures of the French military have historically been by their military leadership, the bad doctrine promoted by that leadership, and of course the endless supply of political buffoons. (Exhibit A- Dien Bien Phu)

No one who knows the story of Il Ne Passera Pas, and studied that battle would criticize the bravery of the average soldier. Their generals are another matter.

In a way, they remind me a bit of the old Russian military (pre-USSR). If the soldiers considered the war just, they'd fight like mad. If not, they'd usually say to hell with it, and go home.

[BucEyedPea]

Of course it didn't help having someone like Napolean or even Petain in their ranks. :)

[Adept Havelock]

Of course it didn't help having someone like Napolean or even Petain in their ranks. :)

I'll give you Petain, but Napoleon? Only one of the best Field Generals in history. Not to mention the only French general (other than De Gaulle) to ever realize that you concentrate your heavy forces (Arty and Cav) at the Schwerpunkt. Only time he didn't was the only battle he lost. :shrug:

As for Napoleon and Grand Strategy...non. Going after Russia=Decisive Strategic Blunder. Ranks up there with getting involved in a land war in SE Asia, or going up against a Sicilian with Death on the Line. ;)

But as an "Operational" military leader, he has very few peers, IMNSHO.

Napoleon aside, your point is well taken. Petain, Foch, Navarre, etc.

[BucEyedPea]

I didn't mean "Bony" in a military skills sense...I meant the fact that he was belligerent and ravished Europe...as in that usually cures a nation of such unecessary exploits.

[Adept Havelock]

I didn't mean "Bony" in a military skills sense...I meant the fact that he was belligerent and ravished Europe...as in that usually cures a nation of such unecessary exploits.

:thumb:

Heck, it cured some of my ancestors. After the last two tries, I'm sure they are aware if they try it again, Central Europe will have a very large Parking Lot north of Switzerland.

[Rausch]

France has nuclear weapons, missle technology, nuclear submarines, and advanced fighter aircraft.

Nobody is about to f*ck with them.


The government is even afraid of their own citizens and immigrant population.


Just because they were smart enough not to trust B*sh and go along with his folly in Iraq, does not mean that they can't whup most every other military in the world. They can.

Let the Iraq war teach us at least one very important lesson: accurate intelligence is everything.

Nukes aside I'd put a bill on England or even Israel (on the defensive, not an invasion) taking France. Germany's military has accomplished a lot in under 20 years and with them electing more Merkel-minded people and Bush soon leaving our ties with them will only grow stronger. They've got some pretty impressive artillary and tanks already.

And you also have to take into account the French mindset. This is a culture that's had their asses kicked plenty and prefer to avoid conflict whenever possible. Any type of long term conflict and the people would lose their $3it in no time...

[go bowe]

bridgette bardot was fine...

so fine...

[jettio]

The government is even afraid of their own citizens and immigrant population.




Let the Iraq war teach us at least one very important lesson: accurate intelligence is everything.

Nukes aside I'd put a bill on England or even Israel (on the defensive, not an invasion) taking France. Germany's military has accomplished a lot in under 20 years and with them electing more Merkel-minded people and Bush soon leaving our ties with them will only grow stronger. They've got some pretty impressive artillary and tanks already.

And you also have to take into account the French mindset. This is a culture that's had their asses kicked plenty and prefer to avoid conflict whenever possible. Any type of long term conflict and the people would lose their $3it in no time...

The one very important lesson should be let's not have an incompetent lying sack of Raiduhs trick people like you into falling for a bad idea and then further trick you into buying into their bullsh*t excuses and explanations.

Every nation on this earth knew that Iraq was not about to attack the United States, every nation knew that B*sh was going to invade that country no matter what, even when every other nation knew that UN inspections would be sufficient to ensure that Saddam's broke-dick regime would remain meaningless.

I don't pretend to know anything about another country's "mindset."

Our country re-elected a proven incompetent lying sack of Raiduhs moron, we need to improve our country a lot more before we insult a country that has been proven correct not to go along with King Dipsh*t.

[stevieray]

I hope you use more than the dipshit mantra when reoresenting your clients.

;)

[Braincase]

Could be the best thing that ever happened.

Hoping for the "Rapture", Brock?

[patteeu]

The one very important lesson should be let's not have an incompetent lying sack of Raiduhs trick people like you into falling for a bad idea and then further trick you into buying into their bullsh*t excuses and explanations.

Every nation on this earth knew that Iraq was not about to attack the United States, every nation knew that B*sh was going to invade that country no matter what, even when every other nation knew that UN inspections would be sufficient to ensure that Saddam's broke-dick regime would remain meaningless.

I don't pretend to know anything about another country's "mindset."

Our country re-elected a proven incompetent lying sack of Raiduhs moron, we need to improve our country a lot more before we insult a country that has been proven correct not to go along with King Dipsh*t.

Afghanistan wasn't about to attack us either. We all knew that. That doesn't have anything to do with why Iraq was targeted.

[jettio]

Afghanistan wasn't about to attack us either. We all knew that. That doesn't have anything to do with why Iraq was targeted.

I did not know that there was any bogus propaganda campaign to get national and allied support for going into Afghanistan.

There was not really any need for B*sh to badmouth our allies when he was trying to do something that would have made sense if it was done right.

[patteeu]

I did not know that there was any bogus propaganda campaign to get national and allied support for going into Afghanistan.

There was not really any need for B*sh to badmouth our allies when he was trying to do something that would have made sense if it was done right.

When did the Bush administration say that Iraq was about to attack us? On the contrary, I remember them avoiding the use of the word imminent in favor of the word gathering.

Maybe you're the one involved in a bogus propaganda campaign? Is this a solo effort or are you part of a group?

[patteeu]

Gingrich Says It's World War III

Former U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich says America is in World War III and President Bush should say so. In an interview in Bellevue this morning Gingrich said Bush should call a joint session of Congress the first week of September and talk about global military conflicts in much starker terms than have been heard from the president.

more... (http://blog.seattletimes.nwsource.com/davidpostman/archives/2006/07/gingrich_says_its_world_war_iii.html)

[Nightwish]

Gingrich Says It's World War III

Former U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich says America is in World War III and President Bush should say so. In an interview in Bellevue this morning Gingrich said Bush should call a joint session of Congress the first week of September and talk about global military conflicts in much starker terms than have been heard from the president.

more... (http://blog.seattletimes.nwsource.com/davidpostman/archives/2006/07/gingrich_says_its_world_war_iii.html)If we're already in WWIII, then why wait until September? I'm sure it has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that waiting until September will keep it much more freshly in the minds of the voters at election time, and that tough talk on war always galvanizes the conservative voting block to go to the polls. Nah, I'm sure it has nothing to do with that at all!

[patteeu]

If we're already in WWIII, then why wait until September? I'm sure it has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that waiting until September will keep it much more freshly in the minds of the voters at election time, and that tough talk on war always galvanizes the conservative voting block to go to the polls. Nah, I'm sure it has nothing to do with that at all!

If you'd read the article, you'd have discovered that Gingrich isn't shy about admitting that part of the reason he thinks the President should more clearly articulate this point in these terms is political. So what?

[Nightwish]

If you'd read the article, you'd have discovered that Gingrich isn't shy about admitting that part of the reason he thinks the President should more clearly articulate this point in these terms is political. So what?I'm thinking it's more than "part of the reason," and much closer to "the whole reason." Actually, I'd say "the main reason" probably sums it up best.

And do you know why he wants to wait until September, even if he feels we're already there (in which case, it needs to be talked about now, not 2 months from now)? Because if they talk about it now, and decide not to act, then all their primping and posing will be exposed, and people will realize just how hesitant they are to actually engage an enemy that can fight back. And if they talk about it now and decide to act, then there is way too much time left between now and the elections for them to either totally fug it up (good chance, considering their track record with incompetency so far), or for our troops to take heavy losses, which will hurt them at the ballot box. From a GOP standpoint, better to let an already serious situation fester for another couple months, and preserve their chances at the ballot box, than to risk mistakes or losses and hurt their chances at the ballot box. Long story short, ballot box more important than WWIII.

[Otter]

The facts are we are in horrible shape to fight a World War, we are barely able to sustain a single country war/occupation.

Actually, we totally whipped their ass in the war aspect of the conflict. It's the rebuilding phase where our military is taking the majority of it's lumps.

I don't think our military is going to be quiet as worried about rebuilding a country that actually provoked at strike.

[patteeu]

I'm thinking it's more than "part of the reason," and much closer to "the whole reason." Actually, I'd say "the main reason" probably sums it up best.

And do you know why he wants to wait until September, even if he feels we're already there (in which case, it needs to be talked about now, not 2 months from now)? Because if they talk about it now, and decide not to act, then all their primping and posing will be exposed, and people will realize just how hesitant they are to actually engage an enemy that can fight back. And if they talk about it now and decide to act, then there is way too much time left between now and the elections for them to either totally fug it up (good chance, considering their track record with incompetency so far), or for our troops to take heavy losses, which will hurt them at the ballot box. From a GOP standpoint, better to let an already serious situation fester for another couple months, and preserve their chances at the ballot box, than to risk mistakes or losses and hurt their chances at the ballot box. Long story short, ballot box more important than WWIII.

ROFL Don't you want to let diplomacy have a chance to defuse the situation?[/TIC]

I agree with your analysis to some degree. The home front has to be taken into account or our Nightwish Murthas will have us surrendering before the fight has really even begun.

[chubychecker]

I think the real reason we went into Iraq was to provide a basis for a U.S. military presence in the mideast. Good idea really; but it has been much harder to sustain than originally thought. This conflict in the mideast is not going away. Imagine if in the future Iraq can be used as an ally against the other wacko's.

I wonder though if us removing saddam from power has actually worked against us. Do you think with their volatile history that saddam would have ever allowed Iran to develop nuke weapons. I think not.

[go bowe]

I think the real reason we went into Iraq was to provide a basis for a U.S. military presence in the mideast. Good idea really; but it has been much harder to sustain than originally thought. This conflict in the mideast is not going away. Imagine if in the future Iraq can be used as an ally against the other wacko's.

I wonder though if us removing saddam from power has actually worked against us. Do you think with their volatile history that saddam would have ever allowed Iran to develop nuke weapons. I think not.and how, exactly, would saddammit have stopped them?

his little war (lasting what, 8 years?) against iran was a stalemate and iran is stronger than ever...

[memyselfI]

I think the real reason we went into Iraq was to provide a basis for a U.S. military presence in the mideast. Good idea really; but it has been much harder to sustain than originally thought. This conflict in the mideast is not going away. Imagine if in the future Iraq can be used as an ally against the other wacko's.

I wonder though if us removing saddam from power has actually worked against us. Do you think with their volatile history that saddam would have ever allowed Iran to develop nuke weapons. I think not.

Yes, that is true. SH provided a loathsome, if necessary, balance of power . The Iraq war has also exposed the fact that the US needs to win by the air. If we get sucked into a ground conflict we are on a more level playing field and victory is neither swift or guaranteed. This works to the advantage of the countries like Iran and Syria because there is no way the world would be 'with us' to level Iran or Syria by air. They have too many friends and, as of now, we have made too many enemies.

Not to mention, our 'friends', the Saudis, have recently sent $50 million dollars to Lebanon as they've requested assistance. With 'friends' like that...

I predicted almost four years ago that Iraq would be a debacle that reached far beyond the borders of their country and recent events have indicated we are just now seeing the beginning of how bad the decision to go to war there might be. :shake:

[chubychecker]

do you really think sadumbass would have laid down and allowed Iran to get this strong, if he wasn't worried about U.S. retaliation?

[memyselfI]

and how, exactly, would saddammit have stopped them?

his little war (lasting what, 8 years?) against iran was a stalemate and iran is stronger than ever...


500 WMD that are less toxic than the chemicals in your garage would have been a welcome and tolerable point of contention vs. the possibility of Iran going nuclear. The US could have made nice with Iraq if there had been less a personal vendetta inhabiting the WH. It seems a rather strange possiblity now but six years ago and a different POTUS, who knows.

As it is Iran has had SH removed, the US weakened, and will still get some sort of nuclear power. They got everything they could possibly want (with the exception of the disappearance of Israel) and the US helped them get it. :hmmm: :rolleyes:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060716/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iran_nuclear

The package includes economic incentives and a provision for the United States to offer Iran some nuclear technology, lift some sanctions and join direct negotiations. The proposal also calls for Iran to impose a long-term moratorium on uranium enrichment — which can produce civilian reactor fuel or fissile bomb material.

I truly believe Iran (rather the nutjobs who've hijacked & run the country) has gotten stronger as the US has spent time, energy, political capital, and tons of money stuck in a quagmire in Iraq. Another of those unintended consequences of the decision to go to war in Iraq.

[Logical]

Actually, we totally whipped their ass in the war aspect of the conflict. It's the rebuilding phase where our military is taking the majority of it's lumps.

I don't think our military is going to be quiet as worried about rebuilding a country that actually provoked at strike.I am talking about our ability to put a million troops on the ground around the world with equipment. We just do not have that kind of ability and a WW today is not going allow the slow buildup that occurred for WWII.

[stevieray]

that...

I predicted almost four years ago that Iraq would be a debacle that reached far beyond the borders of their country and recent events have indicated we are just now seeing the beginning of how bad the decision to go to war there might be. :shake:

Only because you claim any setback as validation for your opinion.

In fact everyone here who has been crying for two years has nothing more than that, other than to claim to know more about War than those executing it.

[Rausch]

[i]Gingrich Says It's World War III


Gingrich is a ****ing idiot.

[mlyonsd]

500 WMD that are less toxic than the chemicals in your garage would have been a welcome and tolerable point of contention vs. the possibility of Iran going nuclear.

Good, we can bury them in your backyard then since we were looking for something to do with them.

The US could have made nice with Iraq if there had been less a personal vendetta inhabiting the WH. It seems a rather strange possiblity now but six years ago and a different POTUS, who knows.

This has to be one of the dumbest things you have ever posted. No, really, I mean absolutely insane stupid.

I wonder why your beloved leaders Clinton/Gore didn't do what you are suggesting. They only had, what, 8 years to do so?

Serious, the hate has eaten away your brain.

[patteeu]

and how, exactly, would saddammit have stopped them?

his little war (lasting what, 8 years?) against iran was a stalemate and iran is stronger than ever...

Not only that, but it was only a stalemate because we came to Saddam's rescue to maintain the precious "stability" of the region. Without our help, Saddam was facing defeat. And that was before we crushed his military in the first Gulf War.

[patteeu]

500 WMD that are less toxic than the chemicals in your garage would have been a welcome and tolerable point of contention vs. the possibility of Iran going nuclear. The US could have made nice with Iraq if there had been less a personal vendetta inhabiting the WH. It seems a rather strange possiblity now but six years ago and a different POTUS, who knows.

What an incredibly dumb thing to say. Do you really think that Al Gore was going to reverse Bill Clinton's policy of regime change toward Saddam's Iraq? You're really in lala land lady.

As it is Iran has had SH removed, the US weakened, and will still get some sort of nuclear power. They got everything they could possibly want (with the exception of the disappearance of Israel) and the US helped them get it. :hmmm: :rolleyes:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060716/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iran_nuclear

The package includes economic incentives and a provision for the United States to offer Iran some nuclear technology, lift some sanctions and join direct negotiations. The proposal also calls for Iran to impose a long-term moratorium on uranium enrichment — which can produce civilian reactor fuel or fissile bomb material.

I truly believe Iran (rather the nutjobs who've hijacked & run the country) has gotten stronger as the US has spent time, energy, political capital, and tons of money stuck in a quagmire in Iraq. Another of those unintended consequences of the decision to go to war in Iraq.

If you guys have your way, America will be worse off for having invaded Iraq. If Bush remains resolute and pushes on with the GWoT as a broader war against radical islamists (including Hezbollah and Hamas and their state sponsors) then we are better off today than we were before we invaded Iraq.

[patteeu]

This has to be one of the dumbest things you have ever posted. No, really, I mean absolutely insane stupid.

I wonder why your beloved leaders Clinton/Gore didn't do what you are suggesting. They only had, what, 8 years to do so?

Serious, the hate has eaten away your brain.

LOL, apparently we had a similar reaction.

[Nightwish]

ROFL Don't you want to let diplomacy have a chance to defuse the situation?[/TIC]
If we do go to war against Iran (or North Korea), I would like for it to be under the leadership of someone who knows what the f*** they are doing.

I agree with your analysis to some degree. The home front has to be taken into account or our Nightwish Murthas will have us surrendering before the fight has really even begun.
If you've paid any attention to my posts at all, you'd know that I don't agree with Murtha. Before the escalation of sectarian violence changed all the rules, I still didn't agree with him. He called for a complete withdrawal as soon as it was practical to do so, while I would prefer a regimented withdrawal, a little bit at a time. The closest I've come to being in full agreement with him is when I said that if Iraq does descend into all-out civil war, then we need to just get our people out, get 'em home, cut our losses and count it as a lesson learned. I'm not convinced yet that all-out civil war is inevitable, though it certainly looks likely. Murtha has changed his rhetoric somewhat, suggesting that he believes that situation is already happening. But it wouldn't surprise me if you had forgotten all the times I've said as much. Should I just add those items to the growing list things you deliberately ignore or omit because they don't fit your spin?

[memyselfI]

What an incredibly dumb thing to say. Do you really think that Al Gore was going to reverse Bill Clinton's policy of regime change toward Saddam's Iraq? You're really in lala land lady.



If you guys have your way, America will be worse off for having invaded Iraq. If Bush remains resolute and pushes on with the GWoT as a broader war against radical islamists (including Hezbollah and Hamas and their state sponsors) then we are better off today than we were before we invaded Iraq.

Bill Clinton may have talked about regime change in Iraq but he did nothing to make it happen...that was likely not an accident. Just as GHWB didn't make it happen either. Why? For the very reasons we are seeing today. They understood the domino effect. GWB never did.

That is not to say Al Gore or a Dem would have become allies with Iraq. The point was they would have continued the status quo of allowing him to stay simply as a means to counterbalance the region. Remember, SH did not run Iraq as a radical Islamic state. Anyone with less a personal stake in removing SH might have seen the wisdom in keeping him there only as a means of stopping the spread of radicalized Islam that threatens to sweep the region. The type that has seen growth WITHIN Iraq now that SH is gone. Tragic irony, isn't it? :hmmm:

[patteeu]

If we do go to war against Iran (or North Korea), I would like for it to be under the leadership of someone who knows what the f*** they are doing.


If you've paid any attention to my posts at all, you'd know that I don't agree with Murtha. Before the escalation of sectarian violence changed all the rules, I still didn't agree with him. He called for a complete withdrawal as soon as it was practical to do so, while I would prefer a regimented withdrawal, a little bit at a time. The closest I've come to being in full agreement with him is when I said that if Iraq does descend into all-out civil war, then we need to just get our people out, get 'em home, cut our losses and count it as a lesson learned. I'm not convinced yet that all-out civil war is inevitable, though it certainly looks likely. Murtha has changed his rhetoric somewhat, suggesting that he believes that situation is already happening. But it wouldn't surprise me if you had forgotten all the times I've said as much. Should I just add those items to the growing list things you deliberately ignore or omit because they don't fit your spin?

Whatever you say, Nightwish. I've come to realize that you never mean what you say. Words are completely flexible for you. They can mean whatever you want them to mean at any given time and they can mean something completely different at a later date when the original meaning becomes inconvenient.

[patteeu]

Bill Clinton may have talked about regime change in Iraq but he did nothing to make it happen...that was likely not an accident. Just as GHWB didn't make it happen either. Why?

It might have had something to do with the fact that they were both political cowards.

[memyselfI]

It might have had something to do with the facts that they were both political cowards and they both ran for president to be president not because they wanted to do something that they believed in.

No, it likely had something to do with the fact they believed the intelligence (and military) assessments they were given that indicated his removal would cause a whole bunch of unintended consequences. And, they also realized that the devil they knew was better than the one they didn't when it came to him.

[Nightwish]

Whatever you say, Nightwish. I've come to realize that you never mean what you say. Words are completely flexible for you. They can mean whatever you want them to mean at any given time and they can mean something completely different at a later date when the original meaning becomes inconvenient.In the psychology profession, this is called transference. You've been wrong from the start about a number of things, you've spun wildly and interpreted as creatively as any of us, but you haven't ever had the balls to admit the former, and have been too obsessed with your own arrogance to recognize the latter.

[stevieray]

In the psychology profession, this is called transference. You've been wrong from the start about a number of things, you've spun wildly and interpreted as creatively as any of us, but you haven't ever had the balls to admit the former, and have been too obsessed with your own arrogance to recognize the latter.

In reality, this post is called ironic.

[|Zach|]

<a href="http://www.rhetorica.net/">Via Rhetorica</a>

<p>It seems to me that for a war to be a world war--e.g. World War I and World War II--it must involve several major world powers fighting in several theaters of operation with sizeable numbers of armed forces for the purposes of subjugating or defending or liberating.</p>

<p><a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200607140017">A few right-wing pundits</a>--who mostly play journalists on TV--have called current conflicts in the world by WW numbers III, IV, and V.</p>

These guys--including Bill O'Reilly and Glenn Beck--are overwrought. But this is a calculated rhetorical maneuver to persuade Americans to think a certain way about the dangers of the conflicts in the Middle East. Calling these conflicts a new world war is another way to escalate the fear that drives the public acceptance of the "war on terror." This is pure <a href="http://rhetorica.net/argument.htm">pathos</a>, which is why we're getting it from TV talkers.</p>

<p>Critics who complain about this tactic (or who merely point out how dumb it is) may then be shouted down as disloyal, traitorous, unrealistic, weak...you name it. </p>

<p>This effort will fail, however, because the public may plainly see that the Bush administration is not treating these conflicts the way Wilson and Roosevelt treated the two real World Wars--and perhaps he shouldn't. Americans are being asked to sacrifice <i><b>nothing</b></i> to a war effort, e.g. money, resources, or time served in the military.</p>

[Nightwish]

In reality, this post is called ironic.Apparently, you are unaware of the meaning of "ironic." If in the post I hadn't admitted to having engaged in spin myself, it might be ironic. But it isn't ironic, because the accusation I laid upon him was that he is so obsessed with his own arrogance that he cannot recognize spin for what it is when he is the one doing it, which is not something I suffer from - when I spin, I rarely deny it. With regard to the Murtha argument, I have always admitted, from day one, that I'm merely interpreting his words from the standpoint of someone who shares his view on the war. Likewise, patteeu is interpreting his words from the standpoint of someone who holds the opposite view on the war. That's one of the two main differences between my interpretation of Murtha's words, and patteeu's. The other is that I admit as much, while pat refuses to - indeed, he wants us to believe that his opinion on the matter is tantamount to objective fact. I guess mistaking your own opinion for fact is part of being an "idealogue."

Of course, you could argue that it is ironic because I refuse to admit that I have been wrong about Murtha's words. But that still doesn't make it ironic, and do you know why? Because I've maintained from the beginning that my opinion is an opinion, and interpretation, and have not presented it as objective. If I'm proven wrong, I'll admit it, but so far, at least with regard to Murtha's comments, I haven't been proven wrong. I have an opinion, and pat has an opinion, and lacking the ability to read Murtha's mind, neither of them can be proven right or wrong, unless we were to ask Murtha himself. Of course, convincing patteeu that his opinion is an opinion, not an objective fact, is like pulling teeth.

[patteeu]

No, it likely had something to do with the fact they believed the intelligence (and military) assessments they were given that indicated his removal would cause a whole bunch of unintended consequences. And, they also realized that the devil they knew was better than the one they didn't when it came to him.

There's probably a lot of truth to that too. There's no doubt that they both worshipped at the failed, "stability" alter too.

[Radar Chief]

Bill Clinton may have talked about regime change in Iraq but he did nothing to make it happen...that was likely not an accident. Just as GHWB didn't make it happen either. Why? For the very reasons we are seeing today. They understood the domino effect. GWB never did.

Or maybe he understands the “domino effect” of sit’n on our collective thumbs and wish’n the terrorism problem away leads to their brand of violence find’n its way to our shores. :shrug:

That is not to say Al Gore or a Dem would have become allies with Iraq. The point was they would have continued the status quo of allowing him to stay simply as a means to counterbalance the region.

Right, the same ignore the terrorist support’n regimes “status quo” that lead to Sept. 11 attacks. :rolleyes:

Remember, SH did not run Iraq as a radical Islamic state. Anyone with less a personal stake in removing SH might have seen the wisdom in keeping him there only as a means of stopping the spread of radicalized Islam that threatens to sweep the region. The type that has seen growth WITHIN Iraq now that SH is gone. Tragic irony, isn't it? :hmmm:

The real “tragic irony” is your continuing ignorance on the subject that you keep spout’n off ‘bout, in the face of mounting evidence that SH supported, provided assistance and a place to hide to AQ. :shake:

[go bowe]

Whatever you say, Nightwish. I've come to realize that you never mean what you say. Words are completely flexible for you. They can mean whatever you want them to mean at any given time and they can mean something completely different at a later date when the original meaning becomes inconvenient.you say that like it's a bad thing... :p :p :p

[go bowe]

In the psychology profession, this is called transference. You've been wrong from the start about a number of things, you've spun wildly and interpreted as creatively as any of us, but you haven't ever had the balls to admit the former, and have been too obsessed with your own arrogance to recognize the latter.i dunno about the creative interpretation part...

i've always thought his interpretations of various statements and documents to be perfectly reasonable pov's, even if i don't agree with all of them...

and the arrogance part, i think maybe not so much...

self-assured for sure, but arrogant?

and the spun wildly part...

and the balls part...

but you may have something with the wrong about some things part... :D :D :D

[go bowe]

It might have had something to do with the fact that they were both political cowards.that's interesting...

care to elaborate? /donger

[go bowe]

Via Rhetorica (http://www.rhetorica.net/)

It seems to me that for a war to be a world war--e.g. World War I and World War II--it must involve several major world powers fighting in several theaters of operation with sizeable numbers of armed forces for the purposes of subjugating or defending or liberating.


A few right-wing pundits (http://mediamatters.org/items/200607140017)--who mostly play journalists on TV--have called current conflicts in the world by WW numbers III, IV, and V.


These guys--including Bill O'Reilly and Glenn Beck--are overwrought. But this is a calculated rhetorical maneuver to persuade Americans to think a certain way about the dangers of the conflicts in the Middle East. Calling these conflicts a new world war is another way to escalate the fear that drives the public acceptance of the "war on terror." This is pure pathos (http://rhetorica.net/argument.htm), which is why we're getting it from TV talkers.


Critics who complain about this tactic (or who merely point out how dumb it is) may then be shouted down as disloyal, traitorous, unrealistic, weak...you name it.


This effort will fail, however, because the public may plainly see that the Bush administration is not treating these conflicts the way Wilson and Roosevelt treated the two real World Wars--and perhaps he shouldn't. Americans are being asked to sacrifice nothing to a war effort, e.g. money, resources, or time served in the military.
i don't know about the money part (the rest i pretty much agree with)...

ten gazillion dollars a month is a lot of pocket change and it's gonna come out of somebody's pocket sooner or later...

[patteeu]

but you may have something with the wrong about some things part... :D :D :D

Nonsense! ;)

[patteeu]

that's interesting...

care to elaborate? /donger

I don't think either of them would have been willing to act in the face of the types of public criticism this president has faced. GHWB did lead us through the first Gulf War, but I don't think he would have done it without overwhelming support from the international community. And Clinton acted without UN approval in Kosovo, but he did so from 40,000 feet and with strong backing from the US public and Western Europe. I don't think either of them were visionaries like our current President.

I could be wrong about the first President Bush, but Bill Maher and I agree that Clinton's approach to world troublespots was cowardly.

[go bowe]

Or maybe he understands the “domino effect” of sit’n on our collective thumbs and wish’n the terrorism problem away leads to their brand of violence find’n its way to our shores. :shrug: there's a lot to be said for that pov...

it is undeniable that we've had no more attacks since 9/11...

but who can say how much of that has been due to the war in iraq?

Right, the same ignore the terrorist support’n regimes “status quo” that lead to Sept. 11 attacks. good point...

of course it should also apply to syria and iran, both of whom supplied and supported terrorists on a much larger scale and continue to do so now in the present conflict (hezbollah and hamas)...

The real “tragic irony” is your continuing ignorance on the subject that you keep spout’n off ‘bout, in the face of mounting evidence that SH supported, provided assistance and a place to hide to AQ. :shake:i'm not commenting on meme's relative ignorance versus interpretation of events, both of which could be successfully argued...

but so far the evidence seems to suggest no more than a fairly low level of contacts and tenous connections with aq that don't even begin to approach the involvement of syria and iran in much larger and more destructive terror groups...

the commission said iraq did not collaborate with the 9/11 attackers and sfaik, there is no evidence that aq and iraq ever undertook a joint operation of any kind...

[go bowe]

I don't think either of them would have been willing to act in the face of the types of public criticism this president has faced. GHWB did lead us through the first Gulf War, but I don't think he would have done it without overwhelming support from the international community. And Clinton acted without UN approval in Kosovo, but he did so from 40,000 feet and with strong backing from the US public and Western Europe. I don't think either of them were visionaries like our current President.

I could be wrong about the first President Bush, but Bill Maher and I agree that Clinton's approach to world troublespots was cowardly.now i wish i hadn't asked...

[go bowe]

I don't think either of them would have been willing to act in the face of the types of public criticism this president has faced. GHWB did lead us through the first Gulf War, but I don't think he would have done it without overwhelming support from the international community. And Clinton acted without UN approval in Kosovo, but he did so from 40,000 feet and with strong backing from the US public and Western Europe. I don't think either of them were visionaries like our current President.

I could be wrong about the first President Bush, but Bill Maher and I agree that Clinton's approach to world troublespots was cowardly.ok, i can't let that one slip by before i go back to real life for awhile...

that's my strongest criticism of the president...

i would prefer less visionary and more pragmatism...

c'mon rudy, c'mon rudy!!

run rudy, run...

run rudy, run...

[Radar Chief]

of course it should also apply to syria and iran, both of whom supplied and supported terrorists on a much larger scale and continue to do so now in the present conflict (hezbollah and hamas)...

I don’t disagree with that, but still understand the reason for Iraq climb’n the priority ladder ahead of either of them, or NK.
We already had the ground broken with Iraq in the form of flaunted sanction, a broken cease-fire agreement, support of terrorists and an otherwise long history of brutality to his own people.
The same could be said of each of the other nations we’ve mentioned ‘cept for the sanctions and cease-fire agreement parts and we’d have to go through years of similar “diplomatic” crap to legitimize an invasion (opinions on “legitimacy” of the Iraq invasion be’n variable ;) ).

but so far the evidence seems to suggest no more than a fairly low level of contacts and tenous connections with aq that don't even begin to approach the involvement of syria and iran in much larger and more destructive terror groups...

the commission said iraq did not collaborate with the 9/11 attackers and sfaik, there is no evidence that aq and iraq ever undertook a joint operation of any kind...

Didn’t intend to imply that they’d worked on a project together. Though, Saddam had opened his country to those AQ flee’n Afghanistan give’n them medical attention and a place to hide. This included an offer of asylum to bin Hidden even if’e never took it.

i'm not commenting on meme's relative ignorance versus interpretation of events, both of which could be successfully argued...

It’s all good, always enjoy converse’n with ya Go Bo :thumb:, but what you’ve done is kick my bait ‘round ‘till it fell off the hook. Now the sucker I was fish’n for will swim on by. ;)
Metaphorically speak'n that is.

[Nightwish]

i dunno about the creative interpretation part...

i've always thought his interpretations of various statements and documents to be perfectly reasonable pov's, even if i don't agree with all of them...Some of them may be reasonable, and some of them may even be correct. But certainly not all of them, and some of his views on Murtha are certainly less than reasonable when taken in context with the entirety of what Murtha actually said. For instance, interpreting the fact that Murtha tossed out Okinawa as a possible redeployment site, as an outside possibility, one time in one speech, after having mentioned Qatar and Kuwait as preferred points of redeployment, not only in the same interview, but in dozens of mentions prior to that interview, as meaning that Murtha doesn't want to deploy to Qatar or Kuwait, but wants primarily to deploy to Okinawa and other points far away from Iraq should qualify as "creative interpretation" and "wild spin" in just about anybody's book.and the arrogance part, i think maybe not so much...

self-assured for sure, but arrogant?Recalling the time in past when he once stated explicitly that one cannot disagree with him and be right at the same time, I'd say arrogance is a bit closer to the mark than you want to give him credit for.and the spun wildly part...See above.and the balls part...Well, he still has patently refused to acknowledge that Murtha called for an "over the horizon presence" and a "quick reactionary force," or that he suggested Qatar and Kuwait as primary points of redeployment; and he has patently refused to respond to any question or challenge to force him to acknowledge those points, since they blow his characterization of Murtha right out of the water. Instead he takes the if I ignore it, it'll go away approach to all those pesky facts that get in the way of his spin. If he someday develops the juevos to address those points, then I might revise my opinion about his balls.but you may have something with the wrong about some things part... :D :D :DI'm sure I do.

[patteeu]

Some of them may be reasonable, and some of them may even be correct. But certainly not all of them, and some of his views on Murtha are certainly less than reasonable when taken in context with the entirety of what Murtha actually said. For instance, interpreting the fact that Murtha tossed out Okinawa as a possible redeployment site, as an outside possibility, one time in one speech, after having mentioned Qatar and Kuwait as preferred points of redeployment, not only in the same interview, but in dozens of mentions prior to that interview, as meaning that Murtha doesn't want to deploy to Qatar or Kuwait, but wants primarily to deploy to Okinawa and other points far away from Iraq should qualify as "creative interpretation" and "wild spin" in just about anybody's book.

It wasn't one time in one speech, it wasn't presented as an outside possibility, it wasn't framed as having anything to do with NK (as you've speculated in the past), and he didn't say anything about preferring Qatar and Kuwait.

Recalling the time in past when he once stated explicitly that one cannot disagree with him and be right at the same time, I'd say arrogance is a bit closer to the mark than you want to give him credit for.

I'll cop to the arrogant charge, especially in those cases where I know I'm right an you're wrong. Our Murtha dialogue is certainly one of those cases.

[Nightwish]

It wasn't one time in one speech, it wasn't presented as an outside possibility, it wasn't framed as having anything to do with NK (as you've speculated in the past), and he didn't say anything about preferring Qatar and Kuwait.
Right, pat. Uh huh. He never said anything about Qatar and Kuwait being preferred points. He didn't mention them dozens of times before Okinawa was ever mentioned. Okay, whatever you say, pat.

I'll cop to the arrogant charge, especially in those cases where I know I'm right an you're wrong. Our Murtha dialogue is certainly one of those cases.
Precisely what I'm talking about. You simply can't bring yourself to admit that your opinion of Murtha's plan is an "opinion." You assume that you have some psychic ability to read his mind, and you want us to assume the same. You want us to assume that your opinion on the matter, which cannot be proven right or wrong, is equal to objective fact, and is categorically "right." That's not just arrogance, that's pure egocentrism.

[patteeu]

Precisely what I'm talking about. You simply can't bring yourself to admit that your opinion of Murtha's plan is an "opinion." You assume that you have some psychic ability to read his mind, and you want us to assume the same. You want us to assume that your opinion on the matter, which cannot be proven right or wrong, is equal to objective fact, and is categorically "right." That's not just arrogance, that's pure egocentrism.

The difference between your opinion of Murtha's plan and my opinion of Murtha's plan is that with every clarifying statement he makes, he validates my opinion and invalidates yours. I think that goes a long way toward justifying my arrogance on this particular issue.

[stevieray]

Precisely what I'm talking about. You simply can't bring yourself to admit that your opinion of Murtha's plan is an "opinion." You assume that you have some psychic ability to read his mind, and you want us to assume the same. You want us to assume that your opinion on the matter, which cannot be proven right or wrong, is equal to objective fact, and is categorically "right." That's not just arrogance, that's pure egocentrism.


Man, most of this forum is nothing but opinion.

And most of us here have committed what you have stated above, including you and I.

[jettio]

I don't think either of them would have been willing to act in the face of the types of public criticism this president has faced. GHWB did lead us through the first Gulf War, but I don't think he would have done it without overwhelming support from the international community. And Clinton acted without UN approval in Kosovo, but he did so from 40,000 feet and with strong backing from the US public and Western Europe. I don't think either of them were visionaries like our current President.

I could be wrong about the first President Bush, but Bill Maher and I agree that Clinton's approach to world troublespots was cowardly.

Terri Schiavo had a better plan than Stooges.

Visionary??? A vision on how much money was going to be given away to their favorite crooks.

[KingPriest2]

What's "Cowboy diplomacy?"


Cowboy diplomacy
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
The resolution of international conflicts through brash risk, intimidation, saber-rattling, deployment of military force, or any combination of these tactics. Cowboy diplomacy is often accompanied by overtly provocative phraseology, such as Theodore Roosevelt's "Walk softly and carry a big stick", Ronald Reagan's "Go ahead, make my day", or George W. Bush's "You're either with us or you're with the terrorists", and "Bring it on." The term is typically used in a negative manner.

The term has been used in the American media throughout the 20th century (and into the 21st) to deride the actions and statements of U.S. presidents, including the three mentioned above.

In fiction, the term was resurrected in it's historical context by Captain Jean-Luc Picard in Star Trek: The Next Generation, during the episode "Unification, Part II". Picard used the term to criticize a personal mission by Ambassador Spock to propagate peace between the Vulcans and Romulans by educating young Romulans about Vulcan culture. Spock had risked his life in doing so, and without consulting any legal authorities first. Thus the "cowboy" adjective was used by Picard to describe Spock's adventurous attempt to bridge the Vulcan-Romulan culture gap. However, given the covert nature of Spock's mission, which would preclude the use of the macho posturing and high media presence typically associated with cowboy diplomacy, Picard's use of the term may not have been appropriate.

Over a decade later, the term is negatively used to describe the Bush Doctrine. The leadership philosophy of resolving international conflicts through military force (when diplomacy fails) is characteristic of his presidency, despite debates regarding the validity of this belief or the morality of the native Texan's execution of this policy.