I'm a BAD AMERICAN!

[werty]

thanks will.
Now I'm confused by the coment about not knowing anything you said earlier when it looks llike you and I at least have spent lots of time discussing and being challenged to see all the sides of the situation from a muslim and Iraqi perspective ( and Kurd and Turkish in my case )

That is worth sharing is it not ? So are all those 200,000 terrorists and subject to reponse to "act of war" because of the acts of a few ????

It's worth sharing, but not worth insulting each other over. I would like to end this particular discussion and "make up". We obviously have different views and I really dont think they are going to change...so lets drop it, please.
I dont think any of us have a good enough say in what should happen, neither of us are in major politcal or military positions. It really is my bias opinion vs your bias opinion, and it has never ever solved anything on UCP. I am still thinking...we need to find a better way to discuss such things on UCP.

[Fleet 500]

First I DID give you examples.
Second it was EXPLAINED to you.
Third are you saying SALT was NOT a peace act ??
Finally learn to think rather than regurgitate

C'mon... the only reason the SALT act was successful was because the other side knew that Reagan was not someone to mess around with.

[Matra et Alpine]

You would eat with the criminal before you shook hands with the guy trying to stop him.

Wrong and how absurd.

I would try to do BOTH ! By doing so prevent illegal acts by both.
You're assertion is not relevant to the discussion other than scoring a point. WHich it has failed to do, but IS a nice coin of phrase

If you are unwiling to do both then you have only one side and THAT may be wrong. Remember all the founding fathers were criminals !!!!

[Matra et Alpine]

C'mon... the only reason the SALT act was successful was because the other side knew that Reagan was not someone to mess around with.

and equally Reagan knew that if Russian nuclear arsenal was not reduced there would be major problems.

IF he was someone NOT to mess with and he was not interested in taking a peaceful route ( which is what pacifism is ) then he woudl have bluntly said reduce your weapons or I launch.

You're still not bothering to think the other side of a point before making it. Guaranteed to lose you every debate AND very annoyign as someon else has to point out the bits you miss. Loses you marks in competitive debate

[Matra et Alpine]

It's worth sharing, but not worth insulting each other over. I would like to end this particular discussion and "make up". We obviously have different views and I really dont think they are going to change...so lets drop it, please.

But some others may learn ?
Sharing opinion and views is important so we CAN recognise our own bias in our opinions.

I dont think any of us have a good enough say in what should happen, neither of us are in major politcal or military positions. It really is my bias opinion vs your bias opinion, and it has never ever solved anything on UCP. I am still thinking...we need to find a better way to discuss such things on UCP.

This is the only way to debate anything.
As long as it's in clear political threads it's not a hassle
"bias opinion" is not the same as opinion and supporting facts - like the point over knowing muslim/iraqi opinion. We both clearly have some additional experience that others may not have and can share it - good and bad. But agreed "bias opinion" is bad - and why some of these threads end up there as we shoudl all recognise our bias and acknowledge it.
I'm biased on the side of humanity in all things

[Fleet 500]

Or these facts:
1) That the liberal Democrats in Congress approved spending much more than the Republicans in Congress in the 1980s.

2) The reasons for invading Iraq were not just WMD.

[werty]

But some others may learn ?

When i see the little boy raise his hand and say he actually learned something from the two bullies arguing...then I'll get back into this thread, but until then...

werty out

[Matra et Alpine]

odd, if you go out you'll never see
Check out CS and Pando and yourself, all posted comments with insight and interest showing another side.

[Matra et Alpine]

Or these facts:
1) That the liberal Democrats in Congress approved spending much more than the Republicans in Congress in the 1980s.

on what ?
And what has that got to do with the price of eggs ??
You seem to be confusing 'we' with blind partisan followers who think a name on a group makes it good or bad.
Yove' been informed numerous times by numerous people that they're not saygin all bad !!
Methingsk you're trygin to play the "woe is me" card again

2) The reasons for invading Iraq were not just WMD.

You posted that before.
Save us time and energy and go back to the responses then.
You never DID close them. In fact you ran and hid
THat deserves a ....

280%

[Fleet 500]

on what ?
And what has that got to do with the price of eggs ??
You seem to be confusing 'we' with blind partisan followers who think a name on a group makes it good or bad.
Yove' been informed numerous times by numerous people that they're not saygin all bad !!
Methingsk you're trygin to play the "woe is me" card again

You posted that before.
Save us time and energy and go back to the responses then.
You never DID close them. In fact you ran and hid
THat deserves a ....
280%

To go into the article further...
"The following lists show the best (thrifiest) and worst spenders in the Senate and in the House. The higher the score, the more thrifty the senator or congressman is."
Note that ALL of the worst spenders in both the Senate and the House are Democrats! Kind of backs up the claim of a "Tax and Spend Liberal."

And WMD were not the only reason to invade Iraq. In fact, back before the invasion, Bush mentioned how Iraq is a threat to its neighbors more than he mentioned WMD.
You're back a 0%!

[Fleet 500]

and equally Reagan knew that if Russian nuclear arsenal was not reduced there would be major problems.

IF he was someone NOT to mess with and he was not interested in taking a peaceful route ( which is what pacifism is ) then he woudl have bluntly said reduce your weapons or I launch.

You're still not bothering to think the other side of a point before making it. Guaranteed to lose you every debate AND very annoyign as someon else has to point out the bits you miss. Loses you marks in competitive debate

Reagan said to the USSR, "If you keep buiding nuclear weapons, we will build and outbuild you." That's hardly what a "pacifist" would do!
It was "peace through strength."

[Matra et Alpine]

To go into the article further...
"The following lists show the best (thrifiest) and worst spenders in the Senate and in the House. The higher the score, the more thrifty the senator or congressman is."
Note that ALL of the worst spenders in both the Senate and the House are Democrats! Kind of backs up the claim of a "Tax and Spend Liberal."

ANd some how you KNOW that is a worse situation than the alternative ?
Tell me when you go to the shops for a bottle of wine do you always buy the cheapest or sometimes do you consider it "worth it" to pay more ??
I find it amazing to compare a politician on how "thrifty" they are rather than how good they are at representign the wishes of their electorate. Seems to be another twist of democracy other may have trouble comprehending
To jsut consider money and not the purpose and intent and outcomes fo the spending woudl suggest deliberate manipulation of the "message". You shodl ask yourself what purpose had the creator of the lsit in mind at the time ?
But what has that to do with the points IN discussion ?

And WMD were not the only reason to invade Iraq. In fact, back before the invasion, Bush mentioned how Iraq is a threat to its neighbors more than he mentioned WMD.
You're back a 0%!

nope because it's been covered time and time again.
Remember ? You made up the story that the Downgin Street memos were fabricated ? Remember, you ignored Robin Cook's comments and actions ??
Or do you selective amnesia ?
( another +10 pending as it seems unfair to penalise if you have a medical condition whereby your feet cannot be REMOVED from your mouth )

[Matra et Alpine]

Reagan said to the USSR, "If you keep buiding nuclear weapons, we will build and outbuild you." That's hardly what a "pacifist" would do!

Explain why ?
Again it sounds as if you are using a definition of pacifist which only covers the extreme range of the opinion. AND Reagan knew that America was also suffering by the nuclear race as it increased "public spending" which was an athema to him Star Wars had also shown it wasn't a technical win-win for American industry.

It was "peace through strength."

Thank you for quoting the EXACT WORDS I used on this topic
Exactly, note the FIRST word, so it is an act of pacifism. It is the offering of a peaceful solution out of a potential war path. Reagan ( with another UK PM support ) USED the position of strength to show that even THEN they were willing to seek peaceful solution and avoid MAD and the difficulty of control of those weapons on Russia break-up whcih was clearly on the cards at the time.

You just added 10 to the score yourself by citing a peaceful (?) conclusion to a potential war !!!!
270%

[Spastik_Roach]

This may surprise you, but (except in this message board) supporting Bush is perfectly okay. However, you said "blindly supporting," which is untrue in my case.
You should take at least 50 points off your "score."

Esperante is a republican, as far as I know, he supports Bush. However, nobody ever argues with him about it. You know why? Because he doesn't post pointless bullshit that gets proven wrong time, after time, after time again. Don't go accusing us of discrimination, please. I don't mind republicans one bit. Some of my best friends are republicans. However, you're not my best friend.

[Matra et Alpine]

I have also posted the fact that there have been month after month of job growth...

and somehow the US Government Bureau of Labor Statistics cites

"THE EMPLOYMENT SITUATION: SEPTEMBER 2005 .............
...............Both the number of unemployed persons, 7.7 million, and the unemployment
rate, 5.1 percent, rose in September ..............."

You have to be careful making sweeping statements without including the other factors. Will Katrina have lost jobs as companies fire staff or would they retain them till they get the business started again ? Dont' know US emplyment law and expectation. Might be the reason for the BLS number or it might not be

BUT again what has that to do with the points OTHER THAN the age-odl mistake you make that goo measn the bad doesnt' exist How GWB fairs on emloyment for good or bad has no inptu on a discussion on other issues re american activities or politics. Another diversionary tactic. Been pointed out before, Hitler had that down to a fine art