A big piss-off of mine

[QueenAdrock]

"Why do you care about American politics anymore? You ran away to Canada."

I hear this quite a bit from my American friends, and I think it's one of the most ignorant things ever. I've always been politically active, whether it be attending rallies and Democratic meetings or volunteering for campaigns. Knowing me, do they honestly think I'd just roll over and die, stop caring about American politics once I left to go to school? What kind of bullshit is that? And if they do think that I shouldn't care about American politics, then shouldn't that be the same for all absentee voters? Maybe we should just take away the right to vote for EVERYONE living overseas, saying that they have "no reason to care anymore." :rolleyes:

I've heard Americans say it to foreigners too, all the time up here. Why do you care about American politics? You're not American. Yeah, well why does America care about Iraqi politics and who's elected over there? Because there's a vested interest. Just like we're interested in keeping Iraq stable and not create a vaccuum that could break out into futher civil war/WWIII, I'm sure the rest of the world hopes that we have a leader who won't send people marching over to Iran and create more of a shit-show in the Middle East. American policies affect everyone in the world, not just Americans. If Canadians were just as worried about New Zealand politics and Bangladesh politics, I'd think they were going a little far. But it's perfectly natural and acceptable to talk and care about American politics, since it affects them too. No, they can't vote. That doesn't mean they can't care.

Okay, </endrant>.

[abcdefz]

Maybe you can reply that this stuff is global politics.

I can understand perfectly well why you wouldn't be interested in a council meeting from Knight's Landing, California, though. That's different.

[QueenAdrock]

Yeah, I've tried explaining...but they honestly don't see why I care if I've got Canadian health care, clean air and a quality education. It's just ignorance/ not understanding on their part.

If nothing else, I'm still a taxpayer, so you're damn right I'm gonna want someone in there who's going to put it to good use!

[jackrock]

Everybody should be somewhat concerned with US politics and who gets elected. I hope Liz isn't one of those friends. :(

[QueenAdrock]

hahaha, you remember liz

No, it's some other, catty friends who I think are kinda jealous that I left DC because they want to but aren't going to. :rolleyes:

[yeahwho]

Never stopped Neil Young (http://www.neilyoung.com/lwwtoday/index.html), we're all Living with War.

[Tompz]

Never stopped Neil Young (http://www.neilyoung.com/lwwtoday/index.html), we're all Living with War.

just what i thought

[RobMoney$]

They're sick of you're opinion and no longer think you should have one now that you don't live here.

I know this because I think the same thing whenever I read yours or Brett Lamberts' extensive posts of nonsense in this forum.

[QueenAdrock]

You DO know I'm here on a study permit until 2009 and am "expected to return to America" after that, correct? So how do you agree that I shouldn't have an opinion? I'm just expected to not give a shit about who's elected and return to what could possibly be another President who's just a rubber stamp for the Bush administration just because I lived in Canada for two years?

Even if I did decide to stay, student loan rates and taxes still affect me, this war affects the entire world, and as a US citizen I have the right to voice my opinions. Would you rather that absentee voters had their vote taken away too, Rob?

But you know, thanks for being a complete asshole to me even though I have never once said anything mean about you or to you.

[NoFenders]

Never stopped Neil Young (http://www.neilyoung.com/lwwtoday/index.html), we're all Living with War.

Neil Young is a wuss bag who couldn't stand up in his own shit. If he hates our policies so much he should sell his mansions in the US and move the fuck back to Canada, and take Saleen Dion with him. I could go on and on about that guy. Never again will I spend a dime on anything related to that duche.

:cool:

[yeahwho]

Neil Young is a wuss bag who couldn't stand up in his own shit. If he hates our policies so much he should sell his mansions in the US and move the fuck back to Canada, and take Saleen Dion with him. I could go on and on about that guy. Never again will I spend a dime on anything related to that duche.

:cool:

Your right! He is a total fuck up and what a wheezbag. I usually am not so easily swayed by a random post on the internet but you've convinced me to redirect my focus and start up a "I Hate Neil Young" movement.

Excellent writing.

[QueenAdrock]

Yeah, how dare he talk out against a war that involves many nations around the world and has the potential to explode into something even more serious if we invade Iran! It may be an international conflict now, but he has no right to talk because he's Canadian. Only Americans can have an opinion about a war that affects everyone. Move back to your own damn country! USA! USA! *shoots guns in air*

[RobMoney$]

You DO know I'm here on a study permit until 2009 and am "expected to return to America" after that, correct? So how do you agree that I shouldn't have an opinion? I'm just expected to not give a shit about who's elected and return to what could possibly be another President who's just a rubber stamp for the Bush administration just because I lived in Canada for two years?

Even if I did decide to stay, student loan rates and taxes still affect me, this war affects the entire world, and as a US citizen I have the right to voice my opinions. Would you rather that absentee voters had their vote taken away too, Rob?

But you know, thanks for being a complete asshole to me even though I have never once said anything mean about you or to you.


Maybe you take this shit (the BBMB) too serious if you think that was being a complete asshole.

You obviously have strong emotions when it comes to politics and maybe your American friends are tired of you being on a podium. It's not that your opinions on politics aren't valid, but more that they're sick of hearing you get so emotional about it.

[RobMoney$]

Yeah, how dare he talk out against a war that involves many nations around the world and has the potential to explode into something even more serious if we invade Iran! It may be an international conflict now, but he has no right to talk because he's Canadian. Only Americans can have an opinion about a war that affects everyone. Move back to your own damn country! USA! USA! *shoots guns in air*


God Bless your bleeding heart.

[QueenAdrock]

Well, it is being a complete asshole to say that what I have to say regarding my politics is "nonsense" and that I'm not entitled to my opinion. I don't know any other way to take that.

And no, it has nothing to do with being "emotional" - my friends and I have always had political debates. We mostly hold the same ideals, values, and opinions on everything political, and we've always discussed stuff that's gone in the world. If they were sick of me being "emotional," they wouldn't have started and engaged me in those types of conversations, but they always did. Saying "Oh, why do you care, you're in Canada now," just screams of bitterness. I don't blame them for being upset about me leaving, but taking it out on me by saying shit like that is ignorant, and quite the piss-off.

[DroppinScience]

They're sick of you're opinion and no longer think you should have one now that you don't live here.

I know this because I think the same thing whenever I read yours or Brett Lamberts' extensive posts of nonsense in this forum.

Nonsense? And you're the purveyor of substance?

[Schmeltz]

If he hates our policies so much he should sell his mansions in the US and move the fuck back to Canada

Jesus Christ, man. Give yourself some credit, will you?

Are people seriously still trotting out this kind of silly bullshit?

[Tompz]

Of course it's global politics. The us is the richest most influental and powerful country on earth. What happens there affects people all over. If you know this then surely you would agree anyone is entitled to an opinion. Why wouldn't they?

Taking a shot at Neil Young for speaking his mind on the us is therefore pretty moronic. Some stupid posts in this thread. Christ.

[Randetica]

rob is scared of clever women thats why he hangs out with me instead

[RobMoney$]

rob is scared of clever women thats why he hangs out with me instead


She's dating Brett Lambert, how clever could she be.

[NoFenders]

Your right! He is a total fuck up and what a wheezbag. I usually am not so easily swayed by a random post on the internet but you've convinced me to redirect my focus and start up a "I Hate Neil Young" movement.

Excellent writing.

Thanks!!! :cool:

[NoFenders]

Yeah, how dare he talk out against a war that involves many nations around the world and has the potential to explode into something even more serious if we invade Iran! It may be an international conflict now, but he has no right to talk because he's Canadian. Only Americans can have an opinion about a war that affects everyone. Move back to your own damn country! USA! USA! *shoots guns in air*


Talking out against war is totally fine. We've all got our own opinion. I have no problem with that.I don't care if he came from the moon. It has nothing to do with him being Canadian. Although I do find it funny that the same country that greatly if not mostly contrubuted to his fortune is now the devil in his eyes. That's where my remark came from re:moving back. I could really care less what the Canadians think of us. What I do have a problem with is when an artist sells tickets to see a show, and ends up digging on the US for an hour. I've never understood why an artist would split it's audience in half to get some point across on how he/she feels about politics. It's just bad business. To think thousands of people paid to hear him play music, and he decides we want to hear some pep speach to get our president out of office. We all know his political satnce by now, why would he feel the need to cram it down our throats again???? He left the stage, played the Hendrix American anthem (recorded), and put a spot light on the mic like it's some huge statement. All the while not showing one American flag while our anthem played. I didn't serve in the military, but my whole family has. From the Civil War to Iraq, my blood has been there, and fought for me. To play the anthem, walk off stage (in disgust) and not show a flag anywhere was out of line imo. Half the crowd was cheering, the other half were walking out.What a idiot. He just took out half his crowd. Why??Because he's some proud American ringing the Liberty Bell??? No, it's because he's some old hippy that actually thinks everyone could give two shits about his fellings. So much in fact that we'd pay to hear it. What a joke.

My statement had nothing to do with Canadians as such, just the one moronic one that I'm happy to call Canadian.

:cool:

[NoFenders]

Well, it is being a complete asshole to say that what I have to say regarding my politics is "nonsense" and that I'm not entitled to my opinion. I don't know any other way to take that.

And no, it has nothing to do with being "emotional" - my friends and I have always had political debates. We mostly hold the same ideals, values, and opinions on everything political, and we've always discussed stuff that's gone in the world. If they were sick of me being "emotional," they wouldn't have started and engaged me in those types of conversations, but they always did. Saying "Oh, why do you care, you're in Canada now," just screams of bitterness. I don't blame them for being upset about me leaving, but taking it out on me by saying shit like that is ignorant, and quite the piss-off.

I think you read a little too far into my post. :cool:

[NoFenders]

Jesus Christ, man. Give yourself some credit, will you?

Are people seriously still trotting out this kind of silly bullshit?

When the asshole stole $75 from me, yeah. :cool:

[QueenAdrock]

She's dating Brett Lambert, how clever could she be.

Wow, a stab at me using Brett. How very original of you. Want to pull a Padster and call him gay now? That'd be the icing on the witty cake!

And NoFenders - that second post wasn't directed at you. But thanks for your insight regarding the first one. I still think Young should have the right to speak his opinion, but to each his own.

[NoFenders]

(y)


:cool:

[Schmeltz]

Why is criticizing some American policies the same thing as "digging on the US" though? Someone like Neil Young, who captivates a certain amount of large-scale public attention, is in a position to a) say anything he wants and b) direct that attention to the end of making people think about policies that might not be working for them. Sure it might seem obnoxious, but that probably has a lot more to do with your own My-country-right-or-wrong perspective than anything else. How do you know people didn't pay to hear one of their favourite musicians come out and give them a progressive message they never get to hear from their mass media?

It isn't "digging on the US" to point out the real and persistent shortcomings in American foreign policy. That's called being a good citizen, actually. You can still love your country and admit when your government makes a mistake.

[NoFenders]

Why is criticizing some American policies the same thing as "digging on the US" though? Someone like Neil Young, who captivates a certain amount of large-scale public attention, is in a position to a) say anything he wants and b) direct that attention to the end of making people think about policies that might not be working for them. Sure it might seem obnoxious, but that probably has a lot more to do with your own My-country-right-or-wrong perspective than anything else. How do you know people didn't pay to hear one of their favourite musicians come out and give them a progressive message they never get to hear from their mass media?

It isn't "digging on the US" to point out the real and persistent shortcomings in American foreign policy. That's called being a good citizen, actually. You can still love your country and admit when your government makes a mistake.

He's not a public speaker. I didn't pay to hear him rant like a kid. Critisizing some American policies at a show where your bandmates walk off stage while you go on and on is kind of pathetic imo. To not show any American flag while the anthem plays is digging on the us imo. He used it as a prop to show what he thinks of the country that made him rich. Sure, throw a doll of GW around, I could care less. But when you fuck with the flag (by not showing it), and you're Canadian on top of it, I get pissed. jmo

Another thing, how do I know people didn't pay to hear their once loved musician give them a proggressive message that they never hear from the media???? We're talking about Neil Young, not Ted Nuggent.&nbsp;Also, half (including myself) were walking out. That's a pretty good sign that you pissed a lot of people off.

[Schmeltz]

To not show any American flag while the anthem plays is digging on the us imo.

This one I really don't get. Are they always supposed to be present in tandem or something? It seems kind of out there to me.

I don't know, mang. It seems like you think that Neil Young does performances with the specific goal of denigrating your country, but I just don't get where you obtain that impression. Making a political statement at a show is a perfectly legitimate form of artistic expression; if you choose to take it as a personal insult I think it has a lot more to do with your own attitude.

Good point about the Nuge though - surely Neil Young would never suggest anything as distasteful as inserting a gun barrel into somebody's asshole. Nugent's a trashy piece of shit though.

[RobMoney$]

Want to pull a Padster and call him gay now? That'd be the icing on the witty cake!


It's already common knowledge that there's something a bit "off" with DS.
Icing that cake (http://www.beastieboys.com/bbs/image.php?u=72&dateline=1191453030) would just make me look, well, un-witty, wouldn't it?

[DroppinScience]

Getting pissed off at Neil Young for his "Living With War" album -- as if it's some grand betrayal of his audience -- is pretty silly. Have you forgotten his song about the Kent State shootings? Neil Young's always been a political guy, and he's got nearly 4 decades of proof for this. To act like this is a new thing is pretty ignorant if you claim to be a fan of his work. Maybe, maaaaybe, I could understand someone getting pissed off if someone very non-political like Maroon 5 or The Monkees all of a sudden started developing an overt political stance that puts people off, but we're talking NEIL YOUNG.

Oh, and Neil Young being a Canadian was never a problem for conservatives when he was for Reagan in the '80s and saluted the United 93 passengers after 9/11. NOW it's a problem? :rolleyes:

[yeahwho]

Don't get me started, we haven't even mentioned Neil Young's spread of Farm Aids. The man is a walking epidemic.

[Documad]

You have to give up your american citizenship if you date a canadian. That's a fact.

I worship Neil Young, in part because he's such a weirdo. I even forgive him for the pro-Reagan thing.

[NoFenders]

This one I really don't get. Are they always supposed to be present in tandem or something? It seems kind of out there to me.

No, it's not written law, but kind of common sense when you're playing a concert for thousnads of people to have a flag present. imo, if you don't, it's on purpose, or you're just a clueless moron.


I don't know, mang. It seems like you think that Neil Young does performances with the specific goal of denigrating your country, but I just don't get where you obtain that impression. Making a political statement at a show is a perfectly legitimate form of artistic expression; if you choose to take it as a personal insult I think it has a lot more to do with your own attitude.


I obtain my impression from being at the show. As I said before. I wasn't the only one walking out. There were lines of people walking out, pissed off and ofended. I guess we're all just too emotional when it comes to our country and what it stands for as we paid to hear some Canuck rip on it.You're right though, making a political statement isn't anything unusual for these artists these days. My beef is, why do they think we care???? Why in the world would anyone act because of some guy who can play a guitar said to do so??? It baffles me that they'd even be that pompous to try and push a idea after they paid to her him play music. Not lecture. You want to have an assembly fine. Sell tickets for that. I doubt he'd be playing banjo through half of it.

Good point about the Nuge though - surely Neil Young would never suggest anything as distasteful as inserting a gun barrel into somebody's asshole. Nugent's a trashy piece of shit though.

They all are. It's called rock and roll. I wouldn't pay to hear any of them whine about what they want. If they're so involved, do something else other than selling yourself out.
:cool:

[NoFenders]

Getting pissed off at Neil Young for his "Living With War" album -- as if it's some grand betrayal of his audience -- is pretty silly. Have you forgotten his song about the Kent State shootings? Neil Young's always been a political guy, and he's got nearly 4 decades of proof for this. To act like this is a new thing is pretty ignorant if you claim to be a fan of his work. Maybe, maaaaybe, I could understand someone getting pissed off if someone very non-political like Maroon 5 or The Monkees all of a sudden started developing an overt political stance that puts people off, but we're talking NEIL YOUNG.

Living with war album???? Never heard it, nor do I want to. Can't be pissed for something I don't know about. Yeah, heard Neil's song about Kent state. Listen, I've known all along that Neil is very political. I was very surprised though as I paid to see/hear CSNand Y play music that they all walked off satge while Neil ranted like a school girl on stage.Half booed, half cheered. It's idiotic. Plain and simple. Just because most of you agree with him, doesn't make it right.


Oh, and Neil Young being a Canadian was never a problem for conservatives when he was for Reagan in the '80s and saluted the United 93 passengers after 9/11. NOW it's a problem? :rolleyes:

saluted the 93 passengers? Where's the tie??? Who didn't??? I always have a problem when somebody from another country comes here and rips on the US.imo if they don't like it, go back. Oh wait, they would never, that's right, they got it too good to ever even think of it.It's a sign of ignorance, and ignorance is stupidity.

:cool:

[NoFenders]

Don't get me started, we haven't even mentioned Neil Young's spread of Farm Aids. The man is a walking epidemic.

Willie and John started it, Neil was lucky to be around durring his "grunge" come back.

:cool:

[yeahwho]

Living with war album???? Never heard it, nor do I want to. Can't be pissed for something I don't know about. Yeah, heard Neil's song about Kent state. Listen, I've known all along that Neil is very political. I was very surprised though as I paid to see/hear CSNand Y play music that they all walked off satge while Neil ranted like a school girl on stage.Half booed, half cheered. It's idiotic. Plain and simple. Just because most of you agree with him, doesn't make it right.



saluted the 93 passengers? Where's the tie??? Who didn't??? I always have a problem when somebody from another country comes here and rips on the US.imo if they don't like it, go back. Oh wait, they would never, that's right, they got it too good to ever even think of it.It's a sign of ignorance, and ignorance is stupidity.

:cool:

Neil wrote those songs in the spirit of free trade.

[NoFenders]

Neil wrote those songs in the spirit of free trade.

Songs are great.That's all I really want from Neil is music. Not a lecture. :cool:

[DroppinScience]

NoFender,

Completely oblivious to the mixing of art and politics since 2008.

:cool:

[NoFenders]

Shit, more like since 74. I'm very proud of that btw. I'm no sucker.:cool:

[DroppinScience]

Shit, more like since 74. I'm very proud of that btw. I'm no sucker.:cool:

Proud to be ignorant? At least you're honest. (y)

[NoFenders]

Ignorant to what???? To not liking political opinion in my concerts???? Yeah, sign me up. Makes a lot of sense.
I guess ya got nothing else but insults. Wow, what a concept. :rolleyes:


:cool:

[yeahwho]

Ignorant to what???? To not liking political opinion in my concerts???? Yeah, sign me up. Makes a lot of sense.
I guess ya got nothing else but insults. Wow, what a concept. :rolleyes:


:cool:
So are the Beastie Boys OK?

[NoFenders]

I would think so. Of the three shows I've been to (the first in 87 I think) they have never ranted for an hour about how they want me to vote. If they have at other shows, I guess I'm lucky I missed it. I know that they would not agree with a lot of things I believe, but that's what makes this country great. We can all decide on our own. I hope my opinion of the BBs is always the one I have now. Three guys who always have a spot in my cd changer.

:cool:

[yeahwho]

Got the perfect song for you NF's........ A Few Words in Defense of Our Country (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OldToIF5ZGs)

[DroppinScience]

Ignorant to what???? To not liking political opinion in my concerts???? Yeah, sign me up. Makes a lot of sense.
I guess ya got nothing else but insults. Wow, what a concept. :rolleyes:


:cool:

You know, even if a particular artist doesn't "rant" about their position, chances are good for artists like Neil Young, Beastie Boys, and others that it's contained in THEIR ART ITSELF. You seem to want to separate the political from the art, but guess what? There's no such thing.

You're one of these "shut up and sing" types. The irony of it all is that when they sing, they're still providing their own commentary on the events of the day. Hate to tell ya this.

[NoFenders]

Hey bud, you're not braking my heart here. There is a difference in politics and art. That's just what I think. I'm not some deep thought guy that has feelings for everything in the entire world. I feed my kids, pay the bills, and most of all, enjoy life. I take what I want from music. If some band/guy has some hidden message in every song/note that comes out my speakers, so be it. I don't hear it (thankfully). I do agree that their music is an expression of their outlook on events and life in general. I don't believe that it's all political propaganda. You are on the money as far as shut up and sing. That's what I pay for when I buy music and go to see it.As I said before, I got no problem with music, it's when they stop the music and sit us down for lesson that gets me. I don't want to hear it. Plain and simple. Jeesh, it's just my opinion here folks. lol

:cool:

[yeahwho]

You are on the money as far as shut up and sing. That's what I pay for when I buy music and go to see it.As I said before, I got no problem with music, it's when they stop the music and sit us down for lesson that gets me. I don't want to hear it. Plain and simple. Jeesh, it's just my opinion here folks. lol

:cool:

everyone here is on hyper-sensitive defense alert since we got called bad names by drizl and ericg, we slam folks before anything happens...sort of like the title of this thread...

[QueenAdrock]

edit: double post

[QueenAdrock]

.imo if they don't like it, go back. Oh wait, they would never, that's right, they got it too good to ever even think of it.It's a sign of ignorance, and ignorance is stupidity.


Would never go back because they "got it too good"? What's "too good"? Not the economy, health care, war, or poverty levels, that's for sure. There are plenty of countries out there that are way ahead of the US on those issues. To say otherwise, ironically, is ignorant.

Yet of course, if someone ever brings up the point that other countries MAY be better than the United States in ANY way, they're automatically branded a traitor no matter how valid their points are.

[NoFenders]

Too good is having shelter,heat,food, water, tv, car, i-pod,computer,cd collection, 50 inch plasmas, speakers the size of your head in cars, etc. Most people that live here have a lot of these things and a lot more. That's what I mean by too good. Economy and health care can always be better, and it can always be worse. War, well, I'm for the war. I believe it's done us good. Bad as well, but more good than bad. Poverty, well, there's a million different scenarios on that. You want something, go get it. It's America.

If somebody says it's better over there than over here, and does nothing but talk about it, I'd say good ridance, have fun over there. If they notice something that can be done, and take action, I'm all for them.

:cool:

[Schmeltz]

I guess we're all just too emotional when it comes to our country and what it stands for

I could not have said it better myself.

Would you mind if I asked what good you think the Iraq War has done your country? Almost nobody seems to believe that anymore, so I'm just curious to hear your thoughts.

[QueenAdrock]

Too good is having shelter,heat,food, water, tv, car, i-pod,computer,cd collection, 50 inch plasmas, speakers the size of your head in cars, etc.


They have that in Canada too. Plus, free health care. I don't see your point of "they never want to go back because they have it too good here" in regards to Neil Young, because well...everything America has regarding material goods, Canada has too. Except Canada has a higher quality of life in many respects. So do other countries such as Finland, Sweden, France, England, etc. etc.

I'm interested in knowing what "good" has come out of the war. Positive? Hussein is gone. Negative? We've created Al Qaeda where there was no terrorism before, there were no WMDs, we've spent billions of dollars on this and gone further into debt, we're hated world-wide and have damaged our image perhaps indefinitely, the amount of soldiers who have died are far more than those who died in 9/11, the amount of civilian casualties are in the hundreds of thousands, the list goes on. The negatives outweigh the positives to me.

[Lex Diamonds]

Wow, a stab at me using Brett. How very original of you. Want to pull a Padster and call him gay now? That'd be the icing on the witty cake!
Wow, I've got my own slang now. Awesome!


PS
He is pretty gay. I don't understand why you don't just accept it. I thought chicks loved having a gay friend.

PPS
NoFenders, you are being rather ignorant. America is a horrible country in many ways, with perhaps THE most manipulative government on the planet. The fact that you think everything is roses is testament to the sly dishonesty of your country's rulers in pulling the wool over your eyes.

[NoFenders]

I could not have said it better myself.

Would you mind if I asked what good you think the Iraq War has done your country? Almost nobody seems to believe that anymore, so I'm just curious to hear your thoughts.

Well, imo it's kept us from danger since 9/11/01. We haven't had an attack on American soil since, and I believe it's because we are there. They (terrorists) are still fighting us, but they're fighting over there. Not here. I look at it like this. You're at a picnic, when before you know it, bees and ants start to invade your basket. You could swat and stomp all day if you wanted. You could also take a can of pop, open it up, walk away from your site, pour a little on the ground and leave the can. In a matter of minutes the bees and ants will be all over that sugar filled crap and you can enjoy your picnic. That's the way I look at Iraq. I think we should be there. I think we were right for going in, however, I also think we should have done some things different when we went in. As did most of the people running the show, but it was a few that held it up. btw, it wasn't GW or Rummy.

:cool:

[NoFenders]

They have that in Canada too. Plus, free health care. I don't see your point of "they never want to go back because they have it too good here" in regards to Neil Young, because well...everything America has regarding material goods, Canada has too. Except Canada has a higher quality of life in many respects. So do other countries such as Finland, Sweden, France, England, etc. etc.

I'm interested in knowing what "good" has come out of the war. Positive? Hussein is gone. Negative? We've created Al Qaeda where there was no terrorism before, there were no WMDs, we've spent billions of dollars on this and gone further into debt, we're hated world-wide and have damaged our image perhaps indefinitely, the amount of soldiers who have died are far more than those who died in 9/11, the amount of civilian casualties are in the hundreds of thousands, the list goes on. The negatives outweigh the positives to me.

Oops, I should have known you meant Canadians specifically. Sorry. Didn't meant it towards all Canadians. Meant it towards most other countries of the 193.I guess I went off on all the green cards that come in from other countries and rip on how we do things and say things. I also meant it towards Neil. He didn't make his money there.

I stated what good the Iraq war has done in the post above. Although, I would like to add one thing. Yes, we've lost American soldiers. Those people are true heros in this world. There's many more out there now. I think the thing missing in all these media reports about this war, is the moral of the troops. They are making great headway, and are doing what they signed up to do. It's hard for people like you and me to understand, but these people joined because they wanted to. They seriously like blowing shit up. They are there with guns and amo to defend and fight for us and the free world. I know countless Chicago Police that are heading there just to do it. Yeah the money is great for them, but the real deal breaker was the action. You have to remember that the percentage of scared momma's boys (like me) is very little compared to the guys who are there because they want to be.

:cool:

[NoFenders]

Wow, I've got my own slang now. Awesome!


PS
He is pretty gay. I don't understand why you don't just accept it. I thought chicks loved having a gay friend.

PPS
NoFenders, you are being rather ignorant. America is a horrible country in many ways, with perhaps THE most manipulative government on the planet. The fact that you think everything is roses is testament to the sly dishonesty of your country's rulers in pulling the wool over your eyes.

Yeah, America's horrible. That's why so many people are trying to get here. The most manipulative gov?? Open your eyes if you can. There's far worse. Never said anything was roses, and I don't think anything like that. I guess you mistake my pride for being naive. Trust me, I know where my feelings come from. History has a lot to do with it.

:cool:

[drizl]

haha! yeahwho, are you still sour???

[Planetary]

There's far worse.

Yeah but not many in terms of politics.

[Randetica]

rob is faaaat!

there i said it.

[Schmeltz]

Well, imo it's kept us from danger since 9/11/01. We haven't had an attack on American soil since, and I believe it's because we are there.


If you believe that, then I've got a rock to sell you. It keeps tigers away!

Seriously though, there was never a connection between Hussein's regime and al-Qaeda, so I don't see how you've arrived at that conclusion. On the other hand, al-Qaeda certainly has an active veteran combat element in Iraq now, thanks to George W. Bush and his war. I think you'll agree that creating more terrorists can only lead to more terror, so again I find it strange that you think that this war has made your country safer.

I also think we should have done some things different when we went in. As did most of the people running the show, but it was a few that held it up. btw, it wasn't GW or Rummy.

It absolutely was Rummy, pursuing his "Rumsfeld doctrine" of shock and awe (which turns out to have been a largely meaningless waste of ordinance) and deploying the minimum force necessary to achieve a poorly selected list of objectives - in complete contradiction to the recommendations the Pentagon was making as they planned the war. But other than that, you're right: the Bush administration officials in charge of the invasion and subsequent occupation certainly proved their incompetence and ineptitude, didn't they?

[Medellia]

If some band/guy has some hidden message in every song/note that comes out my speakers, so be it. I don't hear it (thankfully).
Seriously? Do you actually know the words to the songs then?

By the way, Neil Young's wife is American, his kids are American, why shouldn't he have an opinion on things that affect them?

[DroppinScience]

Seriously? Do you actually know the words to the songs then?

NoFenders makes sure to burn the lyric sheets to all those bands for fear if he learns what they sing about, he might interpret a meaning from them that is DANGEROUS to his worldview.

[russhie]

I have a small request.

Please quit with the imo thing. It makes whatever you're bleating about that much harder to read.

[NoFenders]

If you believe that, then I've got a rock to sell you. It keeps tigers away!

Seriously though, there was never a connection between Hussein's regime and al-Qaeda, so I don't see how you've arrived at that conclusion. On the other hand, al-Qaeda certainly has an active veteran combat element in Iraq now, thanks to George W. Bush and his war. I think you'll agree that creating more terrorists can only lead to more terror, so again I find it strange that you think that this war has made your country safer.

Find it strange??? Have we had an attack since??? How many times have they made it clear we are the enemy/devil, and need to be taken off the planet. Sorry bub, I don't buy your theory one bit. I'd rather have our troops over there, than waiting for another attack here.



It absolutely was Rummy, pursuing his "Rumsfeld doctrine" of shock and awe (which turns out to have been a largely meaningless waste of ordinance) and deploying the minimum force necessary to achieve a poorly selected list of objectives - in complete contradiction to the recommendations the Pentagon was making as they planned the war./
Wow, and I wonder who held him back from sending more troops?????


Other than that, you're right: the Bush administration officials in charge of the invasion and subsequent occupation certainly proved their incompetence and ineptitude, didn't they?

Would have been a lot different had the UN not had their hand in the cookie jar, and if the Dems wouldn't have had their head up their ass wondering how to vote. They still can't tell ya why they voted one way and then another the next day.

:cool:

[NoFenders]

Seriously? Do you actually know the words to the songs then?

By the way, Neil Young's wife is American, his kids are American, why shouldn't he have an opinion on things that affect them?


Yeah, I know the words to songs I like. I guess I don't listen to too many people try and tell me how to think. Maybe I just tune out when I do. I don't consider it a loss in any way.

I could care less where his wife kids are. He's already made it clear that he's given up. I'm happy. Case closed.
:cool:

[NoFenders]

NoFenders makes sure to burn the lyric sheets to all those bands for fear if he learns what they sing about, he might interpret a meaning from them that is DANGEROUS to his worldview.

LOL Sorry man, I don't take music that serious. It was the use of my money and time that caused my dislike for Neil. Nothing else.

:cool:

[NoFenders]

I have a small request.

Please quit with the imo thing. It makes whatever you're bleating about that much harder to read.

If you don't know what I'm "bleating" about stop trying.

imo = in my opinion

Sorry for your confusion.

:cool:

[QueenAdrock]

Find it strange??? Have we had an attack since??? How many times have they made it clear we are the enemy/devil, and need to be taken off the planet. Sorry bub, I don't buy your theory one bit. I'd rather have our troops over there, than waiting for another attack here.

Your cause-and-effect reasoning is a bit off. The last attack on US soil before 9/11 was in 1993, the bombing of the World Trade Centers. 1993 - 2001 = 8 years. 2001 - 2008 = 7 years. They bide their time, waiting for America to let its guard down, and then they attack. They've always been slow and calculating, waiting for the precise moment to attack. Just because it hasn't happened yet doesn't mean that we've "prevented" anything by being over there.

And you do know that the 9/11 hijackers were primarily from Saudi Arabia right? It's still a breeding ground for terrorism there (and Pakistan, and other countries as well), and we're only in Iraq. Al Qaeda wasn't in Iraq before we went there. Bin Laden hated Saddam Hussein, he didn't think he was religious (or extremist) enough, and therefore considered him an insolent infidel as well. Simply put, we're not going to go to Saudi Arabia because we're friends with the Royal family who supplies us with oil. So therefore your argument of "fighting them over there so they don't get us here" doesn't hold water - the terrorists that came from Saudi Arabia can very well come back and do it again. There's nothing to stop them, because our troops aren't in the right area.

If we placed troops where terrorism breeding grounds are rampant, you may have a point, but we are not doing that. Terrorism has multiplied since our fight in Iraq started, and I really do fear another attack on American soil.

[NoFenders]

I agree that we should be moving troops into those areas when we know they are there. If we have no real proof that they are in a specific place, than we are at least visible to fight. It allows them to come to us. Saving more lives actually.

As far as the number of attacks against the US by terror, here are more that I feel are improtant in judging the enemy.


Aug. 7, 1998 - Terrorist bombs destroy the U.S. embassies in Nairobi, Kenya and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. In Nairobi, 12 Americans are among the 291 killed, and over 5,000 are wounded, including 6 Americans. In Dar es Salaam, one U.S. citizen is wounded among the 10 killed and 77 injured.

In response, on August 20 the United States attacked targets in Afghanistan and Sudan with over 75 cruise missiles fired from Navy ships in the Arabian and Red seas. About 60 Tomahawk cruise missiles were fired from warships in the Arabian Sea. Most struck six separate targets in a camp near Khost, Afghanistan. Simultaneously, about 20 cruise missiles were fired from U.S. ships in the Red Sea striking a factory in Khartoum, Sudan, which was suspected of producing components for making chemical weapons.

June 21, 1998 - Rocket-propelled grenades explode near the U.S. embassy in Beirut.

July 27, 1996 - A pipe bomb explodes during the Olympic games in Atlanta, killing one person and wounding 111.

June 25, 1996 - A bomb aboard a fuel truck explodes outside a U.S. air force installation in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia. 19 U.S. military personnel are killed in the Khubar Towers housing facility, and 515 are wounded, including 240 Americans.
Nov. 13, 1995 - A car-bomb in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia kills seven people, five of them American military and civilian advisers for National Guard training. The "Tigers of the Gulf," "Islamist Movement for Change," and "Fighting Advocates of God" claim responsibility

There are many other exapmles of other situations that people call terrorist attacks, but these are the ones I define as legit.

There were major problems in Iraq,and we needed to set Sadam straight. He misguided UN officials,lied to the world, and played cat and mouse games the entire time. Not to mention killied and turned his back on thousands of innocent women and children. We had good reason to go in. I know I've explained my reasoning on this in previous posts. They are fighting us there, not here. For that, I am gratefull.

:cool:

[NoFenders]

Terrorism has multiplied since our fight in Iraq started, and I really do fear another attack on American soil.

How so??? Do you mean more people are becoming terrorists that weren't before??? Or that more of them are now comming out the woodwork? If we do have another attack on American soil, it wont be because we are in Iraq. We weren't in Iraq in 2001.

:cool:

[Medellia]

Yeah, I know the words to songs I like. I guess I don't listen to too many people try and tell me how to think. Maybe I just tune out when I do. I don't consider it a loss in any way.

I could care less where his wife kids are. He's already made it clear that he's given up. I'm happy. Case closed.
:cool:

COULDN'T care less. COULDN'T.

And I didn't say they ARE here, I said they are citizens. Born and raised. Even if his family up and moves to Canada, they'll still be citizens. They'll still be affected by what happens here.

We weren't in Iraq in 2001.
It wasn't Iraq that attacked us.

[QueenAdrock]

How so??? Do you mean more people are becoming terrorists that weren't before???

Yes. There was no Al Qaeda in Iraq when we invaded in 2003. Like Medallia said, IRAQ DID NOT ATTACK US. No one who was involved with the hijackings had any affiliation with Iraq. We DO know where terrorists are - we know they're in Pakistan, we know they're in Saudi Arabia. There are reasons why we won't go in to places like Saudi Arabia to "smoke out" terrorists, so to speak - our president is friends with the royal family and is on good terms with them. They give us their oil. We're not going to invade someone who are "allies" to the United States, regardless of what kind of terrorists they harbor. Instead, we'll find someone else to attack and make generalized statements like "Oh, Saddam was a man of terror...therefore he needed to be taken out."

So many Americans think that because of the clever wording, that somehow Saddam was LINKED to 9/11, which is absolutely false. Bush just said "We hate terrorism. Hussein is a terrorist. Let's kill Hussein." By that account, there are MANY other people in the world who should be taken out. The Janjaweed in Darfur are leading a genocide that has killed 800,000 civilians so far. Are they terrorizing the people? You're damn right they are. Should they be dealt with? Yeah, they should. They're not going to be, though. We say we care about people terrorizing "thousands of women and children" but we don't do anything about it. We just invade/do peacekeeping where it is advantageous and is convenient.

You have to critically look at the situation and analyze why we went into Iraq as opposed to places that we know have terrorism. It wasn't a "best guess" situation - they knew it wasn't there. Richard Clark was the anti-terroism czar under Bush in 2001, and he said that the administration kept pressuring him to "find a link between Al Qaeda and Iraq" though he told him time after again, there was no link. You have to wonder why they were pushing Iraq so hard. And why they've been spinning it to the public as "fighting them over there so we don't fight them here." Ask questions, don't just listen to the rhetoric they're spewing out.

[QueenAdrock]

There are many other exapmles of other situations that people call terrorist attacks, but these are the ones I define as legit.


Ah, THOSE kinds of attacks. You mean like these, too:

2002 - Reporter Daniel Pearl, kidnapped and beheaded in Karachi.

2002 - Nine people killed by bomb blast near US embassy in Lima - seen as attempt to disrupt forthcoming visit by President George W Bush.

2002-2006 - Karachi consulate attacks: three separate attacks killed 18 people (including an American diplomat) and injured 87.

2003 - Riyadh Compound Bombings kill 9 Americans, among 35 others.

2003 - Three American diplomats are killed by a roadside bomb targeting their convoy in Gaza. Palestine Resistance Committees, an umbrella organization of terrorist groups has taken responsibility for the attack."[1]

2003-present - Damascus terrorist attacks: American interests in Syria targeted by Islamist terrorists.

2004 - Civilians Nick Berg, Jack Hensley, and Eugene Armstrong kidnapped and beheaded in Iraq.

2004 - Paul Marshall Johnson, Jr, civilian working in Saudi Arabia, kidnapped and beheaded; five other Americans die in attacks in Saudi Arabia in 2004.

2007 - American embassy attacked in Athens, Greece.

[russhie]

If you don't know what I'm "bleating" about stop trying.

imo = in my opinion

Sorry for your confusion.

:cool:

I know what it means.

I understand the subject matter, it's the useless abbreviations that irk me. Like the :cool: face at the end of every post - it's doing nothing for you.

[NoFenders]

COULDN'T care less. COULDN'T.

And I didn't say they ARE here, I said they are citizens. Born and raised. Even if his family up and moves to Canada, they'll still be citizens. They'll still be affected by what happens here.


It wasn't Iraq that attacked us.

Yes, I know Iraq didn't attack us. Not my point. My point is that the terrorists attacked us when we weren't in Iraq. Now there's some sense that there's more terrorists since we are there. imo there aren't anymore than there already was. Now they are just comming out of their caves.

:cool:

[NoFenders]

Yes. There was no Al Qaeda in Iraq when we invaded in 2003. Like Medallia said, IRAQ DID NOT ATTACK US. No one who was involved with the hijackings had any affiliation with Iraq. We DO know where terrorists are - we know they're in Pakistan, we know they're in Saudi Arabia. There are reasons why we won't go in to places like Saudi Arabia to "smoke out" terrorists, so to speak - our president is friends with the royal family and is on good terms with them. They give us their oil. We're not going to invade someone who are "allies" to the United States, regardless of what kind of terrorists they harbor. Instead, we'll find someone else to attack and make generalized statements like "Oh, Saddam was a man of terror...therefore he needed to be taken out."


You have to critically look at the situation and analyze why we went into Iraq as opposed to places that we know have terrorism. It wasn't a "best guess" situation - they knew it wasn't there. Richard Clark was the anti-terroism czar under Bush in 2001, and he said that the administration kept pressuring him to "find a link between Al Qaeda and Iraq" though he told him time after again, there was no link. You have to wonder why they were pushing Iraq so hard. And why they've been spinning it to the public as "fighting them over there so we don't fight them here." Ask questions, don't just listen to the rhetoric they're spewing out.

I've never thought of Saddam as a man of terror to the US. I did see him as somebody who needed to be dealt with though. He played enough games. It was time to go. I never saw him as harboring terrorists in his basement, but he left too much to question for too long.

I feel that we are doing something over there besides wasting lives and money. It's made me feel safer since we went in, and it continues to do so knowing we are still there.There are still people attacking us just for being us. Not because we are there, but because of what we stand for. Freedom. There's a reason why more and more Iraqi women are being beheaded in front of their own children. Insanity.We aren't dealing with a level minded enemy. There's only one answer for them, for us to be taken off the map. They aren't fighting to protect oil.I have a very strong feeling that once we leave, we are left wide open to more terrorist threats/attacks.

:cool:

[NoFenders]

I know what it means.

I understand the subject matter, it's the useless abbreviations that irk me. Like the :cool: face at the end of every post - it's doing nothing for you.

It obvioulsy does something for you though.


If I irk you with my "useless abbreviations", ignore me. I'm not here to please you.

:cool:

[QueenAdrock]

You honestly feel safer being in Iraq, despite the fact that we've created more terrorism there where it wasn't before? It's not an "opinion" that we've created more, it's fact.

"The war in Iraq has become a primary recruitment vehicle for violent Islamic extremists, motivating a new generation of potential terrorists around the world whose numbers may be increasing faster than the United States and its allies can reduce the threat, U.S. intelligence analysts have concluded."


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/23/AR2006092301130.html

It scares the hell out of me to think that because we're there, Al Qaeda has been able to use it as a recruiting tool to get more volunteers for their jihadist army. That's a fact. I don't know how to say it any clearer. There was NO Al Qaeda in Iraq before we went there. They've come in there since we've invaded. Al Qaeda was originally in other countries, and if we were interested in fighting them, we would have gone there instead. I would feel a little better about the war situation if we had actually targeted where Al Qaeda strongholds are and were and went after that, as opposed to picking an arbitrary location to attack instead.

PLEASE do some research and look into the facts of the war, don't rely on "gut instincts." Facts will tell you that we're creating more terrorism, which is why I'm so scared that something else will happen. People will let their guard down again because of a false sense of security of "fighting them over there" and doing a darn good job, and right at that point, we'll be attacked again.

[Bob]

You honestly feel safer being in Iraq, despite the fact that we've created more terrorism there where it wasn't before? It's not an "opinion" that we've created more, it's fact.

"The war in Iraq has become a primary recruitment vehicle for violent Islamic extremists, motivating a new generation of potential terrorists around the world whose numbers may be increasing faster than the United States and its allies can reduce the threat, U.S. intelligence analysts have concluded."


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/23/AR2006092301130.html

It scares the hell out of me to think that because we're there, Al Qaeda has been able to use it as a recruiting tool to get more volunteers for their jihadist army. That's a fact. I don't know how to say it any clearer. There was NO Al Qaeda in Iraq before we went there. They've come in there since we've invaded. Al Qaeda was originally in other countries, and if we were interested in fighting them, we would have gone there instead. I would feel a little better about the war situation if we had actually targeted where Al Qaeda strongholds are and were and went after that, as opposed to picking an arbitrary location to attack instead.

PLEASE do some research and look into the facts of the war, don't rely on "gut instincts." Facts will tell you that we're creating more terrorism, which is why I'm so scared that something else will happen. People will let their guard down again because of a false sense of security of "fighting them over there" and doing a darn good job, and right at that point, we'll be attacked again.

yeah but he was causing trouble, it was time to go

[NoFenders]

You honestly feel safer being in Iraq, despite the fact that we've created more terrorism there where it wasn't before? It's not an "opinion" that we've created more, it's fact.

"The war in Iraq has become a primary recruitment vehicle for violent Islamic extremists, motivating a new generation of potential terrorists around the world whose numbers may be increasing faster than the United States and its allies can reduce the threat, U.S. intelligence analysts have concluded."


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/23/AR2006092301130.html

It scares the hell out of me to think that because we're there, Al Qaeda has been able to use it as a recruiting tool to get more volunteers for their jihadist army. That's a fact. I don't know how to say it any clearer. There was NO Al Qaeda in Iraq before we went there. They've come in there since we've invaded. Al Qaeda was originally in other countries, and if we were interested in fighting them, we would have gone there instead. I would feel a little better about the war situation if we had actually targeted where Al Qaeda strongholds are and were and went after that, as opposed to picking an arbitrary location to attack instead.

So what's the difference??? Now that AlQaeda has focused on one area, isn't that better in the sense that we don't have to look as hard for them??? And isn't it better that AlQeada has focused on Iraq instead of the US shores?? We are now targeting Al Qaeda strong holds since they are now focused on us in IRaq. We brought the war to them. Seems ok with me.

PLEASE do some research and look into the facts of the war, don't rely on "gut instincts." Facts will tell you that we're creating more terrorism, which is why I'm so scared that something else will happen. People will let their guard down again because of a false sense of security of "fighting them over there" and doing a darn good job, and right at that point, we'll be attacked again.

So, you think we've let our guard down because we are over there??? That's really hard for me to understand. What factual information is there to support this theory???

I know most people just want us out and this all to go away. I'm sorry to tell you, it will never go away until we end it, or they do. Their means of ending it is to see us dead. Our way is to see them dead. Which side are you on?? No, Ossama doesn't have an address in Iraq, but all his followers are walking in every day. There's facts on that.

btw- I keep up as much as I can on "facts" about war. However I try not to read too much into it, and never look at statistics. I look at simple facts about what has taken place and where we are going with it.Most stats can be twisted in so many ways to support a writers mindset. Is there a registry that terrorists sign on to, letting us know their number count from one month to another. If not, the "facts" about the increase in terror cells is bogus imo.

Then again, we all belive the lies we really want to. And that goes for me too.

:cool:

[QueenAdrock]

The factual information to support this theory is the fact that you say "you feel safer" being in Iraq, because we're "fighting them over there." From the sounds of it, you think we're actually safe now in the US, which is exactly what the terrorists want. They want us to have a false sense of security so they can attack us easier. You certainly sound like you've let your guard down a lot, from the statement of feeling "safe" being there. I don't have that sense of feeling safe, because I know we're not.

So what's the difference??? Now that AlQaeda has focused on one area, isn't that better in the sense that we don't have to look as hard for them???

Christ, did you read what I said? THEIR NUMBERS ARE GROWING. If there were only say, 100,000 members of Al Qaeda and that's it, and they all filtered into Iraq and getting killed, great, whatever, terrorists dead. However, if you read the article, we're creating MORE terrorism - more than we can keep up with. That's what US INTELLIGENCE OFFICIALS are saying. We cannot keep up with the terrorism we're creating there. There's too many of them now, not enough of us, we're getting killed, we're killing Iraqi citizens (hundreds of thousands...if you cared about them dying under Saddam's regime, maybe you should care about them dying now), we're losing. It's a sad truth, I don't want it to be that way, but it's the way things are.

You don't believe in statistics or what comes out in newspapers? I guess somehow you're all-seeing, all-knowing, and consider yourself to be smarter than the US Government Intelligence officials? They're the ones who are reporting that terrorists are growing so much that we can't keep up, not me. I for one, think that they're experts on the matter. I'd like to know why you think that their opinions and fact-gathering skills are shit.

[QueenAdrock]

You know what, screw that. I've been providing you with evidence and facts on my side, and you respond with what you think "in your opinion." If you want to be taken seriously, post something up that is credible - like testimony from US counter-terrorism leaders, news articles, whatever else. Just saying that you don't "believe" that more terrorism is coming out (despite my evidence to the contrary) isn't good enough. Post up factual evidence as to WHY you think that. I can't take you seriously if you don't. Because honestly, your opinion as a random US citizen doesn't mean anything if there's an expert in the field who is disputing you. How can you say that they're wrong and you're right with a straight face?

[NoFenders]

The factual information to support this theory is the fact that you say "you feel safer" being in Iraq, because we're "fighting them over there." From the sounds of it, you think we're actually safe now in the US, which is exactly what the terrorists want. They want us to have a false sense of security so they can attack us easier. You certainly sound like you've let your guard down a lot, from the statement of feeling "safe" being there. I don't have that sense of feeling safe, because I know we're not.

The terroists do not want us to feel safe. That goes against the whole idea of terrorism. They want us to be afraid every second of every day.


THEIR NUMBERS ARE GROWING. If there were only say, 100,000 members of Al Qaeda and that's it, and they all filtered into Iraq and getting killed, great, whatever, terrorists dead. However, if you read the article, we're creating MORE terrorism - more than we can keep up with. That's what US INTELLIGENCE OFFICIALS are saying. We cannot keep up with the terrorism we're creating there. There's too many of them now, not enough of us, we're getting killed, we're killing Iraqi citizens (hundreds of thousands...if you cared about them dying under Saddam's regime, maybe you should care about them dying now), we're losing. It's a sad truth, I don't want it to be that way, but it's the way things are.

I see, so your logic is to pull out because we are losing, and they will win. So bring everyone home and hope they forget about us??? That's not the way I grew up. When somebody had a problem with me I went to them. We settled it. It was over.If somebody ever threatened me or my family, I'd make sure to let them know I'm not affraid and I'd do whatever it took to make sure nothing harmed them. That's just me though. I know many many more who turn away and hide.


You don't believe in statistics or what comes out in newspapers? I guess somehow you're all-seeing, all-knowing, and consider yourself to be smarter than the US Government Intelligence officials? They're the ones who are reporting that terrorists are growing so much that we can't keep up, not me. I for one, think that they're experts on the matter. I'd like to know why you think that their opinions and fact-gathering skills are shit.

I don't think their fact gathering skills are shit.I just know how stats can work to justify any argument

So you know, there are other "experts" that agree with my logic.


As I said before, we all belive the lies and stories we really want to.

I don't argue that there are more terrorists that we see now than before. My argument is how can we tell who just signed on in the past years??? How do we know they weren't always there in the first place??? When did they decide to be terrorists?? How do we know where they came from and why?? We don't. We just say we're creating more terrorists because we're there.An increase in the number of terrorists isn't too surprising seeing as though we never knew how many there were in the first place.On top of that you've got people sending women and children to blow themselves up. Kinda hard to put a number on how many there really are. What ever number they think there is, I'd double it just to be safe.

I don't feel I'm all knowing. I just feel that I know who I am, and what I want done. I know the basic facts. We were attacked and lost thousands of innocent lives . Why?? Because of our way of life. Nothing more, nothing less. Saddam failed to comply with anybody and even provoked an attack on himself. We went in. We took him out. We're trying to make the country a beter place. They want it. Some don't, but most do. At the same time, we have had no attacks on US soil since. At the same time we are fighting terroists in another country other than our own. Those are the facts I go by.

I understand how you would like to be. However, pulling our troops out will not make it that way.There are problems, yes, but problems are there to be solved. This is by no means a war we can't win. For anyone to say different,has lost faith in who they are and what we stand for. They (Terrorists) will eventually run out of everything that makes them strong. We are stronger, we should prove it. If not to them, than to the American people.

:cool:

[NoFenders]

You know what, screw that. I've been providing you with evidence and facts on my side, and you respond with what you think "in your opinion." If you want to be taken seriously, post something up that is credible - like testimony from US counter-terrorism leaders, news articles, whatever else. Just saying that you don't "believe" that more terrorism is coming out (despite my evidence to the contrary) isn't good enough. Post up factual evidence as to WHY you think that. I can't take you seriously if you don't. Because honestly, your opinion as a random US citizen doesn't mean anything if there's an expert in the field who is disputing you. How can you say that they're wrong and you're right with a straight face?

We all watch the news. It's up to you to make a decision on what you feel is right. Me plastering stats and articles only takes away from who I am and how I feel. It usually shows that a person is not thinking for themselves. Use the stats and statements as a building block to your opinion. Then let your opinion be known. There are stats all over the place for either way of thinking. I don't need to prove anyone wrong, just want to voice my opinion. That's all. You're one person, as am I.We don't add up to squat in the big picture, so try not to take it so seriously. If you do take it that seriously, take action.

:cool:

[NoFenders]

All that being said, you should know where I stand by now. I'm not changing any time soon. I hope we can all get along, but I know it's not a reality. Especially when somebody uses religion as an excuse.

I will use one other person's words in my final thoughts on this subject though. I couldn't agree more with his logic. He's no expert on these games, but he sure hit my point of view.

Somebody on how to make peace.

“I see a lot of people yelling for peace
but I have not heard of a plan for
peace. So, here’s one plan.”

1) “The US will apologize to the world for our “interference” in their affairs, past &present. You know, Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Tojo, Noriega, Milosevic, Hussein, and the rest of those “good ole boys”, we will never “interfere” again.


:cool:

[QueenAdrock]

My logic is actually to slowly train the Iraqis to fend for themselves and pull out. The terrorists are already winning over there, they keep growing BECAUSE we're there, so why stay? Bad things are happening due to our presence. They'll keep growing. It's like Vietnam all over again. You have to pull out sometime, so when the heck is it going to happen? When do YOU want to get out of there? What would "victory" be considered? If we don't leave "until we win" then, what do you consider "winning"? I don't see a miraculous victory EVER happening, it's just not in the cards.

And terrorists want us to feel a FALSE sense of security. That's definitely true. If you want to attack someone, do you want them to be on the defense, waiting with weapons and expecting you? Or do you want them to be sitting on their asses on a couch with a bowl of popcorn, completely unaware that you're coming? Exactly, you want to attack the person who is NOT PAYING ATTENTION, the person who feels safe and therefore, is just a sitting duck.

I'm completely agree that people should have differing opinions. But if you say "the sky is green, that's my opinion," that's going to bother me because it's a well-accepted fact by everyone that the sky is blue. All evidence points to the sky being blue, thus me believing it. If you truly think the sky is green, then PROVE it. Just saying it is because you think it is doesn't prove anything. Give me evidence as to WHY you think we're winning, because I fail to see any factual evidence that shows why you believe what you believe.

[NoFenders]

You have to pull out sometime, so when the heck is it going to happen? When do YOU want to get out of there? What would "victory" be considered? If we don't leave "until we win" then, what do you consider "winning"? I don't see a miraculous victory EVER happening, it's just not in the cards.

If we do nothing about it, it's our own fault. Us winning would be cutting off the head of the snake and watching it squirm, until it falls into peices. Yes, there would still be little outfits that would survive but they would have no funding or real credibility to grow any bigger in a short time.


And terrorists want us to feel a FALSE sense of security. That's definitely true. If you want to attack someone, do you want them to be on the defense, waiting with weapons and expecting you? Or do you want them to be sitting on their asses on a couch with a bowl of popcorn, completely unaware that you're coming? Exactly, you want to attack the person who is NOT PAYING ATTENTION, the person who feels safe and therefore, is just a sitting duck.

I feel safer. Not really safe as a whole.


I'm completely agree that people should have differing opinions. But if you say "the sky is green, that's my opinion," that's going to bother me because it's a well-accepted fact by everyone that the sky is blue. All evidence points to the sky being blue, thus me believing it. If you truly think the sky is green, then PROVE it.

What if I was color blind?? j/k

Just saying it is because you think it is doesn't prove anything. Give me evidence as to WHY you think we're winning, because I fail to see any factual evidence that shows why you believe what you believe.

I believe what I believe mostly from my heart, but there are also experts on my side as well. The people I side with are outnumbered by the experts that agree with you, but they are "experts" just the same.

Here's a link to my logic of many people, believing many different things.

It's from 07, but yours was from 06, so don't punch me. ;-)

A new survey of more than 100 U.S. foreign policy experts -- both Republicans and Democrats, as well as retired military and intelligence professionals -- has found deep pessimism over the "global war on terror" and even deeper pessimism over the war in Iraq.

Overall, three out of four respondents disagreed with assertion that Washington "is winning the war on terror", while 81 percent said the world is becoming "more dangerous" to the United States and its people.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines07/0214-04.htm

It's not a majority of people thinking like me, but it's certainly more than zero.

So, there are experts saying that you're right, and there are experts saying I'm right. It will be that way forever. The numbers might change, but it will always be a debate.

:cool:

[QueenAdrock]

I understand there are people who think the way you do, but my question is WHY do they think that way. I've explained why I think the way I do, basing it on facts that have come out. If you could show me the physical progress we're making in Iraq and give me proof that terrorism has been cut down on, it'd be more credible. Just saying that there have been no terrorist attacks on American soil (just on American soil overseas) isn't good enough.

Simply put, it's never going to work to "win a war on terror" because though terrorists can be fundamentalist Islamic nutjobs who live overseas, there's plenty who are not. There's terrorist cells in the United States today. They're white people. They don't fit the normal terrorist profile, but they sure as shit hate America. Read this, it's interesting: http://news.scotsman.com/latestnews/AlQaeda39s-white-army-of-terror.3667425.jp

So either way, regardless of what we do, it's something that is physically impossible to COMPLETELY rid the world of. I honestly don't think there's an actual way to get rid of terrorism completely, other than to focus on becoming a more respected country in the world, beefing up American security, and relying on intelligence reports to foil future terrorist attacks. Remember how the Bush administration got a note prior to 9/11 saying "Bin Laden determined to attack within the United States" and completely ignored that? Yeah, we need to pay attention to stuff like that and take it seriously. I think we need the National Guard protecting America here (it would have been nice to have them when Hurricane Katrina happened, too), and we shouldn't spend all our resources focused on one particular area (which didn't have terrorism before we went there) - there are MANY people in the world who are considered "terrorists" and they aren't located in Iraq.

[NoFenders]

Point well taken.

:cool:

[abcdefz]

I understand there are people who think the way you do, but my question is WHY do they think that way. I've explained why I think the way I do, basing it on facts that have come out. If you could show me the physical progress we're making in Iraq and give me proof that terrorism has been cut down on, it'd be more credible. Just saying that there have been no terrorist attacks on American soil (just on American soil overseas) isn't good enough.

Simply put, it's never going to work to "win a war on terror" because though terrorists can be fundamentalist Islamic nutjobs who live overseas, there's plenty who are not. There's terrorist cells in the United States today. They're white people. They don't fit the normal terrorist profile, but they sure as shit hate America. Read this, it's interesting: http://news.scotsman.com/latestnews/AlQaeda39s-white-army-of-terror.3667425.jp

So either way, regardless of what we do, it's something that is physically impossible to COMPLETELY rid the world of. I honestly don't think there's an actual way to get rid of terrorism completely, other than to focus on becoming a more respected country in the world, beefing up American security, and relying on intelligence reports to foil future terrorist attacks. Remember how the Bush administration got a note prior to 9/11 saying "Bin Laden determined to attack within the United States" and completely ignored that? Yeah, we need to pay attention to stuff like that and take it seriously. I think we need the National Guard protecting America here (it would have been nice to have them when Hurricane Katrina happened, too), and we shouldn't spend all our resources focused on one particular area (which didn't have terrorism before we went there) - there are MANY people in the world who are considered "terrorists" and they aren't located in Iraq.




What you're saying is that terrorists are kind of like a gravy stain.