Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Oh boy... this will NOT end well.

China has been pretty much staying out of this whole terrorism thing , and now AlQaida want to drag them in as well?

If Al Qaida seriously goes to war with china... it will get really ugly.

reds8n wrote:
..I'll give it....oohh... 4 days, until we start to hear the first "Real" reports of how it's MI6/CIA/The Royal family/The Jews who are actually faking the attacks on the Chinese/whomever in an attempt to trick them into.. etc etc.

Thats what I'm saying, yo.

reds8n wrote:Well...

I don't think it quite "fair" to describe all members of Al Qaida as cowards. They fight for what they believe in and have shown they are willing to die for their beliefs. I don't agree with them or their methods--and some (most ?) of their ways are cowardly. But calling them all cowards is ridiculous.

It's also importnat to remember that it's not some mass organised force or even a coalition as such, just a loose gathering of like minded $%^&$ who align themselves under one "banner". So I don't think it impossible that at least faction would be, to our eyes, stupid enough to engage China/Russia/anyone.

Especially if they genuinely do think that "God is on their side".

..I'll give it....oohh... 4 days, until we start to hear the first "Real" reports of how it's MI6/CIA/The Royal family/The Jews who are actually faking the attacks on the Chinese/whomever in an attempt to trick them into.. etc etc.

Ever fought them in combat? I have. They're cowards. Muscling in on a family so you can use their home as an ambush point threatening to kill them if they resist and then using them as human shields when the troops respond to the fire is cowardice. Rigging artillery shells to detonate in a market patrolled by Americans, killing tens of noncombatives in the process because you can't bring yourself to risk being killed for your cause is cowardice. Killing tribal elders who are trying to be a part of the government process and "taking" a village only to pack up your crap and head to the hills when the Americans are spotted leaving their firebase and then returning a couple days later when the coast is clear is cowardice.

That's just tactically speaking. Now look at the leadership that hides under their rocks, only to appear for a brief moment to fire off a video for the world to eat up before vanishing again. They'll talk about martyrdom all day long, but you'll never see them on the front line. That kind of work is for young men and women that can have their ideals twisted and brought to a boil easily enough that they'll grab a gun to go shoot at Americans.

WoW had to edit a few times there. I got pretty fired up and lost the ability to type it seems.

Tyras wrote:
Ever fought them in combat? I have. They're cowards. Muscling in on a family so you can use their home as an ambush point threatening to kill them if they resist and then using them as human shields when the troops respond to the fire is cowardice. Rigging artillery shells to detonate in a market patrolled by Americans, killing tens of noncombatives in the process because you can't bring yourself to risk being killed for your cause is cowardice. Killing tribal elders who are trying to be a part of the government process and "taking" a village only to pack up your crap and head to the hills when the Americans are spotted leaving their firebase and then returning a couple days later when the coast is clear is cowardice.

Its also a laundry list of the most effective asymmetric tactics.

Tyras wrote:
They'll talk about martyrdom all day long, but you'll never see them on the front line. That kind of work is for young men and women that can have their ideals twisted and brought to a boil easily enough that they'll grab a gun to go shoot at Americans.

Isn't that pretty much how the armed forces work? The young men serve close to the front, while the old ones pull the strings from the relative safety of the rear. I'm not trying to dig at the military, it just seems like an odd criticism to me.

Also, assuming we're specifically discussing al-Qaeda, the vast majority of the leadership has its fair share of combat experience. Where they got that experience might vary, but between Afghanistan and the old Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood there were plenty of opportunities to spill the blood of the infidel.

American soldiers are not angels by any means either though. This is not directed at you personally, but I have heard some crazy stuff about some of our soldiers as well. In fact the main problem are not with the military but the corporations peddling war over there. Some of those mercenaries should not be allowed guns, clear fact.

Leaders tend to try to stay alive for a lot of reasons, and most of their leaders are highly skilled in many things. I can't even speak about the fact that most of these guys were trained by the U.S. so the whole RA! RA! RA! kill the terrorists mentality just makes me angrier.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:The British Empire used to pay scads of cash to larger, yet massivley poorer countries to go and pick on the French for us.

The difference between back than and today is now you don't have to pay anyone to pick on France!

dogma wrote:Its also a laundry list of the most effective asymmetric tactics.

You call it asymmetric tactics, I call it cowardice.

dogma wrote:Isn't that pretty much how the armed forces work? The young men serve close to the front, while the old ones pull the strings from the relative safety of the rear. I'm not trying to dig at the military, it just seems like an odd criticism to me.

Fair enough. I stand by the maytr bit though, because, obviously, none of them have martyred themselves so it's a bit Cowardly to tell people to do it while they won't take th eplunge themselves. Our military goes back to that philosophy of "It's not your job to die for your country. It's to make the other guy die for his."

Wrexasaur wrote:American soldiers are not angels by any means either though. This is not directed at you personally, but I have heard some crazy stuff about some of our soldiers as well.

There are some bad Soldiers, Marines, Airmen and Sailors. Of that there is no doubt. Throw a few hundred thousand men and women into a theater of operations and there's bound to be some real that reveal themselves, but their behavior is by no means institutionalized. The same can not be said of Al-Qaida.

There are some bad Soldiers, Marines, Airmen and Sailors. Of that there is no doubt. Throw a few hundred thousand men and women into a theater of operations and there's bound to be some real that reveal themselves, but their behavior is by no means institutionalized. The same can not be said of Al-Qaida.

So you are basically saying that it is possible that these people are brainwashed into doing these things? Desensitized in a way not unfamiliar to yourself perhaps? Most of the "cowards" you are talking about live in that nightmare with no leave, no escape, and for gaddam sure no tanks, cruise missiles, and body armor. These terrorists are nuts, but I would have a really hard time calling them true blue cowards.

The cultural gap here knows no bounds, and they have grown up in an entirely different place, with different rules and expectations. If they are completely wrong for being so drastic I can't imagine the U.S. being far behind in their responsibility of dragging this war into a campaign of "good" vs. "evil".

If there is a hell "good" and "evil" are simply a group of imps designed to make you doubt what is right and wrong. No great mystery there, just little voices that make you say and believe things that are not in keeping with how you actually feel. The real demons are much deeper and more twisted emotions, many of which are entirely unknown to most of the human population. Take real fear for instance, how many people have nearly died multiple times? Take that and add an aspect of daily ritual to the whole thing... bam! the terrorists take root in their accustomed niche.

Terrorists themselves can be seen metaphorically as the reflection of the present governments and military. If the big face on the T.V. says it is okay then we have nothing to worry about. Both sides have their faces, neither of which truly represent what they say they do. Religion aside, this whole "war" is about Ego and money, no more no less. There is simply no real reason for us to be in the middle east at all. America just needs to use their space lasers to poke holes in terrorist operations, this may sound like science fiction but the amount of observation from space is quite scary. Add a few UAV's and you got your self a remote tactical squad ready to totally annihilate any threat from a range limited only by the Earths surface. We have no need for soldiers, they just do not need to be there, it is a huge corporate scheme to pump money out of the middle east, to help Israel and a few other countries take over the whole "real" operation.

I speak from logic here, I can't see any other reason for the whole thing to actually take this long. Having to hide actions from the public is a phone call and a back-rub away nowadays. The media is regulated by the government which is governed by the corporations, which are watched over by the military. Forgive me for saying this, but they do not scare me at all. This whole web is just a match away of being burnt unto where it came from. Bombs and missiles have been firing for centuries, and no amount of them will be able to stop the universe from turning. That is what I believe in.

You say that you speak from logic, but spew out conspiracy theory? Yep everything we do is to perpetuate the corporate monster until Isreal can take over the show from us. Come on.

You can have the sky filled with aircraft or UAV's and you will not be able to hold ground. You need troops to maintain order unless you're suggesting a purely kill on sight method philosophy of doing business. I don't think you are though.

No the insurgents I dealt with did not have tanks, some did have body armor, and they did not have any cruise missiles. Do you know why? It's not for lack of resources, at least not on an organizational level. With there being a degree of state sponsorship and a suprisingly agile and elusive money network the funds are there and the weaponry could be accessed under certain conditions. The problem is organization, and the fact that such weapons are a hell of alot easier to track back to a government that AK 47's and RPGs. The Explosively formed penetrators proved that when they were tracked back to Iran. Those weapons are a little too specific to remain anonymous. If they were to get their act together and their backers would stop playing coy they would have a decent sized and well outfitted standing army. Trying to get thousands of people from a dozen different nations with varying degrees of insanity to actually come together under one united banner is pretty much impossible though.

You are not very educated about the terrorists that we're dealing with in Iraq and Afghanistan. Most aren't even from those places. Many come from lives where they live or at least have the opportunity to live in comfort with standards of life exceeding those of many in the west. I was surprised at the clarity of how one insurgent was speaking english. It turns out that this guy from UAE had a father who owns a quarry and made alot of money. He was educated in Europe and had only returned to the Middle East a few years before traveling to Pakistan and then into Afghanistan. That's on the far end of the spectrum, but there weren't a whole lot of those living in a nightmare without leave. They come from all walks of life. While it is alien to me that one would give up a career, richness of education, family etc many of those that I dealt with, unless my interpreter was just lying his ass off, didn't come from goat herding or dust farming.

The people that are in the nightmare without leave are the locals. The people that want the freedom to live their lives, but are being forced by the Taliban into a sever interpretation of Sharia Law. The family in Iraq that are just trying to make ends meet and pull their lives together that have to worry about being extorted for money or material for insurgents trying to support their operations in the area, or having their home targeted because it makes for a good base of operations, or having to worry about being killed for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. We build a school or some other piece of infrastructure that betters a community and the insurgents blow the freakin thing up because of who built it.

You seem to be a student of what the media is teaching. They give only a fraction of the story and from a point of view that they feel will sell papers/magazines/movie tickets or get ratings by filtering their reporting through the lens of popular sentiment amongst their target audience. Right now the war on Terror is not popular.

All of this is moving further and further off topic. The US, and other Western Nations do their best, investing countless man hours and millions of dollars to avoid collateral damage, to avoid innocent deaths. Our tactics are such that our troops are put at further risk so as not to inflict damage on property or cause the loss of innocent life. China on the other hand does not subscribe to that frame of thought. If anybody thinks that US forces have been overly aggressive or loose with their military power, they would have to create a whole new scale to measure the attrocities China would visit upon them.

I am not trying to argue, just present another side.

Not much more to say really, believe what you'd like, I am not trying to stop you.

The conspiracy theory thing was a bit off the cuff though. I am merely presenting what I believe to be fact, and I do not base this on anything besides common sense. I cannot imagine any other reason for us to be there this long, if the we cannot fight terrorists at range, we can't fight them at all. Tactical shmactical, these guys do not give up, so why throw soldiers into a place besides for media coverage and the ability to easily control the areas resources? America does very little because of mere ethical reasons, they want the dough, just like any empire before them.

On a side note, please don't talk down to me, and I will avoid doing the same for you. I am not spewing conspiracy theory, and it is far too easy to dismiss my statements as that alone. You seem to know more about what is happening in combat, but you are also clearly on the side of the U.S. military and their approach to the situation.

Tyras wrote:The US, and other Western Nations do their best, investing countless man hours and millions of dollars to avoid collateral damage, to avoid innocent deaths. Our tactics are such that our troops are put at further risk so as not to inflict damage on property or cause the loss of innocent life. China on the other hand does not subscribe to that frame of thought. If anybody thinks that US forces have been overly aggressive or loose with their military power, they would have to create a whole new scale to measure the attrocities China would visit upon them.

First off, those aren't "atrocities" - they are legitimate collateral damages of war.

Secondly, the fundamental difference between China and the US is that China thinks about the group, and the US thinks about the individual. China, like most other Asian countries, has no problems with the concept of group accountability, and will punish the group responsible accordingly. So there are no "innocent" deaths in such a conflict.

Frazzled wrote:So they already are wiping out the problem population, just taking a Chinese timeframe to do so (aka same strategy as Tibet) that strategy is also a time honored tradition.

No, they're not wiping the population. They have no interest and no policy in wiping the population. In fact, while the Han population has limits on the number of children they can have, there's no such policy for the Uygur. This is the same as Tibet.

That Tibetans are a minority in their own state is not a product of some grand scheme to wipe them out, it's a product of China wanting x number of people in an area (and x number of people out of other overpopulated areas). That the Chinese just don't get that people might be proud of their own traditions and want to live among a majority of their own people is a problem, but it isn't anything like the problem you're claiming.

Ask the people who died at Tienamen square that bond villain question.

See above. Seems like they are doing that, just more slowly in another Russian style.

You were saying the Chinese were going to commit genocide on an ethnic minority. To establish an example, you used a brutal police action used to restore order, where the overwhelming ethnicity of the victims was of the majority Han. They're nothing to do with each other.

Tyras wrote:
Fair enough. I stand by the maytr bit though, because, obviously, none of them have martyred themselves so it's a bit Cowardly to tell people to do it while they won't take th eplunge themselves.

Martyrdom doesn't necessarily have anything to do with suicide bombing. In fact, there are quite a few conservative Koranic scholars who will tell you that suicide bombing is forbidden by the Koran. Rather, martyrdom is a status one attains by dieing while working to fulfill a religious commandment (things like Jihad, childbirth, accidents, and epidemic). Its important to note that this death isn't necessarily something that one seeks out, but rather a reward for the ultimate sacrifice.

Tyras wrote:
No the insurgents I dealt with did not have tanks, some did have body armor, and they did not have any cruise missiles. Do you know why? It's not for lack of resources, at least not on an organizational level. With there being a degree of state sponsorship and a suprisingly agile and elusive money network the funds are there and the weaponry could be accessed under certain conditions.

The thing is that those weapons are essentially useless against the US military. At least in the quantities that any terrorist group would be able to acquire. Sure, an insurgency might be able to hide a single missile and take a single shot at high priority target. That shot might even cause a good deal of damage, but the infrastructure (and money) that went into that single shot would be far better spent on more rifles, and better propaganda. 50 cruise missiles is a threat, 5 is a noose.

Tyras wrote:
That's on the far end of the spectrum, but there weren't a whole lot of those living in a nightmare without leave. They come from all walks of life. While it is alien to me that one would give up a career, richness of education, family etc many of those that I dealt with, unless my interpreter was just lying his ass off, didn't come from goat herding or dust farming.

That's pretty accurate. Its also interesting that the general age and income distribution of voluntary combatants seems to be fairly uniform across the globe. Last time I checked most of the people in the US military were solidly middle class.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:The British Empire used to pay scads of cash to larger, yet massivley poorer countries to go and pick on the French for us.

How do you lot count the French and Indian War (prior to the Revolutionary War)?

We kicked the French out of North America, but the troops were Redcoats.

You kicked SOME of them out. The rest of us paid the redcoats back at New Orleans, proving the ancient Chinese saying " swamp rats with rifles beats pasty faced Brits with smoothbores every day of the week."

JohnHwangDD wrote:

Tyras wrote:The US, and other Western Nations do their best, investing countless man hours and millions of dollars to avoid collateral damage, to avoid innocent deaths. Our tactics are such that our troops are put at further risk so as not to inflict damage on property or cause the loss of innocent life. China on the other hand does not subscribe to that frame of thought. If anybody thinks that US forces have been overly aggressive or loose with their military power, they would have to create a whole new scale to measure the attrocities China would visit upon them.

First off, those aren't "atrocities" - they are legitimate collateral damages of war.

Secondly, the fundamental difference between China and the US is that China thinks about the group, and the US thinks about the individual. China, like most other Asian countries, has no problems with the concept of group accountability, and will punish the group responsible accordingly. So there are no "innocent" deaths in such a conflict.

Do western nations want the world to run according to our ideals and laws or some different ones?

JohnHwangDD wrote:

Tyras wrote:The US, and other Western Nations do their best, investing countless man hours and millions of dollars to avoid collateral damage, to avoid innocent deaths. Our tactics are such that our troops are put at further risk so as not to inflict damage on property or cause the loss of innocent life. China on the other hand does not subscribe to that frame of thought. If anybody thinks that US forces have been overly aggressive or loose with their military power, they would have to create a whole new scale to measure the attrocities China would visit upon them.

First off, those aren't "atrocities" - they are legitimate collateral damages of war.

Secondly, the fundamental difference between China and the US is that China thinks about the group, and the US thinks about the individual. China, like most other Asian countries, has no problems with the concept of group accountability, and will punish the group responsible accordingly. So there are no "innocent" deaths in such a conflict.

The atrocities comment was directed at the possible Chinese retaliation based on their history of heay handed actions. It was never pointed at the Armed Forces of the United States. I want that to be crystal clear. While there are some real D-bags deployed in support of those operations that have done some terrible things it's like 1 in 10000, So I wouldn't impose such a term as atrocity on the US troops.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Wrexasaur wrote:I am not trying to argue, just present another side.

Not much more to say really, believe what you'd like, I am not trying to stop you.

The conspiracy theory thing was a bit off the cuff though. I am merely presenting what I believe to be fact, and I do not base this on anything besides common sense. I cannot imagine any other reason for us to be there this long, if the we cannot fight terrorists at range, we can't fight them at all. Tactical shmactical, these guys do not give up, so why throw soldiers into a place besides for media coverage and the ability to easily control the areas resources? America does very little because of mere ethical reasons, they want the dough, just like any empire before them.

On a side note, please don't talk down to me, and I will avoid doing the same for you. I am not spewing conspiracy theory, and it is far too easy to dismiss my statements as that alone. You seem to know more about what is happening in combat, but you are also clearly on the side of the U.S. military and their approach to the situation.

Let me present another side of why we've been there so long.

Regional stability.

The actual invasion aspect of the second Iraq war was swift. The time spent seeking out and capturing Saddam and his cronies took a while after that. What was left of Iraq at that point? Shias, Sunnies, and Kurds that all wanted to kill each other, a dozen powerful Clerics with personal militias, an infrastructure neglected for thirty years and damaged by three wars. Had we left before a stable government was in place that could and would represent the various factions in a peaceful manner the country would have either slipped into open civil war and been a haven for lawlessness and the militant group d'joure or been an easy target for Iran to set up a shadow government ala Lebannon or an outright annexation to "protect" their fellow Shities. Getting all of those factions to work together rather than kill each other, repairing the infrastructure (not only utilities, but schools, fire depratments, police etc) and rebuilding/restructuring/retraining the Iraqi military into a defense force rather than an offensive entity all takes time. Alot of time.

You say that we've been there for so long because we want the money. Did you know that the expenses for the war were supposed to be paid for by oil revenue from Iraq? I was surprised when I found that out, because what has been gained from Iraq's oil industry hasn't put a scratch on the debt incurred to rid that place of Saddam and rebuild it from the ground up. Are you aware that after all of this the Chinese and Iranians are getting the big ticket projects like new power stations and contrsuction? If we were there for the money would we not have lived up to that greedy power hungry American stereotype and forced those oil revenues into our pockets and required all contracts to be awarded to American companies on pain of Iraqi leaders losing their American protection like some big mafia scheme? That's not the case though. There have been critics of the Iraqi governemt and the choices they've made regarding their oil profits and the awarding of contracts, but there has been no resolution or force applied to change those decisions.

I just don't see it as a money grab. We've put more money in to rebuildling and securing those nations than we'll ever see back. We can only hope our efforts and expenses both in money and human life will give us an ally in the region and the roots of democracy will hold.

Tyras wrote:I just don't see it as a money grab. We've put more money in to rebuildling and securing those nations than we'll ever see back. We can only hope our efforts and expenses both in money and human life will give us an ally in the region and the roots of democracy will hold.

When it comes to your main point, that Iraq wasn't about a money grab, I agree. If anyone cared to read Project for the New American Century* in the build up to the Iraq war, there were countless articles about how the invasion would liberae the people of Iraq, demonstrate the wonders of democracy and see uprisings across the region. And all these new US style democracies would owe their new found happiness to the US, and so would become staunch US allies and so ensure US dominance over a key region of the world, so ensuring another US dominated century.

The big difference, though, is that you seem to think that idea is still kind of viable, whereas I look at what's happened and see a US that the US blew it's claim to legitimacy waging a war under a false pretext of WMD in order to spend a vast fortune pissing off the Middle East. The whole idea was so stupid it would have been funny, except, like, a million people died.


*Which contains signataries such as Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Jeb Bush, Bill Kristol, Scooter Libby, Paul Wolfowitz... it was basically the key organisation that defined the neo-con movement, and in turn was the key organisation behind the policies of the Bush administration.

As soon as that relates to the topic I'll comment.

Oh wait I get it, its the inevitable US/Bush evil/rest of world good post.

EDIT: I think I am going to start a post count on every OT thread not involving furries or turtle pie to see if they can make 20 posts before someone declares the US/Bush/Cheney evil incarnate.

Kilkrazy wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:

Tyras wrote:The US, and other Western Nations do their best, investing countless man hours and millions of dollars to avoid collateral damage, to avoid innocent deaths. Our tactics are such that our troops are put at further risk so as not to inflict damage on property or cause the loss of innocent life. China on the other hand does not subscribe to that frame of thought. If anybody thinks that US forces have been overly aggressive or loose with their military power, they would have to create a whole new scale to measure the attrocities China would visit upon them.

First off, those aren't "atrocities" - they are legitimate collateral damages of war.

Secondly, the fundamental difference between China and the US is that China thinks about the group, and the US thinks about the individual. China, like most other Asian countries, has no problems with the concept of group accountability, and will punish the group responsible accordingly. So there are no "innocent" deaths in such a conflict.

Do western nations want the world to run according to our ideals and laws or some different ones?

Given that the Western nations don't actually run the world, what they want in this kind of situation doesn't make a damn bit of difference. If it's a Chinese problem, then it'll get a Chinese solution.
____

Tyras wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:

Tyras wrote:The US, and other Western Nations do their best, investing countless man hours and millions of dollars to avoid collateral damage, to avoid innocent deaths. Our tactics are such that our troops are put at further risk so as not to inflict damage on property or cause the loss of innocent life. China on the other hand does not subscribe to that frame of thought. If anybody thinks that US forces have been overly aggressive or loose with their military power, they would have to create a whole new scale to measure the attrocities China would visit upon them.

First off, those aren't "atrocities" - they are legitimate collateral damages of war.

Secondly, the fundamental difference between China and the US is that China thinks about the group, and the US thinks about the individual. China, like most other Asian countries, has no problems with the concept of group accountability, and will punish the group responsible accordingly. So there are no "innocent" deaths in such a conflict.

The atrocities comment was directed at the possible Chinese retaliation based on their history of heay handed actions. It was never pointed at the Armed Forces of the United States. I want that to be crystal clear. While there are some real D-bags deployed in support of those operations that have done some terrible things it's like 1 in 10000, So I wouldn't impose such a term as atrocity on the US troops.

I believe you completely misunderstand me.

When the Chinese retaliate, there is no such thing as "atrocities" when talking about collateral damage.

As for the US, atrocities are possible, because the US is supposed to only shoot bad guys who are individually acting against the US armed forces -- anything else is not permitted.

The rules of war are different from the Chinese and US perspective, and the double-standard exists for a reason. The US chooses to fight blindfolded with both hands tied behind their back - that is *our* decision. The Chinese aren't so stupid.

Frazzled wrote:As soon as that relates to the topic I'll comment.

Oh wait I get it, its the inevitable US/Bush evil/rest of world good post.

EDIT: I think I am going to start a post count on every OT thread not involving furries or turtle pie to see if they can make 20 posts before someone declares the US/Bush/Cheney evil incarnate.

If you were referring to my post you misread it. I never said the Bush administration was evil, I said they were stupid.


EDIT - By the way, you didn't reply to my earlier point on the situation in Xinjiang.

Ah yes, thats much better.

To be fair, the decision to invade Iraq could payoff somewhere down the line. But that payoff will not come as the result of Neocon foresight, but dumb luck.

Kilkrazy wrote:Do western nations want the world to run according to our ideals and laws or some different ones?

In a passive/aggressive kind of way, sure.

sebster wrote:

Frazzled wrote:As soon as that relates to the topic I'll comment.

Oh wait I get it, its the inevitable US/Bush evil/rest of world good post.

EDIT: I think I am going to start a post count on every OT thread not involving furries or turtle pie to see if they can make 20 posts before someone declares the US/Bush/Cheney evil incarnate.

If you were referring to my post you misread it. I never said the Bush administration was evil, I said they were stupid.


EDIT - By the way, you didn't reply to my earlier point on the situation in Xinjiang.

Stupid could be seen as the understatement of the century.

Check this out... http://costofwar.com/

And this too... http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=War_profiteering

This as well... http://www.alternet.org/world/41083/

Now this to seal the deal... http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0714-01.htm

Yes... so many problems have been fixed it is astounding... wait, this is broken...

I suppose nowadays the only ones that seem to profit are the big businesses, and I can't imagine some of that money being tied directly to the government through shady dealings. Take what you want from these links, but don't berate me with you opinions, they are yours, and I am not arguing.

Wrexasaur wrote:Take what you want from these links, but don't berate me with you opinions, they are yours, and I am not arguing.

So, basically, we should let you make some noise while refraining from offering any dissent with respect to the methodology of your sources, or the reason behind your proffered opinions?

The 'that's your opinion' defense is just one step short of 'if you disagree, you aren't patriotic'.

dogma wrote:The 'that's your opinion' defense is just one step short of 'if you disagree, you aren't patriotic'.

IIRC, dissent was patriotic when the Bush was prez.

As I understand things now, the Dems have flip-flopped on that statement...

... as one would expect from Obama and his people.

dogma wrote:

Wrexasaur wrote:Take what you want from these links, but don't berate me with you opinions, they are yours, and I am not arguing.

So, basically, we should let you make some noise while refraining from offering any dissent with respect to the methodology of your sources, or the reason behind your proffered opinions?

The 'that's your opinion' defense is just one step short of 'if you disagree, you aren't patriotic'.

Except not, because you are completely entitled to your opinion and you can talk all the smack you want as long as you don't drag me into some endless argument. I simply do not care for it.

All media is skewed, and as I said earlier I simply do not have the time to form an independent opinion about everything. Please do comment, just refrain from being like, "Well Wrexasaur is a liberal douche-bag for putting these links up". I have a lot of doubts about anything said by the media nowadays, none of it seems to be impartial, and it looks like a never ending poop-flinging war. This is what I am trying to avoid bringing here.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

dogma wrote:The 'that's your opinion' defense is just one step short of 'if you disagree, you aren't patriotic'.

IIRC, dissent was patriotic when the Bush was prez.

As I understand things now, the Dems have flip-flopped on that statement...

... as one would expect from Obama and his people.

QFT and hilarity . Where do the lies stop and the truth begin

Wrexasaur wrote:

dogma wrote:The 'that's your opinion' defense is just one step short of 'if you disagree, you aren't patriotic'.

Except not, because you are completely entitled to your opinion and you can talk all the smack you want as long as you don't drag me into some endless argument.

I understand that, but these are not my direct opinions, and I did not say that they are 100% accurate, just interesting to read.

You can be angry at me if you want, but I am not trying to make anyone angry.

I just put links up, I am not sure what the problem is. I would actually be able to have better conversations on the internet with all of the cross-referencing available. I do not have a adamantium grasp on politics or worldly affairs, that much IS true. I would just like to learn some stuff, while I am around the computer with all you nice fellows. If I am wrong, I can handle that no problem, I just do not want to be the core of some rant in the future.

Wrexasaur is a big boy, and he can handle being wrong, just back up what you say with some new and interesting (yet verifiable) proof as to why.

B. Saying "don't respond, it's my opinion". Sorry, we always get to respond. If you don't want p[eople challenging your opinions, keep them to yourself.

Challenge is much different than demean, which is something that I find in large amounts on various forums. This is elitism, and it makes me pretty angry. Just trying to have a conversation here, and I would hope you are trying to do the same, I do not have to be 100% right just to speak.