Member
|
quote: Originally posted by n1dp:
Some people don't get it.
This photo has nothing to do with politics and everything to do with "Honor, Respect, and Devotion To Duty."
 Wrong service, dude. That guy's a Marine. |
| |
|
Experienced Member
|
quote: Originally posted by KensRMA89:
[QUOTE]Do you think people like me are going to ignore that? What are you really doing in the anti-war movement? Is this all you got? Sitting around on your A$$ all day responding to threads and making a fool out of yourself. If this war really bothers you then get out there and do something about it. You can start by creating a thread called "Bush Hating Anti-War Movement" and ***** about it all you want. Don't do it here, it's not the place and nobody cares to listen. I'm out...
It's always a mistake to ask me to bow out of someplace I have a right to be. In this case, my agenda is to needle and skewer the Pro-War/Pro-Bush/Pro-Death and Dismemberment Is Good For Us Movement ... uh, that'd be you. I think this thread has traveled a bit off track by now ... presumptively, I thought it was all about what message the picture spoke to each of us. I gave you an alternative opinion of the message. You had a number of choices ... (a) you could ignore it ... (b) you could chalk it up to morbid humor (c) you could agree with me that perhaps there's a "support the troops, not the war" message or, your choice, (e) foam at the mouth like mentos in pepsi, and spluttering a profoundly disjointed message of anger and misunderstanding. I tried to convey some clarity ... tried to close it out on a sensible note. You wanted to keep it alive. So go ahead and puff out your cyber-chest, and vaunt your cyber-courage. Do ya' FEEL better? You might try breathing thru your nose once in awhile ... I'm not in the "anti-war" movement ... I'm in the "counter-war" movement. But the war's over, and I'm with most everybody else ... we puked on the floor and now we have to clean it up. That of itself makes every casualty so much more difficult to accept. So ... do me a favor, PAL, and prove you don't care to listen. Don't respond ... so I can find more lucid people to discuss this with. quote: “The report that the rate of suicide among veterans is double that of the general population is deeply troubling and simply unacceptable. I am especially concerned that so many young veterans appear to be taking their own lives. For too many veterans, returning home from battle does not bring an end to conflict. There is no question that action is needed."
Sen. Daniel Akaka, D-Hawaii
|
| |
|
Highly Experienced Member
|
quote: Originally posted by SociallyAutistic:
Boy, what a convoluted mess of a post ya' got there ... I don't know if I have the patience to wade thru such ridiculousness ...
* "Should the fact that at the time we went in there he wasn't invading small countries or killing hundreds of people for no apparent reason make it a wrong decision?"
YES, IT WAS A WRONG DECISION. 70% OF AMERICANS ALSO THINK SO.
* "We should have taken his A$$ out back when Bush's father was in office. It would have saved us taxpayers a ton of money!"
NO DISAGREEMENT THERE ... ANOTHER BAD MISJUDGEMENT BY A BUSH.
* "I could bullet a list of other reasons we snuffed him out that didn't make the front page of the paper but I'll let you research that yourself."
YOU'RE INFERRING THAT YOU HAVE KNOWLEDGE NOT READILY AVAILABLE TO THE REMAINDER OF US. I THINK I'M PRETTY CONVERSANT ON THE RUN-UP TO THE INVASION; BUT I LIKE SURPRISES ... IF YOU HAVE ONE, LET'S HEAR IT.
* "I ask you to show me how the wars your father served in made all those lives worth losing. Do you remember what the hell we were doing in Vietnam? 50,000 lives in 10 years. Explain to some Vietnam vet that their brothers were killed for a good cause."
I CAN'T BEGIN TO JUSTIFY THE VIETNAM WAR ... HOW THAT CONFLICT BEGINS TO JUSTIFY THIS FRESH HELL IS INCONCEIVABLE TO ME. THE INCREDULOUS LOSS OF HUMANITY EXISTS IN THE 150,000 DEAD IRAQIS, AND OF COURSE, EVERY DROP OF AMERICAN BLOOD WASTED IN IRAQ. I REALIZE WE DID NOT KILL ALL THOSE IRAQIS, BUT WE WERE THE CATALYST FOR THE ETHNIC CONFLICT, AND THE DISPLACEMENT OF A MILLION PEOPLE FROM THEIR HOMES.
Listen, of the two of us, I'm pretty sure you're the one with the maligned thought-process. Being "around the block" has nothing to do with it. I don't question your life's experience ... but I question anyone who believes that the positive virtues of this war outweigh the negative repercussions.
Maybe you should contact your liberal representatives that voted for the war...and exclaimed outrage at Saddams actions and his WMD's...quote: Ya know, when somebody brings up comparisons of anybody to Hitler, ya know that emoting has taken hold, and sensibility has flown out the window.
Again, you should contact your liberal representives...the ones that used the Hitler and Pol Pot comparisons..after they voted for the war...quote: It's always a mistake to ask me to bow out of someplace I have a right to be.
How were you able to obtain those rights...without yourself ever having to do one thing to gain those rights? Could it be because someone lost a lost loved one, because someone went into a war and said, I stand here...? Or did you get those rights because somebody said, war is ugly and painful and not worth the effort? |
| |
|
Member
|
scrounge,
The problem with people like you is that you look at every armed conflict through the same looking glass. WWII is the same as Vietnam is the same as the Iraq War. You think that every single armed conflict the U.S. is involved in is all about protecting out rights. Allow me to let you in on a little secret: If the 2003 invasion of Iraq had not happened, our innate rights would still be the same. No evil bearded boogey men would have landed on our shores to make trouble, and if they did I'm sure the American people would have manned up, as we always do, and kicked them the hell out. Then we would have gone back to exercising our innate rights the same as before.
And don't try to sell us on the whole "we have to fight them in Iraq" argument. We were told that Iraq would easily welcome American "liberation". Oil money would pay for the war and a democracy would take root and pretty little flowers would bloom everywhere. The pro-war crowd bought this idea (sadly, I think most of us did). At that point the invasion was still about WMD. Fast forward a bit (to right around the time the president was making jokes about WMD not being found) to the when it became apparent that no WMD were going to be uncovered and that Islamic nut cases were filtering into the country. Then it became about fighting terror. See what I'm getting at? If everything had gone according to plan, there wouldn't be any terrorists in Iraq, so it wouldn't have been a front in the war on terror. You pro-war junkies contradict yourselves.
|
| |
|
Experienced Member
|
quote: Originally posted by SociallyAutistic:
...
* "Should the fact that at the time we went in there he wasn't invading small countries or killing hundreds of people for no apparent reason make it a wrong decision?"
YES, IT WAS A WRONG DECISION. 70% OF AMERICANS ALSO THINK SO.
* "We should have taken his A$$ out back when Bush's father was in office. It would have saved us taxpayers a ton of money!"
NO DISAGREEMENT THERE ... ANOTHER BAD MISJUDGEMENT BY A BUSH....
Listen, of the two of us, I'm pretty sure you're the one with the maligned thought-process. Being "around the block" has nothing to do with it. I don't question your life's experience ... but I question anyone who believes that the positive virtues of this war outweigh the negative repercussions.
Had we seen the same type of live time, negative media coverage in WWII, do you think the country would have had the same % of disapproval of the war? How do you think the country would have reacted to Normandy Invasion live at 11? It seems like from your side if your last name is Bush you will never do the right thing. You blame the father for going along with the U.N. and then condem the son for doing what you wanted the father to do. I think that it is too early to call the positive virtues/negative repercussions list complete. |
| |
|
Highly Experienced Member
|
quote: Originally posted by FourString:
scrounge,
The problem with people like you is that you look at every armed conflict through the same looking glass. WWII is the same as Vietnam is the same as the Iraq War. You think that every single armed conflict the U.S. is involved in is all about protecting out rights. Allow me to let you in on a little secret: If the 2003 invasion of Iraq had not happened, our innate rights would still be the same. No evil bearded boogey men would have landed on our shores to make trouble, and if they did I'm sure the American people would have manned up, as we always do, and kicked them the hell out. Then we would have gone back to exercising our innate rights the same as before.
And don't try to sell us on the whole "we have to fight them in Iraq" argument. We were told that Iraq would easily welcome American "liberation". Oil money would pay for the war and a democracy would take root and pretty little flowers would bloom everywhere. The pro-war crowd bought this idea (sadly, I think most of us did). At that point the invasion was still about WMD. Fast forward a bit (to right around the time the president was making jokes about WMD not being found) to the when it became apparent that no WMD were going to be uncovered and that Islamic nut cases were filtering into the country. Then it became about fighting terror. See what I'm getting at? If everything had gone according to plan, there wouldn't be any terrorists in Iraq, so it wouldn't have been a front in the war on terror. You pro-war junkies contradict yourselves.
I'm not the one that makes the claim all war is bad. Many of the anti-war zealots (Bush haters)keep making that claim. So I pointed out that without war, the right to speak out without government reprisal would not exist. This war is about sending a clear message to those that use terror to obtain their objectives. We stood up and said enough. We went to the UN and a unanimous resolution was passed...The UN chose to not enforce the resolution, so we did. Saddam had plenty of opportunity to avoid being removed. If everythiong always went as planned, we would not have had to endure D day...Because Hitler would have listened to those that said stop or we will stop you. If everything went as planned the battle of the bulge would never have happened, because operation market garden would have prevented it. Most of your above diatribe is the liberal interpretation of the war on terror. |
| |
|
CG Forums Moderator
Semi-Anonymous
|
As I said over in "The real deal on 9/11" thread here in Soapbox, and I think it is germane here as well: quote: Hooligan,
Appreciate the response. I don't disregard that the deaths and injuires of U.S. servicemembers AND Iraqi civilians and military are not tangible costs--they are quite tangible. As to tangible benefits, your comment above indicates to me that you perceive al-Qaida to be a threat if you note that they are gaining in strength. So again, whether we're prosecuting the conflict(s) correctly or not, it does NOT diminish the fact that al-Qaida and like-minded terrorists who fly planes into civilian buildings, cut off the heads of hostages (while complaining about cartoons), advocate the destruction of the West and the annihilation of Israel should require us to, in the words of Gen. Petraeus, "...have to kill, capture, or run off the enemy and sustain a security posture." (Source: Military Officer, Apr. 2008 issue, "Like a Rock," interview by Tom Philpott), pp. 55-61.)
To bring that down to a neighborhood level, if I have a neighbor (next-door or around the block or across the state line even!) who has attacked me and mine, and threatens to do me and mine harm, whether I defend or attack him effectively or ineffectively does not remove the fact that said "neighbor" wants to do harm to me and mine.
The tangible benefit is quite simple. I must prevent harm to me and mine.
Another way to see it, is two friends are walking along a road. A knife-wielding psycho jumps out and attacks one of the friends. The other friend tries to help minimize the tangible costs, and holds his friend's arms to prevent any escalation. The psycho, still intent on killing, does so even easier now that the "helpful" friend has intervened, meaning well, but with worse consequences.
So argue the prosecution of the war, and I'm with you if you think the how or where wasn't done effectively or aggressively enough and early enough to reduce the tangible costs. But costs will be levied and have to be borne by many to stop psycho terrorists.
sindbad sends
sindbad reiterates |
| |
|
Experienced Member
|
quote: I'm with you if you think the how or where wasn't done effectively or aggressively enough and early enough to reduce the tangible costs. But costs will be levied and have to be borne by many to stop psycho terrorists.
I see ... perhaps there is a need to discuss our complaints with the war effort in specificity, rather than a broad brush denigration of the war as a whole. I'll think about that ... let you know which "parts" of the war are most abominable to me, and I'll just rail on that. So now that Al Qaeda is fully restructed and reconstituted, in previous form and strength, what do we do? Guess it's time to "double down", the first round of death and destruction was not enough ... we get to do it all over again, because, as you say ... "costs will be levied and have to be borne by many to stop psycho terrorists." Perhaps if weren't so painfully obvious that this war is the nexus of the Perfect Storm ... the hidden agendas of Cheney, the bombasity of Rumsfeld and the malfeasance of Bush, it might be slightly more tolerable, more understandable. Ike warned us against the military/industrial complex ... we didn't listen ... again. |
| |
|
10 day suspension for repeated disruptive postings. TOS Section 6i. 10/10/08
|
The day we leave Iraq will be like April 30,1975 in Saigon. The country will revert to its natural state. As far as stating that a tangible benefit of the war in Iraq is the fight against terrorism then we should be talking about Afghanistan. Equating Iraq to the fight against terrorism is a specious argument. quote: To bring that down to a neighborhood level, if I have a neighbor (next-door or around the block or across the state line even!) who has attacked me and mine, and threatens to do me and mine harm, whether I defend or attack him effectively or ineffectively does not remove the fact that said "neighbor" wants to do harm to me and mine.
be sure to attack the right neighbor. |
| |
|
CG Forums Moderator
|
Without spilling over a few pages of babble, I just got to ask. What RIGHTS of mine are we defending in Iraq? I keep seeing stuff about Rights this, Rights that, I've often wondered WHO'S rights we are defending. The guy we keep on saying had something to do with 9/11 is/was a cave dweller. What's that got to do with Iraq and my rights (as it may be)?  |
| |
|
Member
|
scrounge,
"anti-war zealots (Bush haters)". You know, it's hard to "debate" with such blind ignorance. First off, we should all be "anti-war". It should be the absolute last possible option every single time, and we should never be the ones to start it. I'll say this again and it's the last time: Iraq was not part of the War on Terror. Ok? Got it? Didn't think so. You uber-nationalist war mongers (you call me an "anti-war zealot", I'll respond in kind) needed a reason to be in Iraq after WMD were not found. The arrival the Islamic nut cases gave you a reason (many of these nuts were the same crazies that Reagan and Bush Sr. allowed to take over Afghanistan after the USSR pulled out). You invented the pre-text after the fact.
Please answer this question honestly (I know, fat chance):
How does it make you feel to know that in 2004, during one of the bloodiest years of the conflict, President Bush made jokes about the mythic WMD at a press corps dinner? Men and women were fighting and dying, and he made jokes about it. How does that make you feel?
|
| |
|
Highly Experienced Member
|
quote: Originally posted by FourString:
scrounge,
"anti-war zealots (Bush haters)". You know, it's hard to "debate" with such blind ignorance. First off, we should all be "anti-war". It should be the absolute last possible option every single time, and we should never be the ones to start it. I'll say this again and it's the last time: Iraq was not part of the War on Terror. Ok? Got it? Didn't think so. You uber-nationalist war mongers (you call me an "anti-war zealot", I'll respond in kind) needed a reason to be in Iraq after WMD were not found. The arrival the Islamic nut cases gave you a reason (many of these nuts were the same crazies that Reagan and Bush Sr. allowed to take over Afghanistan after the USSR pulled out). You invented the pre-text after the fact.
Please answer this question honestly (I know, fat chance):
How does it make you feel to know that in 2004, during one of the bloodiest years of the conflict, President Bush made jokes about the mythic WMD at a press corps dinner? Men and women were fighting and dying, and he made jokes about it. How does that make you feel?
We don't agree on this issue now do we. You believe that President Bush wanted a war.... I believe we had a leader that drew a line in the sand... No one wants war....Some just recognize it is necessary to defeat evil or at least keep it at bay. I guess that Winston Churchill and Harry Truman never joked during the war years... If you want to ask me about what chaps my hide "how does that make you feel" I'll answer that playing politics when the extremists glaringly state they will stop at nothing to destroy us or convert us...that chaps my hide...I'll state that believing your own countries leaders are more evil or as evil as terrorists and those that support them, that chaps my hide. |
| |
|
Member
|
Ok, so you're saying that you have no problem with the president publically joking about the fact that WMD were never found. That was the biggest reason for going to war, and he thought it made for appropriate comic relief.
Yes, I do believe Bush wanted war with Iraq, and I believe that certain people in his administration, left overs from Bush Sr., were put in place to ensure that it happened one way or another. 9/11 helped tremendously. You have too much faith in the "goodness" of our elected officials (at least the Republicans). I put nothing past any of them.
|
| |
|
Member
|
Had we actually had the bad guys come onto our soil the bleeding hearts and millions of anti-America "americans" would have taken them in, cleansed their wounds, powdered their bottoms and told them how terrible this country is and they understand their plight.
I'm not sure how many on this board are actually from NYC. I was born and raised in Brooklyn, until I joined @ 22. My family and friends had to go to dozen of funerals, and those that I know that are NYPD/FDNY had to go to HUNDREDS of funerals. I think we tend to forget what FINALLY led the troops to surge over in the Middle East. It wasn't because some bully wrote a note to POTUS saying he was going to beat him up after class.
|
| |
|
Experienced Member
|
And yes, we did surge our troops to the Middle East ... we deposed the Taliban and the Afghanistan regime, routed Al Qaeda out of their caves ... we did the right thing. And if you said, "Nineteen Saudi Arabians attacked us ... let's get some payback", we would probably support that too. I don't think I ever heard a word against those military actions.
BUT THEN ... Bush veered off wildly off course. He expended lives, limbs and money in something not justifiable, not worthy of our resources ... all the while letting Al Qaeda and Bin Laden off the hook to regain their former strength in a new country.
No, it wasn't a note to some bully ... and we didn't attack the bully. We attacked his next-door neighbor.
|
| |
|
Member
|
quote: ... all the while letting Al Qaeda and Bin Laden off the hook to regain their former strength in a new country.
So we should have chased Bin Laden et al into Pakistan violating their sovereignty? What would be or have been the repercussions from that move? |
| |
|
Member
|
You think big bad Bush came to those decisions all on his own? I submit that he did not.
|
| |
|
Experienced Member
|
No, George Bush the man cannot take a crap without falling back in it. PRESIDENT GEORGE BUSH, THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH OF THE UNITED STATES can pretty much scheme, manipulate and subvert a just nation into an unjust war, so long as they control the media spin, the purse strings and suspend a few civil liberties along the way.
|
| |
|
Member
|
quote: ...so long as they control the media spin...
Since when? LMAO  |
| |
|
Highly Experienced Member
|
quote: Originally posted by FourString:
Ok, so you're saying that you have no problem with the president publically joking about the fact that WMD were never found. That was the biggest reason for going to war, and he thought it made for appropriate comic relief.
Yes, I do believe Bush wanted war with Iraq, and I believe that certain people in his administration, left overs from Bush Sr., were put in place to ensure that it happened one way or another. 9/11 helped tremendously. You have too much faith in the "goodness" of our elected officials (at least the Republicans). I put nothing past any of them.
You keep living in your conspiracy world...if that is what keeps you entertained. I'll keep believing that if a President before Bush had stood up to terrorists 9/11 most likely would not have happened. |
| |
|
