CNN's "Dead Wrong." No one watched it?

[Moneyguy1]

cool...

Most advocates of a specific point of view try to prove the unprovable.

One cannot prove a negative.

Two of my favorites:

"We haven't had a terror attack on US soil in five years".

"We are better off fighting them there than fighting them here".

While both statements have some truth to them, the reasoning behind them is faulty.

As are statements like "stay the course" (What is the course?) and "cut and run" (what would be the result of THIS action?)
Slogans, simply meant to eliminate meaningful dialogue. That is the "political way".

No deep thought, just jingoism.

[914GT]

Originally posted by Moneyguy1
cool...

Most advocates of a specific point of view try to prove the unprovable.

One cannot prove a negative.

Two of my favorites:

"We haven't had a terror attack on US soil in five years".

"We are better off fighting them there than fighting them here".

While both statements have some truth to them, the reasoning behind them is faulty.

As are statements like "stay the course" (What is the course?) and "cut and run" (what would be the result of THIS action?)
Slogans, simply meant to eliminate meaningful dialogue. That is the "political way".

No deep thought, just jingoism.

What's faulty about the first statement? Have we had a terrorist attack on US soil in the last five years? This statement, by itself, can be proven true or false based on historical events.

But the following statement can not be proven true or false:

"If we had not invaded Iraq we would not be fighting them here".

Edit: Actually we have had terrorist attacks by Islamic radicals on US soil. The murders and attempted murders in Maryland and Virginia (Malvo/Muhammed) and N. Carolina (Taheri-azar) come to mind.

[cool_chick]

You're talking about apples and oranges here......

I can say if I shower, my dog will not smell. I can safely say that is not even remotely possible.

However, there is a grain of truth in what you say, based on the way it's phrased. I can safely say without a shadow of a doubt that invading Iraq has had zero impact on whether we would be fighting them here or not.

[Moneyguy1]

Folks:

The flaw in the logic is that no (major) attacks in five years can be solely attributed to what we have done and nothing to what the enemy's plans have been or currently are.

As to the "cut and run": It is a simplistic verbal attack meant to polarize opinion rather than understood as forcing the Iraquis into taking responsibility for their own future. If a timetable is established and turns out to unforseen events to be impractable, the date can be changed. No plan is simply that; a fairy tale: a "Neverending Story". We should stay long enough to get the job done, not become a baby sitter.

[914GT]

Originally posted by Moneyguy1
taking responsibility for their own future.

Since when did that become the Democrat mantra?

[CamB]

Originally posted by 914GT
Sorry that my previous response was beyond your mental capacity. We were discussing the consequences of 'not' invading Iraq. Iraq had plenty of capability to do us harm, more so than Afghanistan and their al-Qaeda terrorist training camps. By not invading, Saddam would have had three more years to pursue his various programs of terror.

It doesn't take much imagination to envision numerous Fedayeen or al-Qaeda terrorists entering this country legally or illegally. Our country has had liberal policies to allow Saudi and other Arabs to enter as students, most pursuing degrees in science and engineering. We have an uncontrolled border to the south for people to come across. Canada's lax 'multicultural' immigration policies have allowed terrorist groups to form there and have access through our northern border, evident in the recent Toronto arrests.

Now, imagine our intelligence gathering and law enforcement programs encumbered with so many 'civil rights' restrictions which make it impossible to track these people or monitor what they are up to. You've got all the ingredients necessary to allow some very spectacular terrorist attacks.

This post is awesome!

It doesn't contain a single fact (with the possible exception that you probably do let Arabs - the vast majority of whom are lovely people - in as students)... but is stated with such authority I almost believed it.

Re-read your first paragraph. Ask yourself if, prior to 2003, there have been more attacks on US and other Western interests from:

a) terrorists trained in Afghanistan; or
b) terrorists trained in Iraq.

[Moneyguy1]

914...Respectfully...

Taking a few words out of context is disingenuous at best.

Reread the whole post and just for a few minutes drop the partisan pose. Argue with the logic, not the jargon and party mantra!!

[914GT]

Originally posted by CamB
This post is awesome!

It doesn't contain a single fact

So in other words you believe:

1. Iraq did not have capability to build weapons or train terrorists.
2. Saddam would have not pursued weapons or trained terrorists between 2003 and now.
3. Terrorists trained in Iraq could not infiltrate the US.
4. Arab students are all little angels.
5. Our border with Mexico is completely secured.
6. Canada's open immigration policy does not lead to formation of terror groups.
7. Terrorists cannot cross the US/Canada border.
8. There have been no attempts to restrict intelligence gathering or sharing of intelligence between government agencies.

If you believe the above you live in a dream world. Do us a favor and stay in New Zealand, where you release terrorists back into the wild.

[Moneyguy1]

Listing a few factual statements with others that are unprovable doesnot make the list true!!! Of course, #8 seems to be an internal problem to the US and the mess we have in Washington!!

Fer cryin out loud..Can we all agree we are there, let's clean up the mess and than come home? The eggs are broken..either toss them out or make an omelet. There will always be new bogeymen arriving under the bed.

[914GT]

Originally posted by Moneyguy1
914...Respectfully...

Taking a few words out of context is disingenuous at best.

Reread the whole post and just for a few minutes drop the partisan pose. Argue with the logic, not the jargon and party mantra!!

I disagree. The Democrats have long pushed for social programs and blame society for all ills, and downplay personal responsibility. It is never the fault of the individual, whatever the problem may be, and they are always play the 'victim' card. So now, in Iraq, the Democrats now want to abandon this long-held philosophy and they must take on the responsibility themselves.

[914GT]

Originally posted by Moneyguy1
Listing a few factual statements with others that are unprovable doesnot make the list true!!! Of course, #8 seems to be an internal problem to the US and the mess we have in Washington!!

All of them are either factual or based on a high degree of common sense. #8 is internal, due to those in this country who seek to undermine our ability to fight terror.

[Nathans_Dad]

Originally posted by cool_chick
I can say if I shower, my dog will not smell. I can safely say that is not even remotely possible.

I'm confused. Is "your dog" referring to some part of your anatomy that usually smells or are you taking long hot showers with your dog?

If the latter is true, are you planning on posting pics in the random pics thread?

[Moneyguy1]

I do not agree. The statment you make is far too general and partisan. The situation is a bit more complex than that. True, many social programs were instituted by the Democratic party (Social Security, Great Society, New Deal). What happened to these programs in the ensuing years took BOTH parties to screw up as bad as they are!!

Claiming to be victims is not the purview of a single party.

[Mulhollanddose]

Originally posted by Moneyguy1
Claiming to be victims is not the purview of a single party.

Nor does the universe dictate absolute moral equivalence in criminality and/or corruption between political parties...In fact it is quite possible that one party is significantly more corrupt than the other. It is possible that the gravitational pull (for lack of a better metaphor) of the more corrupt party pulls the less corrupt party in its direction, in order to compete.

[Mulhollanddose]

Originally posted by Nathans_Dad
If the latter is true, are you planning on posting pics in the random pics thread?

Please clarify your request...I am assuming you are requesting the dog's POV.

[Mulhollanddose]

Originally posted by Moneyguy1
Of course, #8 seems to be an internal problem to the US and the mess we have in Washington!!

Liberal-speak for "Bush has successfully resuscitated an economy on the brink of recession and has skillfully and efficiently dismantled terrorism and the Democrat party."

[cool_chick]

Originally posted by Nathans_Dad
I'm confused. Is "your dog" referring to some part of your anatomy that usually smells or are you taking long hot showers with your dog?

If the latter is true, are you planning on posting pics in the random pics thread?

LMAO, you're so bad!

And I don't have anatomy that smells!

[nostatic]

Originally posted by Mulhollanddose
Bush has ...efficiently dismantled terrorism

pssst!

Indonesia

you have no clue...

[cool_chick]

Originally posted by nostatic
pssst!

Indonesia

you have no clue...

and Pakistan.......

[Mulhollanddose]

Originally posted by nostatic
pssst!

Indonesia

you have no clue...

pssst!....Lebanon, Libya, Afghanistan and Iraq.

It is a process, Todd...This is not a sitcom, this is not a KISS FM top 40 song, this is a war on an ideology bent on murdering as many innocent people as possible...Either we do a Clinton and ignore the problem, or we deal with it...Either we deal with the problem now, or we pass it on (Clinton style) to the next generation, and perhaps a much more devastating attack.



But I am sure if that was your son jumping to his death, you would be content because we didn't do something about it before it happened...I am sure you wouldn't have wanted to prevent 9-11-2001 if you had the chance, right Todd?