Author Topic: Ark. Senator Says "Iraq WOULD BE BETTER OFF WITH SADDAM IN POWER" (Read 1046 times)

Mini D · « **Reply #45 on:** September 10, 2006, 10:34:57 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Gunslinger
I thought it was in the title of the article itself but if you exclude that it was here:

Actually... putting quotes around something makes it "a quote". You may also notice that the portion you quoted was not in quotes in the article. That means he didn't say that either. What it means is the author of the article put two things together to get that and then presented as a single coherant thought... of which you seem to be fully accepting.

The title of the thread is wrong. The person being quoted did not say that. The need to modify an exerpt from the article and surround it with quotes pretty much implies that the thread starter needed a little more fuel than the article had in it. Nothing like making alot out of very little.

Q: Should we have gone into Iraq?
A: No

Look at that Q&A and tell me how it could mean anything other than what you "quoted".

Lye-El · « **Reply #46 on:** September 11, 2006, 05:46:39 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by lazs2
so what some of you are saying is that the iraqi people are hopless..

That they are ignorant, murdering religious nutjob whackos that can never be helped and are better off with an iron fisted tyrant who only murders a hundred thousand of em every year or so?

I am beginning to think, maybe, yes. If one helps someone who does not want it, is it help? Yelling God is Great while killing people pretty much defines wacko. Not religious piety.

But I also have no stocks in the military/industrial complex or Haliburton and such. If I was making money off these wars perhaps I would have a different viewpoint. I know somebody has to be making a killing off the government (tax) money spent on the war.

If the government had spent that much money on health care instead of blowing stuff up the U.S.A. would have been better off and we would have more troops and bombs to blow stuff up in Afganistan.

Before this gets settled one way or the other, we will probably be fighting the Iran theocracy.

Masherbrum · « **Reply #47 on:** September 11, 2006, 05:58:40 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Mini D
Actually... putting quotes around something makes it "a quote". You may also notice that the portion you quoted was not in quotes in the article. That means he didn't say that either. What it means is the author of the article put two things together to get that and then presented as a single coherant thought... of which you seem to be fully accepting.

The title of the thread is wrong. The person being quoted did not say that. The need to modify an exerpt from the article and surround it with quotes pretty much implies that the thread starter needed a little more fuel than the article had in it. Nothing like making alot out of very little.

Q: Should we have gone into Iraq?
A: No

Look at that Q&A and tell me how it could mean anything other than what you "quoted".

Agree on all counts.

bj229r · « **Reply #48 on:** September 11, 2006, 07:19:48 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Mini D
I did not see "Iraq WOULD BE BETTER OFF WITH SADDAM IN POWER" anywhere in that article.

This is getting all too typical these days.

You're right, it isn't there--and I just noticed, CBS reporters apparently aren't real familiar with geography, OR our government--- it's not JOHN Rockefeller from Arkansas, (the 2 senators from Ark are Pryor and Lincoln), but JAY Rockefeller from West Virginia

He doesn't say it there, but he DOES say it here:link (I'm dialup, so I have to assume that's an audio or video link nested in there)

FUNKED1 · « **Reply #49 on:** September 11, 2006, 11:23:57 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Neubob
That 300 billion would have been better off in the hands of R and D departments of 100 high-tech firms so that in another decade, we can finally end our dependance on the Arab world and let them shrivel back into the sands from which they arose.

I'd prefer the $300B just be back in the hands of the taxpayers, but your idea is decent. Hell just about anything would have been better than what the government chose to do with it.

lukster · « **Reply #50 on:** September 11, 2006, 11:31:20 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Lye-El
Before this gets settled one way or the other, we will probably be fighting the Iran theocracy.

Unlike Vietnam, we can't just walk away from the middle east. So, should the Iraqi democracy fail and an Iranian theocracy take it's place there will be plenty of dissidents in the area including in Iran itself willing to make a lot of noise. Especially with US support. What goes around comes around.

lazs2 · « **Reply #51 on:** September 12, 2006, 09:00:14 AM »

Ok... I hate taxes.

I also don't believe that any government has the right to take away any of it's citizens human rights.

I believe that we as humans should help anyone who is under the yolk of such a government.

I also beleive the no government is free of this kind of behavior. I believe we can work on our own flaws and... work on some of the worst areas at the same time.

Every human should be against tyranny and no human should live under it... any human should be prepared to sacrafice his life to get away from it.

life under tyranny is no life at all.

Saintaw · « **Reply #52 on:** September 12, 2006, 10:09:49 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by DiabloTX
They have to find something to look up to given their utterly pathetic history.

And you would compare it to... yours?

heh.