"You can't support the troops if you don't support the war!"

[jAZ]

(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]

You forgot the "Yes, I have heard this or been told this" option.

[jspchief]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Weak.
I'd say trying to equate war protesters with outright treasonists is the weaker of the two posts.... by 10 miles.

[patteeu]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[Laz]

"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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[CRONUS]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

"I support people who are paid to fight, just not when they fight."

[Iowanian]

"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]

"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]

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.

[CRONUS]

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]

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]

"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.

[Adam]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Wow! No neg reps from the Dynamic Duo yet? You two are slacking! Pick up the pace!

[Cochise]

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]

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]

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]

This could not be less productive is jAZ had asked what makes a 'true fan' for the troops.

[Baby Lee]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

What was the purpose of this thread again?

[Cochise]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah

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

[Baby Lee]

I think he's unfairly singled out.
ROFL - Once again, jAZ's thoughts hit reality. Reality 1,856,999, jAZ 0.

:p

[Velvet_Jones]

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]

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]

Do it Velvet....prepare for the incoming, pig squealing whining post after you do.

Its very refreshing.

[Chief Henry]

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]

. . .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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

. . .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]

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]

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]

C'mon, where's the neg rep? You're not trying to be stalwart, are you?
Whoooot dar it is.

[penchief]

"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]

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]

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]

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?

[CRONUS]

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.

[CRONUS]

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

[CRONUS]

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]

Its very nice of you to clense your pickle with rubbing alcohol before placing it in his lips Jimbo.

Very Sanitary.

[CRONUS]

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]

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.

[CRONUS]

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]

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.

[CRONUS]

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]

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]

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]

let me get this straight...

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

[Nightwish]

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]

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]

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]

Whoooot dar it is.
Good boy! Here, have a scooby snack!

[CRONUS]

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]

Nightbitch...still whining.

You should be sponsored by ENERGIZER.

[Nightwish]

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]

"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]

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]

(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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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").

[CRONUS]

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.

[CRONUS]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[CRONUS]

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.

[CRONUS]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?

[CRONUS]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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:

[CRONUS]

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.

[CRONUS]

...

: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]

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