OT: Saddam Hussein Arrested

[geoschmo]

Originally posted by rextorres:
BTW: Yes Geo meant Clinton, but Bush Senior invaded Somalia. I truly believe things would not have been much different if Bush had won that election.

I think you are wrong. I suppose we can't know for sure. But I believe that Clinton's lack of comitment to the troops in the field, and mishandling turned what could have been a succesful operation into an abject failure.

It's not uncommon for the President in charge when things go to hell to be blamed for the failure of the operation, rightly or wrongly. Nixon get's maligned for Vietnam, which was started by Johnson. Kennedy inherited the Bay of Pigs from Ike.

On the plus side I supported what Clinton was trying to do in Bosnia. I would have liked to see more effort, but at least they stuck it out till the end there, unlike Mogadishu.

Geoschmo

[ December 14, 2003, 23:43: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

[President_Elect_Shang]

For my part I am not claiming one insulted the other first. I am saying that it takes two to escalate the matter. You did apologize and that is fair enough. As to your viewpoint I hope I did not (was not trying to) insinuate either point is correct or wrong. I want to stay neutral.

My input is based on seeing one to many arguments started over what should be discussion. Did I say arguments? I meant fights. Have I been in a fight, heck yes my house is glass and I have stones in my pockets. It occurred to me (with the help of Roanon) that I needed to put those stones down and patch the broken glass, metaphorically speaking of course.

Roanon and CNC can take a lesson from Imperator Fyron and I. Imperator Fyron knows me as well as SJ, Atrocities, or Geo does, heck he knew me before I changed persona to President-Elect Shang. As I recall we have had more than one tiff ourselves (correct me if I am wrong) but we always calmed down and I think you two could do the same if you tried.

Even to this day Imperator Fyron and I do not see eye-to-eye, however we have come to understand one another as well as this board allows, now I feel very confident in reading his opinions and taking criticism from him concerning my conduct. I don’t expect you two (CNC, Roanon) to be friends or even agree. I am just asking that you try to calm down and debate in a non-insulting way. You both could have changed a few words out and said the same thing and not been so darn insulting.

I said it before and I will say it again, I want to stay neutral in this debate. But make no mistake if Imperator Fyron goes higher to have this thread locked I will back him all the way, that too is part of the mutual respect we have developed.

[rextorres]

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:

quote:

---

Originally posted by rextorres:
[QB] I think that's unfair. I've staked out a position and you merely disagree with it. When you disagree with my position it's discussion when I refute your position it's argumentative. [qb]

Actually... when you refute someones position in an overtly hostile manner, it is arumentative. If you drop the hostility, it will become discussion like most other people's responses.

Fyron even called me "partisan" because he disagrees with all my postitions but of course he not a partisan

It miust be nice knowing what everyone else thinks and believes. I have not actually posted anything that would support such a statement. What I have posted that I disagree with is your attitude and manner of "discussion".

And for the record, Bush did lie. It is called propaganda, part of waging war. Every war fought throughout history has been filled with propaganda. Propaganda is by its very nature at best a half-truth. You can not fault someone for employing propaganda. You can certainly fault them for their real reasons for going to war, but not just the fact that they lied. Lying is what being a leader is about.

---

You're right Fyron I don't know what you think or believe all I know is what you write in this forum. My assumption is that you are being intellectually honest and what you write reflects what you think.

I have reread all my postings in this thread and there is not one hostile word leveled at anyone (on this forum). I think you may percieve them to be hostile because they are the opposite of your positions (that's what I think anyway). On the other hand I took the partisan comment to be hostility aimed at me.

So with that said I challenge you to find a position that I have staked where you DO agree with me. If we disagree on every political position written in this forum and I am a "partisan" then doesn't that make you a "partisan" too?

[ December 15, 2003, 00:13: Message edited by: rextorres ]

[geoschmo]

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
And for the record, Bush did lie. It is called propaganda, part of waging war. Every war fought throughout history has been filled with propaganda. Propaganda is by its very nature at best a half-truth. You can not fault someone for employing propaganda. You can certainly fault them for their real reasons for going to war, but not just the fact that they lied. Lying is what being a leader is about.

Uh, I don't know about this Fyron. Personally I am not convinced that Bush lied about Iraq's WMD's. It very possible, if not likely, at this point Bush was very wrong about the threat of Iraqi WMD's. But being wrong and lying are two very different things.

If someone were to prove that Bush knew that Iraq had no legitimate WMD threat and that the war was only intended to line the pockets of Haliburton then I would say that goes way beyond propaganda. Propaganda is lying to gain tactical advantage over the enemy. This would be lying to your own people to cover up presidential malfeseance of a tremendous scale.

Geoschmo

[President_Elect_Shang]

I don’t think that Bush lied; I think that Blair and he felt the threat was there. Saddam had enough time to conceal or destroy most evidence before the ground war kicked off. With him in custody it may lead to the uncovering of stashes that are still hidden. Only time will pan this one out.

[Fyron]

Rex, I did not say your hostility is aimed at anyone in particular. The overall tone of your Messages is extremely dismissive of anyone that does not share your opinions. You can be hostile in general without a specific target in mind. I could rattle off a list of other adjectives that might be more appropriate than "hostile", but that would accomplish little. This is much more evident in the Military Buffs thread (as well as the tone of many of your Posts in these sorts of threads that have existed in the past) than in this thread, but the issue is being discussed here, not there.

As for your challenge, I do not have an opinion one way or another on many of these particular issues, so meeting it (as well as failing it) would be rather difficult.

[rextorres]

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Rex, I did not say your hostility is aimed at anyone in particular. The overall tone of your Messages is extremely dismissive of anyone that does not share your opinions. You can be hostile in general without a specific target in mind. I could rattle off a list of other adjectives that might be more appropriate than "hostile", but that would accomplish little. This is much more evident in the Military Buffs thread (as well as the tone of many of your Posts in these sorts of threads that have existed in the past) than in this thread, but the issue is being discussed here, not there.

As for your challenge, I do not have an opinion one way or another on many of these particular issues, so meeting it (as well as failing it) would be rather difficult.

I suppose calling someone a "flag waver" could be considered an insult in some circles, but other than that I do not read any hostility in my tone in that thread either.

I did disagree with you in that thread as well though . . . so maybe that's why you are picking up hostility.

BTW: Can I quote what you've posted here next time you write an opinion.