Originally Posted By DAR How do you win or lose a debate when you never bothered to participate in the first place?
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<Are they bombing Bali and Spain because we are in the Middle East? I have asked you this before.>> Actually, I don't think you have asked it before, because I have a very simple (and correct) answer. They bomb countries that they feel have governments supporting U.S. actions in the Middle East.
Originally Posted By YourPalEd You win just by being there. By showing up you show you are placing discussion over your past use of military only. I want to see bush get indignant, or cheerful with our enemy. Remember kruschev, by letting him come over here it diffused the tension of our differences. Don't blame walt he was ready for a kruschev visit, the fbi would not allow it, a security risk. Just like bush, and his security risks on planes, in those days if a priest said next stop cuba, as a joke, he would be removed from the plane. At least ike wasn't awol, like bush. Ike actually fought a war with soldiers, and risked the lives of soldiers, in a planned and successful attacks all through world war ii, and d-day. Which at least stephen spielberg respects as a great war for costumes, explosions, tanks, and other fun stuff. But the guy killing the brooklyn fellow with a knife was disgusting, and anti-american. And to have that cry baby watch, disgusted me, even if he does get even later by shooting the guy. It was like you hired that actor cause he was so good at crying during e.t., but he was terrible, i hated that part. I hated it when you slapped e.t. with the refrigerator door, and knocked him over for the huge easy laugh. The bicycle riding shots of the kids in front of the moon were sickeningly for 2 year olds. To stephen speilbaby, how many keys you have on your belt is a sign of your adulthood. It shows you are a man with responsibilities. If you have lots of keys, you are a manager of some secret government agency that travels a lot in the latest vehicles. If the key is under the mat, you are probably the divorced mother, and so the hero's human contact, before the girl shows up. Not in this film, sorry henry. No respect for your own art, so sad stevie. Just knock that e.t. doll over. Next thing you know they will take the woman hiding in the barrel out of pirates, and put in some kind of anti-christian, french, male foo foo, to hide from the pirates in the barrel. hee hee.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy <<Actually, I don't think you have asked it before, because I have a very simple (and correct) answer. They bomb countries that they feel have governments supporting U.S. actions in the Middle East>> Wrong.. they blow things up and kill people because their target is not practicing their version of Muslim Sharia law. I can't believe you are still confused about this RT. It's kinda sad because you have a half way open mind to the truth. Stop blaming America and start blaming the terrorists.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<Stop blaming America and start blaming the terrorists.>> No way am I blaming America. I don't think the terrorist's complaints are generally valid, and I CERTAINLY don't think they are expressed in a way that has any moral or legal legitimacy. On the other hand, how many Muslim terrorist attacks did the U.S. suffer before the first Iraq war?
Originally Posted By DAR <<You win just by being there.>> Ah so if two teams show up to play a game, they both win?
Originally Posted By fkurucz >>On the other hand, how many Muslim terrorist attacks did the U.S. suffer before the first Iraq war? << Well, they did try to blow up the WTC in the 90's.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<Well, they did try to blow up the WTC in the 90's.>> Operation Desert Storm (Iraq I): 8/2/90 - 2/28/91 First World Trade Center bombing: 2/26/93 Next??
Originally Posted By YourPalEd We could have the super bowl of all debates! In this corner george bush and his many learned scholar friends, including your pal, ed, also known as acidhead ed, and.. "Oh, just call me ed, gosh." Okay pal, and ed. And in the other corner the islamic something or other. Okay, now even though all the pregame, advertising has been a little lopsided toward the infidels, we've decided to add 5 minutes to the muslims half time presentation. For the americans, george bush has chosen his favorite country stars the dixie chicks, with willie nelson to perform his halftime salute to america, all synchronized to the most complex laser and fireworks show ever devised with the help of disney imagineers! The debate rules, which have been discussed, and decided are strict and known to both sides. Shall we begin, and the coin toss goes to... Uh, ed grabed the coin in mid air. Ed, uh, would you please give me back that coin, that was a special silver dollar coin my dad gave to me and it was my good luck charm. Ed. Ed. I'm not kidding ed. Get him he's running out the door into the oasis.
Originally Posted By YourPalEd Of course, i think there should have been an answer given before the irani deadline, but after the thursday deadline is fine.
Originally Posted By YourPalEd Okay, i saw john bolton talking off the cuff to reporters about iran's nuclear reactor. He discussed the different chemical compositions that the reactor could create out of spent fuel cells. He mentioned several kinds of isotopes. All off the cuff to reporters without notes. The guy is driven, and knew his stuff. I know i shouldn't say it, but i was impressed.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip Anyone who can go that far in government while wearing a walrus mustache must have something working for him.
Originally Posted By YourPalEd Norman Solomon: 'Bush vs. Ahmadinejad: A debate we'll never see' Posted on Friday, September 01 @ 09:44:47 EDT This article has been read 301 times. Norman Solomon, Antiwar.com When Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, invited President Bush to engage in a "direct television debate" a few days ago, the White House predictably responded by calling the offer "a diversion." But even though this debate will never happen, it's worth contemplating. Both presidents are propaganda junkies – or, more precisely, propaganda pushers – so any such debate would overdose the audience with self-righteous arrogance. The two presidents are too much alike. Each man, in his own way, is a fundamentalist: so sure of his own moral superiority that he's willing to push his country into a military confrontation. This assessment may be a bit unfair to Ahmadinejad, who hasn't yet lied his nation into war; the American president is far more experienced in that department. By saying that it's an open question whether Nazi Germany really perpetrated a Holocaust, the Iranian president has left no doubt that he is dangerously ignorant of history. Bush's ignorance of history is decidedly more subtle – though, judging from his five and a half years in the Oval Office, hardly less dangerous. Ahmadinejad questions whether a huge historical event actually occurred. Bush doesn't bother to question key historical facts. He just ignores them – apparently on the safe assumption that few in the U.S. news media will object very strenuously. Overall, American journalists pay only selective attention to history. Often they're too busy helping to lay groundwork for the USA's next war effort. So, we hear little about the direct CIA role in organizing the coup that toppled Iran's democratically elected president, Mohammed Mossadegh, in 1953. Or about the torture and murder inflicted on Iranian dissenters by the secret police of the U.S.-installed Shah for the next quarter of a century, until his overthrow in 1979. When I was in Tehran last year, during the presidential election campaign that ended with Ahmadinejad's victory, the ghosts of the coup that destroyed Iranian democracy were everywhere. The nightmare of the Shah has been replaced by the nightmare of the Islamic Republic – both made possible by the coup that Washington hatched. But the U.S. president copes with such unpleasant history by simply – and simplemindedly – refusing to acknowledge it. And American news media routinely go along for the detour. The avoidance makes Iranian hostility toward the U.S. government seem totally irrational. Meanwhile, the commentaries from major media keep echoing unsubstantiated claims from Washington as if they were facts. Even mainstream outlets inclined to urge restraint give enormous ground to the war planners. On Aug. 25, while ostensibly sounding a note of sobriety about Capitol Hill bombast, a New York Times editorial flatly declared: "Iran's fundamentalist regime and its nuclear ambitions pose a strategic threat to the United States." The newspaper added: "It's obvious that Iran wants nuclear weapons, has lied about its program and views America as an enemy." But it should be no less obvious that the United States and its ally Israel – both with a record of lying about their own military intentions – have nuclear arsenals and view Iran as an enemy. More hawkish than the Times, the Washington Post printed an editorial on Aug. 24 warning Russia and China that they "should not undercut Western efforts to defuse the Iran crisis by peaceful means." With an oddly menacing twist, the editorial proclaimed: "No responsible power has anything to gain from further tension in the Middle East, still less an eventual war over Iran's nuclear ambitions." We should remember how the same newspaper wielded its editorial cudgel the last time the White House was laying groundwork for a military attack. On Feb. 6, 2003, the Post – under the headline "Irrefutable" – told readers in no uncertain terms: "After Secretary of State Colin L. Powell's presentation to the United Nations Security Council yesterday, it is hard to imagine how anyone could doubt that Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction." Such limited imagination continues to infuse the Post's editorial outlook – and, for that matter, the world views of most U.S. media outlets. The fantasy of a debate between Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and George W. Bush might be strange, but the reality of American journalism is grotesque as Washington escalates its extremely dangerous confrontation with Tehran. Copyright 2006 Antiwar.com
Originally Posted By YourPalEd Ah, not so fast. The debate continues: U.S. Accuses Iran of Holding Activists From Times Wire Reports September 2, 2006 The State Department accused Iran of detaining at least four student activists and called for their release. Among those detained, department spokesman Sean McCormack said, was well-known student leader Ahmad Batebi, who was on parole from a 15-year sentence stemming from a 1999 crackdown on students.
