Will this, less than a month overthrowing an Iraqi regime scare other countries in messing with us?

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: Marshallj

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Don't get NWO confused with WOT, like Dubya has done.

Your story was at least holding together until you said this. As soon as I hear an someone call George Bush "Dubya", I immediately lose faith in their message. Calling somebody by a demeaning pet name fills your post with bias, and after that point your intentions become clear and your message becomes suspect.

Before you get your panties in a twist, Mr. Obvious, I got some "shock and awe" news for you.
1. Dubya = W. That's George Bush's middle initial, not a demeaning pet name. Lots of unbiased people call him Dubya too.
2. I am not one of them, because I am biased. I don't like Bush's policies, mostly fiscal domestic, but lately international as well.
3. Everyone is biased, and has intentions. Someone being biased doesn't mean they don't have a point.

 

[sMiLeYz]

Originally posted by: Staley8

Originally posted by: Morph
I'm sure that some countries who are not considered our allies like Russia, China and NK are feeling more threatened by us now and will increase their defense spending because of this. Overall, this episode (and Bush's administration in general) has been terrible for our international relations.

And you know what our relations were prior to this war and now....exactly how? In other words, you are now an expert in international relations and how this war has affected both short and long term relations, wow I'm impressed with your database of knowledge? I think people will see how well our military performed and say, "wow, we'd better not mess with the US"......unless someone spinless like Gore or Clinton is in office.

Spineless? Maybe Clinton, but Gore was actually in Vietnam war, while mr. dumb-as-a- rock GW was snorting coke, driving drunk, and skipping the service.

I'd still rather have someone who actually has 8 years experience as a vice president, whos smart, hardworking, and capable rather than some daddy's boy who won't have gotten in Yale if his daddy wasn't an alumni.

Anyway, you really think Bush in office is going to deter our enemies? Keep dreaming.

 

[Marshallj]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Before you get your panties in a twist, Mr. Obvious, I got some "shock and awe" news for you.
1. Dubya = W. That's George Bush's middle initial, not a demeaning pet name. Lots of unbiased people call him Dubya too.
2. I am not one of them, because I am biased. I don't like Bush's policies, mostly fiscal domestic, but lately international as well.
3. Everyone is biased, and has intentions. Someone being biased doesn't mean they don't have a point.

I know why they call him "Dubya", but I've found that only people bordering on the lunatic fringe call him that.

If someone is biased, I don't want to hear their point. Mentality like that is what causes "peace activists" to become violent. They seem to want their "peaceful message" be heard, but if nobody wants to listen to their emotionally charged drivel, they often become disruptive and violent.

They have a right to speak, not necessarily a right to be listened to. They have the right to say what they want and others have the right to ignore them. But crossing the line and becoming disruptive in an attempt to be heard is not a right, it is a crime.

 

[Paveslave]

Originally posted by: elzmaddy
Iraq didn't do anything. Al Qaeda did. Let's not mix that up at least.


"And for gosh sakes, let's not give Bush any crazy ideas about a pre-emptive nuclear attack.

Edited out nonsense to make room for more nonsense:

Yeah!!! and Bush gets all his good insight browsing the forums at AT...lol.

 

[NightTrain]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Saddam launched scuds with no WMD into Kuwait, AFTER an invasion was launched on his country from Kuwait.

I thought Saddam invaded Kuwait and launched Scuds at them and Israel.

 

[Marshallj]

Originally posted by: NightTrain

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Saddam launched scuds with no WMD into Kuwait, AFTER an invasion was launched on his country from Kuwait.

I thought Saddam invaded Kuwait and launched Scuds at them and Israel.

Yes, Iraq invaded Kuwait first, and when we began kicking them out launched scuds at Israel and Kuwait.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: Marshallj

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Before you get your panties in a twist, Mr. Obvious, I got some "shock and awe" news for you.
1. Dubya = W. That's George Bush's middle initial, not a demeaning pet name. Lots of unbiased people call him Dubya too.
2. I am not one of them, because I am biased. I don't like Bush's policies, mostly fiscal domestic, but lately international as well.
3. Everyone is biased, and has intentions. Someone being biased doesn't mean they don't have a point.

I know why they call him "Dubya", but I've found that only people bordering on the lunatic fringe call him that.

If someone is biased, I don't want to hear their point. Mentality like that is what causes "peace activists" to become violent. They seem to want their "peaceful message" be heard, but if nobody wants to listen to their emotionally charged drivel, they often become disruptive and violent.

They have a right to speak, not necessarily a right to be listened to. They have the right to say what they want and others have the right to ignore them. But crossing the line and becoming disruptive in an attempt to be heard is not a right, it is a crime.

OK, I am sorry I wasn't "Fair and Balanced" why don't you go watch Fox news. People on this board are informed and form their own opinions and biases. THIS IS NOT A NEWS CHANNEL. People express their OPINIONS here. If you want to only hear from people who don't care either way, or haven't bothered to form an opinion, this is not the place. And the only "unbiased" people you are going to find are either the uninformed or the indifferent. Both are very boring to discuss issues with. And you are biased yourself. Biased in your foolish belief that biases cause people to be violent. Well, most people have opinions and peacefully discuss them on message boards like this, or with their friends, or neighbors. Having an opinion on an issue doesn't make you violent. And you should do more research on "Dubya" before you say "only people bordering on the lunatic fringe call him that". You sir are picking on details like "Dubya" because you are not informed and not articulate enough to respond to the actual arguement, so you go after stupid stuff that you can handle. Maybe you should read some articles where people actually try to argue for something they believe in, as opposed to being two faced and "unbiased" and trying to cover all bases and not offend anyone. Do that, and you might actually be able to form an arguement of your own someday.

 

[drewshin]

If someone is biased, I don't want to hear their point. Mentality like that is what causes "peace activists" to become violent. They seem to want their "peaceful message" be heard, but if nobody wants to listen to their emotionally charged drivel, they often become disruptive and violent.

heh heh, marshallj the comedian. you must not hear anything anyone says. no, it's just not "peace activists" that become violent, it's any type of activist or protestor.

I thought Saddam invaded Kuwait and launched Scuds at them and Israel.

i think he was referring to the current war not the 91 gulf war.

 

[NightTrain]

Originally posted by: drewshin

If someone is biased, I don't want to hear their point. Mentality like that is what causes "peace activists" to become violent. They seem to want their "peaceful message" be heard, but if nobody wants to listen to their emotionally charged drivel, they often become disruptive and violent.

heh heh, marshallj the comedian. you must not hear anything anyone says. no, it's just not "peace activists" that become violent, it's any type of activist or protestor.

I thought Saddam invaded Kuwait and launched Scuds at them and Israel.

i think he was referring to the current war not the 91 gulf war.

There have been no Scuds in the current war.

 

[Marshallj]

Originally posted by: SuperTool
[OK, I am sorry I wasn't "Fair and Balanced" why don't you go watch Fox news. People on this board are informed and form their own opinions and biases. THIS IS NOT A NEWS CHANNEL. People express their OPINIONS here. If you want to only hear from people who don't care either way, or haven't bothered to form an opinion, this is not the place.

I don't know about you, but I do not come here to listen to people's biased opinions. FACTS are the only thing that matters to me, people's opinions are worthless. I do not care to listen to someone's opinion. I come on here read about factual information about a variety of topics relating to the war, NOT opinions which may be poorly formed.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: Marshallj

Originally posted by: SuperTool
[OK, I am sorry I wasn't "Fair and Balanced" why don't you go watch Fox news. People on this board are informed and form their own opinions and biases. THIS IS NOT A NEWS CHANNEL. People express their OPINIONS here. If you want to only hear from people who don't care either way, or haven't bothered to form an opinion, this is not the place.

I don't know about you, but I do not come here to listen to people's biased opinions. FACTS are the only thing that matters to me, people's opinions are worthless. I do not care to listen to someone's opinion. I come on here read about factual information about a variety of topics relating to the war, NOT opinions which may be poorly formed.

So you go to message board to get news? You are not too bright, I gather.
Try this instead

 

[NightTrain]

Originally posted by: Marshallj

I don't know about you, but I do not come here to listen to people's biased opinions. FACTS are the only thing that matters to me, people's opinions are worthless. I do not care to listen to someone's opinion. I come on here read about factual information about a variety of topics relating to the war, NOT opinions which may be poorly formed.

I like reading people's opinions as well as facts. It's only when people begin to confuse the two..that's when I go Zzzzzzzzzzz.

 

[Marshallj]

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Maybe you should read some articles where people actually try to argue for something they believe in, as opposed to being two faced and "unbiased" and trying to cover all bases and not offend anyone. Do that, and you might actually be able to form an arguement of your own someday.

It is clear that you do not understand the concept of objectivity. You think you are making a point by spewing emotionally charged drivel, but really you are only exposing your bias.

When I argue a point, I try to remain as neutral as possible and let the truth speak for itself. If the point that I am am trying to make is true, the facts will reinforce my point. This contrasts with the tactic that people like you use, where you form a viewpoint first, and then try to fabricate "facts" to support your poorly formed argument.

 

[tec699]

We should Nuke the whole world! Then we wouldn't have any problems!!!!

:beer: - Ummm.... who cares about war and nutty dictators! I want some iced cold beer!!

yuummm...

 

[Marshallj]

Originally posted by: SuperTool
So you go to message board to get news? You are not too bright, I gather.
Try this instead

Well you gathered wrong as usual.

I said "I come on here read about factual information about a variety of topics relating to the war".

It doesn't have to be news. It could be old facts which are not "news". It is information pertaining to the war, but it is not news.

I don't know how you are able to fail to see the difference. And you're calling me not bright? LOL. You are the dim bulb in this conversation.

 

[RanDum72]

As soon as I hear an someone call George Bush "Dubya",

I've been trying to call Dubya "George W. Bush" but Dubya is just better, has some flavor to it...

 

[Marshallj]

Originally posted by: NightTrain

Originally posted by: Marshallj

I don't know about you, but I do not come here to listen to people's biased opinions. FACTS are the only thing that matters to me, people's opinions are worthless. I do not care to listen to someone's opinion. I come on here read about factual information about a variety of topics relating to the war, NOT opinions which may be poorly formed.

I like reading people's opinions as well as facts. It's only when people begin to confuse the two..that's when I go Zzzzzzzzzzz.

Yeah, unfortunately many of these anti-war zealots are trying their hardest to confuse the two. They are posting links to sites that obviously hate the USA and try to push that off as being the "truth". Then they also attempt to support their arguments by posting links written by people with obvious agendas just like them.

 

[Marshallj]

Originally posted by: drewshin

I thought Saddam invaded Kuwait and launched Scuds at them and Israel.

i think he was referring to the current war not the 91 gulf war.

He cannot be, since in this war Iraq has fired no missiles at Israel and no Scuds at anyone.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: Marshallj

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Maybe you should read some articles where people actually try to argue for something they believe in, as opposed to being two faced and "unbiased" and trying to cover all bases and not offend anyone. Do that, and you might actually be able to form an arguement of your own someday.

It is clear that you do not understand the concept of objectivity. You think you are making a point by spewing emotionally charged drivel, but really you are only exposing your bias.

When I argue a point, I try to remain as neutral as possible and let the truth speak for itself. If the point that I am am trying to make is true, the facts will reinforce my point. This contrasts with the tactic that people like you use, where you form a viewpoint first, and then try to fabricate "facts" to support your poorly formed argument.

I never said I was objective. I am very subjective. I never tried to hide my bias, so there is nothing to expose.
Opinions are not objective and unbiased. If you are neutral when you form your arguements, you aren't forming a very good arguement, or you are lying.
You can't argue a point convincingly if you are neutral on it and aren't convinced of it yourself.

This contrasts with the tactic that people like you use, where you form a viewpoint first, and then try to fabricate "facts" to support your poorly formed argument.

Now name facts that I fabricated to support my arguments.

When I argue a point, I try to remain as neutral as possible and let the truth speak for itself. If the point that I am am trying to make is true, the facts will reinforce my point.

OK, the point you were arguing is that only people on lunatic fringe call Bush "Dubya". That is certainly not a neutral position, but even if it was, what facts do you have to reinforce that point? I think you are full of it.

 

[Marshallj]

Originally posted by: RanDum72

As soon as I hear an someone call George Bush "Dubya",

I've been trying to call Dubya "George W. Bush" but Dubya is just better, has some flavor to it...

"Dubya" has a negative connotation to it since it is the term of choice used by Bush haters.


It's the same as people referring to Bill Clinton as "slick willie".... it's a biased pet name. I couldn't take anyone's point seriously if they called Bill Clinton "slick willie"

 

[Nitemare]

No.

Their Information officers will tell them that Iraq won the war

 

[Marshallj]

Supertool, not only are you a tool, you're the entire toolBOX.

Welcome to my ignore list.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: Marshallj
Supertool, not only are you a tool, you're the entire toolBOX.

Welcome to my ignore list.

LOL coming from a guy who got hot and bothered about me calling Bush "Dubya"
Now you come in here and making fun of my nick. I told you to put up some facts or shut up. Good to see you shut up.
Go ahead and ignore me, please. I really don't want to read your neffing unless you have something interesting and informed to post, as opposed to nitpicking over "Dubya"

 

[drewshin]

how can anyone argue about a war and be "objective". you need facts, and facts are always in short supply unless you are immersed in the situation. sure, you can get "facts" from news outlets, but trying to get "facts" from forums such as these, when we're all typing away at our computers? you'd have to assume that everything you read is the truth, and no matter what, every news outlet and every person has some type of agenda.

it seems obvious to me that anyone who says they can be "objective" about war is either a liar, or so conceited that they think they're some type of ethereal being that thinks they have no bias at all, and that the truth will simply just emerge by them putting a few tidbits together here and there.

welcome to his ignore list supertool, im just wondering why he hasnt added biased people like etech or charrison.

 

[Thraxen]

^^^^

I agree. I don't think it is possible to be 100% objective. Everyone is going to have an opinion and take a side, at which point it becomes next to impossible to be totally objective.