Video of Iraqi Insurgent being interogatted

They don't need to do anything as long as they have friends like you who are willing to post photoshopped slanders, now do they?

If you are going to quote Rumsfield you ought to at least acknowledge it.

I was talking about the photoshopped picture. Cindy didn't post that, you did. Anyway, I see nothing wrong with the quote. It may be a bit of an overstatement, but it has some truth in it.edit: And by the way, your caption is offensive and really doesn't belong on this discussion thread. Just because this is the Coffee House doesn't mean anything goes.This message has been edited by deerbreh, 08-23-2005 11:00 AM

Offensive signature lines don't belong on any threads. What would Jesus do?

Real mature of you. Actually he didn't. Mostly just the scribes and Pharisees ad the money changers who were defiling the temple. He was certainly never offensive just to be offensive, which is how I see your behavior. And by the way, I am not gay. One doesn't have to be gay to be offended by homophobic rhetoric.This message has been edited by deerbreh, 08-23-2005 01:20 PM

What is your evidence for this assertion? Irrelevant. Bush was CIC with access to more intelligence than anyone else, including intelligence questioning the conventional wisdom of WMD in Iraq. He was responsible, he is accountable. Bush should have been asking the CIA, "How do you know this is true? What are the chances you are wrong?" I think he didn't ask because he didn't want to know. He wanted to uwe WMD as a reason for war, whether he had good evidence for it or not. Remember the "yellow cake", "aluminum centrifuge tubes", "reconstituted nuclear weapons program","drone capable of reaching the United States", "mobile biological labs", etc., etc.? Such as? The main reason given was WMD. Another reason given was Iraq connection to 9-11 and Al Quaeda. There is zero credible evidence for that one either (Chalabi is not credible). I don't remember any other reasons being given until the WMDs failed to show up. Then Bush started talking about getting rid of dictators and spreading democracy. That is what I remember. Can you honestly say it was otherwise?

Who posted it in your post? The evolutionist? Who typed it into your signature line? The evolutionist? What happened to personal responsibility? Jesus was way tougher on hypocrites than mere sinners.This message has been edited by deerbreh, 08-23-2005 02:23 PM

Being luke warm has nothing to do with being offensive. By your responses here it appears to me that you are being offensive just to be offensive. There is a difference between offending people because you are doing the right thing and offending people because you are just being a jerk. (I am not calling you that but you run the risk of people thinking that if you "don't care" if you offend people). Being offensive does not equate to doing the right thing is what I am saying.

It is one thing to think something is wrong and express it and one thing to hold up an argument to ridicule. It is quite another to go out of your way to offend people for your own amusement and quite unChristian. If you really are a Christian, you want your words and deeds to be a witness for Christ, not be so offensive you give Christians a bad name. Your ridicule is quite misplaced anyway, as gene switches are well documented in the genetic literature. Here is one link.Study Throws New Light On How Gene Switches Operate So not only did you hold up to ridicule a legitimate argument because of your lack of knowledge of basic genetics, but you also rendered the argument offensive with sophomoric editing in order to have an (in your mind) amusing signature line.

I am not surprised that you think this but:(1) There is no such thing as Christian Law. There is Jewish Law which is part of the Christian Bible but that is not quite the same thing.(2) The U.S. democracy is not based on Christianity or Jewish Law. The preamble of the Constitution does refer to a creator - that is a long shot from being "Christian." It could just as well be the "Great Spirit" of the Native Americans, the Yahweh of the Hebrews, the God of the Christians, OR the Allah of Islam. Nowhere in any of the founding documents is there any indication that Christianity is a basis for the United States. In fact, the Constitution prohibits the establishment of any state religion. That includes Christianity, as it is a religion.

I didn't bring up the question of your signature line in this instance - I responded to your post where you discussed the basis for it. Pot kettle black and all that.

And I did what I thought was the courteous thing and voiced my objections to you rather than asking an administrator to decide whether it violated the rules. How do you suggest in the future I call you on something without responding to one of your posts? Or do you think I have no right to object to something which I find offensive? Why don't you just do the right thing and remove the offending line?

Well my memory of Vietnam is less vague than yours so I guess I show my age also. And one of the things I distinctly remember is all of the "progress" that was being made right up to the 68 Tet offensive. After that we didn't hear about the "progress" anymore. I am not clairvoyent, I don't know whether there will be a "Tet" in Iraq. But I do know that what comes out of Rumsfield is chillingly similar to what came out of McNamara and that what comes out of Bush is chillingly similar to what came out of LBJ. No they are not the same place/situation. But they are similar enough to scare me.

Being the lone superpower does not justify abusing our power by acting as the world bully. If fact it behooves us to use our power wisely or we will lose respect. We can afford to not be loved in the world, we cannot afford to not be respected. The world will not respect a superpower who engages in foolish uses of power just because we can. Furthermore, being a superpower is not the same as being all powerful. Vietnam should have taught us that. It wasn't another superpower that defeated us in Vietnam. It was our own hubris in intervening in a civil war. Unfortunately our leaders are repeating many of the Vietnam mistakes in Iraq. Too bad for us, Iraq, and the world. NO one wins except the terrorists. Do you seriously think the terrorists were sorry that we invaded Iraq or that they would be happy to see us leave?This message has been edited by deerbreh, 08-29-2005 12:21 PM

Yes.1) Not being truthful to the American people about the reason for the war, not being truthful about the progress of the war, not being truthful about what constitutes "victory".2) Mistaking body counts of enemy dead for progress without accounting for how many enemy/potential enemy actually exist.3) Mistaking territory held for progress when fighting insurgents.4) Little understanding of the enemy, where their support is coming from, and how many enemy actually exist as well as how many supporters the enemy has in country as well as in surrounding countries.5) No plan for victory and really no idea of what constitutes victory.6) Civilian and military leadership not listening to commanders on the ground.7) Meaningless talk about "democracy" while supporting leaders who are anything but democrats.8) Not recognizing the civil war aspects of the conflict.9) Not recognizing that we are an occupying army and that we will always be viewed as such as long as we are there.10) No viable plan for training an Iraqi army and police force. It does no good to train people and in fact does harm if we don't know whether they are with us or with the insurgents.