It is valid enough against your implied argument that there are only two types & answers your question of what the he11 some of us wanted.

and there's more...

To pick up on Alex's theme of being lied to, I mentioned two popular lies;

1. According to the left, the wars in Iraq & Afghanistan are about oil and any other justification by the USA is a lie.

2. When al Qaeda spouts off about caring about the Palestinians that is is complete bullshit. I bet I care much more about them than anyone in al Qaeda.

But there is a third one...

3. This ties into "what the he11 some of us wanted" in regards this topic. The "anti-war" left is anti-war and cares about the Iraqi & Afghan people. That's the biggest lie of all. These people were silent when Saddam was brutalizing his own people for decades. They didn't march in protest when the Taliban had their reign of terror in Afghanistan. They aren't protesting "war", they are protesting against the USA. That's what leftists do and the war provided them with a great backdrop.

It is valid enough against your implied argument that there are only two types & answers your question of what the he11 some of us wanted.

I wasn't implying anything about answers to questions. I never asked what "some of you" wanted. That's obvious enough. Instead of implying anything, I was saying pretty straight forward that at this present time the anti-American left often says both of those things. Just reading this thread is evidence enough.

Well I agree to disagree then..........

Because I started the thread & have said through out that the US should never have been there or Iraq for that matter...Or Vietnam .... Nor Pakistan & Iran in future

Because I started the thread & have said through out that the US should never have been there or Iraq for that matter...Or Vietnam .... Nor Pakistan & Iran in future

Yeah, and we should not have thrown the British out in the first place and we should have let Hitler do what he wanted in World War 2. You must really look up to Neville Chamberlain!

Because I started the thread & have said through out that the US should never have been there or Iraq for that matter...Or Vietnam .... Nor Pakistan & Iran in future

Yeah, and we should not have thrown the British out in the first place and we should have let Hitler do what he wanted in World War 2. You must really look up to Neville Chamberlain!

Given my history/ life none of your suggestions have any impact or relevance. Thanks for the attempt though.

"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reasuring".

Carl Sagan

"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reasuring".

Carl Sagan

Excellent affirmation !

Is it on your bathroom mirror?

"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reasuring".

Carl Sagan

Excellent affirmation !

Is it on your bathroom mirror?

UG broke his mirrors many years ago.

"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reasuring".

Carl Sagan

Is it on your bathroom mirror?

Yes it is, but it should be on yours.

"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reasuring".

Carl Sagan

Is it on your bathroom mirror?

Yes it is, but it should be on yours.

Thought so,,,,,,,,,Stay strong maybe things will change for you

I dont need it .....Thanks for the offer though!

"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reasuring".

Carl Sagan

Is it on your bathroom mirror?

Yes it is, but it should be on yours.

I dont need it .....

That is what they all say.

That is what they all say.

Hold that thought if it helps you get through

Ok .......so much for the school yard banter...

Have anything adult & on topic to add?

You certainly don't seem to.

It is valid enough against your implied argument that there are only two types & answers your question of what the he11 some of us wanted.

I wasn't implying anything about answers to questions. I never asked what "some of you" wanted. That's obvious enough. Instead of implying anything, I was saying pretty straight forward that at this present time the anti-American left often says both of those things. Just reading this thread is evidence enough.

Well I agree to disagree then..........

Because I started the thread & have said through out that the US should never have been there or Iraq for that matter...Or Vietnam .... Nor Pakistan & Iran in future

Because you "started the thread"? We coming up on post #900. Whatever your original intention was it's long gone by now. Congrats on starting such a long running topic. Maybe 1% make it this far. Glad I was able to rescue it way back when.

Well I agree to disagree then..........

Because I started the thread & have said through out that the US should never have been there or Iraq for that matter...Or Vietnam .... Nor Pakistan & Iran in future

Because you "started the thread"? We coming up on post #900. Whatever your original intention was it's long gone by now. Congrats on starting such a long running topic. Maybe 1% make it this far. Glad I was able to rescue it way back when.

Thats funny in another thread you just accused sceadugenga of taking a apple post & changing it to a orange post.....

Yet you take my post that clearly states that since the beginning of this thread that I started... I have said many times my position on the US in Afghanistan.

But you take it & turn it into a totally irrelevant direction based on thread length etc? Then claim you rescued it? Puleeze...

Your an odd one.

Well I agree to disagree then..........

Because I started the thread & have said through out that the US should never have been there or Iraq for that matter...Or Vietnam .... Nor Pakistan & Iran in future

Because you "started the thread"? We coming up on post #900. Whatever your original intention was it's long gone by now. Congrats on starting such a long running topic. Maybe 1% make it this far. Glad I was able to rescue it way back when.

Thats funny in another thread you just accused sceadugenga of taking a apple post & changing it to a orange post.....

Yet you take my post that clearly states that since the beginning of this thread that I started... I have said many times my position on the US in Afghanistan.

But you take it & turn it into a totally irrelevant direction based on thread length etc? Then claim you rescued it? Puleeze...

Your an odd one.

Do you even know what a is for? Apparently not. Since you took it soooo seriously I decided to check your thread. What did I find out? Well, I actually DID SAVE YOUR THREAD after all.

Post #27 by Harcourt on 2009-11-23 13:52:08

then nothing until five days later...

Post #28 by koheesti on 2009-11-28 13:34:06

One could easily argue that this thread was dead until I brought it back to life by challenging your left-wing circle jerk

One could easily argue that this thread was dead until I brought it back to life by challenging your left-wing circle jerk

I agree. People always like to claim that America is carrying Israel's water in the Middle East, but the evidence shows who are the greatest beneficiaries of American involvement there. I don't think it's by accident. Major arms buyers, major banking interests both in and outside of US.

US announces $6B arms sale to Taiwan

By FOSTER KLUG, Associated Press Writer Foster Klug, Associated Press Writer – Fri Jan 29, 4:12 pm ET

WASHINGTON – In a move sure to aggravate China, the Obama administration on Friday announced plans for more than $6 billion in arms sales to Taiwan, the self-governing island the Chinese claim as their own.

The sale would include Black Hawk helicopters, Patriot missiles, mine-hunting ships and information technology. Lawmakers have 30 days to comment before the plan proceeds; senior lawmakers have traditionally supported arms sales to Taiwan.

Taiwan is the most sensitive matter in already-tense relations between the U.S. and China, two powers increasingly linked by security and economic issues. The sale could spark a temporary break in U.S.-China military ties.

The United States, which only told China of the sale hours before the announcement, acknowledged Friday that Beijing may retaliate by cutting off military talks with Washington, which happened after a multibillion dollar U.S. sale to Taiwan in 2008.

Wang Baodong, a spokesman for the Chinese Embassy in Washington, said Beijing will lodge a formal protest against the U.S. decision. Asked if China would cut off military ties, he said, "Let's wait and see."

President Barack Obama's national security adviser, Jim Jones, said Friday that Washington and Beijing both do things "periodically that may not make everybody completely happy."

But Jones told an audience at the Center for Strategic and International Studies think tank the U.S. is "bent toward a new relationship with China as a rising power in the world."

China vehemently opposes U.S. arms sales to Taiwan. It has threatened to invade Taiwan should the island ever formalize its de facto independence.

The United States is Taiwan's most important ally and largest arms supplier.

The package, posted on a Pentagon Web site, dodges one thorny issue: The F-16 fighter jets that Taiwan covets are not included.

The sale satisfies parts of an $11 billion arms package originally pledged to Taiwan by former President George W. Bush in 2001, which has been provided in stages because of political and budgetary considerations in Taiwan and the United States.

The arms sale will test the Obama administration's China policy, which U.S. officials say is meant to improve trust between the countries, so that the inevitable disagreements over Taiwan or Tibet don't reverse efforts to cooperate on nuclear standoffs in Iran and North Korea and other issues.

China aims more than 1,000 ballistic missiles at Taiwan; the U.S. government is bound by law to ensure the island is able to respond to Chinese threats.

The package includes 114 Patriot missiles designed to shoot down other missiles, 60 Black Hawk helicopters, and two mine-hunting ships.

China protests US arms sales, warns of 'serious' impact

China on Friday protested the US decision to sell 6.4 billion dollars in weapons to Taiwan and warned of "serious" damage to relations and cooperation with Washington.

China's Vice Foreign Minister He Yafai made an urgent official demarche to the US ambassador in Beijing, Jon Huntsman, in the early hours Saturday local time, Wang Baodong, spokesman for the Chinese embassy in Washington, told AFP.

"The latest US move to sell weapons to Taiwan, which is part of China, constitutes a gross intervention into China's internal affairs, seriously endangers China's national security and harms China's peaceful reunification efforts," Wang quoted the protest as saying.

"The US plan will definitely undermine China-US relations and bring about serious negative impact on exchange and cooperation in major areas between the two countries," he added.

China "strongly urges the US side to fully recognize the gravity of the issue, revoke the erroneous decision on arms sales to Taiwan and stop selling any weapons to Taiwan," he said.

China snapped off military relations with the United States temporarily after the last US arms package to Taiwan in October 2008.

Beijing considers Taiwan, where China's nationalists fled in 1949 after losing the mainland's civil war, to be a territory awaiting reunification, by force if necessary.

The United States in 1979 switched recognition to Beijing. But Congress requires the administration to provide Taiwan weapons for defensive purposes.

Wang said that the weapons deal violated the 1982 communique between China and the United States, which said the arms sales to Taiwan "will not exceed, in qualitative or in quantitative terms," the level in the years before that.

State Department spokesman Philip Crowley earlier said that the arms sales were consistent with the three key communiques between the United States and China when they normalized relations.

What other reason do we have for coming here other for amusement?

Being of a thin skinned and sensitive nature I tend to withdraw when the political rough and tumble gets out of hand and it ceases to be amusing.

It always amuses me though when Socialists are described as sheep, or sheeple.

Do you know what I think about Conservatives?

If a panel of learned sociologists and zoologists discovered that chickens had a religion and prayed every day to Colonel Sanders what would your reaction be?

Hysterical laughter? Maybe at first but in any sort of compassionate person wouldn't a feeling of amused sadness take over?

That's how I feel about Conservatives.

I agree. People always like to claim that America is carrying Israel's water in the Middle East, but the evidence shows who are the greatest beneficiaries of American involvement there. I don't think it's by accident. Major arms buyers, major banking interests both in and outside of US.

US announces $6B arms sale to Taiwan

By FOSTER KLUG, Associated Press Writer Foster Klug, Associated Press Writer – Fri Jan 29, 4:12 pm ET

WASHINGTON – In a move sure to aggravate China, the Obama administration on Friday announced plans for more than $6 billion in arms sales to Taiwan, the self-governing island the Chinese claim as their own.

The sale would include Black Hawk helicopters, Patriot missiles, mine-hunting ships and information technology. Lawmakers have 30 days to comment before the plan proceeds; senior lawmakers have traditionally supported arms sales to Taiwan.

Taiwan is the most sensitive matter in already-tense relations between the U.S. and China, two powers increasingly linked by security and economic issues. The sale could spark a temporary break in U.S.-China military ties.

The United States, which only told China of the sale hours before the announcement, acknowledged Friday that Beijing may retaliate by cutting off military talks with Washington, which happened after a multibillion dollar U.S. sale to Taiwan in 2008.

Wang Baodong, a spokesman for the Chinese Embassy in Washington, said Beijing will lodge a formal protest against the U.S. decision. Asked if China would cut off military ties, he said, "Let's wait and see."

President Barack Obama's national security adviser, Jim Jones, said Friday that Washington and Beijing both do things "periodically that may not make everybody completely happy."

But Jones told an audience at the Center for Strategic and International Studies think tank the U.S. is "bent toward a new relationship with China as a rising power in the world."

China vehemently opposes U.S. arms sales to Taiwan. It has threatened to invade Taiwan should the island ever formalize its de facto independence.

The United States is Taiwan's most important ally and largest arms supplier.

The package, posted on a Pentagon Web site, dodges one thorny issue: The F-16 fighter jets that Taiwan covets are not included.

The sale satisfies parts of an $11 billion arms package originally pledged to Taiwan by former President George W. Bush in 2001, which has been provided in stages because of political and budgetary considerations in Taiwan and the United States.

The arms sale will test the Obama administration's China policy, which U.S. officials say is meant to improve trust between the countries, so that the inevitable disagreements over Taiwan or Tibet don't reverse efforts to cooperate on nuclear standoffs in Iran and North Korea and other issues.

China aims more than 1,000 ballistic missiles at Taiwan; the U.S. government is bound by law to ensure the island is able to respond to Chinese threats.

The package includes 114 Patriot missiles designed to shoot down other missiles, 60 Black Hawk helicopters, and two mine-hunting ships.

China protests US arms sales, warns of 'serious' impact

China on Friday protested the US decision to sell 6.4 billion dollars in weapons to Taiwan and warned of "serious" damage to relations and cooperation with Washington.

China's Vice Foreign Minister He Yafai made an urgent official demarche to the US ambassador in Beijing, Jon Huntsman, in the early hours Saturday local time, Wang Baodong, spokesman for the Chinese embassy in Washington, told AFP.

"The latest US move to sell weapons to Taiwan, which is part of China, constitutes a gross intervention into China's internal affairs, seriously endangers China's national security and harms China's peaceful reunification efforts," Wang quoted the protest as saying.

"The US plan will definitely undermine China-US relations and bring about serious negative impact on exchange and cooperation in major areas between the two countries," he added.

China "strongly urges the US side to fully recognize the gravity of the issue, revoke the erroneous decision on arms sales to Taiwan and stop selling any weapons to Taiwan," he said.

China snapped off military relations with the United States temporarily after the last US arms package to Taiwan in October 2008.

Beijing considers Taiwan, where China's nationalists fled in 1949 after losing the mainland's civil war, to be a territory awaiting reunification, by force if necessary.

The United States in 1979 switched recognition to Beijing. But Congress requires the administration to provide Taiwan weapons for defensive purposes.

Wang said that the weapons deal violated the 1982 communique between China and the United States, which said the arms sales to Taiwan "will not exceed, in qualitative or in quantitative terms," the level in the years before that.

State Department spokesman Philip Crowley earlier said that the arms sales were consistent with the three key communiques between the United States and China when they normalized relations.

...and your point being?

Ok all we are having a nice debate here. The question remains what defines terrorism.

Went to some US government site and found this:

The term “international terrorism” means activities that:

1. involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or of any State;

2. appear to be intended:

1. to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;

2. to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or

3. to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping;

and

3. occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to intimidate or coerce, or the locale in which their perpetrators operate or seek asylum.

So are the coalition forces acting within international law? The international law clearly states that when attacked directly, the use of force is allowed.

Have these countries(coalition forces) been directly attacked by either Afghans or Iraq people?

Can we say that coalition forces are committing act's of terrorism?

Just asking na.

Posts have been removed for pushing the boundaries on bickering & getting personal with each other.

Just because this is Bedlam does not mean that civility & common courtesy are thrown out the window.

Please try to discuss/debate/communicate in a civil manner.

No, the USA's terrorist war against Britain was sinfully unnecessary. AFAIK, the only colony that felt demonically inspired to follow that Satanic example was Ireland. No, the US Marines did not have to go to the halls of Montezuma. There is no war of American history that was divinely justified. The dominant reason for waging wars is morally bankrupt.

Can we say that coalition forces are committing act's of terrorism?

The former government of Afghanistan allowed terror groups to train and hide in their country and these terror groups attacked the United States. We trounced them and got rid of the government.

Iraq was order by the UN to allow weapons inspectors inside the country to make sure that they did not have WBDs and they refused.

They both violated International law and gave us legal grounds to attack them.

The answer to this inane question is no and it has been answered 1,000s of times before.

No, the USA's terrorist war against Britain was sinfully unnecessary. AFAIK, the only colony that felt demonically inspired to follow that Satanic example was Ireland.

Who are you responding to PB?

No, the USA's terrorist war against Britain was sinfully unnecessary. AFAIK, the only colony that felt demonically inspired to follow that Satanic example was Ireland.

Who are you responding to PB?

I think it was UG - ?

I agree. People always like to claim that America is carrying Israel's water in the Middle East, but the evidence shows who are the greatest beneficiaries of American involvement there. I don't think it's by accident. Major arms buyers, major banking interests both in and outside of US.

US announces $6B arms sale to Taiwan

By FOSTER KLUG, Associated Press Writer Foster Klug, Associated Press Writer – Fri Jan 29, 4:12 pm ET

WASHINGTON – In a move sure to aggravate China, the Obama administration on Friday announced plans for more than $6 billion in arms sales to Taiwan, the self-governing island the Chinese claim as their own.

The sale would include Black Hawk helicopters, Patriot missiles, mine-hunting ships and information technology. Lawmakers have 30 days to comment before the plan proceeds; senior lawmakers have traditionally supported arms sales to Taiwan.

Taiwan is the most sensitive matter in already-tense relations between the U.S. and China, two powers increasingly linked by security and economic issues. The sale could spark a temporary break in U.S.-China military ties.

The United States, which only told China of the sale hours before the announcement, acknowledged Friday that Beijing may retaliate by cutting off military talks with Washington, which happened after a multibillion dollar U.S. sale to Taiwan in 2008.

Wang Baodong, a spokesman for the Chinese Embassy in Washington, said Beijing will lodge a formal protest against the U.S. decision. Asked if China would cut off military ties, he said, "Let's wait and see."

President Barack Obama's national security adviser, Jim Jones, said Friday that Washington and Beijing both do things "periodically that may not make everybody completely happy."

But Jones told an audience at the Center for Strategic and International Studies think tank the U.S. is "bent toward a new relationship with China as a rising power in the world."

China vehemently opposes U.S. arms sales to Taiwan. It has threatened to invade Taiwan should the island ever formalize its de facto independence.

The United States is Taiwan's most important ally and largest arms supplier.

The package, posted on a Pentagon Web site, dodges one thorny issue: The F-16 fighter jets that Taiwan covets are not included.

The sale satisfies parts of an $11 billion arms package originally pledged to Taiwan by former President George W. Bush in 2001, which has been provided in stages because of political and budgetary considerations in Taiwan and the United States.

The arms sale will test the Obama administration's China policy, which U.S. officials say is meant to improve trust between the countries, so that the inevitable disagreements over Taiwan or Tibet don't reverse efforts to cooperate on nuclear standoffs in Iran and North Korea and other issues.

China aims more than 1,000 ballistic missiles at Taiwan; the U.S. government is bound by law to ensure the island is able to respond to Chinese threats.

The package includes 114 Patriot missiles designed to shoot down other missiles, 60 Black Hawk helicopters, and two mine-hunting ships.

China protests US arms sales, warns of 'serious' impact

China on Friday protested the US decision to sell 6.4 billion dollars in weapons to Taiwan and warned of "serious" damage to relations and cooperation with Washington.

China's Vice Foreign Minister He Yafai made an urgent official demarche to the US ambassador in Beijing, Jon Huntsman, in the early hours Saturday local time, Wang Baodong, spokesman for the Chinese embassy in Washington, told AFP.

"The latest US move to sell weapons to Taiwan, which is part of China, constitutes a gross intervention into China's internal affairs, seriously endangers China's national security and harms China's peaceful reunification efforts," Wang quoted the protest as saying.

"The US plan will definitely undermine China-US relations and bring about serious negative impact on exchange and cooperation in major areas between the two countries," he added.

China "strongly urges the US side to fully recognize the gravity of the issue, revoke the erroneous decision on arms sales to Taiwan and stop selling any weapons to Taiwan," he said.

China snapped off military relations with the United States temporarily after the last US arms package to Taiwan in October 2008.

Beijing considers Taiwan, where China's nationalists fled in 1949 after losing the mainland's civil war, to be a territory awaiting reunification, by force if necessary.

The United States in 1979 switched recognition to Beijing. But Congress requires the administration to provide Taiwan weapons for defensive purposes.

Wang said that the weapons deal violated the 1982 communique between China and the United States, which said the arms sales to Taiwan "will not exceed, in qualitative or in quantitative terms," the level in the years before that.

State Department spokesman Philip Crowley earlier said that the arms sales were consistent with the three key communiques between the United States and China when they normalized relations.

That's pretty provocative and it surprises me a bit. My post was referring to Arab nations.

What other reason do we have for coming here other for amusement?

Being of a thin skinned and sensitive nature I tend to withdraw when the political rough and tumble gets out of hand and it ceases to be amusing.

It always amuses me though when Socialists are described as sheep, or sheeple.

Do you know what I think about Conservatives?

If a panel of learned sociologists and zoologists discovered that chickens had a religion and prayed every day to Colonel Sanders what would your reaction be?

Hysterical laughter? Maybe at first but in any sort of compassionate person wouldn't a feeling of amused sadness take over?

That's how I feel about Conservatives.

I've a socialist mindset. I keep it on the back burner though till after the revolution (assuming I survive it). Too many socialists just a little bit more equal than the others for my liking.

What other reason do we have for coming here other for amusement?

Being of a thin skinned and sensitive nature I tend to withdraw when the political rough and tumble gets out of hand and it ceases to be amusing.

It always amuses me though when Socialists are described as sheep, or sheeple.

Do you know what I think about Conservatives?

If a panel of learned sociologists and zoologists discovered that chickens had a religion and prayed every day to Colonel Sanders what would your reaction be?

Hysterical laughter? Maybe at first but in any sort of compassionate person wouldn't a feeling of amused sadness take over?

That's how I feel about Conservatives.

I've a socialist mindset. I keep it on the back burner though till after the revolution (assuming I survive it). Too many socialists just a little bit more equal than the others for my liking.

The best will always rise to the top LRB but in a true Socialist society it's talent, not birth, that matters.

What other reason do we have for coming here other for amusement?

Being of a thin skinned and sensitive nature I tend to withdraw when the political rough and tumble gets out of hand and it ceases to be amusing.

It always amuses me though when Socialists are described as sheep, or sheeple.

Do you know what I think about Conservatives?

If a panel of learned sociologists and zoologists discovered that chickens had a religion and prayed every day to Colonel Sanders what would your reaction be?

Hysterical laughter? Maybe at first but in any sort of compassionate person wouldn't a feeling of amused sadness take over?

That's how I feel about Conservatives.

I've a socialist mindset. I keep it on the back burner though till after the revolution (assuming I survive it). Too many socialists just a little bit more equal than the others for my liking.

The best will always rise to the top LRB but in a true Socialist society it's talent, not birth, that matters.

Like in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics?

in a true Socialist society it's talent, not birth, that matters.

And which country would that be?