B-Bob, you have to send those p***y Christians, Indian dudes, and black dudes a message. Oh wait, a moderator threatened banning? Just kidding!
...and with this statement, you prove yourself wrong, and you prove me right. How can it possibly be a unilateral war, when you have multiple countries sending troops? OOPSIE DAISY!! Wait, I thought you were a military history expert? Better hit the books, Mac -- you's gots some lernin to do.
Try reading this time with your eyes: We paid and threatened a few governments into giving nominal support, most of whom are now under fire within their own nations for corruption because of same. You call that real multilateralism? Wow.
that's powerful imagery...at least it is to me. but i don't know if it's necessarily right for governments to ignore the oppression of people by dictators (and i'm not even talking about iraq here). i think it is entirely possible that allied forces rolling through europe opening up concentration camps was every bit a judgment from God...or every bit the right thing to do. Romans 13 presents some points on this...and I struggle with it.
Keep retreating.... now it's 'real' multilateralism, not just multilateralism. The argument keeps changing for you, doesn't it? Ha! A country's populace's view of the war has no bering on whether the war is unilateral or multilateral. A broad coaliation of nations joined this war, this is impossible to refute. The war was multilateral in nature. Period. CASE CLOSED
He makes some weird causal relationships. For instance the Saudis did not start *really* cooperating until they had attacks on them directly. The Palestinians haven't been reined in at all. Where's the domino effect of democracy? The only Bush doctrine I'm aware of is we will topple really bad dictatorships if we think there is enough oil there to make it worth our while. The fact that we don't do a thing about Haiti after Republicans created this situation by *not* funding the occupation and rebuilding reinforces this - there has to be oil to fund it or the world will have to shame us into acting - god forbid if the French act before we do.
Let's go throwing our weight around. Let's bully everyone, make them fear our power and unpredictability. For many years, much of the American 'mystique' has been built upon quite positive images. Our 'culture' and products became in high demand. Others even bought our money. Yeah, times have been too good. Let's change all of that. Let's make it a big negative to buy something American. Let's support using the Euro as the international currency.
Retreating!?!?!? T_J...take a look...use your brain...this was a quote from a post made previous to your rebuttle. I really think that you're smarter than you let on, but sometimes i wonder...
You are either misusing the term broad (large in expanse) or you are comparing the few remora* nations to women? How 19th century of you... But I'll admit, I chuckled a bit at your sexist joke. (edit, so that T_J can learn a new word from science: * Any of several marine fishes of the family Echeneidae, having on the head a sucking disk with which they attach themselves to sharks, whales, sea turtles, or the hulls of ships. Also called shark sucker, suckerfish, suckfish.)
Call me when they start sharing the cost, blinders-boy. It is still our tax dollars that are paying for this Bush family vendetta, hook line and sinker.
That would all be nice if it were true. But facts say differently. Answar Al-Islam didn't operate freely in Iraq with Saddam in place. They opperated in the autonomous North which was not controlled by Saddam, but by our allies the Kurds. To say that Saddam paid palestinian suicide bombers is only partially correct as well. Actually it's not correct at all, but since I think I know what you are getting at, then partially correct is fine. Saddam paid the families of any martyrs. If an Israeli jet hit a residential building killing 11 people who had nothing to do with suicide bombings the same fund paid that family that paid the family of a suicide bombing. Far more people were killed by Israelis than died suicide bombing them. So the vast majority of that fund went to families of people who were not suicide bombers.
Here we have *yet another* example of MacBeth being shamed. Evidence? I successfully refute his claim that the war was unilateral, and he is reduced to having nothing to retort with but personal insults. No substance, no rebuttal, no fighting chance of winning. Just insults. The man who fashions himself as the BBS' leading intellectual (apologies, rimbeaux), has run out of ammunition. He has no more arrows in his quiver. He is frustrated, humiliated and embarrassed. A true shaming. The argument is finished. He has lost. Losing really damages your ego, doesn't it, JAG?
In the spirit of the word, this war was unilateral. You have done zero to refute that argument, dispite your trumped up psuedo-patriotic posts.
I have to wonder for the 1000th time if TJ isn't really a liberal trying to undermine the conservative cause.
I used to wonder that, but such a clever person would surely get bored doing the exact same thing, time and time again. SNL updates their skits more often than T_J. My bet is that "Trader_Jorge" is just an incomplete computer programming project from a liberal student in a mediocre CS department.
Best part of that photo/post? That's Tee Martin in the Tostitos Fiesta Bowl, which Tennessee won to win the National Championship! Speaks volumes, actually.
In other words, 9-11 changed everything. Thanks for the info. Jorge, your picture posting notoriety has not only been upstaged by me but has been now rendered permanently useless by KingCheetah. Lame low res SEC football cliches vs. KC's Masterpieces? You lose friend...again.
We had already "hit" al-Quaeda with the action in Afghanistan. How exactly did the invasion of Iraq have anything to do with 9/11? BTW, that was a rhetorical question because according to the evidence, it didn't.
