Next Segment in anti-Ham: philosopy/surreal.

Oh goodie. Politics.

First of all, I hate Fox News.

Second of all, I'm not gonna read the rest of what you wrote.

Quote:


WOAH! Now if -THAT'S- a way never to have a long post you spent time on getting read.

Post it on page 3 of a thread called 'I do not like Ham'...

Click this innocuous link. It is in the verge domain, after all.

It's not the angry part that bugged me, it was just how long it was... I mean, I've been debating politics on the 'net since like.. the 70's. I've read soooooo many arguments (and made my own) that go on like that, and end up being forty paragraphs long. There's always points to be made on both sides, and inevitably, the response has more points to be made than the article being responded too, so each post gets longer and longer and longer.. and blah blah blah.

I've probably done more drugs than all of Southern California combined.

I'm totally cool on giving you a formal response to your formal request, but do me a favor: shorten it up to like three paragraphs or so if you can. I do realize there's a lot of little points to be made here and there, but if you can keep it short and concise, I can give you a much more reasonable and concise response.

Quote:

Actually, I was addressing ThinIce and his enlightening lession in etiquette, because he's obviously such a rogue scholar for pointing out the obvious. Hurrrrrrk.

If you're up to it, I'd appreciate a reply for each paragraph of my rant. I'm asking because I've brought up most of these points since the damn war started, and the answers from my republican friends are usually evasive, dismissive, or inadaquate. I promise I won't flood the thread with a typhoon of words in response!

Otherwise, we can talk about how great Fraggle Rock was.

OK, I did originally respond to each of your paragraphs, but I deleted that, because I wasn't doing a very good job giving you a proper response. I'm going to try and address all the points you brought up in a straight up, uncensored, raw and in your face dictation!

First, let's go over a quick review of history.

1) In the early nineties, Saddam's WMDs were documented by the UN.
2) They suddenly disappeared, and Saddam wouldn't tell us where they went (we still don't know, and they're still missing)
3) Saddam was not allowing the UN inspectors full access to look for WMDs for several years.
4) Our intelligence agency documented many incidents of what they believed to be evidence of Saddam's WMDs, and that he wanted to use them against us. In fact, as you said yourself, he intended for it to appear that he did.

****** YES THAT'S RIGHT! NOT ONLY WAS IT BUSH'S FAKE ARGUMENT (he lied about the WMDs, right?) THAT SADDAM HAD WMDS, SADDAM WAS ALSO IN ON THE CHARADE! ***********

5) Germany's intelligence agency had information that also indicated he had WMDs. So did several other countries'

Given these facts, how can you argue that we should not act against Saddam? I'm sorry that Saddam 'had' to 'pretend' to be strong for his neighbors, but if you walk around in the street pretending to have a shotgun under your coat, the cops are gonna bust you, whether you do or don't.

If Bush had not acted, and all the information turned out to be right, as we all thought it did (yes, despite minor quotes you might be able to dig up, basically everyone agreed and thought Saddam had WMDs, including Clinton and Kerry), you would be crucifying him 100 times worse than you are now.

'What? Our intelligence said Saddam had WMDs, intended to use them against us, and Bush didn't try and fight to stop him!?!'

There has been no change of policy or argument from the Bush administration in that the primary reason we went to war was over the WMDs. Yes, it's obviously not argued now, since we know he didn't, or probably didn't, but there has been no change in that reason.

The democracy for the Iraqi people, which was also a reason given before the war, is still there, and remains. And yes, it's damn well worth an American Soldier's life, and I completely reject your philosophy in this regard.

Your generalizations of 'white Christendom' and 'only seeing things from American perspectives' are just as bad as the people who do have those faults.

Saddam's being in power directly benefited the French in a financial way, which was my point. Saddam remaining in power directly helped the terrorist because of the instability he brought to the whole region. (much like how the increased instability in the region now helps them) I will not claim to understand all the aspects of the Islamic culture in the middle east, but I've read a lot. The war is not about us vs. them, it's about them vs. them - Islamic society is in the middle of a vast transformation, and most of them are more similar to us, though they may sympathize with some of the fundamentalists (which is a really stupid word to describe them, but I'll use it cause it's accepted and conveys the meaning I want to convey).

Ultimately, if we succeed in bringing true democracy to Iraq, it will be a vast improvement not only for the Iraqi people, but for the whole region, and disadvantage terrorist organizations, just as the instability in the region now provides them with advantages.

It's not an easy job, and I think the Bush administration has made some serious errors. I don't see how we can pull this off without staying there for another ten years.

We should do this, and we must. We can't back down because it's hard. Leaving Iraq now, as many so-called 'peace advocates' advocate would be even more disastrous. Like it or not, we're there, and it's very, very unstable. That's what happens when you kick out a government. Leaving now will only make it worse. We must stand strong and try and finish the job. It is in America's best interests.

Turn off the New York Times and the Algore... man.... I mean, really, the reason I couldn't respond to your parapraphs individually is because there was entire premises that you were completely off base on. Your arguments were a big congelmerate of all the typical liberal arguments these days - they might sound logical and make sense taken on their own, but they just don't fit together when you look at the actual history of what happened. They're arguments designed to fool people into believing something (I'm not suggesting you designed these arguments) by making what sounds like a good point, but also tricks people into ignoring the very important facts around the situation. Such as, the argument that Saddam 'had' to pretend to have WMDs to appear strong. WTF?

Oh, and in regards to 'Bush trying to fool people into believing that Saddam was some how connected to the WTC attacks' by deviously being completely truthful and honest is just as bad. I mean, it's like grasping at straws. Anyway, I don't see how anyone could ever believe otherwise when most newspapers and cable news network (save maybe for Fox News, of course, I wouldn't know) was constantly emphasizing that there was no connection. I'd like to see the poll that asks all the liberals in America whether Iraq had any connections to Al Quada and see how many of them get it wrong (I'm willing to bet almost all of them would say no, there wasn't).

If you want to make an argument along those lines, I'd say the argument that much of the 'not-liberal' press out there tried to make people believe there was no Al Quada Iraqi connection by constantly stating Iraq was not involved in the WTC attack holds a lot more water.

My pretty--it got lost in the talk.

Click this innocuous link. It is in the verge domain, after all.

NO MORE LEGISLATION. LET US ENACT LAW THROUGH FIREARMS, POLEARMS, STAVES, KNIVES, FARM IMPLEMENTS, etc.

webcestuous.