Tal's Iraq War: Blood for Oil, Oil for Food, Food for Thought

Hi Tal: Ummm...go back to the good ole days before George W. became President for the first time. Remember the campaign leading up to the election? Remember how many times he stated that he was NOT in favor of "nation building"? Remember how he assured us that he would NOT get involved in the very sort of thing in which we are now currently invloved? Not everyone in this Country is stupid, Tal, some of us actually remember the bull shit he was spouting back then. And don't give me that crap about 9/11 changing things. He lied to us then and he continues to lie to us now.

Tal: Fine, you stopped reading. However, since it was the second to last sentence in the paragragh, perhaps you could actually address the issue.

Tal:Ok, I’ll restate my question and leave out any personal opinions I have about Iraq. I will say this, however, in defense of our President. I was completely behind his decision to enter Afghanistan. I supported (and still do) his justification for military action there, I only wish that he would have stayed focused on the Country that harbored the man (and a great many of his supporters) that actually played a role in the September 11th attacks.
Now, having said that, let re-state my question to you.In post 131 you stated that two reasons for the justification of invading Iraq were:In post 138, I simple pointed out, and asked for you opinion on the differences between, what then Gov Bush said and what now President Bush actually has done. Remember, I’m still basically behind him on Afghanistan. Here again is what I wrote:So now let me ask if you think Gov Bush was truthful when he assured us that Nation Building was something he was completely against and would avoid doing.

Schrafinator:Hello..I don't really want to deviate from the topic nor do I want to get into a pissing contest with you, but what exactly in my post #157 showed any anger and similarity to the style of contracycle? I simply asked Tal for his opinion of our Presidents complete 180 on the idea of nation building? Hell, I was even nice enough to agree that going into Afghanistan was completely justified.

Schrafinator:Thanks...but I do have to admit that I do get annoyed with Tal at times. I asked a simple question for which I have not yet seen a reply. All I want is for him to somehow explain how he feels about Gov Bush's own words and President Bush's actions. I would prefer he do it without bringing up 9/11, but I'm not sure that's possible.And I do agree with your take on contracycle. I do so much more enjoy reading his posts when he presents lots of interesting facts (and he does come up with some good ones), than I do when he says things like "the best thing for the World would be the destruction of the U.S."...(or words to those effect).

Contracycle: No, that is not at all what I am sayingcan’t you read? I really do enjoy reading through most of your posts, but when you refer to soldiers as murderers or say it would be best for the World if the U.S. was destroyed, I step back and assess not only these facts, but everything else I had read as well. They take away from your message, which is then ignored by many peopleand of what value is that?I must assume that you consider every war to be such that one side consists of the good guys and the other side consists of murderers? Why are you not demanding that every German WWII vet be arrested and put on trial as murderers? Or are you of the mind set that it was the other countries (the Allies) that were actually the murders? Maybe all U.S., Australian, and British WWII vets should be behind bars. I’m not trying to put words in your mouth, but it does seem to me that since in every war there are two sides (basically) then by your standards, one side or the other has to be nothing but murderers. See, here's a good example. Comparing the U.S. to Nazi Germany? Why Nazi Germany? There have been hundreds of wars fought in the past, so why do you pick Nazi Germany as your model for comparison? You do it soley for the shock value, not because of any realistic link with the ideals and goals of the Nazis.
And what act of censorship are you talking about? Not calling our soldiers murderers is censorship? I’ve read through back though a number of the posts at this thread (including those by Holmes, Schrafinator, and Loudmouth) and nowhere do I see an acknowledgement of the domestic spin. Quite to the contrary as a matter of factso just WTF are you talking about? Again, this is simply not true. We have said just about everything that you haveexcept for the name-calling.And what am I to take of your list on American Culture? Since quite a few don’t apply, I guess I’m not a part of your American Culture.

Hi again: Let me see if I can explain WHY it distracts from meaningful discussion, and I’ll use myself as the example. Personally, I agree with a lot of what you’re saying. I do not care for many of the things our Government does (past and present) and this particular administration seems, in my opinion, to be the worst in recent memory. Criticizing our actions is not bothersome to me. I’m an adult and I can pretty much take it. However, when you take the stand that all of our soldiers are murderers, or the U.S. is just another Nazi Germany, or the World would be better off with the destruction of the U.S., then I stop giving a shit about your opinion. And No, contracycle, it’s NOT because I’m an American and don’t like to be criticized. It’s not because I don’t want to hear the truth. It’s simply because reading statements like these seem to do nothing but piss people off (I’d feel the same if you said the same thing about Iraq). Fine, you may think it’s the truth, but if people stop reading what your write, then what is the purpose of continuing to write? Get it? I stop reading and/or trusting the other things you saybe they right or wrong. I stop reading and/or caring what you say. And isn’t it your desire to get the U.S to change its policies? Well, you are not going to get too many people here to agree with you if you call them murdering Nazis.
I mean, seriously, that fact that you and I are even having this discussion should be proof enough. Hell, I basically agree with what you’re saying but am starting to not give a shit anymore. I’ve gone from being on your side to arguing with you. Have you read some of the other posts hereby Americans? Get off your soap box about being the only knower of truth. So you are opposed to ALL war? You can think of no behavior what-so-ever that justifies military action? Really? The struggle against apartheid was wrong then? I’ll be stunned if this is indeed how you feel. I will give you credit and accolades for being consistent though. Now that’s funny. You compare the U.S. to Nazi Germany and somehow think it is a non-provocative statement? Wow, you are simply amazing. Well it provoked me to respond, did it not?so I guess that made it a provocative statement.
I will apologize for my comment about you stating it simply for the shock value, but don't kid yourself about it being non-provocative.In post 180 you say: Wait, you think that most of our soldiers volunteered for service in hopes of going off to war and killing someone? And yet you seem to think you’re an expert on American culture.Let’s talk about censorship
Here is what you said in post 173: And then in post 176 I asked if the censorship you were referring to was that fact that in the U.S., we don’t call our soldiers murderers. Your response in post 178 was: My rejection of you Nazi comparison obviously had nothing to do with your comment about censorship, so your latest response is a lie. I demand you retract the statement.

Contracycle:Post 202: No...because it is extreme and provocative. It’s an opinion, contracycle, not a fact. You often times provide great information, but if you present it in such a manner that discourages people from continuing to read...then of what value is your message? That's pretty much all we're saying.From post 206 we get: And don’t you complain when we invade Afghanistan.
And call me what you will, but in all honesty I would not have been AS upset if they would have used military weapons to attack military targets. But to fly a plane load of innocent civilians into buildings occupied by more innocent civilianscome on contracyclecan that be justified in your eyes?And in post 207: So where is there a functioning Communist Government that fits your definition? In what country are the ideals and beliefs you possess actually being put to practice? Where is this Country in which everybody gets along, racism does not exist, everybody has everything they want, and all disputes are settled with a big ole group hug? What country practices From each according to his ability, to each according to his need? Show me the Government where all of the people completely agree with their leaders actions. Does such a place exist? Seriously, where is this egalitarian society? I would venture a guess that a true Communist Government will NEVER materialize.
People in power will ultimately do what ever they can get away with. You obviously hate the U.S. and blame us for all the Worlds problem. Tough shit I guess. Am I aware of the atrocities committed by the U.S. in the past (and present)by and large, yes. Am I proud of those acts? No. The world is now, and likely will forever be, a place of the have and have nots, with the latter trying to become a member of the former. I’m curiousdo any other Countries fit your comparison to the Nazis, or are we here in the U.S. globally unique in that regard?

Contracycle: So what is it you want to know? How we were viciously attacked by Communist North Vietnam without provocation? Ya wanna hear how the North Vietnamese attacked first a destroyer, and then 2 days later some PT boats torpedoed a couple more innocent U.S. Boats? Is that what you fucking expect/want me to say? If that’s the case, then you have a tenuous grasp, at best, on the views we have in this Country when it comes to Vietnam. Maybe you should get some new, more up-to-date books to read on American Culture, your current propaganda bull shit manual might be getting a bit old.ABE
Gads...I almost feel like I've been put in the position of defending Tal (nothing personal Tal)...This message has been edited by FliesOnly, 01-20-2005 14:16 AM

Contracycle: You are an absolute riot!
Now your defense seems to be something along the lines of:But Your Honor, I did not really mean FIREwhat I really meant to say was; By golly, if the Brownian motion of the air molecules in this confined space collide at an increased rate, thus increasing their current thermal properties, it’s entirely possible that some of the Quercus and Fraxinus secondary xylem that comprise the seating, as well as its hexamethylene diamine covering, might reach their respective combustion points.Golly gee, I thought everyone knew that that is what I meant when I yelled FIRE!

Contracycle:So as not to be considered rude, I will reply.Apparently you don't read. In post #193 I said: I am now done with this thread.