100,000 Iraqi Widows

[Mr. Snakey]

Who bombed who first? I think the world trade centers and the pentagon was bombed by our enemies and killed more then 3000 people. Quit bashing people,not nice. You fuss about us being n Iraq but in the same breath YOU want us to get involve in Sudan as if we are the world's police force..Wake up.

Not fusing about us being in Iraq. I'm glad we are there. Not bashing anyone. I am just relating to some bad things going on in the world. There are no easy answers here.

 

[Bbucko]

So, your linkless OP was not about what your title screamed. I am proven right, you are proven little more than a Charlatan.

The OP should have linked his points, which I pointed out earlier in this thread.

There are many words you could have chosen to describe his lack of links, the emotionalism and redundancy which characterizes the OP. However, "charlatan" isn't one of them.

Charlatan is a synonym for "swindler"; though the OP discusses money more than genocide (as the thread title would otherwise suggest), at no point is he asking for or requesting money from anyone personally for anything. In fact, he decries the money spent in ways that he considers ill-advised.

From Wikipedia:

A charlatan (also called swindler or mountebank) is a person practising quackery or some similar confidence trick in order to obtain money, fame or other advantages via some form of pretence or deception.
The word comes from French charlatan, a seller of medicines who might advertise his presence with music and an outdoor stage show. The best known of the Parisian charlatans was Tabarin, who set up a stage in the Place Dauphin, Paris in 1618, and whose commedia dell'arte inspired skits and whose farces inspired Molière. Ultimately, etymologists trace "charlatan" from either the Italian ciarlare, to prattle; or from Cerretano, a resident of Cerreto, a village in Umbria, known for its quacks.[1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlatan#cite_note-0
...

In usage, a subtle difference is drawn between the charlatan and other kinds of confidence people. The charlatan is usually a salesperson. He does not try to create a personal relationship with his marks, or set up an elaborate hoax using roleplaying. Rather, the person called a charlatan is being accused of resorting to quackery, pseudoscience, or some knowingly employed bogus means of impressing people in order to swindle his victims by selling them worthless nostrums and similar goods or services that will not deliver on the promises made for them. The word calls forth the image of an old-time medicine show operator, who has long left town by the time the people who bought his snake oil tonic realize that it does not perform as advertised.

I have no idea why you would use such a word to describe arkfarmbear in general or his OP in particular. If you were reaching through your (extensive) vocabulary for an unkind word or phrase, "Polemic/Polemicist", "Hysterical" or "Over-Emotional" would have been a better fit.

Personally, I found it to be passionate and written off-the-cuff by someone who does not write for either pleasure or financial gain: but that's just me, right?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlatan#cite_note-0

 

[arkfarmbear]

Who bombed who first? I think the world trade centers and the pentagon was bombed by our enemies and killed more then 3000 people. Quit bashing people,not nice. You fuss about us being n Iraq but in the same breath YOU want us to get involve in Sudan as if we are the world's police force..Wake up.

I think most if not all of the terrorists were Saudi Arabian. Why didn't we invade and bomb Saudi Arabia? Feel free to point out if I am incorrect.
I don't remember there being evidence of Iraq having Al Queda ties until after the Bush/Cheney Regime made a huge fucking mess and Al Queda used that as an enticement to other Arabians to join their cause.
Since the Bush/Cheney Regime had turned the country into a free-for-all, it was very easy for them to move in and establish themselves in Iraq. This occurred after "Mission Accomplished". Makes a cynic wonder if Bush actually spoke the truth? The joke was on us!

 

[Northland]

The OP should have linked his points, which I pointed out earlier in this thread.

There are many words you could have chosen to describe his lack of links, the emotionalism and redundancy which characterizes the OP. However, "charlatan" isn't one of them.

Charlatan is a synonym for "swindler"; though the OP discusses money more than genocide (as the thread title would otherwise suggest), at no point is he asking for or requesting money from anyone personally for anything. In fact, he decries the money spent in ways that he considers ill-advised.

From Wikipedia:




I have no idea why you would use such a word to describe arkfarmbear in general or his OP in particular. If you were reaching through your (extensive) vocabulary for an unkind word or phrase, "Polemic/Polemicist", "Hysterical" or "Over-Emotional" would have been a better fit.

Personally, I found it to be passionate and written off-the-cuff by someone who does not write for either pleasure or financial gain: but that's just me, right?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlatan#cite_note-0

My choice of the word Charlatan, was, as far as I am concerned correct. You see, I felt that by using a misleading thread title, I was swindled. I was cheated out of a proper discussion of a topic which, had it been the desire of the OP (arkfarmbear) to speak on, would have perhaps been interesting, and could have led to a lively exchange of thoughts.

That, added to arkfarmbear, addressing more than a half dozen topics, albeit related (some more than others) made the opening post come across as little more than another of the Let's bash the Bush Presidency Once More thread- in fact his first sentence was:

"Well folks, we have one more bit of news about the endless tragedies caused by the Bush/Cheney Regime's invasion of Iraq."

He then chose to immediately insult any who did not agree with him. Consider my regarding him as another idiot emerging, as response to his second sentence:

"For those who are going to blast me and make ignorant comments about why we shouldn't give a shit, well, we should:"

He made clear at the outset that a person is ignorant if they make comments about not caring. (At no time by the way did I say I didn't care about any of the issues presented.)



Might it have seemed less than that, had links been provided? Hard to say.

Was it passionate? Not really. Off the cuff? Perhaps.


I don't like to get into threads on Iraq on this site, because they all- and I do mean all, drift inevitably into how bad the Presidents Bush (1 and 2) were and Cheney as well. Okay, they all sucked. Guess what? Presidents for several decades, Democrat and Republican, have played with the lives of Iraqis. It was The United States of America (a Nation I truly love) which placed Saddam Hussein in power. Now it's another sect which they've deemed fit to rule my birthland.

In the Clinton years, shortly after President Clinton took office, bombing of Iraq took place-1993 (Iraq had violated terms of the peace treaty which ended the Gulf War). A few years later, under President Clinton, Operation Desert Fox (with help from The United Kingdom) began bombing of Iraq (December 1998) and continued to destroy throughout 1999. I mention these times, as reference to others than just the two men named Bush, having been part of the continued disaster. Again, arkfarmbear at the start blames the Bush/Cheney regime, I am making clear others were also instrumental in the destruction. By placing all the blame on Bush and Cheney, arkfarmbear has been less than honest in his presentation. Not necessarily his fault as the events of the past are rarely unveiled as new atrocities come to be.

Although I was not thrilled by the means and faulty reasoning with which The United States chose to go back into Iraq, I am grateful that they did. It is one of the few times that The United States has tried to rectify a disaster which they created (Iraqis are still waiting for the British to make restitution for all they destroyed). I've stated in the past, what most Iraqis want, is to have no foreign interference. No troops from other Nations deciding how things should be done. Let Iraq take care of Iraq.