PDA

View Full Version : "You can't support the troops if you don't support the war!"


Pages : [1] 2

jAZ
05-22-2006, 08:44 AM
(choose all that apply)

This little bit of political rhetoric has been around since about the time the Iraq War was launched (though I'm sure it goes back much further than that). I think it's a result of the Vietnam-era where some war protesters took out their resentment on the troops directly (spitting/cat-calls, etc).

In another thread, I pointed out that I have been subjected to such rhetoric in the past. Baby Lee decided he wanted to know who here had done such a thing. I didn't want to point fingers with certain proof and since the search function here sucks ass (for a number of reasons), I chose not to name names.

Out of no-where, Logical decided to own up to having made such comments to me in the past. That's a testament to his character as it was not necessary for him to do so. As a result, I think he's unfairly singled out.

This thread is to help provide Baby Lee with the list he asked for while providing other folks a similar chance to out themselves. It's also a chance for you to defend your view if you still agree with the sentiment.

Baby Lee and I will be curious to who adds their name to the list.

unlurking
05-22-2006, 09:35 AM
You forgot the "Yes, I have heard this or been told this" option.

jspchief
05-22-2006, 09:56 AM
I don't believe it's true.

What I do believe is that some anti-war people have made comments that appeared to be anti-troops, which is probably where this idea came from.

I won't pretend to know of any specific instances, but I know I've heard people's negative opinion of the war/Whitehouse spill over into comments that come of as anti-troops.

Duck Dog
05-22-2006, 10:35 AM
Of course you can support the troops and not the war. It's just that some are so out spoken against the war it actually helps the enemy. That in and of it self is not supporting the troops.

patteeu
05-22-2006, 10:43 AM
Of course you can support the troops and not the war. It's just that some are so out spoken against the war it actually helps the enemy. That in and of it self is not supporting the troops.

:thumb: Helping the enemy is not good for our troops no matter how much someone says they support them.

jAZ
05-22-2006, 10:46 AM
Of course you can support the troops and not the war. It's just that some are so out spoken against the war it actually helps the enemy. That in and of it self is not supporting the troops.
Would I fall into this "so out spoken against the war it actually helps the enemy" catagory, IYO?

Duck Dog
05-22-2006, 10:56 AM
Would I fall into this "so out spoken against the war it actually helps the enemy" catagory, IYO?


I do not think that about you. I think you truely care for the troops and their safety. I do believe that to some leftists, troops are an evil tool and are despised. I believe meme falls into this catagory. She's the only one here I feel that way about.

Mostly I'm refering to those with a real voice like Code Pink, ANSWER (Act Now To Stop War & End Racism), Cindy Sheehan, Michael Moore and Hollywood in general.

There is a fine line between calling this war 'illegal' and calling our troops 'criminals'.

jAZ
05-22-2006, 11:02 AM
I do not think that about you. I think you truely care for the troops and their safety. I do believe that to some leftists, troops are an evil tool and are despised. I believe meme falls into this catagory. She's the only one here I feel that way about.

Mostly I'm refering to those with a real voice like Code Pink, ANSWER (Act Now To Stop War & End Racism), Cindy Sheehan, Michael Moore and Hollywood in general.

There is a fine line between calling this war 'illegal' and calling our troops 'criminals'.
Well thank you.

However, that's a pretty broad group with millions of like-minded Americans supporting their cause. Saying that Cindy Sheehan "despises" the troops (her son having been one) and thinks they/he was "an evil tool".

Seems like your (and patteeu's) basis for drawing the line is not so much how heart-felt a person's intent might be, but rather how widespread their voice is and how broadly supported their protests become.

More effective war protest = less support of troops

Is that a fair assessment of your views?

patteeu
05-22-2006, 11:07 AM
Well thank you.

However, that's a pretty broad group with millions of like-minded Americans supporting their cause. Saying that Cindy Sheehan "despises" the troops (her son having been one) and thinks they/he was "an evil tool".

Seems like your (and patteeu's) basis for drawing the line is not so much how heart-felt a person's intent might be, but rather how widespread their voice is and how broadly supported their protests become.

More effective war protest = less support of troops

Is that a fair assessment of your views?

Let me ask you a question jAZ? Can you support the troops while passing war plans to the enemy if your heart's in the right place?

jAZ
05-22-2006, 11:11 AM
Let me ask you a question jAZ? Can you support the troops while passing war plans to the enemy if your heart's in the right place?
Well, I'm not sure how to respond to that in the context of this discussion because it literally has nothing to do with holding "bring the troops home" war protests. Which seems to be a topic that you perfer not to address in favor of the topic of treason.

memyselfI
05-22-2006, 11:14 AM
I think now that the war is unpopular with a majority of Americans you will fewer people admitting they once held this sentiment... :hmmm:

I've said since the beginning, the troops are not the people who are responsible for this debacle. The policymakers, aka the 'deciders', ARE thus to blame the troops for Iraq is wrong.

patteeu
05-22-2006, 11:15 AM
Well, I'm not sure how to respond to that in the context of this discussion because it literally has nothing to do with holding "bring the troops home" war protests. Which seems to be a topic that you perfer not to address in favor of the topic of treason.

It's a pretty simple question, surely you can afford to deviate from your laser beam focus on the thread topic for just a moment.

unlurking
05-22-2006, 11:17 AM
Let me ask you a question jAZ? Can you support the troops while passing war plans to the enemy if your heart's in the right place?
That's treason, and public protests are not delivering battle plans to the enemy. Now if Hanoi Jane is reincarnated, then you have a person to talk about.

Simply being outspoken against the war does not hurt the troops.

EDIT:

If you ask me, the current government (by distributing "minute man" numbers and locations to the Mexican government) is the closest entity you can compare to supplying information to the enemy.

Sadly, no one cares about that.

patteeu
05-22-2006, 11:20 AM
That's treason, and public protests are not delivering battle plans to the enemy. Now if Hanoi Jane is reincarnated, then you have a person to talk about.

Simply being outspoken against the war does not hurt the troops.

I take it that you agree that having your heart in the right place isn't the determinative factor here, then. IOW, it's not sufficient to shield a person from the charge that they aren't supporting the troops.

jAZ
05-22-2006, 11:22 AM
It's a pretty simple question, surely you can afford to deviate from your laser beam focus on the thread topic for just a moment.
Just stop your attempts to equate war protesters to with outright treasonists in order to avoid the more nuanced questions before you.

You are going to have to raise a new question in the context of this thread (or raise a similar question outside the context of this thread) before your question deserves any answer.

unlurking
05-22-2006, 11:23 AM
I take it that you agree that having your heart in the right place isn't the determinative factor here, then. IOW, it's not sufficient to shield a person from the charge that they aren't supporting the troops.
Correct. I "believe" my heart is in the right place in disagreeing with the war in Iraq. At the same time, elevating my protestations to a point where I divulge information to the enemy regarding tactical plans is treason, and I should be punished as warranted (up to and including the death penalty).

EDIT:

Responded before I read your whole post. What do you mean by your second sentence? Do you mean that motive (heart felt disaproval vs. anti-US sentiment) is not sufficient to protect a person on the charge of treason if they commit acts that aid the enemy?

I think first you have to define where protesting ends, and aiding the enemy begins. Letting the government know when we disagree with its policies is not only our right, but our duty as citizens.

patteeu
05-22-2006, 11:23 AM
Just stop your attempts to equate war protesters to with outright treasonists in order to avoid the more nuanced questions before you.

You are going to have to raise a new question in the context of this thread (or raise a similar question outside the context of this thread) before your question deserves any answer.

Weak.

BTW, nuanced? Your poll is so nuanced that EVERYONE is able to comfortably answer it in the same way. Good job! ROFL

jAZ
05-22-2006, 11:29 AM
Weak.
I'd say trying to equate war protesters with outright treasonists is the weaker of the two posts.... by 10 miles.

patteeu
05-22-2006, 11:30 AM
Correct. I "believe" my heart is in the right place in disagreeing with the war in Iraq. At the same time, elevating my protestations to a point where I divulge information to the enemy regarding tactical plans is treason, and I should be punished as warranted (up to and including the death penalty).

Would you agree that someone who

(a) in the privacy of their own mind, hates the troops and wishes them ill, and

(b) publicly claims to support the troops but not the war, and

(c) publicly condemns the administration in the harshest of terms (fascists, nazis, warmongers, war criminals etc.), praises al Qaeda's goals, condemns American imperialism, expresses glee at American war failures and disappointment at American war victories, and creatively spins the news in innovative ways that al Qaeda picks up and reuses as a part of their propaganda efforts

may not actually support the troops?

jAZ
05-22-2006, 11:31 AM
BTW, nuanced? Your poll is so nuanced that EVERYONE is able to comfortably answer it in the same way. Good job! ROFL
BTW, your actions are in the process of demostrating that your past words (your vote in that poll) do not reflect your deeds (the apparent position you've taken in the discussion on this thread).

patteeu
05-22-2006, 11:33 AM
I'd say trying to equate war protesters with outright treasonists is the weaker of the two posts.... by 10 miles.

Then stop trying to equate them. Strike 2 against you. I don't need you to answer it anyway, unlurking wasn't afraid to play along.

jAZ
05-22-2006, 11:34 AM
Would you agree that someone who

(a) in the privacy of their own mind, hates the troops and wishes them ill, and

(b) publicly claims to support the troops but not the war, and

(c) publicly condemns the administration in the harshest of terms (fascists, nazis, warmongers, war criminals etc.), praises al Qaeda's goals, condemns American imperialism, expresses glee at American war failures and disappointment at American war victories, and creatively spins the news in innovative ways that al Qaeda picks up and reuses as a part of their propaganda efforts

may not actually support the troops?
Amusingly you are making the case that it is the heart and the deeds that truely matter, and not what one "says".
(c) publicly condemns the administration in the harshest of terms (fascists, nazis, warmongers, war criminals etc.), praises al Qaeda's goals, condemns American imperialism, expresses glee at American war failures and disappointment at American war victories, and creatively spins the news in innovative ways that al Qaeda picks up and reuses as a part of their propaganda efforts
Not all of these actions are of equal merit as you try to presume by treating them all as a singular block.

patteeu
05-22-2006, 11:36 AM
BTW, your actions are in the process of demostrating that your past words (your vote in that poll) do not reflect your deeds (the apparent position you've taken in the discussion on this thread).

You should try to remember that fight that you and Vlad had (the one he refers to in his recent post that you hold up as a sign of character) and remember who defended you at that time. Do you remember who that relatively new CP member was?

My vote in this poll is consistent with my behavior here and offline and with all of my posts in this thread.

patteeu
05-22-2006, 11:46 AM
Amusingly you are making the case that it is the heart and the deeds that truely matter, and not what one "says".

What's the amusing part? That's close to my point. It doesn't matter what you say, it matters what you do. If what you are doing is detrimental to the troops, then what's in your heart really only indicates whether you are a so-called "useful idiot" or a malicious non-supporter.

Not all of these actions are of equal merit as you try to presume by treating them all as a singular block.

They weren't intended to be of equal merit. The entire package was intended to be a clear illustration of a person who says they "support the troops but not the war" but who clearly does not support either one.

The bottom line is that what's in your heart isn't sufficient to prove you support the troops, nor is what you say about what you support. It is your actions (including your protected speech) that determine whether or not you support the troops.

The only thing left to determine is exactly where the line should be drawn and I'm afraid we won't be able to figure that out here. Everyone will have to come to their own conclusions on that one.

unlurking
05-22-2006, 11:48 AM
Would you agree that someone who

(a) in the privacy of their own mind, hates the troops and wishes them ill, and

(b) publicly claims to support the troops but not the war, and

(c) publicly condemns the administration in the harshest of terms (fascists, nazis, warmongers, war criminals etc.), praises al Qaeda's goals, condemns American imperialism, expresses glee at American war failures and disappointment at American war victories, and creatively spins the news in innovative ways that al Qaeda picks up and reuses as a part of their propaganda efforts

may not actually support the troops?

hahahaha

I think we're reaching here, but I will answer! :)

(a) If you can prove this, there is no need for (b) and (c). Since you can't, I think this one is invalid for the "test".

(b) Much like (a), unless you can prove differently, there is little more you can do besides take that comment at face value.

(c) Breaking into each point
- Condemn the administration -
Does that mean that if we had gone to Iraq during the Clinton era, Republicans would have not supported the troops? No
- Praises Al Quaida -
At this point, I cannot see any reasoning behind doing this and NOT being against the American way of life, and by extension her troops that fight for that way of life. Yes
- Condemn American Imperialism -
I don't agree with imperial/emperial policy. I see that it has helped sustain the American way of life, but I think there are better ways to do things. No
- Glee / Disappoinment -
Much like the praise comment, this is obviously an anti-US sentiment, as long as we are speaking ONLY about military engagements. Being happy that Clinton is caught with sperm on an intern's dress or that Cheney shoots his friend in the face do not equate. Yes
- Spin -
The world is rife with spin, and the US government is the world's leading spin doctor (no partisan intent, the ENTIRE US political arena). By condemning "anti-policy" views, you condemn freedom of speech and REQUIRED objective debate. NO

Basically, those are my opinions given your hypothetics on determining whether or not you can believe someone actually supports the troops. In not one of them do I believe you can find someone acting treasonously.

patteeu
05-22-2006, 11:53 AM
hahahaha

I think we're reaching here, but I will answer! :)

(a) If you can prove this, there is no need for (b) and (c). Since you can't, I think this one is invalid for the "test".

(b) Much like (a), unless you can prove differently, there is little more you can do besides take that comment at face value.

(c) Breaking into each point
- Condemn the administration -
Does that mean that if we had gone to Iraq during the Clinton era, Republicans would have not supported the troops? No
- Praises Al Quaida -
At this point, I cannot see any reasoning behind doing this and NOT being against the American way of life, and by extension her troops that fight for that way of life. Yes
- Condemn American Imperialism -
I don't agree with imperial/emperial policy. I see that it has helped sustain the American way of life, but I think there are better ways to do things. No
- Glee / Disappoinment -
Much like the praise comment, this is obviously an anti-US sentiment, as long as we are speaking ONLY about military engagements. Being happy that Clinton is caught with sperm on an intern's dress or that Cheney shoots his friend in the face do not equate. Yes
- Spin -
The world is rife with spin, and the US government is the world's leading spin doctor (no partisan intent, the ENTIRE US political arena). By condemning "anti-policy" views, you condemn freedom of speech and REQUIRED objective debate. NO

Basically, those are my opinions given your hypothetics on determining whether or not you can believe someone actually supports the troops. In not one of them do I believe you can find someone acting treasonously.


The and's in my hypothetical indicate that all of my conditions should be taken together. It wasn't intended to be a test, it was a question. For purposes of the question, you are assumed to know the mind of the person being evaluated.

No need to answer it if you don't find it useful to do so. I've already explained where I was going with it. Thanks for taking it seriously though. :)

jAZ
05-22-2006, 11:56 AM
What's the amusing part? That's close to my point. It doesn't matter what you say, it matters what you do. If what you are doing is detrimental to the troops, then what's in your heart really only indicates whether you are a so-called "useful idiot" or a malicious non-supporter.
By that steamroller approach, I could argue (without any room for rebuttle) that Bush, Cheney and you don't "support the troops" because you all agree to send them to their deaths. Of course the flaw in this isn't my application of your logic, but your flawed all-or-nothing appraoch. Which is of course the basis for folks saying that you either support the troops and the war, or you don't.
The bottom line is that what's in your heart isn't sufficient to prove you support the troops, nor is what you say about what you support. It is your actions (including your protected speech) that determine whether or not you support the troops.
Actually it isn't any one thing... which is where a person applying your overly simplistic approach evetually winds it way around to saying "You can't support the troops if you don't support the war!"

It's a combination of where your heart is and what your actions are. It's not an either/or issue. The one thing that doesn't matter, is what you "say" about where your heart is.

unlurking
05-22-2006, 11:57 AM
The bottom line is that what's in your heart isn't sufficient to prove you support the troops, nor is what you say about what you support. It is your actions (including your protected speech) that determine whether or not you support the troops.

OK, this I can agree with. Got a little sidetracked with the earlier disguised assertion that not supporting the war/troops = treason. You can be against both, and not be treasonous (although you probably won't have many American friends).

The only thing left to determine is exactly where the line should be drawn and I'm afraid we won't be able to figure that out here. Everyone will have to come to their own conclusions on that one.

Agreed, the line is difficult to see, and must be based on actions/statements of the person claiming this belief structure. You had two points that would lead me to disbeilieve someone claiming this. However, I think the view held by many, is that the line exists at the support for the war. By adding other factors, we have then proved that there are other requirements than just not supporting the war to prove someone doesn't support the troops.

unlurking
05-22-2006, 12:00 PM
The and's in my hypothetical indicate that all of my conditions should be taken together. It wasn't intended to be a test, it was a question. For purposes of the question, you are assumed to know the mind of the person being evaluated.

No need to answer it if you don't find it useful to do so. I've already explained where I was going with it. Thanks for taking it seriously though. :)

OK, taking them altogether, the two points I stated "Yes" (I believe this person does not supprt the troops) is enough for me to say that that person is anti-troops. To me, the others are inconsequential when compiled together, as the two anti-US beliefs are enough for me to believe the person is insincere regarding supporting the troops.

patteeu
05-22-2006, 12:07 PM
By that steamroller approach, I could argue (without any room for rebuttle) that Bush, Cheney and you don't "support the troops" because you all agree to send them to their deaths. Of course the flaw in this isn't my application of your logic, but your flawed all-or-nothing appraoch. Which is of course the basis for folks saying that you either support the troops and the war, or you don't.

I basically agree with your criticism here. I shouldn't have taken such a clear position when I said "detrimental to the troops." Everyone is capable of mistakenly doing something that is detrimental to the troops so I'll give you that there is some room for "what's in your heart" to mitigate actions that are detrimental. For example, if a general makes a tactical mistake and puts his troops in a bad position, it wouldn't be fair to say he doesn't support his troops. He just made a mistake. Everyone can make mistakes. And beyond that, if it helps any, I don't hold useful idiots in as bad regard as malicious nonsupporters.

So to amend my position slightly, I think there are at least four groups of people. Supporters, people who generally support but who make mistakes, useful idiots, malicious nonsupporters.

Actually it isn't any one thing... which is where a person applying your overly simplistic approach evetually winds it way around to saying "You can't support the troops if you don't support the war!"

It's a combination of where your heart is and what your actions are. It's not an either/or issue. The one thing that doesn't matter, is what you "say" about where your heart is.

I agree on the last point. I probably don't think "where your heart is" matters as much as you do, but I agree now that it is a factor.

Mr. Laz
05-22-2006, 12:35 PM
"You can't support the troops if you don't support the war!" .
complete and utter bullchit...



it's just a political blackmail ploy brought out by the right to try and squelch people being critical of the administration.

penchief
05-22-2006, 08:46 PM
This poll is invalid only because timing is everything.

Ask this question three years ago and you would have received very differnt results, IMO.

patteeu
05-22-2006, 10:06 PM
This poll is invalid only because timing is everything.

Ask this question three years ago and you would have received very differnt results, IMO.

A better poll question (statement) would have been, "You know someone who says they support the troops but not the war, but you don't think they do."

By saying "can't" it makes it too easy to think of any single scenario that would invalidate the statement. For example, it's easy for me to believe that a pacifist or an isolationist who sends care packages to the troops and works with disabled vets after they return from the war supports the troops even if I know that they quietly oppose the war.

Contrast that with someone who campaigns loudly and publicly for having the President, the SecDef, and their top generals indicted for war crimes, subsidizes NGOs that distribute anti US propaganda, appears in sympathetic photo ops with the enemy, and organizes protests aimed at disrupting supply lines, but who claims they support the troops because the troops aren't the policy makers (not aiming this at memyselfi).

penchief
05-22-2006, 10:11 PM
A better poll question (statement) would have been, "You know someone who says they support the troops but not the war, but you don't think they do."

By saying "can't" it makes it too easy to think of any single scenario that would invalidate the statement. For example, it's easy for me to believe that a pacifist or an isolationist who sends care packages to the troops and works with disabled vets after they return from the war supports the troops even if I know that they quietly oppose the war.

Contrast that with someone who campaigns loudly and publicly for having the President, the SecDef, and their top generals indicted for war crimes, subsidizes NGOs that distribute anti US propaganda, appears in sympathetic photo ops with the enemy, and organizes protests aimed at disrupting supply lines, but who claims they support the troops because the troops aren't the policy makers (not aiming this at memyselfi).

While I see where you are going with this and don't necessarily disagree with your tact, the pertinent question posed by Jaz's poll, IMO, is whether or not one believes it is possible to support the troops and oppose administration policy at the same time. Many on the prez's side say, "not so."

patteeu
05-22-2006, 10:20 PM
Many on the prez's side say, "not so."

I don't think there are really many who do though. Obviously not in this forum.

penchief
05-22-2006, 10:25 PM
I don't think there are really many who do though. Obviously not in this forum.

While I'll agree that the current sentiment supports your position, I would also suggest that it was a mere few months ago in which that would not have been the case, even on this forum.

jAZ
05-22-2006, 10:45 PM
I don't think there are really many who do though. Obviously not in this forum.
I think there are a lot of people who are not being completely honest about their past sentiments. I give a great deal of credit to Logical and BucEyedPea (though she seems to have me on ignore) for being willing to own up to past beliefs. I suspect others have taken the path of be less than forthcoming (by relying on parsing technicalities that are revealed through discussion) or avoid voting all togther. Had a key portion of this boards posting history not have been removed and if the search function didn't just suck all sorts of ass, there are a number of people from the DC who would be on the hook for having taken this position.

Nightwish
05-22-2006, 10:54 PM
I've never said it nor believed it (of course, no surprise there, since I've been against the war from the start), but I've definitely been handed that line from pro-war goons on more than one occasion.

Logical
05-22-2006, 11:46 PM
Weak.

BTW, nuanced? Your poll is so nuanced that EVERYONE is able to comfortably answer it in the same way. Good job! ROFLI didn't, neither did BucEyedPea

Nightwish
05-22-2006, 11:54 PM
I didn't, neither did BucEyedPea
I know that there is at least someone else on these forums who has said it, because someone has said it to me right here in the DC forum before. If I correctly remember who it was, that person has not voted yet.

patteeu
05-23-2006, 05:28 AM
I suspect others have taken the path of be less than forthcoming (by relying on parsing technicalities that are revealed through discussion).

4321 you, jAZ

Your poll failed because you asked a dumb question not because people used "parsing technicalities."

Exactly what is it that you think you've revealed through discussion? Go ahead and name names. The only person who was clearly less than forthcoming in this thread was you when you refused to answer my simple questions.

patteeu
05-23-2006, 05:35 AM
I didn't, neither did BucEyedPea

What about the scenario I mentioned in post 33 (repeated here for convenience):

Consider a committed pacifist who sends care packages to the troops and works with disabled vets after they return from the war even while you know that the pacifist quietly opposes the war. This person hasn't argued publicly against the war in any way. You just know that, as a pacifist, they oppose all wars. And to add to the scenario, let's further assume that this pacifist's own sons are in the military fighting this war.

Are you saying that before your transformation on this subject, you wouldn't have believed this pacifist was supporting the troops?

Baby Lee
05-23-2006, 06:12 AM
I give a great deal of credit to Logical and BucEyedPea (though she seems to have me on ignore) for being willing to own up to past beliefs.
Love this particular dynamic.

Logical: "I used to be an asshole to you, but I'm different now."
jAZ: "How brave and forthright."
The Rest of us: "Hey? No credit for not being an asshole in the first place."
jAZ: "STFU and live up to your shortcomings."

Lemme guess, you think Janet Reno's apology for killing the Waco kids was the bravest political act of the 20th century, too?

;)

stevieray
05-23-2006, 07:24 AM
"I support people who are paid to fight, just not when they fight."

Iowanian
05-23-2006, 09:52 AM
"Can't" is alot different than in many cases "Don't".

I look no further than the last 3 years of Dense's"ooooh look at what these naughty soldiers did wrong in a war by killing these innocent terrorists" crap.

patteeu
05-23-2006, 10:13 AM
"Can't" is alot different than in many cases "Don't".

Yep. I call that "speaking the language." jAZ, shirking responsibility for his own poll, calls it "parsing technicalities."

Iowanian
05-23-2006, 11:01 AM
I think what Jaz is having trouble differentiating, besides his attempt to paint people into a corner with a label by HIS definition......is that there is a difference between being against a policy/war/leader and being anti-troop.

If you're a mennonite and a pacifist, but you'll pray for the soldiers and their families...no problem. If you're a young idealist and against the war....no problem. If your moral convictions are against war in general, and you express those views......whatever.

If you're one of the people comparing the leaders of the United States to Hitler...if you're one of the people saying the US military is a cheating bully and that all armies should be the same size and use the same technology because ours is too effective...if you're one of the people showing up at Soldier funerals to protest...if you're one of the people who yuck it up at every military blunder, or take delight in negative news...If you're one of the nutjobs who feels the need to bash anyone who Does/Did/Has supported the war and troops..You're exactly the kind of non-troop supporting douche I may or may not have called you.

Its not a one side of the line issue as stated in this poll. As per usual, Jaz has an agenda with this thread.

Logical
05-23-2006, 11:41 AM
What about the scenario I mentioned in post 33 (repeated here for convenience):

Consider a committed pacifist who sends care packages to the troops and works with disabled vets after they return from the war even while you know that the pacifist quietly opposes the war. This person hasn't argued publicly against the war in any way. You just know that, as a pacifist, they oppose all wars. And to add to the scenario, let's further assume that this pacifist's own sons are in the military fighting this war.

Are you saying that before your transformation on this subject, you wouldn't have believed this pacifist was supporting the troops?

Yup, I was pretty darn hardcore back then. I believed that if you did not support the war you were psychologically aiding the enemy and thus harming the troops. The old Hanoi Jane logic. I was wrong and have come to realize it.

patteeu
05-23-2006, 11:59 AM
Yup, I was pretty darn hardcore back then. I believed that if you did not support the war you were psychologically aiding the enemy and thus harming the troops. The old Hanoi Jane logic. I was wrong and have come to realize it.

That is pretty darn hardcore (although I'd point out that thinking that Hanoi Jane didn't support the troops is far less hardcore than thinking a quiet pacifist doesn't support the troops).

Chief Faithful
05-23-2006, 12:35 PM
"Can't" is alot different than in many cases "Don't".

I look no further than the last 3 years of Dense's"ooooh look at what these naughty soldiers did wrong in a war by killing these innocent terrorists" crap.

I think that is the heart of why I don't know how to answer the poll. While I believe it is possible to support the troops, but not the war there are so few examples it makes me think it may not be possible. I find most examples are of people so politically motivated towards destroying the President that they are actually aiding the enemy. When you aid the enemy you are not supporting the troops.

DenseMeMe is an example of a person I believe cannot support the troops and be against the war. Jaz I believe can.

wazu
05-23-2006, 12:41 PM
It's not true at all. However, if you are speaking with troops or their families, you would be well advised to focus on the positives when talking about Iraq. Most of them do support the war and see it as a noble cause that they are serving. Most of the ones I know take it very personally when somebody bashes the war, and most of them seem to despise the American media's approach to covering it.

Iowanian
05-23-2006, 01:21 PM
Adam.....Thats not far off from the truth, and there is good reason behind it. If you, or your family has been in harms way, wounded or KIA, the last thing most want to hear is some namby Pamby bashing the very cause that has taken your loved one away for a year or more. It may be for many, that they don't agree with everything or the reasons for going in the first place, but they have no tollerance for the sacrifices of their families to be degraded and used as a mudslinging tool for someone's political means.

If they're there...support them. Once they're in the fight, most want that sacrifice to have the best outcome for the US, so as to implicate that the sacrifice of each family over there isn't for not.

banyon
05-23-2006, 01:27 PM
Adam.....Thats not far off from the truth, and there is good reason behind it. If you, or your family has been in harms way, wounded or KIA, the last thing most want to hear is some namby Pamby bashing the very cause that has taken your loved one away for a year or more. It may be for many, that they don't agree with everything or the reasons for going in the first place, but they have no tollerance for the sacrifices of their families to be degraded and used as a mudslinging tool for someone's political means.

If they're there...support them. Once they're in the fight, most want that sacrifice to have the best outcome for the US, so as to implicate that the sacrifice of each family over there isn't for not.

I would think the last thing they would want is for Fred Phelps to be at their loved one's funeral.

I don't know that I could keep from serving jail time if he showed up at my kid's funeral. (if I had kids)

Nightwish
05-23-2006, 01:45 PM
If you're one of the people comparing the leaders of the United States to Hitler...if you're one of the people saying the US military is a cheating bully and that all armies should be the same size and use the same technology because ours is too effective...if you're one of the people showing up at Soldier funerals to protest...if you're one of the people who yuck it up at every military blunder, or take delight in negative news...If you're one of the nutjobs who feels the need to bash anyone who Does/Did/Has supported the war and troops..You're exactly the kind of non-troop supporting douche I may or may not have called you.Personally, I'm none of the above, but if anyone on here is any of the above, then I can say one thing for certain - it isn't your place to say whether or not they can or do support the troops, because you don't set the limits on what or what does not "count" as support. Support isn't defined according to Iowanian's limited wishes. It is only your place to hold your opinion, to state your opinion, and to shut the f*ck up about anyone else's opinion. Comprende, Douche Rex?

Velvet_Jones
05-23-2006, 01:51 PM
Personally, I'm none of the above, but if anyone on here is any of the above, then I can say one thing for certain - it isn't your place to say whether or not they can or do support the troops, because you don't set the limits on what or what does not "count" as support. Support isn't defined according to Iowanian's limited wishes. It is only your place to hold your opinion, to state your opinion, and to shut the f*ck up about anyone else's opinion. Comprende, Douche Rex?
That's an opinion as well d!ckweed. What you are saying is keep your opinion to yourself unless you agree with me. Grow up.

Nightwish
05-23-2006, 01:57 PM
That's an opinion as well d!ckweed. What you are saying is keep your opinion to yourself unless you agree with me. Grow up.
Sure, it's an opinion. I'm sick and tired of Iowanian, the undisputed King of the Bleeding Douches (although you do give him a good running) coming on here and hypocritically calling everyone else douches, when he all but defines the term. And he basically tried to set a very limited definition for what kind of people are allowed to "count" as those who support the troops but not the war, when there are plenty in his rant list who are equally capable of supporting the troops but not the war. They just aren't much to his liking, so he decides none of them "count." Well, Iowanian can sit on a stick and spin. So can you. Live with it.

Nightwish
05-23-2006, 02:25 PM
Wow! No neg reps from the Dynamic Duo yet? You two are slacking! Pick up the pace!

Cochise
05-23-2006, 02:31 PM
So we have ONE person here who has ever said such nonsense, and that person has since flipflopped on the war. Sounds like a great thesis for a thread... :spock:

Iowanian
05-23-2006, 02:37 PM
Gee Nightbitch,

Jaz asks for our opinion on the topic and I gave mine. I'd not expect more from a sniveling bidge like you. I must have hit pretty close to the mark on you for your ass to get so chaffed.

You're a pathetic wet fart, who can only aspire to be a full fledged Piece of Shit like me in your lifetime.

Iowanian
05-23-2006, 02:40 PM
I would think the last thing they would want is for Fred Phelps to be at their loved one's funeral.

I don't know that I could keep from serving jail time if he showed up at my kid's funeral. (if I had kids)

I'm surprised someone hasn't driven into the middle of them, leaving a funeral. They'd be justified.

Baby Lee
05-23-2006, 02:40 PM
This could not be less productive is jAZ had asked what makes a 'true fan' for the troops.

Baby Lee
05-23-2006, 02:42 PM
So we have ONE person here who has ever said such nonsense, and that person has since flipflopped on the war. Sounds like a great thesis for a thread... :spock:
Correction, only one person has had the Sequoian MORAL FIBER to admit to saying such nonsense. :p

Nightwish
05-23-2006, 02:44 PM
Gee Nightbitch,

Jaz asks for our opinion on the topic and I gave mine. I'd not expect more from a sniveling bidge like you. I must have hit pretty close to the mark on you for your ass to get so chaffed.
Not even in the ballpark, sparky. Unless you care to point out where I have ever fit any of those molds.You're a pathetic wet fart, who can only aspire to be a full fledged Piece of Shit like me in your lifetime.Well, your self image appears to be correct. It's good to see you get something right from time to time.

Radar Chief
05-23-2006, 02:45 PM
It is only your place to hold your opinion, to state your opinion, and to shut the f*ck up about anyone else's opinion. Comprende, Douche Rex?

Seems to me like you’re go’n on and on ‘bout someone elses “opinion”, so if that’s the way you really feel maybe you should try some of that medicine yourself.

Radar Chief
05-23-2006, 02:47 PM
Correction, only one person has had the Sequoian MORAL FIBER to admit to saying such nonsense. :p

Ah yea, right. No one else has “owned up to their failings” yet.
BTW, is that part of the “lexicon” yet? It should be.

Nightwish
05-23-2006, 02:47 PM
Seems to me like you’re go’n on and on ‘bout someone elses “opinion”, so if that’s the way you really feel maybe you should try some of that medicine yourself.
For just about anyone else, I generally do. For Douche Rex, sorry, no such respect has he earned.

mlyonsd
05-23-2006, 02:50 PM
What was the purpose of this thread again?

Cochise
05-23-2006, 02:50 PM
Correction, only one person has had the Sequoian MORAL FIBER to admit to saying such nonsense. :p

Well, he did succeed in proving once again that the jawbone of an ass is just as formidable as it was in Samson's time.

Nightwish
05-23-2006, 02:52 PM
Wow! No neg reps from the Dynamic Duo yet? You two are slacking! Pick up the pace!Above posted at 3:25 pm. Iowaaaaaaaaaaaanian's neg rep came through at 3:39 pm. 14 minutes. But, I guess I can't complain. At least he stayed true to form and didn't totally let me down! Now if his lap dog Velvet will just step up to the plate, I'll be happy!

Iowanian
05-23-2006, 02:52 PM
hahahahahahahahaha

Poor Nightbitch.

Not the first time, you've specifically asked for it..and then cried.

hahahahahahaha

You must be pretty bitter that I've apparently called you a douchasaurus Rex somewhere along the way.

hahahahahaa

Cochise
05-23-2006, 02:52 PM
Above posted at 3:25 pm. Iowaaaaaaaaaaaanian's neg rep came through at 3:39 pm. 14 minutes. But, I guess I can't complain. At least he stayed true to form and didn't totally let me down!

Whining about rep is just as lame as whining about other peoples' opinions. FYI

Nightwish
05-23-2006, 02:54 PM
Whining about rep is just as lame as whining about other peoples' opinions. FYI
Whining? I'm bragging. I asked for it, I called him out. He delivered. Does that pass for "whining" in your dictionary? If so, you might want to invest in a new one.

Iowanian
05-23-2006, 02:54 PM
waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah

I think its hysterical that someone claiming a masters in Psychology, is so easily turned into a stuttering, spitting, leaking clam.

Baby Lee
05-23-2006, 02:56 PM
I think he's unfairly singled out.
ROFL - Once again, jAZ's thoughts hit reality. Reality 1,856,999, jAZ 0.

:p

Velvet_Jones
05-23-2006, 02:56 PM
Live with it.
Hehehe. You kill me. Typical libby: self righteous and self absorbed so much so that your opinion counts more than anyone else. No substance except feelings and propaganda. Mangina. It sucks to be you.

Nightwish
05-23-2006, 02:59 PM
Hehehe. You kill me. Typical libby: self righteous and self absorbed so much so that your opinion counts more than anyone else. No substance except feelings and propaganda. Mangina. It sucks to be you.
C'mon, where's the neg rep? You're not trying to be stalwart, are you?

Iowanian
05-23-2006, 03:00 PM
Do it Velvet....prepare for the incoming, pig squealing whining post after you do.

Its very refreshing.

Chief Henry
05-23-2006, 03:01 PM
Above posted at 3:25 pm. Iowaaaaaaaaaaaanian's neg rep came through at 3:39 pm. 14 minutes. But, I guess I can't complain. At least he stayed true to form and didn't totally let me down! Now if his lap dog Velvet will just step up to the plate, I'll be happy!


UNBELEAVABLE....someone's crying about receiving a negative rep.
What a limp wristed pussy thing to do.

go bowe
05-23-2006, 03:03 PM
. . .It is only your place to hold your opinion, to state your opinion, and to shut the f*ck up about anyone else's opinion.let me get this straight...

people are not supposed to voice their opinion regarding someone else's opinion?

just post it up there and everyone should shut up about it and not discuss it?

wtf do you think this is, a football forum?

Iowanian
05-23-2006, 03:03 PM
Thats at least twice nightbitch has done that....after specifically asking for one.

a case study for some Juco psych class I'm sure...

I think it must have recently been disclosed at casa de nightbidge, that an Iowanian was the college sausage king, of the lady of the house.

Cochise
05-23-2006, 03:05 PM
let me get this straight...

people are not supposed to voice their opinion regarding someone else's opinion?

just post it up there and everyone should shut up about it and not discuss it?

wtf do you think this is, a football forum?

Shut the f*ck up about opinions :p

stevieray
05-23-2006, 03:05 PM
UNBELEAVABLE....someone's crying about receinving a negative rep.
What a limp wristed pussy thing to do.

especially from a man is his fifties.

you know who you are.

Iowanian
05-23-2006, 03:05 PM
You're going to make it angry, with your undue antagonism.



The part I enjoy the best right now, is that I thought my response was strait forward, and wasn't antagonistic or confrontational.

hahhahahahahahaha

"ppppppfffffffff sspppppppppppppfffffffffffff ppffffffffffffff" [/nightwish]

go bowe
05-23-2006, 03:06 PM
. . .I'm sick and tired of Iowanian, the undisputed King of the Bleeding Douches. . .well, at least you got that part right... :harumph: :harumph: :harumph:

Eye Patch
05-23-2006, 03:17 PM
waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah

I think its hysterical that someone claiming a masters in Psychology, is so easily turned into a stuttering, spitting, leaking clam.

It has a master in Psychology???? Really???? Well that explains the psycho babble that it spews.

Velvet_Jones
05-23-2006, 03:45 PM
It has a master in Psychology???? Really???? Well that explains the psycho babble that it spews.
It rubs the lotion on its skin. It does this whenever it is told. It rubs the lotion on its skin or else it gets the hose again. Yes, it will, Precious, won't it? It will get the hose!.

Velvet_Jones
05-23-2006, 03:46 PM
C'mon, where's the neg rep? You're not trying to be stalwart, are you?
Whoooot dar it is.

penchief
05-23-2006, 04:05 PM
"I support people who are paid to fight, just not when they fight."

For those who support the troops but not the war, the question is not even "when they fight."

It is "why they fight."

As long as soldiers can be sent off to fight unjust wars then the reasoning behind war will always be the subject of debate. Not whether or not fellow citizens support their own who are serving in harm's way.

patteeu
05-23-2006, 04:20 PM
What was the purpose of this thread again?

He's getting everyone on record about something that we almost unanimously agree on, just to be sure.

patteeu
05-23-2006, 04:26 PM
Personally, I'm none of the above, but if anyone on here is any of the above, then I can say one thing for certain - it isn't your place to say whether or not they can or do support the troops, because you don't set the limits on what or what does not "count" as support. Support isn't defined according to Iowanian's limited wishes. It is only your place to hold your opinion, to state your opinion, and to shut the f*ck up about anyone else's opinion. Comprende, Douche Rex?

I don't really care whether or not a person loves and supports the troops, if they meet the description offered by Iowanian in that paragraph, I think they are reprehensible.

Eye Patch
05-23-2006, 04:38 PM
The American military cannot be defeated in Iraqi… they can only be beaten at home and more notably by the press.

The Vietnamese figured this out quite readily and the terrorist/insurgents are trying to same game plan.

Now who is giving said terrorists that ray of hope?

Logical
05-23-2006, 05:11 PM
So we have ONE person here who has ever said such nonsense, and that person has since flipflopped on the war. Sounds like a great thesis for a thread... :spock:No we have one person that is honest enough to admit it. I remember others who said it but they have opted to take the cowards way out and take one of the two easy answers or not participate.

Because my current answer would be No I do not believe it is true I could have used that answer had I been less than 100% honest.

By the way I still believe in the war, just not the occupation. There is a huge difference. We defeated Saddam, we found Saddam, we captured Saddam we were done we should have got the hell out. Now we are just wasting valuable American lives for a cause we have no vested interest in, unless it is to enrich Haliburton.

Logical
05-23-2006, 05:20 PM
Above posted at 3:25 pm. Iowaaaaaaaaaaaanian's neg rep came through at 3:39 pm. 14 minutes. But, I guess I can't complain. At least he stayed true to form and didn't totally let me down! Now if his lap dog Velvet will just step up to the plate, I'll be happy!

I gave you positive rep for speaking your mind, I am sure it will more than counter his neg and probably Velvet's as well. It's good to have 47K+ posts and maxed out rep.:D

Logical
05-23-2006, 05:24 PM
Correction, only one person has had the Sequoian MORAL FIBER to admit to saying such nonsense. :p

Interesting that I have heard you berate others for not having the moral courage to admit their mistakes, but you choose to make light of an individual who has. Pretty darn contradictory, but then what should I expect you are after all a lawyer.:p

Did the smilie make that softer?

Iowanian
05-23-2006, 05:25 PM
Its very nice of you to clense your pickle with rubbing alcohol before placing it in his lips Jimbo.

Very Sanitary.

Logical
05-23-2006, 05:37 PM
Its very nice of you to clense your pickle with rubbing alcohol before placing it in his lips Jimbo.

Very Sanitary.Well after you have been trying to force him to eat shit from your pickle, it was only courteous.

A little kinder than Iowanian

stevieray
05-23-2006, 05:49 PM
For those who support the troops but not the war, the question is not even "when they fight."

It is "why they fight."

As long as soldiers can be sent off to fight unjust wars then the reasoning behind war will always be the subject of debate. Not whether or not fellow citizens support their own who are serving in harm's way.

blah blah blah.

Why they fight? Because that's what they get paid to do. You don't get to determine why they fight. You didn't take the oath, they did.

Logical
05-23-2006, 05:55 PM
blah blah blah.

Why they fight? Because that's what they get paid to do. You don't get to determine why they fight. You didn't take the oath, they did.

Interestingly false, they serve at the pleasure of the President and Congress who are supposed to serve the people. You desire a dictatorship Stevie? I know you don't but that is what your post implies.

stevieray
05-23-2006, 06:49 PM
Interestingly false, they serve at the pleasure of the President and Congress who are supposed to serve the people. You desire a dictatorship Stevie? I know you don't but that is what your post implies.

false? which part? Is it the word supposed in your post?

They volunteer to serve, You seem to be playing dictator with thier decision to serve to their country.

Logical
05-23-2006, 07:05 PM
false? which part? Is it the word supposed in your post?

They volunteer to serve, You seem to be playing dictator with thier decision to serve to their country.

What is false is this part of your statement:

You don't get to determine why they fight. As the voters theoretically we do get to determine, the President and Congress are just our paid representatives.

stevieray
05-23-2006, 07:20 PM
What is false is this part of your statement:

As the voters theoretically we do get to determine, the President and Congress are just our paid representatives.

Representatives that are paid to determine when they fight. Only serviceman know why they are willing.. Thank God for their courage to volunteer to serve their country and give up their life for their fellow man.

Theoritically, aren't you determining whether they die in vain or not, deciding if their sacrifice was worth something?

What about firemen?, is their service and courage diminished by dying fighting a fire in a crack house, or an old building set ablaze by arson?

patteeu
05-23-2006, 07:28 PM
No we have one person that is honest enough to admit it. I remember others who said it but they have opted to take the cowards way out and take one of the two easy answers or not participate.

Because my current answer would be No I do not believe it is true I could have used that answer had I been less than 100% honest.

By the way I still believe in the war, just not the occupation. There is a huge difference. We defeated Saddam, we found Saddam, we captured Saddam we were done we should have got the hell out. Now we are just wasting valuable American lives for a cause we have no vested interest in, unless it is to enrich Haliburton.

I'm around here most days and I don't remember ever hearing anyone say it. I was even shocked to hear you say that you once believed it despite the fact that I was directly involved in that thread between you and jAZ.

Nightwish
05-23-2006, 07:53 PM
let me get this straight...

people are not supposed to voice their opinion regarding someone else's opinion?
Nope. Just that particular imbecile.

Nightwish
05-23-2006, 07:58 PM
UNBELEAVABLE....someone's crying about receiving a negative rep.
What a limp wristed pussy thing to do.
I think you missed what I was complaining about. I wasn't complaining about him giving me a neg rep. I was bragging about that particular point. I was complaining that it took him so long to do it. I take great pride in predicting Iowaaaaaaanian's sandbox behavior. He kept me on edge for a full 14 minutes, thinking I might have possibly predicted incorrectly! I don't like predicting incorrectly. Bad Iowaaaaaaaanian!

Nightwish
05-23-2006, 08:02 PM
It has a master in Psychology???? Really???? Well that explains the psycho babble that it spews.
It has never claimed a Masters in Psychology. It has claimed a Bachelors in Psychology. It thinks that Iowanian probably pulled that from the same hole he pulls most of his other words from.

Nightwish
05-23-2006, 08:05 PM
I don't really care whether or not a person loves and supports the troops, if they meet the description offered by Iowanian in that paragraph, I think they are reprehensible.
Maybe. And I agree with you that those are some pretty reprehensible things to do. But it isn't our place to decide that what beliefs they hold or actions they take in support of the troops, while opposing the war in their particularly unattractive fashion, don't count, simply because we don't approve of the particular way in which they oppose the war. It simply doesn't carry over into how they feel about the troops who are having to fight that war whether they want to or not. It may for some, but certainly not for all.

Nightwish
05-23-2006, 08:07 PM
Whoooot dar it is.
Good boy! Here, have a scooby snack!

Logical
05-23-2006, 08:24 PM
Representatives that are paid to determine when they fight. Only serviceman know why they are willing.. Thank God for their courage to volunteer to serve their country and give up their life for their fellow man.

Theoritically, aren't you determining whether they die in vain or not, deciding if their sacrifice was worth something?

What about firemen?, is their service and courage diminished by dying fighting a fire in a crack house, or an old building set ablaze by arson?Now you have lost me, I have never said the soldiers service was diminished, are you confusing me with someone else?

Iowanian
05-23-2006, 09:49 PM
Nightbitch...still whining.

You should be sponsored by ENERGIZER.

Nightwish
05-23-2006, 10:20 PM
Nightbitch...still whining.

You should be sponsored by ENERGIZER.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=whine

whine http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/JPG/pron.jpg (https://secure.reference.com/premium/login.html?rd=2&u=http%3A%2F%2Fdictionary.reference.com%2Fsearch%3Fq%3Dwhine) ( P ) Pronunciation Key (http://dictionary.reference.com/help/ahd4/pronkey.html) (hwhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/imacr.gifn, whttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/imacr.gifn)
v. whined, whin·ing, whines
v. intr.
To utter a plaintive, high-pitched, protracted sound, as in pain, fear, supplication, or complaint. To complain or protest in a childish fashion. To produce a sustained noise of relatively high pitch: jet engines whining.http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=brag

brag http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/JPG/pron.jpg (https://secure.reference.com/premium/login.html?rd=2&u=http%3A%2F%2Fdictionary.reference.com%2Fsearch%3Fq%3Dbrag) ( P ) Pronunciation Key (http://dictionary.reference.com/help/ahd4/pronkey.html) (brhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/abreve.gifg)
v. bragged, brag·ging, brags
v. intr.
To talk boastfully. See Synonyms at boast (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=boast)1.

I correctly predicted your behavior, then when you took the bait, I boasted about reading you correctly. I understand that you probably had a difficult time in high school, what with getting "pantsed" or "wedgied" on a daily basis by the big, bad bullies, but even you should be able to comprehend the difference between complaining and boasting.

memyselfI
05-24-2006, 05:26 AM
"Can't" is alot different than in many cases "Don't".

I look no further than the last 3 years of Dense's"ooooh look at what these naughty soldiers did wrong in a war by killing these innocent terrorists" crap.

You are completely and utterly full of shit...

Yes, I've posted about the errors and OOOPs by the military in Iraq. NOT to defend the terrorists but to point out that things were NOT going as we were being told they were. We were being fed propaganda and the only way to counter propaganda is with truth. The unintended consequences of that truth is that the terrorists get the benefit of what is intended ONLY for innocent civilians in Iraq and the unquestioning public in America.

Notice there haven't been too many OOOPs military stories of late. It's a given things aren't going well there and most people acknowledge and accept that fact now. No sense in dwelling on the obvious. Though when massacres, like the one that was perpetrated against civilians in Novemeber, happen they should be acknowledged. NOT, as a means to harrass or humiliate the military but as a way to get their superiors in the WH to be ACCOUNTABLE FOR IT'S ACTIONS...

You can spin it all you want, but those of us against the war had little reason or motivation to embrace only positive stories about the war in Iraq especially when there was ample iproof that many of the positive stories were planted, paid for, or manufactured...

that doesn't mean we didn't support them and hope for the best outcome for the individual men and women in the military. It is NOT the military's fault they've been used/misused by a corrupt WH.

Baby Lee
05-24-2006, 06:26 AM
Interesting that I have heard you berate others for not having the moral courage to admit their mistakes, but you choose to make light of an individual who has. Pretty darn contradictory, but then what should I expect you are after all a lawyer.:p

Did the smilie make that softer?
You are sooo effing born again.
This incident reminds me of the newly born again dude who confabulates about how much porn he watched and how many drugs he took 'back then' to curry comraderie and intimacy amongst his new born again friends.
You're not 'admitting your mistake' out of regret or humility. You've succombed to the us/them mentality, and have 'admitted your mistake' to validate the misguided assessment of your aspired 'new friends' and throw a shroud of disrepute on your imagined 'old friends.'
You knew jAZ's assertion that there were 'some people' who held this rdiculous position was fatally flawed, so you jumped up to say 'I'm Sparticus.'

memyselfI
05-24-2006, 06:38 AM
(choose all that apply)


Baby Lee and I will be curious to who adds their name to the list.

FWIW, I can think of at least a half dozen people who held this view. I won't name them because they'll deny they said it and as you say the search function here isn't going to help clarify the situation.

MOF, IIRC there was even a thread posted about this very topic early on in the war and many people in thread stated it was nearly impossible to do one without the other. It might have even started back with the war in Afghanistan. :hmmm:

I am going to search the word pacifist and see if it pulls up any of these comments...

patteeu
05-24-2006, 07:30 AM
FWIW, I can think of at least a half dozen people who held this view. I won't name them because they'll deny they said it and as you say the search function here isn't going to help clarify the situation.

MOF, IIRC there was even a thread posted about this very topic early on in the war and many people in thread stated it was nearly impossible to do one without the other. It might have even started back with the war in Afghanistan. :hmmm:

I am going to search the word pacifist and see if it pulls up any of these comments...

I can think of a handful of people on this board who have posted messages that are indistinguishable from those that an al Qaeda sympathizer would post. I won't name them because they'll deny they said it and as you and jAZ say, the search function isn't going to help clarify the situation.

Cochise
05-24-2006, 08:08 AM
You know what I don't understand? Aruging over who does or does not "support the troops".

What does it even mean? To me, not "supporting the troops" means that you want them to fail. You want their mission to be a failure, you want them to die in ever-increasing numbers, you want retreat and surrender. That would be non-support.

No one really advocates that except for a few extreme left nutbars. The whole debate over who does or doesn't "support" is just a waste of time and energy. I don't believe that even jAZ is rooting for soldiers to be killed and the mission to fail. I'm sure that if you let him press one button for Iraq to end as a smashing success or another for it to spiral into a complete nationwide violent hellpit he would pick the good outcome. I don't think "support" is an issue here. It's just a buzzword.

Of course, some have no qualms about sodomizing the effort for political poker chips. But that's simple opportunism, turning the situation to your advantage. Morbid and deplorable certainly, but not like they are rooting against anyone.

Cochise
05-24-2006, 08:12 AM
You are sooo effing born again.
This incident reminds me of the newly born again dude who confabulates about how much porn he watched and how many drugs he took 'back then' to curry comraderie and intimacy amongst his new born again friends.
You're not 'admitting your mistake' out of regret or humility. You've succombed to the us/them mentality, and have 'admitted your mistake' to validate the misguided assessment of your aspired 'new friends' and throw a shroud of disrepute on your imagined 'old friends.'
You knew jAZ's assertion that there were 'some people' who held this rdiculous position was fatally flawed, so you jumped up to say 'I'm Sparticus.'

Thread over.

memyselfI
05-24-2006, 08:16 AM
I can think of a handful of people on this board who have posted messages that are indistinguishable from those that an al Qaeda sympathizer would post. I won't name them because they'll deny they said it and as you and jAZ say, the search function isn't going to help clarify the situation.

Please post an example of one person posting anything that the average person (not RWNJ like yourself) would see as 'indistinguishable from those that an al Qaeda sympathizer' would post.

I can post some examples of 'you can't support the troops if you don't support the war!' but so far the only ones I've found are from Logical who has admitted to the sentiment in question, so why bother? I'm having a hard time finding posts that date back to the 2002-2003 period. Otherwise there would be ample examples of what Jaz was talking about. Lord knows he was not the only person on this board who stated that remark...

so far he's the only one with balls enough to own up to it though. But then what were we thinking? People who participated in the RWNJM, rather than defend the POTUS and their previous position, certainly are not going to own up to saying something like that.

Iowanian
05-24-2006, 10:04 AM
I correctly predicted your behavior, then when you took the bait, I boasted about reading you correctly. I understand that you probably had a difficult time in high school, what with getting "pantsed" or "wedgied" on a daily basis by the big, bad bullies, but even you should be able to comprehend the difference between complaining and boasting.

Predicted?

pffffffffffffft. Begged for publicly.

You're welcome, Cybil.

patteeu
05-24-2006, 10:09 AM
Please post an example of one person posting anything that the average person (not RWNJ like yourself) would see as 'indistinguishable from those that an al Qaeda sympathizer' would post.

I can post some examples of 'you can't support the troops if you don't support the war!' but so far the only ones I've found are from Logical who has admitted to the sentiment in question, so why bother? I'm having a hard time finding posts that date back to the 2002-2003 period. Otherwise there would be ample examples of what Jaz was talking about. Lord knows he was not the only person on this board who stated that remark...

so far he's the only one with balls enough to own up to it though. But then what were we thinking? People who participated in the RWNJM, rather than defend the POTUS and their previous position, certainly are not going to own up to saying something like that.

You and jAZ seem to be working on a new ChiefsPlanet standard of casting generalized (and questionable, to say the least) aspersions, not naming names, refusing to provide examples, and blaming the search function, so I don't think I'll be bothered with living up to a higher standard than the one to which the two of you hold yourselves. Now if you want to live up to the higher standard yourself, I'll consider following suit.

FWIW, I don't think any al Qaeda sympathizers who may be present are going to own up to something like that either.

Cochise
05-24-2006, 10:20 AM
You and jAZ seem to be working on a new ChiefsPlanet standard of casting generalized (and questionable, to say the least) aspersions, not naming names, refusing to provide examples, and blaming the search function...

There's always proof - you just can't see it.

memyselfI
05-24-2006, 10:42 AM
You and jAZ seem to be working on a new ChiefsPlanet standard of casting generalized (and questionable, to say the least) aspersions, not naming names, refusing to provide examples, and blaming the search function, so I don't think I'll be bothered with living up to a higher standard than the one to which the two of you hold yourselves. Now if you want to live up to the higher standard yourself, I'll consider following suit.

FWIW, I don't think any al Qaeda sympathizers who may be present are going to own up to something like that either.

Well, unlike RWNJs who are too spineless and dickless to admit to having said it, there are NOT ANY AQ supporters or sympathizers on this board. RWNJ perceptions do not an AQ sympathizer/supporter make.

So far, I've found at least three different threads where people are making the implication/equation that to not support the war is to not support the troops. I have yet to find the specific statement 'You can't support the troops if you don't support the war!" so I'm not posting any links yet...

lest you try to discount the comments as not being equal in context.

I know it's out there because I was one of the people who had to try to defend this position when DUHbya's approval rating for the war and his presidency was at 80%. I remember having my patrioticism, my loyalties, and my support questioned ad nauseum. The fact that the search function isn't picking up certain threads from 2003 does not mean they didn't happen anymore than OJ being found NG means he didn't murder two people.

I imagine that some of the people who said it are not even checking this section of the anymore because once they realized they'd been had they disappeared. GRWNJM

stevieray
05-24-2006, 10:47 AM
Well, unlike RWNJs who are too spineless and dickless to admit to having said it, there are NOT ANY AQ supporters or sympathizers on this board. RWNJ perceptions do not an AQ sympathizer/supporter make.

but your perceptions are valid? ROFL

I'd bet AQ supporters and sympathizers would endorse your oopsie mantra.

memyselfI
05-24-2006, 10:50 AM
Interestingly, out of the dozens, if not hundreds, of people who argued for the war and against those speaking out against it there are only 34 people on record as admitting or denying they felt this way.

Where is everyone else???? :hmmm: Where are the war drum banging NeoCONS????? :hmmm: :hmmm: :hmmm:

The list contains duplicates and the responses have been omitted:

'Hamas' Jenkins, Adam, Amnorix, Baby Lee, Boozer, Cochise, Dave Lane, Fishpicker, go bo, HC_Chief, irishjayhawk, Jamie, jAZ, JBucc, jiveturkey, jspchief, NewChief, Nightwish, patteeu, Pitt Gorilla, Sully, Ultra Peanut, unlurking, Velvet_Jones

Adam, Adept Havelock, Amnorix, Baby Lee, banyon, Boozer, Braincase, Cochise, Dave Lane, Fishpicker, go bo, HC_Chief, irishjayhawk, Jamie, jAZ, JBucc, jspchief, Laz, listopencil, memyselfI, NewChief, Nightwish, patteeu, penchief, Pitt Gorilla, Sully, Ultra Peanut, unlurking, WoodDraw
BucEyedPea, Logical

patteeu
05-24-2006, 10:58 AM
Well, unlike RWNJs who are too spineless and dickless to admit to having said it, there are NOT ANY AQ supporters or sympathizers on this board. RWNJ perceptions do not an AQ sympathizer/supporter make.

So far, I've found at least three different threads where people are making the implication/equation that to not support the war is to not support the troops. I have yet to find the specific statement 'You can't support the troops if you don't support the war!" so I'm not posting any links yet...

lest you try to discount the comments as not being equal in context.

I know it's out there because I was one of the people who had to try to defend this position when DUHbya's approval rating for the war and his presidency was at 80%. I remember having my patrioticism, my loyalties, and my support questioned ad nauseum. The fact that the search function isn't picking up certain threads from 2003 does not mean they didn't happen anymore than OJ being found NG means he didn't murder two people.

I imagine that some of the people who said it are not even checking this section of the anymore because once they realized they'd been had they disappeared. GRWNJM


Let us know when you actually come up with something. Right now, I take it, the poll results accurately reflect your search results. ROFL

memyselfI
05-24-2006, 10:59 AM
Let us know when you actually come up with something. ROFL

Yep, I pegged it correctly. Shameless.

But then you still believe the WH. What did I expect? ROFL ROFL ROFL

Cochise
05-24-2006, 11:02 AM
Let us know when you actually come up with something. Right now, I take it, the poll results accurately reflect your search results. ROFL

hahahahaa - It's killing me how asking someone to back up their charges is supposedly tantamount to an admission of guilt.

mlyonsd
05-24-2006, 11:23 AM
Interestingly, out of the dozens, if not hundreds, of people who argued for the war and against those speaking out against it there are only 34 people on record as admitting or denying they felt this way.

Where is everyone else???? :hmmm: Where are the war drum banging NeoCONS????? :hmmm: :hmmm: :hmmm:

The list contains duplicates and the responses have been omitted:

'Hamas' Jenkins, Adam, Amnorix, Baby Lee, Boozer, Cochise, Dave Lane, Fishpicker, go bo, HC_Chief, irishjayhawk, Jamie, jAZ, JBucc, jiveturkey, jspchief, NewChief, Nightwish, patteeu, Pitt Gorilla, Sully, Ultra Peanut, unlurking, Velvet_Jones

Adam, Adept Havelock, Amnorix, Baby Lee, banyon, Boozer, Braincase, Cochise, Dave Lane, Fishpicker, go bo, HC_Chief, irishjayhawk, Jamie, jAZ, JBucc, jspchief, Laz, listopencil, memyselfI, NewChief, Nightwish, patteeu, penchief, Pitt Gorilla, Sully, Ultra Peanut, unlurking, WoodDraw
BucEyedPea, Logical

It's a stupid f'ing poll so why bother?

jAZ's attempt at a vindication thread got the results it deserved.

The war was justified, we're going to succeed, and it will end up being a good thing for the US in the long run. You can put me in that war banging club and I'm proud of it.

Iowanian
05-24-2006, 11:43 AM
Silly Dense.....

I didn't vote on Jaz's poll, because it didn't ask the question in a way I felt like answering. I've addressed my issue earlier, but that doesn't negate the fact that I think that YOU, Dense do not support the troops.

chagrin
05-24-2006, 11:47 AM
I'm for the war, you can **** yourself meme - I support it and still do but still won't hang out with you and the other anti USA wingnuts. BTW how have you enjoyed the freedoms that you were allowed to have here by WAR, PEOPLE DYING AND KILLING OTHERS for the at freedom?
I would imagine the cashola your wife has been making for you to sit at home and do nothing but talk, has been very pleasant for you hasn't it?

Yeah, sit on here with TJ and the other radical, race card playing stump jumpers and claim your victory on this website because nobody wants to hear or read your shit anymore. You obviously don't consider that you are not a A-list terrorist, nobody wants to run in circles with you.

So, enjoy your day on the couch, you fat, lazy terrorist sympathizing POS.

I almost apologized to my uncle, the VETERAN, yesterday for people like you but I realized I shouldn't mention your name to a truly honorable human being.

F off, I support the war AND the troops! You cannot do both, and if you believe you can, that's fine with me, but you're wrong.

Baby Lee
05-24-2006, 11:52 AM
F off, I support the war AND the troops! You cannot do both, and if you believe you can, that's fine with me, but you're wrong.
Uh, oh!! The ranks DOUBLE!!!!

Nightwish
05-24-2006, 11:58 AM
BTW how have you enjoyed the freedoms that you were allowed to have here by WAR, PEOPLE DYING AND KILLING OTHERS for the at freedom?Who's talking about war in general? We're talking about one particular war. If you think that being against one particular war means you must be against all wars, or that being in favor of war in general means that you must support this war, then you're a dumbass. It doesn't get any simpler than that.I almost apologized to my uncle, the VETERAN, yesterday for people like you but I realized I shouldn't mention your name to a truly honorable human being.You should apologize to him for people like you who sit in the stands and cheer on war like it's a sporting event, thereby diminishing the sacrifice of real lives that is being made by real soldiers.F off, I support the war AND the troops! You cannot do both, and if you believe you can, that's fine with me, but you're wrong.First off, if you support both the war and the troops, that's fine and dandy, good for you. But if you believe you can't do one without the other, well, that's one incredibly egocentric view of the world you've got there ("if you don't hold my view, you can't possibly hold a different one").

Logical
05-24-2006, 12:22 PM
You are sooo effing born again.
This incident reminds me of the newly born again dude who confabulates about how much porn he watched and how many drugs he took 'back then' to curry comraderie and intimacy amongst his new born again friends.
You're not 'admitting your mistake' out of regret or humility. You've succombed to the us/them mentality, and have 'admitted your mistake' to validate the misguided assessment of your aspired 'new friends' and throw a shroud of disrepute on your imagined 'old friends.'
You knew jAZ's assertion that there were 'some people' who held this rdiculous position was fatally flawed, so you jumped up to say 'I'm Sparticus.'BS there were others who said it and won't admit it. I suspect you might even be one though I have done a search and cannot prove it. I do know that we have at least one other honorable person who will admit his feelings and I must say I was suprised as it was Chagrin. You going to accuse him of being born again to your side?

I never realized before what a self righteous little bidge you can be, I have seen you be petty before but who on here has not been petty at one time or another. This is another side to you.

Logical
05-24-2006, 12:25 PM
Chagrin,

Though I no longer agree with your position I respect that you will admit it. I know you feel I can be two faced at times and perhaps I can, I am certainly not perfect. But admitting this was the stand-up thing to do and you stood up.:clap:

BucEyedPea
05-24-2006, 12:25 PM
I don't think my choice was understood. I was never for Iraq at first and changed my mind. I was always against it as a stretch, escalation and diversion. I only chose what I did, I am one of the two, because I believed in that concept in general. I never thought I'd live to see the day I felt otherwise.

But...

I still don't understand how going into Iraq is protecting our freedoms?
I just don't see it. Terrorism is up...and we have less, and less freedom...in fact since this may never end (WH's words not mine)...seems we may never get them all back.

Can someone explain to me how is an insurgency, made up primarily of former Baathists, who only allied with al Qaeda foreigners ( the enemy of my enemy is my friend kinda alliance) who only came into Iraq after we created the vacuum of power, plus a porous border, keeps being referred to as "terrorists?" They're not. Don't sequences and dropping out time frames matter? Aren't these part of logic? I find it irrational.

Seems to me we were better off with SH in power, because the different groups who hate each other over there, have always tried to knock the other guys out from power, to wield thier own version of tyranny. They are no better or different than SH, who was just one of them.

Fact is US plans to never leave because we are constructing bases for a world wide revolution of spreading "democracy".....you know like "wars of national libertion." It's even stated officially on the WH website.

This is not Americanism.

And the Democratic leadership is No different.

memyselfI
05-24-2006, 12:29 PM
Who's talking about war in general? We're talking about one particular war. If you think that being against one particular war means you must be against all wars, or that being in favor of war in general means that you must support this war, then you're a dumbass. It doesn't get any simpler than that.You should apologize to him for people like you who sit in the stands and cheer on war like it's a sporting event, thereby diminishing the sacrifice of real lives that is being made by real soldiers.First off, if you support both the war and the troops, that's fine and dandy, good for you. But if you believe you can't do one without the other, well, that's one incredibly egocentric view of the world you've got there ("if you don't hold my view, you can't possibly hold a different one").

Bravo. OUTSTANDING POST.

I do take one exception though. Chagrin has the testies to admit he feels this way as he's reveling in it. The same can't be said for others who've said it.

memyselfI
05-24-2006, 12:32 PM
words not mine)...seems we may never get them all back.

Can someone explain to me how is an insurgency, made up primarily of former Baathists, who only allied with al Qaeda foreigners ( the enemy of my enemy is my friend kinda alliance) who only came into Iraq after we created the vacuum of power, plus a porous border, keeps being referred to as "terrorists?" They're not. Don't sequences and dropping out time frames matter? Aren't these part of logic? I find it irrational.
Seems to me we were better off with SH in power, because the different groups who hate each other over there, have always tried to knock the other guys out from power, to wield thier own version of tyranny. They are no better or different than SH, who was just one of them.

Fact is US plans to never leave because we are constructing bases for a world wide revolution of spreading "democracy".....you know like "wars of national libertion." It's even stated officially on the WH website.

This is not Americanism.

And the Democratic leadership is No different.

It's OUR guys and gals, sent by OUR president, representing OUR country, doing OUR dirty work foreign policy...

no further questions or answers are necessary. Why can't you understand this? :shake: :rolleyes: (dripping with sarcasm)

memyselfI
05-24-2006, 12:35 PM
It's a stupid f'ing poll so why bother?

jAZ's attempt at a vindication thread got the results it deserved.

The war was justified, we're going to succeed, and it will end up being a good thing for the US in the long run. You can put me in that war banging club and I'm proud of it.

Because if it were a RWNJ poll asking ' do you support the troops and the war without mutual exclusivity' you would be one of the first to respond yes.

It's because it's jAZ and the question has been framed to imply some kind of wrong doing do you misplace your stones.

Iowanian
05-24-2006, 12:37 PM
Don't sweat it big mama....you're a nut job alright.

Jaz's question wasn't framed in a way that had a serious agenda, and did not reflect potential reasonable views, similar to what I addressed.

Nightwish
05-24-2006, 12:38 PM
The American military cannot be defeated in Iraqi… they can only be beaten at home and more notably by the press.

The Vietnamese figured this out quite readily and the terrorist/insurgents are trying to same game plan.

Now who is giving said terrorists that ray of hope?I hear a lot about how much the terrorists are being supposedly emboldened by the dissent here stateside, which is pretty interesting in light of the fact that you've got no statistics, only rhetoric, to back up that argument. But let's examine it from the other side (also no statistics, just rhetoric, which makes the argument just as weighty) -- how about those people who keep spouting off about how opposition to the war is emboldening the enemy, thus seemingly actually encouraging the enemy to become emboldened by it? That would put the "giving said terrorists a ray of hope" shoe on your foot. Can't have that, can we?

Nightwish
05-24-2006, 12:41 PM
Can someone explain to me how is an insurgency, made up primarily of former Baathists, who only allied with al Qaeda foreigners ( the enemy of my enemy is my friend kinda alliance) who only came into Iraq after we created the vacuum of power, plus a porous border, keeps being referred to as "terrorists?" They're not. Don't sequences and dropping out time frames matter? Aren't these part of logic? I find it irrational.
That's just the way the "War of Words" works. You start a war, then in order to try to swing waning support your way, you label anyone and everyone who fights back a "terrorist." It's the propaganda machine in action. As distasteful as it may seem, propaganda is, and has always been, an important factor in all wars.

BucEyedPea
05-24-2006, 12:42 PM
Originally Posted by Eye Patch
The American military cannot be defeated in Iraqi… they can only be beaten at home and more notably by the press.

According to some generals we can't win in Iraq and are not...that our best options are to cut and run....now! Hubris will bring us down faster...the sun sets on all empires. Superpowers have been beat by small rag-tag guerrilla armies in the past. I wouldn't bank on this.

BucEyedPea
05-24-2006, 12:43 PM
It's the propaganda machine in action. As distasteful as it may seem, propaganda is, and has always been, an important factor in all wars.

As the saying goes..."truth is the first casualty of war."

Nightwish
05-24-2006, 12:45 PM
Chagrin has the testies to admit he feels this way as he's reveling in it. The same can't be said for others who've said it.
I'll give him that, at least he's being honest about being an egocentric twit who is walking through life with blinders on.

memyselfI
05-24-2006, 12:50 PM
Let's play match the quote with the non-voter:

08-25-2005, 10:54 AM

Would a left winger think I made sense if I said that I hate Halliburton, but I support the employees?

Baby Lee
05-24-2006, 12:52 PM
BS there were others who said it and won't admit it. I suspect you might even be one though I have done a search and cannot prove it. I do know that we have at least one other honorable person who will admit his feelings and I must say I was suprised as it was Chagrin. You going to accuse him of being born again to your side?

I never realized before what a self righteous little bidge you can be, I have seen you be petty before but who on here has not been petty at one time or another. This is another side to you.
I'm the self-righteous bidge? Who's the one talking about the 'honor' of admitting crap that other people suspect you think, and the 'dishonor' of those who deny thinking that way? Have you even posted a single time on this thread without honor being mentioned?
This has been nothing more than a campaign to cover an overly broad and hyperbolic assertion.
jAZ was doing his usual tactic of attempting to smear 'some people around here' and got called on it. And the cover campaign continues the tactic by suggesting those 'some people' are lying in their denial.
At least this exercise has unveiled that you 'suspect me' of improper thought. Let me save you the trouble. View my votes in the poll and just go right ahead and accept them at face value.

Logical
05-24-2006, 01:12 PM
Because if it were a RWNJ poll asking ' do you support the troops and the war without mutual exclusivity' you would be one of the first to respond yes.

It's because it's jAZ and the question has been framed to imply some kind of wrong doing do you misplace your stones.

ROFL

No one can ever say you don't know how to be direct.

Logical
05-24-2006, 01:21 PM
I'm the self-righteous bidge? Who's the one talking about the 'honor' of admitting crap that other people suspect you think, and the 'dishonor' of those who deny thinking that way? Have you even posted a single time on this thread without honor being mentioned?
This has been nothing more than a campaign to cover an overly broad and hyperbolic assertion.
jAZ was doing his usual tactic of attempting to smear 'some people around here' and got called on it. And the cover campaign continues the tactic by suggesting those 'some people' are lying in their denial.
At least this exercise has unveiled that you 'suspect me' of improper thought. Let me save you the trouble. View my votes in the poll and just go right ahead and accept them at face value.
Just because I suspect does not mean I will accuse. That is why I did the search, I found nothing to back my belief. Frankly given your staunchness on the issue in the past I am suprised. There are others though who don't have the stones and are not stepping forward. Some of them are good people and may not even read this forum now that it is separated. Frankly this poll in this forum was worded wrong to accomplish its purpose as there were too many outs a person could take. Also this Forum is not where some of the biggest prewar debating related to the war took place it was back in the lounge before this became a segregated location where we had to be out of sight and out of miind, many of those posters who wanted us out of sight would be the likely candidates to have said something similar to what I did. Fact is most of the hardcore conservatives stayed in the Lounge and as far as I know don't even lurk over here anymore.

By the way will you at least admit that I am a poster that will frequently admit his errors publicly. (I realize your nature will require you to make a smart ass comment with it, that's OK I expect it out of you)

Eye Patch
05-24-2006, 01:26 PM
I hear a lot about how much the terrorists are being supposedly emboldened by the dissent here stateside, which is pretty interesting in light of the fact that you've got no statistics, only rhetoric, to back up that argument. But let's examine it from the other side (also no statistics, just rhetoric, which makes the argument just as weighty) -- how about those people who keep spouting off about how opposition to the war is emboldening the enemy, thus seemingly actually encouraging the enemy to become emboldened by it? That would put the "giving said terrorists a ray of hope" shoe on your foot. Can't have that, can we?

Now I know why you're a psych major.... just more psychobabble. Your “other side of the argument” is weak and pathetic and it's what you are all about spin...spin... spin.. deflect… deflect…. deflect.

My example is Vietnam... where we never lost a battle yet lost the war at Home. This is well known and has even been admitted by a North Vietnamese general that was their strategy of working the American public by our very own press. It worked there and Bin Laden and his boys are hoping it works in Iraqi.

A question was asked and it bears repeating…. If you could have the war in Iraqi be a credible success with democracy installed and insurgents on the run from the Iraqi military thus making the hated George Bush a great president… or

Have a complete and utter failure in Iraqi where insurgency runs amok and neighbors like Iran is just waiting to swoop in thus insuring the hated George Bush and the Republican party as the worst president of all time thus proving you and your ilk right and my ilk wrong.

Which would you choose?

Eye Patch
05-24-2006, 01:32 PM
According to some generals we can't win in Iraq and are not...that our best options are to cut and run....now! Hubris will bring us down faster...the sun sets on all empires. Superpowers have been beat by small rag-tag guerrilla armies in the past. I wouldn't bank on this.

it's not our job to win... that is the job of the Iraqi people. We are just trying to give them the opportunity to make that happen.

Radar Chief
05-24-2006, 01:38 PM
ROFL

No one can ever say you don't know how to be direct.

A bit ironic that the same person cry’n ‘bout be’n insulted, be’n called a “terrorist sympathizer”, is also the first to insult, questioning someone else’s package, no?
I mean, it’s not the least bit surprising since we’ve seen the act for a few years now, just a little surprising you’d support such hypocrisy, that’s all.

Nightwish
05-24-2006, 01:45 PM
Now I know why you're a psych major.... just more psychobabble. Your “other side of the argument” is weak and pathetic and it's what you are all about spin...spin... spin.. deflect… deflect…. deflect.

My example is Vietnam... where we never lost a battle yet lost the war at Home. This is well known and has even been admitted by a North Vietnamese general that was their strategy of working the American public by our very own press. It worked there and Bin Laden and his boys are hoping it works in Iraqi.

A question was asked and it bears repeating…. If you could have the war in Iraqi be a credible success with democracy installed and insurgents on the run from the Iraqi military thus making the hated George Bush a great president… or

Have a complete and utter failure in Iraqi where insurgency runs amok and neighbors like Iran is just waiting to swoop in thus insuring the hated George Bush and the Republican party as the worst president of all time thus proving you and your ilk right and my ilk wrong.

Which would you choose?
First of all, would you please learn the difference between "Iraq" and "Iraqi?" An "Iraqi" is a citizen of Iraq, it is not the name of the country. I ignored this error the first several dozen times you committed it, but it is starting to get annoying.

Secondly, your evidence that opposition to the war is what is most likely to cause our failure in Iraq (rather than the poor planning that has abounded from day 1) is the rather dubious claims of an old Vietnamese general who said that the reason why there was such vehement anti-war fervor in America during Vietnam is because ... wait for it ... the North Vietnamese planned it that way? Talk about some spin!

Now answer the question. If you think that we are emboldening the enemy by opposing the war, are you not also emboldening them by seizing every opportunity to feed them the message that they should be emboldened by our dissent (which has been present in every war, that we've ever fought, often to an equal or greater degree, yet you can only point to one time that it has, in your opinion, turned the tide of the war). So who is emboldening them more? Us, for voicing our opposition to an ill-planned war? Or you, for telling the enemy directly that they should find strength in our dissent?

Logical
05-24-2006, 01:48 PM
A bit ironic that the same person cry’n ‘bout be’n insulted, be’n called a “terrorist sympathizer”, is also the first to insult, questioning someone else’s package, no?
I mean, it’s not the least bit surprising since we’ve seen the act for a few years now, just a little surprising you’d support such hypocrisy, that’s all.Who says I supported it, finding what she said amusing is not the same thing.


By the way I have apologized to DEnise for calling her a terrorist supporter and saying similar things that people such as Iowanian and Big Daddy as well as other have in a PM. Frankly this BB has gotten a little out of hand in that regard. I still dislike intensely many of DEnise's views but we don't need to be hateful with her to express our distaste for her views. Now I will admit that this change in me is directly related to my new found respect for my own mortality, some people find Jesus, others just learn that respect for life others and your own is important.

OK off my soapbox.

Nightwish
05-24-2006, 01:51 PM
A question was asked and it bears repeating…. If you could have the war in Iraqi be a credible success with democracy installed and insurgents on the run from the Iraqi military thus making the hated George Bush a great president… or

Have a complete and utter failure in Iraqi where insurgency runs amok and neighbors like Iran is just waiting to swoop in thus insuring the hated George Bush and the Republican party as the worst president of all time thus proving you and your ilk right and my ilk wrong.

Which would you choose?
It doesn't matter what happens from here on out, Bush and his cronies have already earned that mantle, and future successes in Iraq won't relieve them of it. I doubt there's a person on here who cares in the least what ultimately happens to the state of Iraq, except for political reasons (prop up your man, or take down the other guy). If Iraq becomes a model democracy, or remains a quagmire of sectarian violence, my sleeping habits won't change either way. I recommend you stop pretending that you actually give a damn what happens over there, short of what impact it has on your candidate of choice.

Radar Chief
05-24-2006, 01:52 PM
Can someone explain to me how is an insurgency, made up primarily of former Baathists, who only allied with al Qaeda foreigners ( the enemy of my enemy is my friend kinda alliance) who only came into Iraq after we created the vacuum of power, plus a porous border, keeps being referred to as "terrorists?" They're not.

Sure, first off it’s apparent you don’t realize that Al Quada were landing in Iraq before we invaded. Many of those fleeing from our troops in Afghanistan landed in Iraq, this is how we get Zarqawi in Iraq pre invasion.
Second, I’m sorry but even if they’re Iraqi, when they purposely target women and children in market places specifically to make our nightly news, they’re accurately labeled “terrorists”.

Seems to me we were better off with SH in power, because the different groups who hate each other over there, have always tried to knock the other guys out from power, to wield thier own version of tyranny. They are no better or different than SH, who was just one of them.

Were we “better off” with the Taliban in Afghanistan? :shrug:

Fact is US plans to never leave because we are constructing bases for a world wide revolution of spreading "democracy".....you know like "wars of national libertion." It's even stated officially on the WH website.

Ya know, after some 60 years of “cease fire” I’m still wait’n for us to withdraw from Germany & Japan.

mlyonsd
05-24-2006, 01:57 PM
Because if it were a RWNJ poll asking ' do you support the troops and the war without mutual exclusivity' you would be one of the first to respond yes.

It's because it's jAZ and the question has been framed to imply some kind of wrong doing do you misplace your stones.

My stones are just fine, thanks for asking. I stand by what I say am not afraid to admit when I'm wrong.

Your RWNJ poll is a bad example because the intent wouldn't be to "gotcha" anyone.

This forum has turned into an ugly place and threads like this are the reason.

Radar Chief
05-24-2006, 02:05 PM
Who says I supported it, finding what she said amusing is not the same thing.

Ok, then I retract that part of my post. :thumb:

By the way I have apologized to DEnise for calling her a terrorist supporter and saying similar things that people such as Iowanian and Big Daddy as well as other have in a PM. Frankly this BB has gotten a little out of hand in that regard.

Good for you. She’s never received a PM like that from me ‘cause I’ve never called her any of the things she’s been called by others.
And I agree, that has gotten out of hand.

I still dislike intensely many of DEnise's views but we don't need to be hateful with her to express our distaste for her views. Now I will admit that this change in me is directly related to my new found respect for my own mortality, some people find Jesus, others just learn that respect for life others and your own is important.

I don’t have a problem with probably more than half of Denise’s “views”, only how she presents them.
I’ve pointed out to’er before that she gets the treatment she receives ‘cause of the way she “acts” here. If she didn’t so desperately need to act like a jackass she wouldn’t get treated like one. Though I do find it kinda funny that a supposed believer in Karma has to be told this.

OK off my soapbox.

:shrug: I didn’t read this as “preachy”.
I’m sure you know you’re all right with me. :thumb:

Logical
05-24-2006, 02:06 PM
It doesn't matter what happens from here on out, Bush and his cronies have already earned that mantle, and future successes in Iraq won't relieve them of it. I doubt there's a person on here who cares in the least what ultimately happens to the state of Iraq, except for political reasons (prop up your man, or take down the other guy). If Iraq becomes a model democracy, or remains a quagmire of sectarian violence, my sleeping habits won't change either way. I recommend you stop pretending that you actually give a damn what happens over there, short of what impact it has on your candidate of choice.

You know I do care about Iraq in that I hope it does not turn into an even greater slaughterhouse than it was under Saddam. I think that short of it being annexed by Iran or Syria or us taking their oil there is not much value to us in Iraq. I hope whoever said it was a base for the armed spreading of Democracy around the globe are wrong.

Logical
05-24-2006, 02:08 PM
...

:shrug: I didn’t read this as “preachy”.
I’m sure you know you’re all right with me. :thumb:Thanks for all of your response but especially this part.

Eye Patch
05-24-2006, 02:14 PM
It doesn't matter what happens from here on out, Bush and his cronies have already earned that mantle, and future successes in Iraq won't relieve them of it. I doubt there's a person on here who cares in the least what ultimately happens to the state of Iraq, except for political reasons (prop up your man, or take down the other guy). If Iraq becomes a model democracy, or remains a quagmire of sectarian violence, my sleeping habits won't change either way. I recommend you stop pretending that you actually give a damn what happens over there, short of what impact it has on your candidate of choice.

So now you are going to tell me what I care about or what I don't care about.

Amazing… not only are you a quasi shrink but also Miss Cleo and her crystal ball.

What a pompous ass you are.

So you're telling me that even if Iraq is a huge success and we can buy cheap oil and the spread of democracy influences a democratic take over Iran that would have no impact on you to the point of caring… WOW… if you don’t care then why are you here. Didn’t really think this all the way through… did ya.

But as I can plainly see your “moderate” mind is already made up no matter the outcome or the circumstances.

Kinda rigid in your thought patterns. What would your psychological analysis of such a person.

Nightwish
05-24-2006, 02:17 PM
You know I do care about Iraq in that I hope it does not turn into an even greater slaughterhouse than it was under Saddam. I think that short of it being annexed by Iran or Syria or us taking their oil there is not much value to us in Iraq. I hope whoever said it was a base for the armed spreading of Democracy around the globe are wrong.
I was speaking mostly in hyperbole, not to suggest that nobody has an iota of feeling about the welfare of the people or nation of Iraq. My point is that, whether Iraq becomes a model of Democracy or remains a quagmire, it's not going to change our lives significantly, unless they decide to bring it to our doorstep again. We've all grown up with the Middle East being a mess, we're used to it, it's always been a constant in our lives. We read history books teaching how it has been mess for millenia before any of us were born. It's a mess now, and whatever happens in Iraq, it's not likely to herald a quick end to that reality. It's not as if the future of our nation depends on the outcome of the war in Iraq. Bush has made a real mess of things, especially in terms of our relations with the rest of the world, but Bush's days are numbered. At most, he can only mess things up for two more years. We're guaranteed that the next president, whether Republican or Democrat or other, will not be George W. Bush, and even in the worst-case scenario, I still can't see that as being a bad thing. We will recover from the mess Bush and his supporters have made of our nation. It'll take time, but we'll recover. We've recovered from disastrous leaders before, and we will again. If Iraq turns out to be a complete failure, we'll still be the world's number one superpower. If there turns out to be another 9/11, we'll still be the world's number one superpower. They can push our buttons, but toppling the world's greatest nation is beyond their capabilities, in my opinion. It's not beyond our own abilities, though, which is why I'm very thankful for term limits, so that we are guaranteed that Bush can't sink us much further.

Nightwish
05-24-2006, 02:24 PM
So now you are going to tell me what I care about or what I don't care about.I'm going on your own posting history. For all your blowing hard about Iraq, I've not seen one thing that suggests that you give a flying shit about those people personally. For you, it's all about propping up Bush and his agenda, because it would make you feel a little better about being a total Bushbot. Because of the disaster that Bush and his administration have been, you feel backed against the wall as one of his supporters, so you prance and preen and pretend that you care one whit what happens to those "camel jockeys" (isn't that how you think of them?). The only thing you actually care about is having your vote vindicated.Amazing… not only are you a quasi shrink but also Miss Cleo and her crystal ball.One doesn't need a crystal ball to see right through the likes of you and your fellow Bushbots. You're formulaic as hell.So you're telling me that even if Iraq is a huge success and we can buy cheap oil and the spread of democracy influences a democratic take over Iran that would have no impact on you to the point of caring… WOW… if you don’t care then why are you here. Didn’t really think this all the way through… did ya.Our oil prices are only minimally impacted by Iraq. The high prices we're paying right now are less about Iraq, and more about domestic price setting.Kinda rigid in your thought patterns. What would your psychological analysis of such a person.I'm not a psychoanalyst. And if I had a Masters or higher, I still wouldn't be a psychoanalyst. The psychology profession is not nearly as one-dimensional as you seem to think it is.

BIG_DADDY
05-24-2006, 02:27 PM
I think it's all in how you go about not supporting it. Personally I was never for us going into Iraq. I think we should have Muslims fighting Muslims. I firmly believe we have the ability to invade within days and control oil in the region should there be signs of a 3rd world war as well. I don't think people confuse me for someone who doesn't support the troops though like they might with meme, flunkie, jaz ect. That's what I mean by the way you go about it.

Iowanian
05-24-2006, 02:30 PM
I'm going to call bullshit here.

I want success and peace in Iraq for many reasons...Stability in the region full of whackjobs, so that more American Men and women don't have to bleed there in another decade, So that Terrorists don't have a place to train, plan, finance another attack on US soil among other reasons....Very few of which have anything to do with the status of a sitting POTUS. I want stability in that country, so they can get on their feet as a functioning govt, improving quality of life for their people, and allowing US troops to come home. I don't however, want them to just drop trow and pull out for politics at home, leaving a destabalized warzone which negates the price paid by our soliers, their families and tax payers. It Does matter.

Your sleeping habbits would change if you knew someone in that shithole.

Is this where I tell you to keep your opinions to yourself and sit and spin?



It doesn't matter what happens from here on out, Bush and his cronies have already earned that mantle, and future successes in Iraq won't relieve them of it. I doubt there's a person on here who cares in the least what ultimately happens to the state of Iraq, except for political reasons (prop up your man, or take down the other guy). If Iraq becomes a model democracy, or remains a quagmire of sectarian violence, my sleeping habits won't change either way. I recommend you stop pretending that you actually give a damn what happens over there, short of what impact it has on your candidate of choice.

Radar Chief
05-24-2006, 02:38 PM
I'm going to call bullshit here.

I want success and peace in Iraq for many reasons...Stability in the region full of whackjobs, so that more American Men and women don't have to bleed there in another decade, So that Terrorists don't have a place to train, plan, finance another attack on US soil among other reasons....Very few of which have anything to do with the status of a sitting POTUS. I want stability in that country, so they can get on their feet as a functioning govt, improving quality of life for their people, and allowing US troops to come home. I don't however, want them to just drop trow and pull out for politics at home, leaving a destabalized warzone which negates the price paid by our soliers, their families and tax payers. It Does matter.

Your sleeping habbits would change if you knew someone in that shithole.

:clap: Agreed, particularly the bolded part.
I feel bad for the way we left things in ’91 when we had 7th Corp heavy armor/artillery within a days drive to Baghdad. We should’ve ended it right there, but at the time thought we were do’n the right thing only to now find out what we did was hand off the problem to a younger generation.

Nightwish
05-24-2006, 02:38 PM
I'm going to call bullshit here.Don't mind if I call bullshit on you, do you? I want success and peace in Iraq for many reasons...Stability in the region full of whackjobs, so that more American Men and women don't have to bleed there in another decade, So that Terrorists don't have a place to train, plan, finance another attack on US soil among other reasons....Very few of which have anything to do with the status of a sitting POTUS. I want stability in that country, so they can get on their feet as a functioning govt, improving quality of life for their people, and allowing US troops to come home. I don't however, want them to just drop trow and pull out for politics at home, leaving a destabalized warzone which negates the price paid by our soliers, their families and tax payers. It Does matter.I think you want the Americans to come home, and for the region to be stable enough that they won't have to return. But I do not think your concern or focus is for the actual welfare of the Iraqi people. For that matter, I'm not really convinced that you really care that much about how many Americans are bleeding over there, or for how long (aside from those that you may know personally), otherwise you probably would have thought twice about voting for the people who sent them there unprepared, who cut their funding for body armor, who have enacted regulations to stifle the outside purchase of body armor, and who are keeping them there. I doubt you'd bat an eye if a superstorm, for instance, came along and wiped them all (the Arabs, I mean) out of existence. Well, actually, I take that back. If they all got wiped out, they couldn't keep killing each other, and then you'd have to find somewhere else to turn your cheerleading talents.Your sleeping habbits would change if you knew someone in that shithole.My best friend was over there, you moron. Who do you know over there? Anybody? Is this where I tell you to keep your opinions to yourself and sit and spin?You can say whatever you want. My opinion of you is unchanged. I still think you're that little geek who got "pantsed" and "wedgied" in school on a regular basis, and now probably works in a cubicle for the very people who tormented you, and in your adulthood haven't had the courage to stand up to them, so instead you bray loudly on an anonymous bulletin board so that you'll feel bigger.

Radar Chief
05-24-2006, 02:40 PM
My best friend was over there, you moron. Who do you know over there? Anybody?

His younger brother, FYI.

Iowanian
05-24-2006, 02:42 PM
hahhahahahahahahahaaaaa

Nightwish
05-24-2006, 02:44 PM
His younger brother, FYI.
I pray for the safety of his younger brother. I also pray he grows up smarter and wiser than his older brother. I pray he comes home, as my best friend, with enough insight into what is going on over there to be able to tell his older brother and the other Bushbots just how foolish they are.

BIG_DADDY
05-24-2006, 02:44 PM
I'm going to call bullshit here.

I want success and peace in Iraq for many reasons...Stability in the region full of whackjobs, so that more American Men and women don't have to bleed there in another decade, So that Terrorists don't have a place to train, plan, finance another attack on US soil among other reasons....Very few of which have anything to do with the status of a sitting POTUS. I want stability in that country, so they can get on their feet as a functioning govt, improving quality of life for their people, and allowing US troops to come home. I don't however, want them to just drop trow and pull out for politics at home, leaving a destabalized warzone which negates the price paid by our soliers, their families and tax payers. It Does matter.

Your sleeping habbits would change if you knew someone in that shithole.

Is this where I tell you to keep your opinions to yourself and sit and spin?

Well looking at it that way I guess I do support it to some degree. I wasn't for going in there in the first place but I totally agree with your sentiment at this point. We need to pull out as soon as we can feel realistic about some form of sustained stability in the region by people we support. This has been a very, very expensive endeavour on many levels we would have to be morons to just walk out. I say that with my only sibling over there.

Radar Chief
05-24-2006, 02:47 PM
I pray for the safety of his younger brother. I also pray he grows up smarter and wiser than his older brother. I pray he comes home, as my best friend, with enough insight into what is going on over there to be able to tell his older brother and the other Bushbots just how foolish they are.

What if he comes back with enough insite to tell you how “foolish” you’ve been? Prepared for that possibility?

Iowanian
05-24-2006, 02:50 PM
I've never been a "bushbot" and the only people in the world who would say so, are an isolated few dipshits on the internet. When Asked by Logical, I once outlined many things I don't like about the admin or policies, but you're not worth the effort.

There is a very good reason that I give a crap about the quality of life of the people, though MANY of the soldiers and Marines I know who have been in country or are, would tell you that many Iraqis aren't and will never be a civilized people.

The reason I want their quality of life to improve?
Simple. Maybe, It will keep a few hundred assholes from being so miserable that they're willing to stuff their asses with explosives and pull the chord in a market full of innocents.

I'll never cheer because an innocent citizen is killed.

The other reason is, those kids, wading in sewage, drinking tainted water with no hope.....It'd be nice fi the place was salvaged enough for them to do something positive in their lives.

BIG_DADDY
05-24-2006, 02:51 PM
I pray for the safety of his younger brother. I also pray he grows up smarter and wiser than his older brother. I pray he comes home, as my best friend, with enough insight into what is going on over there to be able to tell his older brother and the other Bushbots just how foolish they are.


I don't know any Bushbots as most of my conservative friends don't even like him and I never voted him. That being said I and many of my friends have been called a Bushbot many times by the left wing losers who feel the need to try and talk down at somebody. It's the promotion of this mentality that continues to alienate the people from the left and is one of the reasons why the party is failing. Hell the party can't even get someone in office when most people don't like the current president.

Nightwish
05-24-2006, 02:53 PM
What if he comes back with enough insite to tell you how “foolish” you’ve been? Prepared for that possibility?
It could happen. I'm talking about Iowanian's and his ilk's penchant for cheerleading the war, treating it like it's a sporting event, something that is done for their entertainment, thereby diminishing the very real sacrifice that is being made by very real soldiers fighting very real battles and spilling very real blood. If Iowanian's brother came home and saw how he acts about the war, he'd most likely punch his lights out, and it would be well deserved, in my opinion. It isn't necessarily foolish to support the war, but it is incredibly foolish to treat it like its a game, something to be watched when football isn't on. And 99% of Iowanian's posts in regard to the war seem to have just that flavor.

Radar Chief
05-24-2006, 02:53 PM
I pray for the safety of his younger brother. I also pray he grows up smarter and wiser than his older brother. I pray he comes home, as my best friend, with enough insight into what is going on over there to be able to tell his older brother and the other Bushbots just how foolish they are.

Just another chunk of FYI here, but I’ve had over a dozen friends rotate through Iraq, some more than just a couple times and most I served with in the first Gulf War, but only one has come back feel’n that we never should’ve invaded. Though for reference he was pissed that he had to go to begin with and only grew more bitter ‘bout it “over there”.
I felt for’im. He was National Guard with only 3 months of service left when he got hit with “Stop Loss” to go to Iraq. He has two boys, one a 6 month old, and a wife that was absolutely shattered over it.
He’s back now, there life is mostly normal again and for the most part we don’t discuss it.

Nightwish
05-24-2006, 02:57 PM
I don't know any Bushbots as most of my conservative friends don't even like him and I never voted him. That being said I and many of my friends have been called a Bushbot many times by the left wing losers who feel the need to try and talk down at somebody. It's the promotion of this mentality that continues to alienate the people from the left and is one of the reasons why the party is failing. Hell the party can't even get someone in office when most people don't like the current president.
Not everybody who voted for Bush is a Bushbot. And I've never called you that. In fact, I've only recently picked up the term from another poster, because it's a pretty cool term, and pretty descriptive of those people who refuse to actually think anything out with regards to the war in Iraq, but instead just ape everything the President and his cronies say to them. Bushbots are those whose mentality is "if the President is for it, it's good, and I'm automatically for it, too."

No, that tendency to demonize parts of the right is not what is alienating the left and keeping them out of office. Just curious, since you seem to have an opinion on what is alienating the left, what is your opinion about what is alienating the neocon right and causing their downward spiral from power?

Nightwish
05-24-2006, 02:58 PM
Just another chunk of FYI here, but I’ve had over a dozen friends rotate through Iraq, some more than just a couple times and most I served with in the first Gulf War, but only one has come back feel’n that we never should’ve invaded. Though for reference he was pissed that he had to go to begin with and only grew more bitter ‘bout it “over there”.
I felt for’im. He was National Guard with only 3 months of service left when he got hit with “Stop Loss” to go to Iraq. He has two boys, one a 6 month old, and a wife that was absolutely shattered over it.
He’s back now, there life is mostly normal again and for the most part we don’t discuss it.
Read post #173 for the particular foolishness I'm talking about.

BIG_DADDY
05-24-2006, 03:03 PM
Not everybody who voted for Bush is a Bushbot. And I've never called you that. In fact, I've only recently picked up the term from another poster, because it's a pretty cool term, and pretty descriptive of those people who refuse to actually think anything out with regards to the war in Iraq, but instead just ape everything the President and his cronies say to them. Bushbots are those whose mentality is "if the President is for it, it's good, and I'm automatically for it, too."

No, that tendency to demonize parts of the right is not what is alienating the left and keeping them out of office. Just curious, since you seem to have an opinion on what is alienating the left, what is your opinion about what is alienating the neocon right and causing their downward spiral from power?

1. Excessive spending.
2. Excessive legislation.
3. Big government policies.

I think Bush is also too arrogant at times. It's a double edge sword so he has benefitted from that image of him at times as well.

Iowanian
05-24-2006, 03:05 PM
My posts on the subject have been from 1 perspective. I am an American, and will ALWAYS root for the American cause. I don't cheer the war, but I damn sure cheer victories by American troops. I know men who have left blood on Iraqi soil.

You cannot find a post from me that says differently.

Iowanian's brother is home, and we've talked about it...I'm confiden that given the two, based on our opinions, he'd be standing on your throat.
I'll probably be bringing him to a Chiefs game this fall, feel free to ask for yourself.

If by "cheerleading" you mean, Sending letters, emails, phone cards, care packages, pictures of family, packages for platoons of people I've never met on a regular basis"....then Absolutely, I'm a cheerleader.

This is probably an area where you should take your own words to heart on your "opinion" because you're dead wrong on most all of it regarding myself and my military aquaintences.

It could happen. I'm talking about Iowanian's and his ilk's penchant for cheerleading the war, treating it like it's a sporting event, And 99% of Iowanian's posts in regard to the war seem to have just that flavor.

patteeu
05-24-2006, 03:13 PM
Who says I supported it, finding what she said amusing is not the same thing.


By the way I have apologized to DEnise for calling her a terrorist supporter and saying similar things that people such as Iowanian and Big Daddy as well as other have in a PM. Frankly this BB has gotten a little out of hand in that regard. I still dislike intensely many of DEnise's views but we don't need to be hateful with her to express our distaste for her views. Now I will admit that this change in me is directly related to my new found respect for my own mortality, some people find Jesus, others just learn that respect for life others and your own is important.

OK off my soapbox.

At least you admit what I've long suspected now. Here's an exchange (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?p=2938248) from a while back:

I wish you the best with your health, Vlad, but I have wondered from time to time if coming face to face with your own mortality has been what's caused you to change so dramatically.

You mean having a president who shows his stupidity at every turn, doesn't follow through on even 5% of the policy convictions that he rallied on, declared war against a nation that wasn't a threat, squelched the views of anyone in his own administration who disagreed with him, required only supporters to be able to attend his campaign rallies, illegally spied on Americans without warrants, vacationed while documents crossed his desk that could have helped prevent 9/11, vacationed while the emergency response to Katrina needed oversight, failed to pass any sort of social security reform, failed to pass any sort of public school reform, failed to cut budgets, grew the deficit, failed to capture or kill Osama Bin Ladin, isn't enough for someone to change their views, dramatically or not?

Exactly, Rep

I'm wondering why Taco got the "Exactly, Rep" instead of me? ;)

Oh, and lest you think that the "change" we were discussing was different than what you are admitting to in this thread, this was my response to Taco's defense:

Even if we don't agree on your laundry list, at least you admit by implication that Vlad has changed his views.

But I'm not really talking about GWBush here. There are plenty of conservatives/libertarians who have grown critical of Bush over the years and I don't see them as having changed in the way Vlad has. You read LewRockwell.com so you see a lot of what I'm talking about. Vlad's change has been different. Not only has he elected to emphasize different aspects of his personal ideology (e.g. his antagonism toward religion and those who are religious has become a greater focus for him AFAICT), but his personal approach to certain posters has changed dramatically.

Does any of what you say above explain how Vlad's approach to memyselfi has changed? Personally, in that narrow respect, I think Vlad is a better person now because he was way over the top in his expressed hatred for her before.

But hey, like I said back then, you might be more screwed up politically now than you ever were before, but you're probably a better person. Just try not to get too many bleeding heart liberal cooties from hanging out with the wrong crowd. :thumb:

Logical
05-24-2006, 03:17 PM
At least you admit what I've long suspected now. Here's an exchange (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?p=2938248) from a while back:



I'm wondering why Taco got the "Exactly, Rep" instead of me? ;)

Oh, and lest you think that the "change" we were discussing was different than what you are admitting to in this thread, this was my response to Taco's defense:Becaise on that issue my change had nothing to do with the mortality issue. I converted long after I found out I had kidney disease (Nov-Dec 2003), however shortly after that time was around the time that I sent the apology to DEnise.

If you will recall I did not change my position on the Bush administration until around Sept/Oct of 2005 almost a full two years after I faced the kidney disease.

Cochise
05-24-2006, 03:19 PM
If by "cheerleading" you mean, Sending letters, emails, phone cards, care packages, pictures of family, packages for platoons of people I've never met on a regular basis"....then Absolutely, I'm a cheerleader.


:clap:

BIG_DADDY
05-24-2006, 03:22 PM
Becaise on that issue my change had nothing to do with the mortality issue. I converted long after I found out I had kidney disease (Nov-Dec 2003), however shortly after that time was around the time that I sent the apology to DEnise.



That's just madness.

patteeu
05-24-2006, 03:24 PM
Becaise on that issue my change had nothing to do with the mortality issue. I converted long after I found out I had kidney disease (Nov-Dec 2003), however shortly after that time was around the time that I sent the apology to DEnise.

If you will recall I did not change my position on the Bush administration until around Sept/Oct of 2005 almost a full two years after I faced the kidney disease.

LMAO, you must have skipped the last quote in my post where I specifically defined the scope of the change I was talking about to include what you just admitted in this thread. Don't fail me now, jAZ has told me how honorable you are about admitting things. Just admit it, I nailed it almost word for word. In fact, I'm thinking about lodging a complaint with the mods for plagerism. :p

Logical
05-24-2006, 03:28 PM
LMAO, you must have skipped the last quote in my post where I specifically defined the scope of the change I was talking about to include what you just admitted in this thread. Don't fail me now, jAZ has told me how honorable you are about admitting things. Just admit it, I nailed it almost word for word. In fact, I'm thinking about lodging a complaint with the mods for plagerism. :p

Seriously did I respond to that post of TJs before or after your clarification. I don't even remember your clarification. I admit I missed it in this post of yours my error, my mistake.

Sorry.

patteeu
05-24-2006, 03:43 PM
Seriously did I respond to that post of TJs before or after your clarification. I don't even remember your clarification. I admit I missed it in this post of yours my error, my mistake.

Sorry.

The "Exactly, Rep" response came before my clarification, but you did respond directly to my clarification without admitting there was some truth to it.

But it's no big deal. Definitely not something you need to apologize for. I just thought it was interesting when you mentioned it in this thread since I remembered suggesting it previously. It's all good though. I hope your health is on the upswing.

Logical
05-24-2006, 04:00 PM
The "Exactly, Rep" response came before my clarification, but you did respond directly to my clarification without admitting there was some truth to it.

But it's no big deal. Definitely not something you need to apologize for. I just thought it was interesting when you mentioned it in this thread since I remembered suggesting it previously. It's all good though. I hope your health is on the upswing.
:thumb: thanks.

By the way in the other thread I provided a clarification to the third option. I am interested if that clarification would have caused you to add it to your choices had it been posted before you voted. I think it is before your post.

Nightwish
05-24-2006, 04:11 PM
My posts on the subject have been from 1 perspective. I am an American, and will ALWAYS root for the American cause. I don't cheer the war, but I damn sure cheer victories by American troops.
If I got you wrong, then I apologize. But the pattern I've mostly seen from you is that when someone criticizes the war or Bush, your typical response is nothing more than a jeer or ad hominem character attack. Sure, we all do the ad hominem thing, but most people couple that with some kind of commentary on the subject at hand. You don't. You just jeer and insult and leave it at that. What that reminds me of more than anything else is a sports fan, such as a Chiefs fan jeering and insulting a Donks fan, but not bothering to offer any commentary that would somehow elucidate on why the other is being insulted or jeered, save for the single fact that they're a Donks fan. When people take that tack, as you so often do, it gives the appearance that it is nothing but a big game to them.

There are many people on here with whom I disagree on many points, but I don't resort to making the attacks upon them that I've made upon you. I've made those attacks upon you based on the seemingness of your posts, the appearance that this war is nothing but a game to you. If I have judged you too quickly on that score, then accept my apology, and forgive me for the attacks that have come because of that interpretation. I am willing to agree to disagree with those who have contrary opinions on the war, but I have little patience for those who treat war like it's just a game, because that's an insult to every soldier who has spilled his or her blood in the field.

BIG_DADDY
05-24-2006, 04:18 PM
however shortly after that time was around the time that I sent the apology to DEnise.



You should have sent her some antrax instead. :)

unlurking
05-24-2006, 05:42 PM
...he'd be standing on your throat.
I'll probably be bringing him to a Chiefs game this fall, feel free to ask for yourself...

I think the degeneration of this discussion between Iowanian and Nightwish is pretty sad, but the above post is very Iranian. Sabre rattling on the internet is like having a press release about your cool water missiles.

Physical threats on a BB are weak.

go bowe
05-24-2006, 06:22 PM
who said anything about a physical threat?

why, i oughta kick your ass, you weenie, you...

go bowe
05-24-2006, 06:38 PM
You and jAZ seem to be working on a new ChiefsPlanet standard of casting generalized (and questionable, to say the least) aspersions, not naming names, refusing to provide examples, and blaming the search function, so I don't think I'll be bothered with living up to a higher standard than the one to which the two of you hold yourselves. Now if you want to live up to the higher standard yourself, I'll consider following suit.

FWIW, I don't think any al Qaeda sympathizers who may be present are going to own up to something like that either.does feeling sympathy for thye average palestinian qualify?

i'll own up to that...

al qaeda, not so much...

Iowanian
05-24-2006, 07:12 PM
I think the degeneration of this discussion between Iowanian and Nightwish is pretty sad, but the above post is very Iranian. Sabre rattling on the internet is like having a press release about your cool water missiles.

Physical threats on a BB are weak.

I've never made a physical threat on the internet...and this isn't either.

That was in response to nightbitch saying that If I espoused my opinions on the military, to my own brother, who spent 13 months in South Bagdad would kick my ass....It was stupid on his part at best.
It could happen. I'm talking about Iowanian's and his ilk's penchant If Iowanian's brother came home and saw how he acts about the war, he'd most likely punch his lights out, and it would be well deserved, in my opinion.


Make no doubt, if I ever intended the implication of a physical threat....there would be no doubt. Thats not my M.O and you know it.

A threat was not my intention, but offering him the oportunity to ask the question.....one my brother would want no part in discussing anyway.

Iowanian
05-24-2006, 07:20 PM
If I got you wrong, then I apologize. But the pattern I've mostly seen from you is that when someone criticizes the war or Bush, your typical response is nothing more than a jeer or ad hominem character attack. Sure, we all do the ad hominem thing, but most people couple that with some kind of commentary on the subject at hand. You don't. .

If you spent a little more time reading, and a little less time typing maybe you'd know. If you had been here, watching the same usual suspects bashing everything the Military has done in the last 3 years, while downplaying the successes and Military Victories, you'd know that its less than fruitful to have another round of discussion with the same 3 posters who are interested in nothing more than bashing the leaders of our country, and quickly use the blood of US Troops as political propaganda. Have I posted threads and articles demonstrating US successes in Iraq and Afganistan? Absolutely. Have I posted links and articles showing American forces building schools, hospitals and interacting successfully with civilians in those countries? Without a doubt. Someone has to do it, to offset the rhettoric of Dense, Jaz and co.

You can only hash out the same crap that noone is going to change thier mind about, so many times before Jeering ensues.


Considering all the finger pointing from the other side, I find it interesting that not many remember things like Denise/jaz blaming the Marine for shooting that wounded insurgent in the building in Falluja 2 years ago...wanting him tried for war crimes et al.

unlurking
05-24-2006, 08:00 PM
I've never made a physical threat on the internet...and this isn't either.

That was in response to nightbitch saying that If I espoused my opinions on the military, to my own brother, who spent 13 months in South Bagdad would kick my ass....It was stupid on his part at best.



Make no doubt, if I ever intended the implication of a physical threat....there would be no doubt. Thats not my M.O and you know it.

A threat was not my intention, but offering him the oportunity to ask the question.....one my brother would want no part in discussing anyway.
I know it's not your MO, which is why I said something. It appeared to be a veiled, "meet me in the parking lot" type gesture. If that was not your intention, then my apologies. As I said, it seemed veiled, which in other words means I could very easily have "read into it".

I've never seen you this animated (outside of troll patrol) about something like this. Then again, you don't venture here into the dark very often.

At the same time, I do have to agree with Nightwish, you tend to treat many posters on this side of the planet the same way you would treat a troll on the other side. While fun and entertaining to all when it comes to bashing donkey lovers, it seems a bit overboard here. JMO

Logical
05-24-2006, 08:44 PM
If you spent a little more time reading, and a little less time typing maybe you'd know. If you had been here, watching the same usual suspects bashing everything the Military has done in the last 3 years, while downplaying the successes and Military Victories, you'd know that its less than fruitful to have another round of discussion with the same 3 posters who are interested in nothing more than bashing the leaders of our country, and quickly use the blood of US Troops as political propaganda. Have I posted threads and articles demonstrating US successes in Iraq and Afganistan? Absolutely. Have I posted links and articles showing American forces building schools, hospitals and interacting successfully with civilians in those countries? Without a doubt. Someone has to do it, to offset the rhettoric of Dense, Jaz and co.

...I have no problem with you Iowanian except you use references that group people and many people have no idea who you mean because you are not around enough. I am pretty sure you would not put me in your group of usual suspects because up until last fall I was a defender of the administration about the war and a proponent of the effort. While still a strong supporter of the soldiers I now detest the occupation (waste of time, dollars and most importantly our soldiers lives) and the administration for its obvious incompetence. However there are many people who have been here a limited time that might group me with DEnise and jAZ as a usual suspect, a grouping I am not comfortable with (on all issues) and feel is unfair.

Maybe just once you should post your list of usual suspects so those of us uncomfortable with the possible unintended perception you mean us can quote it for the n00Bs.

BucEyedPea
05-24-2006, 08:53 PM
Sure, first off it’s apparent you don’t realize that Al Quada were landing in Iraq before we invaded. Many of those fleeing from our troops in Afghanistan landed in Iraq, this is how we get Zarqawi in Iraq pre invasion.

You mean they knew we were coming? My facts disagree there is more to it than that. I've seen and been through of this whole argument before. Same old, same old.

What are your sources? The Weekly Standard?

Second, I’m sorry but even if they’re Iraqi, when they purposely target women and children in market places specifically to make our nightly news, they’re accurately labeled “terrorists”.
I'd take more responsibility than that. Those women and children wouldn't even be dead if we hadn't gone in, paving the way for the hell conditions of war. Now what about the Shiates and their death squads and torture chambers? But that's okay? News is silent and the administration.

Were we “better off” with the Taliban in Afghanistan? :shrug:
Who said anything about Afghanistan?

stevieray
05-24-2006, 08:55 PM
you use references that group people

we are all guilty of this, and IMO, the thing that drives us apart as a nation..


one nation, indivisible...

diversity means to divide....that's where we've gone wrong...this nation was founded upon all of us putting our cultures and labels on the backburner and being Americans first.

left wing
right wing
black
white
gay
straight
etc labels seem to be more important than just being Americans.

Logical
05-24-2006, 09:01 PM
... you use references that group people... we are all guilty of this, and IMO, the thing that drives us apart as a nation..


one nation, indivisible...

diversity means to divide....that's where we've gone wrong...this nation was founded upon all of us putting our cultures and labels on the backburner and being Americans first.

left wing
right wing
black
white
gay
straight
etc labels seem to be more important than being just Americans.Maybe you are a hell of a lot older than me (you would have to be) because Americans have been labeling each other since the pre civil war days.
Northerner, Southerner. Jim Crow, Liberals, Whigs, Ni...rs, Mics, Spics, Fairies, Hell I cannot possibly name them all.

Hell I bet they had labels and groupings pre-revolutionary war.

Loki
05-24-2006, 09:02 PM
:clap: Agreed, particularly the bolded part.
I feel bad for the way we left things in ’91 when we had 7th Corp heavy armor/artillery within a days drive to Baghdad. We should’ve ended it right there, but at the time thought we were do’n the right thing only to now find out what we did was hand off the problem to a younger generation.

no sh*t... we should have told the UN to go f*ck themselves and finished the job. we had 500,000 some-odd boots on the ground back then... US forces went in this time with less then 200,000.
total ignorance. :shake:

BucEyedPea
05-24-2006, 09:17 PM
Originally Posted by Radar Chief
Agreed, particularly the bolded part.
I feel bad for the way we left things in ’91 when we had 7th Corp heavy armor/artillery within a days drive to Baghdad. We should’ve ended it right there, but at the time thought we were do’n the right thing only to now find out what we did was hand off the problem to a younger generation.

Do you know why Brent Scowcroft, Bush Sr's, National Security Advisor advised to not go into Baghdad at the end of PGWI? Because of what is happening right now in there. He warned not to do it in 2003 too, as it would require an occupation, likely be very bloody, escalate terrorism, be expensive and long. Seems to me he was right on the money.

BTW PGWI was unecessary and propagandized too.

Kuwait was slant drilling into Iraq's pipelines, squeezing Iraq on loan money due to their war with Iran, which we supported and was a typical border dispute with a country that was once part of Iraq. Not to speak of the fact that SH asked the Bush Sr. Admin what their take would be on it beforehand. Our ambassador to Iraq April Gillaspie relayed back to SH, that the Bush Sr admin did not care about his border dispute with Kuwait, effectively giving SH to green light to go in. Why? Check Scowcroft's website out...to show how a New World Order would work on an international basis.

As Scowcroft has written, Saddam was not a threat.
Seems like his batting average is higher.
It's called wisdom. Going off half cocked is not wise.

go bowe
05-24-2006, 09:29 PM
no sh*t... we should have told the UN to go f*ck themselves and finished the job. we had 500,000 some-odd boots on the ground back then... US forces went in this time with less then 200,000.
total ignorance. :shake:yeah, rummie got his way and used just enough forces to defeat saddammit's army, but he didn't seem to have anticipated that occupation would require far more...

of course the total collapse of civil order in iraq also had something to do with it (which we caused in major part by our military action and then exacerbated with de-baathification)...

and those pesky saddamites...

and opportunistic terrorists...

you'd think at the very least they would have moved to destroy all the weapons caches and depots before they were looted...

Loki
05-24-2006, 09:30 PM
You are completely and utterly full of shit...

Yes, I've posted about the errors and OOOPs by the military in Iraq. NOT to defend the terrorists but to point out that things were NOT going as we were being told they were. We were being fed propaganda and the only way to counter propaganda is with truth. The unintended consequences of that truth is that the terrorists get the benefit of what is intended ONLY for innocent civilians in Iraq and the unquestioning public in America.
.
too bad that more than half of your "oops" articles turned out to be false.

OOOOPS !!!

Loki
05-24-2006, 09:37 PM
You are sooo effing born again.
This incident reminds me of the newly born again dude who confabulates about how much porn he watched and how many drugs he took 'back then' to curry comraderie and intimacy amongst his new born again friends.
You're not 'admitting your mistake' out of regret or humility. You've succombed to the us/them mentality, and have 'admitted your mistake' to validate the misguided assessment of your aspired 'new friends' and throw a shroud of disrepute on your imagined 'old friends.'
You knew jAZ's assertion that there were 'some people' who held this rdiculous position was fatally flawed, so you jumped up to say 'I'm Sparticus.'

lol...
http://ffrevolution.com/feiss/i_am_spartacus.jpg

BucEyedPea
05-24-2006, 09:38 PM
yeah, rummie got his way and used just enough forces to defeat saddammit's army, but he didn't seem to have anticipated that occupation would require far more...


...and I'd add that the idea we can patrol Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, and Syria in perpetuity is insane when we can't even occupy Bagdhad.

Loki
05-24-2006, 09:55 PM
FWIW, I can think of at least a half dozen people who held this view. I won't name them because they'll deny they said it and as you say the search function here isn't going to help clarify the situation.

so name some names then...

I can post some examples of 'you can't support the troops if you don't support the war!' but so far the only ones I've found are from Logical who has admitted to the sentiment in question, so why bother? I'm having a hard time finding posts that date back to the 2002-2003 period. Otherwise there would be ample examples of what Jaz was talking about. Lord knows he was not the only person on this board who stated that remark...

so post some examples then...

so far he's the only one with balls enough to own up to it though. But then what were we thinking? People who participated in the RWNJM, rather than defend the POTUS and their previous position, certainly are not going to own up to saying something like that.
well why don't you grow some balls like spartacus did and name some names or come up with some examples. this is your 3rd post on this "i have names/examples" subject, so quit bullsh*tting and blaming your inability to back up your accusations with the 'seach function' cop-out. here's your big chance to blast some neoconchenyburtonbushron RWNJ whackos... let's go already.

Loki
05-24-2006, 09:59 PM
I can think of a handful of people on this board who have posted messages that are indistinguishable from those that an al Qaeda sympathizer would post. I won't name them because they'll deny they said it and as you and jAZ say, the search function isn't going to help clarify the situation...

lol...


You and jAZ seem to be working on a new ChiefsPlanet standard of casting generalized (and questionable, to say the least) aspersions, not naming names, refusing to provide examples, and blaming the search function, so I don't think I'll be bothered with living up to a higher standard than the one to which the two of you hold yourselves. Now if you want to live up to the higher standard yourself, I'll consider following suit.

FWIW, I don't think any al Qaeda sympathizers who may be present are going to own up to something like that either.
*chortle* good stuff patteeu :)

go bowe
05-24-2006, 10:00 PM
Do you know why Brent Scowcroft, Bush Sr's, National Security Advisor advised to not go into Baghdad at the end of PGWI? Because of what is happening right now in there. He warned not to do it in 2003 too, as it would require an occupation, likely be very bloody, escalate terrorism, be expensive and long. Seems to me he was right on the money. . .that was a big part of why we didn't go in during gw1, i think you're right about that..

and like loki said, we had about a half million boots on the ground then and even at that number, bush1's team didn't think they could successfully occupy iraq...

and we can do it with 150,000 or less?

what was rummy thinking?

Loki
05-24-2006, 10:36 PM
If I got you wrong, then I apologize. But the pattern I've mostly seen from you is that when someone criticizes the war or Bush, your typical response is nothing more than a jeer or ad hominem character attack. Sure, we all do the ad hominem thing, but most people couple that with some kind of commentary on the subject at hand. You don't. You just jeer and insult and leave it at that. What that reminds me of more than anything else is a sports fan, such as a Chiefs fan jeering and insulting a Donks fan, but not bothering to offer any commentary that would somehow elucidate on why the other is being insulted or jeered, save for the single fact that they're a Donks fan. When people take that tack, as you so often do, it gives the appearance that it is nothing but a big game to them.

There are many people on here with whom I disagree on many points, but I don't resort to making the attacks upon them that I've made upon you. I've made those attacks upon you based on the seemingness of your posts, the appearance that this war is nothing but a game to you. If I have judged you too quickly on that score, then accept my apology, and forgive me for the attacks that have come because of that interpretation. I am willing to agree to disagree with those who have contrary opinions on the war, but I have little patience for those who treat war like it's just a game, because that's an insult to every soldier who has spilled his or her blood in the field.

dumbass... :shake:

stevieray
05-24-2006, 10:51 PM
Maybe you are a hell of a lot older than me (you would have to be) because Americans have been labeling each other since the pre civil war days.
Northerner, Southerner. Jim Crow, Liberals, Whigs, Ni...rs, Mics, Spics, Fairies, Hell I cannot possibly name them all.

Hell I bet they had labels and groupings pre-revolutionary war.

why do use negatives to validate other negatives?

Loki
05-24-2006, 11:04 PM
yeah, rummie got his way and used just enough forces to defeat saddammit's army, but he didn't seem to have anticipated that occupation would require far more...

of course the total collapse of civil order in iraq also had something to do with it (which we caused in major part by our military action and then exacerbated with de-baathification)...

and those pesky saddamites...

and opportunistic terrorists...

you'd think at the very least they would have moved to destroy all the weapons caches and depots before they were looted...

a lot of things should have been different. rumsfeld f*cked a lot of shit up (and yes, i said the same things at the beginning of the war and still say so now!). i could point a lot of things out (again) but we've hashed this crap over a million times in the last 3 yrs.

oh well. at the very least, our troops are still standing firm like the pro's they are, the iraqi army is getting trained up and starting to take the lead on a lot more missions, the local population is being much more helpful with intel, insurgents and terrorists are still getting smoked, and last but not least the iraqi's are FINALLY starting to get their gov't in shape.

Logical
05-24-2006, 11:44 PM
why do use negatives to validate other negatives?Because you tried to claim those negatives did not used to exist? When clearly they did exist for our entire history.

stevieray
05-25-2006, 01:25 AM
Because you tried to claim those negatives did not used to exist? When clearly they did exist for our entire history.

I never claimed any such thing, jim. Those negatives have done nothing but keep this country from reaching it's full potential, and continue to do so today. Maybe even more so, because we now look for right or wrong through political correctness.

I think its ironic you said that to Iowanian.

Logical
05-25-2006, 02:57 AM
I never claimed any such thing, jim. Those negatives have done nothing but keep this country from reaching it's full potential, and continue to do so today. Maybe even more so, because we now look for right or wrong through political correctness.

I think its ironic you said that to Iowanian.I said it to Iowanian but it could have been said to jAZ a few months ago when I would have been likely to have wrongly been grouped with his usual suspects grouping. However for jAZ it is a little different he is constantly over here so very few people would not know who his usual suspects category fits. Now if DenIse said it then she like Iowanian is not around all that much anymore and you would not neccesarily know who she meant if you were a relative newcomer.

Baby Lee
05-25-2006, 05:34 AM
Maybe just once you should post your list of usual suspects so those of us uncomfortable with the possible unintended perception you mean us can quote it for the n00Bs.
We are on the precipice of a perpetual motion machine.

Lessee. . .

It's not Iowanian's job to compile a list.
Umm. . .
The usual suspects know who they are.
Err. . .
If they had any moral fiber, they'd own up to 'bashing everything the Military has done in the last 3 years.'

That should prime the pump. :p

Radar Chief
05-25-2006, 07:05 AM
You mean they knew we were coming? My facts disagree there is more to it than that. I've seen and been through of this whole argument before. Same old, same old.

What are your sources? The Weekly Standard?

Yea, I guess you don’t read too hot, huh?
Zarqawi’s bio from Wiki-pedia good enough for ya? Or do you need to read it from a link at DU? :shrug:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zarqawi
Notice when he arrived in Iraq, yea that was, like, before we invaded, mkay.

I'd take more responsibility than that. Those women and children wouldn't even be dead if we hadn't gone in, paving the way for the hell conditions of war. Now what about the Shiates and their death squads and torture chambers? But that's okay? News is silent and the administration.

Yea cause, like, the place was all peaches and rose pedals before teh Debil sent in his storm troopers. :rolleyes:
How many mass graves have been found with how many hundreds of thousands of bodies, including women and children some even found clutching toys?
You really need to wake the fugg up, there were “death squads and torture chambers” operating in Iraq long before we showed up.

Who said anything about Afghanistan?

I did.
I mentioned Afghanistan because Iraq is a continuation of the exact same fight that started there, no matter how badly you need to deny it.

Jesus
05-25-2006, 07:17 AM
What a sham. Two people who believe it's true; two more, that have come to their senses. And yet 214 posts arguing over it. You guys really need to get a life. False indignation...what arrogance.

Radar Chief
05-25-2006, 07:27 AM
Do you know why Brent Scowcroft, Bush Sr's, National Security Advisor advised to not go into Baghdad at the end of PGWI?

:rolleyes: Where do you get the impression that you’re the only one that lived through that time period? It’s become’n pretty annoying.

Because of what is happening right now in there. He warned not to do it in 2003 too, as it would require an occupation, likely be very bloody, escalate terrorism, be expensive and long. Seems to me he was right on the money.

There were also skeptics claim’n our forces would be bogged down out in the desert. Listen to enough people bitch’n and you’ll eventually be able to point back at one of’em and say “see, told’ja”.
It’s my opinion, though, that the problems we face there now would be considerably less if we’d have at least supported the Shia and Kurds when they revolted at our request.
Instead, we left’em hang’n and they didn’t trust us for a long time this go ‘round.
Should’a, could’a, would’a, none of that resolves the issues we’re faced with today.

BTW PGWI was unecessary and propagandized too.

That’s your opinion.

Kuwait was slant drilling into Iraq's pipelines, squeezing Iraq on loan money due to their war with Iran, which we supported and was a typical border dispute with a country that was once part of Iraq. Not to speak of the fact that SH asked the Bush Sr. Admin what their take would be on it beforehand. Our ambassador to Iraq April Gillaspie relayed back to SH, that the Bush Sr admin did not care about his border dispute with Kuwait, effectively giving SH to green light to go in. Why? Check Scowcroft's website out...to show how a New World Order would work on an international basis.

They weren’t “slant drill’n into Iraq’s pipelines”, they were drill’n at angles into the same oil reserves that Iraq was drill’n. If you’re gonna spew rhetoric at least get it straight.

As Scowcroft has written, Saddam was not a threat.
Seems like his batting average is higher.
It's called wisdom. Going off half cocked is not wise.

The Taliban “wasn’t a threat” either, but sit’n on our collective thumbs and hide’n from those that wish us dead got us attacked on our own soil.
I may not like teh Debil or many of his actions, policies, but one thing I do give’im credit for is actually prosecuting a war on terrorists, and Iraq was a logical step in that war for anyone that’s followed the issue for more than just the last 3-4 years.

Radar Chief
05-25-2006, 07:29 AM
What a sham. Two people who believe it's true; two more, that have come to their senses. And yet 214 posts arguing over it. You guys really need to get a life. False indignation...what arrogance.

Well, at least you’re not grip’n ‘bout pointless posts with a pointless post, or anything.

Jesus
05-25-2006, 07:40 AM
Well, at least you’re not grip’n ‘bout pointless posts with a pointless post, or anything.

Pointless, only if you are wedded to your ways, grasshopper.

patteeu
05-25-2006, 07:43 AM
Zeus could kick your ass, Jesus.

Jesus
05-25-2006, 07:55 AM
Zeus could kick your ass, Jesus.

Uh-huh. I'd just put out some young hussies, some fire water, and some bud and Zeus would be distracted.

Iowanian
05-25-2006, 08:15 AM
Jim,

I don't think its my duty to hash out an exact list to meet your criteria.
The Only possible reason you require a list, is to instigate a further fued.

As for your new found "moral fiber", I find some irony in the fact that its pointed in pretty much one direction. I'll use the example that while you claim you don't want someone unfairly lumped in a "group", you Stand Idly by and watch Dense, Jaz, Laz, T@co and the rest of the obvious far left use the "RWNJ" for everyone who doesn't agree with their political views, and will stand around with nothing to say for example when I'm lumped in with the "bushbots" when YOU specifically approached me with a challenge of another list.....of things I don't agree with Bush on, which I provided.

If your Moral conviction, wasn't meant to agitate, and were sincere, you'd be watching both sides of the fence.

I'm not regularly here anymore for good reason. Unlurking is probably right...in that I do get pissed off with the things I see in here too often. I'm too close to the war issue, and don't appreciate the sweat and blood my family and friends are leaving in Iraq, being "oopsie Poopsied" over and over and over again.

Boozer
05-25-2006, 08:21 AM
What a sham. Two people who believe it's true; two more, that have come to their senses. And yet 214 posts arguing over it. You guys really need to get a life. False indignation...what arrogance.

A bigger sham than a poster with an addiction to creating poorly conceived and poorly executed (and most of all, unfunny) characters on ChiefsPlanet?

Nightwish
05-25-2006, 08:47 AM
dumbass... :shake:Grow up, asshole.

BucEyedPea
05-25-2006, 10:02 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BucEyedPea
Do you know why Brent Scowcroft, Bush Sr's, National Security Advisor advised to not go into Baghdad at the end of PGWI?

Originally Posted by Radar Chief
Where do you get the impression that you’re the only one that lived through that time period? It’s become’n pretty annoying.
:rolleyes:

So you revert to sarcastic ad hominem?
Is your case that weak?

Now where do you get the impression that I think I’m the
only one who lived through that time period?


Quote:
Originally Posted by BucEyedPea
Because of what is happening right now in there. He warned not to do it in 2003 too, as it would require an occupation, likely be very bloody, escalate terrorism, be expensive and long. Seems to me he was right on the money.

Originally Posted by Radar Chief There were also skeptics claim’n our forces would be bogged down out in the desert. Listen to enough people bitch’n and you’ll eventually be able to point back at one of’em and say “see, told’ja”.

That’s it?
You lump the National Security Advisor of PGWI in with
ordinary skeptics?

Who are these skeptics specifically?

Scowcroft IS the one who ADVISED that we even start PGWI urging Bush Sr to go in. He’s not just another skeptic in the crowd. He’s privy to a lot more information to make a far more rational decision. It’s called having adequate data.

Believe me Brent Scowcroft is not a man on my favored list.
He’s another internationalist Republican. But he is considered to be in the “realist” school along with James Baker who also was opposed.

The facts are…he turned out to be 100% correct.
This was NOT the promised CAKE WALK and SLAM DUNK!
Tell me how this assurance is a fact?

Originally Posted by Radar Chief It’s my opinion, though, that the problems we face there now would be considerably less if we’d have at least supported the Shia and Kurds when they revolted at our request. Instead, we left’em hang’n and they didn’t trust us for a long time this go ‘round.

Well, at least you say it’s an opinion.
I’ll still go with Scowcroft on this one. We are simply facing the same problems but at a later date.

Originally Posted by Radar Chief Should’a, could’a, would’a, none of that resolves the issues we’re faced with today.

What goes on in another country are not OUR issues.

"Coulda, woulda, shoulda?"

So you’re saying we should never examine or discuss our actions, in order to avoid another strategic disaster in the future. Such self-examination and evaluation of one’s behavior is a form of ethics…ethics is reason.

Unfortunately this administration is so full of destructive hubris that is entirely unable to examine it’s actions by conducting a repeat with Iran. Starting of course with the same false media reports, rhetoric and sanctions. I hear we’re on the ground now. Yet all you can say is “coulda, woulda, shoulda.”

For one you’da think Bush "woulda" replaced certain people by now. Unfortunately, the people in the field, the one's most familiar with what it would take, who said it would not be enough for Iraq—the generals—were not even listened to.

Anyhow, I read that it wasn’t really all that feasible for the Shia’s to overthrow SH at that time. I certainly don’t understand your equating the moral superiority of these Shia’s when currently they have their own torture chambers and death squads which are being used on civilians in order to exact revenge on the Sunni. In the meantime the US now opts for the Salvadoran Death Squad approach— the targeting and killing of innocent civilians, women and children in order to dry up support for the insurgency. BTW this includes a 6 month old baby, a 60 year old grandma by rounding up entire and unarmed families in their homes. This IS occurring as we speak in a full scale campaign. Main press is silent. So now we’ve become terrorists in order to win this. We are becoming like them. I always said “terrorism” is the tool of the desperate when there is nothing else to fight with.

What I don’t understand is your point on terrorists merely traveling to a certain country as a standard for a full scale invasion and war. For that matter we should be invading Pakistan or even the State of Florida because the hijackers went to flight schools here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BucEyedPea
BTW PGWI was unecessary and propagandized too.

Originally Posted by Radar Chief That’s your opinion.

Yeah, well just read Scowcroft’s website who is the one who advised we go in and his reasons for doing so. Then tell me whatch’a think.

I can make a good argument, with facts to support this opinion.
The point on Ambassador Gillaspie was in USA Today, buried in middle of the paper at the time. Notice how we never hear anything about April ? This part is fact.

It was just a typical border dispute...not a Hilteresque attempt to conquer the world. These are common.

It was our military being on Saudi soil, on Muslim holy lands, that was the final impetus for binLaden to plot 9/11.Just read his letter. There was never a terrorist attack on our soil until after that. The earlier attempts were also post PGWI.

All wars are conducted by the few in this world—all wars. Even necessary ones. The first casualty of war is the truth. The victors write the history books.


Quote:
Originally Posted by BucEyedPea
Kuwait was slant drilling into Iraq's pipelines, squeezing Iraq on loan money due to their war with Iran, which we supported and was a typical border dispute with a country that was once part of Iraq. Not to speak of the fact that SH asked the Bush Sr. Admin what their take would be on it beforehand. Our ambassador to Iraq April Gillaspie relayed back to SH, that the Bush Sr admin did not care about his border dispute with Kuwait, effectively giving SH to green light to go in. Why? Check Scowcroft's website out...to show how a New World Order would work on an international basis.

Originally Posted by Radar Chief
They weren’t “slant drill’n into Iraq’s pipelines”, they were drill’n at angles into the same oil reserves that Iraq was drill’n. If you’re gonna spew rhetoric at least get it straight.

This is just splitting hairs.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BucEyedPea
As Scowcroft has written, Saddam was not a threat.
Seems like his batting average is higher.
It's called wisdom. Going off half cocked is not wise.

Originally Posted by Radar Chief
The Taliban “wasn’t a threat” either, but sit’n on our collective thumbs and hide’n from those that wish us dead got us attacked on our own soil.

This point is a diversion.
Please, explain to me how SH was a threat.
He had no army, navy or missile delivery program.
Iraqis 5-6000 miles away.
His infrastructure was destroyed form years of sanctions.
He never even used is chem/biol weapons in PGWI nor were any on the scuds he sent into Israel. He was containable even if he was a threat. He was our ally at that time.

You’re right the Taliban was not a threat.
BinLaden’s alQaeda was a threat…and perhaps still is.
It was because Al Qaeda sponsored the Taliban, the Taliban did not sponsor al Qaeda. AlQaeda is not a state-sponsored
terrorist group.

Nor is alQaeda a nation…who is also not capable of even conquering or taking over America which would require nation-state conventional warfare. They can terrorize us though as a political tool and weapon but not much else. Unfortunately that terror is creates hysteria which leads the people to fall for the rhetoric of demagogues who are exploiting it for their own purposes.

Using conventional nation-state warfare is like using a cannon to kill a fly. A wasteful, inefficient use of force ( and loss of life)…so much like most govt endeavors.

Originally Posted by Radar Chief I may not like teh Debil or many of his actions, policies, but one thing I do give’im credit for is actually prosecuting a war on terrorists, and Iraq was a logical step in that war for anyone that’s followed the issue for more than just the last 3-4 years.

The use of the word “terrorists” here is the first part of the
entire problem. It’s a propaganda word being used as sweeping generality. It is vague and undefined—deliberately. There are over 800 terrorists groups in the world including a couple considered by our own govt to be in America.

We don’t need a “Global War on Terror” we need to surgically remove and get rid of alQaeda and its offshoots, since it is a franchised organization. That requires an intelligent use of some military force (such as Afghanistan) and massive human intel plus security at home. (We also don’t need a Dept of Homeland Security either.) It also requires a change in foreign policy.

The entire NeoCon rhetoric doesn’t add up and is virtually a lie factory: WSJ OpEd pages and in particular The WeeklyStandard.

Logic indicates this means one thing: When something doesn't add up it's a sign of missing information including a rationale for doing something. There is another reason for how this WoT is being conducted. Now what it is may be somewhat speculation. I say it’s because the siege of Israel due to terror is destroying their development and economy. Hence, a remaking of the map in the ME beginning with Iraq, then Iran and then Syria. Iraq is for Israel—NOT oil. We can always buy it elsewhere, including unfriendly nations. In fact SH was selling it to us. Now there’s an energy crisis with demand soaring whil Iraq's oil field burn from sabotage. The left is wrong about the reasons but they’re right about having gone in being a bad move.

patteeu
05-25-2006, 10:42 AM
That’s it?
You lump the National Security Advisor of PGWI in with
ordinary skeptics?

Who are these skeptics specifically?

Scowcroft IS the one who ADVISED that we even start PGWI urging Bush Sr to go in. He’s not just another skeptic in the crowd. He’s privy to a lot more information to make a far more rational decision. It’s called having adequate data.

Believe me Brent Scowcroft is not a man on my favored list.
He’s another internationalist Republican. But he is considered to be in the “realist” school along with James Baker who also was opposed.

The facts are…he turned out to be 100% correct.
This was NOT the promised CAKE WALK and SLAM DUNK!
Tell me how this assurance is a fact?

Are you suggesting that there were no well-informed experts who made incorrect predictions about Afghanistan or Iraq? I don't have any names for you, but I guarantee you that there were military experts who predicted heavy casualties for any invasion of Afghanistan and look how that turned out. It's always a lot easier to find the guy who made the accurate prediction after the fact than it is to figure out which guy is making the accurate prediction before the fact.

BucEyedPea
05-25-2006, 10:55 AM
Yea, I guess you don’t read too hot, huh?

More ad hominem.

Zarqawi’s bio from Wiki-pedia good enough for ya? Or do you need to read it from a link at DU? :shrug:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zarqawi
Notice when he arrived in Iraq, yea that was, like, before we invaded, mkay.

Yep! I actually do have some problems with wikipedia. I've posted so before. The problem I have with wikipedia, is that it is compiled by people who side on issues and even suppress other contributions that don't agree with them. It is done by people submitting data. I have found errors on it before. I've seen arguments between people on their "facts" right on their own site.

But what it says about Zarqawi doesn't change what I said nor that there were other foreigners that came in post invastion relishing the opportunity to kill Americans. It says he settled in the North in 2002. Again, knew we were coming. Some analysts think alQeada drew us into Iraq and was a birilliant move on their part.

Your wikipedia link still does not make the case linking SH to alQaeda either.
A CIA report in late 2004 concluded that it had no evidence Saddam's government was involved or aware of this medical treatment, and that "There’s no conclusive evidence the Saddam Hussein regime had harbored Zarqawi."[9][10] One U.S. official summarized the report: "The evidence is that Saddam never gave Zarqawi

Big deal so he had medical attention in Iraq. That's just grabbing at straws.
Some hijackers visite a strip-club in Vegas too. Case is very weak and that is also according to the "9/11 Commission Report."

Relies on half-truths.

I think someone is projecting about not "reading too hot."

How many mass graves have been found with how many hundreds of thousands of bodies, including women and children some even found clutching toys?

Yeah...how many?
Again no specifics.

That's just it, the huge, inflated numbers of these graves have also not been found. No where near the numbers. It's thought that the human rights group who made such claims had wildly exaggerated numbers. Only a fraction of such numbers were found.

Some of the claims on specific atrocities are inaccurate too. Like the gas'in of the Kurdish villagers. The Kurds were fighting with the Iranians and some villagers were also caught up in such battles. But it's collateral damage when we do it but an atrocity when they do it. Double standard.

Again I don't understand your moral equivalency to the Shia's doing the same thing or even us.

And now the Kurds want part of their land back from Turkey too. Guess who is helping Turkey prepare to kill them with military force? That's right it's us.

Again, more half-truths.

You really need to wake the fugg up, there were “death squads and torture chambers” operating in Iraq long before we showed up.

You missed the point. The point is who is operating them has just changed hands. Diversion.

Another half-truth.

I mentioned Afghanistan because Iraq is a continuation of the exact same fight that started there, no matter how badly you need to deny it.
As you say that's your "opinion." But it needn't have been a continuation by necessity is my point.

However, the facts do not support this even.

We made it possible for this to happen because when you remove a govt from power it creates a vacuum, anarchy which sucks other things in.

As I posted above, this insurgency is made up of former Baathists primarily. I understand we've killed off most of the foreigners....we decimated them.Point is no longer relevant.

Evidence also exists that SH and his loyal Baathists planned the easy fall, to draw us in and then planned to wage an urban guerilla war because that's our weakness. Again, if alQaeda was pulled in it was due to our folly plus their using the "enemy of my enemy is my friend." Something we've used in the past.

More half-truths.

You're obviously a NeoConservative. Their facts are either lies, half-truths and speculation and omitted-data to color the facts a certain way.

Classic Struassian "big-lie" techniques.

Radar Chief
05-25-2006, 11:00 AM
So you revert to sarcastic ad hominem?
Is your case that weak?

And that means so much when your first reply to me started with this.

You mean they knew we were coming? My facts disagree there is more to it than that. I've seen and been through of this whole argument before. Same old, same old.

What are your sources? The Weekly Standard?

Now where do you get the impression that I think I’m the
only one who lived through that time period?

Maybe cause you seem to have this need to talk down to me. Here’s a hint, I don’t care for it.

This point is a diversion.

Much like your entire overly long winded post is a “diversion” from the fact that you made an incorrect statement, “no al Quada in Iraq until we brought them there” and I corrected it for you.
I notice you’ve completely skipped past that one. :hmmm: Now why would that be? :rolleyes:

BucEyedPea
05-25-2006, 11:20 AM
And that means so much when your first reply to me started with this.
That post is not ad homimen.
It was legit response to a point you made.
As for the latter half, I was simply referring to the fact that debating the original points of going into Iraq had been done and seen by me, over and over before to no resolution was all. It was not in reference to you, your personality or ability to read...it was more like I didn't really want to get into it again...but which I did. Nothing wrong or personal with that.

BTW you put up the rolleyes first not me.

Maybe cause you seem to have this need to talk down to me. Here’s a hint, I don’t care for it.
Not intending to talk down to you. That's your perception. Sorry. You're the one taking it personally. That unfortunately is the nature of textual communication. I was discussing it without resorting to outright personal comments on reading ability or assumptions that I think I am the only one who existed during PGWI.

Why are you even attempting to discuss or debate it if you're gonna take it personal, particularly when I didn't say anything about your person?

I try to use facts, which unfortunately just don't hold up for going into Iraq even according to our own CIA initially, which was cleansed afterwards or the "9/11 Commission Report." I can't help that. That's just what is.

Much like your entire overly long winded post is a “diversion” from the fact that you made an incorrect statement, “no al Quada in Iraq until we brought them there” and I corrected it for you.
I notice you’ve completely skipped past that one. :hmmm: Now why would that be? :rolleyes:

Yeah, well when someone wants to rely on short sound-bites it's a bit difficult to be brief in order to fill out the whole picture to get to the truth.

I could even use more info as evidence that Cheney and NeoCons wanted to go in before 9/11.

No I was trying to point out initially both that (1) that the insurgency is not just made up of alQaeda (2) that alQaeda came in after.

Regarding #2:
Your link uses the word. He was"believed" to have been a "long time ally of alQaeda."

Your link also says:
"In his speech, Powell mistakenly referred to Zarqawi as a Palestinian but Powell and the Bush administration continued to stand by statements that Zarqawi linked Saddam Hussein to al-Qaeda. At the time, Zarqawi's group was a rival of bin Laden's."

K?

BucEyedPea
05-25-2006, 11:41 AM
Are you suggesting that there were no well-informed experts who made incorrect predictions about Afghanistan or Iraq? I don't have any names for you, but I guarantee you that there were military experts who predicted heavy casualties for any invasion of Afghanistan and look how that turned out. It's always a lot easier to find the guy who made the accurate prediction after the fact than it is to figure out which guy is making the accurate prediction before the fact.

I am not really saying anything about Afghanistan at all.

I'm not looking for an expert, after the fact, I found one before the fact and in relation to assurances of Iraq being a "cake walk" and a "slamdunk".

This is, afterall what we were assured, right?

I think so.
Not only do I recall this being stated on TV but I even recall debates on the blogosphere siding with this assurance as well.

I don't know any experts that claimed otherwise, unless you want to include the generals, who Bush ignored as to what was needed in order to do the job.

Fact is war is always hell, expensive which is why it should not so easily relied on—especially for foreign nation-building, or making the world over for democracy imo. That's Wilsonian progressivism. I'm a right-winger. If it's our direct security and liberty, then yes we must fight.

Radar Chief
05-25-2006, 11:55 AM
More ad hominem.

Just a hint BEP, but you should try drop’n the “ad homonym” yourself before cry’n ‘bout others do’n it. :rolleyes:

Yep! I actually do have some problems with wikipedia. I've posted so before. The problem I have with wikipedia, is that it is compiled by people who side on issues and even suppress other contributions that don't agree with them. It is done by people submitting data. I have found errors on it before. I've seen arguments between people on their "facts" right on their own site.

And they throw out, modify, disputed data ‘till it can be verified. Why am I not surprised you have a problem with that. ROFL

But what it says about Zarqawi doesn't change what I said

Um, yes it does. You claimed “no AQ in Iraq ‘till we arrived”. That link points out a self proclaimed AQ member in Iraq before we arrived, directly dispute’n your misinformation.

nor that there were other foreigners that came in post invastion relishing the opportunity to kill Americans.

Please quote where I posted that this didn’t happen. :shrug:

It says he settled in the North in 2002.

But what it says about Zarqawi doesn't change what I said

:LOL: Are you actually read’n what you post. :spock:

Your wikipedia link still does not make the case linking SH to alQaeda either.

That’s a deflection. Your attempt’n to shift the point since you’ve obviously been caught mid rhetoric. How does that fit into your….

Classic Struassian "big-lie" techniques.

:LOL:

You're obviously a NeoConservative. Their facts are either lies, half-truths and speculation and omitted-data to color the facts a certain way.

I don’t know which is funnier, that you think you’ve got any room to talk ‘bout “lies, half-trughts and speculation and omitted-data to color the facts a certain way” or that you need to label me with what you must deem as a derogatory term, neocon.
Either way, it’s blatantly apparent your just another Internet hypocrite and I’ve wasted enough of my time here.

Radar Chief
05-25-2006, 12:06 PM
BTW you put up the rolleyes first not me.

Ohhh, evil me. Does there ever enter a point in your life that you’re responsible for your own actions, words? Just curious, since everything always seems to be someone else fault with you whinny hippy wanna-be's, and you're just the innocent victim of grand conspiracies.

Regarding #2:
Your link uses the word. He was"believed" to have been a "long time ally of alQaeda."
Your link also states. "In his speech, Powell mistakenly referred to Zarqawi as a Palestinian but Powell and the Bush administration continued to stand by statements that Zarqawi linked Saddam Hussein to al-Qaeda. At the time, Zarqawi's group was a rival of bin Laden's."


If you’re gonna quote the link, you should try quote’n more than just what you wanna read.

Jordanian and European intelligence agencies claim that Zarqawi formed the group Jund al-Sham in 1999 with $200,000 of startup money from Osama bin Laden.

ROFL

Radar Chief
05-25-2006, 12:10 PM
I'm not looking for an expert, after the fact, I found one before the fact and in relation to assurances of Iraq being a "cake walk" and a "slamdunk".

This is, afterall what we were assured, right?

I think so.

Link to a quote of the POTUS say’n such?

BucEyedPea
05-25-2006, 12:10 PM
Just a hint BEP, but you should try drop’n the “ad homonym” yourself before cry’n ‘bout others do’n it. :rolleyes:

That's just it, I will use it back if done to me. I did not initiate it.
You're the one who began making it personal and still are.

As for the smilies etc....someone can't articulate an argument or see the differences in the subtle nuances in one.


I don’t know which is funnier, that you think you’ve got any room to talk ‘bout “lies, half-trughts and speculation and omitted-data to color the facts a certain way” or that you need to label me with what you must deem as a derogatory term, neocon.
Either way, it’s blatantly apparent your just another Internet hypocrite and I’ve wasted enough of my time here.

If someone chiefly (pun) relies on the same arguments that the NeoCons have used, they are virtually being a NeoCon as they support that word-view and foreign policy. That's not necessarily derogatory unless you don't agree with that view. It is an accurate label. I wouldn't be upset if you called me a paleo-conservative-libertarian.

And yes, NeoCons do have debate style: it ranges from mild ad hominem to abusive ad hominem ( name calling such as "hypocrite" to personal character attacks and smear.) Not saying you went as far as the latter here, but you tried to make part of this argument personal simply because someone challenged some of your facts and pointed out your link did not fully say what you claimed.


...I’ve wasted enough of my time here

I tried to tell you that from the beginning.

BucEyedPea
05-25-2006, 12:17 PM
Link to a quote of the POTUS say’n such?

I thought you were wasting your time with me.

Radar Chief
05-25-2006, 12:18 PM
It is an accurate label.

Ok, much like “hypocrit” is an accurate label for you. I can live with that.

And yes, NeoCons do have debate style: it ranges from mild ad hominem to abusive ad hominem ( name calling such as "hypocrite" to personal character attacks and smear.).

ROFL

Not saying you went as far as the latter here, but you tried to make part of this argument personal simply because someone challenged some of your facts and pointed out your link did not fully say what you claimed.

I’ve yet to get “personal” with you. I’m only respond’n in the same way I’m responded too.

I tried to tell you that from the beginning.

That much is true. :thumb:

Radar Chief
05-25-2006, 12:20 PM
I thought you were wasting your time with me.

Apparently I still am.
But I’ve gotta get on the road now, bitch at’cha later if I have time. ;)

Iowanian
05-25-2006, 01:07 PM
So Tell me BEP.... Does your being here, have ANYTHING to do with football, or did you follow Jaz here from a his politics board?

800 posts and over 95% of them are in the DC board and the only football related post I've seen that you made in your time here was "Chiefs football really isn't my thing".

Are you just here to psuedo-intellectualize the hill people?

stevieray
05-25-2006, 01:11 PM
So Tell me BEP.... Does your being here, have ANYTHING to do with football, or did you follow Jaz here from a his politics board?

800 posts and over 95% of them are in the DC board and the only football related post I've seen that you made in your time here was "Chiefs football really isn't my thing".

Are you just here to psuedo-intellectualize the hill people?

:hmmm:

banyon
05-25-2006, 01:45 PM
BEP's not exactly on the same side of the political divide as jAZ. She's a hard right libertarian. Kind of like patteeu if he actually had libertarian values.

BucEyedPea
05-25-2006, 02:04 PM
BEP's not exactly on the same side of the political divide as jAZ. She's a hard right libertarian. Kind of like patteeu if he actually had libertarian values.
Pretty much that's correct. Although I am not 100% libertarian...I'm a mix on the social issues; part conservative/part libertarian...I am culturally conservative for myself...but libertarian on economics.

I am a registered Republican. I consider myself conservative. I consider the War on Iraq to be the furthest thing from conservatism....and a global war for democracy even more so.(which is left-wing, progressive and stems from Wilson but is hard-Wilsonism as per actual NeoCons. NeoCons are liberals with guns.

I also belong to no political boards.

Originally I stumbled here looking up something on the Chiefs that began on another board with a Chiefs fan. My other football boards are slow. This place was alive, active and had some great discussions going on.

patteeu
05-25-2006, 02:08 PM
I am not really saying anything about Afghanistan at all.

I'm not looking for an expert, after the fact, I found one before the fact and in relation to assurances of Iraq being a "cake walk" and a "slamdunk".

This is, afterall what we were assured, right?

I think so.
Not only do I recall this being stated on TV but I even recall debates on the blogosphere siding with this assurance as well.

I don't know any experts that claimed otherwise, unless you want to include the generals, who Bush ignored as to what was needed in order to do the job.

Well of course you're not talking about Afghanistan, because the Afghanistan operation to remove the Taliban government was impressively successful. So much so, it defied the predictions of "quagmire" and "another vietnam" that it's critics had leveled. The guy who was right about Afghanistan was Don Rumsfeld.

I don't have any way of knowing whether or not you were persuaded by Scowcroft before the fact, but it's after the fact now and now is when you are trumpting his prediction. It's too easy to do that. Yes Scowcroft appears to have been right to the extent that there were too few troops to manage Iraq effectively post-war, but I get the impression that he would have been against the war at any troop level and I'm not so sure his predictions of difficulty would be right if we'd have sent more troops. In any event, I have a high ranking national security advisor who had had a more recent track record of prediction success than Brent Scowcroft and who apparently had a different prediction in Iraq. His name is Don Rumsfeld.

I don't recall being assured that Iraq would be a cake-walk and I'm pretty confident that you are confusing the "slam dunk" assurance with the statement attributed to DCI Tenet when he assured Bush about the presence of WMD.

BucEyedPea
05-25-2006, 02:38 PM
Well of course you're not talking about Afghanistan, because the Afghanistan operation to remove the Taliban government was impressively successful. So much so, it defied the predictions of "quagmire" and "another vietnam" that it's critics had leveled. The guy who was right about Afghanistan was Don Rumsfeld.

I don't recall anything being said like that about Afghanistan. If so I never made such a claim. I didn't pay much attention on that one at that time due to my mother's rather sudden death the week of 9/11 and being in NE to have to sell her house Oct/Nov of 2001.

But "impressively" successful... first "yes" but that one was easy.
I supported it and felt it was justified. However, I read that the Taliban has regrouped there, winning elections and getting back into power etc.

I don't have any way of knowing whether or not you were persuaded by Scowcroft before the fact, but it's after the fact now and now is when you are trumpting his prediction.

I don't know if "trumpeting" it is what I'd call it. It's just backing up my original gut feelings about Iraq being an unecesssary diversion. You guys demand back up. So that's what I consider an effective point even if you disagree or want to parse it further. I do recall it at that time because Scowcroft wrote an op-ed on it.

It's too easy to do that.
Easy? It's was too easy to go into Iraq.
Most of these interventionist style military actions, if you add them up have mixed results. Some work. Some don't. But they all come with loss of American lives...so it had better be for our security not some foreigners.

In any event, I have a high ranking national security advisor who had had a more recent track record of prediction success than Brent Scowcroft and who apparently had a different prediction in Iraq. His name is Don Rumsfeld.

Yet, generals now have called for his resignation.
He was definitely one of the ones who promoted this being easy.

I don't recall being assured that Iraq would be a cake-walk and I'm pretty confident that you are confusing the "slam dunk" assurance with the statement attributed to DCI Tenet when he assured Bush about the presence of WMD.

A lot of people don't recall it, particularly NeoCons, some leading NeoCons out and out have denied it. They are in denial and reality is equated with dissent. I did research the links on this for RC, including the one where Cheney paraphrases it on his "Meet the Press" interview with Tim Russert in 2003. It was Adelman who used those words originally who was a defense advisor.

The slam dunk was on the WMD's...but that statement was all part of the overall tone. In fact, I believe it was Rummy who also said not only did Iraq have them, but that we knew exactly where they were. That's how much of a slam dunk it was. Easy.

For me, this administration has lost credibility, as in "fool me once, shame on you (not "you" patteeu...but the Busheviks ) fool me twice shame on me.

That's my opinion and I know I'm never gonna change your mind or anyone else who supports it, who isn't a real neocon.

stevieray
05-25-2006, 02:42 PM
A lot of people don't recall it, particularly NeoCons, some leading NeoCons out and out have denied it. They are in denial and reality is equated with dissent. I did research the links on this for RC, including the one where Cheney paraphrases it on his "Meet the Press" interview with Tim Russert in 2003. It was Adelman who used those words originally.

The slam dunk was on the WMD's...but that statement was all part of the overall tone. In fact, I believe it was Rummy who also said not only did Iraq have them, but that we knew exactly where they were. That's how much of a slam dunk it was. Easy.

For me, this administration has lost credibility, as in "fool me once, shame on you (not "you" patteeu...but the Bushevika ) fool me twice shame on me.


shame, shame shame...the counterculture mantra.

Logical
05-25-2006, 04:16 PM
BEP's not exactly on the same side of the political divide as jAZ. She's a hard right libertarian. Kind of like patteeu if he actually had libertarian values.She also had some posts on football that evidently he did not find. But since we have been banished as a so called hell hole that old policy should be changed in my opinion.

Loki
05-25-2006, 04:48 PM
Grow up, asshole.*sigh*

as is typical of you, you go off making assumptions about people and shoot your mouth off without proper knowledge or forethought. it's nice that you want to be part of this BB community so regardless of my feelings towards you, welcome. far be it for me to call anyone a n00b, but the fights you've had with various people on this board (including myself) display your complete ignorance. so maybe you haven't been around long enough to hear all the stories that have been hashed out a million times, i'll give you that, but only a complete ignoramus would take the stance that you do and continue to fight against people who have been here a while and already told their stories or shared their opinions on certain subjects.

i actually found it good that you apologized to iowanian, but i don't expect you to believe or understand that. my "dumbass" comment was more along the lines of you engaging in the argument to begin with. but again, that's what you're all about - shooting your mouth off in an ignorant, tactless and argumentive manner.
(and of course, once again, you've taken another thread and turned it into your own personal rant and rave session. nice work.)

take a good long look in the mirror before you tell me to grow up stud.
:shake:













ps: neg-rep right back atcha for being a dumbass... AGAIN.

Logical
05-25-2006, 05:06 PM
shame, shame shame...the counterculture mantra.You are becoming the fortune cookie poster of DC Stevie. If you are going to respond why don't you justify your statements like you used to do. I don't even understand half of them, like this one, it just makes no sense to me. You ever hear the term saving face, well it is a human characteristic not just an Asian phrase and it is part of the origin for the concept of Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me. However the phrase is ancient as it comes from an Ancient Chinese proverb, certainly it is not limited to the Counterculture which started in the 60s.

penchief
05-25-2006, 05:30 PM
You are becoming the fortune cookie poster of DC Stevie. If you are going to respond why don't you justify your statements like you used to do. I don't even understand half of them, like this one, it just makes no sense to me. You ever hear the term saving face, well it is a human characteristic not just an Asian phrase and it is part of the origin for the concept of Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me. However the phrase is ancient as it comes from an Ancient Chinese proverb, certainly it is not limited to the Counterculture which started in the 60s.

It doesn't even belong to the counterculture anymore. It's been updated and revised by Bushco.

..."Fool me once, shame on......uh......you. Fool me again..........uh........uh......WON'T GET FOOLED AGAIN!!"

Logical
05-25-2006, 05:53 PM
It doesn't even belong to the counterculture anymore. It's been updated and revised by Bushco.

..."Fool me once, shame on......uh......you. Fool me again..........uh........uh......WON'T GET FOOLED AGAIN!!"

LOL that is a real quote, I remember the newsclip because the local media folks (normally conservative in San Diego) were laughing about it when they showed it.

jAZ
05-25-2006, 06:12 PM
You are becoming the fortune cookie poster of DC Stevie.
He has 10x the sincerity, conviction and interest in real discussion of someone like Brock or Lattimer.