World's perception of the US as the superpower

About the same as it makes you sound, when you openly admit to admiring a man who has repeatedly called for Jewish genocide?

I hope you aren't trying to use TK as a tool for your cause again.

 

Haven't you called for genocide against Muslims GSpot?

 

If the surge is working, and a number of people have put their partisanship aside to suggest it is, then is that the best time to proclaim defeat?

Apparently some have set their partisanship aside to suggest it is. That doesn't mean suddenly muslims are going to stop killing muslims. That is, after all, what they do.

Thus being the point. If that's what it were about, one bomb would take care of everything.

Have you thought about what the world will say of a pullout? When terrorists take over and the US is accused of letting it happen? Seems like a no win situation, doesn't it.

Let's review:

http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showpost.php?p=2017595&postcount=252

How many conditions are there and which one do you believe was the hardest for saddam to have given up?

Takes muslims to do that. Remember, they believe for their actions, they are going to get 72 virgins. That's their motivator. I'm not sure China could convince it's Army of a surplus of virgins.

Nothing happened to it. The American people spoke in the last presidential election. They will speak again next year. "We the people" means that not everyone will always get what they want, when they want it.

Remember, most Americans don't support the democrats desire for defeat in wars.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=070419184534.ileoeb47&show_article=1

This was in April. About the time the surge began. Reid was chided at every turn for declaring defeat for America and a win for terrorists.

If one were concerned about what the world thinks of his country, he might look at this and say "hold on, wait a minute...this isn't right."

 

I think it will speak volumes about your humanity to make clear what level you are willing to go to lessen American casualties.

I hope you realize that the UN will never authorize the use of nuclear force to carry out it's resolutions. Dropping a bomb would be the most polarizing thing the US could do. It would make us the Nazis of our time, galvanizing the rest of the world against us.

You casually speak about killing millions by remote control, it makes me wonder exactly how much value you place on the lives of foreign civilians who happen to be in harms way of terrorists.

Tragically so. Instead of being the dominant economy in growth, or embodiment of freedom we're now known not for our humanity, loyalty or values, but by the size of the stick we carry.

I do not believe that freedom is found by attacking sovereign nations half way around the world. I don't believe that freedom is spending untold billions on war and later on aid, money that is taken from the American citizenry and deployed elsewhere around the world. This was the damn argument when the British ruled North America, that Americans sent their tribute to a foreign king, in our case, we send it to foreign corporations or to maintain foreign populations.

Apparently GWB feels he does need a permission slip, or he would not have used UN resolutions as the basis for the invasion of Iraq. If he genuinely felt that he could, or was empowered to invade another nation, strictly on "American business" why did he not do so?

You want to see America take care of business? Let's fix these borders. Let's push for legal reform. Let's build the economy. Let's have a strong national defense, not a global offense.

Sometimes you are so smart, and others, it just seems like you are trying to prove you are not. I hope this is part of the game, and you really do not hold all of these views near and dear to your heart. Because they are flawed, isolationist and imperialist notions. Throwbacks to the stone ages of diplomatic thinking.

 

Nope. I have 12,000 plus posts. Feel free to search them.

Are you attempting to use unverified moral equivalence here? In other words, you take no issue with what AGS has said, but rather attempt to take issue with something you presume I might have? I could swear we were just talking about partisanship too.

Here's what I have said:

http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showpost.php?p=697343&postcount=125

Might want to try a different approach. I find it interesting you don't take issue with what AGS said. Sadly, not surprising though.

 

Might just do that. The breadth of your post count doesn't intimidate me. Not that you meant to intimidate with the inflated total.

I am taking issue with something you said.

I'll tell you where equivalence comes in. If I challenge AGS on a post, I won't stand for him hiding behind your skirt, and I advise you not to pull the same nonsense with me either.

 

who is promoting "defeat"? You have yet to show a link of a politician promoting the term "defeat"... You keep making the claim, please back it up...

So, politicians claim the surge is working; yet recently was the deadliest day in Iraq since the war started (see previous post for link)... And the point of us being there, in your words, is to "help lesson civilian casualties"...

So even though this month was host to the deadliest day, because politicians make the claim the surge is "working", it must be true? This is one of those times when I just want to shout think for yourself! Don't blindly accept everything the politicians spew...

A minute ago you just said:

so why are you using this as an argument?

How can they accuse us when the US has more troops in that country then any other foreign nation?

The US was not meant to be the "world police"

Wait... It takes muslims to do that? "that" being the use of guerilla tactics? using tactics just like vietnam? vietnam wasn't a muslim nation...

That's a horrible definition of "We the people"... But you are right, next year our country will vote again... And shortly after, our troops will head home (probably)... And when they do, people will be asking why we didn't do it earlier; and thinking about how many American lives we could have saved...

They don't support the term "defeat", but they don't support the Iraq conflict either...

The term "defeat" was only used once in that article, and it was by President Bush...
Please backup your claim, where has Reid declared defeat? And please don't put words in his mouth...

 

I've been pretty consistent and clear about this. I am absolutely against the proclamation of defeat.

I hope you realize the point I was trying to prove. It's easy to twist and say "oh, that GTech is all for one huge bomb." That's just not so though. The point I was trying to make was, our goal was to go in with ground forces to prevent this very thing. To minimize civilian casualties. Please don't misinterpret my words here.

See above. Let's keep this one honest, ok?

Makes one wonder how al qaida could become the good guys for attacking us. But then, according to ron paul, it's all our fault

Freedom isn't free. Many men and women before us have paid the ultimate price for it. It isn't an entitlement, it's a result. And the result of men and women better than either of us will ever be, who gave that sacrifice.

Actually, our forefathers knew much about the same things taking place today and about paying tribute (or rather, jizyah):

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53692

This was protocol. Congress voted otherwise, anyway. We lacked the votes of France, Russia, Germany and China. Of which, we later learned, were major recipients of saddams oil for food program. Compounding the matter further, when over 280 influential businessmen and politicians were found to have taken bribe money from saddam. Oil vouchers, to make substantial money (like George Galloway from the UK) in exchange for votes not to go to war with Iraq. International corruption at it's finest.

Let's not forget, long before Bush was in office, democrats had been calling for war with Iraq and touting saddam's wmd. Probably the only thing that saved saddam back then was, Clinton absolutely gutted the military in order to attempt to lower the deficit.

I'm not opposed to this. These are not inherently bad things, but to avoid threats to our country at all cost, is naive thinking. Not unlike that of ron paul.

Personal opinion. Doesn't phase me one way or another. I would like to request that we keep it honest. Of course, with GWB as the root of all evil in the world, that's not always possible for partisans.

 

You have got to be kidding me? You want to argue over the semantics of "lost" vs the term "defeat?"

In a game of chess, you prove superior to me. It's a good game, but at the end, you counter my every move and ultimately defeat me. In essence, I have _____ the game and you have won.

Fill in the blank, please.

 

Incorrect. You took issue with something you presumed I may have said in the past, while completely ignoring what someone else has directly said. But, AGS is anti-war too, so he gets a pass

My gawd, I've seen it all now

Actually you just did that. You completely overlooked what he's said in order to dishonestly assert I may have said something similar, with nothing to back it up. You presume to take issue with me, in light of the fact someone else did actually say such.

That's pretty pathetic. Can I get a "partisan" up in here?

 

So you won't respond to my analogy, but then post one of your own?

And it's ok to claim a person a person said something, when they never did? You used the term "defeat" over, and over, and over again... So please post a link where he said the term "defeat", or else stop saying that that's the term Reid used...



Next, what about the "muslim" comment? Are you willing to backup your claim that:

pertaining to:

(Verify)


Again, GTech, you claimed Reid claimed "defeat", please post a link to it...

 

I did. I quoted it too. The only thing I'm waiting on, is for you to admit defeat is losing. Are you going to rest your case on semantics?

So you approve of democrats claiming defeat/loss on your behalf. That's the level you are willing to go to?

Tells me what I need to know.

 

Ok, so Reid never used the term "defeat"? You're just using that term to try and play on the soundbite that democrats are "defeatists"?

I'm interested in knowing why, if Reid never used the term defeat, why do you keep using it?

 

I see. You would prefer to be defeated, than to retreat. Brilliant strategy.

I'm not misinterpreting your words. Your statement that this war may prove that putting troops in harms way, as opposed to wiping the slate clean might not always be the good option.

What part of that did I not understand? That you feel we may come to the realization that it is better to nuke than to invade, and that realization will be an epiphany?

Debunked numerous times, and you have failed to provide proof to the contrary. You're a sexy and devilish man, with your naughty "let's keep it clean, while I cheap shot you below the belt" post style. It's almost endearing.

You are correct. Freedom is not free. And excessive taxation to support a welfare state, and foreign policy is a form of yoke placed on the working class by the government. How free can I be when I cannot profit directly from the fruit of my labors, but instead see my hard work and creative effort transferred to state endeavors, for disbursement to special interests and to cover for their bureaucratic inefficiencies?

We call it a war on terrorism, not a war for freedom. And that is exactly because we will be no more free than we are today when it is all said and done. Freedom is more than distance from the threat of physical violence.

I'm not getting into the partisan argument. I'm a conservative but find these continued deflections to Clinton, the left, liberals and the Democrats tiring, and disingenuous.

Again, you're either trying to bait me (the game) or showing an incredible lack of understanding when it comes to Paul's policies. The guy who voted against the Patriot Act, but has tabled legislation to pursue Al Queda, who advised Congress to authorize a declaration of war, and voted to go into Afghanistan is not someone who is out to avoid threats. He is however against creating threat scenarios that require radicalizing the world against us. Maybe he's just a nice guy.

Ronald Reagan seemed to think so. He said that

"Ron Paul is one of the outstanding leaders fighting for a strong national defense. As a former Air Force officer, he knows well the needs of our armed forces, and he always puts them first. We need to keep him fighting for our country."

 

GTech,

Also, you never answered my question about Muslims:

Do you honestly believe that no non-muslim nation can host an insurgency displaying guerrilla tactics?

 

So you are comfortable with claiming a loss. But take exception to the interchangeability of the terms "defeat" and "lost?" Just want to make sure this is what you are taking issue with, and not a partisan argument based upon semantics.

Quite simple really. Reid claimed defeat for America by asserting we had lost. When one is defeated in battle, they are said to have lost. Apparently many others get this concept of battle, but someone who served can't seem to reason with it. Go figure!

Still want to go the route of semantics? Not sure it's working well for you. Might want to get the resident hamas supporter to give off a cheer!

You are correct. It didn't make sense. Now, this is a good strategy if you can pull it off. Here's the secret...you have to keep repeating it over and over and over and over again. Ask gworld (I have him on ignore).

Shall I go back and find all the questions asked, that you didn't answer? I'm guessing I don't have to at this point. Usually something one does when they feel they are losing the battle (oops, pulled a Harry Reid there!)

Not at the level that's taking place in Iraq. No. Not sustained suicide bombings. Unless you know of another religion that makes promises of six with little girls in exchange for blowing themselves up.

 

Gtech, how exactly do you think that we freed ourselves from the yoke of British rule?

 

You don't believe, with as many people as china has, they could sustain a longer insurgency then the current state in Iraq?

Of course, this can't be proven unless it happens, but just making that statement proves to me how little completely unwilling you are to look from any point of view other then your political affiliations suggested frame of reference...

 

Are you looking for the word: suicide bomber?

Or, could we sustain a longer insurgency here in the US, were China to attack?

I looked at Colonel Chu's point of view. How did you perceive his view, again?

Hypocrisy here, step up and get your fresh hypocrisy

If only I hated Bush and was willing to claim defeat at all cost and blame America first! They I could say anything I want...even support terrorists, and I'd get a free pass. What a shame.

 

Seeing as he's not a scientist, I found it very unprofessional that he was making claims like that, that were later contradicted by the president himself...

Are you claiming I'm a hypocrite now?

Hmm...
Logical fallacy: appeal to emotion? Yes.
Withdrawal to save US troops lives = Defeat? No.
Support terrorists? Who?