Jay Leno Asks Why - OT

[Whitey]

All of this talk about fighting the war on someone else's land got me thinking. How many civilian casualties have we directly or indirectly caused due to our presence? Didn't we remove Saddam, in part, due to his treatment of his people? I'm not sure that they're dying at a considerably slower rate these days.

Are the Iraqi civilians' lives worth that much less than an American life?

 

[cycloneworld]

Do you have any evidence to support this claim?

I do.

Brian Ross: ABC News

I'd say killing 5,000 terrorists is pretty good. And that article is almost 8 months old now.

 

[cycloneworld]

This presidency has been a complete and utter disaster. The list of fiascoes is endless and continues to grow.

List please?

Today he actually stated that US troops leaving Iraq would allow the county to turn into a "cauldron of chaos". Hey george, try turning on a news report or get info not pre-prepared, pre-reviewed by Cheney, Rove and Haliburton. Turn into? We're there, oh great one. Have been since about 2005.

Your first statement about a news report is the exact problem here. The news doesn't tell even close to the whole story. Try doing some research before you spout off stuff you heard on the evening news.

The second statement is just an ignorant cheapshot. I'm not even going to respond to that one.

 

[Cyclonepride]

1. I point him out as someone who has succeeded in getting a lot of the common man to like him by basically buying them.

2. Marx did have it mostly right with regard to capitalism and wealth distribution. I don't think anyone every really rebutted this in the other thread, although I haven't gone back to look. The fact that I throw some unpopular names out there doesn't mean that my points are incorrect.

3. So far you have not offered an argument, just said "no they don't." I can point to at least two examples, namely Chavez and Hezbollah, that have excelled at getting and maintaining power by essentially giving handouts. Honestly, handouts probably both make people like you and cause them to expect more. They are not mutually exclusive.

Ok, obviously you and I are on completely opposite sides of the political spectrum. So we are not going to agree on much, or understand each other's logic. But oh well, I have to try:rolleyes5cz: .

Regarding Chavez, I think there is something out there that gives us a clue as to how this all ends up. Oh, wait, is it called history? I'm sure he is a hero right now. Let's see what happens when people come down off their high and figure out that they still can't afford the ammenities that they supposedly own, and when noone else in the world will lend them a financial hand.

So your list of people you admire or identify with has grown to Marx, Chavez and Hezbollah. Wow, that is quite a combination. What about Stalin? He was a pretty effective leader. Signs and statues everywhere of that guy!

 

[Cyclonepride]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyclonepride
It's pretty easy, ala World War II, to sit around and hope the threats aren't real. Confronting Germany when they reoccupied the Ruhr would have been very unpopular at the time. It also would have saved millions of lives.




Wow, with that logic, we had better start a draft. Let's invade everyone in the world that might have a perceived beef with us. We wouldn't want to give them a chance to cool their heads, or for a reasonable government to control their own extremists.

Nobody knew about the genocide aspect of WWII until well after we were involved. That is Monday morning quarterbacking at its worst.

If you are following along at home, you might want to do a little more research if you think we are dealing with reasonable governments. We are dealing with governments who support the extremists.

Do you think that the only worthwhile aspect of World War II was ending the genocide that was going on? Taking over all of Europe isn't quite enough for you? I suppose the United States could have stuck it's head in the sand, and everyone would have just left us alone. Except for the Japanese. But I can already tell that you probably think that was staged too.

 

[Kyle]

So your list of people you admire or identify with has grown to Marx, Chavez and Hezbollah. Wow, that is quite a combination. What about Stalin? He was a pretty effective leader. Signs and statues everywhere of that guy!

I rather resent that actually. Pointing out or people groups for use in an example or saying they were right about something is certainly a far cry from admiring or identifying with them.

 

[Cyclonepride]

I rather resent that actually. Pointing out or people groups for use in an example or saying they were right about something is certainly a far cry from admiring or identifying with them.

Sorry if you took that personally, but dude.....you're trotting out a who's who of infamous people to support your position.

 

[Kyle]

I do.

Brian Ross: ABC News

I'd say killing 5,000 terrorists is pretty good. And that article is almost 8 months old now.

I find it kind of ironic that you want to dismiss most of what is in the media but provide a link to ABC News when asked for a source. Not that its a bad source or anything, just kind of ironic.

 

[Kyle]

Sorry if you took that personally, but dude.....you're trotting out a who's who of infamous people to support your position.

Here's something kind of analogous to how I've seen this go.

Person 1: Really evil people can't come to power in elected governments.
Person 2: Sure they can, just look at Hitler.
Person 3: Person 2 admires Hitler!

 

[Whitey]

If you are following along at home, you might want to do a little more research if you think we are dealing with reasonable governments. We are dealing with governments who support the extremists.

Do you think that the only worthwhile aspect of World War II was ending the genocide that was going on? Taking over all of Europe isn't quite enough for you? I suppose the United States could have stuck it's head in the sand, and everyone would have just left us alone. Except for the Japanese. But I can already tell that you probably think that was staged too.

I'm trying to find where I asserted that anything was staged. Our lack of involvement in WWII prior to Pearl Harbor had to do with not being prepared to go to war. We were letting the British and Russians take care of it. I'm saying that we would have been there sooner had we known of the genocide.

Tell me something. Do you think we should also be at war with Syria, Iran, North Korea, etc...? Was the "proof" that we had to justify Iraq enough? If so, then we've got a lot of wars to fight.

 

[mapnerd]

Yes, the Iraqi government supported extremists, but didn't we support them in the 80's (maybe 90's)? I keep thinking back to that now infamous picture of Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam.

I find it ironic that someone would link to an ABC page as well. I hate it when people are always quoting the liberal media. :laugh8kb:

 

[Cyclonesrule91]

This presidency has been a complete and utter disaster. The list of fiascoes is endless and continues to grow.

Today he actually stated that US troops leaving Iraq would allow the county to turn into a "cauldron of chaos". Hey george, try turning on a news report or get info not pre-prepared, pre-reviewed by Cheney, Rove and Haliburton. Turn into? We're there, oh great one. Have been since about 2005.

Complete and utter disaster??? What are you smoking. He might not have done everything exactly the way he should have looking at it in hindsight, but he has done the best he can. I figure the guy has a heck of a lot more people finding facts and information for him then the common american does. Did you ever think that maybe he is going off that info instead of your trusted source, the media(see red paragraph). Just because a President doesn't show YOU every bit of evidence and information that caused him to come to the decision doesn't mean it is unjustified. I for one am a whole lot happier with his efforts then if the father of the internet Gore won the first term, since he would have called a tea meeting with Osama Yo Momma to find out how we offended him and come to some sort of mutual understanding. Or if Mr Hienz Kerry would have won, who knows what kinda bombing he would have walked us into. That article, whether it was Jay Leno's or not, is DEAD RIGHT. The polls said that 2/3 of americans are unhappy?? Well I for one have never been contacted for such a poll, so I have about as much faith in that poll that I have in my 2 yr old picking me up and driving me home from work tonight.

If you are a Cyclone, then I know you are not dumb enough to take the media's protrayal of any story over facts that actually happened. The media is a farce who has the objectivity of a rock. I say this because I worked in a profession before that was kicked in the nuts by the media because of a few loudmouths that was shown by the media to be in the majority constantly. I was interviewed quite a few times by the TV, radio and Newspaper people until I finally told them to shove it after I would see how they skewed our actual interview into something percieved as the total opposite. I also have friends and family who have served in Iraq and they are all quite steamed at seeing what we are accomplishing in Iraq and then seeing what the media shows when they are back here on leave or done with their tour. Add in the fact that Bush is a republican, something which 100% of the media despises, only adds gasoline to the fire. And the worst thing about all this is how deceaved I was before dealing with the media firsthand and how I took everything they said as fact. The media has the power right now and they are using it to their upmost advantage. There have been things reported about Bush that I don't know that I would be happy about if I knew they were true, but I have to think that it is not fact. That is also why whenever I hear these stupid polls on approval ratings of anybody or anything, I ignore them.

You only believe half of what you see and none of what you are told second hand was made into fact by the media outlets.

 

[cloneatlaw]

Frankly, our actions are reducing the number of terrorists.

Frankly, our actions are reducing the number of American soldiers. 5,000 "terrorists" is a fair trade for 3350 patriotic American soldiers? Not to mention the more than 34,000 civilian deaths last year. The most advanced nation in the world can't find a way to neutralize the "terrorists" without losing so many American lives?

 

[benjay]

I do.

Brian Ross: ABC News

I'd say killing 5,000 terrorists is pretty good. And that article is almost 8 months old now.

Have we killed more than they recruited? How are they defining "terrorist"? Does the source have reason to distort the statistics?

That article is not conclusive regarding the question I asked. If our actions push more people into terrorism than we kill, then we are not reducing the number of terrorists.

 

[cycloneworld]

I find it kind of ironic that you want to dismiss most of what is in the media but provide a link to ABC News when asked for a source. Not that its a bad source or anything, just kind of ironic.

I definitely don't dismiss what the media covers...I never said that. I realize that stuff is happening. It's not like they make up all of those bombings. They just report about 99% negative and 1% positive.

 

[Cyclonepride]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyclonepride
It's pretty easy, ala World War II, to sit around and hope the threats aren't real. Confronting Germany when they reoccupied the Ruhr would have been very unpopular at the time. It also would have saved millions of lives.




Wow, with that logic, we had better start a draft. Let's invade everyone in the world that might have a perceived beef with us. We wouldn't want to give them a chance to cool their heads, or for a reasonable government to control their own extremists.

Nobody knew about the genocide aspect of WWII until well after we were involved. That is Monday morning quarterbacking at its worst.

So how do your collective posts make sense? On one hand, you are referring to my post regarding pre-World War II Germany, and saying this. Then you are saying that World War II was justified. But you can't seem to understand the coorelation between this and current events?

And yes, if Syria, North Korea and Iran are willing to support the killing of innocent Americans, they should be next on the list. About the time that a nuke or biological weapon is detonated on American soil, all this crap about fighting nice wars will be completely out the window.

 

[cycloneworld]

Frankly, our actions are reducing the number of American soldiers. 5,000 "terrorists" is a fair trade for 3350 patriotic American soldiers? Not to mention the more than 34,000 civilian deaths last year. The most advanced nation in the world can't find a way to neutralize the "terrorists" without losing so many American lives?

So many American lives?? Go study previous American wars and see how many soldiers lost their lives in those. We are doing a remarkable job of keeping the number of American deaths down (although I would rather see that number even smaller).

 

[isucyfan]

So many American lives?? Go study previous American wars and see how many soldiers lost their lives in those. We are doing a remarkable job of keeping the number of American deaths down (although I would rather see that number even smaller).

Don't forget the "Blackwater" people, who are privately outsourced soldiers "off the books" from the US Military, which aren't counted in the casualties. Conveniently so, for this administration.

 

[Cyclonepride]

Have we killed more than they recruited? How are they defining "terrorist"? Does the source have reason to distort the statistics?

That article is not conclusive regarding the question I asked. If our actions push more people into terrorism than we kill, then we are not reducing the number of terrorists.

You're completely missing the point. It's all about state sponsorship of terrorists. Without state support, they are not a threat to our way of life. We are going to, and should, eliminate any state that does this. There can be all kinds of car bombings, and suicide bombings on American soil, and we would still roll on. A nuclear or biological attack would radically change our way of life. Shall we wait until after to react?

 

[cycloneworld]

Don't forget the "Blackwater" people, who are privately outsourced soldiers "off the books" from the US Military, which aren't counted in the casualties. Conveniently so, for this administration.

And you think this is a large number of people? Because I don't.