OT: Saddam Hussein Arrested - Page 7

Unknown_Enemy · #61 December 14th, 2003, 11:20 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by General Woundwort:
Simple - occuply it until the threat of theocracy passes. We had troops in Germany and Japan for many years for similar reasons. Here I will criticize Bush - we should NOT leave by June. Stay until the job is done. [/QB]

Woundwort, it seems to me that lots of people believed Iraq would be similar to Germany/Japan after WW2.

What USA really ended with is a new Liban.

Look at the facts : Kurds in the north with their own agenda. Sunnite in the center grieving for their lost power. Chia in the south who are about to be in power.

I am sorry to say so, but mark my words, the end of Saddam is not going to bring peace in Iraq. The end of Saddam is not going bring stability to this country.

But his end is going to make lots of people's sleep easier.

CNCRaymond · #62 December 14th, 2003, 11:21 PM

Your right, I have mentioned you twice, and that is because I was talking to you specifically.

I wanted to be clear that I enjoy and value opinions that differ from my own. You have a very strong sense of yours, and that is fantastic in my humble opinion. I just would enjoy reading them without all of the hostility.

Then again, I who am I to judge.

You have made some excellent points and have stood your ground.

BTW, I think Geoschmo was talking about President Clinton and not GW senior. Just and FYI.

And you do remind me an awful lot of the guy I mentioned before. More power to you man.

CNCRaymond · #63 December 14th, 2003, 11:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Roanon:

quote:
Originally posted by CNCRaymond:
What I posted was no more or less right or wrong than what has been posted before by others. If you take me to task on what I say, I will do the same to you. That being said, I believe you owe me an apology.

Well I think it was less right, but this is not the main point. You are personally attacking people just disagreeing with you and offending them. You even openly admit that you don't care if you do. There is someone here who owes some people an apology, Mr. I-am-the-moral-universe.

BTW, I do not care for political correctness. A hypocrite is a hypocrite, regardless how he puts his words. Implying I would do is another insult.

This his how revisionist history is written. People like you twist the facts to suit your need in an effort to hide the truth of what you have said and done. In this case you claim that it was I who had insulted other people even though I have not. You insult me and then do a role reversal followed by a two step around the truth and attempt to paint your self as the innocent victim. You draw first blood by attacking me with an insult, followed by two more insults, as proof of your point of view. You then call me a hypocrite, twice, without the slightest clue as to the understanding or meaning of the word. You yield the word like a child would a toy sword but with far less skill. I shouldn't have to point out to you that what you have done, three plus times now, violates the terms of use of this forum. You can try and play the victim all you want, the truth is already known, and regardless as to whether or not you agree, you are the one in the wrong. You are the one who has been doing the insulting here, not I. You were the one to draw a conclusion and twist my words to suit your point of view. And then in defense, you insult me in an effort to add weight to your argument and then to validate what you have done, you claim that you are the victim having been offended by what I have posted. Now you're attempting to hide from your actions by playing a role reversal by posting these personally insulting accusations about me.

Like I said, you have no skill.

You see, I never attacked any one at any point. However, you did. I can quote you again if you like, but I think we have seen enough of your foul mouth for one day. And I openly admitted that I could careless if I offended you, not these �them� you speak of. And again you post a personal flame as the only defense for your position. I believe you now owe me two apologies.

And the Last time I looked, the �them� you speak of, had not appointed you their leader. So perhaps you should not speak for �them� any more.

[ December 14, 2003, 22:17: Message edited by: CNCRaymond ]

rextorres · #64 December 14th, 2003, 11:34 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by CNCRaymond:
Your right, I have mentioned you twice, and that is because I was talking to you specifically.

I wanted to be clear that I enjoy and value opinions that differ from my own. You have a very strong sense of yours, and that is fantastic in my humble opinion. I just would enjoy reading them without all of the hostility.

Then again, I who am I to judge. You have made some excellent points and have stood your ground.

BTW, I think Geoschmo was talking about President Clinton and not GW senior. Just and FYI.

And you do remind me an awful lot of the guy I mentioned before. More power to you man.

Fair enough.

I do concede, however, that writing "When Bush lied people died" was meant to generate a heated discussion and I am sorry if I offended anyone who believes that Bush told the truth.

And no I am not that other guy.

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.

[ December 14, 2003, 21:37: Message edited by: rextorres ]

Phoenix-D · #65 December 15th, 2003, 12:02 AM

"This his how revisionist history is written. You claim that it was I who had insulted other people even though I have not."

Excuse me? CNC? Which of you is the one that implied everyone who opposes the war enjoys human suffering? You. That is in my book an insult of the highest order.

Phoenix-D · #66 December 15th, 2003, 12:03 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by CNCRaymond:
I have always said, and I recall many others as well saying that this was good for the Iraqi people even before we went to war. So you must be talking about those who opposed the war. Like I said, these people enjoy human suffering, and their motivations are in question as far as I am concerned.

CNCRaymond · #67 December 15th, 2003, 12:07 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Phoenix-D:
"This his how revisionist history is written. You claim that it was I who had insulted other people even though I have not."

Excuse me? CNC? Which of you is the one that implied everyone who opposes the war enjoys human suffering? You. That is in my book an insult of the highest order.

I should point out that this quote was taken out of context as I was referring to the fact that I had been insulted, and the person who had done this insulting justified it by claiming his insults were in response to my having directly insulted him. Something I had not done.

However, I can see your point Phoenix. It was most certainly not intended as an insult, but I can see how it can be taken as one. A poor choice of wording on my part. I shall, in the future, attempt to be more precise.

[ December 14, 2003, 22:20: Message edited by: CNCRaymond ]

CNCRaymond · #68 December 15th, 2003, 12:11 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Phoenix-D:

quote:
Originally posted by CNCRaymond:
I have always said, and I recall many others as well saying that this was good for the Iraqi people even before we went to war. So you must be talking about those who opposed the war. Like I said, these people enjoy human suffering, and their motivations are in question as far as I am concerned.

Again, I will endeavor to be more precise in the future. I forget that people often take statements literally, and not in the spirt for which they were typed.

I should have been more specific, and I was not, I stand corrected, and do apologies if I have offend those people. However, the essence of what I said does stand true. If they opposed the war, then it can be said, even if it is proven to be inaccurate, that they supported the continued human suffering that the Iraqi people were enduring by not supporting action to stop that suffering.

[ December 14, 2003, 22:15: Message edited by: CNCRaymond ]

Phoenix-D · #69 December 15th, 2003, 12:31 AM

[quote]Originally posted by CNCRaymond:

Quote:

Originally posted by Phoenix-D:
[qb]I should point out that this quote was taken out of context as I was referring to the fact that I had been insulted, and the person who had done this insulting justified it by claiming his insults were in response to my having directly insulted him. Something I had not done.

However, I can see your point Phoenix. It was most certainly not intended as an insult, but I can see how it can be taken as one. A poor choice of wording on my part. I shall, in the future, attempt to be more precise.

No, it wasn't. I fully understood what you were going for, and frankly insults are entirely perception. Which means that yes, he was responding to an insult, meant or not..

The second post was just to provide the proof without making people dig for it.

Will · #70 December 15th, 2003, 12:32 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by CNCRaymond:
Again, I will endeavor to be more precise in the future. I forget that people often take statements literally, and not in the spirt for which they were typed.

I should have been more specific, and I was not, I stand corrected, and do apologies if I have offend those people. However, the essence of what I said does stand true. If they opposed the war, then it can be said, even if it is proven to be inaccurate, that they supported the continued human suffering that the Iraqi people were enduring by not supporting action to stop that suffering. [/QB]

So by not supporting a specific action to stop "human suffering" (not necessarily of the Iraqis), a person is therefore guilty of not supporting any action to stop "human suffering"? That is flawed logic, I'm afraid. It is quite possible for someone to believe that war is not the way to end "human suffering", and that another path can be found.

To attempt a horrible analogy that takes things to extremes (and borrowing from all the wife-beating occuring earlier in the thread):
If I do not support vivisecting the husband for beating his wife, and thus removing the threat of the husband beating his wife, then I must support the continued beatings -- even if I merely support putting him in a small concrete room for a period of time, and restricting his activities after release from said room (ie, no alcohol, counseling, curfews, community service, whatever...).

Hmm, hope that made sense...