Important notice about the future of Stripcreator (Updated: May 2nd, 2023)

stripcreator forums
Jump to:

Stripcreator » Fights Go Here » Did someone mention politics?

Author

Message

MaKK_BeNN
VOTE JEB BUSH 2008

Member Rated:

I don't even get fox news. You say I "pretend to know about things" but don't say what it is I have said you are challenging.

And you still are a poor imitation of boorite, a parrot making similar sounds without understanding the thought process behind the sounds.

That's boorite's method of operation. One web site he discovers that backs his point is irrefutable. Duh.

---
Vote Jeb Bush 2008

2-11-04 11:19am (new)
quote : comics : pm : info


MikeyG
Shoots the shit and often misses

Member Rated:

Everything. I challenge every point you have ever made, really. Or most of them, at least. And you get FOX News all right. Why should I believe you don't?

---
The giant three-phallused phallus of Uzbekistan will one day squirt the cosmic jizz of revenge all over Canada.

2-11-04 11:23am (new)
quote : comics : pm : info


boorite
crazy knife lady

Member Rated:

Uh, I never said a given source was "irrefutable." Just that according to the Independent, the INC was not on board, and according to the NYT, neither were the major Kurdish groups, nor in fact any Kurds they talked to, and that would include the PUK. I would think that citing major newspapers is a better "method" of talkiing about facts than bald assertion, or a reference to some tangentially related Power Point slideshow from God-knows-what (references available on request? sheez). Never "irrefutable," but reasonable, at least.

So Makk and Andy, you're putting words in my mouth. You're also equating unsupported statements and more or less random websites with newspapers of record. These tactics don't merit comment.

Why would I point to websites that post copies of these articles? Because we're on the web, and that's the form in which you can see the damn things. I am sitting in an academic library right now with access to Lexis-Nexis and actual print copies of the NYT, London Times, and so on. I can lay hands on pretty much whatever I want. But you can't see it. Sure, I could post citations (see NYT, pg A16, 3 Jan 2004), but then of course, you'd bitch and whine about not being able to go look up every article I cite. So I post links to web-accessible copies of the articles, and you bitch about that. One wonders if there's anything you wouldn't bitch about.

As I said, it doesn't merit comment, and here I am commenting. Absurd.

---
What others say about boorite!

2-11-04 11:50am (new)
quote : comics : pm : info


MaKK_BeNN
VOTE JEB BUSH 2008

Member Rated:

This typo proves I have boorite on the ropes.

---
Vote Jeb Bush 2008

2-11-04 11:55am (new)
quote : comics : pm : info


MikeyG
Shoots the shit and often misses

Member Rated:

Nah. This typo means, however, that I 'cleary' have you floundering.

---
The giant three-phallused phallus of Uzbekistan will one day squirt the cosmic jizz of revenge all over Canada.

2-11-04 12:01pm (new)
quote : comics : pm : info


boorite
crazy knife lady

Member Rated:

This typo proves I have boorite on the ropes.


In Saddam's Iraq, the ropes are on you.

---
What others say about boorite!

2-11-04 12:41pm (new)
quote : comics : pm : info


MaKK_BeNN
VOTE JEB BUSH 2008

Member Rated:

I don't know what you mean. But touche.

The way the WMD issue is developing, I think illustrates my opinion that Bush should have pushed for war without hyping the WMD. I think he could have gotten us into the war just as easily, and it would only be a bonus for him if WMDs were found. The way things are, it's a liability everyday WMDs are not found. Now, backing away from the assertion, if WMDs are found he looks like he has waffled.

Even wanting this war, my biggest issue all along with the push to go to war was the spin on the WMD issue. Still I think it was obvious that it was spin at the time, and there not really being a public uproar about it now illustrates that. It seems more an issue his political enemies want to jab him with and less an issue weighing down on the American public. Still I think the more important criteria for going after a regime should be the propensity to cause harm to the U.S., not its capacity for producing VX gas, and there is harm to our security by framing the current war otherwise.

I'd like to hear some thoughts on this. I think if this intelligence failure makes it harder to go after dangerous nations with actual, for-real WMDs we have planted one step firmly forward and one step firmly back in terms of national security. Next year if President Bush -the One True President, ordained by the Ressurected Lord Jesus Christ who sits on the Right Hand of the Lord God Almighty- says we have definitely identified WMD activity in Indonesia and they expel our diplomats, and that we have to go clean up the situation, what would be the general opinion of this?

---
Vote Jeb Bush 2008

2-11-04 1:51pm (new)
quote : comics : pm : info


boorite
crazy knife lady

Member Rated:

Well.... we for sure aren't going to attack any country that actually has nukes. I think that might be the only thing that can stop us from invading anyplace we want. No wonder N. Korea and Iran are so hellbent on getting them.

In any case, I don't think an invasion of Indonesia is on the table, no matter what weapons they aim to get, unless the government suddenly kicks out US investors or something.

---
What others say about boorite!

2-11-04 1:58pm (new)
quote : comics : pm : info


MikeyG
Shoots the shit and often misses

Member Rated:

Why is anyone still saying there was an intelligence failure? There was no intelligence failure, and I can't really see anything positive coming out of blaming the Prime Spook Department for this giant error.

Look here

and here

aaaaaand here

The last one was more of a full-on editorial than anything, but believe me, the CIA didn't fuck this one up.

---
The giant three-phallused phallus of Uzbekistan will one day squirt the cosmic jizz of revenge all over Canada.

2-11-04 2:18pm (new)
quote : comics : pm : info


MaKK_BeNN
VOTE JEB BUSH 2008

Member Rated:

I just used Indonesia as an example.

That does bring up a good point. Can we only invade a country between the time they start developing a nuclear bomb and before the program completes actual nuclear weapons? What about just intent to make a nuclear weapon? How do you distinguish between making nuclear weapons as a deterence, and for the purposes of terrorism? Does having a nuclear deterence and harboring terrorism mean that you can fund acts of terrorism with impunity if your government has nuclear capabilities? Could having a nuclear deterence in this context be in itself an act of terrorism?

---
Vote Jeb Bush 2008

2-11-04 2:18pm (new)
quote : comics : pm : info


MaKK_BeNN
VOTE JEB BUSH 2008

Member Rated:

There was a failure of intelligence, either in the gathering, presentation, or interpretation. I didn't say "the CIA failed". Also the CIA isn't the only intelligence-gathering organization.

---
Vote Jeb Bush 2008

2-11-04 2:22pm (new)
quote : comics : pm : info


Spankling
Looking for love in ALL the wrong places, baby!

Member Rated:

The intelligence was edited to fit what the oil boys wanted.

---
"Jelly-belly gigglin, dancin and a-wigglin, honey that's the way I am!" Janice the Muppet

2-11-04 9:41pm (new)
quote : comics : pm : info


Spankling
Looking for love in ALL the wrong places, baby!

Member Rated:

Even O'Reilly admits it, mak

and...

Is this how a responsible military leader should behave?

---
"Jelly-belly gigglin, dancin and a-wigglin, honey that's the way I am!" Janice the Muppet

2-11-04 10:04pm (new)
quote : comics : pm : info


MaKK_BeNN
VOTE JEB BUSH 2008

Member Rated:

Admits what? All along I said we should go into Iraq regardless of WMDs, and that that should not be part of the war argument. I even said saying there were WMDs in Iraq might be a big mistake.

If a military man is so important why didn't you guys nominate Clark?

---
Vote Jeb Bush 2008

2-11-04 11:51pm (new)
quote : comics : pm : info


boorite
crazy knife lady

Member Rated:

quote:

You dismissed me for quibbling over semantics earlier, so it looks bad when you resort to it yourself.

I don't remember ever dismissing anyone for quibbling over semantics. And when you say so-and-so backed the invasion, that really is quite a different thing from saying so-and-so wanted Saddam overthrown. Minimize it by calling it mere semantics if you like.

You tried to change your assertion after I responded to it, by changing a word. You changed your position to one I never meant to contradict, and then said I was wrong. Damn right I'm going to "quibble" about that.

I never said your position was that. What the hell are you talking about? All I did was cast doubt on your assertion that the INC "backed the invasion."

I don't follow how you inferred that I was against the overthrow of Saddam. I don't know what responding to someone else's posts would have to do with that. (I also note that I have responded critically to Mikey before, although the point is irrelevant.)

Yes, I would have applauded US support for democratic movements or insurgencies inside Iraq. That is not what we have here, obviously. The results of this bombardment and invasion and occupation are and will continue to be very different from a democratic revolution, and for good reason: Washington is not aiming for democracy here. I would ask you to factor that into your moral evaluation of this war.

---
What others say about boorite!

2-12-04 10:33am (new)
quote : comics : pm : info


MaKK_BeNN
VOTE JEB BUSH 2008

Member Rated:

The United States wouldn't want a fair democracy in Iraq? Fostering a democracy in the Middle East is a very old, difficult, and debated problem. A well-oiled democracy not immediately springing from the ever-so-fertile soil that is the Iraqi people isn't proof of a Washington conspiracy. It would be a hard enough feat without instigators terrifying Iraqis who try to participate in the feldgling democracy by blowing them up as they wait outside military and police recruitment centers.

---
Vote Jeb Bush 2008

2-12-04 12:35pm (new)
quote : comics : pm : info


boorite
crazy knife lady

Member Rated:

While we're talking about Iraqi popular opinion on the war, here are some numbers from the latest Gallup poll I could find, reported in the Washington Post last November 12 (p. A18).

"Only 5 percent of those polled said they believed the United States invaded Iraq 'to assist the Iraqi people,' and only 1 percent believed it was to establish democracy there.

"Three-quarters of those polled said they believed the policies and decisions of the Iraqi Governing Council -- whose members were appointed in July by Coalition Provisional Authority Administrator L. Paul Bremer -- were 'mostly determined by the coalition's own authorities,' and only 16 percent thought the council members were 'fairly independent.'"

A bone to Dougan: "In an Oct. 28 analysis, Richard Burkholder, Gallup's director of international polling, noted that most Baghdad residents thought getting rid of Saddam Hussein was worth the hardships they are enduring. But 'most are deeply skeptical of the initial rationale the coalition has given for its actions,' Burkholder added."

Is it about the oil? "Forty-three percent of the respondents said they believed that U.S. and British forces invaded in March primarily 'to rob Iraq's oil.' While 37 percent believed the United States acted to get rid of the Hussein regime, only 5 percent thought it did so 'to assist the Iraq people,' the poll found.

"An additional 6 percent believed the motive was to 'change the Middle East map as the U.S. and Israel want.' Four percent believed the purpose was to destroy weapons of mass destruction, the primary reason given by the Bush administration.

"At a time when the United States faces a growing security threat, the poll pointed to other possible reasons why coalition forces are being looked upon as occupiers instead of as liberators."

Security, anyone? "Almost everyone interviewed -- 94 percent -- said Baghdad 'now is a more dangerous place than before the invasion,' and 86 percent said that for the previous four weeks 'they or a member of their household had been afraid to go outside their home at night for safety reasons,' Burkholder said in his analysis. He noted that in the two months before the U.S. invasion, only 8 percent said they had experienced a similar fear."

---
What others say about boorite!

2-12-04 2:30pm (new)
quote : comics : pm : info


boorite
crazy knife lady

Member Rated:

Judging from Washington's behavior: No.

Good one.

Wherefore your sarcasm regarding the Iraqi people, you American? You exporter of Saddams and Suhartos and Pinochets? Proof of a Washington conspiracy? How about Washington's record, which is open to anyone who will look at it?

Yes, we would like that to stop.

---
What others say about boorite!

2-12-04 2:58pm (new)
quote : comics : pm : info


boorite
crazy knife lady

Member Rated:

quote:

If a military man is so important why didn't you guys nominate Clark?

Would somebody get this man a newspaper? Is there anyone in the country who doesn't know that the current Democratic front-runner is a Navy Lieutenant and decorated combat veteran?

I mean you've GOT to be trolling.

---
What others say about boorite!

2-12-04 3:45pm (new)
quote : comics : pm : info


andydougan
Film critic subordinaire

Member Rated:

quote:
quote:

You dismissed me for quibbling over semantics earlier, so it looks bad when you resort to it yourself.

I don't remember ever dismissing anyone for quibbling over semantics.


I wondered why you kept using the term "we" to refer to a collective not including yourself. You said it wasn't productive to argue about it.

Ok, I can see how that could be a significant distinction. Do you have to endorse absolutely every aspect of an action to say you back it, though? I suspect that many who consider themselves in favour of the invasion didn't back every detail of it. I'm willing to concede the point, though, since it doesn't damage the overall tenor of my argument. Read on...

I never said your position was that. What the hell are you talking about? All I did was cast doubt on your assertion that the INC "backed the invasion."


All right, but all we've established is that Iraq's democratic opposition reject your position (inaction would have been preferable) and makk's position (the invasion was the best of all possible options), but share mine: that the invasion, for its faults, was probably preferably to doing nothing. So you may have won a battle, but I win the war.

I don't follow how you inferred that I was against the overthrow of Saddam. I don't know what responding to someone else's posts would have to do with that. (I also note that I have responded critically to Mikey before, although the point is irrelevant.)


It looked like you were letting slide transparently moronic comments by an opponent of the war just because he's in your general camp. And I thought it was the shrub who was supposed to only see in black and white. Perhaps you could provide an example or two of your scathing attacks on anti-war folk.

quote:
Yes, I would have applauded US support for democratic movements or insurgencies inside Iraq. That is not what we have here, obviously. The results of this bombardment and invasion and occupation are and will continue to be very different from a democratic revolution, and for good reason: Washington is not aiming for democracy here. I would ask you to factor that into your moral evaluation of this war.

I did long ago. The Gallup poll results you go on to quote corroborate every one of my views about the war, but deviate from yours in the most crucial respect: the Iraqis believe that the invasion will ultimately lead to a situation preferable to leaving Saddam in place. Hardly a "bone".

2-12-04 7:21pm (new)
quote : comics : pm : info


boorite
crazy knife lady

Member Rated:

quote:

I wondered why you kept using the term "we" to refer to a collective not including yourself. You said it wasn't productive to argue about it.

"We" refers to Americans and does include myself. "We are hypocrites." You're right-- I don't see the point in arguing about the pronoun here.

No, but you said the INC backed the invasion when, according to the Independent, they opposed a large-scale invasion, which is what we planned and what we did. They didn't back it; they opposed it. It's not at all that they just didn't "endorse absolutely every aspect of" it and therefore could still be said to "back" it. Not by any stretch.

It's possible that once the war train came in, the INC got on board. I mean, you'd just about have to, if you had any brains. But in the run-up to the war, they did not support it in any sense, if that report is any indication.

I never said your position was that. What the hell are you talking about? All I did was cast doubt on your assertion that the INC "backed the invasion."


All right, but all we've established is that Iraq's democratic opposition reject your position (inaction would have been preferable)


1. When did we establish that? 2. Are you misreading my position? Certainly, I'd say that doing nothing is preferable to doing harm (that's a truism), but that is a far cry from saying my preferred course is inaction.

How do you figure? We're looking at neighborhood of 10,000 Iraqi civilians dead in 2003, a country in ruins, a huge military bill, a quagmire of an occupation, US companies poised to extract resources as usual, extreme civil instability, and, by all accounts, democracy nowhere on the horizon. Which is exactly what you would expect, given the US's history, methods, and stated aims in the region. Look: You don't bombard and invade and overthrow in order to install democracy. When in the history of the world has that ever happened? When has the US, for that matter, ever gone halfway around the world and spent billions on violence in order to actually liberate anybody?

If you look at the situation and you have half an idea what's going on there, you know what to expect. From the viewpoint of Washington planners, the Kurds and the Shiites will need to be kept in their place, as before. And we don't do this stuff for free, so US corporations must have unfettered access to resources and markets, as before. This is what you'd expect if you look at history, and if you look at how we did this thing, and it is exactly what is happening. It's unfolding right in front of you, if you just look. And keeping this kind of favorable climate for investors requires harsh repression, I mean in every case, and so we know what kind of government to expect down the road. Of course, I could be proven wrong, but so far there is absolutely no reason to think so.

Is this situation better than having that asshole Saddam in place but so screwed to the floor that he couldn't do anything? Better than continuing inspections and sanctions until his dilapidated regime finally crumbled? I don't think that score is in yet. Your declaration of victory is premature.

I haven't paid a lot of attention to MikeyG's posts, so I don't know if they're moronic or not. Seems like you're personally attacking me for not pulling up some other guy. Well, have at it. I'm not sure what that has to do with the issue, though.

quote:
quote:
Yes, I would have applauded US support for democratic movements or insurgencies inside Iraq. That is not what we have here, obviously. The results of this bombardment and invasion and occupation are and will continue to be very different from a democratic revolution, and for good reason: Washington is not aiming for democracy here. I would ask you to factor that into your moral evaluation of this war.

I did long ago. The Gallup poll results you go on to quote corroborate every one of my views about the war, but deviate from yours in the most crucial respect: the Iraqis believe that the invasion will ultimately lead to a situation preferable to leaving Saddam in place. Hardly a "bone".


Excuse me, but where in the rape did you see that conclusion in the poll results? I see that they're glad to have Saddam gone (who wouldn't be?), but I also see extreme fear and skepticism about what's to come. Not just what's to come, but what's already there. So far, I don't see any reason to believe that the invasion will ultimately lead anywhere else but where our invasions always lead. Why the rosy outlook? Because our leaders get up there and say stuff like "liberation" and "democracy?" They always do that! Meanwhile, their friends are stuffing their pockets.* So I don't get what's so different about this time.

Please enlighten me.

*like Halliburton is right now, the crooks

---
What others say about boorite!

2-12-04 8:32pm (new)
quote : comics : pm : info


boorite
crazy knife lady

Member Rated:

And while we're counting costs, we shouldn't stop with Iraq itself. The edifice of international law, flimsy as it already was, is now in tatters, and we have lots of ugly new friends for our war on terror (although they are terrorists), and most of the world basically hates us, and our enemies and friends alike are brandishing the nukes they're not supposed to have... and back in Iraq, Al Qaeda seems to have gained that foothold we only imagined they had before the invasion... oh yes, blue skies for everyone.

---
What others say about boorite!

2-12-04 8:57pm (new)
quote : comics : pm : info


boorite
crazy knife lady

Member Rated:

I forgot to mention the trend toward authoritarianism here at home, which the war has helped along so much. Well I'm tired, so fill in the blanks. America uber alles, jawohl, g'nite.

---
What others say about boorite!

2-12-04 9:02pm (new)
quote : comics : pm : info


MaKK_BeNN
VOTE JEB BUSH 2008

Member Rated:

quote:
The United States wouldn't want a fair democracy in Iraq?
..
Judging from Washington's behavior: No.

A Flash piece to defend your assertion we want the democracy in Iraq to fail? Give me a break, YOU are surely trolling. How good would the administration look if the interim government flounders through the election year? Or worse yet another dictator rises to power? Are you saying anyone, today, right now, in Washington (other than yes, Democrats) wants this?

Pointing somewhere else in time and space doesn't change the real situation in Iraq, now, today. Also, we just took Saddam into custody (regarding your "exporter of Saddams" remark). So even if what you are suggesting is true, that some past administration installed Saddam, it's different now, and again I ask what under what logic do benefits come to anyone but a political enemy of Bush if democracy fails in Iraq?

---
Vote Jeb Bush 2008

2-12-04 9:41pm (new)
quote : comics : pm : info


andydougan
Film critic subordinaire

Member Rated:

I can't be bothered getting the quote tags right.

quote:
quote:

I wondered why you kept using the term "we" to refer to a collective not including yourself. You said it wasn't productive to argue about it.

"We" refers to Americans and does include myself. "We are hypocrites." You're right-- I don't see the point in arguing about the pronoun here.


"We neglect to undertake the most elementary moral exercise." I must be hallucinating, because I thought you'd been arguing the moral case against war for dozens of pages of this thread.

No, but you said the INC backed the invasion when, according to the Independent, they opposed a large-scale invasion, which is what we planned and what we did. They didn't back it; they opposed it. It's not at all that they just didn't "endorse absolutely every aspect of" it and therefore could still be said to "back" it. Not by any stretch.

It's possible that once the war train came in, the INC got on board. I mean, you'd just about have to, if you had any brains.


Even though "opposition leaders stressed that a large-scale offensive by Washington and its allies would not be supported by opponents of the Baghdad regime, either inside or outside Iraq", according to the Indie?

They did support US military action to remove Saddam, though. Okay, my language was careless and misleading. I repeat my concession of that.

I never said your position was that. What the hell are you talking about? All I did was cast doubt on your assertion that the INC "backed the invasion."


All right, but all we've established is that Iraq's democratic opposition reject your position (inaction would have been preferable)


1. When did we establish that? 2. Are you misreading my position? Certainly, I'd say that doing nothing is preferable to doing harm (that's a truism), but that is a far cry from saying my preferred course is inaction.


You misunderstand. I'm not taking your position to be that inaction was the best possible course: just that it would have been preferable to what did happen.

How do you figure? We're looking at neighborhood of 10,000 Iraqi civilians dead in 2003, a country in ruins, a huge military bill, a quagmire of an occupation, US companies poised to extract resources as usual, extreme civil instability, and, by all accounts, democracy nowhere on the horizon.


I don't know how long it takes to bring a devastated country back from the brink (it was in ruins even before the invasion) but I don't think any sensible person could've expected it to take under a year. As for civilian deaths: Human Rights Watch estimates that Saddam killed a minimum of 300,000 of his people during his reign. Add this to his civilian victims in other countries, and we easily pass the 10,000 per annum mark. And now that major US bombing has ended, the bulk of civilian deaths are down to the insurgents. They're going to be considerably less successful at killing than Saddam's police (though I'll admit the events of the last week don't help that case). So I don't see how the figure this year could even get in sight of Saddam's yearly tally.

At a guess, never. I think the liberation of a country was a factor pretty far down the priorities list in the decision to invade (probably it wasn't a factor at all).

There's harsh repression and then there's Saddam. The country's present occupier has a stronger democratic record than its previous one. You may not think that justifies a war, but you must surely see that, by itself, it's an improvement.

Except to Iraqis.

Inspections were intended to address his virtually non-existent capacity to strike internationally. They wouldn't save his own people from his aggression. Sanctions, according to UN observers, were strengthening him and starving his people. There wasn't any sign that his regime was on the verge of collapse. So in answer to your question: yes, probably.

quote:
quote:
Yes, I would have applauded US support for democratic movements or insurgencies inside Iraq. That is not what we have here, obviously. The results of this bombardment and invasion and occupation are and will continue to be very different from a democratic revolution, and for good reason: Washington is not aiming for democracy here. I would ask you to factor that into your moral evaluation of this war.

I did long ago. The Gallup poll results you go on to quote corroborate every one of my views about the war, but deviate from yours in the most crucial respect: the Iraqis believe that the invasion will ultimately lead to a situation preferable to leaving Saddam in place. Hardly a "bone".


Excuse me, but where in the rape did you see that conclusion in the poll results?


"Gallup's director of international polling, noted that most Baghdad residents thought getting rid of Saddam Hussein was worth the hardships they are enduring". Surely this says it all. Is your objection that I was presumptuous in projecting the opinion of Baghdadis onto the whole country?

Where's that? Different invasions have led to different places.

Nothing, really. In 1945 America took over western Europe. The Marshall Plan allowed our leaders' friends to stuff their pockets, but had the happy side effect of aiding the rebirth of a continent. It may be ambitious to expect the outcome in Iraq to be as quantitively successful, but why not qualitatively?

I think you've got Mohammed Atta and his mates to thank for that, not the current war. America goes to war every five minutes. Why would this one encourage more authoritarianism than usual?

2-12-04 9:49pm (new)
quote : comics : pm : info

Stripcreator » Fights Go Here » Did someone mention politics?


reload page with comics

Jump to:

Post A Reply


stripcreator
Make a comic
Your comics
Log in
Create account
Forums
Help
comics
Random Comic
Comic Contests
Sets
All Comics
Search
featuring
diesel sweeties
jerkcity
exploding dog
goats
ko fight club
penny arcade
chopping block
also
Brad Sucks