Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: conjur
Your original post to which I replied stated:
"And sitting around in a Clintonesque manner with our collective thumbs up our butts - and our cigars who knows where - was a complete failure and didn't prevent enemies from taking up arms against us on our very own soil."
How did Iraq attack us on our very own soil?
You're obviously avoiding my questions conjur.
Did my statement claim Iraq was the enemy? No.
Do I still think it's smart to be in Iraq in order to fight enemies in the entire ME? Yes.
Was Iraq also supporting terrorism? Yes.
Now please answer my questions.
Oh, you're saying it's ok to invade a country that has nothing to do with the war on terror in order to fight those countries that *are* targets in the war on terror? I suppose we should take out Michigan since Terry Nichols was from there and he was a terrorist. Then we could launch attacks on Ohio or something.
Poor analogy. Very poor.
Iraq was a part of the war on teror. Sure, Saddam was a bit player, but he was supporting it nevertheless. That gave us the "in" we needed. Taking him out and democratizing Iraq is just the beginning of that process that concerns the entire ME, not just Iraq. Instea, you keep trying to claim this is only about Iraq when that's nowhere near the case. Again, I think you know this but tend to avoid that fact because acknowledgeing that might mean you'd have to accept that there is some justification for being in Iraq.
You still haven't shown how Iraq was part of the war on terror. Just saying so doesn't make it so. Sorry, I don't buy into neocon propaganda.
Did Saddam provide money to the Palestinian homocide bombers or not? You know he did.
That made Saddam part and parcel of the war on terror. You may not like that fact, but it IS a fact.
No. You're playing semantics. Bush said "safer". Or, are you implying you have met with Bush and know what he meant by it? To me, safer means safe from attacks. Safer means I can walk about my city streets in less fear of being attacked by a rogue terrorist. Safer means a politician should be able to hold a rally with less security than before 9/11.
AFAIK, Bush speaks English, at least some of the time, and we have to assume that when he said "safer" he meant it with the standard English meaning of it in mind.
You are playing semantics by limiting the definition of what "safer" means and building a strawman in the process with your personal definition.
For example, it's safer if my house has a fence all the way around it as a means of protection to prevent the neighborhood kids from acessing my pool and possibly drowning. Safer can mean "more protection or security" and often does. If you have to go to a seedy area of twon for some reason, do you feel safer if there's more cops or no cops around? If you received a death threat, would you feel safer with less security protecting you or more security?
More security can make us be safer. It's relative to the threat level, as I stated previously. So please stop trying to make it out as something it's not.
BWA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!
*I'm* playing semantics???
Main Entry: 1safe
Pronunciation: 'sAf
Function: adjective
Inflected Form(s): saf·er; saf·est
Etymology: Middle English sauf, from Old French, from Latin salvus safe, healthy; akin to Latin solidus solid, Greek holos whole, safe, Sanskrit sarva entire
1 : free from harm or risk : UNHURT
2 a : secure from threat of danger, harm, or loss b : successful at getting to a base in baseball without being put out
3 : affording safety or security from danger, risk, or difficulty
4 obsolete, of mental or moral faculties : HEALTHY, SOUND
5 a : not threatening danger : HARMLESS b : unlikely to produce controversy or contradiction
6 a : not likely to take risks : CAUTIOUS b : TRUSTWORTHY, RELIABLE
Now, tell me how we're safer given that we currently have incredibly more strict security in various aspects of our lives.[/quote]
You didn't even pay attention to the definitions you posted yourself.
"Affording safety or security from danger."
Figure it out. Nor did you respond to any of my scenarios above. Is it safer or not safer in a rough part of twon when a bunch of cops are around you or when none are around you?
C'mon, let's not be stubborn here. You'r wrong, plain and simple.
Clinton didn't have a lack of response to terrorists in the 90s. That's been proven up here time and time again.
It has not been proven. The only thing that's been proven is that Clinton did not take out a threat that he knew existed and who planned, during his administration, to attack us.
Yes, it's been proven. Go do some searching.[/quote]
You made the contention. The burden of proof is on you. Prove it.
But, again, your short-sightedness rears its ugly head as you fail to understand the root cause of the west being targets of terrorism.
Wow. You really seem confused and a bit clueless in your pathetic attempt to malign me, conjur. We are not even discussing the root cause of terrorism. That's a non-sequitor and a diversion of the discussion at this point. The threat is already here. We are discussing why a known threat was not dealt with previously by a President who knew it existed.
No, the non sequitur is your constant attempt to shift blame back onto Clinton. Clinton was just along for the ride. The spark had been lit long before he came into office.[/quote]
Again you deflect and don't address my reponse. This discussion was not about the "root cause" of terrorism. The discussion was doing something about it when we knew the danger already existed.
Fix it if you don't like it. Otherwise, deal with it.
I have. I'm tired of fixing your lazily-written posts.[/quote]
Well complaining to me about it isn't going to fix it for you. Either deal with it, fix it, or don't respond if you don't like it.
