A question about Dungy

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from Ritchie-az. Show Ritchie-az's posts

    Re: A question about Dungy

    bubthegrub2,

    I'd add that in Vietnam (and in Iraq and Afghanistan for that matter) the federal governement really tied the hands of the military in what they could and couldn't do. They used bad social policy to dictate war strategy. While Vietnam may have been a lost cause a decade before the U.S. ever got involved, certainly the way we went about the war didn't help whatsoever.
    I'd also state that the fight against communism and other hard tyrranies, so long as they are actively a threat to the security of our nation or our allies, is a worthy cause. Appeasement failed miserably, and cost more lives than any of us can stomach if we dwelled on the thought.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from Yapple. Show Yapple's posts

    Re: A question about Dungy

    "Kennedy got us involved in Viet Nam, and Johnson wasn't strong enough to get us out of there early."

     

    Eisenhower got us involved in Viet Nam. Despite what has been speculated to the contrary, Kennedy would have continued in Viet Nam, with the same loss of life and eventual defeat. Johnson was neither strong nor weak. After the murder of JFK, he had to do what the CIA and the military wanted or else.

    Establish without a doubt who was in charge of foreign and military policy and send a steady supply of expendable warm bodies overseas and money to contractors, some of whom just happened to be Johnson's Texas pals.

     

    "Nixon was the one who wanted to pull out, but did not want to concede defeat (maybe that was a lingering personal issue)."

     

    Nixon said that during the campaign of 1968. Just the thing to say since the unpopular war was being run by the incumbent party. Throw them out and bring in Dick to cure everything by bombing Hanoi and sending in Kissinger to bring us "peace with honor". 

     

    "I think George Bush did the same as Nixon, in that he relied too much on guys like Cheney and Rumsfeld, who were themselves "warhawks"."

     

    The difference is that Nixon had a brain which he used to commit criminal acts.

    Bush had no brain which he used to commit criminal acts.

     

    "The only way to "win" in Iraq decisively is to wipe them all off the face of the earth...they will never concede defeat, as that would damn them in the eyes of what they believe. And we are unwilling to undertake such a "genocide", thus we are in the same boat as we were in Viet Nam 35 years ago."

     

    I agree ( surprise ). The only military advantage we have is nuclear weapons and the expertise to deploy them ( I know we have robots and subs and aircraft carriers but we never stop sending thousands of our troops to be killed in ratholes ). Our enemies know we'll never use nukes. So what's the point of having them? Do you think bin Laden would hesitate to use one if he had one that he actually knew how to use without irradiating himself first?

     

    "I'd add that in Vietnam (and in Iraq and Afghanistan for that matter) the federal governement really tied the hands of the military in what they could and couldn't do. They used bad social policy to dictate war strategy."

    You're damning with faint praise. It wasn't bad social policy. It was deliberate social policy.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from Ritchie-az. Show Ritchie-az's posts

    Re: A question about Dungy

    "It wasn't bad social policy. It was deliberate social policy."

    It was both.
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from themightypatriots. Show themightypatriots's posts

    Re: A question about Dungy

    In Response to Re: A question about Dungy:
    [QUOTE]"I only demonize those who start wars so they can profit from oil." How much oil does the U.S. import from Iraq?
    Posted by Ritchie_az[/QUOTE]

    According to the US government, Iraq is our fifth largest source of oil imports. 

    http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/import.html

    Not bad progress from a war torn country we conquered just 6 years ago. Let's not forget that Iraq has the second largest verified oil reserves in the world

    http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aairaqioil.htm

    or that oil exports are only now beginning to reach pre-war levels

    http://www.upi.com/Energy_Resources/2009/06/11/Iraqi-oil-exports-reach-2003-levels/UPI-32881244746448/

    But no, we went into Iraq because to help the people, just like we helped them by installling the Baath party in power in the first place:

    http://www.fantompowa.net/Flame/cia_iraq.htm


     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from Ritchie-az. Show Ritchie-az's posts

    Re: A question about Dungy

    6th largest, not 5th. Iraq oil imports account for about 13% of all oil imports to the U.S. (a small number considering, as you said, that they have the worlds largest verified oil reserve). It should also be noted that this oil (really, all non-domestic oil) is purchased indirectly (not that this is better or worse, just that we have less control over where our imported oil comes from than one might think).
    The U.S. imports just under 2/3rds of the oil it uses (or produces just over 1/3).
    We have huge stores of oil domestically that we don't touch. Why would we go to war simply to get another country's oil if we have it domestically? Are the environmentalists more powerful than a dictator with one of the largest militaries in the world? (Maybe this is true, which would be incredibly sad).

    I also think that saying the Iraq war was "over oil" significantly downplays a murderous dictator with a very large military that wanted to destroy Isreal and America. That murderous dictator was a menace to the world and a threat to us and our allies. I think that gets lost too easily. 

    A point that I think you and I would agree on is that we (as a human race) cannot depend on oil forever. It eventually runs out (low estimates around 150 years from now). What are some alternatives that our grandchildren may see?
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from bubthegrub2. Show bubthegrub2's posts

    Re: A question about Dungy

    Nixon said that during the campaign of 1968. Just the thing to say since the unpopular war was being run by the incumbent party. Throw them out and bring in Dick to cure everything by bombing Hanoi and sending in Kissinger to bring us "peace with honor". 

    That corroborates my point. Nixon tried to first force the Viet Cong to surrender, then to manage a treaty where the fighting would end in a stalemate. When this failed he did the only thing he could (other than to let it drag out and leave it to Jimmy Carter), which was to withdraw, thus appearing to "lose" the war.

    The difference is that Nixon had a brain which he used to commit criminal acts.

    Bush had no brain which he used to commit criminal acts.

    Actually, it was Nixon's staff who committed the crimes. Tricky Dick only tried to cover up for his friends. Although you are correct, that in itself was "criminal". I'm not sure what "criminal acts" you are referring to about Bush. Sure, he pushed his presidential power to the limit, but I'm not sure that was so much him as it was his staff.

    The only military advantage we have is nuclear weapons and the expertise to deploy them ( I know we have robots and subs and aircraft carriers but we never stop sending thousands of our troops to be killed in ratholes ). Our enemies know we'll never use nukes. So what's the point of having them? Do you think bin Laden would hesitate to use one if he had one that he actually knew how to use without irradiating himself first?

    That's not necessarily true. They could have committed more to the actual assault on Baghdad, though undoubtedly that would have led to thousands of civilian casualties, which they did not want to incur. The US Army had more than enough resources to simply take Iraq, install military rule, then flush out the malcontents. They wanted to play the "good guy" role, though they were still demonized by a lot of their own allies. Still, even this would not totally squash the resistance, and it would be pointless to be an occupational force for decades. Had they truly wanted to control all the oil in Iraq this would have served them better. Though they succeeded in removing Saddam, there is no way they can control who the power will fall to, short of total subjucation. And I don't know if I agree with your estimation of Bin Laden. If he were to have access to nuclear weapons I think he might well deploy them regardless of the consequenses to himself or his followers. Let's hope we never have to find out!

     Iraq oil imports account for about 13% of all oil imports to the U.S. (a small number considering, as you said, that they have the worlds largest verified oil reserve). It should also be noted that this oil (really, all non-domestic oil) is purchased indirectly (not that this is better or worse, just that we have less control over where our imported oil comes from than one might think).
    The U.S. imports just under 2/3rds of the oil it uses (or produces just over 1/3).
    We have huge stores of oil domestically that we don't touch. Why would we go to war simply to get another country's oil if we have it domestically? Are the environmentalists more powerful than a dictator with one of the largest militaries in the world? (Maybe this is true, which would be incredibly sad).

    While I'm sure that they are holding on to all the domestic oil for a "last resort", you make a good point. And if indeed, they were waging this war solely for the oil in Iraq, I believe they would have made a larger effort to secure it early in the war. As for the environmentalists, they do not have more power than the government. Though they may have a lot of public support (through the left wing propoganda), I think that would change quickly should the supply dry up and these people are unable to fuel their cars and heat their homes! If it comes to a choice between parking their SUVs and endangering the polar bears, I'd feel sorry for the bears!

    I also think that saying the Iraq war was "over oil" significantly downplays a murderous dictator with a very large military that wanted to destroy Isreal and America. That murderous dictator was a menace to the world and a threat to us and our allies. I think that gets lost too easily. 

    This is another point the liberal media tries to whitewash by throwing around accusations about oil and money. Saddam was not much better than Hitler, and his sons were just as bad. He had repeatedly spit in the faces of the international community, and played games with the UN. The liberals want to talk about sanctions, but they had never been effective (much like I doubt they will with North Korea, either). Their main point is that after the war started, no WMD could be found. But these could have been removed before they were even sought out. Saddam had aspirations, and enough capital to obtain the materials he needed. To leave him in power would have been a huge mistake, and even after his passing his sons would have siezed power and followed in his footsteps. I supported the war for this objective at least, to rid the world of this threat. Though they may not have concrete evidence, I'm convinced that eventually some sort of alliance would have been reached with someone like Bin Laden, as both wished for the demise of Israel and the US. It would only make sense that they should pool their resources for a common goal, whatever differences they may have amongst themselves. Of course, this objective once again has us in a bind. They cannot control what happens politically now in Iraq, unless they "appoint" a government. And that stategy has failed in the past, and would also require a lot of maintenance. Maybe the best thing is to simply pull out and take our chances. Indeed that is what will happen if the Democrats have their way. Whether that proves to be a wise move we won't know until after it happens. Thus it looks like another "no win" situation.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from Yapple. Show Yapple's posts

    Re: A question about Dungy

    "That corroborates my point. Nixon tried to first force the Viet Cong to surrender, then to manage a treaty where the fighting would end in a stalemate. When this failed he did the only thing he could (other than to let it drag out and leave it to Jimmy Carter), which was to withdraw, thus appearing to "lose" the war."

    When you're crawling desperately on your belly to get off the roof in a helicopter, it "appears" that you lost. But he didn't leave anything for Carter. He left it for hired stooge Gerald Ford.

    "Actually, it was Nixon's staff who committed the crimes. Tricky Dick only tried to cover up for his friends."

    The staff may have actually committed the crimes but it was Nixon who sent forth Haldeman and gave him carte blanche to do whatever was necessary to destroy what Nixon perceived as the evil opposition. Haldeman may have pointed out that going to extremes might violate constitutional law and the powers of the presidency. Whereupon, Nixon may have said something like "Bleep the Constitution" which coincides with the gap in the tapes. Yes, you can say I'm fantasizing and I should start doing drugs so I can sound like I'm making sense.
    Also, as I recall, Nixon covered up for his "friends" by leaving them twisting in the wind and in prison.
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from themightypatriots. Show themightypatriots's posts

    Re: A question about Dungy

    US oil reserves are forecast to run out in 8 years:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_reserves

    Optimistic forecasts are that world oil reserves will be gone in 40 years at current consumption rates, and we all know consumption is only going to increase:

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/world-oil-supplies-are-set-to-run-out-faster-than-expected-warn-scientists-453068.html

    Iraqi oil production is so low because its reserves have gone largely untapped:

    http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews/idUSLT5830320090629

    But no, the US doesn't care about oil.  What it really cares about are all those murderous dictators out there in the world - we have such a great track record of going after murderous dictators.  Like Mao Tse Tung - murdered more people than anyone last century, and boy did we let him have it.  We took out Pol Pot too.  And Kim Jong Il, we took him out years ago.  Just like we intervened to stop genocide in Rwanda and Darfur, because America really cares about other people, not oil. 

    And it's not like any murderous dictators have occupied the White House.  It's not like LBJ orchestrated the Gulf of Tonkin incident so he could murder millions of Vietnamese.  It's not like Nixon carpet bombed Hanoi.  The US never supported Saddam Hussein during the Iran-Iraq war, or the Taliban during the Soviet invasion.  King Bush the First saved Kuwait because ... they are such nice people.  Clinton shelled Serbian villages with depleted uranium because ... the effects wouldn't be felt for another decade?  And W just caused the deaths of thousands of Iraqis and young Americans because ... he loves freedom.  And Obama is continuing the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan because ... that is change you can believe in.
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from Ritchie-az. Show Ritchie-az's posts

    Re: A question about Dungy

    "US oil reserves are forecast to run out in 8 years:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_reserves

    Optimistic forecasts are that world oil reserves will be gone in 40 years at current consumption rates, and we all know consumption is only going to increase:"

    Now you're playing with words. There's a big difference between "oil reserves" and actual known areas of oil underground. The U.S. is nowhere near running out of oil, unless we simply don't drill it (which may very well happen).

    "And it's not like any murderous dictators have occupied the White House.  It's not like LBJ orchestrated the Gulf of Tonkin incident so he could murder millions of Vietnamese.  It's not like Nixon carpet bombed Hanoi.  The US never supported Saddam Hussein during the Iran-Iraq war, or the Taliban during the Soviet invasion.  King Bush the First saved Kuwait because ... they are such nice people.  Clinton shelled Serbian villages with depleted uranium because ... the effects wouldn't be felt for another decade?  And W just caused the deaths of thousands of Iraqis and young Americans because ... he loves freedom.  And Obama is continuing the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan because ... that is change you can believe in."
     
    Do you really believe that U.S. Presidents are no better than Hitler, Saddam and others like them? If so, that really explains a lot.
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from themightypatriots. Show themightypatriots's posts

    Re: A question about Dungy

    Hey man if you can to tell us about this hidden oil supply that is going to sustain global growth please share the details with everyone so we can sleep sound at night.

    U.S. Presidents are better than Hitler only because they have murdered fewer people.  But many of them have murdered more than Saddam (LBJ and Nixon, if not W, Obama and the rest), so they are worse than him. 

    When we revolted against the British it was with the hope of creating a land with a tiny, if not non-existent, central government, where the people and states were left to mind their own business.  Now the beast in D.C. is rampaging across the planet, killing everyone in its path.  Who will stop it?
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from Ritchie-az. Show Ritchie-az's posts

    Re: A question about Dungy

    "Hey man if you can to tell us about this hidden oil supply that is going to sustain global growth please share the details with everyone so we can sleep sound at night."

    I don't know how hidden it is, but ANWR and the outer continental shelf, for starters. There's a lot more, if we're talking a global scale.

    "When we revolted against the British it was with the hope of creating a land with a tiny, if not non-existent, central government, where the people and states were left to mind their own business."

    It's a shame that the Founding Fathers would not recognize this country if they saw it today. I'm sure every one of them have rolled in the graves.

    Frown

     
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from bubthegrub2. Show bubthegrub2's posts

    Re: A question about Dungy

    In Response to Re: A question about Dungy:
    [QUOTE]Hey man if you can to tell us about this hidden oil supply that is going to sustain global growth please share the details with everyone so we can sleep sound at night. U.S. Presidents are better than Hitler only because they have murdered fewer people.  But many of them have murdered more than Saddam (LBJ and Nixon, if not W, Obama and the rest), so they are worse than him.  When we revolted against the British it was with the hope of creating a land with a tiny, if not non-existent, central government, where the people and states were left to mind their own business.  Now the beast in D.C. is rampaging across the planet, killing everyone in its path.  Who will stop it?
    Posted by themightypatriots[/QUOTE]

    Man, have you been brainwashed by the liberal machine! Hitler tried to wipe out an entire race of people, Saddam a whole sector of his own countrymen. To put them in a category with any US president is absurd! While I may not agree with all the policies of the government, to call them murderers is simply not true. In both the wars you reference, a lot of care has gone into keeping the civilian casualties to a minimum. Had they chose to do so, they could have simply bombed these countries to kingdon come, and thus shortened the wars (as there would not be sufficient manpower for the opposition to continue). Had they really only wanted Iraq's oil, Baghdad would be nothing but a pile of rubble, and an occupational force would be running things there now. Both Hitler and Saddam has thousands (and in Hitler's case millions) of people tortured and killed simply because of their race and/or religion. It's alright if you are against the war, and want to voice your displeasure. But here you are throwing ridiculous accusations around like you yourself have a better solution. I'd really like to hear what you would have done. I was against Viet Nam, but I believe deposing Saddam (and dispatching his sons) was the right thing to do. In both cases I think it's a futile effort to try and impose democracy upon these people who are unwilling to fight for it themselves. You also mention Kim Jong Il, but the only thing restraining them from dealing with him is your leftist liberals. At some point he will need to be dealt with, if not now then after he has also taken aggressive action on his neighbors. Or would you merely be a isolationist, sit by while these madmen ravage the rest of the world, then wonder what happened when the wolf is at your door? That strategy might have worked a hundred fifty years ago, but with the global economy it would not be feasable now. Maybe you should move to Switzerland, as they do this, and refuse to get involved in exterior conflicts. Yet they harbor the ill-gotten wealth of those same "murderers" whom you despise. I don't have the answers, if I did I'd run for president! But at some point you need to help out your friends, else soon you will have none, and sooner or later these power hungry maniacs will turn on us.
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from Yapple. Show Yapple's posts

    Re: A question about Dungy

    And then there's the British Empire...
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from KrazyKawasaki. Show KrazyKawasaki's posts

    Re: A question about Dungy

    In Response to Re: A question about Dungy:
    [QUOTE]I have read the bible and the way I see it and i speak only for myself it is teh best work of fiction ever writen but to me thats what it is fiction. No offense thats just the way i see it. And Mighty i no you get angry when people question such things like teh bible on this forum so I thank you for understanding that i do not mean to offend. Bub thanks for the post and i know what you mean i let you guys run the thread for 4 days and now we are talking about gays lol But let me ask you this, you said you do think that Dungy and others make a special effort to help young black athletes right? So my question is why? Why dont they just make an effort to help young people in general why does it have to be young black people? Doesnt that strike you as a bit odd? If I was a rich NFL owner and I made an effort to help out young white people and only young white people I would be called a racist until I sold my team and left the league. But Dungy "and others" baby these "young black athletes" and no one say a dman thing? Bull sh*t, are there different rules or something? How is racist for one man to do something but not racist for another man to do something? I ask this question because to me all men are equal. We are all cut from the same cloth, thats the way i see it so for example, i am a high school football coach and my main reason for coaching these kids is i want to help young people, period. Not young white people, not young black people just young people. men women it does not matter to me. Why cant Dungy help out people instead of throwing the word "black" in there so it becomes black people? If he is truely the man of god he claims to be shouldnt it be is goal to help his fellow man? And not just his fellow black man? Thats all i am saying is for me its a level playing field. I give everyone the same respect, i will step up to the plate for my white players and my black players and my Asian players and so on and so forth because in my eyes we are all just men, not white men or black men but men. And it really gets to me when i hear someone talking about all the work so and so is doing for young black men, because its like why? why are they not just helping young people in general, young men all over this country black and white have problems with growing up. Whether it be they grew up in the projects or they were abused by an adult and have soem sort of problem dealing with it, young people have problems not just young black people and i guess its really the wording of these reports that get to me. It should be about helping all young people race should not be a part of it.
    Posted by MVPkilla[/QUOTE]

     

     

    I find it hypocritical when people like you look at a story about black crime, gangs, unwed mothers, welfare etc. and point to the black community and say “shame on those black people. They should be helping themselves instead of depending on the government”. But then when there is a story about some black man trying to do just that, you say “see how racist those black people are? They only try to help themselves, they would never help a white person”.

     

    Whites already help white people. Its just not a news story, so there's usually nothing to report on.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from MVPkilla. Show MVPkilla's posts

    Re: A question about Dungy

    Krazy I have already conceeded this point so you are right it was wrong of me to say what I said. In the end my issue is with the media who makes it sound like Dungy would only help a black person which is probally incorrect. But when you read five storys in a row and they all say that Dungy wants to help young "black" men instead of just writing the Dungy wants to help young men it can get to a point where someone like i did assumes that Dungy wouldnt do teh same for a man of a different color. But the more we debated the facts the mor ei realized that Dungy was doing what he thought was a good thing and the media painted it in a bad light. At least thats the way i see it because i think by the media making this about race instead of one man helping another man is painting it in a bad light.


    But with that said I am happy to see that while i was on my long weekend the thread has taken a turn for some more debate. I see now that we are talking about oil and war. Good to see the lively debate still going.
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from underdogg. Show underdogg's posts

    Re: A question about Dungy

    In Response to Re: A question about Dungy:
    [QUOTE]Hey man if you can to tell us about this hidden oil supply that is going to sustain global growth please share the details with everyone so we can sleep sound at night. U.S. Presidents are better than Hitler only because they have murdered fewer people.  But many of them have murdered more than Saddam (LBJ and Nixon, if not W, Obama and the rest), so they are worse than him.  When we revolted against the British it was with the hope of creating a land with a tiny, if not non-existent, central government, where the people and states were left to mind their own business.  Now the beast in D.C. is rampaging across the planet, killing everyone in its path.  Who will stop it?
    Posted by themightypatriots[/QUOTE]

    Mighty, I am surprised at your comments. 

    First, I will say that the US is an easy target.
    Second, I will say, be thankful that you are allowed to have a voice without fear of retribution. 
    Third, I am always at least mildly interested in knowing from where such a view as yours comes. 
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from themightypatriots. Show themightypatriots's posts

    Re: A question about Dungy

    Dogg - the US isn't the only easy target.  Any government that exercises its power to inflict murder and destruction on its own people or the world is an easy target.  That's why all people of the world have a duty to reign in their own governments.  And while I am grateful that I can express my beliefs with no consequence other than to be called a loony, I am not grateful to see my tax dollars funding the murder of Iraqis and Afghanis. 


    The source of my views?  I am just trying to see the world as an impartial observer from outer space would see it.  And I think that observer would see a bully wearing red white and blue trying to steal the world's oil. 

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from bubthegrub2. Show bubthegrub2's posts

    Re: A question about Dungy

    I am not grateful to see my tax dollars funding the murder of Iraqis and Afghanis. 

    So you would have just sat by and let Bin Laden sit comfortably in Afghanistan to scheme more terrorist attacks? Had Bush done that we would have seen more disasters like 9/11. And you use the term "murder" a bit liberally. While I'd never go out and deliberately kill someone (murder), I'd have no problem putting a hole in someone who was actively trying to hurt myself or my family. As far as stealing the world's oil, I wasn't aware that Afghanistan had any. Their biggest export was poppy plants used to manufacture narcotics. Again, if they indeed wanted merely to "steal" oil, they could have (and IMO would have) gone about it a lot differently than they did. You are buying into the propoganda the left wing media would like us to believe. Another note, it's those same liberals who crucify security forces from "profiling" as they consider it "racist". That's why the 70 year old grandmother is getting a cavity search at the airport while the 20 something Arabic man with a towel on his head gets passed through the lines! I detest war and violence as much as anyone, but at some point you need to draw the line. At least the bombs are dropping in Kandahar and Baghdad instead of right here in the US!
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from themightypatriots. Show themightypatriots's posts

    Re: A question about Dungy

    "At least the bombs are dropping in Kandahar and Baghdad instead of right here in the US!"

    This would be an example of something that an impartial observer would not care about. 
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from 347pg. Show 347pg's posts

    Re: A question about Dungy

    In Response to Re: A question about Dungy:
    [QUOTE]"At least the bombs are dropping in Kandahar and Baghdad instead of right here in the US!" This would be an example of something that an impartial observer would not care about. 
    Posted by themightypatriots[/QUOTE]

    An impartial observer would care about it if he cared about the motives behind the animosities.  To whom much is given, much is expected and the US, being in the much given category, is required to try and make things better for those of the world that don't have it so good.  Granted, maybe things don't go perfectly all the time, but if you're expecting that, your standards are too high.  Too much confusion with weather patterns, never mind war.
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from bubthegrub2. Show bubthegrub2's posts

    Re: A question about Dungy

    "At least the bombs are dropping in Kandahar and Baghdad instead of right here in the US!"

    This would be an example of something that an impartial observer would not care about.
     


    Yet I'm not having a conversation with an "impartial observer". And if you claim to be one you are not being honest with me (or yourself). Your strong views alone would belie that claim. I would hope you are more "partial" to your own country. But if that is not so (as some may read your opinions to indicate), then you should leave and join the terrorists in Iraq or Afghanistan. For their propoganda would inform you that it's the US which is a threat, and American soldiers are the murderers. Then we'd see if you could justify your actions after beheading some innocent reporter or construction worker who happens to get captured!
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from themightypatriots. Show themightypatriots's posts

    Re: A question about Dungy

    I'm not impartial, I'm just trying to guess what a neutral observer would think.  And 347, that neutral observer may very well see the motive of the Iraqis and Afghanis as self-defense - we are the ones occupying their lands, not vice versa.  

    "I would hope you are more "partial" to your own country. But if that is not so (as some may read your opinions to indicate), then you should leave and join the terrorists in Iraq or Afghanistan."

    So everyone who disagrees with the government and speaks out against its crimes should leave?  Then the only ones left would be the flag waiving Nazis who want to kill all the ragheads.  I choose to stay and speak up. 
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from MVPkilla. Show MVPkilla's posts

    Re: A question about Dungy

    I dont agree with everything Mighty has said, most of what he has said sounds like he is about go join up with soem anti American extreamist group or something. However he makes a good point, if all the people who didnt agree with this country or its goverment were forced to shut their mouths or leave teh country the only ones left would be the flag waving red neck morons who say stupid sh*t like "bomb them all! bomb the entire middle east" which is a re tarded way to look at it. This is (for now) a free country where people whether we agree with them or not are allowed to speak there minds (for now) even if the right wing wants to paint all these people as anti Americans or loonys or whatever the he ll they deem fit at the time they still have a right to say what they. I dont agree with everything Mighty has said but he has a right to say it.


    Mighty I do agree with you that we had no good reason what so ever to go into Iraq, am I happy that we took out Sadam and his sons? Yes I am but we didnt have a reason to go to war, we pretty much made up a reason and went in and did what we wanted to do whether we ahd proof or not. But the US going into Afghanistan was a different situation. After 9/11 we told teh entire world that anyone found harboring terrorist or Bin Laden to be more specific would have to answer to the US and we had a lot of evidence if memory serves that Osama Bin Ladan was not only hiding out in Afghanistan but they were harboring him and people like him. So we 100% had good reason to go in and do what we did. I dont think we needed to dig in for teh long haul the way we did but going in and making our stand as people who would not stand by and let the Bin Laden's of the world attack us and kill innocent Americans was importent. But Iraq was BS, if we were truely having a war on terror there were plenty of other places we could have made a real difference instead of this giant cluster f*ck that Bush got us into in Iraq.
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from bubthegrub2. Show bubthegrub2's posts

    Re: A question about Dungy

    The problem with Iraq is there is no "easy solution". While I am glad they got rid of Saddam and his sons (and that seems as good a reason as we had for going into Germany in WWII), there is no way they can come out with the desired conclusion. These people are religious fanatics, our ways are blasphemous to them. They will never accept western culture. The most prudent thing to do would be to pull out and let them figure out their own problems. Of course, I suppose they're afraid the terrorists will take over should we leave. And I wouldn't say they "made up a reason" to invade Iraq. The reasons were to remove Saddam and stop him from killing off his own people, and to prevent him from building weapons. Just because he didn't have a stockpile there in Baghdad doesn't mean he wouldn't eventually get them (or that he didn't remove what he may have had before the war). Pretty much anything they tell the general public has a huge percentage of BS, anyway. But it's turning into another Viet Nam, as they do not want to take the drastic steps it would take for a decisive victory. As far as Mighty goes, I agree he has every right to criticize what he feels is wrong. But to liken LBJ and Bush to guys like Hitler and Saddam is going overboard, IMO. And the idea of the whole thing being done to "steal" Iraqi oil is nothing but extreme left wing propoganda!
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from MVPkilla. Show MVPkilla's posts

    Re: A question about Dungy

    “The problem with Iraq is there is no "easy solution". While I am glad they got rid of Saddam and his sons (and that seems as good a reason as we had for going into Germany in WWII), there is no way they can come out with the desired conclusion. These people are religious fanatics, our ways are blasphemous to them. They will never accept western culture. The most prudent thing to do would be to pull out and let them figure out their own problems.”






    This is not ok, I mean you seem so ok with the idea of wasting our time and money, when they went into Iraq by lying about the WMDs that did not exist they knew that these people were religious fanatics and that they wouldn’t ever except our Western culture so if they knew this and they knew their “goal” of bring democracy to the middle east was not going to work then why did they waste our money? And our young peoples lives? How can you be ok with that? I mean if they knew it was not going to work and THEY KNEW then why go over there in the first place? Now I am not saying oil was the only reason we went but for you to write off the idea is just being think headed, of course Iraq’s oil played a part in why we went to war even if only a little bit it played a part. That and a whole lot of people got rich off the miss placed Billions that Bush lost and could not account for over in Iraq, that missing money went somewhere, Billions of dollars don’t just disappear someone got rich off this war.






    “ Of course, I suppose they're afraid the terrorists will take over should we leave.”







    No they won’t take over the country or at least that’s not what we should be worried about anyways. The problem with just pulling out, or going there in the first place is that we have just created all by ourselves the next generation of terrorist by going into this war. If we pull out and leave them hanging after all we promised we will be creating the next group of young terrorists and the longer we stay there the more they will resent us even more in which case we create the next generation of terrorist. The only solution to this would have been to never go to war in Iraq in the first place because we had NO EXIT STATEGY. They knew we would not make a real difference over there and that it was a lose lose situation and they went ahead and got us into this mess anyway.







    “ And I wouldn't say they "made up a reason" to invade Iraq. The reasons were to remove Saddam and stop him from killing off his own people, and to prevent him from building weapons.”





    When Bush told the American people that we were going to start a war with Iraq they did not list the reasons you just listed above. Bush said they were harboring terrorist and had weapons of mass destruction and they had no proof for either claim! They could not tie Sadam to Osama Bin Laden and they still to this day have not found and proof of WMDs. Bush did not say “we have to protect the Iraqi people from Sadam” and they did not say they were going in to stop him from building WMDs he said they already had WMDs which they didn’t.  







    “Just because he didn't have a stockpile there in Baghdad doesn't mean he wouldn't eventually get them (or that he didn't remove what he may have had before the war).”






    So now the USA has the ability to see the future and go to war based on what we THINK might happen in the future? Saying he would have eventually built WMDs does not make what Bush did ok, he said they already had WMDs and then there was no proof to support his claim and there still is no proof. And by the way unless you can prove that he had WMDs and then got rid of them before we went to war its just speculation or as you would say “right wing propaganda”






    “ Pretty much anything they tell the general public has a huge percentage of BS, anyway. But it's turning into another Viet Nam, as they do not want to take the drastic steps it would take for a decisive victory. “







    Just wondering what are these steps you think would help us get a decisive victory? I hope your not one of those “kill um all” types because that is just stupid. We can not now or ever use a nuke on anyone…again anyways….so I really hope that’s not what you are getting at.  





    “As far as Mighty goes, I agree he has every right to criticize what he feels is wrong. But to liken LBJ and Bush to guys like Hitler and Saddam is going overboard, IMO. And the idea of the whole thing being done to "steal" Iraqi oil is nothing but extreme left wing propaganda!”









    You know its really easy for someone to write something off as “left wing propaganda” and it seems like that is the right wing argument for anything left wing. If the left wing said it then it must be propaganda! Give me a break. I can do the same thing every time you make a clear cut right wing argument. You could a very valid point and I could just go oh that’s just right wing propaganda and wipe my hands of it, but I don’t because that’s BS. There is just as much right wing BS propaganda as there is left wing propaganda, both sides are full of sh*t. I don’t mean to come across so heated or anything but I do not consider myself a democrat or a republican, I am neither right wing nor am I left wing. I think people who tie themselves down to one party are just stupid. Sorry no offense meant. I am not a republican or a democrat I am an American first and foremost and all this party VS party c rap is just BS that keeps the country separated and fighting each other. The reason I say this is because I do believe that even if it only played a small role in going to war oil defiantly played a role in going to war. Even if it’s a small role, and I am not some left wing only says left wing stuff D bag so when you write it off as left wing propaganda it is insulting, not everyone who thinks this war is bull sh*t is some left wing D bag, some of us can actually form opinions all by ourselves without being told by a party so its insulting when you just say its left wing propaganda.
     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share