View Poll Results: What Best Describes Your Positions?

Voters
61. You may not vote on this poll
  • I supported the invasion of Iraq and I support the Libyan Intervention

    18 29.51%
  • I opposed the Invasion of Iraq, I support the Libyan Intervention

    16 26.23%
  • I supported the Invasion of Iraq, I oppose the Libyan Intervention

    9 14.75%
  • I opposed both.

    18 29.51%
Page 7 of 11 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 103

Thread: Where Were You in 2002? Where are you today?

  1. #61
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    01-18-13 @ 07:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    1,631

    Re: Where Were You in 2002? Where are you today?

    Quote Originally Posted by upsideguy View Post
    ... I missed that attac k on the US by Afghanistan. Anyone else have a memory of it?
    No American has forgotten September 11th, 2001.

  2. #62
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    01-18-13 @ 07:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    1,631

    Re: Where Were You in 2002? Where are you today?

    Quote Originally Posted by MaggieD View Post
    Are you related to The Drake?
    Mayor Snorkum has nothing to do with ducks unless they're from the Chinese restaurant.

  3. #63
    Dungeon Master
    Veni, vidi, dormivi!

    spud_meister's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Didjabringabeeralong
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    33,868
    Blog Entries
    8

    Re: Where Were You in 2002? Where are you today?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mayor Snorkum View Post
    No American has forgotten September 11th, 2001.
    That was by Al Qaeda, not the Taliban.
    So follow me into the desert
    As desperate as you are
    Where the moon is glued to a picture of heaven
    And all the little pigs have God

  4. #64
    Disappointed Evolutionist
    Catawba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    05-28-13 @ 08:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    27,254

    Re: Where Were You in 2002? Where are you today?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mayor Snorkum View Post
    Where were you standing when GW Bush decided that Saddam Hussein needed to be removed from power by US military action?

    Where are you standing now, when Obama has decided to intervene in Libya?

    Are your positions consistent or blindly partisan?

    Mayor Snorkum opposed both because in neither case was a definable US interest served.

    Mayor Snorkum is also a US military veteran.

    Mayor Snorkum is neither Republican nor Democrat, but a Libertarian.
    Got a love a poll that provides insufficient choices and no "other" vote.

    In 2002, I was opposed to our optional war there just as I am opposed to our support of the NATO operation. I do agree with you that we should put it to Congress to decide whether we continue our support of the NATO operation.
    Treat the earth well: it was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children. We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children. ~ Ancient American Indian Proverb

  5. #65
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    01-18-13 @ 07:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    1,631

    Re: Where Were You in 2002? Where are you today?

    Quote Originally Posted by spud_meister View Post
    That was by Al Qaeda, not the Taliban.
    It's simply amazing that ten years after the fact that the Make-Excuses Left is still making excuses. In August, 2001, the Taliban appointed Osama bin Laden as the Commander in Chief of their "armed forces", an event duly protested by the Russians and reported in the media.

    That makes the military decision by Osama bin Laden to attack the United States the decision of Afghanistan to attack the United States.

    Welcome to what history really is.

    Facts.

  6. #66
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    01-18-13 @ 07:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    1,631

    Re: Where Were You in 2002? Where are you today?

    Quote Originally Posted by MSgt View Post
    Our value should be the rule of the correct law. There is nothing correct about a law that protects the soveriegnty of dictators who murder safely behind their borders.
    If the law is incorrect, the correct process is to alter the law, not break it.

    If all laws may be broken becuase the established powers determine they are incorrect, explain how those powers differ from dictators.

    Oh, there is no difference, dictators are merely people who've gained the power to break law and re-write law at whim.

    Just in case you're not sure about that, the United Nations has not role in the definition of US law.

    Get used to the 21st century.
    You mean where the lawlessness of the Twentieth is eclipsed by the new lawlessness pretending to be "correct" lawlessness, but equally deadly?

    The "evil" of this world is going to force you to change your mind on a few things.
    FTIW.

    [quote]We no longer war against our rival Western gentlemen. [quote]

    This decade. Given the history of war, things can change that quickly.

    Real justification is anything that will prevent 9/11s.
    Oh, you mean like the kiddy-porn scanners at airports, the strip searches, the warrantless wire-tapping, the intrusive bank account checking, the travel restrictions....while the US southern border is completely unrestricted?

    And this means forcing the very region that breeds these instruments of God to change.
    Yes, history has shown, again and again how effective force is in the termination of religious ideology. Screw Godwin's law, you've just posted absurdity. The German's tried to eradite an undesirable religious belief with force. The Soviets tried to erase religion in their borders to no avail. The Chinese success with suppressing their Falun Gong people is notable for its failure. What force does in suppression attempts is to establish the mentality of the seige and the rabid beliefs become entrenched.

    REAGAN reduced the Soviet Union to it's knees by patience and abstention from force.


    It means assisting the rebelling people, who chant for democracy, against our former Cold War fellows.
    No. It means choosing sides, when our interests in the region don't even exist. You want people to stop hating the United States in the Middle East? Demand we drill our oil, demand we STAY OUT of their local affairs.

    Iraqis had no chance.
    Nor do the Tibetans.

    The Cubans aren't fairing well.

    The Yemenis aren't too happy.

    Our good work in Somalia didn't go unpunished.

    Our work in Afghanistan repelling the imperialist soviets was well rewarded on September 11, 2001.

    Certainly with that kind of track record for the gratitude of those we've helped we should jump into every single conflict which today's "incorrect" laws are holding us back, just for more adulation like we got on 9/11.

    And because of this, we were forever stuck with that damned UN mission, which meant forever giving the Bin Ladens their excuses. The rest of the MENA is finally voicing out and removing their oppressors on their own. We have an obligation to help. It's in our best interest to deal with democracies (or at least "freed" people) for our oil.
    "Our" oil?

    It ain't "ours" until it's paid for. Meanwhile oil that it truly ours is left in the ground and under the sea. TWENTY YEARS AGO the lunatic mainstream left was chanting "no blood for oil" and standing in the way all this time against the US developing it's own oil reserves, thereby guaranteeing that more blood will be spilled for oil.

    It's important to recognize a lot of things here. We aren't imposing anything on anybody
    Imposing a "no fly" zone qualifies as "something".

    and "democracy" does not equal "America."
    The United States is a republic, which has laws that cannot lawfully be disregarded by a sanctimonious golfer.

    You may not like it, but we can and we do lean on these governments all the time.
    Yes, Teddy Roosevelt's Big Stick policy could only be something thought up by a man visiting the Panama Canal in the basement in between trumpet blaring charges up the stairs.

    The original American ideal was to trade with all, fight with none. Unless forced.

    Call it arrogance, but the fact is that we can do what others cannot.
    The more important fact is that we lack the wisdom to refrain from doing. We have the Hammer, every problem a nail, and we never ever get tired of swinging that hammer, even though we never learn that our thumbs are in the way.

    We should not belittle ourselves just to appease weaker nations who feel shunned by our fast paced power.
    Drinking beer on the bleachers of the regional Little League Championship is a fine way of spending a summer. Sure beats getting Americans killed.

    Just because you don't see Marines charging into foriegn cities on television doesn't mean Washington isn't busy at work pressuring them constantly. We haven't invaded Iran, yet we have the entire world pissing all over Iran.
    Yes, we haven't invaded Iran, even though Iran is a very short time away from detonating it's first nuclear weapons. No, there's no US intersests there, but a petty squabble in Libya? Gotta jump in with both feet.

    Read 1984 and begin to understand the purpose of the Perpetual War. Its never about the stated cause.

    We haven't invaded North Korea, yet we have the entire world ****ting on North Korea.
    The word you didn't say was "china".

    When it came to Iraq, we spent 12 years appeasing the world's need to keep Iraq stable at all cost. We merely handled a problem denied us in 1991 by the same fools who planned 2003 and the same critics who would rather us be chained to the UN's will.
    You're wandering. Iraq I ended the way it did because a foolish president made a foolish speech about a 100 Hour War. The abrupt cessation was later pretended to be the result of some obscure desire to obey a UN mandate. When we unwisely invaded Iraq in 2003 Schwarzkopf said it succinctly: We broke it, its ours until it's fixed.

    And "World Police" is such a cliche.
    And yet, and yet, you're demanding we be the cops.

    The French jumped in with eagerness. Naturally they're doing it in hopes of grabbing oil, but they're French. We should let them get in and drown, not joined them when we're too exhausted to swim.

    [quote] What the hell do you think the Cold War was about?[quote]

    Defending the United States. Europe was a welfare recipient benefitting from the fallout of our own self-interests, and most of Europe was reluctant even then.

  7. #67
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    01-18-13 @ 07:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    1,631

    Re: Where Were You in 2002? Where are you today?

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    Got a love a poll that provides insufficient choices and no "other" vote.

    In 2002, I was opposed to our optional war there just as I am opposed to our support of the NATO operation. I do agree with you that we should put it to Congress to decide whether we continue our support of the NATO operation.
    People can figure out how to vote "other".

    It's like voting for "none of the above".

    You use your feet.

    Mayor Snorkum wasn't interested in the milquetoasts who wait in vain for someone to tell them what position to take and who won't take a position unless told. If there is some person out there who came up with "maybe", maybe they should spend their time on another thread. There's no law saying a person HAS to post here.

    Freedom takes "I won't".

  8. #68
    Dungeon Master
    Veni, vidi, dormivi!

    spud_meister's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Didjabringabeeralong
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    33,868
    Blog Entries
    8

    Re: Where Were You in 2002? Where are you today?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mayor Snorkum View Post
    It's simply amazing that ten years after the fact that the Make-Excuses Left is still making excuses. In August, 2001, the Taliban appointed Osama bin Laden as the Commander in Chief of their "armed forces", an event duly protested by the Russians and reported in the media.
    What am I makin excuses about again? And could you prove that the Taliban appointed Osama bin Laden as the Commander in Chief of their "armed forces"? I can't find anything about it.
    So follow me into the desert
    As desperate as you are
    Where the moon is glued to a picture of heaven
    And all the little pigs have God

  9. #69
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    01-18-13 @ 07:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    1,631

    Re: Where Were You in 2002? Where are you today?

    Quote Originally Posted by spud_meister View Post
    What am I makin excuses about again? And could you prove that the Taliban appointed Osama bin Laden as the Commander in Chief of their "armed forces"? I can't find anything about it.
    No, Mayor Snorkum is not going to search the internet for news clippings from a decade ago just because you refused to see them last decade and now find it convenient to avoid seeing the whole tapestry of history because that tapestry contradicts the childlike faith you have in your ideology.

    Mayor Snorkum presented you with sufficient clues that you can find it yourself if you're interested.

    FTIW.

  10. #70
    Basketball Nerd
    StillBallin75's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Vilseck, Germany
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:52 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    21,896

    Re: Where Were You in 2002? Where are you today?

    Quote Originally Posted by spud_meister View Post
    What am I makin excuses about again? And could you prove that the Taliban appointed Osama bin Laden as the Commander in Chief of their "armed forces"? I can't find anything about it.
    Turns out Mayor Snorkum is correct:

    Osama bin Laden Appointed Commander-in-Chief of Taliban Armed Forces
    Nobody who wins a war indulges in a bifurcated definition of victory. War is a political act; victory and defeat have meaning only in political terms. A country incapable of achieving its political objectives at an acceptable cost is losing the war, regardless of battlefield events.

    Bifurcating victory (e.g. winning militarily, losing politically) is a useful salve for defeated armies. The "stab in the back" narrative helped take the sting out of failure for German generals after WWI and their American counterparts after Vietnam.

    All the same, it's nonsense. To paraphrase Vince Lombardi, show me a political loser, and I'll show you a loser.
    - Colonel Paul Yingling

Page 7 of 11 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •