Player dissing the flag

[Bartram]

Originally posted by Robber
Bartram,

I'll forever pull for our troops to be victorious, but I'm not in favor of this cause. As long as they are risking life and limb, I want them to kick butt. Don't mean I gotta agree with it.

Ok, at least that's good to know. I have nothing to say about disagreement. We agree to separate the cause from the military success.

Now answer me this, what's so important that the U.S. gotta go against the U.N. and make this war???

1. The UN is influenced by elements (France, Russia, Germany) that are no different than the U.S. in that it is in their interest for there NOT to be a war in Iraq(while the U.S. interest is in crushing a threat and redirecting oil revenue to less dastardly purposes).
2. The U.S. knows this, that the UN is a body controlled by a single entity that may want to block UN sanctioned action, reguardless of rather their blocking UN action is legit or not.
3. There is concern about chemical and biological weapons being used in the future by terrorists. Terrorists can't produce nukes on their own yet. Some countries hostile to the US can and the US is affraid of those countries working with terrorists(especially Iraq) to strike a blow upon the U.S. Terrorists can produce bios and chems to an extent probably,, but don't have access to some of the bios and chems that Iraq got access to over the decades. What's important for the U.S./Bush admin is keeping this potential at bay as long as possible and not being pointed to as not having done something when they could have when there is another terrorist attack in the future.
   [/list=1]
   
   Now you answer me this; why is it that there is so much scrutiny on the U.S. and so little scrutiny on Saddam and Iraq? Would it be as much scrutiny if Al Gore was in office and pursuing Saddam/Iraq?

 

[bluedog]

Originally posted by Robber
But I ain't for playing big brother for every little country out there that can't defend itself.

Yeah what he said...besides you ain't believe that yourself :smh:

 

[Bartram]

Interesting Angle.

Originally posted by Lewis
Here is another point of view (forget that damn girl for a minute). WHAT IF BUSH REALLY DOESN'T WANT TO FIGHT. Now stop and think about it for a minute. If he let Saddam think that he would not fight, Saddam would not do a damn thing that he agreed to. Saddam would spit in our face every chance he got and openly defy us at every chance. You know how it is in the hood, you don't mess with crazy n*ggers that will fight a the drop of a hat. So BUSH's best strategy even if he doesn't really want to fight is to make SADDAM think so and the he don't give a damn what anyone else thinks. AND BUSH HAS DONE A GREAT JOB OF THAT. Saddam is giving up stuff he ain't never gave up before, and bush ain't passed nair lick yet. He may have everyone fooled. Maybe BUSH aint quite as dumb as we think ( don't get me wrong, I am not saying he ain't dumb)

I would add to this by saying, to all of you (esp this basketball player) that feel the military is not necessary/useful, if the U.S. didn't posses the "big stick", this bluff supposition wouldn't even be possible! Just like during the Cuban missile crisis and even during the cold war years,,,, the "deterant" was mutually assured destruction or knowing that you couldn't attack the U.S. without massive retalliation,,, which gave foes of the U.S. pause. Also, the U.S. didn't look for a fight with Russia either because they also had a big stick. Nobody knew who had the biggest stick,,, which opened things up to situations like the Cuban missile crisis.

Also,,, one thing that Lewis alludes to here that nobody will openly say is that the world simply doesn't work on all this bull$hit nice-nice crap. The world works on the same principle as the animal kingdom. The lion rules because it can kick the hyiena's a$$,,, but that don't mean the hyiena can't gang up on a lone lion and kick its a$$ every now and then. This is why adult male lions kill hyiena on sight and adult hyiena kill baby lions on sight even if they don't pose an immediate threat; they could in the future, but that threat can be eliminated if you kill them while they are little or no big risk to engage,, not for food (except for the hyiena that is a scavenger),, but simply to eliminate a threat.

The bottom line is, in nature, you better be the biggest baddest smartest quickest or whatever SOB so that you will be on top of the food chain. Works the same way in world affairs. If you got the big stick, you dictate to those that don't, otherwise you are at the mercy of those who have the big stick and use it effectively.

 

[bluedog]

Re: Interesting Angle.

Originally posted by Bartram
I would add to this by saying, to all of you (esp this basketball player) that feel the military is not necessary/useful

Don't even try to flip the script....its starting to sink in that bighead what we're saying huh?

 

[Bartram]

Re: Re: Interesting Angle.

Originally posted by bluedog


Don't even try to flip the script....its starting to sink in that bighead what we're saying huh?

don't talk about "flippin the script" when you default to the name calling card. Other than that,,, I don't see where you addressed my responses to your questions. Why is that?

To your question, nothing to "sink in" here. I see the situation clearly for what it is. I simply wonder why yall see it the way you do. I'd say it's years of conditioning. Lastly,,, in a previous reply I questioned the wisdom of the "favorite quotes" of this basketball player,,, specifically her comments on schools verses the military which I thought was totally ill advised and mis-informed. If it wasn't for the very military which she wishes "would have to have a bake sale to buy a bomber", her arse wouldn't be able to protest and all that,,, is the bottom line.

 

[bluedog]

Re: Re: Re: Interesting Angle.

Originally posted by Bartram


don't talk about "flippin the script" when you default to the name calling card. Other than that,,, I don't see where you addressed my responses to your questions. Why is that?

To your question, nothing to "sink in" here. I see the situation clearly for what it is. I simply wonder why yall see it the way you do. I'd say it's years of conditioning. Lastly,,, in a previous reply I questioned the wisdom of the "favorite quotes" of this basketball player,,, specifically her comments on schools verses the military which I thought was totally ill advised and mis-informed. If it wasn't for the very military which she wishes "would have to have a bake sale to buy a bomber", her arse wouldn't be able to protest and all that,,, is the bottom line.

Man go listen to a B-ball game or something ,your just bored.
I don't know about you but its saturday and my lady Jags already kicked sum butt,now the mens about to make somebody cry.

 

[bluedog]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Interesting Angle.

Originally posted by bluedog


Man go listen to a B-ball game or something ,your just bored.
I don't know about you but its saturday and my lady Jags already kicked sum butt,now the mens about to make somebody cry.

Im not going to even mention what the baseball team did,thats automatic.

 

[Bartram]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Interesting Angle.

Originally posted by bluedog


Man go listen to a B-ball game or something ,your just bored.
I don't know about you but its saturday and my lady Jags already kicked sum butt,now the mens about to make somebody cry.

nah bluedog,, don't even try it. like I said, you started this whole thing! I JUST WANTED TO KNOW IF DA YOUNG LADY WAS BLACK but noooooooo,, you had to nit-pick the verbage of mu subject! :topic:

 

[bluedog]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Interesting Angle.

Originally posted by Bartram


nah bluedog,, don't even try it. like I said, you started this whole thing! I JUST WANTED TO KNOW IF DA YOUNG LADY WAS BLACK but noooooooo,, you had to nit-pick the verbage of mu subject! :topic:

Now i'd of give a tuskegee man more credit then this :smh: :smh:
Be accountable dude
<Embed src="http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/Maze/3101/foxxbmg.au"><---------PRESS PLAY

 

[Robber]

Originally posted by Bartram

Now you answer me this; why is it that there is so much scrutiny on the U.S. and so little scrutiny on Saddam and Iraq? Would it be as much scrutiny if Al Gore was in office and pursuing Saddam/Iraq?

I'd be saying the same thing if Gore, Clinton or any other Dem was president. I don't agree with this type mess. And I don't scrutinize Saddam or Iraq because I don't live there. We got plenty of problems and issues right here to deal with, rather than him and Iraq.

 

[unknown]

Originally posted by Robber

We got plenty of problems and issues right here to deal with, rather than him and Iraq.

But Robber, they'd rather go attack Iraq, waste trillions of dollars, further damage our already hobbling economy, to help liberate Iraq. That makes sense doesn't it?