| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
uwindsurf
Joined: 18 Aug 2012
Posts: 968
Location: Classified
|
 Posted: Tue Oct 14, 2014 11:24 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| techno900 wrote: | youwindsurf said: | Quote: | | Even more illogical is your derisive statement concerning the administration's supposed inability to answer the questions to which you yourself have no answers. Apparently, you are just like the administration you so despise in this regard. |
Why should nw30 or anyone else have to answer your questions. They are good questions, but the ONLY one that has the responsibility to define what we are doing in the middle east and why is the Commander and Chief.
I guess we can't use the Bush term "War on Terror", any more, so what should Obama call our bombing of ISIS? "Varsity tries to annihilate the JV team"?
It also look like Egypt hasn't yet bought into our use of their country to raid Iraq and Syria. |
I was under the impression that this is a discussion board. My understanding of a discussion is people express opinions and those opinions are questioned and discussed.
NW does not "have" to answer my questions. However, when a definitive statement such as his regarding the "war on terror" is made, questions are raised. NW has failed and refused to support his statement with a cogent definition of what it is he is actually in support of. In my opinion (see what I did there?), this weakens his position.
If I was having a discussion with a person and they said they fully supported the movement known as"yourmammashlogsalot" and I did not known what that was, I would ask them to define it. If they replied by giving me a blank stare or suggest that someone else define it for them, I would have to conclude they did not know what it was they supported and they were merely repeating what someone else had told them. This demonstrates a lack of knowledge and insight into the subject. This does not foster discussion.
NW said essentially that you either agree or disagree with the war on terror. He agrees with the war on terror. I don't know what the war on terror is so I asked NW for a definition of what it is he agrees with. Not only was NW unable to provide a definition for what he supports, he thinks someone else should define what he supports for him. I therefore conclude the NW does not know WTF he is talking about vis-a-vis, the "war on terror".
Discuss. (Perhaps NW could refrain from "I don't care" and/or name calling) |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
nw30
Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Posts: 6485
Location: The eye of the universe, Cen. Cal. coast
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 14, 2014 11:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
| youwindsurf wrote: | | techno900 wrote: | youwindsurf said: | Quote: | | Even more illogical is your derisive statement concerning the administration's supposed inability to answer the questions to which you yourself have no answers. Apparently, you are just like the administration you so despise in this regard. |
Why should nw30 or anyone else have to answer your questions. They are good questions, but the ONLY one that has the responsibility to define what we are doing in the middle east and why is the Commander and Chief.
I guess we can't use the Bush term "War on Terror", any more, so what should Obama call our bombing of ISIS? "Varsity tries to annihilate the JV team"?
It also look like Egypt hasn't yet bought into our use of their country to raid Iraq and Syria. |
I was under the impression that this is a discussion board. My understanding of a discussion is people express opinions and those opinions are questioned and discussed.
NW does not "have" to answer my questions. However, when a definitive statement such as his regarding the "war on terror" is made, questions are raised. NW has failed and refused to support his statement with a cogent definition of what it is he is actually in support of. In my opinion (see what I did there?), this weakens his position.
If I was having a discussion with a person and they said they fully supported the movement known as"yourmammashlogsalot" and I did not known what that was, I would ask them to define it. If they replied by giving me a blank stare or suggest that someone else define it for them, I would have to conclude they did not know what it was they supported and they were merely repeating what someone else had told them. This demonstrates a lack of knowledge and insight into the subject. This does not foster discussion.
NW said essentially that you either agree or disagree with the war on terror. He agrees with the war on terror. I don't know what the war on terror is so I asked NW for a definition of what it is he agrees with. Not only was NW unable to provide a definition for what he supports, he thinks someone else should define what he supports for him. I therefore conclude the NW does not know WTF he is talking about vis-a-vis, the "war on terror".
Discuss. (Perhaps NW could refrain from "I don't care" and/or name calling) |
I don't name call, I leave that tactic for others.
But after reading this post, it sounds like you truly have no idea on what the war on terror really is.
So maybe this will help, it took about 3 seconds to come up with this link,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_Terror
it's quite informative.
So either you believe these efforts are worth it, or you would rather allow terrorism to continue unfettered to the point to where our country becomes inundated with attacks, also known as loosing the security of our country.
Most of the terrorist organizations have already declared war on us, we are in their crosshairs, so would you prefer that we just ignore them, or try to reason with them to find out why they hate us so much? Keeping in mind that they have no intention to talking with us, because we are the great satan, the big prize. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mac
Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17747
Location: Berkeley, California
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 14, 2014 11:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
| We know what the Republican strategy is. Fear. Nothing more. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
swchandler
Joined: 08 Nov 1993
Posts: 10588
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 14, 2014 1:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
NW30 appears to believe "it's my way or the highway". Not much depth there, but that's no big surprise given the the twisted opinions he drags here from questionable areas.
As far as the "I don't name call" comment, I think that will all know how he packages his disdain and expresses it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nw30
Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Posts: 6485
Location: The eye of the universe, Cen. Cal. coast
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 14, 2014 1:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
swc, you really shouldn't use quotations if you know I didn't say that, apostrophes work much better at each end.
At least you used the word "distain", which is more accurate, instead of the word "hate", as mac would do. That is just flame baiting. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
uwindsurf
Joined: 18 Aug 2012
Posts: 968
Location: Classified
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 14, 2014 4:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| nw30 wrote: | | youwindsurf wrote: | | techno900 wrote: | youwindsurf said: | Quote: | | Even more illogical is your derisive statement concerning the administration's supposed inability to answer the questions to which you yourself have no answers. Apparently, you are just like the administration you so despise in this regard. |
Why should nw30 or anyone else have to answer your questions. They are good questions, but the ONLY one that has the responsibility to define what we are doing in the middle east and why is the Commander and Chief.
I guess we can't use the Bush term "War on Terror", any more, so what should Obama call our bombing of ISIS? "Varsity tries to annihilate the JV team"?
It also look like Egypt hasn't yet bought into our use of their country to raid Iraq and Syria. |
I was under the impression that this is a discussion board. My understanding of a discussion is people express opinions and those opinions are questioned and discussed.
NW does not "have" to answer my questions. However, when a definitive statement such as his regarding the "war on terror" is made, questions are raised. NW has failed and refused to support his statement with a cogent definition of what it is he is actually in support of. In my opinion (see what I did there?), this weakens his position.
If I was having a discussion with a person and they said they fully supported the movement known as"yourmammashlogsalot" and I did not known what that was, I would ask them to define it. If they replied by giving me a blank stare or suggest that someone else define it for them, I would have to conclude they did not know what it was they supported and they were merely repeating what someone else had told them. This demonstrates a lack of knowledge and insight into the subject. This does not foster discussion.
NW said essentially that you either agree or disagree with the war on terror. He agrees with the war on terror. I don't know what the war on terror is so I asked NW for a definition of what it is he agrees with. Not only was NW unable to provide a definition for what he supports, he thinks someone else should define what he supports for him. I therefore conclude the NW does not know WTF he is talking about vis-a-vis, the "war on terror".
Discuss. (Perhaps NW could refrain from "I don't care" and/or name calling) |
I don't name call, I leave that tactic for others.
But after reading this post, it sounds like you truly have no idea on what the war on terror really is.
So maybe this will help, it took about 3 seconds to come up with this link,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_Terror
it's quite informative.
So either you believe these efforts are worth it, or you would rather allow terrorism to continue unfettered to the point to where our country becomes inundated with attacks, also known as loosing the security of our country.
Most of the terrorist organizations have already declared war on us, we are in their crosshairs, so would you prefer that we just ignore them, or try to reason with them to find out why they hate us so much? Keeping in mind that they have no intention to talking with us, because we are the great satan, the big prize. |
How does one win the war on terror? Kill anyone who harbors ill will towards the US? So you are OK with the US being perpetually at war? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nw30
Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Posts: 6485
Location: The eye of the universe, Cen. Cal. coast
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 15, 2014 6:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| youwindsurf wrote: |
How does one win the war on terror? Kill anyone who harbors ill will towards the US? So you are OK with the US being perpetually at war? |
Okay, seeing how you'd like to play hypothetical questions, your last two being a doozies, I'll throw some back at you.
How does one live with terror attacks w/in their own homeland?
Maybe you could ask the people of Israel.
Are you okay with the U.S. being perpetually bombed, killing civilians?
Boston wasn't that bad was it?
So you must be OK with the U.S. loosing it's national security? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
uwindsurf
Joined: 18 Aug 2012
Posts: 968
Location: Classified
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 15, 2014 11:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| nw30 wrote: | | youwindsurf wrote: |
How does one win the war on terror? Kill anyone who harbors ill will towards the US? So you are OK with the US being perpetually at war? |
Okay, seeing how you'd like to play hypothetical questions, your last two being a doozies, I'll throw some back at you.
How does one live with terror attacks w/in their own homeland?
Maybe you could ask the people of Israel.
Are you okay with the U.S. being perpetually bombed, killing civilians?
Boston wasn't that bad was it?
So you must be OK with the U.S. loosing it's national security? |
This is what you said that prompted my initial questions, which were not hypothetical (by the way, notice more "I don't care" from you):
"What does that have to do with terrorism?
Either you believe in the war on terror, or you.
Either you believe ISIS can become a threat to our security (terror defenses), or you don't.
I don't care about some multi-thousand year old civil war, that's irrelevant.
I believe ISIS is a terrorist threat to us, and the war on terror, I guess you don't, fine."
The statement which really caught my eye was: "Either you believe in the war on terror, or you don't."
The statement appeared to be quite broad. "...the war in terror..." My inquiry was centered on how YOU defined this war on terror. After much prodding, you defaulted to a Wikipedia definition. Weak.
You also state that you "...don't care about some multi-thousand year old civil war, that's irrelevant." While I am not a Middle Eastern scholar, I do know that the history of the religious and territorial disputes in the region have a significant and direct impact on the current state of affairs which in turn impacts the nature of the response to the current threat. The relationship the US has with the various countries in the region requires a thoughtful and nuanced approach. One which is obviously lost on you.
As to your questions:
1. The world is a dangerous place and there is no guarantee of your safety anywhere. You live with the uncertainty by accepting it. You don't seem like a proponent of big government. Do you want Uncle Sam to save you, or should you be self sufficient and save yourself?
2. I have a friend who is an Israeli. I asked him that question. His response was mandatory military service, self-sufficiency and refusal to live in fear. Are you suggesting that we in the US adopt this philosophy? I agree.
3. No, I am not OK with the US being bombed perpetually. But that has not happened has it?
4. I have never been to Boston. See response to question numbers 1 and 2.
5. The US national security has always been in flux. It is tied to it's foreign policy. See response to question number 1.
Your position appears to be to militarily attack any group that expresses any ill will toward the US. I think that such a position is short sighted, unsustainable and will result in the downfall of the US.
Will you agree to an increase in your income tax to support the military escapades you desire? If not, you really should stop promoting such a policy. Put up or shut up. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
J64TWB
Joined: 24 Dec 2013
Posts: 1685
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nw30
Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Posts: 6485
Location: The eye of the universe, Cen. Cal. coast
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 16, 2014 12:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| youwindsurf wrote: | | Put up or shut up. |
LOL, yeah, I'll shut up, right, and you can continue tiptoeing thru the daisies, playing your ukulele. Deal? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum
|
|
|
Search
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Register
