|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
posted April 19, 2003 06:32 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I'd argue that the true test of a commander is making damn sure his troops never face a challenge equal to them. Strategy is simple really -- make sure that at any point in the conflict, your troops have a much better chance of putting holes in the other guys than they have in putting holes in your troops. If your commander ever puts you in a situation where your quality really needs to be tested, he's not a very good commander.
Commanders don't always have that option. Often the only option is to test the limits of your army like Napoleon's Austerlitz campaign which required serious amounts of forced marches, or Jackson's valley campaign. A commander who will only fight when he has the advantage is no more use than one that takes risks all the time. A good example being McCellan. Your idea works, but it's perfectionism and unrealistic to expect it to be the case all the time, Life tends to get in the way 
You can try all you like to attempt to not test your troops, but the enemy might just spoil your plan  (they have an annoying habit of doing so). Either way I don't count the tactics used in this recent conflict particularly brilliant or particularly bad either. Just...... common sense more than brilliance.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
tonyjt2471
Bad-mannered
Adventuring Hero
|
|
posted April 20, 2003 01:28 AM |
|
|
Mititary tactician?
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
have on a daily basis watched in-depth analysis from a vast array of military experts who have demonstrated clearly that the tactics employed were amazing
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I disagree entirely. The quality of troops and their commanders can only be tested by facing a challenge equal to them, ie commanders of like quality, troops with equal equipment etc. Hannibal was a good commander, but his greatest victories were against incompetent Roman politicians. When he faced a decent Roman general and legions used to his tactics at Zama he himself got thrashed. Now had we beaten an army armed with the majority of it's tanks more recent than 1955 or with generals who were actually interested in fighting rather than being paid off, then THAT would be an millitary achievement.
I suppose thats why you are not a military tactician? ;D
____________
|
|
Khayman
Promising
Famous Hero
Underachiever
|
|
posted April 20, 2003 03:17 AM |
|
|
Things To Keep In Mind
Warfare, much like society, is constantly changing and evolving, and the two largest factors influencing these changes and evolution are technology and morality (IMHO).
With that in mind, I do not believe one can accurately compare the success of military campaigns from different eras. For example, there was a time when armies would notify the civilian population that they had X amount of time to leave the city or area before siege was layed upon them, and anyone who remained was by default subject to the atrocities of war. The result of this would be that the sieged city would be surrounded and cut off from any type of resupply, and basically, would eventually be starved to either death or into surrender. Can you imagine this happening in a large scale war today? (I can already hear the cries about economic sanctions being similar to this, but that is not the issue here). You either left when you could or risked becoming a casualty of war as a combatant by default. Say what you will, but warfare has been restrained by the morality of today's societies. Commanders must now place the lives of civilians above the welfare of their own forces.
Would Hannibal or Genghis Khan think twice about injuring an innocent civilian while at war or laying siege to a city? Nowadays, how dare we ask civilians to leave their homeland, and even if we do and they decide to stay, they are still regarded as non-combatants and treated as such. There is no way any army in this day and age can unleash its true might due to the large part morality now plays in warfare.
So, yes, it is true that the Iraqi army had outdated equipment and inferior technology compared to the coalition forces; however, one must take into consideration the time and effort taken to minimize civilian casualties in this conflict. How long do you beleive it would have taken coalition forces to steamroll Iraq or bomb them into submission without having to factor in the morality issue? I think it is safe to say that it would have taken less than three weeks or however long it takes for this conflict to officially end.
I look forward to hearing your thoughts on this issue. Some of these posts are very insightful and thought provoking. I can't believe they are all coming from Heroes players!
____________
"You must gather your party before venturing forth."
|
|
bpanik2
|
|
posted April 20, 2003 07:05 AM |
|
|
well its plain too see melissa-x is not for any war,you listed the cons of war but none of the pro's,when japan attacked pearl habor the USA was not even in the war,that brought us in,how many inocent ppl did we lose in that attack,can you imagine your life today had the USA not got involved in that war,ill tell you,your opion would have never been seen because you would most likely be comunist controled,and your opinions given too you,and too say the USA went after iraq for oil is absurd,are any of you paying attention as too what we are doing there,and yes we have nuke,chemical weapons ect,but too compare our weapons and there uses too ppl like saddam is nuts,we havnt gased our own ppl,shot the ones that arnt for what the government is for,saddam has,your a peaceful person i know so am i,but as the most powerful nation in the world we must stop what we can and i will tell you be prepared for more syria,north korea,iran,remeber this, look at how pretty iraq is ill bet you after is all said and done that iraq will become one of the middle east's most respected and influencial nations in that region,im proud to be an american and stand behind it 100% good or bad bp.
____________
|
|
dArGOn
Famous Hero
|
|
posted April 20, 2003 10:46 AM |
|
Edited By: dArGOn on 20 Apr 2003
|
Quote
“I remember, you saved their Oil and their bridges and allowed 5000 year old irreplacable art and history to be looted and smashed.
Imagine that…looting and stealing of artifacts. Regrettable to say the least…but a common phenomena in war (of which you should know given historical patterns!) Funny how you blame the coalition vs. the thieves…very ironic and quite sad that you take such a perspective. Typical mindless liberal thinking. Moreover, when was the last time historical relics fed starving people? Provided them water? So I take it from your post that you would rather have millions starving as water, oil, etc. were abandoned vs. saving historical relics from thieves…guess that shows your priorities. Imagine that things not going perfect during war….ridiculous stand you have assumed. Saddam helped himself to countless relics of the Mesopotamian era to lavish his palaces…but yeah the coalition in fighting an intense war, protecting themselves and civilians is the only people to blame…get real.
Quote
“Oh please, combined air/ground attacks are nothing new. The only sole reason why they have not usually been as quick in the past is that usually both sides are evenly balanced....”
hopeless in objective analysis of military tactics used.…kinda sad to see someone with such potential be so overcome with their preconceived prejudice as to be able to see reality for what it is.
Quote
“Oh really? Putting such a cut-throat bunch of ex terrorists in power is a good idea is it?”
Really getting hard to take you serious. Ludicrious statement with no factual basis so I will dismiss it and move on.
Moreover you have no historical understanding of the Taliban to make such a asinine comparison… So lets summarize this worldview and implications you have advocated 1. Post Taliban is worse then pre. 2. Stealing of historical artifacts is worse then Saddam’s torturous and barbaric regime. How insightful and humanitarian.
Quote
“Hardly sucess of the century.”
I personally wasn’t for the Kosovo mission. But again it show that only someone as all knowing and perfect as yourself can make the world perfect. I nominate you Sunday quarter back extraordinaire….so easy to sit on the sidelines and be cynical…but cynics are useless for the advancement of society. Cynics have never changed anything for the positive and instead like to sit back and act smug in their ivory towers.
Quote
“And you gave us those destroyers, planes and tanks etc free of charge naturally *rolls eyes*. And we still ended the war financially bankrupt despite the other european powers escaping such problems.”
Yes we entered WWII because the UK paid us…we defended Europe against Hitler (who didn’t attack us) because you paid us….ROFLOL…your statements are incredulous and somewhat entertaining. We rebuilt all of Europe with the Marshall plan because you paid us. We took half of Germany because we liberated it…oh wait that was only Russia my bad.
Quote
“you would have lost or been severely delayed in winning,”
Wait a second…a few posts back you stated that we owe the French for wining the revolution now you say “severly delayed”….lol….I guess it is hard arguing from a foundation of sand.
Quote
“Not that I'm bashing your country here, but I'm just saying that america suffered, but other countries suffered more for their liberty.”
Hmm so it is more noble to defend yourself then defend others….that is very funny. It is vastly more noble to fight for others then solely your own self preservation.
Quote
“I'd argue that the true test of a commander is making damn sure his troops never face a challenge equal to them.”
Well stated and corresponds to the “art of war”.
Keyman….thank you…for your efforts to defend freedom.
Bpanik2…haven’t seen you around in a long time…nice post
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted April 20, 2003 12:12 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Funny how you blame the coalition vs. the thieves
Now you're just being silly, my main 2 points were A) The crackdown on looting was delayed for some days, whether this was either down to lack of troops in the area or lack of the right troops is purely a case of planning. If it's neither it's more likely the worry of how such a crackdown would be perceieved. B) The troops we do have still in the region are not those commonly associated with peacekeeping, esp not those in the british army, and yet we refuse to either send more or replace those present. We make do with the "strike" troops, unit's totally unused to civilian problems. It's hardly a suprise when events like those in mosul happen when such troops are on the ground.
Quote:
Well it is official..you are hopeless in your objective analysis…kinda sad to see someone with such potential be so overcome with their preconceived prejudice as to be able to see reality for what it is.
I'm going to assume from this that you don't really understand what I meant. Ground air attacks have been the staple of british and american forces since WWII where it was often solely the intervention of allied planes that allowed allied armour to defeat german ones. Or the last Gulf War were attack helicopters and planes were responsible for destroying a considerable percentage (dunno exactly, but I recall it being something like 20%) of Iraqui armour before our own armour even began rolling over the border into the country and then our use of planes etc was extensive throughout the campaign there also. If you wish to point out to me how they are totally unlike the present conflict then feel free, but so far I see one main way:
1) The more precision guided use of such planes etc minimised losses to civilians where possible
Which is not really a millitary matter, more a moral one. If you wish to argue that the current strategy of using ground and air assault is particularly innovative and/or brilliant then you're just plain wrong. It's neither, it's a strategy developed from 50 years of experience since WWII and it's far from perfected even now.
Quote:
Really getting hard to take you serious anymore! You have no historical understanding of the Taliban to make such a asinine statement…All hail PH and his defense of the Taliban. In this world it appears that 1. Post Afghanistan/post Taliban is worse then pre. 2. Stealing of historical artifacts is worse then Saddam’s torturous and barbaric regime. How insightful and humanitarian. Pathetic.
You know, it helps if you don't totally misinterpret what I say into what you wish it to say. I did not defend the taliban, I said the NA was no better or worse than them, and placing them in power no more garuntees a safe afghanistan than any of the other cut-throat ex terrorist groups out there. Quite hard to work out why you turn this into such a support of the taliban. Secondly I have already argued on the Sadam/Looter matter, said I do not consider it worse, but... (and this is the bit you utterly missed) said that the allies are NOT doing all that they could to prevent the looting at that time. Pay attention to what I say.
Quote:
I personally wasn’t for the Kosovo mission. But again it show that only someone as all knowing and perfect as yourself can make the world perfect
Getting repetetive now. Isn't it a relevant point to make that hang on! We said we'd install a better regime in Afghanistan and..... well we end up installing a regime backed by ex terrorists with a highly dubious past. We said we'd STOP ethnic violence in Kossovo and we did NOT stop it, and what's more the majority of people in my country at least don't even have any idea that the violence is going on, because after all we "stopped that" and "solved kossovo". Surely we should either be a little more careful about what we trust when our leaders do such things than merely accepting them at their word and this ludicrous "they're not as bad as the last lot" argument? Not as bad as the ones before them is STILL bad.
Quote:
we defended Europe against Hitler (who didn’t attack us)
If you wish to get pedantic  Hitler declared war on you, not the other way round. Your point I believe was France profited from the revolution. My point would be, before you entered WWII you profited from the cause you joined later. Next you'll be telling me you entered WWII purely to fight against the evils of hitler and not because Japan attacked you.
Quote:
Wait a second…a few posts back you stated that we owe the French for wining the revolution now you say “severly delayed”….lol….I guess it is hard arguing from a foundation of sand.
You're digging a hole for yourself here. I meant had they not joined the revolution you would have lost. Eventually, some time later another would almost be garunteed to break out, which you may or may not have won. Eventually though the british would have given up and either handed you independance or dominionship (aka Canada). Either way, like I showed in those facts (the ones you said I didn't have then I note shut up about them when I pointed them out) the revolution of that period would simply have failed.
Quote:
Hmm so it is more noble to defend yourself then defend others….that is very funny. It is vastly more noble to fight for others then solely your own self preservation
Selective reading of the very thing you quoted. I was not saying such an argument to bash america, nor to say morally doing so was wrong. I WAS saying that as a nation, a land mass etc there are countries around the world that have been hurt more by war through the damage to the land, the cities etc. YOU may want to make it into a morale argument if YOU wish, but that is not my (nor I suspect PM's) intentions. I can accept that france as a land area paid more in WWII than us becuase their very cities were levelled by allied planes and artillery etc. Does that mean I think the french somehow are better than us for that damage? No, and neither was I saying that about america. Try again.
Quote:
Well stated and corresponds to the “art of war”.
And when life and battle is not "perfect"? Yeah go on acting like you'll always manage to acheieve such an event, but fact is the best generals are judged on their acheivements, the obstacles they overcome and their opponents abilities and not some rose-tinted view of how the world should be.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
SirDunco
Responsible
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted April 20, 2003 06:22 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
ummm...PH, the czechs have decided not to support an attack..the govermnet that is.
-Me:"Oh no, the Czecks won't help the U.S., U.K., etc, well, better forget about the whole thing, we really needed them "-
My reply:jokes jokes jokes...the czechs and slovaks have some of the best paratrooper and chemists in the world.(please learn to spell0
But here is a small food for thought...the ONLY country in the WORLD where over 50% of the popluation supports the war is no other that 'the great imperialisticly, capitalisticly corrupted, can't teel nazis from people, states of america'
-Me:"Better check some polls again buddy. Hmmm, I make an offhand comment about nazi's and I get bamboozeled by some HC person who wasn't even invilved in the discussion and this guy calls me a nazi for being an American? WOW!, Gotta love the double-standards here!"-
My reply: Aperantly you didn't understand the comment. i never called you a nazi...and if you check i've been involved in this disscusion. And another thing you need to learn is to read graphs and pools and to learn about the rest of the world,if you know what that is.
here the support is 25%, in czech republic 12%, germany 15%,france 13% ect.ect. I see that the US doesn't see that thare arwe MILLIONs of people arrround the world (INCLUDING THE US) protesting in 10 and 100 thousands(if not millions) agains this supid pointless war?!
NO the US are law only to themselves. Qiute interesting that adolf bush doesn't see this.
-Me:"Of course we are "law ot ourselves"...(I think understand that???) Someone has to have the balls to uphold international laws...and oh yeah, I cant think of a single other nation going to the UN for aprovall to defend itself, much less of any getting a 15-0 vote on a Security Council issue that clearly states "seious consequences"."-
My reply How can you uphold the international law by breaking it? If i remeber the resolution of the UN in the Gulf war(the first one) clearly declared war...serious concenquences are probably embargos.
look go there start a war but when it starts to last over 3 moths and you have more and more body-bags comming home each day and protests breaking out and ur popularity dropping under 30% then you will understand this.
-Me:"Wow...way off the mark on this one. I need say no more."-
My reply: Do you understand english? please read your reply again and correct it.
where is this headed to? who is next after iraq? South Korea, Iran? France, Germany? the americans don't care.
Well its a country where you can wrap ur house in a nazi flag but when u wrtie an article in the NEw york times agains the goverment and the war u get fired for "lack of space" and "needing to save money"...
-Me:"Since when did South Korea, France and Germany become enemies of the US? And you need to read the New York Times man.....read it and you will know what I mean."-
My reply: by South Korea i ment North Korea(my mystake...i was thinking of something else)...enemies? How about Wolfowitz accusing the French on dealing weapons to the Iraqis during this war...If i remeber the greatest weapon dealer to the Iraqis was (and is) the US.
So, anyways, now that all these garbage statements have proven false as of lately, time for you folks to hit the drawing board and start inventing new slander and hyperbole.
False? I think not.
____________
|
|
tonyjt2471
Bad-mannered
Adventuring Hero
|
|
posted April 21, 2003 06:05 AM |
|
|
This just in on my IM:
The longer I have been in the thread I believe it has little to do with rational discourse/reasons and everything to do wtih anti-americanism....really quite sad...makes it near impossible to reason with them as their hatred is so blinding
____________
|
|
tonyjt2471
Bad-mannered
Adventuring Hero
|
|
posted April 21, 2003 06:19 AM |
|
|
That last post was an IM I received
Anyways, this post is to ask SirDunco why are you slamming my english? Thats my native tongue, so Im pretty sure I know what Im typing and anyone else who speaks english can understand it. Sometimes I may misspell a word as I often have difficulty typing due to an injury I suffered to my right arm.
I take it you cant argue your points so now you are just going to rip on me?
If you cant prudently reply to my posts and join the thread in a manner that it was intended for I dont see the use of you being here. But thats just me
____________
|
|
Peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
|
posted April 21, 2003 08:17 PM |
|
|
Hi boys. Just dropping in.
First, PH, thanks for clarifying my point about Americans being less reluctant than some others to seek war as an option. You said it well enough. You know me well hun!
Second, dArGOn, why is it that you choose a news station that is slanted in favor of your perspective and call it "objective?" If you do not recognize the slant in FOX, then you are not paying objective attention, my friend. Wolfman has sure got you on that one. Watch all of them, and moreover, do so with a grain of salt -- for all of them.
Wolfman -- nice job. You are coming dangerously close to being extremely open-minded about this whole thing my young friend.
Khayman -- Elegant points you make. You bring a real glint of intelligence and sophistication to this discussion. As anti-war as I can be, I will hand it to the U.S. that once they decide to go to war, they have the technological ability to do so with less damage, and use that technological ability to do so. This cannot be denied, nor should it be.
Tony -- Sorry to hear about your arm dude. Hope this is not a permanent situation.
On anti-americanism -- some of us were just discussing that on the side again. The problem is this: People who have legitimate gripes about the way the U.S. is running this whole show (including me) get a little sick-to-death of others coming back and having nothing more informative or objective to say thant that we're being "anti-american". To call our discourse "anti-american" is a decidedly ANTI-AMERICAN thing to do since you are just tossing at our attempts to exercise our right to free speech. I'd love nothing more than to feel myself a patriot. I will do this when my administration stops doing things I feel are poorly thought out, arrogantly executed and all-around counter-productive, in my opinion.
I DO NOT intend to start a whole nother debate about what's been good and bad in this campaign. That's already been done here. It's all in here already. My point is that tossing out "anti-american" in response is un-informative, does not contribute to the debate, is an emotionally inspired response and therefore falls into the category of being logically fallacious, and is totally lacking in substantive content. Besides that it's hypocritical as all getout.
Finally, even where it is true that somebody is being "anti-american" just for the sake of it, you guys are just empowering these people who get on here and just post insultingly. They do not contribute meaningfully to the debate either. So maybe we should all just ignore their "anti-american" comments and respond to the the points they actually get around to making, if any.
Okay, so since it does not contribute to the substantive dialogue, some of us are asking politely if you (from both ends of this extreme) could like be more specific, please? (That's all this thing with the anti-american comments is about.)
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
|
posted April 22, 2003 03:01 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Second, dArGOn, why is it that you choose a news station that is slanted in favor of your perspective and call it "objective?" If you do not recognize the slant in FOX, then you are not paying objective attention, my friend. Wolfman has sure got you on that one. Watch all of them, and moreover, do so with a grain of salt -- for all of them.
Yes, I have watched all of them and have been disgusted with some aspects of them:CNN witholding Info, Fox being to conservative (which I am, but in a debate with a democrat at school If I bring up something from Fox they don't believe it)(I debate at school with my friend everyday)FOX also has been accused of adding special effects to their stories, so I don't think there is a compleatly objective news source.
Quote:
Wolfman -- nice job. You are coming dangerously close to being extremely open-minded about this whole thing my young friend.
Oh no, we can't have that, where would the fun be!?
____________
|
|
Peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
|
posted April 22, 2003 03:39 AM |
|
|
LOL!!!
That was a bit arrogant of me wasn't it? Hope you didn't mind....
____________
I have menopause and a handgun. Any questions?
|
|
tonyjt2471
Bad-mannered
Adventuring Hero
|
|
posted April 22, 2003 10:51 AM |
|
|
This thread is kinda....
...boring now that we have won the war.
O, by the way Peacemaker, thanks, my arm will get better. And, I did explain why I thought some actions were considered anti-American as opposed to "pro-something" in one of my last posts. Its not that were calling it anti-American to have free speech, etc (cmon, you know better than that ), its just that we feel its a "power" move.
Anyways, its in my post.
____________
|
|
SirDunco
Responsible
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted April 22, 2003 07:18 PM |
|
|
tony what i meant was that you didn't understad the meanings of my comments and (or) you can't read between the lines... not trying to rip..
____________
|
|
Lews_Therin
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted April 23, 2003 03:26 AM |
|
|
Quote:
And, I did explain why I thought some actions were considered anti-American as opposed to "pro-something" in one of my last posts. Its not that were calling it anti-American to have free speech, etc (cmon, you know better than that ), its just that we feel its a "power" move.
In the meantime, I don´t think your explanations have become any less fallacious and illogical.
Your last statement is correct, it is a "power move" indeed, to label anything that doesn´t fit it one´s world view as being "anti-American". When you are criticised, why waste your time and energy on arguments and logic (which occasionally are scarce or even nonexistent anyway), when you can instead devaluate the criticisers person and his motives?
____________
|
|
tonyjt2471
Bad-mannered
Adventuring Hero
|
|
posted April 23, 2003 05:05 AM |
|
|
So......
Quote:
Quote:
And, I did explain why I thought some actions were considered anti-American as opposed to "pro-something" in one of my last posts. Its not that were calling it anti-American to have free speech, etc (cmon, you know better than that ), its just that we feel its a "power" move.
In the meantime, I don´t think your explanations have become any less fallacious and illogical.
Your last statement is correct, it is a "power move" indeed, to label anything that doesn´t fit it one´s world view as being "anti-American". When you are criticised, why waste your time and energy on arguments and logic (which occasionally are scarce or even nonexistent anyway), when you can instead devaluate the criticisers person and his motives?
.....what are you getting at? What's your point?
____________
|
|
dArGOn
Famous Hero
|
|
posted April 23, 2003 09:42 AM |
|
|
Quote
“Second, dArGOn, why is it that you choose a news station that is slanted in favor of your perspective and call it "objective?" If you do not recognize the slant in FOX, then you are not paying objective attention, my friend. Wolfman has sure got you on that one. Watch all of them, and moreover, do so with a grain of salt -- for all of them.”
Hmmmm interesting how you seem to miss the last 50 years of news media in the USA.
The media in American is a dedicated liberal organization with evidence ad nauseum (if you want references up the ying yang just ask). It is documented in depth in a plurality of articles/books, but the very fact that 90% of the media votes democratic speaks volumes by itself. But I guess that blatant imbalance doesn’t bother libs.
Whatever Wolfman pointed out in FOX news I have never heard one thing about and I am a daily reviewer of AP, Reuters, Drudge Report, BBC, FOX news, Yahoo news, etc..so I really can’t address the issue he brought up.
Moreover CNN (Clinton News Network) recently admitted to how they hid the news of Saddam due to threats and moral issues.
Yet that is the funny things about libs…the second their power base slips (as evident in FOX kicking CNN’s butt up and down the street despite all the odds) they cry like school girls.
See I can watch CNN and respect them…I know their severe slant and their anti-american anti-Christian, anti-conservative founder extreme….yet I can still appreciate what they bring to the table. I recognize CNN is not Iraq News and can grant them legitimate, albeit slanted news. Whereas libs seem to have no ability to do likewise. Libs are far to fearful of their powerbase and general propaganda failing to reach an objective state of mind on the issue.
FOX news has an abundance of left views (Alan Colmbs, Gretta, etc.), center views, and right views. I will assume that you and most people are so inundated for the last 30-50 years of leftist propaganda from the media that anything that is more “balanced” strikes them as “Conservative”…only goes to show the collective brainwashing.
Though I think FOX is by a far stretch the most balanced network out there I do recognize that if they lean at all…they lean towards the right…but it is like comparing apples and oranges compared to CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, New York Times, LA Times, etc.
Quote
“To call our discourse "anti-american" is a decidedly ANTI-AMERICAN thing to do since you are just tossing at our attempts to exercise our right to free speech.”
LOL…calling someone Anti-american is freedom of speech…or am I to take it that freedom of speech only applies to liberal views? So wrong. Freedom of speech is a lovely thing….and as I have said many times before, I have encouraged different views (Bort, PM, Wub, etc.) when they are reasoned and logical (it is a general desert in this thread as logic’s thirst is rarely quenched given the emotional reasoning present). But it becomes painfully obvious that too many people here are just filled with at the very least jealousy/inferiority complexes and at the most blatant hatred/bigotry of America. Time to see what is very plain for everyone who has eyes to see…to see.
Quote
“My point is that tossing out "anti-american" in response is un-informative, does not contribute to the debate, is an emotionally inspired response and therefore falls into the category of being logically fallacious, and is totally lacking in substantive content.”
Hmmm incorrect yet again. Have you ever debated a Nazi? There comes a point when you come to realize that no matter how much logical debate and facts you apply that they will remain steadfast in their hatred. Likewise with the anti-american group here. See reality for what it is.
____________
Humans are gods with anuses -Earnest Becker
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted April 23, 2003 01:45 PM |
|
|
Quote:
LOL…calling someone Anti-american is freedom of speech…or am I to take it that freedom of speech only applies to liberal views? So wrong. Freedom of speech is a lovely thing….and as I have said many times before, I have encouraged different views (Bort, PM, Wub, etc.) when they are reasoned and logical (it is a general desert in this thread as logic’s thirst is rarely quenched given the emotional reasoning present). But it becomes painfully obvious that too many people here are just filled with at the very least jealousy/inferiority complexes and at the most blatant hatred/bigotry of America. Time to see what is very plain for everyone who has eyes to see…to see.
Again, remind me who died and made you the final say on logic and emotion?
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
bort
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Discarded foreskin of morality
|
|
posted April 23, 2003 11:09 PM |
|
|
Quote:
The media in American is a dedicated liberal organization with evidence ad nauseum (if you want references up the ying yang just ask). It is documented in depth in a plurality of articles/books, but the very fact that 90% of the media votes democratic speaks volumes by itself. But I guess that blatant imbalance doesn?t bother libs.
The reporters are generally liberal, but the people who own the papers and who comprise the editorial staff -- ie, those who actually decide what gets shown/printed are generally conservative.
|
|
tonyjt2471
Bad-mannered
Adventuring Hero
|
|
posted April 24, 2003 01:45 AM |
|
|
Whata a load of horse manure! LOL
Quote:
Quote:
The media in American is a dedicated liberal organization with evidence ad nauseum (if you want references up the ying yang just ask). It is documented in depth in a plurality of articles/books, but the very fact that 90% of the media votes democratic speaks volumes by itself. But I guess that blatant imbalance doesn?t bother libs.
The reporters are generally liberal, but the people who own the papers and who comprise the editorial staff -- ie, those who actually decide what gets shown/printed are generally conservative.
Does Ted Turner and CNN ring a bell? LOL
At least give us an example of what youre talking about, like I did.
____________
|
| |
|
|
This Popular Thread is pages long: 
