sakabatou
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Aug-12-06 05:45 PM
Original message |
Help me debunk these two phrases |
|
"We are not in Iraq for oil." and "We are fighting them over there so that we don't have to fight them here."
I'd also be great if someone could point me to soundbites of these phrases or phrases like these.
|
NMDemDist2
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Aug-12-06 05:49 PM
Response to Original message |
1. i'd rather fight them here and be able to carry my purse on a plane |
|
but that's just me :shrug:
|
pooja
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Aug-12-06 05:51 PM
Response to Original message |
2. On your #2... this weeks advents with the airlines show that |
|
fighting them over there isn't exactly working, seeing how the plan was being plotted right in jolly good England and was targeted for American airlines. #1 is a little bit harder, but pull up a map of Iraq.. (there was one a couple of weeks ago on du) that show the pipelines--then show where the US military base camps are aligned.. right along the pipe line. That shows a little bit of clarity.
|
Redstone
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Aug-12-06 05:54 PM
Response to Original message |
3. 1) "Then what the fuck ARE we there for?" |
|
2) "Good. Go fight them over there, then. What are you waiting for?"
Redstone
|
JHB
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Aug-12-06 05:57 PM
Response to Original message |
4. The problem with the first one... |
|
...is that they probably will just dismiss anything you say to debunk it. That's my experience.
|
tocqueville
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Aug-12-06 06:50 PM
Response to Reply #4 |
14. Then say : "Not for oil? you sure ? then what's the point ?" |
|
then add... "Jeesh and I thought I could trust the President on that one. I am very disappointed."
|
mcscajun
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Aug-12-06 05:59 PM
Response to Original message |
5. 1) Then why aren't we in North Korea? Kim Jong-il is more dangerous |
|
Edited on Sat Aug-12-06 06:00 PM by mcscajun
than Hussein ever was. 2) What's the "we" shit, buddy? I'm not fighting anyone over there; when are YOU leaving for Iraq?
Oh, and this one from another DUer: "If invading Iraq has made us safer, then why is it that nearly four years after the war, we cannot take a bottle of water onto a plane?"
|
unblock
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Aug-12-06 06:05 PM
Response to Original message |
6. "HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!" |
|
it's an underused, but truly effective retort.
try it!
|
madokie
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Aug-12-06 06:35 PM
Response to Reply #6 |
12. a good belly laugh will do wonders for all |
never_get_over_it
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Aug-12-06 06:11 PM
Response to Original message |
theanarch
(523 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Aug-12-06 06:23 PM
Response to Original message |
|
#1: we're in Iraq not only for the oil, but to transfer tens of billions of taxpayer dollars into the bank accounts and stock portfolios of GOP-contributor businesses failing to reconstruct the country we gratuitously bombed back into the stone age; to re-elect Republicans; and for Junior to act out his Texas-sized Oepedial complex vis a vis Poppy.
#2: we went over there to fight them, to spare them the trouble of coming over here to fight us (although, one should note, if they DID come over here to fight us, we might have a slightly better chance of beating them--homefield advantage and all that).
As for sound-bites: The War on Terror: making enemies faster than we can kill them. Or, The War on Terror: winning Muslim hearts and Arab minds one atrocity at a time.
|
sakabatou
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Aug-12-06 06:34 PM
Response to Reply #8 |
10. I'm talking websites where I can find the soundbites |
Lindacooks
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Aug-12-06 06:27 PM
Response to Original message |
9. For the second one, that assumes that the 'enemy' |
|
is going to STAY over there - and of course that is a false presumption.
Oh, and who exactly is this 'we'? I doubt very much that the person who said that to you hasn't fought a day in his/her life.
|
ThomWV
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Aug-12-06 06:35 PM
Response to Original message |
|
As for Number one, about all one can do is shrug their shoulders. Of course we're there because of the oil, but not to take the oil. We are there to keep that oil on the market, available for US or someone else's consumption.
Number 2 is different and here's your answer for you. Simply ask the question, "Who do you mean by 'them' in that phrase?"
You see that is where it fails. Just who is it we are supposed to be fighting over there rather than here? Its not the Suni or Shia, they were never intent on comming here to do is harm. Its not Sadam, his ass is in jail. Its not Ossama, he's in Afghanastan. Its not the guys the British arrest from time to time, they are being taken care of in Britian by the British.
|
Monkeyman
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Aug-12-06 06:42 PM
Response to Original message |
13. We are fight them there to make Cheney Rich |
sweetheart
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Aug-12-06 06:50 PM
Response to Original message |
15. they will move over here |
|
so we can move over there.
Its us against them, the grass is greener, for both of uz, time for a country-swap.
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Fri Apr 26th 2024, 01:51 AM
Response to Original message |