Is Iraq a current battleground ...

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Poor baby. You don't know what to do when you don't get to dictate how the discussion is framed. I answered your question fully, offering a far more responsive discussion than most of your spin-a-thons. I just won't put my answer in your little box.

Do you want a discussion, or do you want to play more games? If you care to continue the discussion by responding to something I did say, let me know. If all you want to do is cry about not offering a simplistic little black-or-white answer, then I'd say the hypocrite is you.

Cheers,

:)

OH TEH NOESS...Bowfinger doesn't like me....MOMMY!!@1!!!!!
rolleye.gif


Anyway - The answer is a yes or no answer. It either is or isn't. There is no "kinda" a battleground. Either we are fighting them there or we aren't. So again - In your opinion - Is Iraq a current battleground for terrorism?

You can call names, try to spin and explain, but without knowing your answer to the question we can't put it in context.

So lets break this kerry-esq statement down.

Iraq is a place where terrorist factions can fight us on their terms. In that sense, it is analogous to Spain or even the U.S., except their travel expenses are lower. We may kill individual terrorists. We don't materially hurt terrorism. We mostly bloody innocent Iraqis.

In order to effectively combat terrorism, we must attack on our terms, where the terrorist leaders live and plot and get their funding. That's not Iraq.

Iraq is a place where terrorists can fight us? So it is a yes?
"We may kill individual terrorists" - so that is a yes too?
"We don't hurt terrorism" - oh really? By killing individual terrorists and cells we don't hurt them?:confused:
Ah here we go....
"In order to effectively combat terrorism" - ah so since you don't think Iraq is effective it isn't a battle ground? Or do you think it is -but just "not good enough"?

See - none of your nuance;) answers my question. It either IS or ISN'T. I don't give a rats ass if you think it's "effective" or who's "terms" you think it's on - IS IT A BATTLEGROUND FOR TERRORISM.

Want to continue to stall and play games? or are you going to answer the question?

Let me take a page from kerry's book.

HOW DID YOU VOTE....NO...HOW DID YOU VOTE....

:D

CkG
I answered your question exactly as I'm going to. Do you want a discussion, or do you want to continue to play games? If you care to continue the discussion by responding to something I did say, let me know. If all you want to do is cry about not offering a simplistic little black-or-white answer, then I'd say the hypocrite is you.


OK, I'll throw you one bone. I particularly enjoy the way you leave out key words when you quote me to make your arguments seem stronger. If you had confidence in your position, you wouldn't have to misrepresent mine.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Poor baby. You don't know what to do when you don't get to dictate how the discussion is framed. I answered your question fully, offering a far more responsive discussion than most of your spin-a-thons. I just won't put my answer in your little box.

Do you want a discussion, or do you want to play more games? If you care to continue the discussion by responding to something I did say, let me know. If all you want to do is cry about not offering a simplistic little black-or-white answer, then I'd say the hypocrite is you.

Cheers,

:)

OH TEH NOESS...Bowfinger doesn't like me....MOMMY!!@1!!!!!
rolleye.gif


Anyway - The answer is a yes or no answer. It either is or isn't. There is no "kinda" a battleground. Either we are fighting them there or we aren't. So again - In your opinion - Is Iraq a current battleground for terrorism?

You can call names, try to spin and explain, but without knowing your answer to the question we can't put it in context.

So lets break this kerry-esq statement down.

Iraq is a place where terrorist factions can fight us on their terms. In that sense, it is analogous to Spain or even the U.S., except their travel expenses are lower. We may kill individual terrorists. We don't materially hurt terrorism. We mostly bloody innocent Iraqis.

In order to effectively combat terrorism, we must attack on our terms, where the terrorist leaders live and plot and get their funding. That's not Iraq.

Iraq is a place where terrorists can fight us? So it is a yes?
"We may kill individual terrorists" - so that is a yes too?
"We don't hurt terrorism" - oh really? By killing individual terrorists and cells we don't hurt them?:confused:
Ah here we go....
"In order to effectively combat terrorism" - ah so since you don't think Iraq is effective it isn't a battle ground? Or do you think it is -but just "not good enough"?

See - none of your nuance;) answers my question. It either IS or ISN'T. I don't give a rats ass if you think it's "effective" or who's "terms" you think it's on - IS IT A BATTLEGROUND FOR TERRORISM.

Want to continue to stall and play games? or are you going to answer the question?

Let me take a page from kerry's book.

HOW DID YOU VOTE....NO...HOW DID YOU VOTE....

:D

CkG
I answered your question exactly as I'm going to. Do you want a discussion, or do you want to continue to play games? If you care to continue the discussion by responding to something I did say, let me know. If all you want to do is cry about not offering a simplistic little black-or-white answer, then I'd say the hypocrite is you.


OK, I'll throw you one bone. I particularly enjoy the way you leave out key words when you quote me to make your arguments seem stronger. If you had confidence in your position, you wouldn't have to misrepresent mine.

Ah yes - you don't even respond to my response to your spew.

Oh well - so be it. We have already seen that you won't answer the question and now you are still playing games.

goodbye.

CkG
 

Tab

Lifer
Sep 15, 2002
12,145
0
76
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Poor baby. You don't know what to do when you don't get to dictate how the discussion is framed. I answered your question fully, offering a far more responsive discussion than most of your spin-a-thons. I just won't put my answer in your little box.

Do you want a discussion, or do you want to play more games? If you care to continue the discussion by responding to something I did say, let me know. If all you want to do is cry about not offering a simplistic little black-or-white answer, then I'd say the hypocrite is you.

Cheers,

:)

OH TEH NOESS...Bowfinger doesn't like me....MOMMY!!@1!!!!!
rolleye.gif


Anyway - The answer is a yes or no answer. It either is or isn't. There is no "kinda" a battleground. Either we are fighting them there or we aren't. So again - In your opinion - Is Iraq a current battleground for terrorism?

You can call names, try to spin and explain, but without knowing your answer to the question we can't put it in context.

So lets break this kerry-esq statement down.

Iraq is a place where terrorist factions can fight us on their terms. In that sense, it is analogous to Spain or even the U.S., except their travel expenses are lower. We may kill individual terrorists. We don't materially hurt terrorism. We mostly bloody innocent Iraqis.

In order to effectively combat terrorism, we must attack on our terms, where the terrorist leaders live and plot and get their funding. That's not Iraq.

Iraq is a place where terrorists can fight us? So it is a yes?
"We may kill individual terrorists" - so that is a yes too?
"We don't hurt terrorism" - oh really? By killing individual terrorists and cells we don't hurt them?:confused:
Ah here we go....
"In order to effectively combat terrorism" - ah so since you don't think Iraq is effective it isn't a battle ground? Or do you think it is -but just "not good enough"?

See - none of your nuance;) answers my question. It either IS or ISN'T. I don't give a rats ass if you think it's "effective" or who's "terms" you think it's on - IS IT A BATTLEGROUND FOR TERRORISM.

Want to continue to stall and play games? or are you going to answer the question?

Let me take a page from kerry's book.

HOW DID YOU VOTE....NO...HOW DID YOU VOTE....

:D

CkG
I answered your question exactly as I'm going to. Do you want a discussion, or do you want to continue to play games? If you care to continue the discussion by responding to something I did say, let me know. If all you want to do is cry about not offering a simplistic little black-or-white answer, then I'd say the hypocrite is you.


OK, I'll throw you one bone. I particularly enjoy the way you leave out key words when you quote me to make your arguments seem stronger. If you had confidence in your position, you wouldn't have to misrepresent mine.

Your arguments seem to make you stronger....

Iraq is only one of the battlefields we have to fight terrorism. We have the homefront as well :)
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: Tabb
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Iraq is a place where terrorist factions can fight us on their terms. In that sense, it is analogous to Spain or even the U.S., except their travel expenses are lower. We may kill individual terrorists. We don't materially hurt terrorism. We mostly bloody innocent Iraqis.

In order to effectively combat terrorism, we must attack on our terms, where the terrorist leaders live and plot and get their funding. That's not Iraq.

Iraq is a place where terrorists can fight us? So it is a yes?
"We may kill individual terrorists" - so that is a yes too?
"We don't hurt terrorism" - oh really? By killing individual terrorists and cells we don't hurt them?:confused:
Ah here we go....
"In order to effectively combat terrorism" - ah so since you don't think Iraq is effective it isn't a battle ground? Or do you think it is -but just "not good enough"?

See - none of your nuance;) answers my question. It either IS or ISN'T. I don't give a rats ass if you think it's "effective" or who's "terms" you think it's on - IS IT A BATTLEGROUND FOR TERRORISM.

Want to continue to stall and play games? or are you going to answer the question?

Let me take a page from kerry's book.

HOW DID YOU VOTE....NO...HOW DID YOU VOTE....

:D

CkG
I answered your question exactly as I'm going to. Do you want a discussion, or do you want to continue to play games? If you care to continue the discussion by responding to something I did say, let me know. If all you want to do is cry about not offering a simplistic little black-or-white answer, then I'd say the hypocrite is you.


OK, I'll throw you one bone. I particularly enjoy the way you leave out key words when you quote me to make your arguments seem stronger. If you had confidence in your position, you wouldn't have to misrepresent mine.

Your arguments seem to make you stronger....

Iraq is only one of the battlefields we have to fight terrorism. We have the homefront as well :)
How am I wrong? Do you want to address the content of my comments, or do you want to play with Cad? I'm willing to discuss and defend my comments. I'm not going to play Sir Cad's incessant games.

 

fjord

Senior member
Feb 18, 2004
667
0
0
Iraq is the country we invaded in an illegitimate act of unprovoked agression.

If Iraq is now a battleground between illegitimate forces and terrorists--then this conclusion-- is most certainly a total condemnation of the Bush administration and their policies.
---

Editorial Published on Tuesday, March 16, 2004 by the Boston Globe


The Bushes' New World Disorder
by James Carroll


"IT MUST BE considered that there is nothing more difficult to carry out, nor more doubtful of success, nor more dangerous to handle, than to initiate a new order of things." This warning is from Niccolo Machiavelli, yet it has never had sharper resonance.

More than a decade ago, after Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait, President George H. W. Bush explicitly sought to initiate, as he put it to Congress, a "new world order." He made that momentous declaration on Sept. 11, 1990. Eleven years later, the suddenly mystical date of 9/11 motivated his son to finish what the father began. A year ago this week, Bush the younger launched a war against the man who tried to kill his dad, initiating the opposite of order.

The situation hardly needs rehearsing. In Iraq, many thousands are dead, including 564 Americans. Civil war threatens. Afghanistan, meanwhile, is choked by drug-running warlords. Islamic jihadists have been empowered. The nuclear profiteering of Pakistan has been exposed but not necessarily stopped. Al Qaeda's elusiveness has reinforced its mythic malevolence. The Atlantic Alliance is in ruins. The United States has never been more isolated. A pattern of deception has destroyed its credibility abroad and at home. Disorder spreads from Washington to Israel to Haiti to Spain. Whether the concern is subduing resistance fighters far away or making Americans feel safer, the Pentagon's unprecedented military dominance, the costs of which stifle the US economy, is shown to be essentially impotent.

In America, the new order of things is defined mainly by the sour taste of moral hangover, how the emotional intensity of the 9/11 trauma -- anguished but pure -- dissolved into a feeling of being trapped in a cage of our own making. As the carnage in Madrid makes clear, the threats in the world are real and dangerous to handle, but one US initiative after another has escalated rather than diffused such threats. Instead of replacing chaos with new order, our nation's responses inflict new wounds that increase the chaos. We strike at those whom we perceive as aiming to do us harm but without actually defending ourselves. And most unsettling of all, in our attempt to get the bad people to stop threatening us, we have begun to imitate them.

The most important revelation of the Iraq war has been of the Bush administration's blatant contempt for fact. Whether defined as "lying" or not, the clear manipulation of intelligence ahead of last year's invasion has been completely exposed. The phrase "weapons of mass destruction" has been transformed. Where once it evoked the grave danger of a repeat of the 9/11 trauma, now it evokes an apparently calculated American fear. The government laid out explicit evidence defining a threat that required the launching of preventive war, and the US media trumpeted that evidence without hesitation. The result, since there were no weapons of mass destruction, as the government and a pliant press had ample reason to know, was an institutionalized deceit maintained to this day. At the United Nations, the United States misled the world. In speech after speech, President Bush misled Congress and the nation. And note that the word "misled" means both to have falsified and to have failed in leadership. To mislead, as the tautological George Bush might put it, is to mislead.

The repetition of falsehoods tied to the war on terrorism and the war against Iraq has eroded the American capacity, if not to tell the difference between what is true and what is a lie, then to think the difference matters much. The administration distorted fact ahead of the invasion, when the American people could not refute what had not happened yet. And the administration distorts fact now, when the American people do not remember clearly what we were told a year ago. That Bush retains the confidence of a sizable proportion of the electorate suggests that Americans don't particularly worry anymore about truth as a guiding principle of their government.

In that lies the irony. The Bush dynasty has in fact initiated a new order of things. The United States of America has become its own opposite, a nation of triumphant freedom that claims the right to restrain the freedom of others; a nation of a structured balance of power that destroys the balance of power abroad; a nation of creative enterprise that exports a smothering banality; and above all, a nation of forcefully direct expression that disrespects the truth. Whatever happens from this week forward in Iraq, the main outcome of the war for the United States is clear. We have defeated ourselves.
© Copyright 2004 Globe Newspaper Company. Fair use.
 

Tab

Lifer
Sep 15, 2002
12,145
0
76
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: Tabb
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Iraq is a place where terrorist factions can fight us on their terms. In that sense, it is analogous to Spain or even the U.S., except their travel expenses are lower. We may kill individual terrorists. We don't materially hurt terrorism. We mostly bloody innocent Iraqis.

In order to effectively combat terrorism, we must attack on our terms, where the terrorist leaders live and plot and get their funding. That's not Iraq.

Iraq is a place where terrorists can fight us? So it is a yes?
"We may kill individual terrorists" - so that is a yes too?
"We don't hurt terrorism" - oh really? By killing individual terrorists and cells we don't hurt them?:confused:
Ah here we go....
"In order to effectively combat terrorism" - ah so since you don't think Iraq is effective it isn't a battle ground? Or do you think it is -but just "not good enough"?

See - none of your nuance;) answers my question. It either IS or ISN'T. I don't give a rats ass if you think it's "effective" or who's "terms" you think it's on - IS IT A BATTLEGROUND FOR TERRORISM.

Want to continue to stall and play games? or are you going to answer the question?

Let me take a page from kerry's book.

HOW DID YOU VOTE....NO...HOW DID YOU VOTE....

:D

CkG
I answered your question exactly as I'm going to. Do you want a discussion, or do you want to continue to play games? If you care to continue the discussion by responding to something I did say, let me know. If all you want to do is cry about not offering a simplistic little black-or-white answer, then I'd say the hypocrite is you.


OK, I'll throw you one bone. I particularly enjoy the way you leave out key words when you quote me to make your arguments seem stronger. If you had confidence in your position, you wouldn't have to misrepresent mine.

Your arguments seem to make you stronger....

Iraq is only one of the battlefields we have to fight terrorism. We have the homefront as well :)
How am I wrong? Do you want to address the content of my comments, or do you want to play with Cad? I'm willing to discuss and defend my comments. I'm not going to play Sir Cad's incessant games.

The conduct that everyone has on P&N makes it a game :p You mine as well answer it as he is never going to stop asking you. Ever.
 

alchemize

Lifer
Mar 24, 2000
11,486
0
0
Bowfinger has a new strategy. He doesn't like being called a ~but. So now he's switched over to just "but".

Edit: My answer. Yes, Iraq is a current battleground. I would say right now it is the primary battleground, with Afghanistan remaining the secondary battleground.
 

lozina

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
11,711
8
81
Iraq is currently a battleground for terrorism, yes. Only because we went in there, removed Saddam and his government from power which created a power vacuum and a situation where security was dismal, which in turn attracted terrorists from neighboring countries to swarm in amongst the confused and vulnerable population and start taking cheap shots at our troops.
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: alchemize
Bowfinger has a new strategy. He doesn't like being called a ~but. So now he's switched over to just "but".
I answered the question. Do you want to address the content of my comments, or do you want to play with Cad? I'm willing to discuss and defend my comments. I'm not going to play Sir Cad's incessant games.


(BTW, I missed the thread or the memo or whatever where this "~but" thing was concocted. I imagine it's supposed to have some devastating significance, but it looks like rather retarded name-calling to me, I'm afraid. I suspect that wasn't your doing, but feel free to take "credit" for it if I'm mistaken. :) )
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
IRAQ IS A BATTLEFIELD
George Bushatar

We are Bush
Heartache to Bible we stand
Fake promises, big demands
Iraq is a battlefield

We are strong, no on can tell us we're wrong
Abusin' your votes for so long
All of us knowing
Iraq is a battlefield

You're beggin' me to stop, I'm makin' you go
Why do you hurt me so bad
It would help me to know
Do I stand in your way, or am I the best thing you've had
Believe me, believe me, I can't tell you why
But I'm trapped by my lies and Cheney's by my side

We are Bush
Heartache to heartache we stand
No promises, no demads
Love is a battlefield

We are strong, no once can tell us we're wrong
Abusin' your votes for so long
Both of us knowing
Love is a battlefield

We're losing control
Will you vote me away or impeach me you decide
And before I get oil, will I still be controlled
There's no way I can't lie
But if you get much smarter, I could lose control
And if bin Laden surrenders, you'll praise me all day

We are Bush
Heartache to heartache we stand
No promises, no demands
Love is a battlefield

We are strong, no one can tell us we're wrong
Abusin' your votes for so long
All of us knowing
Iraq is a battlefield

We are young
Heartache to Bible we stand
Fake promises, big demands
Iraq is a battlefield

We are strong, no one can tell us we're wrong
Abusin' your votes for so long
All of us knowing
Iraq is a battlefield
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
(BTW, I missed the thread or the memo or whatever where this "~but" thing was concocted. I imagine it's supposed to have some devastating significance, but it looks like rather retarded name-calling to me, I'm afraid. I suspect that wasn't your doing, but feel free to take "credit" for it if I'm mistaken. :) )
Apparantly, a ~but is a liberal who agrees with the conservative assessment of a given issue yet only agrees conditionally. In this case, a good example would be "Yes, Iraq is a battleground in the WoT, but only because we made it that way." It helps the conservatives fit complex scenarios into their black/white world view where everything has a binary solution. "Yes/No" response requests are indicative of an intolerance for nuance.

It's similar to the conservative "but clinton" who agrees that the current administration is a bunch of lying douche-nozzles, but somehow either (A) Clinton must be to blame, or (B) Clinton did something far worse (or at least similar) therefore making it "OK."

Then you have the ~but! which has been described as an "angry libbie." Similar to the creatures on the other side of the aisle, the "Kerry ate a BABY! OMG!!!" types.

 

alchemize

Lifer
Mar 24, 2000
11,486
0
0
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
(BTW, I missed the thread or the memo or whatever where this "~but" thing was concocted. I imagine it's supposed to have some devastating significance, but it looks like rather retarded name-calling to me, I'm afraid. I suspect that wasn't your doing, but feel free to take "credit" for it if I'm mistaken. :) )
Apparantly, a ~but is a liberal who agrees with the conservative assessment of a given issue yet only agrees conditionally. In this case, a good example would be "Yes, Iraq is a battleground in the WoT, but only because we made it that way." It helps the conservatives fit complex scenarios into their black/white world view where everything has a binary solution. "Yes/No" response requests are indicative of an intolerance for nuance.

It's similar to the conservative "but clinton" who agrees that the current administration is a bunch of lying douche-nozzles, but somehow either (A) Clinton must be to blame, or (B) Clinton did something far worse (or at least similar) therefore making it "OK."

Then you have the ~but! which has been described as an "angry libbie." Similar to the creatures on the other side of the aisle, the "Kerry ate a BABY! OMG!!!" types.

Very good Dealmonkey, you've been paying attention! Although I think your analogies were a little off when representing the anti-~but. For example,

a conservative would say
"Saddam was a bad guy and needed to be taken out"
the ~but then says:
"Saddam was a bad guy, but"

The conservative says:
"Regime change was Clinton policy"

the ~but says:
"Yes, but he didn't really mean it"