REX PLEASE DO NOT PUT WORDS INTO QUOTES WHICH I DID NOT SAY. holy jeebus you are dishonest. do you even know what quotes are? do you know what point of quoting someone is? you dont make up quotes for people of what you hoped they said and then argue with that. man, that is irresponsible.
Are you really that daft? It's a paraphrase that summarizes your statements. Anyone who reads this thread would know exactly what it is, and how exactly it captures what you've stated. LISTEN UP, WORLD. IT WAS NOT AN EXACT QUOTE. IT WAS A PARAPHRASE, WHICH ARE TYPICALLY BOUND IN QUOTES. LISTEN UP, WORLD. THE PARAPHRASE SUMMARIZES QUITE ACCURATELY WHAT MARTIN HAS STATED IN THIS THREAD. Feel better now? The point of the post is not affected. Below is an exact quote. There was nothing dishonest about my paraphrase. But, once again, trapped by his argument martin changes to something else... this time arguing about punctuation. Rex: "So, martin, you're in favor of a war that is not critical to our freedom, that has cost us 1594 soldiers' lives, 15000 serious injuries, 30000 Iraqi lives and many times that in injuries, and $300 billion dollars on top of an already record high deficit." martin: "i'ts not critical to my freedom, but over the long run it is great. yunno for our kids and the world at large, spreading democracy is huge."
No. Quotation marks are used to signify verbatim repetition. If you are paraphrasing, you should so state. To quote you: "Are you reallly that daft?" To paraphrase you: martin is daft.
thats what i thought, you actually do not understand what quotes are for. sabanfan does. when you are "quoting" something. it is not the same as paraphrasing them. it specifically means you are not paraphrasing them. quotes are never used to paraphrase, unless you are quoting yourself, paraphrasing them, which is always explicitly stated. the difference between what i said and what you made up for me is significant. "my freedom" is referring to literally me, not the world, not our children, not the rest of human history. it means me, for the next 50 years that i am alive. and specifically i was discussing my political freedom to live in a democracy, as i was discussing how people who do not have political freedom and live in dictatorships should fight. so i was referring to the fact that i do not need to pick up a gun and fight for my freedom to live in a democracy as opposed to a dictatorship, which i said quite specifically. but you took me out of context and made up a fake quote to suit your purposes. the war in iraq is important mostly because of the long term spread of democracy and freedom is the long term solution to terrorism and war in general. this means for the world, for history. also, the credibility of the US as a country that keeps a deal like the 1991 cease fire is important for the long term. this is what i have always said, and many people say this, including politicians who are pro war. in fact it was pro-war republican congressman christopher shays who reminded me to think of it this way. idiots love to clam the war was about one single thing, WMD, and was sold to the world as such. that just isnt true. and again, if you are claiming i am changing my argument when i am "trapped", i would love to see an example, with my actual words. if there is one thing i am, it is consistent. wrong occasionally, but i never squirm around with my opinion.
Martin, if the war in Iraq is important for the spread of democracy and freedom....I am still not understanding how the first War doesn't garner your support then. Are you saying the spread of democracy and freedom because we got involved in the first war? If so....I get your point. If not, I don't see how you say its important for freedom of democracy. The bottom line is that Saddam was going to take over Kuwait and take away their so-called "freedom" and "democracy" (Yes, I know they are a Nominal Constitutional Monarchy but they have a lot more freedom then other countries) and install his type of government on them which you see was horrible in Iraq. So...if you are worried about spreading democracy and freedom....how does the first war not get your support? I know you have mentioned you didnt care about Kuwait fighters and such....I understand that....but you keep saying this current war is needed to fight the spread of democracy and such.....well the first war was about that as well. I see where your going for most of your argument dealing with countries needing to fight for themselves then you mention the spread of democracy and that leaves me a bit puzzled.
Did the United States install a democracy in Kuwait after the Persian Gulf war ? I don't think so... therefore it was just protecting a small oil producing country while giving us leverage to install military bases in the middle east. If martin say's he agrees with the spread of democracy through war, but doesnt agree with the Persian Gulf war, then he is being accurate.
i understand what you mean. the second war is vital as a continuation of the first war. you cannot end the first war with a cease fire and let the opponent not obey the cease fire, or your threats lose credibility and you are seen as a country that can be pushed around becaues they are afraid to fight. plus, our involvement in the first war made our involvement in the second war more necessary because it made us more of a target for terrorism. once we got involved in that war, as well as our decades of support for israel, we were knee deep in the whole arabs vs jews and christians crap. we made ourselves a target. and once we were a target and we made enemies, we had to change our philosophy. i actually believe that had we never been involved in any way supporting israel or doing anything at all in the middle east, we would not have had sept 11. but we did, and sept 11 happened and it is too late for us to not be involved. we are in it, and it is time to start killing. now the whole damn situation is spinning out of control, with us right in the middle and the only thing that can solve it is spreading democracy. i would have been happy for us to just carry on while the middle east slaughters itself, but we got in there and helped stir up trouble. what we were doing was good-intentioned, no doubt, but mistake. we are not the world's policeman. or at least we did not have to be, now we are. i know you are a military guy, so you are the guy doing all the work. my brother in law is a military guy too. he used to be a ranger, then a commander of bradley vehicle platoons, now intelligence. he is about 33 years old and he has already fought in bosnia, iraq, and afghanistan twice. he is always doing something. my dad is a retired major. both my grandfathers are retired officers (and their fathers too, and theirs). my brother in law has more combat time than my dad and my grandfathers combined. that rough, and i think we should have slowed down with the policing the world stuff a bit after vietnam. its too much.
We stopped a man who ran his country through torture and rape from turning a nearbye country into his own thus stopping his hidious rule from extending anywhere else. Kuwait may not run their country the best way but it also doesn't use Iraq's methods which most people see were plain terrible. I don't doubt many countries have horrible rulers so I can't answer any question as to why we don't stop those rulers but I can say that stopping Saddam from invading Iraq was quite a good thing, imo for the rest of the world. Letting Saddam have more power, especially more Oil would have been hell on other countries.
Thats understandable. I actually don't really disagree with you on some of your issues but that democracy one kept bothering me. To each his own.
